CHAPTER 6. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT

This chapter discusses States’ reports on their intended uses of SSBG funds (preexpenditure reports) and how they compare with their postexpenditure reports. In addition, an overview of the evaluation of the SSBG program using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) and the strategies for ensuring that SSBG funds are spent effectively and efficiently are provided.

Overview of Preexpenditure Reports

Each State is required to develop and submit an annual preexpenditure report that describes how the State plans to administer its SSBG funds for the coming year in order to receive its annual SSBG allotment. This report is to be submitted 30 days prior to the start of the fiscal year (June 1 if the State operates on a July-June fiscal year, or September 1 if the State operates on a Federal fiscal year). The intended uses of SSBG funds—including the types of activities to be supported and the categories and characteristics of individuals to be served—must be provided. States are required to submit a revised intended use plan if the planned uses of SSBG funds change during the year.^[35] Unlike the postexpenditure report, Federal regulations do not require a specific format for the preexpenditure report, and States’ reports vary greatly in the information provided and in the structure used.

Because the preexpenditure report does not have a standard format, States sometimes report on the planned use of SSBG expenditures using the service categories defined in their own States, rather than the standard service categories described in SSBG regulations. For example, a State may list its planned expenditures for “homemaker services” or “home care,” rather than for “home-based services.” While the crosswalk of the State-defined service names to the 29 SSBG service categories is sometimes clear, this may not always be the case.

Comparison of Preexpenditure and Postexpenditure Reports

Twenty States used the same or similar format as the postexpenditure reporting form to report their planned SSBG expenditures and recipients.^[36]An additional 17 States submitted preexpenditure reports in a format that enabled a comparison with their postexpenditure reports regarding planned and implemented services.^[37] The remaining 15 States submitted preexpenditure reports in a format that could not be compared with the postexpenditure reports.

Service category data on preexpenditure and postexpenditure reports were compared in the 37 States where comparison was possible. A comparison of the preexpenditure and postexpenditure reports shows that the majority of States spent SSBG funds on the same services on which they initially planned in the preexpenditure reports. None of the 37 States used in the comparison made significant changes to their planned services, although some States added or subtracted one or two services during the year. Through the data validation process, States indicated that these modifications were largely due to States’ responsiveness to the changing needs of their individual States. This comparison indicates that a majority of States are consistent in their planned and actual expenditures. (See appendix H.)

Preexpenditure reports from the States vary in their scope and level of detail, but provide important and useful information on the use of SSBG program funds within each State. Although the reports are not required to be submitted in a specific format, they provide each State an opportunity to document its planning processes and outline its goals and objectives for SSBG service provision during the coming year. The Office of Community Services (OCS) will continue to work with States to help them develop a comprehensive preexpenditure report to allow for a better analysis of the expenditure of funds, provision of services, and intended recipients for such services. Technical assistance will be provided on the use of the postexpenditure reporting form to estimate expenditures and recipients, by service category, as part of the preexpenditure report, and on additional elements that should be included in the preexpenditure report. The elements may include background of the planning process used to prioritize and allocate funds, a crosswalk between State-defined services and Federal definitions, funding sources for each service category, objective of each service category, and the Federal goal being met by the service category.

Program Evaluation: Implementing a New Performance Measure to Enhance Efficiency

Under the authority of the President’s Management Agenda, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) implemented the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The PART tool is a questionnaire that is designed to address all factors that impact and indicate program performance including: purpose and design; strategic planning; management; and results and accountability.

The PART tool has four sets of questions. The first set of questions is aimed at determining whether the program’s design and purpose are clear and defensible. The second set of questions identifies the extent to which the annual and long-term goals for the program have been developed. The third set of questions rates the agency’s management of the program, including financial oversight and program improvement efforts. The last set of questions examines the program’s progress in achieving its identified goals.

Programs receive a PART rating of Effective, Moderately Effective, Adequate, or Ineffective. In addition, programs that cannot demonstrate they are achieving results, either because they have not yet established adequate performance measures, or do not have supportive performance data, will be given a rating of Results Not Demonstrated.^[38]

In calendar year 2005, OMB conducted a PART review of the SSBG Program. The SSBG Program received a rating of “Results Not Demonstrated.” The PART review indicated that the SSBG monitoring structure lacks a national system of performance measures against which program performance can be measured and improvements sought. The program also is challenged by an absence of evaluations of sufficient scope to provide a comprehensive view of the effectiveness of all, or most of, the activities funded by the program.^[39]

In response to the PART assessment, OCS is working with OMB to improve performance management and measurement, including establishing long-term and annual performance measures, to ensure that the SSBG’s funds are spent effectively and efficiently while maintaining the Program’s intrinsic flexibility as a block grant. Toward this goal, the SSBG Program is implementing an accountability measure that is designed to decrease the percentage of SSBG funds identified as administrative costs. This measure is discussed in further detail in the next section.

Administrative Costs Efficiency Measure

States may use SSBG funds for administrative costs such as training, licensing activities, and the overhead costs of providing services. States may pay for these administrative functions entirely with SSBG funds or may use a number of funding sources. Some States report administrative costs within each of the 29 service categories while others report them as a separate line item.

A review of expenditure reports conducted by OCS indicated that States may be reporting in the category of administrative costs those activities that should be reported against a specific SSBG service category. In support of the efforts of the States to correctly report expenditures, OCS has provided technical assistance to States to ensure accurate categorization of service expenditures and reduce administrative costs. Due to these efforts, States are reporting expenditures more accurately, and a majority of States are meeting the 9 percent accountability measure for administrative costs.

On June 15, 2007, OCS issued an Information Memorandum (IM) to inform States about the new efficiency measure to decrease administrative costs. The new efficiency measure is designed to decrease the percentage of SSBG funds identified as administrative costs in the postexpenditure reports to 9 percent. The target date for this goal is September 30, 2008.^[40]

From 2002 to 2006, there has been a continual decrease in expenditures for administrative costs. Expenditures for administrative costs have declined by 40 percent in the past 5 years, from $233.8 million (for 44 States) in 2001 to $141.1 million (for 42 States) in 2006. (See figure 6–1.)

Appendix F, table 10, provides supporting data for administrative costs.

During 2006, approximately $141 million of SSBG expenditures supported administrative costs, which is approximately 5 percent of SSBG funds. Ten States reported that they did not use any portion of SSBG funds for administrative expenses. In the remaining 42 States, expenditures for administrative costs accounted for 6.9 percent of SSBG expenditures. A majority of States reported administrative costs below 9 percent; 16 States reported administrative costs above 9 percent.^[41] The Office of Community Services will continue to work with the States to meet this accountability measure.

Continue to the Appendices