Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan

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:

• 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;
  
• 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;
  
• Supporting initiatives to increase the availability of jobs for TANF recipients both in the private and public sectors, including Federal entry-level jobs;
  
• Developing a catalog and other sources of innovative practices, and convening workshops and conferences to provide targeted technical assistance;
  
• Sponsoring research and convening conferences to discuss welfare reform research; and
  
• 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.

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 employedin 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 betweena 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.

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.hhs.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	Targets	Actual Performance	Reference (page # in printed document)
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. Achieve the targeted number of adults with developmental disabilities who obtain integrated jobs as a result of DD program intervention.	FY 03: 3,850* FY 02: 3,850 FY 01: 3,800 FY 00: 9,517 FY 99: 9,517	FY 03: FY 02: FY 01: 3/02 FY 00: 3,788** (Rev. baseline) FY 99: 8,959 FY 98: 9,665 FY 97: 6,945	Px 51
Objective: Increase number of businesses/employers that employ persons with developmental disabilities
1.3b. Achieve the targeted number of businesses/employers that employ and support people with developmental disabilities as a result of DD program intervention.	FY 03: 1,400* FY 02: 1,400 FY 01: 1,350 FY 00: 4,353 FY 99: 4,353	FY 03: FY 02: FY 01: 3/02 FY 00: 1,324 FY 99: 1,113 (Baseline) FY 98: 1,198 FY 97: 824	Px 51
Objective: Maintain the Federal dollars leveraged across the spectrum of Federal programs to benefit persons with developmental disabilities
1.3c. Leverage the targeted dollars from ADD's Federal partners to support positive outcomes for people with developmental disabilities for employment, housing, education, health, and community support as a result of ADD intervention (dollars in millions).	FY 03: $2.4* FY 02: $2.4 FY 01: $2.4 FY 00: $2.4 FY 99: $3.5	FY 03: FY 02: FY 01: $1.1 FY 00: $2.4 FY 99: $2.1 (Baseline) FY 98: $2.6 FY 97: $2.6	Px 52
*FY 2003 targets for measures 1.3a-c reflect ADD's commitment to maintain the previous year's performance level. In FY 2002, ADD will begin a review of the methodology, data collection system, and targets for measures 1.3a-c. **Baseline for measure 1.3a was revised because of changes in data reporting by States.
Total Funding includes all ADD programs (dollars in millions) See detailed Budget Linkage Table in Appendix. 8 for line items included in funding totals.	FY 03: $140.5 FY 02: $140.5 FY 01: $133.5 FY 00: $122.2 FY 99: $119.2		Bx: budget just. section Px: page # performance plan

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 supportpeople with developmental disabilities as a result of DDprogram intervention.

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

FY 2003: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.

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	Targets	Actual Performance		Reference (page # in printed document)
1.4a. Increase the number of refugees entering employment through ACF-funded refugee employment services by at least 5% annually from prior year’s actual performance.	FY 03: 5% increase* FY 02: 5% increase* FY 01: 56,885 [51,261] FY 00: 54,176 FY 99: 51,597	FY 03: FY 02: FY 01: 4/02 FY 00: 48,820 FY 99: 50,208 FY 98: 52,298 FY 97: 46,800		Px 59
1.4b. 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 03: 5% increase* FY 02: 5% increase* FY 01: 30,613 [28,434] FY 00: 29,156 FY 99: 27,767	FY 03: FY 02: FY 01: 4/02 FY 00: 27,080 FY 99: 28,425 FY 98: 27,124 FY 97: 25,186		Px 59
1.4c. 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 03: 5% increase* FY 02: 5% increase* FY 01: 18,169 [16,316] FY 00: 17,304 FY 99: 16,480	FY 03: FY 02: FY 01: 4/02 FY 00: 15,539 FY 99: 16,445 FY 98: 16,978 FY 97: 14,948		Px 60
1.4d. 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 03: 5% increase* FY 02: 5% increase* FY 01: 41,824[35,307] FY 00: 39,833 FY 99: 37,936	FY 03: FY 02: FY 01: 4/02 FY 00: 33,626 FY 99: 36,055 FY 98: 38,040 FY 97: 34,409		Px 60
1.4e. Increase the number of refugees who enter employment through the Matching Grant (MG) program as a subset of all MG employable adults by at least 5% annually from the prior year’s actual performance.	CY 03: 5% increase* CY 02: 5% increase* CY 01: 9,504 [8,829] CY 00: 9,051 CY 99: 8,620	CY 03: CY 02: CY 01: 7/02 CY 00: 8,409 CY 99: 9,713 CY 98: 8,049 CY 97: 7,819		Px 61
1.4f. Increase the number of 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 year’s actual performance.	CY 03: 4% increase* CY 02: 4% increase* CY 01: 6,176 [5,722] CY 00: 5,938 CY 99: 5,710	CY 03: CY 02: CY 01: 7/02 CY 00: 5,502 CY 99: 6,497 CY 98: 5,194 CY 97: 5,279		Px 61
* FY 2002-2003 and CY 2002-2003 target increases are based on the previous year’s performance. ORR will not be able provide the actual numerical targets for these measures until the data are reported for the previous year. Extreme shortfalls have occurred in past years because the targets were projected using 4 percent and 5 percent incremental increases from the baseline year rather than from actual performance of the previous year.
FY 2001 Data Availability: Annual, unduplicated FY 2001 data are due from States 45 days after end of year, circa November 15. Because individual State reports may be missing and time is needed to validate and verify the data, final State data will be available in April 2002, final MG data in July 2002. The figures in brackets indicate the change in targets as a result of calculating targets from prior year’s performance rather than the baseline year (FY/CY 1997).
Total Funding (dollars in millions) See detailed Budget Linkage Table in Appendix 8 for line items included in funding totals.		FY 03: $448.2 FY 02: $461.2 FY 01: $445.9 FY 00: $427.0 FY 99: $480.9	*Bx: budget just. section Px: page # performance plan

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.

1. Entered employments (job placements)

2. Cash assistance terminations due to earnings

3. Cash assistance reductions due to earnings

4. Average hourly wage at placement

5. 90-day employment retentions

6. Entered employments with health benefits available

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 theprior 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 benefitsavailable 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 theprior 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 actualperformance.

FY 2003: Increase the number of 90-day job retentions as a subset ofall 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.

• Entered employments (job placements)
  
• Self-sufficiency at 120 days (cases and persons)
  
• Self-sufficiency at 180 days (cases and persons)
  
• Average hourly wage at placement
  
• 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 areself-sufficient (not dependent on any cash assistance) within the first 4 months after arrival by at least 4% annually from the prior calendaryear'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.

1.5 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.

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 basedservices 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 basedservices 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 forthe 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 forthe 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.

1.5d.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 by 1% the number of recipients of information and referral services funded wholly or in part by SSBG funds over theprevious 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.

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next