Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan

8. BUILD HEALTHY, SAFE AND SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITIES AND TRIBES

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

8.1 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT

Program Description, Content, Legislative Intent, and Program Goals

The purpose of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Program is to assist States and local communities in reducing poverty, revitalizing low-income communities and empowering low-income families and individuals to become more self-sufficient. The CSBG Act requires States to pass through 90 percent of the Federal allotment to eligible entities. More than 85 percent of the more than 1,000 eligible entities are Community Action Agencies (CAAs). The Act requires States and agencies to engage in a wide variety of services and activities based on State or local needs in order to assist low-income families and communities, e.g. employment, education, income management, housing, emergency assistance, nutrition, health and provide coordination and linkages to other organizations in the community. Based on a local needs assessment, local agencies use CSBG funds to leverage resources to coordinate and develop programs filling gaps in their community service system. In FY 2000, these agencies provided assistance in more than 95 percent of counties to more than 8 million low-income individuals, the majority of whom live below the poverty level, almost half below 75 percent of the poverty level.

Prior to passage of GPRA, the Office of Community Services (OCS) was in the process of developing a CSBG monitoring and technical assistance strategy to increase accountability. OCS established a task force composed of CSBG State directors, CAA directors and relevant association members, including representatives from Head Start, to oversee this responsibility. The purpose of this task force was to develop and implement a strategy for strengthening the capacity of CSBG agencies and local CAAs to focus on improved program performance and better results for low-income families and communities. Results-Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) was a major product of this effort. ROMA focuses on increasing the capacity of local CSBG providers to increase program performance toward achieving results.

A major challenge in developing ROMA was providing the legislatively intended flexibility at the local level while maintaining a tool for national accountability. ROMA allows States and community-based agencies to develop their own objectives and activities based on periodic assessments of community needs and resources within a national goal framework. It provides a tool to continuously revitalize, energize and measure results obtained by the partnerships on the local, State and Federal levels. This framework includes a binding set of six national goals. States and local agencies have the responsibility and opportunity to determine appropriate outcome measures to reflect their efforts to achieve these national goals. The six goals are:

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

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

ACF views ROMA not only as a tool for accountability but also for management. It provides the opportunity for States and local agencies to measure results but more importantly, it provides a framework for examining agency mission and goals and evaluating progress. A major focus of the training and technical assistance efforts and funding has been the implementation of ROMA. Funds have been provided to develop and implement cutting edge management and measurement tools such as scales that measure incremental progress of families and communities; entry-level training in performance measurement and strategic planning and the development of an advanced train-the-trainer program, and innovative data collection tools. OCS worked closely with national, State and local partners to effectively share the findings and products of these efforts.

The national Monitoring and Assessment Task Force under the leadership of the OCS continues to provide technical assistance and support to States to implement ROMA. Work is underway on several fronts: (1) to continue to provide technical assistance for the statewide implementation of ROMA in the form of statewide partnership grants; (2) to strengthen the capacity of State CAA Associations through 5-year grants awarded (now in the third year) to all CAA State Associations; (3) to assist eligible entities through special State technical assistance grants to address complex problems which prevent such entities from meeting performance goals and implementing ROMA; and (4) to insure that all States fully implement ROMA. The ROMA Guide and other technical assistance materials are available on the ROMA website and technical assistance is offered to insure that ROMA best practices and model programs are available to a broader audience of State and local CSBG agencies.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Cross-cutting Issues

Partnership is key to the success of the CSBG at the local, State and national levels. At the State and local levels, agencies bring together multiple programs that work together to assist families and communities in need. One of the difficulties in implementing ROMA and performance measurement in general is that each program and funding source has separate requirements and often several different data collection systems. OCS has worked at the Federal level with Head Start and the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, the two largest sources of additional funds to the community services network. This coordination has made it possible to ensure that the performance measurement systems developed by the three programs are compatible with one another and therefore reduce the potential burden on State and local agencies.

ACF/OCS has continued to work to reduce the difficulties agencies have in coordinating programs and client efforts across programs when these programs have separate incompatible databases. For community action agencies, some of which may operate as many as 50 programs, each with specific requirements, trying to work with clients toward outcomes in separate programs and track client success over time involves technology challenges. The national Monitoring and Assessment Task Force (MATF) created the Managing Multiple Data Base Project in response to this concern expressed by local agencies, States and other partners. The first report was presented to the MATF in July 2000.

Program-wide Performance

In FY 2001, ROMA implementation was required; however by FY 1999, already more than 75 percent of States and local agencies were able to report on ROMA implementation. States have developed a variety of strategies including creating statewide task forces and hiring performance measurement consultants to develop systems. States that are most advanced use a combination of these methods to develop expertise and create ownership and commitment in local agencies. ROMA is unique in that it permits local determination of priorities and performance measures. This ensures that agencies create performance measures useful to them in managing their programs and in achieving the most success for their low-income individuals, families and communities.

ROMA utilizes a flexible, "bottom-up" approach to managing outcomes, which allows for variation in the kinds of measures reported. Included in the on-going work with partners and basic to the ROMA approach is the testing of a more extensive set of measures; States began reporting on this broader menu of measures crafted by local agencies in FY 2001. These measures will be reduced and consolidated to create a national aggregation of data by FY 2003.

ROMA is more than measurement and reporting: OCS identified core activities as yardsticks to measure ROMA progress among States and local agencies and as focal points for State plan approval, compliance monitoring and program reporting. States and eligible entities are encouraged to use these core ROMA activities to assess their own ROMA progress and to identify what work needs to be done by FY 2003. OCS helped States to conduct such assessments in FY 2001. Training and technical assistance support will be targeted to help States and local agencies conduct these activities that constitute basic ROMA implementation.

Of all the performance measures developed by the States and local agencies before and during ROMA implementation, two have been identified as the most reliable indicators of success. Both reflect the responsibility of community action agencies to coordinate services within their organization and form partnerships with other agencies/programs in the community to achieve one or more of the six national CSBG goals:

• The extent to which local residents volunteer to work with the CSBG-supported agencies; and
  
• The extent to which community action agencies are able to "leverage" funds from other programs to enhance their efforts to achieve one or more of the six national CSBG goals.

The first measure, the number of hours of volunteer work contributed by the community residents, is a strong indicator of how well the local community action agency has engaged its target population and community and the degree to which its programs reflect community needs and interests. This connection with the community distinguishes CSBG from other programs focused on anti-poverty and economic development work.

The second measure, the amount of non-federal funds leveraged by community action agencies reflects several important things. First, the willingness of other State, local and private partners to collaborate and to invest in the agencies demonstrates their strength in the community. Second, it recognizes that the broader goals of self-sufficiency and community economic development require strong partnerships across public, private and non-profit sectors of the community. Third, it acknowledges the fact that CSBG cannot support all the work of community action, but plays a critical role in partnership development.

Trends: The trends for the level of volunteer contribution (measure 8.1a) to the CSBG network are strong and remain between 26 and 28 million hours. As TANF and other programs have focused on a work first strategy, the network has continued to have substantial volunteer contributions. The contributions have, however, fluctuated over the last several years, declining from a high of 28 million hours in 1996 to 27 million in 1997 and 26.8 million in 1998 and rising to 27.4 million in 1999. We expect that the volunteer contribution will continue to increase as agencies develop new volunteer opportunities. A pilot is underway in several States that address volunteerism and the populations of the aged and disabled. This national services initiative is to help seniors and the disabled obtain public benefits. With the help of faith-based organizations, churches, older teenagers, working in partnership with the National Council on the Aging, volunteers on an ongoing basis will work with these populations to systematically access public benefits.

A five-year (1994-97) trend analysis of local networks' resources revealed that there has been a decline in non-CSBG resources, largely due to the elimination or reduction of Federal funding in discretionary domestic programs for low-income individuals and communities. Many programs, historically administered by CAAs and other community-based organizations, were eliminated while others were drastically reduced. It was the steady growth in resources in all other sectors that kept the network from a precipitous loss of capacity to respond to the needs of the low-income community. The MATF selected the focus on non-Federal resources given the evidence that these resources are critical for survival and the network's tradition of leveraging CSBG dollars.

The levels of non-Federal funding consistently increased since FY 1997. The measure (8.1b) identifies non-Federal funds, which increased to $1.92 in 1999 from $1.20 in 1996. We expect that CSBG funds will continue to leverage increases in non-Federal funds.

Data Issues

The performance data have been collected by the CSBG Information System (CSBG/IS) survey administered by the National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP). This survey began in the mid-1980s as a voluntary effort on the part of States. A task force of States, local, Federal and national partners developed and continues to revise the survey to ensure that the CSBG program is accountable and that it's work is understandable to policy makers at the local, State and national level. Since reporting is a requirement of the reauthorizing statute, OCS and NASCSP have worked closely to ensure that the survey captures the required information. Because the CSBG is a Block Grant and States have flexibility in determining their program years, there is substantial lag in reporting. NASCSP and OCS have worked closely to ensure that reporting by States is more timely and complete by providing better survey tools and reporting processes.

Technology is a major concern for States and agencies in providing quality data collection and reporting. However, local agencies, typically non-profit organizations whose funds are primarily dedicated to and invested in providing service, view developing and investing in technology as a secondary concern. With the need to track outcomes for families and clients over longer periods of time has come the need for more sophisticated tools. Much of the technical assistance provided by OCS and the States in the past several years has been to assist States and agencies in meeting this challenge.

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

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

8.1a.	FY 2002: Increase by 1% over the previous year's target the number of volunteer hours contributed by CSBG consumers in one or more community groups. (1997 baseline: 27 million hours)
	FY 2003: Increase by 1% over the previous year's target, the number of volunteer hours contributed by CSBG consumers in one or more community groups. (1997 serves as the baseline for all of the ROMA goals and measures.)

PROGRAM GOAL: Use Federal funds as leverage to improve conditions where low-income people live.

8.1b.	FY 2002: Increase by 1% over the previous year's target the amount of non-Federal resources brought into low-income communities by the Community Services Network (non-Federal funds mobilized). (1997 baseline: $1.26 billion)
	FY 2003: Increase by 1% over the previous year's target the amount of non-Federal resources brought into low-income communities by the Community Services Network (non-Federal funds mobilized). (1997 baseline: $1.26 billion)

 

Between FY 1999 and FY 2001, States and agencies developed and tested a menu of performance measures that reflect impact on low-income families and communities. As we move forward to FY 2002 and 2003, this menu will be refined and consolidated to provide a more detailed picture of the results achieved. Much experimentation is underway on community measures. Examples of measures under development include: "increase in affordable housing available" and "increase the amount of property tax generated as a result of rehabilitation projects." As the Network gains more experience and sophistication in determining the most appropriate measures toward obtaining community revitalization results, additional measures will be considered for inclusion in future annual performance plans.

8.2 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAM

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

The Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA) was enacted as Title III of the Child Abuse Amendments of 1984, and has been reauthorized and amended periodically since that time. With each reauthorization and amendment, the scope of the program's responsibilities has grown.

The Family Violence Prevention and Services Program (FVPSP) is responsible for the administration and oversight of a number of activities under the Act. Grants are made to each State to prevent family violence and provide immediate shelter and related assistance to victims of family violence and their dependents. Grants are also made to Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations for the same purposes. Grants are made to each State Domestic Violence Coalition to help improve and coordinate domestic violence services in the State. On a national level, funds support the National Domestic Violence Hotline. This toll-free, 24-hour hotline provides crisis intervention to help callers identify problems and possible solutions, including development of emergency safety plans.

Also on a national level, the FVPSP office funds a network of national resource centers known as the Domestic Violence Resource Network. The Network is made up of one national resource center and four special issue resource centers.

"Family violence" is a broad term, encompassing all forms of violence within the context of family or intimate relationships, including domestic violence, child abuse and elder abuse. A primary focus of the FVPSP has been to support intervention and prevention targeting domestic violence, or violence and abuse between adult intimate partners. Most commonly, domestic violence involves the abuse of a female by a male partner or ex-partner. Domestic violence is an issue of increasing concern because of its far-reaching and negative effects on all family members, including children. The FVPSP has also been concerned about the intersection between domestic violence and child abuse within families and with abuse of women in later life, and has provided funding for several collaborative initiatives to increase our knowledge and improve our intervention and response efforts.

Domestic violence is not confined to any one socioeconomic, ethnic, religious, racial, or age group, and occurs in rural, urban and Tribal communities. It is the leading cause of injury to women in the United States, where they are more likely to be assaulted, injured, raped or killed by a male partner than by any other type of assailant. Statistics show that 29 percent of all violence against women by a single offender is committed by an intimate--a husband, ex-husband, boyfriend, or ex-boyfriend. Accurate information on the extent of domestic violence is difficult to obtain because of extensive under-reporting. However, it is estimated that in this country between one and four million women are abused to the point of injury by a male partner or ex-partner each year. About one-fourth of all hospital emergency room visits by women are the result of domestic assaults.

This violence takes a devastating toll on children who are exposed to its cruelty. Between three and four million children witness parental violence every year. Children whose mothers are victims of wife battery are twice as likely to be abused themselves as those children whose mothers are not victims of abuse. When children witness violence in the home, they have been found to suffer many of the symptoms experienced by children who are directly abused.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

State and Tribal Programs: The FVPSP State and Tribal grants program authorized by Section 303 of the FVPSA is the primary Federal mechanism for encouraging State, Tribal and local support for implementing, maintaining, and expanding programs and projects to prevent family violence. FVPSP funds continue to supplement many already established community-based family violence prevention and services activities. In particular, these funds have been instrumental in promoting and supporting the development of services in rural and other under-served areas.

During the past decade, there has been tremendous expansion in the number of grants to Indian Tribes with the number of grantees nearly tripling from 64 Tribes when the legislation was first enacted. A legislative amendment requiring mandatory allocation of funding for Indian programs rather than discretionary funding provided the impetus for the expansion.

The FVPS programs on Tribal trust lands and reservations are in the process of evolving towards a more stable and comprehensive set of activities. The FVPSP supports the development of staff capacity among the Tribal grantees enabling ACF to identify the need to enhance both service delivery and information compilation techniques. There are several activities underway to improve Tribal reporting of family violence intervention and prevention activities. For example, ACF has the assistance of a newly-funded resource center that provides comprehensive technical assistance, support and training to Tribes, Native American communities, and advocates working with Indian women. This Center has begun working directly with Tribes receiving FVPSP grants both in the collection of data for reporting purposes and to assist them in administering their programs.

Through the FVPSP, State agencies, Indian Tribes, and Tribal organizations receive grants for the provision of emergency shelter services to domestic violence victims and their families. In addition, funds may be used for related services, such as alcohol and substance abuse prevention, counseling related to family violence, legal assistance through civil and criminal courts, child care services for children who are victims of family violence, and other prevention-focused activities.

Discretionary Program and Activities: Each year, the FVPSP awards discretionary funds to public and private non-profit agencies and organizations to assist in establishing or expanding programs and services for victims of family violence and their dependents. Discretionary funding is typically limited to applicants who specify goals and objectives having national and local relevance. Moreover, the programs must demonstrate applicability to coordination efforts of national, Tribal, State and community-based organizations.

During the past several years, priority funding areas have included: Public Information/ Community Awareness grants; stipends to Historically Black, Hispanic-serving, and Tribal Colleges and Universities; grants to support Domestic Violence/Child Protective Services Collaborations; grants to develop demonstration training models for improved access and legal representation; grants to develop services for immigrant, migrant, and refugee battered women; grants to develop strategies for effective response to domestic violence issues within the context of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) Program; and grants to improve health care response to domestic violence.

Specialized Outreach Efforts for Services to Under-served and Diverse Populations: The FVPSP has implemented several initiatives to facilitate and improve its outreach, information gathering, and service response to under-served communities including the mobilization of researchers, academicians, and practitioners on issues of family violence that impact these particular communities. These efforts provided the stimulus for the development of the Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community, the National Latino Alliance, the Women of Color Network, and the Asian American Institute on Domestic Violence.

• The Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community provides an interdisciplinary vehicle and forum by which scholars, practitioners, and observers of family violence in the African American community have continued opportunity to articulate their perspective on family violence through research findings, examine service delivery and intervention mechanisms, and identify appropriate and effective responses to prevent/reduce family violence in the African American Community.
  
• The National Latino Alliance for the Elimination of Domestic Violence (Alianza) endeavors to create a national coordinating body to promote understanding, sustain dialogue, and generate solutions to eliminate domestic violence affecting Latino communities with an understanding of the importance of all intimate relations within their communities.
  
• The Asian and Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence seeks to eliminate domestic violence in Asian and Pacific Islander communities by: increasing awareness about the extent and depth of the problem; making culturally specific issues visible; strengthening community models of prevention and intervention; identifying and expanding resources; informing and promoting research and policy; and deepening the understanding and analysis of the issues surrounding violence against women.

Domestic Violence Shelters and Services Provided: More than 1,500 domestic violence shelters in the United States provide emergency intervention for victims of domestic violence and their dependents. Shelters vary in size, preferred location, range and scope of services offered to clients, and in physical capacity. The latter may dictate how the shelters operate and whom they serve. There is no monolithic set of service programs that must be provided to all clients. Each client has unique goals, needs, and resources that must be interpreted within the context of the problem presented. However, all domestic violence shelters provide core services including: physical shelter for the protection and safety of the victim and children; crisis intervention hotline services; individual and group counseling; and information and referral services. Shelters may also offer additional services as listed below. Data about shelter characteristics, operation, and services are collected on a State by State basis.

Legal Advocacy
Emergency transportation Services
Child Care Services Outreach community education and awareness
Child counseling
Group intervention services to batterers
Educational groups
Transitional housing services
Food, clothing, and necessities
Community training
Parenting programs Life and social skills development

Domestic Violence Resource Network: The Domestic Violence Resource Network (DVRNetwork) was established in 1993 as part of the 1992 amendments to the FVPSA. The FVPSP provides funding to develop and operate a National Resource Center on Domestic Violence and four special issue resource centers - the Resource Center on Civil and Criminal Law (Battered Women's Justice Project); the National Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence, and the Resource Center on Domestic Violence: Child Protection and Child Custody; and the National Resource Center to End Violence Against Native Women (Sacred Circle).

Prior to the establishment of the DVRNetwork, there were no national organizations dedicated specifically to providing training, technical assistance and policy analysis to help domestic violence practitioners and other professionals improve their approaches to working with victims or perpetrators of domestic violence. Each resource center, operated by established organizations with demonstrated expertise in domestic violence policy and practice issues, partners with community-based domestic violence programs, State domestic violence coalitions, Federal, State, and local government agencies, Indian Tribal organizations, policy makers, researchers, and others to identify and respond to emerging information and technical assistance gaps.

While each resource center is charged with a specific domestic violence subject area, members of the DVRNetwork have always worked in partnership to ensure that domestic violence-related training and technical assistance throughout the country is complementary, comprehensive, appropriate, and informed by the entire network. These member resource centers work collaboratively to identify gaps in policy and services and to develop strategies for addressing these gaps. In addition to providing toll-free access to technical assistance pertaining to its subject area, other services include training, policy analysis and development, identification of model programs, development of policies and publications, and assistance to Federal and State agencies on a full range of policy and practice issues.

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence: The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRC) serves as a national source of information, training and technical assistance on community response to, and prevention of domestic violence. The NRC is a resource to Federal, State and local domestic violence programs and others seeking assistance on domestic violence issues. NRC places an additional emphasis on increasing responsiveness to needs identified by communities of color and other traditionally underserved populations. The NRC is a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition against Domestic Violence.

Battered Women's Justice Project: The Battered Women's Justice Project's (BWJP) Criminal Justice Center in Minnesota focuses on effective intervention through inter-agency coordination and policy development that guides individual practitioners in the use of arrest, prosecution and sentencing of abusers, victim safeguards, and batterer intervention programs. In addition, the center provides technical assistance on advocacy for domestic violence victims of military personnel and on developing a coordinated response to domestic violence on military bases. The BWJP also provides a Civic Justice Center that provides leadership in the civil legal arena by improving battered women's access to civil court options and legal representation in civil court process. The BWJP Defense Center addresses issues that arise when battered women are charged with crimes.

National Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence: The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence provides technical assistance, training, public policy recommendations and materials to those interested in developing a comprehensive health care response to domestic violence. This includes producing and distributing resource materials on routine screening and staff training to health care settings. The Center is a project of the Family Violence Prevention Fund.

Resource Center on Domestic Violence: Child Protection and Custody: The mission of the Resource Center on Domestic Violence: Child Protection and Custody is to provide access to accurate information and tangible assistance to those working in the fields of domestic violence and child protection and custody. The Center is a project of the Family Violence Department of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The Center's staff provides individualized responses to technical assistance requests totaling more than 3,000 annually.

Sacred Circle-a National Resource Center to End Violence Against Native Women: Sacred Circle addresses violence against Native women in the context of the unique historical, jurisdictional, and cultural issues that American Indian/Alaska Native nations face. Sacred Circle provides leadership on establishing a multi-faceted, systemic response to facilitate non-violence in American Tribally chartered nonprofit organizations that provide domestic violence service to the Oglala Sioux Tribe in South Dakota.

National Domestic Violence Hotline: The National Domestic Violence Hotline (NDVH), under authorization of Section 316 of FVPSA began in 1996 as a project of the Texas Council on Family Violence and serves as a critical partner in the prevention and resource assistance efforts of the DVRNetwork.

The toll-free, 24-hour NDVH provides:

• Crisis intervention to help callers identify problems and possible solutions, including development of emergency safety plans;
  
• Information about sources of assistance for individuals and their families, friends, and employers wanting to learn more about domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault, intervention programs for batterers, criminal and civil justice system issues, and other critical concerns; and
  
• Referrals to battered women's shelters and programs, social services agencies, legal programs, and other groups and organizations willing to help.

In an effort to assess the effectiveness of the Hotline, ACF funded two studies to evaluate the Hotline's progress and activities. The first, funded in 1996, a 6-month review of the Hotline yielded an impact assessment of the Hotline, an analysis of the Hotline's information systems, feedback from the Hotline workers, and plans for future Hotline research. The second included a four-day site visit and follow-up interviews that identified the strengths of the Hotline and noted areas where change is needed to foster growth and development in key areas such as databases, research, and organizational growth.

Program-wide Performance

It should be noted that many Tribal grantees and Alaskan native villages funded through the FVPSP are constrained in their program development efforts and service delivery activities by the extreme distances between service facilities, isolation in rural areas, and the constant turnover in program staff.

The performance goal for FY 2001 was to increase the participation of Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, and Alaskan Native Villages from 120 in FY 1996 to 189. During FY 2001, ACF funded 181 Indian Tribes, Tribal organizations, or Alaskan Native Villages to establish family violence prevention and service programs. Through the 181 Tribes and Alaskan villages funded by FVPSP in FY 2001, there is a network of safehouses, Tribal-run shelters and related assistance services for family violence victims and their dependents (measure 8.2a). While FVPSP came within 5 percent of its FY 2001 performance target, the FY 2001 actual figure marked a decline from FY 2000. FVPSP through the Sacred Circle resource center will continue to provide technical support to the Tribes in most need of assistance in order to achieve the increased participation goal.

The Hotline is committed to meeting the needs of diverse communities and provides bilingual Spanish-English staff, text telephones for callers who are hearing impaired, access to translators in 139 languages, and materials in a variety of languages and formats. The Hotline first began responding to calls in late February 1996 and averages between 11,000 and 12,000 calls per month from throughout the U.S. and its territories (measure 8.2b). In FY 2001, the Hotline received a one-time grant from a corporate contributor, which expanded its capacity to respond to calls. The Hotline's performance for FY 2001 was 13,800 calls per month. However, future year funding and performance are expected to be more consistent with prior year levels. The majority of calls to the Hotline are from domestic violence victims themselves. Since the opening of the Hotline on February 21, 1996 to September 30, 2001, the Hotline has answered 524,758 calls.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Cross-cutting Issues

ACF recognizes that coordination and collaboration at the local level among the police, prosecutors, the courts, victim services providers, child welfare and family preservation services, TANF agencies, and medical and mental health providers are necessary to create a more responsive network of protections and supports for families dealing with domestic violence. To help develop a more comprehensive and integrated service delivery approach, ACF is assisting State agencies and Indian Tribes receiving funds under FVPSP to coordinate planning activities with new and existing State, local, and private sector agencies.

State Domestic Violence Coalitions: In FY 1993, the FVPSP began administering grants to statewide private nonprofit domestic violence coalitions to conduct activities that promote domestic violence intervention and prevention and increase public awareness of domestic violence issues. Some areas of focus for State coalitions include developing data systems, advocacy, statewide planning efforts, administration, direct services, and public awareness and community education. Needs assessment and planning activities conducted by coalitions are designed to document gaps in current response and prevention efforts and help guide future endeavors. FVPSP funding also enables State coalitions to provide technical assistance to State agencies and organizations on policy and practice related to domestic violence intervention and prevention, as well as ongoing training and support to local domestic violence programs, many of whom receive State-allocated FVPSA funds. By funding these types of State coalition activities, the FVPSP demonstrates its commitment to inclusive, broad-based planning at the State and local levels.

Data Issues

Current and available data sources and informational systems are inadequate to accurately report on information, resource development and support services in place to assist victims of domestic violence. As indicated earlier, ACF is in the early stages of the development of a voluntary aggregate data reporting system for the family violence program with its State and local partners. Moreover, in collaboration with other Federal agencies and State and local partners, ACF has begun to establish a typology of domestic violence services acceptable to all organizations and agencies in the field. These efforts have been supplemented by discussions through the resource center network related to responsibly documenting the impact of efforts at the local, State and national levels.

It is expected that by the end of FY 2002, 50 percent of the States and 30 percent of the Tribes will have received survey methodology training and technical assistance in order to conduct assessments on the adequacy of the resource and services plan and the appropriateness of the measures being developed by the DOW workgroup to track performance.

 

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

The Family Violence Prevention Program initiated several efforts designed to assist in developing performance indicators and outcome measures for the various programs and activities funded with FVPSA funds. There is currently considerable variation in the type and comparability of data reported by State and Tribal grantees, as well as from State coalitions and discretionary grantees. This is, in part, because of the tremendous variation in the types of services and activities funded within each State or locality, given other available Federal, State and local funding, as well as the varying reporting capacity of grantees to provide extensive data. This FVPSP effort will be accomplished in collaboration with the States, State domestic violence coalitions, the national resource center network, and Federal-level partners to reach consensus.

Specifically, these efforts include the funding of the Documenting Our Work project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, which formed a national working group and completed an extensive number of focus group conference calls to assist in the building of common, but sufficiently inclusive, definitions of the "services" provided by local domestic violence programs and State domestic violence coalitions. These efforts are focused on capturing the impact of services on diverse communities and individuals; initiating a review of the current data elements reported by States to identify those that can be considered baseline; and participating in the Federal agency workgroup exploring the feasibility of developing a standardized Federal reporting form for all victim assistance programs (Violence Against Women Office, Office for Victims of Crime, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, and FVPSP) which often provide direct or indirect funding to the same agencies.

The "Documenting our Work" (DOW) workgroup is continuing the process of identifying and agreeing on a full range of performance indicators and outcome measures. We anticipate a report with recommendations regarding performance and outcomes in FY 2002. The reporting of services provided by shelters is a part of the DOW workgroup's effort. This compilation of reporting services was provided to ACF in March 2001.

The following program performance goals have been developed in two program areas where sufficient data are available to track performance: Tribal program development and the NDVH.

PROGRAM GOAL: Build healthy, safe and supportive communities and Tribes that increase the ability of family violence victims to plan for safety.

Objective: Support programs to provide immediate shelter and related assistance for victims of family violence and their dependents.

ACF will provide technical assistance and information to 25 percent of the States and 10 percent of the Indian Tribes aimed at increasing the number of Indian Tribes that sponsor family violence prevention programs. A collaborative planning effort among the national resource center networks, the national domestic violence hotline, and selected State domestic violence coalitions will sponsor technical assistance and information activity for States (25 percent) and Tribes (10 percent) as an ongoing long-term commitment for this targeted initiative. ACF will remove barriers to work for victims of domestic violence and will provide States and Indian Tribes information on program models; best practices and services information to enhance the ability for Tribes to operate quality programs.

PROGRAM GOAL: Ensure that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, their family and friends, and others interested in their safety and support, have a source of comprehensive and timely information, crisis services, and assistance.

8.2b.	FY 2002: Increase the capacity of the National Domestic Violence Hotline to receive and respond to an average of 11,500 calls per month throughout FY 2001.
	FY 2003: Increase the capacity of the National Domestic Violence Hotline to receive and respond to an average of 12,000 calls per month throughout FY 2002.

 

The Hotline currently maintains an average of 22 full- and part-time Hotline Advocates, approximately 20 relief, and 30 volunteer advocates. The Advocates ensure that the Hotline is answered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Performance targets for the Hotline are conservative to take into account the ongoing challenge of staffing. As mentioned above, the actual performance for FY 2001 was above average due to a one-time infusion of resources from a corporate contributor. Future year funding and performance are expected to be more consistent with prior year levels. To adequately respond to the more than 11,000 calls a month requires a minimum of the staff identified above. Staff resources are at times limited due to turnover, work schedules, compensation and the competition with better paying jobs in the local area of the Hotline. Our ability to achieve an average of 12,000 calls per month in FY 2003 will be affected by these limitations.

Objective: Build the capacity of the National Domestic Violence Hotline to receive and respond to calls from sexual assault victims/survivors and their family/friends.

8.2c.	FY 2002: The amount of training hours provided to advocates to handle sexual assault calls (baseline).
	FY 2003: Increase amount of training hours provided to advocates to handle sexual assault calls (developmental).

 

In FY 2000-2001, funding was provided for the NDVH to provide responses to sexual assault as well as domestic violence calls. There is a proposed sexual assault hotline. The timing and development of the sexual assault hotline has yet to be determined. In the interim period the advocates (listeners) who staff the domestic violence hotline will receive training to handle the sexual assault calls that they receive. Because sexual assault calls require a different response, advocates must be trained to respond as thoroughly as possible. Developmental efforts will be measured by the amount of training and the number of people trained. There are approximately 22 staff that are assigned to the domestic violence hotline. (The calculated formula for the training to be provided in FY 2003 is: number of hours of training (8) x number of advocates trained (8) x number of days of the training (3) = number of hours of training (192).

8.3 LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE (LIHEAP)

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

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is a block grant program administered by the ACF Office of Community Services (OCS). The purpose of LIHEAP is to assist low-income households, particularly those with the lowest income, that pay a high proportion of household income for home energy, primarily in meeting their immediate home energy needs.

States, Federally or State-recognized Indian Tribes/Tribal organizations, and Insular Areas receive Federal LIHEAP grants to administer LIHEAP at the local level. As a block grant, LIHEAP grantees have broad flexibility to design their programs, within very broad federal guidelines, to meet the home energy needs of their residents. LIHEAP grantees have the authority to determine how to implement or target their programs and how best to carry out the purposes of LIHEAP. By regulation, grantees are the primary interpreters of the LIHEAP statute, and OCS must accept that interpretation unless it is "clearly erroneous." OCS has a limited role in determining how LIHEAP funds are spent.

For FY 2002, $1.7 billion in block grant funds have been appropriated. In addition, $600 million in emergency contingency funds are available if the President determines that a home energy emergency exists, and makes a formal budget request to Congress for all or part of the appropriated emergency contingency funds.

In addition to Federal funds for energy assistance, $685 million in non-federal "leveraged funds" were available to low income households for energy assistance, an increase of about $60 million from FY 2000. Some of these funds are from "public benefit" funds created in the course of States' utility restructuring processes. The President's FY 2003 LIHEAP budget request includes $1.4 billion in block grant funds and $300 million in emergency contingency funds.

The number of households served with a given level of LIHEAP funding could change from year to year based on decisions by States to change benefit levels or other program rules. For example, during FY 2001, some States used LIHEAP emergency contingency funds primarily to raise benefit levels in response to energy price increases rather than to substantially increase the number of recipient households.

LIHEAP appropriations are allocated to LIHEAP grantees on the basis of a statutory formula. In other formula programs, the dominant formula element(s) relate to the numbers and/or circumstances of eligible families or individuals. However, the need for energy assistance is affected by the severity of the weather, fluctuations in home heating or cooling fuel costs, the economy, and the impact of restructuring the utility industry on low-income households. LIHEAP's formula gives greater weight to cold weather temperatures (based on a 30-year average). This leads to great discrepancies in per capita funding, as well as in determining the kinds of energy assistance most needed. The resulting variations in funding level per eligible household and need for energy assistance pose special challenges in developing national performance goals. In this context, the LIHEAP program assisted about 13 percent of federally income-eligible households with their heating costs in FY 2000.

LIHEAP benefits include: (1) heating or cooling assistance (i.e., fuel subsidies) to increase the affordability of low-income households to heat or cool their homes; (2) energy crisis intervention to assist low-income households to cope with weather-related and supply-shortage home energy emergencies, and other household energy-related emergencies; and (3) low-cost residential weatherization and other energy-related home repairs to assist low-income households in safely increasing the efficiency of their home energy consumption, thus lowering their home energy bills and making their homes more comfortable. LIHEAP benefits are limited to assisting eligible, low-income households in meeting their heating and cooling costs, not their total residential energy bills, which include such things as lighting and appliances.

The average percentage of income that households pay for heating and cooling their homes in FY 2000 was four times higher for low income households (4.9 percent) than non-low income households (1.2 percent) in the United States. The goal of LIHEAP is to help bridge the gap between the energy burden of eligible low-income and non low-income households. In bridging this gap, LIHEAP seeks to minimize or alleviate immediate home energy, related health and safety risks for low income households.

LIHEAP's legislative intent is to ensure that LIHEAP benefits are targeted to those low-income households with the highest energy costs or needs, taking into account family size. The LIHEAP statute identifies two priority groups of low-income households needing energy assistance:

• The first group is those households which include very young children, individuals with disabilities, or frail older individuals (vulnerable households). The statute does not define the terms, "young children," "individuals with disabilities," and "frail older individuals." The concern is that such households face serious health risks if they do not have adequate heating or cooling in their homes. Health risks include death from hypothermia or hyperthermia and increased susceptibility to other health conditions such as stroke and heart attacks.
  
• The second group is those households with the lowest incomes and highest home energy costs (high-energy burden households). The stature does not indicate what constitutes "high" energy burden. The concern is that such households face safety risks in trying to heat or cool their home if they can not pay their heating or cooling fuel bills. Safety risks include use of makeshift heating sources or inoperative/faulty heating or cooling equipment that can lead to indoor fires or asphyxiation.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

Given that LIHEAP is a block grant with services delivered by grantees, OCS cannot prescribe how such services are delivered or require the States to engage in performance measurement. Most States agree that measurable LIHEAP performance goals and measures can serve as useful management tools. However, only a few States have conducted LIHEAP performance measurement since FY 1999. OCS recognizes that encouraging more State LIHEAP agencies to implement a performance measurement system is a slow process for the following reasons:

• In FY 2000, States were faced with additional administrative tasks in response to the energy crisis that emerged in 2000.
  
• A number of LIHEAP agencies are assuming additional responsibilities related to utility deregulation.
  
• LIHEAP grantees are limited to spending no more than 10 percent of their LIHEAP allotments on planning and administration costs. Thus, they have limited resources to redesign or enhance their data collection and processing systems to collect, tabulate, and analyze performance data.

OCS has embarked on a new strategy that focuses on Federal LIHEAP targeting performance goals and measures. This strategy involves the following activities:

• disseminate information on the need for eligible vulnerable and high energy-burden households to receive energy assistance,
  
• identify eligible high-energy burden households in underserved areas throughout the country using data from the household survey,
  
• collaborate with key Federal agencies that assist vulnerable low-income households in disseminating information on LIHEAP through their local programs to underserved parts of the country,
  
• evaluate through household survey data the results of targeting LIHEAP information to vulnerable and high-energy burden households, and
  
• use targeting performance results to manage further federal outreach targeting efforts.

OCS program activities are supported by the following resources:

• OCS' LIHEAP Committee on Managing for Results. The current tasks of the Committee are to: (1) collaborate with OCS in developing cost-effective performance goals and measures for LIHEAP that will meet the requirements of GPRA, (2) enhance State program management practices through "Managing for Results." The goal is to create a "multiplier effect" whereby State LIHEAP grantees can receive technical assistance to replicate efforts of those States that have successfully used LIHEAP targeting performance results in managing their LIHEAP programs, and (3) promote the States' use of OCS State-level estimates of the number of low-income vulnerable households in measuring LIHEAP targeting performance.
  
• $21,500 in FY 2001 LIHEAP training and technical assistance (T&TA) activities funds were awarded to the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association to provide logistical support for the activities of the LIHEAP Committee on Managing for Results. Another $15,000 were transferred to the Department of Energy for providing OCS with technical assistance on measuring LIHEAP targeting performance, including the calculation of home energy burden reduction indexes.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Cross-cutting Issues

LIHEAP program coordination and partnerships need to take into account that the need for energy assistance affects a variety of other basic necessities, such as health, safety, education, and shelter, as shown by the following studies:

• Between 2.5 million and 4.9 million elderly Americans have to "skip meals or forego food in order to buy medicine, pay the rent, or pay the utilities." (Burt, M. Hunger. Among the Elderly. Urban Institute: Washington, D.C., 1993).
  
• The number of clinically underweight children brought to the emergency room increased by 30% in the period immediately following the coldest months of the year. Once chronic disease was ruled out, researchers theorized the weight loss was due to the cold and economic burden imposed by high heating costs resulting in reduced amounts of available food. (Frank, D., Napoleone, M., Meyers, A., Roos, N., Peterson, K., & Cupples, L. Seasonal Changes in Weight for Age in a Pediatric Emergency Room: A Heat or Eat Effect? Boston Hospital, unpublished study, 1992).
  
• Across the U.S., elderly households are 28 percent more likely than all households to occupy homes built before 1940. Older homes are typically less energy efficient and more expensive to heat and cool than newer homes. Many low-income elderly households substitute alternative devices (room heaters, fireplaces and wood burning stoves) for central heating to reduce heating costs. Portable heating units caused 33 percent to 51 percent of heating related fire deaths for people over 65. (Jenkens, R. Older Persons Energy Costs and LIHEAP. American Association of Retired Persons: Washington, DC, February 1994).
  
• More than half of frequent movers claim unaffordable heating bills as an important factor contributing to their most recent move. Third graders who change schools frequently are two and one-half times more likely to repeat a grade and almost twice as likely to be low achievers in reading and math than are children who never changed schools. (Fisher, R: Belmont, Massachusetts The Road Oft Taken: Unaffordable Home Energy Bills, Forced Mobility and Childhood Education in Missouri. Fisher, Sheehan & Colton: Belmont, Massachusetts, 1995).
  
• After termination of residential electric service in Philadelphia, 32 percent of the homes were abandoned within one year. After termination of residential gas service in Philadelphia, 22 percent of the homes were abandoned. According to 49 percent of the Philadelphia emergency housing providers, loss of utility service is a factor in homelessness. Over 11 percent said it is frequently a factor. (Robinson, L. An Examination of the Relationship Between Utility Terminations, Housing Abandonment, and Homelessness. Institute for Public Policy Studies, Temple University: Philadelphia, 1991).
  
• Nationally, heating was the third leading cause of civilian fire deaths in 1994. While total home heating fires fell by 60 percent from 1980 to 1992-- by contrast, portable heater fires increased by 4 percent. Portable heaters, other space heaters and related equipment account for three-fourths of all home heating fires and four out of the five associated deaths. (Hall, Jr., J. U.S. Home Heating Fire Patterns and Trends Through 1992. National Fire Protection Association: Quincy, Massachusetts, 1994).
  
• People who live in unbearably hot living quarters increase their risk of hyperthermia. The July 1995 heat wave in Chicago killed 522 individuals. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Heat Wave Workshop Report, co sponsored on September 18-19, 1996, by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NOAA: Washington, D.C., 1996).

Starting in FY 2002, OCS will coordinate the dissemination of LIHEAP information through the Administration on Aging for elderly households, Head Start for young children, and the Developmental Disabilities Administration for disabled persons.

In addition, OCS will build on its partnerships with national organizations and Federal programs in support of its targeted outreach project, including:

• the National Low-Income Energy Consortium (NLIEC);
  
• the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association (NEADA);
  
• the Community Services Block Grant Program within OCS; and
  
• the Low Income Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) within the Department of Energy (DOE).

Program-wide Performance

During FY 2000, $1.84 billion was available to LIHEAP. (This includes $1.1 billion in block grant funds, $744 million in contingency funds (including $400 million in contingency funds released September 23, 2000, which were used almost exclusively during FY 2001), and $18.9 million in leveraging incentive funds.

Table 8.3-1. Number of households receiving
LIHEAP assistance by type of assistance, FY 2000

Type of LIHEAP assistance	Number of assisted households*
Heating	3,604,000
Winter/year-round crisis	920,000
Cooling	318,000
Summer Crisis	88,000
Weatherization	91,000

*Data are based on States' final LIHEAP Household Reports for FY 2000. Some households may have received more than one kind of assistance and, therefore, be counted under more than one component. For example, an informal survey in the early years of the LIHEAP block grant indicated that about two thirds of winter/year-round crisis assistance households also received heating assistance.

Grantees report the number of LIHEAP assisted households with members who are elderly, disabled, and 5 years of age or younger. Table 8.3-2 shows the percent of assisted households nationally for FY 2000 that included members of one of these three vulnerable groups.

*An elderly member is a person who is 60 years or older. The above data on the elderly cover most, but not all, households receiving assistance. Available data on households with an elderly member range from 98 percent of households receiving cooling assistance to 100 percent of households receiving crisis assistance.
**The definition of "disabled" varies as determined by the States. The above data on the disabled cover most, but not all, households receiving assistance. Available data on households with an elderly member range from 98 percent of households receiving cooling assistance to 100 percent of households receiving crisis assistance.
***A young child is a person who is under six years of age. Data on households with a young child do not cover all of the households receiving assistance. Available data on households with a young child range from 81 percent of households receiving cooling assistance to 100 percent of households receiving summer crisis assistance, and should be used with caution.

Table 8.3-3. Percent of LIHEAP-income-eligible households in FY 2000 compared to LIHEAP recipient households, classified by 1999 DHHS Poverty Guidelines (Federal Register, March 28, 1999) as estimated from the March 2000 Current Population Survey (CPS) - in effect for LIHEAP at the beginning of FY 2000.

Households at or below federal or state LIHEAP income eligibility standards	1999 DHHS Poverty Guideline intervals
	Under 50%	50%-74%	75%-99%	100%-110%	111%-124%	125%-149%	150% or more
blank cell	(Percent of households)
Federal standard*	12	9	15	7	9	16	31
State standards**	18	14	22	10	11	13	12
LIHEAP recipients***	20	14	24	7	9	12	13

*The Federal standard is the greater of 150 percent of the poverty level or 60 percent of State median income.
** State income standards can range from 110 percent of poverty to the Federal standard, as selected by the States.
***LIHEAP recipients are low-income households, which received heating assistance, as reported on the March CPS.

Table 8.3-4. Average annual heating expenditures and percent of income paid for home-heating (energy burden) among various household group, fiscal year 2000.

Household group	Heating expenditure*	Heating energy burden**
All	$380	1.9%
Non low-income	$407	0.9%
Low-income***	$327	3.8%
LIHEAP recipient****	$369	5.2%

*Average annual household heating expenditures are derived from the 1997 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. The 1997 RECS data have been adjusted for heating degree-days and fuel price estimates for FY 2000. Expenditures represent delivered cost for fuel oil, kerosene, and LPG, and billed costs for natural gas and electricity used. The data represent a weighted average of annual heating expenditures for delivered costs of the following main heating fuels: natural gas, electricity, fuel oil, kerosene, and liquid petroleum gas. Expenditure data are not collected for other heating fuels.
**Represents the percent of household income used for home heating energy expenditures; also referred to as mean individual home heating energy burden. For individual households, FY 2000 income is estimated by inflating income reported in the 1997 RECS by the consumer price index (CPI), and FY 1997 energy expenditures are estimated by adjusting energy expenditures reported in the 1997 RECS for changes in weather and energy prices. FY 2000 home heating energy burden for each household is computed by dividing the household's estimated FY 2000 home heating energy expenditures by the household's estimated FY 2000 annual household income. Mean individual home heating energy burden is computed by computing the mean of the individual household values.
***Households with annual incomes under the Federal LIHEAP income standard of the greater of 150 percent poverty or 60 percent state median income (Sec. 2506(b)(2)(B) of Public Law 97-35).
****Includes only households whose annual income was under the federal LIHEAP income standard, and which received LIHEAP heating assistance, as reported on the 1997 RECS.

The LIHEAP Committee's 2001 LIHEAP Survey on Managing for Results identifies which States set LIHEAP targeting goals or other LIHEAP performance goals in FY 2001. The results of the 1999-2001 Surveys indicate few States set targeting goals for vulnerable households. For FY 2001, only four States set performance goals for measure 8.3a, and three States set performance goals for measure 8.3b. Due to OCS' change in measuring LIHEAP performance, the LIHEAP Survey for Managing for Results will be discontinued after FY 2001.

Data Issues

The LIHEAP statute and regulations require minimal data collection about LIHEAP assisted households. States report annually on the number of LIHEAP assisted households served in each program component for the previous fiscal year by income level and by the number of recipient households including members who are elderly, disabled, or children under 6 years of age.

In performance terms, "LIHEAP targeting" can be defined as serving eligible households with the highest energy costs or needs at a higher rate than other eligible households. To quantify performance, OCS has developed a targeting performance indicator.

The indicators will permit OCS to examine targeting across groups of households, across regions of the country, and over time. It is reasonable to expect that the greatest increases in targeting performance can be realized by supporting the targeting efforts for those areas of the country in which targeted households are underserved.

OCS is studying the use of national targeting indexes to measure the current targeting performance of the LIHEAP program, to identify specific groups for whom LIHEAP information materials should be targeted, to identify regions of the country that need technical assistance, and to measure changes in targeting performance over time.

OCS will utilize data from the Bureau of the Census' March Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the results of the program in targeting vulnerable households. Such data are available approximately five months after the March CPS is conducted. OCS also will use data from the Energy Information Administration's Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) to measure the results of the program in targeting high-energy burden households. RECS is conducted every four years. The most recent RECS was conducted in 2001 and the data will be available in September 2002. OCS will explore the feasibility of sponsoring an annual RECS LIHEAP follow-up survey to collect additional data on the targeting of income-eligible households with the lowest incomes and highest home energy costs beyond 2001.

Performance Measures for FY 2004 and Final Measures for FY 2003

The basic LIHEAP program goal-to assist high energy burden households and vulnerable households to minimize or alleviate immediate home energy-related health and safety risks-calls for strategies directed toward targeting resources to those households within the universe of eligible households, consistent with maintaining the States' abilities to determine and address their most pressing needs.

OCS will continue to measure LIHEAP targeting of vulnerable households, and, if funding is available, high-energy burden households. Improved targeting performance addresses the LIHEAP statute's purpose of helping those most in need to meet their immediate home energy needs. Improved LIHEAP targeting increases the success of the program in assisting high-energy burden households and vulnerable households to meet their immediate home energy needs.

PROGRAM GOAL: Increase the availability of LIHEAP assistance to vulnerable households and high-energy burden households.

Program goals 8.3a and 8.3b have been replaced with program goals 8.3c-e. Program goals 8.3a and 8.3b approached the goal of increasing availability of LIHEAP assistance to vulnerable households by requesting States to set performance goals for serving these households. Since only a few States set such performance goals, measuring their performance did not provide a meaningful measure for households served through LIHEAP. For this reason, OCS has redirected its statistical focus to the use of targeting indexes.

Developmental Measures

Since its inception as a formula block grant, LIHEAP has not been designed to meet all home energy needs of low-income households. For example, based on State-reported LIHEAP household data , an estimated 3.9 million households were helped with heating costs in FY 2000. This represented approximately 13 percent of all households with incomes under the federal maximum income standard (29.4 million households) Thus, these performance indicators (measures 8.3c-e) focus on the proportion of recipient households that are members of the target populations. These three new measures will give a more accurate picture of the extent to which the program meets the goal of increasing LIHEAP availability to two household groups most susceptible to energy-related health risks, and one household group most susceptible to energy-related safety risks. OCS plans to use target performance statistics to assist in determining the best allocation of Federal technical assistance resources to improve LIHEAP targeting to vulnerable and high burden households.

8.4 NATIVE AMERICANS PROGRAMS

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

ACF's Administration for Native Americans (ANA) operates programs mandated to provide grant funding to the full range of Native American populations. ANA is the only Federal agency serving all Native Americans, including over 550 Federally recognized Tribes, 250 Tribes that are State-recognized or seeking Federal recognition, Indian organizations, over 200 Alaska villages, Native Hawaiian communities, and populations throughout the Pacific basin. All Indian and Alaska Native organizations, Native Hawaiian communities, and Native populations in Guam, American Samoa, Republic of Palau, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are eligible for ANA programs. This includes non-Federally recognized Tribes, Urban Indian Centers, small communities in rural areas of Alaska and the Pacific Basin, along with many others such as Alaska Native villages, multi-purpose community-based Indian organizations and consortia. ANA provides grants, training, and technical assistance to eligible Tribes and Native American organizations representing 2.2 million individuals.

Promoting the goal of social and economic self-sufficiency through local self-determination is the cornerstone of ANA's program philosophy. Self-sufficiency is that level of development at which a Native American community can control and internally generate resources to provide for the needs of its members and meet its own economic and social goals. Social and economic underdevelopment is the paramount obstacle to the self-sufficiency of Native American communities and families.

In 1981, ACF collaborated with Tribes and Native communities to develop the innovative Social and Economic Development Strategies (SEDS) program. SEDS is based on the premise that a local community has the primary responsibility for determining its own needs, planning and implementing its own programs, and using its own natural and human resources. In initiating the SEDS approach, ACF developed a framework of three interrelated goals:

• Assist Native American leadership in exercising control over their resources;
• Foster the development of stable, diversified local economies which provide jobs, promote economic well-being, and reduce dependency on social services; and
• Support local access to and coordination of programs and services that safeguard the health and well-being of people, essential elements for a thriving and self-sufficient community.

Through this direct grant funding relationship, Tribes and Native communities have created administrative systems to operate their own social and economic programs, in much the same way as State and local governments. Support for the unique, government to government relationship that exists between Tribal governments and the Federal government is reflected in this approach. These funds will support self-sufficiency efforts by Tribes through economic development and governance projects. Increasing the number of grants awarded will increase the core outcomes that typically occur as grants are measured over time. Additional priority funding areas include native language preservation, recovery and enhancement, environmental regulatory enhancement, and environmental mitigation. The development of performance goals will take place within this context. The preliminary goals and measures below will be further developed through this partnership process, and will include data and baselines.

ANA faces unique challenges in formulating goals and measuring results. As a discretionary grant program funding projects designed and implemented at the local level, the differences between projects are considerable in terms of size, scope, community goals, and funding levels. Because Tribes and Native American communities set their own goals and priorities, ACF requests objective progress reports throughout the project period of the grant and an objective evaluation report once the grant has ended. This system provides information on goals and measures, but these are solely unique to the Tribe or community. Each grantee is at different stage of social and economic development. Administrative and organizational capacity varies greatly among grantees, making more difficult the prospect of developing more "conventional" measures.

Many ANA grants are aimed at capacity-building and infrastructure development for Tribes and organizations, particularly through developing legal codes and courts systems, and revising existing Tribal constitutions. Capacity-building encompasses not only economic development (creation and expansion of businesses and jobs), but also efforts to create new programs as a result of welfare reform. This emphasis on capacity-building ties into the larger ACF goal to facilitate the changes effected by welfare reform by working together in innovative ways. For both economic and social development, capacity-building and infrastructure development are key factors. ANA will continue to work with its partners to develop meaningful GPRA measures--within the context of sovereignty, and available technical and staff resources at ANA-- for job creation, economic well-being, and reducing dependency on social services across a diverse mix of project types, Tribes, and Native American organizations.

Program Activities, Strategies and Resources

In prior years, ANA funded over 225 competitive grants annually totaling over $34 million in several grant programs, including Social and Economic Development, Environmental Regulatory Enhancement and Native Languages Preservation and Enhancement. ANA's grant award process is highly competitive; approximately one-third of applications received are funded each year. As part of our rigorous review process, individuals from all populations served by ANA are brought in to read, evaluate and score proposals. These ratings developed by the review panels, along with internal staff reviews and recommendations, provide the basis for the ANA Commissioner's funding decisions. Applications that receive funding are monitored through required written progress reports, office meetings, and site visits. Consultation with all Native American Tribes, communities and organizations is conducted as a central programmatic activity and guides the Commissioner in formulating ANA priorities and goals. This approach directly supports local self-determination and the government-to-government relationship between Tribes and the Federal government. ANA also has established a Traditional Native Circle, made up of Tribal elders and spiritual leaders, to provide a more holistic perspective on issues facing Tribes and Native communities.

The FY 2001 budget increase provided the necessary resources of $10.6 million to fund an increase in grants under ANA programs. This provided funds for over 80 additional new grants annually, depending on the type of projects approved under the competitive review process. Based on the rate of elders' participation in prior years, ANA expects by FY 2003 to increase elder participation by approximately 10 new grant projects. The funding will expand training and technical assistance and increase grant application rates and awards to Tribes and organizations that have not received assistance in the past.

Program Coordination, Partnerships and Cross-cutting Issues

ANA coordinates with all ACF program offices on Native American issues. These offices include Head Start, Office of Community Services (Tribal TANF), and the Child Care Bureau. ANA has provided a leadership role on a number of issues within ACF and throughout the Department, including the development of the DHHS Tribal Consultation Plan, the Tribal Colleges and Universities Plan, and other initiatives involving Native populations. The Intra-Departmental Council on Native American Affairs (IDCNAA), located within ANA, coordinates numerous activities and initiatives with DHHS agencies, such as the Indian Health Service (IHS), and external departments such as the Department of Interior (DOI). The Commissioner represents ANA as a member of the Domestic Policy Council - Working Group on American Indians and Alaska Natives, an organization that facilitates the development of new initiatives and program coordination across Federal agencies.

Program-wide Performance

ANA exceeded its targets for FY 2000 and for FY 2001, due to the provision of consistent technical assistance by contractors and the emphasis on the role of Tribal elders in Indian communities. Elders play a key role in Tribal culture by protecting and preserving tribal cultural heritage including language, traditions and life ways. They also play a critical role in guiding youth. Increased elder participation (measure 8.4a) has occurred due to their inclusion in the native language grants awarded and in various SEDS projects that focus on culture. New contract performance requirements have led to all contractors expanding the variety of technical assistance delivery methods they use. In addition to on-site assistance, contractors offer walk-up, worldwide web, telephone, fax, e-mail and other state-of-the-art delivery mechanisms. Other initiatives under consideration include on-line chats and threaded discussions, electronic newsletters, and CD-ROM training programs.

ANA regularly selects new program goals and priorities. For example, in 1999, ANA: (1) initiated a new retirement plan policy in FY 1999 for all ANA financial assistance grantees that was modified for FY 2000; (2) played a key role in the Department's tribal consultation policy implementation; and (3) was the ACF lead organization in implementing the Tribal Colleges/Universities (TCU) Executive Order.

The revised ANA's retirement plan policy that now strongly encourages such plans was developed, in part, to address socioeconomic trends indicating that American Indians are slipping farther behind the U.S. population. In 1979, 27 percent of American Indians were living in poverty compared to 12 percent of the U.S. population. By 1989, 31 percent of American Indians were living in poverty compared to 13 percent of the U.S. population. The U.S. economy contributes to this situation: because the least skilled and least educated earn less and find it harder to remain employed, ANA recognized that jobs created through grant programs could serve as a starting point for long-term individual benefits in retirement. During FY 2001, ANA completed an updated Economic Conditions Report on Native Americans which is being used to evaluate program policies and objectives.

Through the TCU effort, ANA provided financial and technology assistance, in the form of grants and computer hardware, software and accessories, to the colleges and universities. ANA also modified its grant eligibility statement to allow TCUs direct competition for funding in addition to Tribes' eligibility.

While performance goals such as the retirement and TCU initiatives result in lasting, positive impacts on socioeconomic conditions for Native Americans, they are not suitable as GPRA measurements because they can be implemented and achieved quickly, typically within a year or two. ANA selected elder participation and training and technical assistance as performance goals to represent key, long-term, closely associated activities which require year-to-year continuous effort by grantees and the agency.

ANA anticipates a complete review and validation of existing ANA performance measures in FY 2002 under the new ANA Commissioner 's leadership. ANA began this process in FY 2001 based on quarterly meetings with the national training and technical assistance contract providers.

Data Issues

The primary source for data collection on the above performance measures is the Grant Award Tracking and Evaluation System (GATES). Funded grants are entered into these systems and a full description of the project as well as the goals and objectives. It will be necessary for ACF to design and perform systematic validation surveys of grant proposals regarding: the types of projects and proposed participants, including trends and changes from other periods; potential applicants' use of technology; and training and technical assistance providers' outcomes and delivery levels. Such surveys may need to be re-evaluated as professional staff experienced in Native American programs are trained on the use of new grant database systems for recording and analyzing information.

In FY 2002, ANA plans to develop a strategy to validate data and determine if prior year data have value for GPRA performance measures. ANA will also work with other ACF programs to identify and develop standardized, cross-program measures for Native American programs.

Performance Measures for FY 2003 and Final Measures for FY 2002

PROGRAM GOAL: Support and encourage the role of Tribal elders in the community and promote efforts to involve elders as mentors with youth and children, e.g., teaching culture and language in Head Start, other child care programs, and adult programs.

8.4a.	FY 2002: Increase to 70 the number of grants that include elder participation from the 1997 baseline level of 44 grants.
	FY 2003: Increase to 75 the number of grants that include elder participation from the 1997 baseline level of 44 grants.

 

Tribal elder involvement was selected as a key measure of program performance because the role of Tribal elders is essential in all aspects of Tribal and community life. Supporting Tribal elders and providing a voice for their concerns has been an important emphasis area. Through the Tribal Elders Initiative, elders meet regularly with ANA/ACF officials and staff.

PROGRAM GOAL: Maintain the provision of training and technical assistance services (T/TA) to the diverse Native American population, with particular emphasis on urban organizations, rural and non-Federally recognized tribes.

Training and technical assistance delivery was selected as a key measure of program performance because of its "domino effect" and the cost-efficient aspects of field-based training. As individuals are assisted, they are able to transfer the knowledge and skills to other key grant professionals at the Tribal office, train others, and build a useful skill base. The T/TA contractors assist Tribes and Native communities in conceptualizing strategies for social and economic development, preservation of native languages, environmental regulatory enhancement, and environmental mitigation, translating them into viable applications for ANA funds.

For FY 2003, ANA expects training and technical assistance to potential and existing grantees to be maintained at the FY 2001 level of 1,500 contacts based on the level funding of these contracts. However, level funding alone does not assure sustained delivery of technical assistance year-to-year. To maintain a constant level of assistance, ANA must address potential and existing grantee willingness to seek continued technical assistance after a successful or unsuccessful competition effort and encourage them to propose projects aligned with ANA's national objectives.

Competition for ANA's technical assistance contracts occurs no less than every three years, and, when necessary, as frequently as every year to maintain performance standards. Due to the FY 2001 transition year activities, ANA extended three contract periods to ensure continued support. ANA is working to stagger contract competition cycles among the renewals and new contract competitions for the regions. For this reason, ANA has selected a three-year running average to measure performance because, in particular, a start-up cycle of new contracts can affect delivery.

 

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next