Detailed Information on the
Child Care Access Means Parents in School Assessment

Using the findings of an upcoming study and efficiency measure data to target technical assistance.

Continuing to improve program effectiveness by further improving data reliability.

Developing revised program performance measures consistent with annual data collection reporting requirements.

Ensuring the reliability of data and using it to improve program effectiveness.

Working with Congress to remove legal barriers to collecting data annually.

Measure: Percentage of CCAMPIS program participants receiving child care services who remain in postsecondary education at the end of the academic year as reported in the 18-month performance report.

Explanation:Denominator: All CCAMPIS program participants receiving child care services as reported in the 18-month performance report. Numerator: Number of CCAMPIS program participants receiving child care services who remain in postsecondary education at the end of the academic year as reported in the 18-month performance report.

Measure: Percentage of CCAMPIS program participants receiving child care services who remain in postsecondary education at the end of the academic year as reported in the 36-month performance report.

Explanation:Denominator: All CCAMPIS program participants receiving child care services as reported in the 36-month performance report. Numerator: Number of CCAMPIS program participants receiving child care services who remain in postsecondary education at the end of the academic year as reported in the 36-month performance report.

Measure: The percentage of Child Care Access Means Parents in School program participants in postsecondary education in other than four-year schools who graduate, as reported in the 18-month performance report.

Explanation:Denominator: Number of CCAMPIS program participants enrolled in postsecondary education in other than four-year schools as reported in the 18-month performance report. Numerator: Number of CCAMPIS program participants who received a certificate or a terminal degree or transferred from a two-year IHE to a four-year IHE as reported in the 18-month performance report.

Measure: The graduation rate of CCAMPIS program participants in postsecondary education in other than four-year schools as reported in the 36-month performance report.

Explanation:Denominator: Number of CCAMPIS program participants enrolled in postsecondary education in other than four-year schools as reported in the 36-month performance report. Numerator: Number of CCAMPIS program participants who received a certificate or a terminal degree or transferred from a two-year IHE to a four-year IHE as reported in the 36-month performance report.

Measure: Federal cost of CCAMPIS student who persists in or graduates from an institution of higher education as reported in the 36-month performance report.

Explanation:Denominator: Number of CCAMPIS students who persist in or graduate from an institution of higher education of those grantees that submitted complete annual performance reports. Numerator: Total award funding for the 36-month period for those grantees that submitted complete annual performance reports. The calculation methodology for this measure has been revised. The data has been revised to reflect the cost per CCAMPIS students persisting in and graduating from school during that specific school year for those grantees that submitted complete annual performance reports. The measure was previously calculated as the annual appropriation divided by the number of CCAMPIS students persisting in and graduating from school during that specific school year. The previously reported 2004 value was based on the entire 2003 appropriation ($16,194,050) divided by the number of CCAMPIS students persisting in and graduating from school during the 2003-2004 school year (14,762) = $1,097. For 2007-2011 this is an efficiency measure without targets. Data will not be available for FY 2006 and 2007 as there was no competition in 2003 and 2004.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program supports the participation of low-income parents in postsecondary education through the provision of campus-based child care services.

Evidence: Statutory purpose: Section 419N of Title IV, Part A, Subpart 7 of the Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended. The purpose is included in the application package and noted in the performance report.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Obtaining postsecondary education is critical to meeting the needs of an increasingly technical workplace in the new global economy. However, a lack of affordable and accessible child care services may prevent low-income parents from pursuing college degrees. Data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS) show that about a quarter of all undergraduates have dependent children. The cost of child care services is a great concern for students with dependent children, as they are significantly more likely to be low-income. Less than 19 percent of HEA Title IV participating institutions (those institutions that receive federal student assistance)offer on-campus day care for children of students [Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) 2005].

Evidence: In 1995, less than 2 percent of first-time postsecondary students that had children completed a bachelor's degree within 4 years compared with 19 percent of students that did not have children. [Descriptive Summary of 1995-96 Beginning Postsecondary Students: Six Years Later, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 2003-151]. Data from NCES institutional surveys reveal that only 1,259 of the 6,793 institutions, or 18.5 percent, had on-campus child care available in academic year 2005-2006 (NCES/IPEDS, 2005). In 2004, about 24 percent of undergraduates had a dependent child. About 40 percent of students with dependent children failed to persist or graduate in 2003-2004 compared to 27 percent of students without dependent children. In comparison to the 65 percent of students without dependent children who were enrolled mostly full-time, only 39 percent of students with dependent children were enrolled full-time (NCES, NPSAS: 2004 Undergraduate Students 08/25/2006).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: A number of federal agencies, including the Departments of Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Labor, Justice, and Interior, administer programs that focus directly or indirectly on early childhood education and care. However, the bulk of these programs focus their efforts on subsidizing the cost of child care for low-income parents who are working or engaged in work-related activities. Very few Federal programs provide campus-based child care support so that parents can obtain a higher education.

Evidence: GAO's April 2000 Report (HEHS-00-78) "Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Access Crosscutting Programs" was conducted to investigate potential overlapping of target groups and services, given the increase in Federal early childhood and education programs created in the last two decades (http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/he00078.pdf). The report focused only on the provision of early childhood education and care for children under the age of five. The report did not reach conclusions as to the degree of overlap and mission fragmentation. It suggested that policymakers monitor the programs in order to identify the best method to meet the program, as well as strategic, Federal goals. HHS' Child Care & Development Fund permits child care services for the purpose of pursuing education as an allowable use of funds. Parents must be working or in education or training. Evidence suggests that few of these funds are used for education and training. Also, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program authorizes education as an allowable purpose, but no data are available on usage of funds for this purpose. Thus, it appears that these programs do not have significant overlap with CCAMPIS. ED will continue to closely monitor these programs for mission overlap.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Program effectiveness and efficiency is hampered by statutory award and reporting limitations. The statute limits awards to institutions whose Pell Grant funds for the previous year equal or exceed $350,000 and these institutions can only receive an award equaling one percent of their previous year award. The Pell Grant program helps ensure financial access to postsecondary education by providing grant aid to low- and middle-income undergraduate students. In addition, the program statute requires the grant reporting periods to be at 18 and 36 months. This provision is inconsistent with ED's usual practice of obtaining annual data to monitor and measure program performance.

Evidence: Section 419N(b)(2)(A) and (B)(4) of Title IV, Part A, Subpart 7 of the HEA.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The program is well targeted to reach low-income student-parents who pursue a postsecondary education at institutions that receive Federal Pell Grants. No evidence of unintended subsidies exists.

Evidence: Section 419N(b)(2)(A) of Title IV, Part A, Subpart 7 of the HEA requires that grants be awarded to institutions of higher education for an amount not to exceed one percent of an institution's Pell Grant funds awarded the previous year. Since the postsecondary institution--which the student parent attends--administers the program, the child care and supplemental services are well targeted and can be integrated into other services offered by the institution to increase persistence and graduation. 18- and 36-month performance reports demonstrate whether students receiving CCAMPIS services meet the low-income requirement. In 2005, the program awarded 116 new awards from the pool of 434 eligible applications received--evidence that the awards are made only to the most highly rated applicants. An additional 59 new awards were made in 2006 by funding applicants that did not receive funds in 2005. The fact that only 175 applicants were funded from the 434 that applied suggests that the need is great.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: CCAMPIS has a long-term objective of increasing access to postsecondary education for low-income parents by providing campus-based child care services. To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the program in achieving its goals, the Department has developed two long-term measures that focus on outcomes: 1) the percentage of students receiving CCAMPIS services that persist in postsecondary education and 2) the percentage of program participants, not including those at four-year institutions, who complete their course of study.

Evidence: One of ED's measures tracks the rate of one-year persistence. This rate is compared to a similar persistence rate for a comparable group of Pell Grant recipients with dependent children. ED also measures the graduation rate for students at institutions other than four-year schools. ED's focus on 2-year programs is directly related to the program's statutorily-mandated reporting requirements (final grant reports are required in the 3rd year of 4 year grants) at which time no freshman participants reasonably could be expected to complete a 4-year program. Data collected for 2007 will be greatly improved as it relates to the year each student first received CCAMPIS services and the students' college standing (sophomore, junior, etc.). This will improve data reliability and accountability. Persistence will be consistently calculated. The graduation rate will be an overall rate rather than a median of the rates as in previous years.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The program has ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures.

Evidence: The 18-month persistence target in 2010 of 66 percent and the 36-month persistence target in 2011 of 82 percent both exceed the national average. The national average for a similar definition of persistence among students with dependent children was about 60 percent in 2003-2004, which compared to 73 percent among students without dependent children (NCES, NPSAS: 2004 Undergraduate Students 08/25/2006). The 18-month graduation target in 2010 is 19 percent and the 36-month graduation target in 2011 is 25 percent. There is no comparable national average statistic; however, since most students take longer than three years to graduate from a two-year school, in any given year, the graduation of about one-fifth of students served by CCAMPIS is ambitious. Only 32.6 percent of students in 2-year schools graduate within three years (IPEDS Spring 2005 Compendium Table 26). Additional statistics show that in comparison to the 65 percent of students without dependent children who were enrolled mostly full-time, only 39 percent of students with dependent children were enrolled full-time (NCES, NPSAS: 2004 Undergraduate Students 08/25/2006).

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the program in achieving its goals, the Department uses the same measures to monitor annual performance as are used to measure long-term performance. These measures show progress toward long-term goals and focus on student outcomes: 1) the percentage of students receiving CCAMPIS services that persist in postsecondary education and 2) the percentage of program participants, not including those at four-year institutions, who complete their course of study. The graduation rate will be an overall rate rather than a median of the rates.

Evidence: See measures outlined in Evidence/Data section of question 2.1 and see the President's 2008 Budget recommendation (http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget08/justifications/r-highered.pdf).

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: ED has ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures.

Evidence: See measures tab. The targets reflect an annual increase of 0.5 percentage points each year starting in 2007 for the 18-month measures and approximately 0.5 percentage points each year starting in 2004 for the 36-month measures. This rate of increase provides continuous and ambitious improvement over time. Given the additional challenges faced by low-income students with dependent children, improvements will likely be achieved gradually. The national average for persistence among students with dependent children increased from 59.6 percent in 2000 to 60.3 percent in 2004, an annual increase of less than 0.2 percentage points (NCES, NPSAS: 2000 Undergraduate Students 04/26/2006 and NCES, NPSAS: 2004 Undergraduate Students 08/25/2006). Annual performance targets are included in the program performance plan.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All CCAMPIS projects work toward the annual and long-term goals of the program. The program measures have been shared with grantees through the application package and the closing date notice. Applicants for funding are required to describe how the applicant will evaluate the success of the project, as measured by the retention and graduation of students whose children are served by the project. Every grantee is required to complete an interim performance report, an 18-month performance report, and a 36-month performance report. Grantee performance is assessed on the basis of how well the grantee meets the program's performance goals.

Evidence: The authorizing statute, Section 419N of Title IV, Part A, Subpart 7 of the HEA, clearly articulates the program goal of supporting the participation of low-income parents in postsecondary education through the provision of campus-based child care services. As part of the application process, all applicants agree to measure progress on the persistence and graduation measures. Applications receive points for providing quantitative objectives relating to the purpose of the CCAMPIS program (program performance report, 2008 Program Performance Plans, Application for Grants under CCAMPIS). Continuation funding is awarded only if a grantee demonstrates substantial progress toward its project and performance objectives. Grantees report progress on the persistence and graduation measures in the performance report.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: ED is currently implementing a study on the availability of and need for child care services at institutions of higher education. The Web survey instrument has been designed and approved. This study will analyze data from ED collections and specific CCAMPIS program information. The study is expected to improve program information available to make strategic and management decisions.

Evidence: Results from ED's study on the availability and need for child care services at institutions of higher education are expected to be available August 2008.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Budget requests are not tied to the accomplishment of annual and long-term performance goals and resource needs are not presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget.

Evidence: ED 2008 Congressional Budget Justifications --http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget08/justifications/r-highered.pdf

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The program has used the recommendations made in the previous PART to address strategic planning deficiencies and taken meaningful steps to fix them. In particular, ED has revised the program's performance measures, targets, and reporting requirements to better focus on results. The Department has improved financial monitoring of grantees to avoid lapsing program funding.

Evidence: Staff revised the program application prior to the 2005 program competition. The application improvements help to ensure that potential applicants are more responsive to the authorizing statute. In addition, staff conducted one pre-application technical assistance workshop. With increased monitoring and oversight, no funds have lapsed since 2002.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Grantees are required to submit regular and timely information, i.e. 18- and 36-month performance reports. Information on the grantees' compliance with program requirements and objectives is collected at that time and continuation awards are dependent upon whether the institution is making a good faith effort to ensure that low-income students at the institution have access to affordable, quality child care services. In addition, information about the impact of the program on the quality, availability, and affordability of campus-based child care services is collected. Data from the 18- and 36-month performance reports are used to award continuation funding and determine which grantees will be given additional technical assistance.

Evidence: Reporting requirements as outlined in Section 419N(e) of Title IV, Subpart 7 of the HEA. Program staff conduct analyses to determine if grantees are making satisfactory progress and if continued funding is in the best interest of the government. Continuation funding is not awarded if progress is not being made. For example, in FY 2003, several universities received reduced funding. Staff provided technical assistance to such grantees on ways to improve performance. In FY 2006, 2 or 1.7% of the 118 grantees eligible to receive continuation funding did not due to the lack of substantial progress. Increased monitoring by program staff via telephone and email helps to ensure that grantees continue to demonstrate improvement in project management and thus are less likely to have their continuation awards reduced and/or not awarded at all because of poor performance. Revisions to the new performance report will help to ensure that grantees provide more reliable data and include instructions for completing the report. To promote data quality, program managers are training grantees on its use.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: ED's managers are subject to the Education Department Performance Appraisal System (EDPAS), which links employee performance to relevant Strategic Plan goals and action steps and is designed to measure the degree to which a manager contributes to improving program performance. The Director of CCAMPIS, program managers and program specialists are all held accountable for the performance of projects or the program. Additionally, funding decisions for current grant recipients are based, in part, on prior performance.

Evidence: The EDPAS standards for CCAMPIS program managers require that they develop strategies for implementing GPRA and Strategic Plan initiatives related to the CCAMPIS program. CCAMPIS program specialists are held accountable for assessing project performance and monitoring the progress of projects in achieving program goals and objectives.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Federal funds are obligated within the timeframes set out by Department schedules and used for the purposes intended. Funds are awarded promptly and accurately. The Department has improved financial monitoring of grantees to avoid lapsing program funding.

Evidence: Once funds have been obligated, program staff monitors grantee drawdown of federal funds monthly. Increased monitoring by program staff via telephone and email has ensured that grantees continue to demonstrate improvement in project and financial management. Since 2002 with increased monitoring and oversight, no funds have lapsed.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: While ED does not have procedures in place to fully measure and achieve efficiency for this program, progress has been made. ED has developed an efficiency measure, the annual cost per successful outcome, to assesses the cost effectiveness of each project on an annual basis. During 2007, CCAMPIS plans to develop efficiency targets, work with projects to focus on methods for improving efficiency, and implement procedures for comparing efficiency over time. Additionally, to encourage the most effective use of funds in FY 2005, ED utilized the following competitive preference priorities as incentives for grantees: programs that (1) leverage significant local or institutional resources, including in-kind contributions, to support the activities assisted under this program and (2) utilize a sliding fee scale for child care services provided under this program to support a high number of low-income parents pursuing postsecondary education at the institution.

Evidence: The annual cost per successful outcome for CCAMPIS was $1,097 in 2004. Up to 10 points was awarded to eligible applicants, depending on the extent to which the application met the priority in the FY 2005 competitive cycle.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: ED has implemented strategies to encourage collaboration and coordination between the CCAMPIS program and with other organizations outside of ED. In addition, the CCAMPIS program collaborates and coordinates with TRIO's Student Support Services (SSS) program. TRIO's SSS program is designed to provide student services to disadvantaged college students to increase their retention and completion rates.

Evidence: Coordination occurs among project directors who attend the project directors' meeting, the National Coalition for Campus Children's Center's (NCCCC) annual meeting, a nationally recognized educational organization that supports research and activities affecting college and university early childhood education and service settings. Since the CCAMPIS program is in a service area with responsibility for administering the Federal TRIO Programs, the coordination of student services between CCAMPIS and the TRIO Student Support Services (SSS) program is encouraged. ED has specifically encouraged SSS grantees to apply for CCAMPIS grants in future competitions. In 2006, four grantees share the same project director for CCAMPIS and TRIO SSS and at least 44 grantees have secured awards for both programs.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The CCAMPIS program has not been shown to have internal control weaknesses and follows Departmental guidelines for financial management. In addition, the Department has an electronic system (Grant Administration and Payments System (GAPS)) for identifying potentially excessive drawdowns. Program staff can require that individual grantees receive prior ED approval of all drawdowns.

Evidence: GAPS drawdown reports. If a grantee has repeated financial management problems, ED's program staff can place a cost reimbursement hold on the grantee's account requiring the grantee to receive approval before drawing down funds. As a result of regular financial monitoring through the GAPS drawdown report, telephone calls, and e-mails, grantees have not had repeated financial management problems.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Prior to the 2005 program competition, staff revised the application package to help potential applicants be more responsive to the authorizing statute, and staff conducted a pre-application technical assistance workshop. An independent study of CCAMPIS program is ongoing. The Department has improved financial monitoring of grantees to avoid lapsing program funding.

Evidence: The revised application package clarifies that applicants only provide demographic data on the students who may be assisted by the project and that additional points will be awarded to applicants that leverage funds or utilize a sliding fee scale. The pre-application technical workshop enabled CCAMPIS managers to explain the program guidelines and statute in an open forum. An independent study on the availability and need for child care services at institutions of higher education (to be available August 2008) is ongoing. Since 2002 with increased monitoring and oversight, no funds have lapsed.

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: Independent peer review panels are used to evaluate, score, and rank applications.

Evidence: Program funds are used to pay for the peer review process. 100% of grants are subject to review.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The program has a strong relationship with its grantees, as well as a high level of understanding of what grantees do with the resources allocated to them. Program staff have increased monitoring of grantees since 2004. As a result, grantees continue to demonstrate improvement in project management. Program staff conduct routine financial monitoring to determine if funds are managed according to program and financial requirements.

Evidence: Program oversight includes review of performance reports, documentation of grantees' use of funds, email and telephone communications, and meetings with project directors. Program staff use ED's Grant Administration and Payment System (GAPS) data to observe all fund applications made by an institution. This review process has resulted in the adjustment of grantee work plans that were not allowed within the scope of the program. One example of a corrective action is reducing funding for a grantee that was not making substantial progress. Further, these systems are used to identify institutions determined not to have applied funds appropriately and to withhold funding, if necessary. Prior to issuing continuation awards, staff reviews interim and/or 18-month/36-month performance reports to assess the degree to which the project is being operated in accordance with established terms and conditions.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: Per program statute, the CCAMPIS program collects and compiles data from 18- and 36-month performance reports. ED analyzes the 18- and 36-month performance reports to determine which grantees need technical assistance and to make programmatic and funding decisions. Past performance data information is presented on ED's website and enables a wide variety of audiences to review the program's performance. The data is aggregated at the program level and disaggregated at the grantee level.

Evidence: Past program performance data for CCAMPIS FY 2002 grantees from their 36-month performance reports may be accessed through the following link: http://www.ed.gov/programs/campisp/performance.html.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The CCAMPIS program performance goals are student persistence and completion. Although fluctuations in performance make it difficult to measure annual progress toward the long-term goal, the performance of CCAMPIS on most of its long-term goals is improving over time. Moreover, with the exception of one of its four measures, CCAMPIS is on pace to exceed its long-term targets. In assessing performance progress, it is important to take into consideration the substantial obstacles to success encountered by the population the program serves.

Evidence: Data reported in the program performance plan show 66 percent persistence in 2004 for the 18-month report and 67 percent in 2005 for the 36-month report. 18-month persistence is on target to exceed the 2010 goal of 66 percent. 36-month persistence has declined since 2002 and will not likely meet the 2011 goal of 82 percent. The setting of persistence targets was difficult, given lack of clarity in the instructions to grantees on reporting on persistence, and their consequent variability in reporting to ED on persistence. With data from the revised performance report expected in 2007, we would expect to receive higher quality data, with less variability. This will provide the Department with a more sound basis for setting persistence targets and may provide justification for revising the long-term persistence targets downward. In addition, there are many factors that affect whether a student persists in school. Accessibility of child care is just one of the external factors affecting low-income students. Program data show 18 percent completion for the 18-month report and 24 percent completion for the 36-month report. 18-month completion is on target to exceed the 2010 goal of 19 percent. 36-month completion is on target to exceed the 2011 goal of 25 percent. The completion data may fluctuate over time since full-time and part-time students are counted equally, yet the ratio of full-time to part-time students may vary from year to year. The recent changes to the performance report will improve data reliability and consistency.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: CCAMPIS exceeded most of its annual persistence and completion targets for 2004-2005, which had been set to meet or exceed previous performance levels. These goals require strong program partner performance to succeed.

Evidence: Data reported in the program performance plan fluctuate from year-to-year. However, with the exception of persistence for the 36-month report, CCAMPIS exceeded all of its annual targets through 2005, and while performance is uneven, it generally improves over time. Most recently, the persistence rate for the 18-month report was 66 percent in 2004, which exceeded the 64 percent target. The completion rate for the 18-month report was 18 percent in 2004, which exceeded the 17.5 percent target. The completion rates in 2004 and 2005 from the 36-month report were 30 and 24 percent, which exceeded the 22.5 and 23 percent targets, respectively. The fluctuations in the completion rates may be due to changes in the mix of full-time and part-time students in the program. The 36-month persistence rates in 2004 and 2005 were 74 and 67 percent, which failed to meet the 79.5 and 80 percent targets, respectively. The apparent decline in persistence may be a result of increased dialog with grantees on how to report. The increased dialog has also resulted in a revised performance report, which will improve the accuracy and reliability of future data.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: CCAMPIS has developed an efficiency measure, but hasn't developed targets yet to judge performance against. The efficiency measure tracks the annual cost per successful outcome, to assess the cost effectiveness of each CCAMPIS project on an annual basis. The annual cost per successful outcome was $1,097 in 2004.

Evidence: CCAMPIS has one year of program-level efficiency measure data. To best determine appropriate efficiency targets and make program changes to boost cost effectiveness, additional years of program data and analyses of project-specific outcomes and efficiency measures are needed. Project-specific outcome and efficiency analyses will be completed during 2007, and a one-year target will be established prior to the conclusion of the 2007 PART process.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are no similar programs for which comparable data are available. No other childcare programs appear to be aimed at postsecondary persistence and completion--the main goals of the CCAMPIS program.

Evidence: Early Education and Care: Overlap Indicates Need to Access Crosscutting Programs, (GAO/HEHS-00-78, April 2000); HHS' Child Care Development Fund (CCDF) shows that for 2001 that about 9% of approximately one million families served used the child care funding for the combined purposes of education and training--but no breakdown exists between education and training and no data are available on the percentage of "education" that is higher education. Also, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program indicates education as an allowable purpose, but provides no data on usage of funds for this purpose. It appears that the programs do not have the same focus as CCAMPIS. They emphasize providing child care services to allow parents to work, rather than to pursue a program of postsecondary education.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: No specific evaluations of the CCAMPIS program have been completed. However, ED has launched a study to assess the availability of and need for child care services at institutions of higher education. The Web survey instrument has been designed and approved. This study will analyze data from ED collections and specific CCAMPIS program information. The study is expected to improve information available to make strategic and management decisions.

Evidence: ED's Study on the Availability and Need for Child Care Services at Institutions of Higher Education (to be available August 2008).