Detailed Information on the
Financial and Technical Assistance Assessment

Based on independent evaluation results, the Fund will work towards reducing administrative costs and the amount of time to review, determine, and distribute awards for the program.

Measure: Percent of CDFIs that increased their total assets

Explanation:This long-term measure seeks to quantify the cumulative asset growth of CDFIs that receive federal funds via CDFI Fund.

Measure: Percent of CDFIs that increased their total assets over the previous year

Explanation:This annual measure looks at asset growth of CDFIs on annual basis.

Measure: Amount of private and non-CDFI Fund investment that CDFIs leverage with CDFI Fund Financial Assistance awards

Explanation:This measure tracks private and non-CDFI Fund investments that CDFIs are able to leverage because of their CDFI Fund Financial Assistance (FA) award. For CDFIs, leverage is defined as the one-to-one non-federal match (as required by the FA program), plus funds the CDFI is able to leverage with CDFI Fund FA grant and equity dollars, plus dollars that the awardees' borrowers leverage for projects. (Project leverage example - Of the total financing needed for a housing development is $5 million and the awardee lends $1 million, while other investors lend the remaining $4 million, then the $4 million is the project leverage).

Measure: Increase in the percentage of eligible areas served by a CDFI

Explanation:This measure gauges how well CDFIs are doing in expanding their services to eligible areas (based on census data).

Measure: Percentage of eligible areas served by one or more CDFI

Explanation:As the CDFI industry expands, multiple CDFIs will serve the same eligible areas. This measure will guage how well this growth is occuring on a yearly basis.

Measure: Administrative cost per Financial Assistance application processed

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the program is to build the capacity and coverage of community development financial institutions (CDFIs) to provide credit, capital, and related services to underserved markets. The program builds capacity through financial assistance (FA) and technical assistance (TA) investments in CDFIs and proposed CDFIs.

Evidence: CDFI Fund Revised Goals and Measures. Authorizing statute (see 12 USC 4701(b)). Coverage is defined as the number of qualifying investment areas for which a CDFI provides some or a number of needed financial products and services.

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

Explanation: Urban, rural and Native communities continue to face social and economic problems arising in part from lack of economic growth and employment opportunities. CDFIs identify and respond to community needs for equity investments, loans, and development services.

Evidence: Authorizing statute. Public and private studies indicate lack of financial products and services in low-and moderate-income communities: 1) Woodstock Institute's 'Bigger, Faster'But Better? How Changes in the Financial Services Industry Affect Small Business Lending in Urban Areas" 2) Small Business Administration's "The Impact of Bank Consolidation on Small Business Credit Availability," 3) Fannie Mae Foundation's 'Financial Services in Distressed Communities: Framing the Issue, Finding Solutions."

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

Explanation: Although the CDFI Program is the only federal program that provides assistance solely to CDFIs, several states also administer similar programs. Further, private sector equity investments in CDFIs allow them to provide credit, capital and related services to underserved communities.

Evidence: Approximately twelve states operate CDFI-related programs, including Illinois, California, North Carolina and Texas.

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

Explanation: The program is free of major flaws and there is no strong evidence that another approach would be more efficient or effective in achieving the program's purpose. The Fund estimates that for each federal dollar awarded, $21 in private dollars are generated.

Evidence: Annual survey data. Leverage calculation memo.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Financial assistance (FA) awards are available only to certified CDFIs while technical assistance (TA) awards are available to CDFIs and proposed CDFIs. By definition, CDFIs have a mission of community development, target underserved communities and are accountable to their target markets.

Evidence: FA underwriting criteria require awardees to provide distressed communities with access to financial products and services, as well as development services (technical assistance or training), and promote the program purpose of expanding services to new communities. TA awards are made solely to build the capacity of CDFIs or proposed CDFIs.

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: The CDFI Program recently developed two long-term performance measures -- asset growth and CDFI coverage.

Evidence: CDFI Fund Revised Performance Goals and Measures. The long-term measures will be added to the Fund's strategic plan in 2005.

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

Explanation: The program has a target and timeframe for one of the long-term measures (asset growth). However, a target for the other long-term measure (CDFI coverage) will not be established until FY 2005 when baseline data is available for collection and analysis.

Evidence: The target for asset growth is based on analysis of actual data reported by awardees on FY 1999 - FY 2001 activities. Baseline data for CDFI coverage will be collected through the Fund's mapping system (CIMS) and the Community Investment Impact System (CIIS), a new data collection system.

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: The program has three annual outcome measures that demonstrate progress towards achieving both long-term goals. The program also has an efficiency measure.

Evidence: CDFI Fund Revised Performance Goals and Measures.

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

Explanation: The Fund has baselines and targets for two annual outcome measures -- asset growth and leveraging capability. Baseline and targets for the third outcome measure and the efficiency measure are not yet available.

Evidence: Data from CIIS will be used to identify a baseline and target for the third outcome measure -- CDFI coverage. Budget and management data will be used to establish a baseline and target for the efficiency measure. Baseline and target information for both measures will be published in FY 2005.

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 organizations receiving funding are bound by assistance agreements that require certain levels of performance. The performance of these organiztions are tied directly to the Fund's long-term and annual goals. Additionally, awardees must report on the use of funds and, if applicable, matching funds to the Fund's Grants Management and Compliance unit. This unit is responsible for verifying compliance with assistance agreements.

Evidence: Assistance agreements. Reports Management Database (RMD). Compliance monitoring policies and procedures for CDFI awardees.

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: The Fund is in the process of contracting with an independent consulting firm to to conduct an evaluation of the program. The evaluation will use statistical methods to assess the programs' effectiveness, including addressing what would have happened to communities and CDFIs in the absence of the program.

Evidence: The evaluation is being designed to meet the evaluation criteria set forth in the PART guidelines. The contract should be signed in October of 2004.

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: The Fund's budget submissions tie achievement of long-term and annual performance goals to projected and actual budget allocations. All direct and indirect costs are likewise allocated within the program.

Evidence: FY 2005 budget submission and performance plan.

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

Explanation: The Fund contracted with a non-profit consulting firm to help evaluate the program's annual performance goals and measures, and identify appropriate long-term performance measures and efficiency measures. As a result, the Fund revised its annual performance goals and measures, and created long-term performance measures and a new efficiency measure.

Evidence: Scope of work for non-profit consulting firm.

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: Awardees are required to submit performance data annually through CIIS, the Fund's web-based data collection system. Data is analyzed and used to measure the Fund's progress towards its performance goals, and to develop appropriate underwriting policies.

Evidence: CIIS Institution Level Report and Transaction Level Report. FY 2003 and FY 2004 FA funding application and underwriting criteria. Starting in FY 2004, the Fund is collecting transaction-level data through CIIS, which will allow it to measure targeting and coverage with greater accuracy, providing critical information that can be used for policy considerations.

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: Employee performance plans ensure that managers are held accountable for achievement of programmatic objectives. Additionally, awardees are required to report on, and are held accountable for, achievement of performance goals. The Fund's Grants Management and Compliance unit reviews all reports to verify compliance with assistance agreements.

Evidence: Fund program managers' performance plans. Assistance agreements. Reports Monitoring Database (RMD).

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

Explanation: The Fund has two-year budget authority for its program and administrative funds and follows prescribed policies and procedures to obligate funds in a timely manner. Internal controls ensure improper payments are identified and corrected.

Evidence: SF 132 - "Apportionment and Reapportionment Schedule"; SF 133 - "Report on Budget Execution and Budgetary Resources"; Schedule of Carryover Balances; Review of Program Payments Under the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002.

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: Although the Fund recently established an efficiency measure for the CDFI program, baseline and targets for the measure are not yet available.

Evidence: The Fund will publish baseline and target information for the efficiency measure in FY 2005.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Fund is the lead organizing agency in the Interagency Collaborative for Community and Economic Development (ICCED), which is currently working to identify redundancies among commuity and economic development programs and establishing common performance measures.

Evidence: ICCED Crosscut PART Working Group meeting agendas.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Fund has received a clean audit opinion for the past six years, with no reportable conditions nor any instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations.

Evidence: CDFI Fund Audited Financial Statements, which also includes the Fund's FMFIA certification. Review of Fund programs under the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002.

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

Explanation: In FY 2002, the Office of Inspector General conducted a review of the Fund's post award administration process for the CDFI Program. Each of the ten findings and sixteen recommendations were addressed and implemented.

Evidence: "Financial Management/Compliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act: Community Development Financial Institutions Fund Post-Award Administration Process," OIG-02-122, September 24, 2002.

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

Explanation: FA applicants are reviewed and approved on a competitive basis established in the notice of funding availability (NOFA) and detailed in the funding application. TA applicants are reviewed on a merit-based process outlined in the NOFA and the funding application. Outreach is conducted every year via videoconference that is widely available and is supplemented by in-person outreach sessions throughout the country.

Evidence: FY 2004 FA and TA NOFAs. FY 2004 outreach schedule.

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

Explanation: The Fund's Grants Management and Compliance receives reports from awardees regarding the use of award and matching funds, and the achievement of performance goals required in assistance agreements. Starting in FY 2003, Grants Management and Compliance personnel began conducting site visits of a sample of awardees.

Evidence: Compliance policies and procedures for CDFI Program awardees. CDFI Fund site visit reports.

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: The Fund collects and analyzes performance data, and disseminates it to the public at an aggregate level through its accountability report. Disaggregated data is not yet available, however. The Fund expects to make disaggregated data available in FY 2004.

Evidence: Accountability reports; CIIS reports. In FY 2004, the Fund began collecting transaction-level data, which is information on each loan/investment an allocatee makes. The Fund is developing policies for sharing institution-level and transaction-level data with the public, within the confines of privacy and financial disclosure laws and concerns.

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

Explanation: The Fund recently developed two long-term performance goals but has not had the opportunity to measure progress in achieving them. Data collected through CIIS starting in June 2004 will be used to begin to measure progress on one long-term measure and to set the baseline and target for the other measure.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: The PART includes three annual performance measures, of which two are new. The third annual goal has actual performance data, which shows that the Fund achieved its target in FY 2003.

Evidence: FY 2005 Congressional Budget Submission and Annual Performance Report. FY 2003 and FY 2004 Performance Accountability Reports.

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

Explanation: The Fund recently developed an efficiency measure and has not had the opportunity to measure progress in achieving it.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: Although the CDFI Program is the only federal program whose sole purpose is to support CDFIs, several states also adminster CDFI programs. However, there are no evaluations comparing the federal CDFI program with state-run CDFI programs. Further, it would be too costly to perfom such an evaluation especially in light of the Fund's work on the Interagency Collaborative for Community and Economic Development (ICCED). This working group is exploring the development of common measures among community and economic development programs so that such evaluations are available in the future.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: The independent evaluator has not yet issued findings or recommendations.

Evidence: