Community Services Block Grant Program

Report to Congress

Fiscal Year 2006

 

Table of Content

I. Introduction

II. Summary of the Planned Use of Funds by States and Eligible Entities

III. Description of How Funds Were Spent by States and Eligible Entities

Table 1:  How CSBG Funds Were Spent

Table 1:  How CSBG Funds Were Spent (continued)

Table 2:  CSBG Funds Spent on Youth and Senior Programs

Table 3:  State Uses of FY 2006 CSBG Funds

Figure 1: Local Agency uses of FY 2006 CSBG funds

IV.Number of Entities Eligible for CSBG Funds

Table 4: Types of Eligible Entities

Table 5:  Number and Type of Eligible Entities

Number and Characteristics of Clients Served, FY 2006

Table 6:  Scope of the FY 2006 Demographic Survey

Table 7:  Client Ages

Table 8:  Level of Family Income as a Percentage of Federal Poverty Guidelines

Table 9:  Housing Status of Families Served

Table 10:  Sources of Household Income

Table 10:  Sources of Household Income (continued)

Table 11:  Family Structure (By Number of Families)

Table 12:  Education Levels of Adult Participants

Table 13:  Ethnicity

Table 14:  Race

Table 15:  CSBG Planned and Actual Expenditures, FY 2006

Table 16:  State Planned and Actual Expenditures, FY 2006

Appendix A: State Assessments (SAs)

State of Arkansas State Assessment Summary

Table: CSBG Client Characteristics and Statistics Reported by State, FY 2005

District of Columbia State Assessment Summary

Table: CSBG Client Characteristics and Statistics Reported by DC, FY 2005

Introduction
The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program provides assistance to States and local communities, working through a network of Community Action Agencies (CAAs) and other neighborhood-based organizations, for the reduction of poverty, the revitalization of low-income communities, and the empowerment of low-income families and individuals to become fully self-sufficient.  CSBG-funded programs create, coordinate, and deliver a broad array of programs and services to low-income Americans. 

The report complies with Sections 678E(b)(2) and 678B(c) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (CSBG Act).  The CSBG Act requires that the Secretary submit together annually to the Congress the report required at Section 678E(b)(2) on the CSBG statistical database (CSBG Program Report) and the report required at Section 678B(c) on the results of fiscal year evaluations conducted in several States on the use of CSBG funds (CSBG State Assessments).  This report provides the information requested for fiscal year (FY) 2006. 

In addition, Section 678E(b)(2)(E) of the CSBG Act requires the Secretary to report annually a summary of State’s performance outcomes of Community Action as collected and submitted by the States in accordance with Section 678E(a); the CSBG Program Performance Measurement Report accompanies this report.

The FY 2006 program data for the CSBG Program Report was gathered by the Community Services Block Grant Information System (CSBG/IS) survey, administered by the National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP).  The 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico provided information about the level and uses of CSBG funds, their activities, and the number and characteristics of families and individuals participating in CSBG programs.

In addition, the Office of Community Services (OCS) conducted evaluations of State compliance among all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico during the reporting period through:  1) a State-by-State survey, and 2) State Assessments of two State CSBG agencies on their use of CSBG funds.  The results of the State Assessments conducted in the State of Arkansas and the District of Columbia are provided in Appendix A of this report.
  
Specifically, the CSBG Act requires OCS to report on the following topics, which are presented in this report:

• A summary of the planned uses of funds by each State and the eligible entities in the State;
• A description of how funds were spent by the State and eligible entities, including a breakdown of funds spent on:
• administrative costs, and
• delivery of local services by eligible entities;
• Information on the number of entities eligible for funds, including:
• Number of low-income persons served, and
• Demographic data on low-income populations served by eligible entities;
• A comparison of the planned and actual uses of the funds by each State;
• An accounting of the expenditure of funds received through the CSBG program;
• An accounting of funds spent on administrative costs by the State and eligible entities;
• Funds spent by eligible entities on direct delivery of local services;
• Number and characteristics of clients served based on data collected from the eligible entity;
• A summary describing training and technical assistance offered by the State to help correct deficiencies during the year covered by the report; and
• Results of fiscal year evaluations conducted in several States on the use of CSBG funds (State Assessments, formerly known as Program Implementation Assessments).

Summary of the Planned Use of Funds by States and Eligible Entities
In FY 2006, States planned to use CSBG funds to provide resources for direct services or assistance to individuals and families participating in eligible entities’ programs.  In most instances, the largest categories of CSBG expenditures were emergency services and linkages programs.  Uses of CSBG funds are reflected in the data tables contained in this report (Tables 1-3).

Description of How Funds Were Spent by States and Eligible Entities
Reflected in Tables 1 and 2, and summarized below, is a breakdown of State spending by program services category.
 
Employment Programs
In FY 2006, States reported spending $58 million in CSBG funding to support a range of services designed to assist low-income individuals in obtaining and maintaining employment.  These services include:

• Support for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program recipients who are preparing to transition to self-sufficiency or former TANF recipients who need additional support to find or maintain employment;
• Support for job retention, including counseling, training, and supportive services, such as transportation, child care, and the purchase of uniforms or work clothing;
• Skills training, job application assistance, resume writing, and job placement;
• On-the-job training and opportunities for work;
• Job development, including finding employers willing to recruit through the agency, facilitating interviews, creating job banks, and providing counseling to employees, and developing new employment opportunities in the community;
• Vocational training for high school students and the creation of internships and summer jobs; and/or
• Other specialized adult employment training.

Education Programs
In FY 2006, States reported spending $58 million in CSBG funds to provide education services.  Services supported include:

• Adult education, including courses in English as a Second Language (ESL) and General Education Development (GED) preparation with flexible scheduling for working students;
• Supplemental support to improve the educational quality of Head Start programs;
• Child care classes, providing both child development instruction and support for working parents or home child care providers;
• Alternative opportunities for school dropouts and those at risk of dropping out;
• Scholarships for college or technical school;
• Guidance about adult education opportunities in the community;
• Programs to enhance academic achievement of students in grades K–12, while combating drug or alcohol use and preventing violence; and/or
• Computer-based courses to help train participants for the modern-day workforce.

Income Management Programs
States reported spending $31 million on income management programs in FY 2006 using CSBG grant funds.  Services supported include:

• Development of household assets, including savings;
• Assistance with budgeting techniques;
• Consumer credit counseling;
• Business development support;
• Homeownership assistance;
• Energy conservation and energy consumer education programs, including weatherization;
• Tax counseling and tax preparation assistance; and/or
• Assistance for the elderly with claims for medical and other benefits.

Housing Programs
In FY 2006, States reported spending $42 million for CSBG-coordinated housing programs to improve the living environment of low-income individuals and families.  Services supported include:

• Homeownership counseling and loan assistance;
• Affordable housing development and construction;
• Counseling and advocacy about landlord/tenant relations and fair housing concerns;
• Assistance in locating affordable housing and applying for rent subsidies and other housing assistance;
• Transitional shelters and services for the homeless;
• Home repair and rehabilitation services;
• Support for management of group homes; and/or
• Rural housing and infrastructure development.

Emergency Services Programs
In FY 2006, States reported spending $107 million for emergency services to manage many kinds of crises, including:

• Emergency temporary housing;
• Rental or mortgage assistance and intervention with landlords;
• Cash assistance/short term loans;
• Energy crisis assistance and utility shut-off prevention;
• Emergency food, clothing, and furniture;
• Crisis intervention in response to child or spousal abuse;
• Emergency heating system repair;
• Crisis intervention telephone hotlines;
• Linkages with other services and organizations to assemble a combination of short-term resources and longer-term support; and/or
• Natural disaster response and assistance.

Nutrition Programs
In FY 2006, States reported spending $42 million in CSBG funds to support nutrition programs.  Services supported include:

• Organizing and operating food banks;
• Assisting food banks of faith-based and civic organization partners with food supplies and/or management support;
• Counseling regarding family and children’s nutrition and food preparation;
• Distributing surplus United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) commodities and other food supplies;
• Administering the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition program;
• Preparing and delivering meals, especially to the homebound elderly;
• Providing meals in group settings; and/or
• Initiating self-help projects, such as community gardens, community canneries, and food buying groups.

Linkages
In FY 2006, States reported spending $94 million on linkage initiatives.  Linkage programs can involve any or all of a variety of local activities which CSBG supports.  Linkage initiatives include:

• Coordination among programs, facilities, and shared resources through information systems, communications systems, and shared procedures;
• Community needs assessments, followed by community planning, organization, and advocacy to meet these needs;
• Creation of coalitions for community changes, such as reducing crime or partnering businesses with low-income neighborhoods in order to plan long-term development;
• Efforts to establish links between resources, such as transportation and medical care and programs that bring services to the participants, such as mobile clinics or recreational programs, and management of continuum-of-care initiatives;
• The removal of barriers, such as transportation problems, that hinder low-income individuals’ abilities to access their jobs or other necessary activities; and/or
• Support for other groups of low-income community residents who are working for the same goals as the CAA.

Self-Sufficiency Programs
States reported spending $91 million in FY 2006 on self-sufficiency programs.  Self-sufficiency programs offer a continuum of services to assist families in becoming more financially independent.  Services supported include:

• An assessment of the issues facing the family or family members and the resources the family brings to address these issues;
• A written plan for becoming more financially independent and self-supporting; and/or
• Services that are selected to help the participant implement the plan (i.e. clothing, bus passes, emergency food assistance, career counseling, family guidance counseling, referrals to the Social Security Administration for disability benefits, assistance with locating possible jobs, assistance in finding long-term housing, etc.).

Health Programs
In FY 2006, States reported spending $23 million on CSBG-funded health initiatives that are designed to identify and combat a variety of health problems in the community served.  CSBG funds may be used to address gaps in the care and coverage available in the community.  Services supported include:

• Recruitment of uninsured children to a State insurance group or State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP);
• Recruitment of volunteer medical personnel to assist uninsured low-income families;
• Prenatal care, maternal health, and infant health screening;
• Assistance with pharmaceutical donation programs;
• Health-related information for all ages, including Medicare/Medicaid enrollment and claims filing;
• Immunization;
• Periodic screening for serious health problems, such as tuberculosis, breast cancer, HIV infection, and mental health disorders;
• Health screening of all children;
• Treatment for substance abuse;
• Other health services, including dental care, health insurance advocacy, CPR training, and education about wellness, obesity, and first aid; and/or
• Transportation to health care facilities and medical appointments.

Programs for Youth and Seniors
In FY 2006, States and eligible entities reported spending $49 million on programs serving youth, and $56 million on programs serving seniors.  Services noted under these categories were targeted exclusively to children and youth from ages six to 17 or persons over 55 years of age.  Table 2 provides the expenditures made by each State for programs serving youth and seniors.

Youth programs supported include:

• Recreational facilities and programs;
• Educational services;
• Health services and prevention of risky behavior;
• Delinquency prevention; and/or
• Employment and mentoring projects.

Seniors’ programs help seniors to avoid or ameliorate illness or incapacity; address absence of a caretaker or relative; prevent abuse and neglect; and promote wellness.  Services supported include:

• Home-based services, including household or personal care activities that improve or maintain well-being;
• Assistance in locating or obtaining alternative living arrangements;
• In-home emergency services or day care;
• Group meals and recreational activities;
• Special arrangements for transportation and coordination with other resources;
• Case management and family support coordination; and/or
• Home delivery of meals to ensure adequate nutrition.

Table 1:  How CSBG Funds Were Spent

Table 1:  How CSBG Funds Were Spent (continued)

Table 2:  CSBG Funds Spent on Youth and Senior Programs

Definitions of Direct and Administrative Costs Used for the CSBG Program
The CSBG Act requires that HHS detail the CSBG expenditures by grantees on “direct” and “administrative” functions, along with the definitions used by the program of these terms.  OCS offers guidance regarding direct program costs and administrative costs to help ensure consistency among grantees in assigning costs to these categories.  The definitions are:

Direct Program Costs for CSBG Reporting:  Direct program costs can be identified with delivery of a particular project, service, or activity intended to achieve an objective of the grant award.  For the CSBG award, those purposes and eligible activities are specified in the authorizing statute and reflected in the national ROMA performance measures.  Direct program costs are incurred for the service delivery and management components within a particular program or project.  Therefore, direct costs include expenditures on some activities with administrative qualities, including salaries and benefits of program staff and managers, equipment, training, conferences, travel, and contracts, as long as those expenses relate specifically to a particular program or activity, not to the general administration of the organization. 

Administrative Costs for CSBG Reporting:  In the context of CSBG statutory reporting requirements, administrative costs are equivalent to typical indirect costs or overhead.  As distinguished from program administration or management expenditures that qualify as direct costs, administrative costs refer to central executive functions that do not directly support a specific project or service.  Incurred for common objectives that benefit multiple programs administered by the grantee organization or the organization as a whole, administrative costs are not readily assignable to a particular program funding stream.  Rather, administrative costs relate to the general management of the grantee organization, such as strategic direction, Board development, Executive Director functions, accounting, budgeting, personnel, procurement, and legal services.

 Funds Spent on Grants to Local Eligible Entities and Administrative Costs
The CSBG statute requires that 90 percent of State block grant funds be allocated to local eligible entities.  Of the block grant distributions made to eligible entities in FY 2006, States allocated on average 92 percent of Community Services Block Grant funds to local eligible entities.  Table 3 identifies the categories of State expenditures witha breakdown of funds spent on administrative costs.
States may use as much as five percent of their CSBG funds for their administrative costs.  In FY 2006, States used about four percent of their CSBG funds for administrative expenditures.

Funds Spent on Discretionary Projects
Any remaining funds, beyond grant and State administrative costs, may be used at the State’s discretion for programs that help accomplish the statutory purposes of the CSBG.  Discretionary projects can include Statewide capacity building programs, such as programs that address a particular need and involve State-level planning; research; training and technical assistance to local agencies; and competitive or demonstration programs to eliminate one or more causes of poverty.   Funds also may be expended for a broad range of programs run by CAAs and other organizations, such as youth crime prevention, disaster relief, employment training and other programs to address needs identified by State agencies.  In FY 2006, States used about four percent of their CSBG funds for discretionary projects.  

Table 3:  State Uses of FY 2006 CSBG Funds
Uses of Funds	Number of States*	Amount Expended	Percentage of Expenditures
Grants to Local Eligible Entities	52	$559,556,000	92%
State Administrative Costs	52	$25,636,300	4%
Discretionary Projects	48	$26,573,100	4%
Total Used in FY 2006		$611,765,400	100%

Funds Spent on Direct Delivery of Local Services by Eligible Entities
The local agencies that receive CSBG funds via their State categorize their expenditures of CSBG funds according to the statutory list of program purposes:

• Securing and maintaining employment;
• Securing adequate education;
• Improving income management;
• Securing adequate housing;
• Providing emergency services;
• Improving nutrition;
• Creating linkages among anti-poverty initiatives;
• Achieving self-sufficiency; and
• Obtaining health care.

Local agencies in 52 States expended funds totaling $560 million.  Reported spending included 92 percent of the FY 2006 CSBG allocation to the States, State discretionary funds that were channeled directly to the local agencies to provide services, and carryover monies from the FY 2005 CSBG allocation to States where the fiscal cycle differed from that of the Federal government.  Figure 1 identifies the proportion of CSBG local expenditures devoted to these purposes.

Figure 1

Number of Entities Eligible for CSBG Funds
The CSBG statute requires States to provide block grant funds to “eligible entities” that provide services to individuals.  Eligible entities are primarily community-based organizations, of which the majority are Community Action Agencies (CAAs), serving nearly 99 percent of the counties in the nation.  Below, Tables 4 and 5 show a breakdown of the types of eligible entities that served communities with CSBG funds. 

 

*Migrant and/or Seasonal Farmworker Agencies and Local Governments also may be counted in the Community Action Agencies row if they serve both functions.
**Those entities reported as "Other" predominantly represent Tribes and Tribal Organizations.   

Table 5:  Number and Type of Eligible Entities

Number and Demographic Characteristics of Clients Served by the CSBG Program
Eligible entities that received CSBG funds from States reported serving 15.3 million individuals in FY 2006.  These individuals were often members of the same households.  More than half of the CSBG program participant families included children younger than 18 years old.  Just over a third of these families had both parents present.  Single mothers headed most of the families with children receiving CSBG-funded assistance.  Full demographic data for the fiscal year is identified in Tables 7 through 14.

Table 6:  Scope of the FY 2006 Demographic Survey
Number of States Reporting*	52
Number of Eligible Entities Reporting	1,077
Individuals Assisted	15,292,600
Families Assisted	7,043,900

*50 States, DC, Puerto Rico

The State-by-State tables on the following pages identify each State’s report for the National Information System on the number and characteristics of individuals and families served by the Community Services Block Grant program, as required by the CSBG Act.  These data provide information on age, family income, housing status, sources of household income, family structure, education level, and race/ethnicity.

Client Ages (Table 7)
Of the 10,209,041 clients for whom their ages were reported, almost 4 million (39 percent) of individuals who received CSBG assistance were children ages zero to 17.  The second largest group were adults ages 24 to 54, at 3.5 million (35 percent).  Seniors 55 and older were the third largest category, at 1.8 million (18 percent).

Level of Family Income as a Percentage of Federal Poverty Guidelines (Table 8)
Of the 4,304,232 clients for whom data on their family income was reported, 3.1 million (72 percent) of the clients served by the eligible entities of the CSBG network had income levels below the HHS poverty guideline for a family of three, which in FY 2006 was $16,600.   

Housing Status of Families Served (Table 9)
Of the 4,231,091 clients for whom data on their housing status was reported, 2.6 million clients (60 percent) were renters.  A total of 1.2 million clients reported they were homeowners.  Nearly 180,000 clients reported they were homeless. 

Sources of Household Income (Table 10)
Families’ sources of household income could have included no income, TANF, disability insurance (SSI), Social Security, pension, general assistance, unemployment insurance, employment and other sources, employment only, or other sources.  Approximately 1.5 million clients (41 percent) of the 3,672,177 clients for whom sources of household income were reported had a household income generated by employment or employment plus other sources.

Family Structure (Table 11)
Of the 4,271,020 families for whom data was reported regarding family structure, 2.2 million families (52 percent) lived in a family that included children.  Of these families, over 1.3 million (59 percent) were headed by a single, female parent. 

Education Levels of Adult Participants (Table 12)
Of the 4,329,009 clients for whom education level data was reported, almost 1.8 million individuals (41 percent) served did not have a high school diploma.  Over 2.5 million recipients (59 percent) had a high school diploma, GED, or some postsecondary education.  

Ethnicity and Race (Tables 13 and 14)
In FY 2006, the majority of individuals served by the CSBG program were White and not of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.  Of the 8,971,355 individuals for whom ethnicity data was reported, CSBG served 1.7 million Hispanic or Latino clients.  Of the 9,116,397 clients for whom race data was reported, the program served approximately 5.6 million White clients and 2.5 million African American clients.

In FY 2005, the survey was altered to only collect data on ethnicity and certain race categories in order to simplify the data collection process.  However, after one year of collecting data, the CSBG network decided that this new process only complicated their data collection efforts and did not tell the complete story of the individuals and families served.  As a result, the Asian and Native American race categories were added back into the survey in FY 2006.  Due to the timing of this addition, some States and eligible entities were not able to change their forms in time for the report.  Therefore, Table 14 shows that some States did not report information for the Asian and Native American categories.

Comparison of the Planned and Actual Uses of Funds by States

States report in their plans submitted to the Secretary the proportion of their block grants that will be distributed to CAAs in the State to provide services at the local level in any given fiscal year.  States also propose in their plan how much of their block grants will be spent for discretionary projects and administrative expenses.  States must pass through to the local entities at least 90 percent of the block grant, using no more than five percent for the States’ administrative expenses.  

States also provide an accounting of CSBG funds used for administrative expenses by their eligible entities.  The “administrative costs” self-reported to the States by CAAs are based upon the Federal grants management requirements for denoting direct and indirect costs.  Federal accounting systems consider indirect costs for grant program activities, such as transportation, self-sufficiency mentoring, outreach activities for food banks, and housing repair. 

In FY 2006, States reported on their spending plans and actual expenditures.  Actual spending was approximately $611.8 million, four percent less than the $635.3 million planned.

 

Table 15:  CSBG Planned and Actual Expenditures, FY 2006
Uses of Funds	Number of States*	Amount of Expenditures          Planned                 Actual
Grants to Local Eligible Entities	52	$576.9 million	$559.6 million
State Administrative Costs	52	$28.7 million	$25.6 million
Discretionary Projects	46	$29.7 million	$26.6 million
Total		$635.3 million	$611.8 million

*50 States, DC, Puerto Rico

Table 16:  State Planned and Actual Expenditures, FY 2006

Community Services Block Grant Program – Special State

Technical Assistance Grants

Back to Top

Under the CSBG program, funds may be used by the Secretary to assist States in carrying out corrective action activities and to conduct monitoring to correct programmatic deficiencies of eligible entities.  When a State determines that an eligible entity has a deficiency that must be corrected, the CSBG Act mandates that the State offer training and technical assistance, if appropriate, to help correct such a deficiency.  In some instances, the problem to be addressed may be of such a complex or pervasive nature that it cannot be adequately addressed with the resources available to the State agency administering the CSBG program.  In FY 2006, OCS awarded three Special State Technical Assistance grants to support interventions in cases where an eligible entity was in a crisis situation, but had the potential to be stabilized if given decisive technical assistance.  Grants were awarded to:

Grantee:           Georgia Community Action Association, Inc. (GCAA)

                        1000 Main Street

                        Forest Park, GA  30297

The Georgia Community Action Association, Inc. is a non-profit corporation formed to serve as the professional membership organization for 20 Community Action Agencies (CAAs) that serve 159 counties in Georgia.  The GCAA is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of three representatives from each member agency. 

The GCAA helped local CAAs strengthen governance and communication systems.  A formal initiative for building organizational excellence, entitled Professional Accountability and Corporate Excellence (PACE), was supported by the Special State Technical Assistance grant in FY 2006.  The initiative, started in 2005, promotes organizational excellence and accountability in Governance/Leadership, Compliance, Public Communication, and Workforce Environment.  In conjunction with the Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR) and the Community Action Partnership, training was provided, based on a training needs assessment, to help agencies better monitor, evaluate, manage, and improve business practices.  Governance and leadership training covered substantive areas such as Tripartite Board structure, roles and responsibilities, ROMA implementation, standards of excellence, and needs assessments.  Roundtable dialogues, called ROMA Cafés, included public and non-profit CAAs, and the State CSBG Office.  The grant helped sustain the Georgia CSBG network’s focus on its PACE goals through workshop presentations, local agency assessments, and leadership and governance training.  

Grantee:           Massachusetts Association for Community Action, Inc. (MASSCAP)

                        105 Chauncy Street, Suite 301

                        Boston, MA  02111

MASSCAP operates the Northeast Institute for Quality Community Action (NIQCA), which was founded in 2005 by a coalition of New England Community Action Associations to strengthen CAA management practices.  The coalition includes MASSCAP, Connecticut Association for Community Action, Inc., and the Rhode Island Community Action Association.    

In FY 2006, Special State Technical Assistance grant funds were used to sustain and enhance crisis intervention services for 45 CAAs in the three States.  NIQCA developed and provided a range of assessment, training, and consultation services to strengthen governance and management practices.  Discussions were initiated with the New York State Community Action Association concerning expanding NIQCA’s self-assessment and technical assistance services to the New York Association’s 85 member agencies.  NIQCA launched a new website that includes a user-friendly library/clearinghouse to help CAAs strengthen management practices in a quick and cost-effective manner; the website includes a “Planning Toolkit.”  NIQCA also published “The 3 Minute Manager” and “e-tips” on capacity building topics, such as fraud prevention and Tripartite Board composition.  NIQCA provided technical assistance to three CAAs identified as “at-risk;” developed and convened a Managing for Excellence conference; presented “Best Practice” workshops; and worked with the Community Action Program Legal Services, Inc. (CAPLAW) to develop materials and coordinate new board training to promote excellence and prevent crises. 

Grantee:           California/Nevada Community Action Partnership (Cal/Neva)

                        225 30th Street, Suite 200

                        Sacramento, CA  95816

Cal/Neva is a non-profit member association comprised primarily of California and Nevada CAAs and other non-profit organizations that together serve over four million low-income individuals each year.  Cal/Neva supports its membership through capacity building, training and technical assistance, community asset building through a Statewide Earned Income Tax Credit and Individual Development Account project, and education and marketing assistance.   

One Cal/Neva goal is to enhance each member agency’s organizational capacity to administer and deliver quality programs and services to help low-income citizens achieve self-reliance and attain financial self-sufficiency.  With its FY 2006 Special State Technical Assistance grant, Cal/Neva helped local CAAs to conduct strength-based needs assessments and to receive a State-administered training and technical assistance grant to support activities recommended during the assessment process.  Cal/Neva also conducted workshops on its California Model of Training and Technical Assistance during conferences and the First Annual Poverty Summit.  The California model is moving the Cal/Neva CSBG network away from a punitive, marginally effective, risk-based training and technical assistance model to a positive strength-based model.  Training and technical assistance provided under this model has ranged from board member training to specific long-term and short-term interventions.  A Statewide CAA strategic plan that focuses on assistance to CAAs through traditional efforts, including a Business Academy and Leadership Institute, also was developed.

CSBG State Assessments

FY 2006 Appendix A

State Assessments (SAs)

The statute governing the Community Services Block Grant stipulates that the Secretary conduct evaluations in several States each fiscal year regarding the use of funds received under the CSBG Act; compliance with the provisions of the law regarding applications for CSBG funds and public hearings on the proposed use of such funds; and compliance with assurances (1) through (13) in Section 676 of the Act.  In FY 2006, to fulfill this responsibility, the Office of Community Services (OCS) conducted reviews of the use of FY 2005 CSBG funds by the State of Arkansas and the District of Columbia.

Additionally, OCS used its training and technical assistance authority to provide for and focus on leadership and governance, financial management training, and coordination among other Federal funding sources.  The purpose of this effort was to promote the continued focus, effectiveness, and accountability of States and the network of eligible entities.  The overall finding of this effort was that some States reported that they already were working closely with specific agencies in their State to strengthen performance management, administrative standards, financial management obligations, or other State requirements.  The assessments applied to CSBG-funded programs, as well as the overall health of the entire entity.  Because entities make a variety of financial and management decisions each year that may impact multiple funding sources rather than just a single program, it is possible that a CSBG program could experience fiscal problems associated with financial irregularities or disallowed costs uncovered in other Federal or State funding sources.  Thus, collecting information related to State activities that may enable early identification of local agency problem areas and preventive strategies (i.e., board training, program governance, financial management, and fiscal oversight) helped OCS to assure the smooth operation of the CSBG program at the State and local levels.

The following State Assessments (previously known as Program Implementation Assessments) for the State of Arkansas and the District of Columbia include information about the States’ program operations and sub-grantee operations.

State of Arkansas

State Assessment Summary

In August 2006, a State Assessment (SA) was conducted in the State of Arkansas regarding activities implemented with FY 2005 CSBG funds.  A review of the information collected during various interviews and documentation received during and after the review, determined that the State of Arkansas was compliant with the CSBG Act.

Program Operations

Arkansas reported that for FY 2005, 161,000 individuals were served using CSBG funds (NASCSP, 2006).  Sixteen CAAs received CSBG funding to provide an array of services to address local needs in 75 counties throughout the State.  Services include:  housing, energy assistance, nutrition, employment and training, transportation, family development, child care, health care, emergency food and shelter, domestic violence preventions services, money management, and micro-business development.

In accordance with the 2004-2005 Arkansas CSBG State Plan, each eligible entity is required to conduct a community needs assessment of the low-income persons in its area.  The eligible entity is required to hold a hearing to provide the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed use and distribution of CSBG funds based on the results of the needs assessment.  As a result of the hearing, the Board of the eligible entity must adopt a Statement of Purposes and Strategy that indicates the primary poverty problem areas.  The Statement serves as the basis for the service projects proposed by the local eligible entity. 

The following table shows some of the reported characteristics of individuals and families served through CSBG in Arkansas.  The majority of those served was White, high school graduates, single adults, renters, and had incomes between 51 and 75 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines.

CSBG Client Characteristics and Statistics Reported by State, FY 2005
Race/Ethnicity By Number of Persons
Hispanic or Latino	6,729
African American	59,729
White	92,100
Other	8,976
Multi-race	304
Education:  Years of Schooling by Number of Persons
0-8 Years	18,410
9-12 Years, Non-Graduates	15,038
High School Graduate/GED	23,869
12+ Some Postsecondary	5,464
2 or 4 Year College Graduates	2,554
Family Structure
Single Parent Female	19,514
Single Parent Male	2,703
Two Parent Household	13,136
Single Person, No Children	21,192
Two Adults, No Children	10,851
Other	1,429
Family Housing by Number of Families
Own	27,236
Rent	43,750
Homeless	927
Other	7,418
Level of Family Income as a Percentage of Federal Poverty Guidelines by Number of Families
Up to 50%	10,049
51% to 75%	24,869
76% to 100%	17,761
101% to 125%	18,843
126% to 150%	2,464
151% or more	1,931

Back to Top

State officials and CAAs reported the following program activities associated with FY 2005 CSBG funds in Arkansas:

Employment Programs : Arkansas reported spending $715,386 in CSBG funding to support a range of services designed to assist low-income individuals in obtaining and maintaining employment.

Education Programs: Arkansas reported spending $951,318 in CSBG funds to provide education services.

Housing Programs :Arkansas reported spending $703,086 for CSBG-coordinated housing programs to improve the living environments of low-income individuals and families.

Emergency Services Programs :Arkansas reported spending $1,326,623 for emergency services to combat many kinds of crises.

Nutrition Programs :Arkansas reported spending $1,808,588 in CSBG funds to support nutrition programs.Self-Sufficiency Programs :

Arkansas reported spending $232,888 on self-sufficiency programs to assist families in becoming more financially independent.

Health Programs :Arkansas reported spending $1,065,393 on CSBG-funded health initiatives that were designed to identify and combat a variety of health problems in the communities served. Income Management Programs :

Arkansas reported spending $389,098 on income management programs using CSBG grant funds.

Linkages :Arkansas reported spending $545,257 on linkage initiatives to mobilize and coordinate community responses to poverty.

Arkansas has developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Region VI; Arkansas Department of Human Services Head Start Collaboration Project; Arkansas Division of Child Care and Early Childhood Education; Arkansas Office of Community Services; Arkansas Head Start Association; and Arkansas Community Action Agencies Association.  The purpose of the MOU is to foster collaborative strategies that result in improved program performance and better outcomes for children and families by strengthening the working relationship between the Community Action and Head Start networks and among its identified partners.  Head Start provides training and technical assistance (T&TA) to the CAA Head Start programs including:  systems planning, leadership training, and State Quality Approval mentoring.  The most recent systems planning retreat that discussed financial policies for Head Start was conducted in March 2005.  Head Start has 22 grantees in Arkansas, 12 of which are located in CAAs. 

Programs for Youth and Seniors : Arkansas reported spending $865,614 on programs serving seniors, and $390,767 on programs serving youth.  Services noted under these categories were targeted exclusively to children and youth from ages six to 17 or persons over 55 years of age. During the assessment, there were 16 CSBG operating eligible entities in the State of Arkansas.  The State monitors CAAs annually according to an “Agency Well-Being Scale” that addresses financial management, planning and evaluation, program and services, human resources management, community relations, and Board of Directors’ compliance with the CSBG Act.  The following five CAAs were visited:

Central Arkansas Development Council

The Central Arkansas Development Council (CADC) is located in Benton approximately 26 miles southwest of Little Rock.  CADC operates 12 outreach offices located in Clark, Hot Springs, Montgomery, Pike, Lonoke, Pulaski, Calhoun, Columbia, Dallas, Ouachita, Union, and Saline counties.  CADC began serving individuals in Saline and Hot Springs counties in 1966.  In summary, CADC was in compliance with the implementation of the CSBG program both administratively and programmatically.  However, one weakness was noted in that there was a significant amount of funds carried over for the last two years, which also was identified and questioned at the State level.

Community Action Program for Central Arkansas

The Community Action Program for Central Arkansas (CAPCA) is located in Conway, which is 29 miles northwest of Little Rock.  The CAPCA serves three counties:  Cleburne, Faulkner, and White.  A compliance monitoring review was conducted by the State on February 7-8, 2006.  The review indicated CAPCA was in 100 percent compliance.  The on-site review examined three discretionary grants, 70 compliance items, 12 personnel records, as well as conducted three board member interviews. 

Arkansas River Valley Area Council, Inc.

The Arkansas River Valley Area Council (ARVAC) is located approximately 81 miles northwest of Little Rock.  ARVAC became a Community Action Agency in 1964.  ARVAC currently serves nine counties:  Conway, Franklin, Johnson, Logan, Perry, Polk, Pope, Scott, and Yell.  A compliance monitoring review was conducted by the State on January 25-26, 2006.  There were no major negative compliance findings during the monitoring visit.  It was noted that three board members resigned their positions in January due to term limitations.  ARVAC took the necessary steps to fill these vacancies and provided OCS with an updated board roster as confirmation.  

Crowley’s Ridge Development Council, Inc.

The Crowley’s Ridge Development Council, Inc. (CRDC) is located approximately 128 miles northeast of Little Rock.  CRDC’s service area includes nine counties:  Green, Craighead, Poinsett, Jackson, Woodruff, Cross, Crittenden, St. Francis, and Lee.  The Spanish-speaking population has grown enough for the Head Start Program to actively recruit families of this population, hire bilingual staff, and translate program information, such as recruitment and enrollment applications, the parent handbook, and other critical documents, into Spanish. 

CRDC was identified during a Head Start review as being deficient in the areas of fiscal management and program governance.  Since that time, the CRDC fiscal officer retired and a new fiscal officer was hired in March 2006.  Subsequent to his hiring, the State CSBG Program Manager and the State Monitoring Specialist provided training to the fiscal officer, program Executive Director, and other CRDC staff.  This training specifically focused on correctly completing financial and quarterly reports, financial reporting forms, and budget forms; tracking expenditure invoices; and conducting the monitoring, inventory, and procurement processes.  Since then, fiscal records have been monitored on a monthly basis by the State to ensure compliance.

In May 2006, CRDC implemented a new financial system to replace the former system. The old system was more labor intensive and there were difficulties in generating reports.  The new “Fundsware” System is especially designed for CAAs and Arkansas was the first State to install the system.  This system has advanced report writing capabilities, uses Excel to generate reports, and is more cost efficient to operate.  CRDC was in the process of transferring all financial records to the new system at the time of the site visit.  CRDC has not been audited since the new system was implemented.

Mid-Delta Community Services, Inc. 

Mid-Delta Community Services, Inc. (MDCS) is located 112 miles southwest of Little Rock.  MDCS services four counties:  Phillips, Monroe, Prairie, and Lee.  The MDCS administrative office is located in Helena.

MDCS recommended that more local training should be provided, rather than having individuals attend larger conferences at various locations, in order to provide a more hands-on learning experience. 

The Financial Software System (PICK) was designed for MDCS by its Financial Officer.  PICK System operation requires a basic understanding of credit and debits.  Using the PICK System, all transactions must balance before the user is allowed to exit the system.  MDCS’ most recent audit occurred in 2005 after the new system was implemented.  The auditors reported “no matters involving internal control over financial reporting and its operation that are considered to be material weaknesses.”  The most recent monitoring compliance review was conducted September 27-30, 2005.  The State found discrepancies in the number of volunteers, congregate meals, and home delivery meals reported and documented.  The State also found that three of the 12 case management files reviewed from the outreach offices did not contain required documentation of the clients’ long- term and short-term goals and one file did not contain a confidentiality statement.  MDCS’ corrective action included providing appropriate staff training to ensure that client services are effectively and accurately documented.  Further staff training was developed and implemented regarding the accuracy and importance of properly documenting client case management files.  MDCS also developed an in-house monitoring procedure to ensure that all client case management files are in order at all times.

District of Columbia

State Assessment Summary 

In September 2006, a State Assessment (SA) was conducted in the District of Columbia regarding activities conducted with FY 2005 CSBG funds.  Analysis of the information received during interviews and documentation collected during and after the SA shows that the District of Columbia is operating in compliance with the provisions of the CSBG Act.

The District of Columbia CSBG program provides funding, technical assistance, and support to one multi-purpose, District-wide CAA and its delegate agencies.  The CAA provides an array of services according to the Community Action Plan (CAP) formulated to address local needs.  Services may include:  housing, energy assistance, nutrition, employment and training, as well as transportation, family development, child care, health care, emergency food and shelter, domestic violence prevention services, money management, and micro-business development. 

The lead District agency is called the Department of Human Services, Family Services Administration (FSA).  Unique to the District is its practice of designating the required amount of CSBG funds (a minimum of 90 percent) to only one local entity, rather than multiple eligible entities.  The United Planning Organization (UPO) is the District’s designated entity, which is responsible for the local level delivery of CSBG program activities and services through its seven delegate agencies, three neighborhood development centers, six special emphasis programs, and one community-based, Latino initiative.           

Program Operations

The District reported that 76,000 individuals were served using CSBG funds in FY 2005.  UPO and its delegate agencies are operating numerous programs designed to meet the needs identified in their respective service areas.  Because of different local needs, not all delegate agencies provide extensive services in all priority areas.  The following table shows some of the reported characteristics of individuals and families served through CSBG in the District.  The majority of those served was African American, high school graduates, single adults, renters, and had incomes between 51 and 75 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines.  UPO has mobilized and coordinated community resources to integrate new Americans into the local economy.  Supportive services and community outreach projects, provided by UPO, respond to low-income workers’ health care needs.  CSBG family income data was used to estimate the percentage of individuals living in poverty where families were served by UPO and its delegates.

CSBG Client Characteristics and Statistics Reported by DC, FY 2005
Race/Ethnicity By Number of Persons
Hispanic or Latino	3,397
African American	38,352
White	663
Other	3,592
Multi-race	693
Education:  Years of Schooling by Number of Persons
0-8 Years	3,562
9-12 Years, Non-Graduates	8,457
High School Graduate/GED	11,863
12+ Some Postsecondary	2,255
2 or 4 Year College Graduates	1,498
Family Structure
Single Parent Female	5,177
Single Parent Male	812
Two Parent Household	1,502
Single Person, No Children	10,573
Two Adults, No Children	1,047
Other	3,678
Family Housing by Number of Families
Own	1,401
Rent	13,624
Homeless	1,728
Other	6,036
Level of Family Income as a Percentage of Federal Poverty Guidelines by Number of Families
Up to 50%	5,526
51% to 75%	14,211
76% to 100%	961
101% to 125%	702
126% to 150%	355
151% or more	1,034

Back to Top

The FSA requires agencies receiving CSBG funds to prepare and submit to the District an application referred to as a “Community Action Plan.”  The application becomes a grant agreement between FSA and UPO and includes assurances, goals, plans, agency budgets, and procedures for developing and implementing services.  The process requires UPO to submit an application to the District for approval based on:  1) standard forms; 2) Governing Board approval; 3) information based on priority needs; and 4) information about how UPO and its delegate agencies will provide services in their communities.

The District of Columbia officials and UPO reported the following program activities associated with FY 2005 CSBG funds:

Employment Programs

The District reported spending $1,738,089 in CSBG funding to support a range of services designed to assist low-income individuals in obtaining and maintaining employment.

Education Programs

The District reported spending $1,993,794 in CSBG funds to provide education services.

Housing Programs

The District reported spending $450,739 for CSBG-coordinated housing programs to improve the living environments of low-income individuals and families.

Emergency Services Programs

The District reported spending $834,582 for emergency services to combat many kinds of crises.

Nutrition Programs

The District reported spending $1,140,824 in CSBG funds to support nutrition programs. 

Self-Sufficiency Programs

The District reported spending $961,697 on self-sufficiency programs to assist families in becoming more financially independent. 

Health Programs

The District reported spending $616,377 on CSBG-funded health initiatives that were designed to identify and combat a variety of health problems in the community served. 

Income Management Programs

The District reported spending $305,012 on income management programs using CSBG grant funds.

Linkages

The District reported spending $1,869,930 on linkage initiatives to mobilize and coordinate community responses to poverty.

At the local level, the CSBG program is being coordinated with labor programs, transportation programs, educational programs, elderly programs, energy programs, community organizations, private businesses, churches, the United Way, and various youth organizations and programs.  UPO coordinates with other service providers and is a focal point for information on resources in its designated area.  The staff identifies gaps in services and work with other providers to fill those gaps.  UPO has organized meetings and participated in task forces with local service provider groups.

Linkage programs and activities in the District include elderly projects; multiple, area-wide transportation projects for clients and families; food banks; youth summits; fatherhood initiatives; an urban sports initiative; and other projects that involve community-wide participation.  After the various local needs assessments are conducted by UPO, local service providers and citizens of the community develop priorities for delivering appropriate programs and services to meet the identified needs.

Programs for Youth and Seniors

The District reported spending $995,633 on programs serving seniors, and $1,207,926 on programs serving youth.  Services noted under these categories were targeted exclusively to children and youth from ages six to 17 or persons over 55 years of age.

United Planning Organization (UPO)

The United Planning Organization was visited during the assessment.  UPO is governed by a 30-member volunteer Board of Trustees made up of low-income individuals, elected official designees, and representatives of major groups and interests.  UPO’s mission statement indicates it is “responsible for providing leadership, support, and advocacy to advance the welfare of the residents of Washington, D.C. toward self-sufficiency and self-determination.”
 
In cooperation with its delegate agency network, other community businesses, and governmental agencies, UPO plans and implements social service programs to assist community residents.  UPO emphasizes forming partnerships that can assist in reducing theincidence of poverty.  The services provided by UPO, its delegate agencies, and partners to meet this end, are targeted toward:  economic development, employment, education, housing, health and nutrition, self-sufficiency, emergency services, community organization, consumer affairs, and environmental development.

UPO’s citywide service network consists of ten Neighborhood Development Program Centers that provide an array of comprehensive services aimed at helping individuals and families to become self-sufficient.  These centers are located strategically in the poorest neighborhoods of Washington, D.C.  There are 15 programs operating at the neighborhood level, which provide educational and vocational training opportunities for youth; a hotline serving the community and the homeless; transportation support for the homeless population living on the street; and a special community-based initiative with seven programs providing case management and specialized services targeting families.  Of these, ten agencies, including seven selected under a special community-based, Latino initiative, provide routine medical and pre/post natal services; employment services; teen pregnancy prevention; translations; and congregate meals, socialization, and recreation for senior citizens.  A Council of Latino Agencies acts as a voice for the Latino community.  A Third Party Custody Program assists persons awaiting trial or sentencing and offers services to provide immediate and practical assistance to inmates while they are incarcerated and as they prepare for release.  There are several programs that provide transportation for medical services and home-delivered meals, weekend congregate meals, recreation, and socialization for seniors, as well as meals for children in day care.  More than 8,547 elderly and disabled residents received services in FY 2005.  Youth development activities served 2,057 individuals.  Overall, more than 76,000 low-income citizens were served in numerous community-based locations.