< Back to Search

Fiscal Year 2007 Community Services Block Grant Program Report to Congress

Published: July 20, 2012
Audience:
Community Services Block Grants (CSBG)
Tags:
authority, eligibility, guidelines, participant, uses

Community Services Block Grant Program
Report to Congress
Fiscal Year 2007

 

Table of Contents

Introduction
Summary of the Planned Uses of Funds by States and Eligible Entities
Description of How Funds Were Spent by States and Eligible Entities
Definitions of Direct and Administrative Costs Used for the CSBG Program
Funds Spent on Grants to Eligible Entities and Administrative Costs
Funds Spent on Discretionary Projects
Funds Spent on Direct Delivery of Local Services by Eligible Entities
Number of Entities Eligible for CSBG Funds
Number and Demographic Characteristics of Clients Served by the CSBG Program
Comparison of the Planned and Actual Uses of Funds by States
CSBG Special State Technical Assistance Grant
Program Integrity Initiatives

Appendix:  CSBG State Assessments, FY 2007

  • State of Florida
  • State of Maryland
  • State of Massachusetts
  • State of Ohio
  • State of West Virginia

Tables and Figure

Table 1:  CSBG Funds Spent on Programs, by Categories
Table 2:  CSBG Funds Spent on Youth and Senior Programs
Table 3:  State Uses of CSBG Funds in FY 2007
Figure 1:  Eligible Entities’ Uses of CSBG Funds in FY 2007
Table 4:  Types of Eligible Entities
Table 5:  Number and Type of Eligible Entities
Table 6:  Scope of the FY 2007 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 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 2007
Table 16:  State-Level Planned and Actual Expenditures, FY 2007

 

Introduction
The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program provides assistance to States and local communities through a network of CSBG eligible entities, the majority of which are Community Action Agencies (CAAs) and other neighborhood-based organizations.  CSBG-funded programs focus on reducing poverty, revitalizing low-income communities, and empowering low-income families and individuals to become fully self-sufficient.  State and local programs funded by CSBG create, coordinate, and deliver a broad array of programs and services to low-income Americans. 

The CSBG program is authorized at Section 674 of the Community Services Block Grant Act of 1981 (CSBG Act), as amended by the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-285).  It is administered by the Office of Community Services (OCS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

This report complies with Sections 678E(b)(2) and 678B(c) of the 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 required for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. 

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

The FY 2007 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, HHS 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 five State CSBG agencies on their uses of CSBG funds.  The results of the State Assessments conducted in the States of Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, and West Virginia are provided in the Appendix of this report.

Specifically, the CSBG Act requires HHS 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;
  • 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).

Summary of the Planned Uses of Funds by States and Eligible Entities
In FY 2007, States planned to use CSBG funds to provide resources for direct delivery of local services to individuals and families participating in eligible entities’ programs.  A comparison of planned and actual uses of funds is provided later in the report.

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 and populations served.  In total, States reported that eligible entities spent about $566 million on direct delivery of local services.  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.

 

Employment Programs

In FY 2007, States reported spending approximately $61 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, résumé 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, 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 2007, States reported spending approximately $66 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 approximately $31 million on income management programs in FY 2007 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 2007, States reported spending approximately $43 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 2007, States reported spending approximately $111 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 2007, States reported spending approximately $38 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 2007, States reported spending approximately $92 million on linkage initiatives.  Linkage programs can involve any or all of a variety of local activities which CSBG supports, including:

  • 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 eligible entity.

Self-Sufficiency Programs

States reported spending approximately $87 million in FY 2007 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 2007, States reported spending approximately $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 screenings;
  • 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.

 

Other Programs

In FY 2007, States reported spending approximately $14 million on CSBG-funded programs that could not be placed in any of the other nine statutory service categories.

Programs for Youth and Seniors

In FY 2007, as part of the aforementioned $566 million spent on direct delivery of local services, States reported spending approximately $61 million on programs serving youth, and approximately $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:  CSBG Funds Spent on Programs, by Categories
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 of these terms used by the program.  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 Results Oriented Management and Accountability (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.

For States where no data is listed, no data was submitted.

Funds Spent on Grants to 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 2007, States allocated on average 92 percent of Community Services Block Grant funds to local eligible entities ($561,437,375).  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 2007, States used about four percent of their CSBG funds for administrative expenditures ($25,565,138).  This expenditure breakdown is the same as reported for FY 2006.

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 eligible entities; 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 eligible entities and other organizations, such as youth crime prevention, disaster relief, employment training, and other programs to address needs identified by State agencies.  In FY 2007, States used almost four percent of their CSBG funds for discretionary projects ($22,585,574), the same as reported for FY 2006.

Table 3:  State Uses of CSBG Funds in FY 2007

Uses of Funds

Number of States*

Amount Expended

Percentage of Expenditures

Grants to Local Eligible Entities

52

$561,437,375***

92.1%

State Administrative Costs

52

  $25,565,138

4.2%

Discretionary Projects

    48**

  $22,585,574

3.7%

Total Used in FY 2007

-

$609,588,087

100%

 

 

* 50 States, DC, and Puerto Rico
** Four States did not reserve any of their CSBG funds for discretionary projects.
*** In addition to the $561,437,375, eligible entities had access to State discretionary funds; therefore, the total expenditures by eligible entities totaled approximately $566 million.

Funds Spent on Direct Delivery of Local Services by Eligible Entities
The eligible entities 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.

In FY 2007, eligible entities in 52 States expended funds totaling $566 million on direct delivery of local services.  The sources of funds included State discretionary funds that were channeled directly to the eligible entities to provide services and carryover monies from the FY 2006 CSBG allocation to States where the fiscal cycle differed from that of the Federal government, in addition to the FY 2007 CSBG allocation.  As previously mentioned, States reported spending 92 percent (approximately $561 million) of their State’s FY 2007 CSBG allocation for grants to local eligible entities.  Figure 1 identifies the proportion of CSBG local expenditures devoted to each program services category.  This proportion breakdown is relatively consistent with the proportions reported by eligible entities in FY 2006.  However, expenditures for employment, education, and emergency services activities increased slightly between FY 2006 and FY 2007, while funding spent on income management, nutrition, linkages, and self-sufficiency activities decreased slightly.

FIGURE 1

ELIGIBLE ENTITIES' USES OF CSBG FUNDS IN FY 2007

 $566 Million in 52 States

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

Table 4:  Types of Eligible Entities

Number

Community Action Agencies

933

Limited Purpose Agencies

25

Migrant and/or Seasonal Farmworker Agencies*

60

Local Government Agencies*

198

Tribal Organizations

22

 

 

*Migrant and/or Seasonal Farmworker Agencies and Local Government Agencies also may be
counted in the Community Action Agencies row if they serve both functions.

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 nearly 16.3 million individuals in FY 2007.  These individuals were often members of the same households.  More than half of the families receiving CSBG-funded assistance 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 2007 Demographic Survey

Number of States Reporting*

52

Number of Eligible Entities Reporting

1,075

Individuals Assisted

16,264,400

Families Assisted

6,455,900

 

 

*50 States, DC, and 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 9,876,367 clients for whom their ages were reported, almost 4 million (38 percent) of the individuals who received CSBG assistance were children ages zero to 17.  The second largest group was adults ages 24 to 54, at almost 3.5 million (35 percent).  Seniors 55 and older were the third largest category, at approximately 1.8 million (18 percent).

Level of Family Income as a Percentage of Federal Poverty Guidelines (Table 8)
Of the 4,266,161 clients for whom data on their family income were reported, over 3 million (72 percent) of the clients served by the eligible entities had income levels at or below 100 percent of the HHS poverty guideline.  In FY 2007, the HHS poverty guideline was $17,170 for a family of three and $20,650 for a family of four. 

Housing Status of Families Served (Table 9)

Of the 4,265,182 clients for whom data on their housing status were reported, over 2.5 million clients (59 percent) were renters.  Approximately 1.2 million clients (28 percent) reported they were homeowners.  More than 190,000 clients (over 4 percent) reported they were homeless.  More than 300,000 clients (7 percent) fell into the “other” category.

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 1.6 million clients (43 percent) of the 3,609,901 clients for whom sources of household income were reported had a household income generated by employment or employment plus other sources.  The next largest income source reported was Social Security, which was received by over 1 million clients (30 percent).

Family Structure (Table 11)

Of the 4,291,969 families for whom data were reported regarding family structure, 2.3 million families (53 percent) lived in a family that included children.  Of these families with children, over 1.3 million (60 percent) were headed by a single, female parent.  Another 1.4 million clients (33 percent) were single with no children.

Education Levels of Adult Participants (Table 12)

Of the 4,348,150 clients for whom education level data were reported, over 1.7 million individuals (40 percent) served did not have a high school diploma.  Almost 1.8 million recipients (44 percent) had a high school diploma or GED.  About 818,000 clients (19 percent) attended some postsecondary education, of which approximately 290,000 completed a two or four year degree.

Ethnicity and Race (Tables 13 and 14)

In FY 2007, the majority of individuals served by the CSBG program were White and not of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity.  Of the 8,994,541 individuals for whom ethnicity data were reported, CSBG served 1.6 million (18 percent) Hispanic or Latino clients.  Of the 9,147,255 clients for whom race data were reported, the program served approximately 5.5 million (60 percent) White clients and 2.4 million (26 percent) African American clients.

In FY 2005, the CSBG Information System survey was altered to collect only 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.  These titles were refined further in FY 2007 so that the “Native American” category became “American Indian and Alaska Native” and another category “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander” was added.  Due to the timing of these changes, 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, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 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 eligible entities 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 eligible entities 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 2007, States reported on their spending plans and actual expenditures.  Actual spending was approximately $609.6 million, about four percent less than the $637.9 million planned. Actual expenditures were lower for all three categories of spending.  In accordance with the provisions of Section 675C(a)(2) of the CSBG Act, the remainder of CSBG funds may be expended in FY 2008.

Table 15:  CSBG Planned and Actual Expenditures, FY 2007

Uses of Funds

Number of States*

Amount of Expenditures***

Planned Actual

Grants to Local Eligible Entities

52

$581.1 million

$561.4 million

State Administrative Costs

52

$29.6 million

$25.6 million

Discretionary Projects

    48**

$27.2 million

$22.6 million

Total

-

$637.9 million

$609.6 million

 

 

* 50 States, DC, Puerto Rico
** Four States did not reserve any of their CSBG funds for discretionary projects.
*** Includes carryover from FY 2006.

Table 16:  State-Level Planned and Actual Expenditures, FY 2007

CSBG Special State Technical Assistance Grant
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, 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 addressed adequately with the resources available to the State agency administering the CSBG program.  To enhance State technical assistance efforts and help avoid the need for eligible entity termination hearings and proceedings, OCS awarded a competitive Special State Technical Assistance grant to support a multi-State intervention project:

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 eligible entities’ management practices.  The coalition includes MASSCAP, Connecticut Association for Community Action, Inc., and the Rhode Island Community Action Association.    

In FY 2007, Special State Technical Assistance funds were used to sustain and enhance crisis intervention services for eligible entities in the three coalition States and in the State of New York.  NIQCA developed and provided a range of assessments, training, and consultation services to strengthen governance and management practices.  NIQCA completed Quality Community Action System (QCAS) self-assessments of more than 22 local eligible entities in the States of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York.  NIQCA provided specialized crisis prevention technical assistance to four eligible entities based on the results of QCAS self-assessments and State Lead Agency referrals.  NIQCA worked with these four eligible entities to coordinate activities and implement customized Corrective Action Plans.  NIQCA provided crisis prevention board member training for two eligible entities and identified two additional eligible entities as potential at-risk agencies in need of intervention services.  Each eligible entity was provided training and technical assistance and helped to develop action plans for improvement. 

NIQCA hosted a New England Professional Development Conference for more than 150 eligible entities’ management staff and supervisors.  The theme of the conference was “Building Skills and Creating Futures.”  It addressed system-wide knowledge and skill set needs identified through the NIQCA QCAS self-assessments.  NIQCA met with the State of Massachusetts CSBG officials to develop a plan to more closely coordinate State and NIQCA monitoring and assessment activities.  It plans to continue discussions with the New York State Community Action Association to extend NIQCA services to its 52 member agencies.  NIQCA completed its Strategic Plan which identifies three-year goals.  It also updated its website to continue to provide eligible entities with “best practice” guidance on topics ranging from governance to finance.  Nine people completed reviewer’s certification training, which resulted in NIQCA having a complement of 38 active peer reviewers.  NIQCA also presented three professional development training workshops during the Tri-State Falmouth Community Action Agency Conference.

Program Integrity Initiatives

In addition to the annual CSBG Program Performance Measurement Report, which includes detailed program data on the use of CSBG funds and evaluations of state compliance, HHS developed new initiatives to improve the integrity of the CSBG program during FY2007.

The House Education and Workforce Committee requested an investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) of Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) monitoring efforts in anticipation of reauthorization of the CSBG statute.  The final GAO report, titled Community Services Block Grant Program: HHS Should Improve Oversight by Focusing Monitoring and Assistance Efforts on Areas of High Risk (GAO 06-627), was issued July 11, 2006.  The report recommended HHS:

  • Conduct a risk-based assessment of State CSBG programs by systematically collecting information.  This information may include monitoring results from other related federal programs obtained through memorandum of understandings;
  • Establish policies and procedures to help ensure that on-site monitoring is focused on States with the highest risk;
  • Issue guidance on State responsibilities to monitor local agencies at least once during each 3-year time period;
  • Establish reporting guidance for training and technical assistance grants that would allow HHS to obtain information on the outcomes of grant-funded activities; and
  • Implement a strategic plan that will focus its training and technical assistance efforts on the areas in which States face the greatest needs.

Based on these recommendations, HHS initiated the first of several initiatives to improve management, accountability and outcomes of State and local agencies in the provision of CSBG services.  During FY 2007, HHS developed three program improvement initiatives designed to strengthen State and local administration of the CSBG program: 1) Financial Management Training and Technical Assistance; 2) Risk-based Monitoring of State CSBG Lead Agencies; and 3) Guidance to States on Statutory Monitoring Responsibilities.

Improved HHS Oversight, Training and Technical Assistance

  • Hired three Federal staff and two contract auditors with expertise in financial management to monitor State programs and provide training and technical assistance (T&TA) to improve State financial oversight of local agencies receiving CSBG funds. 
  • Worked with the Monitoring and Assessment Task Force, a consortium of Federal, State and local officials associated with CSBG programs, to develop a comprehensive strategic plan for providing T&TA to State and local CSBG-funded entities.  The strategic plan focuses on Program Leadership; Program Integrity (administrative and fiscal controls); and Program Accountability (data collection and reporting). 
  • Awarded, and will continue to award, technical assistance (TA) grants to associations with appropriate community services programmatic, administrative and fiscal control experience, to help troubled CSBG grantees improve their allocation and control of funds, oversight of local agencies and compliance with Office of Management and Budget and Internal Revenue Service requirements.

Developed a Risk-Based Triennial Schedule for OCS Monitoring of State Lead Agencies

  • Completed evaluations and issued assessment reports for several States (Arkansas, Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Florida, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Mississippi) since 2006.  Evaluations were conducted using improved assessment methodologies that more thoroughly and clearly examined the administrative, programmatic, and fiscal health of those CSBG programs.
  • Developed a three-year schedule which includes 15 future on-site program and/or fiscal evaluations and 12 “desk reviews” of State programs.
  • Established a methodology that targets monitoring of States using six different types of objective data from Federal, State, and local officials:
    • The Division of State Assistance Agency Status List - Eligible Entities that have been identified by their State as Vulnerable, In Crisis, or Terminated;
    • Distance - the complexity of monitoring compared to the State’s physical size, the total number of eligible entities in the State, and the personnel resources the State allocated to its CSBG program;
    • Poverty - the population living at or below 100% of the poverty level compared to the total number of eligible entities in the State, and the personnel resources the State allocated to CSBG;
    • Client population - the number of people receiving service compared to the total number of eligible entities in the State, and the personnel resources the State allocated to CSBG;
    • Evidence of past problems as reflected by OMB Circular A-133 audit reports; and
    • Timeliness - ranking of States who have been late in the submission of their CSBG State Plans or the National Association for State Community Program’s Information Survey.

Issued Guidance to States on Statutory Monitoring Responsibilities

Issued two Information Memoranda to advise State CSBG authorities of their statutory obligation to monitor local agencies:

  • Encourage States to make special efforts to conduct monitoring and TA among those agencies that are scheduled for initial or follow-up Head Start Program Review Instrument for Systems Monitoring reviews; and
  • Clarify the statutory obligations of State CSBG lead agencies to monitor all local entities receiving CSBG funding within a three-year period. 

HHS is committed to working with States and local agencies in our shared accountability in administering the CSBG program to ensure that these critical resources effectively serve low-income Americans.

 

CSBG State AssessmentsFY 2007
Appendix

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.  This includes 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.  Further, the CSBG statute requires that each State designate a lead agency to administer the CSBG program.  The lead agency provides oversight of local eligible entities that administer programs in the communities. 

In FY 2007, to fulfill its responsibility to conduct evaluations, OCS conducted reviews of the use of FY 2006 CSBG funds by the States of Florida, Massachusetts, and Ohio.  In addition, OCS conducted reviews of the use of FY 2005 CSBG funds by the States of Maryland and West Virginia.  When States conduct monitoring assessments of the eligible entities, they review the latest complete fiscal year of an eligible entities’ performance.  Therefore, depending on when the State conducted the monitoring visit, the review could consist of performance information from 2005 or 2006.

OCS also 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.  OCS found that some States were working closely with specific agencies within 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.  Eligible entities make a variety of financial and management decisions each year that may impact multiple funding sources rather than just a single program.  Therefore, 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.  OCS collected information related to State activities that may enable early identification of local agency problem areas and preventive strategies (i.e., board member training, program governance, financial management, and fiscal oversight).  This helped OCS to assure the smooth operation of the CSBG program at the State and local levels.

The following State Assessments for the States of Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, and West Virginia include information about the States’ program operations and sub-grantee operations.

State of Florida
State Assessment Summary

From July 31 to August 9, 2007, a State Assessment was conducted in the State of Florida regarding activities implemented with FY 2006 CSBG funds.  A review of the information collected during various interviews and documentation received during and after the review determined that the State of Florida was compliant with the CSBG Act.

Program Operations
Florida has designated the Department of Community Affairs (FL DCA) as the lead agency to administer its CSBG program.  The Florida CSBG program provides funding, technical assistance and support to 32 multi-purpose eligible entities serving 64 counties throughout the State.  Each eligible entity provides an array of services according to community action plans formulated to address local needs.  Services may include housing, energy assistance, nutrition, employment and training, transportation, family development, child care, health care, emergency food and shelter, and domestic violence prevention services.  Services also may include money management and micro-business development. 

The largest groups of clients served were African American, high school graduates/GED recipients, single adults, renters, and those with family incomes up to 50 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines.  The following table illustrates the number of reported characteristics of individuals and families served throughout the State.

Client Characteristics and Statistics for the State of Florida

CSBG Client Characteristics and Statistics Reported by State

persons

Hispanic or Latino

37,342

African American

124,123

White

75,213

Other

21,364

Multi-race

975

Education:  Years of Schooling by Number of Persons

PERSONS

0-8 Years

19,857

9-12 Years, Non-Graduates

22,335

High School Graduates/GED

38,506

12+ Some Postsecondary

7,786

2 or 4 Year College Graduates

3,875

Family Structure by Number of Families

PERSONS

Single Parent Female

37,877

Single Parent Male

1,395

Two Parent Household

13,049

Single Person, No Children

20,469

Two Adults, No Children

6,866

Family Housing by Number of Families

PERSONS

Own

17,740

Rent

57,726

Homeless

2,387

Level of Family Income as a Percentage of Federal Poverty Guidelines by Number of Families

PERSONS

Up to 50%

27,593

51% to 75%

24,248

76% to 100%

17,767

101% to 125%

13,565

126% to 150%

6,229

151% or more

3,374

 

 

Uses of CSBG Funds
State officials and eligible entities reported the following program activities associated with FY 2006 CSBG funds:

Employment Programs
Florida reported spending $1,957,145 in CSBG funding to support a range of services designed to assist low-income individuals in obtaining and maintaining employment.

Education Programs
Florida reported spending $2,281,019 in CSBG funds to provide education services.

Housing Programs
Florida reported spending $1,781,396 for CSBG-coordinated housing programs to improve the living environments of low-income individuals and families.

Emergency Services Programs
Florida reported spending $3,306,116 for emergency services to combat many kinds of crises.

Nutrition Programs
Florida reported spending $986,924 in CSBG funds to support nutrition programs.

Self-Sufficiency Programs
Florida reported spending $4,458,602 on self-sufficiency programs to assist families in becoming more financially independent.

Health Programs
Florida reported spending $386,240 on CSBG-funded health initiatives that were designed to identify and combat a variety of health problems in the communities served. 

Income Management Programs
Florida reported spending $665,102 in CSBG funds on income management programs.

Linkages
Florida reported spending $1,662,157 on linkage initiatives to mobilize and coordinate community responses to poverty.

Programs for Youth and Seniors
Florida reported spending $1,606,611 on programs serving seniors, and $1,333,798 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. 

Eligible Entities Monitoring and Assessments
The State is required to perform full onsite monitoring reviews at least once every three years for each eligible entity.  In addition, the State conducts onsite fiscal monitoring of its 32 eligible entities on an annual basis.  The State’s monitoring visits address financial management, planning and evaluation, programs and services, human resource management, community relations, and Board of Directors’ compliance with the CSBG Act.  OCS SA team members visited the following seven eligible entities:

Broward County Community Action Agency
Broward County Community Action Agency (BCCAA) is administered by the Broward County Board of County Commissioners under the Broward County Human Services Department.  BCCAA’s annual 2005 CSBG budget was $1,311,861.  The agency operates a CSBG funded Self-Sufficiency Case Management Program.  This program assists low-income individuals and families in setting goals, learning skills, and accessing services they need to become self-sufficient.  In addition, BCCAA operates the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which makes direct payments to Florida Power and Light for households that have an income below 150 percent of the poverty level. 

According to the State’s FY 2005 monitoring report, BCCAA had four findings and four areas of concern.  The SA team evaluated the finding and concerns and supported the State’s conclusions.  BCCAA encountered numerous challenges during the year which contributed to a number of the findings and concerns.  For example, the agency lost their main office as a result of a hurricane and had to operate from four different sites before establishing a permanent location in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.  The SA team recommended that the State provide further guidance and technical assistance to BCCAA and that an action plan be developed to ensure progress in addressing the findings and concerns.  The State has provided technical assistance and the State and BCCAA have worked in partnership to strengthen BCCAA’s administration of the CSBG program and to ensure BCCAA’s success.   

Capital Area Community Action Agency
The Capital Area Community Action Agency, Inc. (CACAA) was established in 1965 and currently serves seven counties (Leon, Calhoun, Jefferson, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, and Liberty).  CACAA manages a variety of Federal grants to help low-income families overcome crisis needs, and gain skills, confidence, and community support to become self-sufficient.  The agency’s annual operating budget in 2006 was $6.2 million, which included $537,244 of CSBG funds.  In addition to CSBG, the agency administers:  on-the-job training, small business development, individual development accounts, home energy assistance, Project Share, Project Quincy, direct emergency assistance, weatherization, emergency food assistance, emergency shelter, and Head Start.

In the State’s FY 2006 monitoring report, it identified two findings related to the tripartite board requirements for CACAA.  The SA team learned that the agency has difficulty recruiting and retaining low-income representation.  This was partly due to a lack of understanding of the roles and responsibilities of being a board member.  The SA team recommended mini-training opportunities throughout the service area that address board member roles and responsibilities.  The team also recommended that CACAA seek additional technical assistance from the State and other CSBG resources.  The SA team recommended that the agency modify its current property policy to include a property inventory system.

Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners
The Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners administers funding from the CSBG Program, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and other Federal programs specifically tailored to assist low-income residents of Hillsborough County.  Hillsborough County has a population of approximately 999,000 and nearly one-third of its households reported earning less than $25,000.  The agency administers programs that address employment, education, income management, housing, emergency services, nutrition, linkages, self-sufficiency, and health. 

According to the State’s November 2005 monitoring report, a number of findings were identified concerning tripartite board composition and filling vacancies.  The SA team recommended that the State give specific technical assistance to address the findings.  The team also recommended that the State provide training and technical assistance on case management and consistent eligibility determination.  The agency’s financial accounting and management information system was found to be adequate for the accounting, expending, and safeguarding of CSBG funds.

Manatee Opportunity Council
The Manatee Opportunity Council (MOC), located in Bradenton, Florida, was founded in 1968.  The mission of MOC is to “help low-income residents become and remain self-sufficient.”  MOC’s service area for the CSBG program includes Manatee, Hardee, and DeSoto counties.  The agency’s annual CSBG budget is $388,015.  MOC operates 17 programs that address the needs of the community and its client base, including self-sufficiency, energy assistance, homelessness, housing, weatherization, direct care services for seniors, child care, and pre-school.

According to the State’s FY 2006 monitoring report, deficiencies were identified regarding board composition, personnel, eligibility determination, and performance outcomes.  The SA team conducted a review of the concerns and concurs with the State’s assessment of MOC.  The extent of board issues, missing documents, and the need for a standing governance committee suggests that MOC lacks adequate internal controls and should be monitored closely by the State.  The SA team requested that the State submit periodic progress reports to the Office of Community Services.  A review of fiscal records and related operations found the system in place adequate for the accounting, expending, and safeguarding of CSBG funds.

Miami-Dade County Community Action Agency
The Miami-Dade County Community Action Agency (MDCCAA) is located in downtown Miami, Florida, with four satellite offices spread throughout the county.  Established in 1965, MDCCAA provides services that help low-income individuals and families gain self-sufficiency and economic independence.  MDCCAA administers a full range of programs, including single family home rehabilitation, weatherization, rental assistance, energy conservation, hurricane shutters, home energy assistance, family and child empowerment, South Dade Adolescent Success Program, FATHERS Project, Greater Miami Service Corps, community enrichment centers, transportation assistance, self help computer training and employment, Head Start and Early Head Start, Safe Start, services for immigrants, meals for the elderly, Meals on Wheels, and Pine Island After School Program.

According to the State’s FY 2006 monitoring report, problems exist related to board composition and household income documentation.  The SA team recommended that additional board training be conducted.  Also, staff should receive training and technical assistance regarding the appropriateness of completing the intake application thoroughly and accurately.  The SA team examined the financial management system and found that it was adequate, complete, and up-to-date.

Miccosukee Corporation (Miccosukee Tribe of Indians)
The Miccosukee Corporation is a Tribal entity that serves the Miccosukee reservation located in Miami-Dade County.  The corporation has an annual budget of $4,051,227 that includes $120,967 of CSBG funds.  The Miccosukee Corporation provides employment, education, emergency assistance, nutrition, and self-sufficiency assistance. 

The State’s monitoring report for FY 2006 had a number of findings and one concern.  The SA team reviewed the State’s reports, interviewed Miccosukee Corporation staff, and reviewed numerous documents.  The SA team recommended that the Miccosukee Corporation and State work jointly to address tripartite board composition.  The organization should establish goals for Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) and strengthen agency procedures and provide technical assistance on adhering to State CSBG program requirements.  The SA team also recommended that the State make the necessary adjustments to its procedures to help assure that the Miccosukee Corporation receives results of monitoring visits in a timely manner.

Northeast Florida Community Action Agency, Inc.
The Northeast Florida Community Action Agency, Inc. (NFCAA) is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.  It has two outreach offices that annually serve low-income individuals and families in seven counties in Northeast Florida.  The NFCAA provides a broad range of program services, including self-sufficiency, vulnerable population services, home energy assistance, crisis assistance, weather related or supply shortage, emergency food assistance, job training, and employment.

The State conducted a monitoring visit in December 2005.  The SA team interviewed NFCAA officials and reviewed files and records, the State’s monitoring report, the 2006 A-133 Audit, and prior year audit reports.  No audit findings were found related to the CSBG program.  The SA team recommended that the agency request assistance from the State regarding board training and development.

 

State of Maryland
State Assessment Summary

From December 12, 2006 to January 17, 2007, a State Assessment was conducted in Maryland regarding activities implemented with FY 2005 CSBG funds.  The SA team examined program operations, fiscal operations and governance issues of the eligible entities providing CSBG-funded services.  The SA team also explored the State’s oversight procedures for the eligible entities.  A review of the information received indicated that the State has in place administrative, program, and financial systems to oversee CSBG funds.  The SA team determined that there were no major findings and that the State is operating in compliance with the provisions of the CSBG Act. 

Program Operations
Maryland has designated the Department of Housing and Community Development as the lead agency to administer its CSBG program.  The Maryland CSBG program provides funding, technical assistance, and support to a network of 19 community-based eligible entities serving 23 counties throughout the State.  Each eligible entity provides an array of services which may include employment assistance, educational assistance, income management, housing, emergency services, nutrition services, health care, self-sufficiency planning, and other anti-poverty program services. 

The largest groups of clients served were African American, high school graduates/GED recipients, single adults, renters, and those with family incomes up to 50 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines.  The following table illustrates the number of reported characteristics of individuals and families served throughout the State.

Client Characteristics and Statistics for the State of Maryland

CSBG Client Characteristics and Statistics Reported by State

Persons

Hispanic or Latino

91,512

African American

135,713

White

75,577

Other

55,789

Multi-race

709

Education:  Years of Schooling by Number of Persons

PERSONS

0-8 Years

29,877

9-12 Years, Non-Graduates

36,303

High School Graduates/GED

52,268

12+ Some Postsecondary

15,013

2 or 4 Year College Graduates

14,264

Family Structure by Number of Families

PERSONS

Single Parent Female

37,502

Single Parent Male

2,671

Two Parent Household

16,282

Single Person, No Children

34,318

Two Adults, No Children

7,448

Family Housing by Number of Families

PERSONS

Own

21,854

Rent

61,555

Homeless

3,920

Level of Family Income as a Percentage of Federal Poverty Guidelines by Number of Families

PERSONS

Up to 50%

31,219

51% to 75%

19,153

76% to 100%

16,108

101% to 125%

12,847

126% to 150%

10,093

151% or more

11,550

 

 

Uses of CSBG Funds
State officials and eligible entities reported the following program activities associated with FY 2005 CSBG funds:

Employment Programs
Maryland reported spending $412,476 in CSBG funding to support a range of services designed to assist low-income individuals in obtaining and maintaining employment.

Education Programs
Maryland reported spending $590,062 in CSBG funds to provide education services.

Housing Programs
Maryland reported spending $878,659 for CSBG-coordinated housing programs to improve the living environments of low-income individuals and families.

Nutrition Programs
Maryland reported spending $344,052 in CSBG funds to support nutrition programs.

Self-Sufficiency Programs
Maryland reported spending $792,780 on self-sufficiency programs to assist families in becoming more financially independent.

Health Programs
Maryland reported spending $141,850 on CSBG-funded health initiatives that were designed to identify and combat a variety of health problems in the communities served.

Income Management Programs
Maryland reported spending $506,527 on income management programs using CSBG grant funds.

Linkages
Maryland reported spending $3,874,506 on linkage initiatives to mobilize and coordinate community responses to poverty.

Programs for Youth and Seniors
Maryland reported $355,045 on programs serving seniors and $300,159 on programs serving youth.

Eligible Entities Monitoring and Assessments
The State is required to monitor its 19 eligible entities to determine whether they meet performance goals, administrative standards, and financial management standards, as well as other State-defined criteria.  The State of Maryland abides by this requirement and monitors each of its eligible entities once every three years.  The State’s compliance review is an onsite review that focuses on administration, planning, fiscal functions, board governance, agency director’s leadership, and other requirements of the State.  OCS SA team members visited the following three agencies:  

Anne Arundel County Economic Opportunity Committee, Inc.
Anne Arundel County Economic Opportunity Committee, Inc. (AACEOC) serves low-income individuals and families in Anne Arundel County.  The agency is located in Annapolis, Maryland.  AACEOC has an annual budget of $5,817,930 that includes $333,301 in CSBG funds.  AACEOC used CSBG funds to support administrative functions and empowerment services designed to help low-income participants become self-sufficient.  AACEOC’s programs include Head Start, Early Head Start, Annapolis Youth Services Bureau, home energy assistance, housing, senior nutrition, senior employment, and micro-enterprise development.          

The State conducted a monitoring visit in December 2006 and concluded that AACEOC was in compliance with the requirements set forth by the CSBG Act.  While the SA team was onsite, it observed the State’s monitoring process, reviewed files, and tested a sample of transactions from the general ledger.  The SA team also interviewed staff in order to gain a better understanding of internal controls and case management.  The SA team learned about personnel and property management procedures and the implementation of Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA).  No irregularities were found and the SA team agreed with the State’s determination that the agency was in compliance with statutory requirements.   

Neighborhood Service Center, Inc.
Neighborhood Service Center, Inc. (NSC) provides services to address the needs of low-income individuals and families in Talbot County.  NSC has an annual budget of $1,037,826 that includes $243,969 in CSBG funds.  NSC used CSBG funds to provide direct services and administrative support.  NSC programs include home energy assistance, Electric Universal Service Program, emergency food pantry, emergency and transitional housing, after school services, summer youth services, and rental assistance. 

The State conducted a monitoring visit in November 2005 and concluded that NSC was in compliance with the requirements set forth by the CSBG Act.  The SA team reviewed files, interviewed key staff and board members, and examined transactions from the general ledger.  This was done to gain an understanding of NSC’s internal controls, case management, personnel and property management procedures, and the implementation of ROMA.  The SA team recommended improvements for the ROMA data files.  The SA team found no major irregularities and agreed with the State’s determination that NSC was in compliance with statutory requirements. 

Harford Community Action Agency, Inc.
Harford Community Action Agency, Inc. (HCAA) provides services to address the needs of low-income individuals and families in Harford County.  HCAA has an annual budget of $1,500,000 that includes $245,178 in CSBG funds.  HCAA assists low-income residents with payment of utility bills, eviction prevention, emergency food, training, summer meals, and counseling programs.  HCAA has a special outreach program for Harve de Grace, a community in Maryland.

The State conducted a monitoring visit in November 2006 and concluded that HCAA was in compliance with the requirements set forth by the CSBG Act. The SA team met with key agency officials including the board treasurer and HCAA’s audit firm.  At the conclusion of the site visit, the SA team determined that HCAA was operating in compliance with the requirements of the CSBG Act. 

 

State of Massachusetts
State Assessment Summary

From August 13 to August 17, 2007, a State Assessment was conducted in Massachusetts regarding activities implemented with FY 2006 CSBG funds.  A review of the information showed that the State of Massachusetts was in compliance with the provisions of the CSBG Act.

Program Operations
Massachusetts has designated the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) as the lead agency to administer its CSBG program.  In Massachusetts, there are 24 eligible entities serving 14 counties throughout the State.  The State eligible entities operated numerous programs designed to meet the needs in their respective service areas. 

The largest groups of clients served were White, high school graduates/GED recipients, single adults, renters, and those with family incomes up to 50 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines.  The following table illustrates the number of reported characteristics of individuals and families served throughout the State.
 

Client Characteristics and Statistics for the State of Massachusetts

CSBG Client Characteristics and Statistics Reported by State

Persons

Hispanic or Latino

104,204

African American

69,925

White

267,463

Other

64,684

Multi-race

24,799

Education:  Years of Schooling by Number of Persons

PERSONS

0-8 Years

34,313

9-12 Years, Non-Graduates

47,903

High School Graduates/GED

85,478

12+ Some Postsecondary

28,201

2 or 4 Year College Graduates

16,497

Family Structure by Number of Families

PERSONS

Single Parent Female

76,799

Single Parent Male

6,774

Two Parent Household

29,853

Single Person, No Children

71,939

Two Adults, No Children

18,623

Family Housing by Number of Families

PERSONS

Own

53,645

Rent

138,162

Homeless

7,794

Level of Family Income as a Percentage of Federal Poverty Guidelines by Number of Families

PERSONS

Up to 50%

51,776

51% to 75%

29,922

76% to 100%

43,350

101% to 125%

29,494

126% to 150%

23,944

151% or more

44,749

 

 

Uses of CSBG Funds
State officials and eligible entities reported the following program activities associated with FY 2006 CSBG funds:

Employment Programs
Massachusetts reported spending $1,419,517 in CSBG funding to support a range of services designed to assist low-income individuals in obtaining and maintaining employment.

Education Programs
Massachusetts reported spending $2,029,762 in CSBG funds to provide education services.

Housing Programs
Massachusetts reported spending $1,503,518 for CSBG-coordinated housing programs to improve the living environments of low-income individuals and families. 

Emergency Services Programs
Massachusetts reported spending $1,863,696 for emergency services to combat many kinds of crises.

Nutrition Programs
Massachusetts reported spending $992,989 in CSBG funds to support nutrition programs. 

Self-Sufficiency Programs
Massachusetts reported spending $474,660 on self-sufficiency programs to assist families in becoming more financially independent. 

Health Programs
Massachusetts reported spending $510,368 on CSBG-funded health initiatives, designed to identify and combat a variety of health problems in the community served. 

Income Management Programs
Massachusetts reported spending $847,185 on income management programs using CSBG grant funds. 

Linkages
Massachusetts reported spending $4,099,157 on linkage initiatives to mobilize and coordinate community responses to poverty. 

Programs for Youth and Seniors
Massachusetts reported spending $328,190 on programs serving seniors and $1,197,308 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.

Eligible Entities Monitoring and Assessments
The State is required to perform full onsite reviews at least once every three years for each of its 24 eligible entities.  According to information provided to the SA team, the State of Massachusetts monitors each of its eligible entities once every two years.  The State’s monitoring visits focus on board oversight, executive management, fiscal oversight and internal controls, human resource development, program planning and implementation, management information systems, outreach, and other requirements of the State.  OCS SA team members visited the following four eligible entities: 
 
Action for Boston Community Development
Action for Boston Community Development (ABCD) was incorporated in 1962.  ABCD’s mission is “to combat poverty by promoting self-help for low-income people and neighborhoods.”  With an annual budget of approximately $116,725,780, which includes $5,490,768 in CSBG funds, ABCD serves more than 100,000 low-income individuals and families annually.  ABCD provides services in the Greater Boston area through its central office.  ABCD also has a decentralized, neighborhood-based, city-wide network of Area Planning Action Councils (APACs), Neighborhood Service Centers (NSCs), Head Start and Child Care Centers, and many other neighborhood programs.  The agency provides the following programs and services:  emergency assistance; education/work supports; housing; child, youth, and family development; prevention and health care; independent living; asset development; and senior services.  ABCD operates the fully-accredited Urban College of Boston (UCB), a two-year, non-traditional, multicultural college.

According to the State’s monitoring report issued in FY 2007, three non-compliance issues were of concern.  The first concern was the long length of time that ABCD has been using the same audit firm.  Next, the number of board members was cited as being inconsistent with agency by-laws.  Lastly, there was an absence of personnel procedures for hiring, evaluating, suspending, and/or terminating the Executive Director.  In addition, the State recommended that ABCD address accessibility to the agency’s website for the Limited English Proficiency populations. 

The SA team examined areas for compliance with OMB Circulars, audit requirements, and the CSBG Act.  The SA team also evaluated the non-compliance issues and recommendations in the State’s monitoring report.  Documents reviewed included the agency’s human resources policy manual, community action plan, A-133 Audit, CSBG application, ROMA data, budget summaries, needs assessment, personnel files, strategic plan, board meeting minutes, and other CSBG-relevant documents.  The SA team supports the State’s monitoring report.  ABCD is required to provide a corrective action plan to the State that addresses the findings.  The SA team requested that the State submit a copy of the corrective action plan to OCS and demonstrate that ABCD is in compliance with the requirements imposed in the State’s monitoring report. 
 
Community Action Committee of Cape Cod and Islands, Inc.
Community Action Committee of Cape Cod and Islands, Inc. (CACCI) was established in 1965.  CACCI’s mission is to “help empower and improve the lives of low-income residents of Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket counties by providing resources and self-advocacy skills to attain and support self-sufficiency.”  CACCI’s annual budget is approximately $8,425,261, which includes $326,494 in CSBG funds.  CACCI annually serves approximately 8,000 low-income individuals and families living in Massachusetts’ Cape and Islands Senate District.  The agency provides the following programs and services:  asset development; Project HOPE – a public health insurance program; Cape United Elders (CUE); homeless outreach; child care resources; housing services; and shelter services.

The SA team examined areas for compliance with OMB Circulars, audit requirements, and the CSBG Act.  According to the State’s FY 2005 monitoring report, non-compliance issues concerning insufficient board membership and missing client eligibility documentation were identified.  Additionally, the State noted five areas for improvement related to board development, agency website development, personnel annual evaluations, fiscal management, and fiscal policies.  The SA team evaluated the non-compliance issues and recommendations.  Documents reviewed included the agency’s human resources policy manual, Community Action Plan, A-133 Audit, CSBG application, ROMA data, budget summaries, needs assessment, personnel files, strategic plan, board meeting minutes, program brochures, and other CSBG-relevant documents.  The SA team supported the State’s conclusions.  The SA team recommended that the State work with CACCI to ensure proper board composition.  Also, the State should submit documentation to OCS that demonstrates CACCI is in compliance with statutory board requirements or, if necessary, a corrective action plan. 

Community Action! of the Franklin, Hampshire, and North Quabbin Regions
Community Action! of the Franklin, Hampshire, and North Quabbin Regions (Community Action!) was founded in 1965.  Community Action!’s mission is to “help the entire community by promoting economic justice and improving the quality of life for people with lower incomes.”  Its annual budget is over $14 million, including $326,494 in CSBG funds.  Community Action! serves over 243,000 individuals and families in rural towns and cities located in Franklin County, Worcester County, and Hampshire County.  Community Action!’s programs and services include:  parent-child development; home energy assistance; a mediation and training collaborative; youth; community services; Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); child care; and family support. 

The SA team examined areas for compliance with OMB Circulars, audit requirements, and the CSBG Act.  According to the State’s most current monitoring report, one non-compliance issue regarding insufficient documentation to support clients’ eligibility was found.  Additionally, the State identified one area of improvement related to personnel files.  The SA team evaluated the State’s non-compliance finding and recommendations.  Documents reviewed included the agency’s human resources policy manual, Community Action Plan, A-133 Audit, CSBG application, ROMA data, budget summaries, needs assessment, personnel files, strategic plan,
board meeting minutes, program brochures, and other CSBG-relevant documents.  The SA team supported the State’s conclusions and recommendations regarding client eligibility.  The SA team recommended that Community Action! remove personnel evaluations from sealed envelopes to ensure accessibility by the State during monitoring visits.  Also, the SA team recommended that the agency develop and implement procedures that limit access to personnel files. 

South Middlesex Opportunity Council, Inc.
The South Middlesex Opportunity Council, Inc. (SMOC) was incorporated in 1965.  SMO’s mission is “to improve the quality of life of low-income and disadvantaged individuals and families by advocating for their needs and rights; providing services; educating the community; building a community of support; participating in coalitions with other advocates; and searching for new resources and partnerships.”  With an annual budget of $54 million, which includes $285,683 in CSBG funds, SMOC serves individuals and families throughout ten communities in the MetroWest Region of Massachusetts.  SMOC provides services through a four-tier, multi-program, service delivery system.  This service delivery system encompasses community development, behavioral health, family and nutrition, home energy assistance, financial assistance, domestic violence, outpatient services, Head Start, day care, MetroWest Helpline, employment services, a community resources center, family shelters, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and elderly nutrition.  The system also includes South Middlesex Non-Profit Housing Corporation, which addresses issues of affordable housing for low-to-moderate income families. 

The SA team examined areas for compliance with OMB Circulars, audit requirements, and the CSBG Act.  According to the State’s monitoring report, four non-compliance issues were identified:  the Board of Directors’ public sector membership does not comprise one-third of the board composition; submission of board minutes to DHCD is consistently overdue; submission of CSBG-related reports are often late; and SMOC lacks specific written policies concerning warning, suspension, and termination procedures as well as hiring and evaluation processes for the Executive Director.  The State identified the absence of reference to the Pro-Children Act of 1994 in the policies and procedures manual and the lack of access to the SMOC website by the Limited English Proficiency populations as two areas for improvement. 

The SA team evaluated the four non-compliance issues and the two areas for improvement.   The SA team reviewed the agency’s human resources policy manual, Community Action Plan, A-133 Audit, CSBG application, ROMA data, budget summaries, needs assessment, personnel files, strategic plan, board meeting minutes, program brochures, and other CSBG-relevant documents.  The SA team supported the State’s conclusions and determined that the State and SMOC are working together to make sure that SMOC adheres to statutory requirements and other requirements imposed as a result of the State’s monitoring visit.  The SA team requested that the State submit a copy of a corrective action plan to OCS to demonstrate that SMOC will be in compliance with statutory requirements.

 

State of Ohio
State Assessment Summary

From July 9 to July 13, 2007, a State Assessment was conducted in Ohio regarding activities implemented with FY 2006 CSBG funds.  An analysis of the information received during interviews and documentation received during and after the SA indicated that while the State has in place administrative, program, and financial systems to oversee CSBG funds, there were areas where recommendations were offered or resolution was required regarding the implementation and operations of the CSBG Program.  

Program Operations
Ohio has designated the Department of Development as the lead agency to administer its CSBG program.  The Ohio CSBG program provides funding, technical assistance, and support to the 51 eligible entities throughout the State.  The eligible entities are operating numerous programs designed to meet the needs identified in their respective service areas.  Services may include housing, energy assistance, nutrition, employment and training, transportation, family development, child care, health care, emergency food and shelter, domestic violence services, money management, and micro-business development.  The eligible entities also have mobilized and coordinated community resources to integrate immigrants into the local economy.    

The largest groups of clients served were White, high school graduates/GED recipients, single adults, renters, and those with family incomes up to 50 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines.  The following table illustrates the number of reported characteristics of individuals and families served throughout the State.

Client Characteristics and Statistics for the State of Ohio

CSBG Client Characteristics and Statistics Reported by State

Person

Hispanic or Latino

16,127

African American

183,813

White

451,433

Other

16,746

Multi-race

2,140

Education:  Years of Schooling by Number of Persons

PERSONS

0-8 Years

23,579

9-12 Years, Non-Graduates

86,015

High School Graduates/GED

154,896

12+ Some Postsecondary

40,798

2 or 4 Year College Graduates

14,472

Family Structure by Number of Families

PERSONS

Single Parent Female

101,468

Single Parent Male

7,996

Two Parent Household

50,477

Single Person, No Children

78,341

Two Adults, No Children

20,834

Family Housing by Number of Families

PERSONS

Own

79,101

Rent

193,874

Homeless

3,931

Level of Family Income as a Percentage of Federal Poverty Guidelines by Number of Families

PERSONS

Up to 50%

142,612

51% to 75%

46,174

76% to 100%

36,541

101% to 125%

29,555

126% to 150%

19,026

151% or more

15,498

 

 

Uses of CSBG Funds
State officials and eligible entities reported the following program activities associated with FY 2006 CSBG funds:

Employment Programs
Ohio reported spending $1,598,133 in CSBG funding to support a range of services designed to assist low-income individuals in obtaining and maintaining employment.

Education Programs
Ohio reported spending $1,843,169 in CSBG funds to provide education services.

Housing Programs
Ohio reported spending $1,041,532 for CSBG-coordinated housing programs to improve the living environments of low-income individuals and families.

Emergency Services Programs
Ohio reported spending $6,478,741 for emergency services to combat many kinds of crises.

Nutrition Programs
Ohio reported spending $1,748,808 in CSBG funds to support nutrition programs.

Self-Sufficiency Programs
Ohio reported spending $1,830,282 on self-sufficiency programs to assist families in becoming more financially independent.

Health Programs
Ohio reported spending $1,104,769 on CSBG-funded health initiatives that were designed to identify and combat a variety of health problems in the communities served. 

Income Management Programs
Ohio reported spending $1,576,093 on income management programs using CSBG grant funds.

Linkages
Ohio reported spending $2,768,982 on linkage initiatives to mobilize and coordinate community responses to poverty.

Programs for Youth and Seniors
Ohio reported spending $2,583,127 on programs serving seniors and $453,217 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. 

Eligible Entities Monitoring and Assessments
The State is required to perform onsite monitoring reviews of its 51 eligible entities.  This is to determine whether they meet performance goals, administrative standards, and financial managements standards, as well as other State-defined criteria.  The State recently changed its monitoring schedule from once every three years to annually.  The State’s monitoring visits address governance, financial and human resources management, program and service delivery, and community relations.  OCS SA team members visited the following four eligible entities:

Council for Economic Opportunities in Greater Cleveland
The Council for Economic Opportunities in Greater Cleveland (CEOGC) has administered anti-poverty and empowerment programs to the residents of Greater Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, for more than 40 years.  CEOGC’s mission is “to promote economic self-sufficiency among low-income families and individuals of Cuyahoga County.”  The agency’s annual operating budget in 2006 was $78,460,473, which included $3,141,356 in CSBG funds.  CEOGC administers programs that address housing, health, employment, self-sufficiency, counseling, tax preparation, and emergency home energy assistance.  Special services respond to crisis requests for financial assistance to acquire safe, affordable housing and pay emergency costs.  The Sister-Friend program promotes the importance of prenatal medical care, healthy relations, and avoidance of high-risk behavior during pregnancy and well-baby care.  The Work Force Development Program helps residents prepare for employment through activities such as job-readiness training, computer studies, and job search assistance and placement.

Economic Opportunity Planning Association of Greater Toledo, Inc.
The Economic Opportunity Planning Association of Greater Toledo, Inc. (EOPA) is the designated eligible entity for Lucas County.  EOPA’s mission is “to develop and operate programs to advocate for low-income individuals and families to assist them in achieving self-sufficiency.”  The agency’s annual operating budget in 2006 was $15,951,036, which included $1,137,162 in CSBG funds.  EOPA has established partnerships in Lucas County to provide a “one-stop” delivery system in which an individual can receive a vast array of information, services, and referrals.  Services offered include energy assistance, a community resources coordinating project, General Education Development degree, senior services, employment, Head Start, emergency home repair, and individual development savings accounts.

In the State’s FY 2005 monitoring report, a concern was noted about EOPA’s practices pertaining to meeting the Federal in-kind match for some programs (CSBG does not require a match).  Other issues addressed were employee performance evaluations, its strategic plan, and board composition.  The State reviewed EOPA’s written response on January 25, 2006.  The State has provided extensive technical assistance, but with the large amount of debt, lack of leadership, and board issues, the SA team questioned the stability of EOPA.  The SA team required the State to provide OCS with a corrective action plan to address EOPA’s indebtedness.

Knox, Holmes, Coshocton and Ashland Community Action Commission
The Knox, Holmes, Coshocton and Ashland Community Action Commission (Kno-Ho-Co-Ashland) was established in 1965 and serves Knox, Holmes, Coshocton, and Ashland Counties.  The agency’s goal is “to identify and respond to the needs of the community and provide assistance in achieving self-sufficiency, and the reduction or the elimination of poverty in its community.”  The agency’s 2006 operating budget was $8,107,021, which included $307,511 in CSBG funds.  The agency administers programs that address housing, emergency services, emergency shelters, elderly services, dental and health services, and home energy assistance.  The agency also administers a Foster Grandparent Program, Head Start Program, and Retired Senior Volunteer Program. 

A 2007 State monitoring review found that Kno-Ho-Co-Ashland’s mission statement did not commit the agency to promoting self-sufficiency for its customers.  The by-laws did not contain a conflict of interest statement.  The agency’s client appeal procedures needed an updated signature of the board chairman.  At the time of the SA team visit, areas of concern noted by the State were found to be acceptable concerns and in compliance with the grant agreements, laws, and State policies.  The SA team did not note any irregularities.

Pickaway County Community Action Organization
The Pickaway County Community Action Organization (PICCA) provides services to low-income residents of Pickaway County, a rural area with a population of 52,727.  PICCA’s mission is “to be an active agent and partner for change in Pickaway County by providing opportunities which empower people to improve their quality of life.”  PICCA has an annual budget of $4,464,614, which includes $139,037 in CSBG funds.  PICCA offers a range of programs and services, including Head Start, public transportation, home weatherization assistance, home energy assistance, homeless prevention, emergency food and shelter, women and men’s transitional shelters, Youth Build, home repair, and affordable housing.  Through a collaborative partnership involving Head Start, a local faith-based organization, two school districts, and Pickaway Asset Builders Program, a youth mentoring initiative was started.  It pairs middle school and high school students with Head Start children.  

The State conducted a monitoring visit in 2007 and noted concerns about PICCA’s personnel records, by-laws, and board minutes.  The State recommended Pickaway develop a corrective action plan within 30 days.  The plan was submitted in a timely manner and detailed PICCA’s plans to resolve the findings noted by the State.  The State reviewed and accepted PICCA’s plan and relevant supportive documentation.  At the time of the SA team visit, the State was satisfied with PICCA’s corrective actions.  The SA team examined documents such as the human resources policy manual, organizational chart, A-133 Audit, CSBG application, ROMA data, needs assessment, a sample of personnel files, strategic plan, board minutes, and program brochures.  No irregularities were noted by the SA team. 

State of West Virginia
State Assessment Summary

From April 17 to April 27, 2007, a State Assessment was conducted in West Virginia regarding activities implemented with FY 2005 CSBG funds.  A review of the information showed that the State has in place administrative, program, and financial systems to oversee CSBG funds.  The SA team determined that West Virginia was compliant with the CSBG Act.

Program Operations
West Virginia has designated the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity (GOEO) as the lead agency to administer its CSBG program.  The West Virginia CSBG program provides funding, technical assistance, and support to a Statewide network of 16 eligible entities that serve 55 counties.  Each eligible entity provides an array of services according to their local community’s needs.  Services may include housing, employment services, educational assistance, nutrition services, health care assistance, self-sufficiency services, and income management. 

The largest groups of clients served were White, high school graduates/GED recipients, single adults, renters, and those with family incomes up to 50 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines.  The following table illustrates the number of reported characteristics of individuals and families served throughout the State.
 

Client Characteristics and Statistics for the State of West Virginia

CSBG Client Characteristics and Statistics Reported by State

PERSONS

Hispanic or Latino

167

African American

1,521

White

22,628

Other

197

Multi-race

344

Education:  Years of Schooling by Number of Persons

PERSONS

0-8 Years

1,826

9-12 Years, Non-Graduates

4,750

High School Graduates/GED

7,538

12+ Some Postsecondary

1,277

2 or 4 Year College Graduates

893

Family Structure by Number of Families

PERSONS

Single Parent Female

15,473

Single Parent Male

10,118

Two Parent Household

2,976

Single Person, No Children

3,748

Two Adults, No Children

1,566

Family Housing by Number of Families

PERSONS

Own

7,565

Rent

8,237

Homeless

1,272

Level of Family Income as a Percentage of Federal Poverty Guidelines by Number of Families

PERSONS

Up to 50%

11,874

51% to 75%

4,722

76% to 100%

2,989

101% to 125%

1,638

126% to 150%

736

151% or more

1,061

 

 

Uses of CSBG Funds
State officials and eligible entities reported the following program activities associated with FY 2005 CSBG funds:

Employment Programs
West Virginia reported spending $531,004 in CSBG funding to support a range of services designed to assist low-income individuals in obtaining and maintaining employment.

Education Programs
West Virginia reported spending $844,194 in CSBG funds to provide education services.

Housing Programs
West Virginia reported spending $601,721 for CSBG-coordinated housing programs to improve the living environments of low-income individuals and families.

Emergency Services Programs
West Virginia reported spending $1,366,899 for emergency services to combat many kinds of crises.

Nutrition Programs
West Virginia reported spending $671,602 in CSBG funds to support nutrition programs.

Self-Sufficiency Programs
West Virginia reported spending $576,067 on self-sufficiency programs to assist families in becoming more financially independent.

Health Programs
West Virginia reported spending $496,931 on CSBG-funded health initiatives that were designed to identify and combat a variety of health problems in the communities served.

Income Management Programs
West Virginia reported spending $626,557 on income management programs using CSBG grant funds.

Linkages
West Virginia reported spending $674,266 on linkage initiatives to mobilize and coordinate community responses to poverty.

Programs for Youth and Seniors
West Virginia reported spending $682,532 on programs serving seniors and $1,175,193 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.

Eligible Entities Monitoring and Assessments
The State is required to perform monitoring duties in a full onsite review at least once every three years for its 16 eligible entities.  The State monitoring reviews focus on administrative, planning, fiscal functions, governance, agency director’s leadership, and other requirements of the State.  The State has procedures, including monitoring and technical assistance, to help ensure that all eligible entities have systems in place to oversee CSBG services and funds.  OCS SA team members visited the following three eligible entities:

Community Resources, Inc.
Community Resources, Inc., (CRI) was incorporated as a non-profit agency in 1986.  The goal of CRI is “helping the poor obtain basic necessities and developing means of change to those systems which cause poverty.”  The service area of CRI encompasses 11 counties in the northwestern part of the State.  CRI has a $3.5 million annual budget.  The agency provides a wide array of program services, including weatherization, housing, employment and training, crisis intervention, transportation, financial independence, business partnerships, and community investment.
 
According to the State, CRI received a monitoring review in 2006.  During the review, several items were identified as needing corrective action.  The SA team concurred with the five findings from the State’s monitoring report which included:  purchases, bank reconciliations, property management, procurement standards, and indirect costs. These findings are addressed through a corrective action plan.  CRI hired a new Executive Director who is working closely with the State to strengthen CRI’s administrative capacity.  The SA team interviewed CRI staff extensively to determine the level of progress on implementing the corrective action plan.  The SA team concluded that CRI’s leadership is taking an active role to ensure that policies and procedures are updated and utilized in the day-to-day operations of the agency.  The State continues to provide technical assistance and has seen positive changes in CRI’s ability to administer its agency effectively.
 
North Central West Virginia Community Action Association, Inc.
North Central West Virginia Community Action Association, Inc. (NCWVCAA) has provided services to low-income individuals and families through a wide range of services over a nine-county area since 1966.  NCWVCAA, located in Fairmont, West Virginia, covers a service area of 5,849 square miles with an annual budget of $11,394,818.  The agency provides weatherization, HOME Leverage Loans, homeless shelters in three counties, summer feeding, Head Start, Early Head Start, One Stop Career Programs, group work camp, youth opportunity camp, home energy assistance, food pantry, School Day Plus, emergency assistance, a garden program, Earned Income Tax Credit assistance, free tax preparation, and transitional/permanent housing for the homeless.
 
The State’s most current monitoring report had four findings pertaining to monitoring of property and equipment, management, and general expenses.  There were two findings on financial management systems.  NCWVCAA developed and implemented a corrective action plan to address the State’s findings.  The SA team interviewed staff extensively, examined areas for compliance with OMB Circulars, audit requirements, and the CSBG Act.  The SA team concluded that NCWVCAA had improved its overall administration and management abilities and strengthened its ability to administer the CSBG program.  With support from the State, NCWVCAA will continue to be in compliance with the CSBG statute.  The SA team is satisfied with current outcomes and progress. 

P.R.I.D.E. in Logan County, Inc.
P.R.I.D.E. in Logan County, Inc. (P.R.I.D.E.) serves Logan County.  The agency was incorporated in 1964 and has an annual operating budget of approximately $4.4 million.  P.R.I.D.E. administers six programs in addition to CSBG:  1) an aging program, which includes support services, congregate meals and home delivered meals, medication management, national family caregiver support program, a senior health benefits network, and non-emergency medical transportation; 2) the Child and Adult Care Food Program, a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program that provides reimbursement for nutritious meals and training for in-home family day care providers; 3) the Family Resources Network (FRN), a clearinghouse of information to ensure that needy families are aware of the various services available; 4) a Head Start program; 5) a Medicaid Program; and 6) a weatherization program that provides energy saving repairs.

The State’s most recent monitoring review identified concerns about P.R.I.D.E.’s financial policies and procedures not being followed.  Another concern related to the composition of the agency’s tripartite board.  P.R.I.D.E. developed a corrective action plan to address these concerns, which the State approved.  The SA team learned that P.R.I.D.E. had begun following its financial policies and procedures.  The SA team discussed the statutory requirements for tripartite boards with State officials.  The SA team determined that the State and P.R.I.D.E. are collaborating to strengthen P.R.I.D.E.’s capacity in the following areas:  internal controls; audit resolution and corrective action; administrative statutory assurances; and accounting, information, and communication systems.  The SA team also observed that both P.R.I.D.E. and the State showed a willingness to resolve issues quickly.

 
Administration for Children and Families • 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W. • Washington, D.C. 20447