CHAPTER 5. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
States are accountable to the Federal Government for providing reports on their activities carried out with SSBG funds so that the extent to which funds are spent in a manner consistent with their intended use may be determined.31This chapter discusses State reports on their intended use of SSBG funds (preexpenditure reports) and how they compare with their postexpenditure reports. In addition, an overview of the evaluation of the SSBG program using the Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART) is provided.
OVERVIEW OF PREEXPENDITURE REPORTS
To receive its Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) allocation, each State is required to develop and submit an annual preexpenditure report that describes how the State plans to administer its SSBG funds for the coming year. Unlike the postexpenditure report, Federal regulations do not require a specific format for the preexpenditure report, and States vary greatly in the information they provide and in the structure of their reports. Section 2004 of the Social Security Act provides the following guidance to States regarding this report:
Prior to expenditure by a State of payments made to it under section 2002 for any fiscal year, the State shall report on the intended use of the payments the State is to receive under this title, including information on the types of activities to be supported and the categories or characteristics of individuals to be served. The report shall be transmitted to the Secretary and made public within the State in such manner as to facilitate comment by any person (including any Federal or other public agency) during development of the report and after its completion. The report shall be revised throughout the year as may be necessary to reflect substantial changes in the activities assisted under this title, and any revision shall be subject to the requirements of the previous sentence.32
Because the preexpenditure report does not have a standard format, States sometimes report on the planned use of SSBG expenditures using the service categories defined in their own States, rather than the standard service categories described in SSBG regulations. For example, a State may list its planned expenditures for "homemaker services" or "home care" rather than for "home-based services." While the crosswalk of the State-defined service names to the 29 SSBG service categories is sometimes clear, this may not always be the case.
COMPARISON OF PREEXPENDITURE AND POSTEXPENDITURE REPORTS
Eighteen States used the same or similar format as the postexpenditure reporting form to report their planned SSBG expenditures and recipients.33An additional 20 States submitted preexpenditure reports in a format that enabled a comparison with their postexpenditure reports regarding planned and implemented services.34The remaining States submitted preexpenditure reports on forms that could not be compared with the postexpenditure reports or the preexpenditure report was not obtained.
Service category data on preexpenditure and postexpenditure reports were compared in the 38 States where comparison was possible. A comparison of the preexpenditure and postexpenditure reports shows that the majority of States spent SSBG funds on the same services on which they initially planned to spend them in the preexpenditure reports. None of the 38 States used in the comparison made significant changes to their planned services, although some States added or subtracted one or two services during the year. Through the data validation process, States indicated that these modifications were largely due to States' responsiveness to the changing needs of their individual States. This comparison indicates that a majority of States are consistent in their planned and actual expenditures. (See appendix H.)
Preexpenditure reports from the States vary in their scope and level of detail, but provide important and useful information on the use of SSBG program funds within each State. Although the reports are not required in a specific format, they provide each State an opportunity to document its planning processes and outline its goals and objectives for SSBG service provision during the coming year. The Office of Community Service (OCS) will continue to work with States to improve their presentation and information in the preexpenditure reports to better meet statutory requirements.
FEDERAL PROGRAM EVALUATION: PART REVIEW
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requires Federal agencies to identify both long-term and annual goals, collect performance data, and justify budget requirements based on these data.35One of the initiatives of President Bush's Management Agenda is budget and performance integration. This initiative builds on the GPRA, and previous efforts to identify program goals and performance measures, and links them to the budget process.36Towards this goal, in 2002 the President initiated an evaluation system for all Federal programs called the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The purpose of the PART system is to determine whether Federal programs achieve their stated program objectives and to make recommendations for improving the performance of the program. More than 1,000 Federal programs are expected to be evaluated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which administers the PART evaluation system.37
The PART tool is a questionnaire that is designed to address all factors that impact and indicate program performance, including: purpose and design, strategic planning, management, and results and accountability. It has four sets of questions that address a different aspect of the evaluation. The first set of questions is aimed at determining whether the program's design and purpose are clear and defensible. The second set of questions identifies the extent to which the annual and long term goals for the program have been developed. The third set of questions rates the agency's management of the program, including financial oversight and program improvement efforts. The last set of questions examines the program's progress in achieving its identified goals. Programs receive a PART rating of Effective, Moderately Effective, Adequate, or Ineffective. In addition, programs that cannot demonstrate they are achieving results, either because they have not yet established adequate performance measures, or do not have supportive performance data, will be given a rating of Results Not Demonstrated.38
The SSBG program underwent its PART review in 2005 and was rated "Results Not Demonstrated." The PART review indicated that the SSBG monitoring structure lacks a national system of performance measures against which program performance can be measured and improvements sought. The program is also challenged by an absence of evaluations of sufficient scope to provide a comprehensive view of the effectiveness of all, or most of, the activities funded by the program.39
As a result of the PART findings, the Department of Health and Human Services is working with OMB to establish long-term and annual performance in a manner that maintains the program's intrinsic flexibility as a block grant. The Office of Community Services will work with the States to implement these measures when they are finalized. It is anticipated that once these measures are implemented, the SSBG will receive an improved rating when the program is reassessed through the PART system.
31 42 U.S.C. 1397e(a) or Section 2006 of the Social Security Act.
32 42 U.S.C. 1397c or Section 2004 of the Social Security Act.
33 These States are: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina.
34 These States are: Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
35 P.L. 103-62.
36 Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. (2002). The President's Management Agenda. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 5, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/mgmt.pdf.
37 FY 2004 Budget Chapter Introduction PART: Rating the Performance of Federal Programs. Retrieved September 22, 2006, from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/pdf/budget/performance.pdf.
38 Ibid.
39 Program Assessment Summary, Social Services Block Grant. Retrieved October 24, 2006, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary.10003503.2005.html.