CHAPTER 6. PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
In response to the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) assessment conducted in 2005, the SSBG program is developing strategies to ensure that SSBG funds are spent effectively and efficiently. Toward this goal, the SSBG program conducts an analysis of States’ pre-expenditure and post-expenditure reports to determine the extent to which funds were spent in a manner consistent with their intended use plans (pre-expenditure reports). The SSBG program also has implemented an efficiency measure that is designed to decrease the percentage of SSBG funds identified as “administrative costs” in the post-expenditure reports by States to nine percent or less. This chapter discusses the status of the implementation and outcomes of these strategies.
Overview of Pre-Expenditure Reports
Each State is required to develop and submit an annual pre-expenditure report that describes how the State plans to administer its SSBG funds for the coming year in order to receive its annual SSBG allotment. This report is to be submitted 30 days prior to the start of the fiscal year (June 1 if the State operates on a July-June fiscal year, or September 1 if the State operates on the Federal fiscal year). The intended uses of SSBG funds must be provided—including the types of activities to be supported and the categories and characteristics of individuals to be served. States are required to submit a revised intended use plan if the planned use of SSBG funds changes during the year. [32] Unlike the post-expenditure report, Federal regulations do not require a specific format for the pre-expenditure report, and States’ reports vary greatly in the information provided and in the structure used.
Because the pre-expenditure 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 Pre-Expenditure and Post-Expenditure Reports
Twenty-eight States used a form that is the same or has a similar format as the post-expenditure reporting form to report their planned SSBG expenditures and intended recipients. [33] An additional 14 States submitted pre-expenditure reports in a format that enabled a comparison with their post-expenditure reports regarding planned and implemented services. [34] The remaining 10 States submitted pre-expenditure reports in a format that could not be compared with the post-expenditure reports.
Service category data on pre-expenditure and post-expenditure reports were compared in the 42 States where comparison was possible. A comparison of the pre-expenditure and post-expenditure reports shows that the majority of States spent SSBG funds on the same services for which they initially planned in the pre-expenditure reports. None of the 42 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.)
Pre-expenditure reports from the States vary in their scope and level of detail, but provide important and useful information about the use of SSBG program funds within each State. Although the reports are not required to be submitted 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. Most recently, the Office of Community Services (OCS) sought and received approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for use of the post-expenditure reporting form to estimate expenditures and recipients as part of the required pre-expenditure report. States voluntarily can include this form with the FFY 2009 pre-expenditure report.
OCS will continue to work with States to help them develop a comprehensive pre-expenditure report to allow for a better analysis of the expenditure of funds, provision of services, and intended recipients for such services.
Program Evaluation: Implementing a New Performance Measure to Enhance Efficiency
Under the authority of the President’s Management Agenda, OMB implemented the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The PART 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.
The PART tool has four sets of questions. 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 may 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, may be given a rating of “Results Not Demonstrated.” [35]
In calendar year 2005, OMB conducted a PART review of the SSBG program. The SSBG program received a rating of “Results Not Demonstrated.” The PART review indicated that the SSBG program monitoring structure lacked a national system of performance measures against which program performance can be measured and improvements sought. The review also stated the program is 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. [36]
In response to the PART assessment, OCS has worked with OMB to improve performance management and measurement, including establishing long-term and annual performance measures, to ensure that the SSBG’s funds are spent effectively and efficiently while maintaining the program’s intrinsic flexibility as a block grant. Toward this goal, the SSBG program is implementing an efficiency measure that is designed to decrease the percentage of SSBG funds identified as administrative costs. This measure is discussed in further detail in the next section.
Administrative Costs Efficiency Measure
States may use SSBG funds for administrative costs such as training, licensing activities, and the overhead costs of providing services. States may pay for these administrative functions entirely with SSBG funds or may use a number of funding sources. Some States report administrative costs within each of the 29 service categories while others report them as a separate line item.
A review of expenditure reports conducted by OCS indicated that States may be reporting items in the category of administrative costs that should be reported under a specific SSBG service category. In support of the efforts of the States to report expenditures correctly, OCS has provided technical assistance to States to ensure accurate categorization of service expenditures and reduce administrative costs. OCS also issued an information memorandum (IM) to clarify for States the definition and allowability of “direct” program and “administrative” costs under the SSBG program. [37]
On June 15, 2007, OCS issued an IM to inform States about the new efficiency measure to decrease administrative costs. The new efficiency measure is designed to decrease the percentage of SSBG funds identified as administrative costs in the post-expenditure reports to 9%. The target date for this goal was September 30, 2008. [38] Due to these efforts, States are reporting expenditures more accurately. A majority of States are meeting the 9% accountability measure for administrative costs; 13 States reported administrative costs above 9%. [39] OCS continues to work with the States to meet this efficiency measure.
From 1998 to 2007, there has been a continual decrease in expenditures for administrative costs. Expenditures for administrative costs have declined by 61% in the past 10 years, from $342 million (for 35 States) in 1998 to $134 million (for 36 States) in 2007. (See figure 6–1.)
| Figure 6–1 Administrative Costs, SSBG Expenditures, 1998–2007 (in millions) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Year | SSBG Expenditures | Number of States |
| 1998 | $342 | 35 |
| 1999 | $236 | 41 |
| 2000 | $239 | 42 |
| 2001 | $270 | 44 |
| 2002 | $234 | 42 |
| 2003 | $214 | 45 |
| 2004 | $189 | 42 |
| 2005 | $170 | 41 |
| 2006 | $141 | 41 |
| 2007 | $134 | 32 |
| Note: Appendix F, table F–10, contains supporting data for this figure. | ||
Appendix F, table 10, provides supporting data for administrative costs. During 2007, approximately $134 million of SSBG expenditures supported administrative costs, which was approximately 5% of SSBG funds. Twenty States reported that they did not use any portion of SSBG funds for administrative expenses. In the remaining 32 States, expenditures for administrative costs accounted for 7% of SSBG expenditures.
[32] 42 U.S.C. 1397c.
[33] These States are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah.
[34] These States are: Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Puerto Rico, New Jersey, Washington, and West Virginia.
[35] FY 2004 Budget Chapter Introduction PART: Rating the Performance of Federal Programs. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy04/pdf/budget/performance.pdf.
[36] Program Assessment Summary, Social Services Block Grant. Retrieved October 15, 2008, from, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/summary.10003503.2005.html.
[37] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services. (2007). Transmittal No. 02-2008. Retrieved October 13, 2008 from, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/ssbg/procedures/IM_Administrative.html.
[38] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Community Services. (2007). Transmittal No. 04-2007. Retrieved October 15, 2008 from, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/docs/ssbg_im_04_2008.html.
[39] These States are Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.