Strategic Goal 1 | Strategic Goal 2 | Strategic Goal 3 | Strategic Goal 4

Program Profile and Performance

ACF’s programs are administered in a complex partnership environment in which varying Federal, State, local, non-profit and community-based funding sources and programs develop and carry out programs, deliver services and strive to attain goals. The relationships, funding mechanisms and degrees of autonomy vary from program to program. A primary challenge is for partners to collaborate in crafting effective policies and programs that satisfy mutually agreed-upon objectives.

For the last several years, ACF and its partners have emphasized "focusing on results." Though the broad goals of these diverse jurisdictions and organizations are similar to those of ACF, State and local programs often differ on specific targets and outcomes relevant to the particular needs of specific population groups and communities. In the development of our strategic objectives, annual performance goals, measures and data sources, we have engaged in extensive consultation with our partners and stakeholders, both to learn from their experiences and insights and to gain their collaboration and support towards the achievement of mutually agreed-upon goals and objectives, allowing for maximum flexibility at the local level.

Results-oriented partnership agreements and targets have been negotiated with individual States. In recent years, ACF programs have worked intensively with their partners (e.g. Child Support, Head Start, Refugee Resettlement and Community Services) and have made substantial progress towards a measurable results framework with performance measures and outcomes for operating programs. ACF’s Administration on Developmental Disabilities and child welfare programs has been working with direct partners as well as advocacy groups and national educational/technical assistance organizations. Program-specific activity is underway in other areas (e.g., TANF and youth programs).

In 1997, the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families created agency-wide priorities for welfare reform, child support, child care, infants and toddlers, Head Start, child welfare and increasing our capacity to work with our partners, both in the administration of their own programs and in collaborative efforts to improve on performance goals and objectives. In FY 1998, we addressed four major strategic goals with ten objectives. The performance goals and measures for each of our ten strategic objectives were selected to reflect the mission of HHS and can be related to the HHS Strategic Plan. The successful attainment of these goals requires continued leadership and commitment to an ongoing process of partnering with States and communities to set goals and targets, to measure progress, and to achieve collaboration. For this Overview, select performance measures similar to those that we will use in the future to characterize GPRA activities are shown boxed and in bold italics below the appropriate strategic objective. For those who are interested in additional performance measurement information, or more information about the individual programs that comprise the thirteen major program areas, access Achieving Success on the ACF Internet at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/rptcard.htm.

Strategic Goal 1:
Increase economic independence and productivity for families

1. Increase employment Approach for the Strategic Objective: Increase employment and economicindependence by reducing reliance on public welfare programs, providing job training and encouraging job creation. Focus on the abilities and skills of individuals, enabling them to be more self-sufficient and to pursue jobs in their communities.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

On August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996," or PRWORA, into law—a comprehensive, bipartisan welfare reform plan that dramatically changed the nation's welfare system into one that requires work in exchange for time-limited assistance. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program replaced the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) programs, ending the Federal entitlement to assistance. In TANF, States and territories operate programs, and Tribes have the option to run their own programs. States, territories, and Tribes each receive a block grant allocation with a requirement on States to maintain an historical level of State spending known as maintenance of effort.

The total Federal block grant is $16.8 billion each year until fiscal year (FY) 2002. The block grant covers benefits, administrative expenses, and services. States may use TANF funding in any manner "reasonably calculated to accomplish the purposes of TANF." These purposes are: to provide assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes; to reduce dependency by promoting job preparation, work and marriage; to prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

A concerted effort also is underway to find jobs within HHS for welfare recipients and to challenge other agencies and the private sector to hire welfare recipients. Partnerships are being forged with health care providers and others to develop job opportunities. Attention will also be given to removing barriers to work for welfare recipients who are victims of domestic violence, have developmental disabilities, or have serious personal or family problems which interfere with their ability to work.

Economic independence and productivity of families is a key strategic goal that Congress wanted to achieve in the creation of TANF. Beyond providing States with flexibility in program design and funding, Congress established work participation performance standards and created a High Performance Bonus (HPB) incentive system to facilitate the achievement of this goal. ACF has consulted extensively with States and other customers/partners for the purpose of developing regulations on work participation standards, the HPB, and the TANF data collection system. TANF final rules on the work participation standards, data collection, and other accountability measures are scheduled for publication in spring 1999. A final rule on the HPB incentives is scheduled for publication in the fall 1999. We will issue high performance bonuses for FY 1999 based on interim guidance.

With the primary responsibility for welfare reform now lodged in the States, and in a number of cases in counties and cities, ACF’s ability to unilaterally affect goal achievement is limited. ACF will work in partnership with State and local governments toward achieving the goal.

In addition to TANF, HHS will be coordinating its efforts with other complementary Federal and national efforts. For example, HHS has been working cooperatively with the Department of Labor (DOL) on DOL’s Welfare to Work initiative. DOL will award grants totaling $3 billion to State and local entities in FYs 1998 and 1999. At least 70 percent of the funds must be targeted to the hardest-to-serve caseloads. Up to 30 percent of the Welfare to Work funds may be spent on persons at high risk for long-term dependency. Funds may be used for job creation, wage subsidies, on-the-job training, and employment support and follow-up.

In addition, the Vice President has announced a job retention initiative and is overseeing the Federal government's efforts to hire welfare recipients. Related to these is ACF’s goal (under the National Performance Review’s "High Impact Agency" initiative): Increase self-sufficiency for low-income families by moving one million welfare recipients into new employment by 2000.

DATA SOURCES, VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION

Currently, there are two possible data sources for measuring the proposed performance targets: administrative data or State Unemployment Insurance. The statute directs the Secretary to collect aggregated data (caseload summaries) and disaggregated data (by individual and family) on the TANF program quarterly. ACF has three concerns about the use of TANF administrative data. The first is the availability of FY 1998 baseline data since States are required to phase-in the collection of TANF data based on when the State submitted a complete TANF State Plan (up to six months delay). The second is the relative consistency and validity of data during the implementation period. ACF anticipates that the information that States submit will not generally be verified before it is submitted. Further, ACF may not have the resources to systematically verify the information once it is submitted. Finally, TANF administrative data are not available for individuals no longer receiving TANF.

ACF is also currently pilot-testing with a number of States the use of State Unemployment Insurance (UI) records as a source of data for the HPB work measures. This data source could also be used for measuring work-related performance targets. Work participation data would be obtained via the quarterly TANF data reports. The use of UI records may be a better approach to the problems of the data availability, consistency, and validity concerns associated with use of State TANF administrative records. UI records represent an existing data system of employment and earnings information that could be used to track individuals independent of whether they receive TANF assistance. The approach would be to computer match the TANF caseload with the UI records. Issues of population coverage, timing, and availability are being explored. UI data are sufficiently validated and probably no additional work will be needed. States' administrative data, derived from TANF administrative records, may require validation or may be sufficiently reliable to measure outcomes. The timeframe for developing and implementing a data system depends directly upon the source of data that will be used. A data collection system already exists for Unemployment Insurance. The first match with that system could take place in 1999. The HPB guidance provides flexibility to the States in the sources of data for the first year. If performance is measured using States' own administrative data, the development of a data collection system may take longer.

Developmental Disabilities

The employment goal is: "Increase entry into and retention of employment for people with developmental disabilities consistent with their interests, abilities, and needs." This goal includes the following outcomes: "Students with developmental disabilities have vocational supports while in school and on the job, receive assistance in identifying and planning careers, and have access to employment and other work experiences including post-secondary opportunities that accommodate students with disabilities. Adults with developmental disabilities have job choices and career opportunities that are integrated, accessible, equitable, and supported. Employers are well informed of the capabilities of individuals with disabilities and about support practices and accommodations."

During FY 1998, targets for FYs 1999 and 2000 were developed through the consensus process. To achieve desired outcomes and meet the Roadmap goals, DD programs and ACF will use approaches consistent with their complementary missions. Therefore, Developmental Disabilities Councils (DDCs) that assist in the development of comprehensive and coordinated service delivery systems through systemic change, capacity building, and advocacy activities, will employ in their State Plans strategies that include demonstration of new approaches, outreach training, public education, and informing policy makers. Protection and Advocacy (P&As) will use strategies that protect the human and legal rights of individuals with developmental disabilities. These include legal, administrative, and other remedies, information and referral, investigating incidents of abuse and neglect, educating policy makers, etc. University Affiliated Programs (UAPs) will provide interdisciplinary training for professional and direct care personnel, community services, technical assistance, and will disseminate information and research findings. The PNS program provides ACF with the opportunity to focus funds on emerging areas of concern for individuals with developmental disabilities, their families, the DD program components, and other interested public and private non-profit entities.

DATA SOURCES, VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION

The reporting of program specific outcome measures is being integrated into and becoming the focus of the annual Program Performance Report (PPR). This is not expected to add significantly to the reporting burden, and with PPR streamlining and automation of reporting, total burden should actually decline over a period of time. Verification and validation of data will occur through ongoing review and analysis of annual electronic reports, technical assistance site visits, and input from individuals with developmental disabilities and their families and other partners.

REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT

ACF provides assistance and services to persons admitted to the United States as refugees, asylees, Cuban or Haitian entrants and Amerasian immigrants. The major program goals are to provide resources and technical assistance to States and other grantees in order to help refugees achieve economic self-sufficiency and social adjustment within the shortest time possible following their arrival in the U.S.

ACF has developed outcome measures and established annual performance outcome goals (targets) on each of six refugee program performance measures in partnership with States participating in the State-administered program of refugee resettlement. The outcome measures are aimed at increasing refugee early employment and self-sufficiency. States are required to make every effort to improve their outcomes each year over the previous year's performance. The outcome measures were jointly developed by a workgroup comprised of State Refugee Coordinators and ACF in November 1994.

DATA VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION

Desk monitoring and tracking of quarterly performance report data occur quarterly in the State-administered program and three times per year in the Matching Grant program. Data are validated by periodic on-site monitoring.

Social Services Block Grant

The Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) provides funding to States for a broad array of services. The SSBG is based on two fundamental principles: 1) State and local governments and communities are best able to determine the needs of individuals to help them achieve self- sufficiency; and 2) social and economic needs are interrelated and must be met simultaneously.

SSBG funds are used for direct services and also help States improve and integrate services, create community-based partnerships, and stimulate innovations. In effect, they help hold the human services delivery system together. SSBG Grants are made directly to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to fund social services tailored to meet the needs of individuals and families residing within that jurisdiction. Grants are determined by a statutory formula based on each State's population. States are fully responsible for determining the use of their funds.

Due to the nature of the program, SSBG has minimal reporting requirements, and there is very little national data (aside from financial records). However, SSBG funds support outcomes across the human services spectrum and these outcomes will be associated with objectives and targets in future ACF GPRA Performance Plans. A block grant by definition frees its recipients, in this case, States, to invest the funds flexibly and generally carries limited oversight and reporting requirements. ACF is not pushing for outcome measures and performance targets that are specifically SSBG-related.

DATA SOURCES AND ISSUES

Because the SSBG program varies from State to State in terms of administration and social services offered, it is difficult to design a common assessment format for the program. In an attempt to assess the nationwide impact of the SSBG, ACF and the Congressional Research Service (CRS) have developed a database compiled from State post expenditure reports. In addition, a contractor is currently validating the data and identifying areas where data reporting could be improved. We intend to complete the analysis of data from 1995 to 1997 in the near future, and we anticipate annual publication for subsequent data years on the Internet.

 

2. Increase independent living Approach for the Strategic Objective: Empower individuals with developmental disabilities to move into their own homes, increasing their personal control and participation in their community. (Note: objective 2 does not refer to the "Independent Living Program" for youth aging out of foster care, which is discussed under objective 7.)

Developmental Disabilities

The housing goal is: "Increase the opportunities of adults with developmental disabilities to choose where and with whom they live and to have the services they need to support these choices." This goal includes the following outcomes: "Individuals with developmental disabilities have opportunities and information needed to make choices about where to live. People with developmental disabilities have the ability to own their own homes. Living in the community is affordable, accessible, and equitable."

(See information on DD partnership process, performance goals, data, and resources under Strategic Objective 1, above.)

 

3. Increase parental responsibility Approach for the Strategic Objective: Establish paternities for children born out-of-wedlock and ensure that parents support their children.

Parents have a responsibility to support their children, financially, emotionally, and socially. In the case of single-parent families, financial support from noncustodial parents is essential to the economic security of the child and of its custodial parent. If every parent paid the child support he or she legally owes, fewer children would be living in poverty and fewer families would need welfare. Emotional and social support is equally essential to the child’s sound growth and development. To address these issues, ACF is committed to working with States to aggressively enforce payment of legally owed child support, to establish paternities, and to promote the involvement of noncustodial fathers in their children’s lives.

While preliminary FY 1998 data shows that collections may be slightly below the goal, OCSE attributes this to a lag in the collections increases that are expected from the implementation of the critical new enforcement tools, including the National New Hire Directory. OCSE still expects future goals to be met.

The mission of ACF’s Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program is to assure that assistance in obtaining support is available to children by locating parents, establishing paternity and support obligations, and modifying and enforcing those obligations. The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) works in cooperation with State agencies to achieve these goals. The CSE Program is federally funded, i.e., the Federal government pays 66% of State administrative costs, 90% of paternity laboratory costs, (after FY 1999 and subject to a cap and other limitations) 80% of approved automation costs, and provides additional incentive payments to States, but it is administered by State and local governments. The Federal role is to provide direction, guidance technical assistance, oversight, and some services to States' CSE Programs for activities mandated under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Title IV-D requires States to develop programs for establishing and enforcing support obligations by locating parents, establishing paternity when necessary, and obtaining child support.

Welfare Reform: PRWORA is having a dramatic impact on the child support program. The new law added major new responsibilities to both State and Federal partners in the program. Both State and Federal staff are handling an increased workload in order to implement the provisions of the new law.

OCSE and its State partners have achieved much success in orienting the child support program toward results and implementing the GPRA Act of 1993. The development of a consensus national strategic plan, outcome measures and a performance-based incentive funding formula occurred simultaneously with the lengthy period of drafting, passage, enactment and now implementation of welfare reform. States are beginning to report data for GPRA performance plans in FY ’99.

Incentive funding: The CSE program includes an incentive funding scheme with a formula based in statute. The current incentive funding scheme, which pays rewards to States based on cost effectiveness, will remain in effect until FY 2000, when the new system is phased in from FYs 2000-2002. With the enactment of PRWORA, the Secretary of Health and Human Services was required to develop a revenue-neutral, performance-based incentive funding formula in consultation with States. The Secretary’s Report to Congress, which included the recommendations of a State/Federal workgroup, includes performance measures, standards and a funding formula that is revenue neutral and performance-based. The workgroup’s recommendations have broad consensus among State partners and were shared with important program stakeholders.

The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 was enacted July 1998 and mirrors many of the recommendations contained in the Secretary’s Report to Congress. In order to implement the new incentive system, OCSE has been providing training to States on the incentive measures, the formula for calculating payments and revised data reporting. OCSE’s auditors are also preparing for the important role of assessing the validity of state-reported data.

Performance measures for incentive funding: CSE’s Incentive Funding Workgroup selected five key measures of performance which gauge success in achieving the goals and objectives in the strategic plan:

ACF will aggressively implement the new child support provisions of PRWORA through technical assistance, tracking parents, and helping collect ordered support payments. This strategy will be achieved through a variety of means, including implementing Federal policy, technical assistance, training, information dissemination, a more performance-based incentive funding structure, and Federal oversight and assistance with State-based quality assurance.

The achievement of the performance targets will be significantly affected by many external factors. The impact of State decisions with respect to TANF program policy and numerous aspects of welfare reform, the health of the economy, wage and unemployment rates and demographic and social trends such as divorce and nonmarital birth rates can interact with the CSE program in ways that help or hinder achievement of performance goals. These and other external factors impact on State agency caseloads, paternity establishment workloads, and ability to collect support payments.

States are at different points in the development of enforcement systems and infrastructure. Through its considerable national and regional technical assistance initiatives, many of which incorporate State self-assessment and peer technology transfers, ACF is customizing its efforts to individual State needs. Additionally, the new incentive system based on performance will add impetus to those States that may need to assign a higher priority to their child support programs.

DATA VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION

States will be reporting all the required data for the incentive system beginning in FY 1999. Some States will continue to maintain this data manually, while an increasing number of States will use an automated system. All States were required to have a comprehensive, statewide, automated CSE system in place by October 1, 1997. Implementation of these systems, in conjunction with clean up of case data, will improve the accuracy and consistency of reporting. As part of OCSE’s certification of automated systems, their ability to produce valid data will be reviewed. Self-evaluation by States and OCSE audits will provide an ongoing review of the validity of data input and the ability of automated systems to produce accurate data.

Child Care: AFFORDABILITY

The PRWORA established the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) to provide assistance to working low-income families to achieve and maintain economic self-sufficiency. The major change in Federal child care is the requirement for States to serve families through a single, integrated child care system. Three Title IV-A child care programs--Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) including Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program, Transitional Child Care (TCC), and At-Risk Child Care (ARCC)--were repealed and replaced by new funding under Section 418 of the Social Security Act. All child care funding is now administered under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) Act rules.

Access to good, affordable child care is critical to the achievement of self-sufficiency by welfare clients. Child care subsidies also help the working poor remain self-sufficient. ACF will continue to promote expansion of child care services as a key element in its strategy for helping families achieve economic independence. Doing so will involve working with our partners to increase the supply of child care, to develop measures of child care quality, and to provide information to help parents make sound choices about child care. ACF also will support the development of models to help establish the conditions for child care subsidies, and to test the effects of variations in child care subsidies on labor force attachment.

In addition, partnerships between Head Start programs and child care providers are integral to serving the full-day needs of low-income working parents. As Head Start expands, ACF will encourage collaboration between Head Start programs and child care providers to this end.

ACF is currently in the process of developing child care performance goals and performance outcome, output, and process measures. At this time, ACF is not providing target percentage increases for most child care measures because baseline data are not yet available for recently consolidated grant programs, which were previously separate.

DATA VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION

The Federal Child Care Information System (FCCIS) collects all aggregate and case-level data required in the statute for the CCDF program. Aggregate state-level data is submitted via the Internet and stored in a database in the Child Care Bureau. All data that is received by the FCCIS will be stored in a national data set. Data standards have been set and training and technical assistance have been provided to all States and territories regarding reporting requirements and submission procedures.

The FCCIS will collect two sets of child care data: State-level data and case-level data, from the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Territories of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Guam, and the Virgin Islands. States are responsible for compiling this information at the State level (for the majority of States this is done through an automated child care information system) and transmitting it electronically to the FCCIS.

Strategic Goal 2:

Improve healthy development, safety and well-being of children and youth

5. Increase the quality of child care to promote childhood development Approach for the Strategic Objective: Provide high quality early childhood programs, such as Head Start or accredited child care programs, so that early childhood experiences enhance children's development and school readiness.

Child Care: QUALITY

In our efforts to break the cycle of poverty and dependency, it is essential to focus both on parents and the upcoming generation. Parents are more likely to succeed in employment and self-sufficiency if they have confidence in their child care arrangements. Beyond issues of health and safety, child care impacts the cognitive, emotional, and social development of children. Research has begun to document the most important early influences on children’s development and factors, which contribute to the quality of early child care.

ACF works with State administrators, professional groups, service providers, and others to identify elements of quality and appropriate measures; to inform States, professional organizations, and parents about what constitutes quality in child care; to influence the training of child care workers and accreditation; to improve linkages with health care services and with Head Start, and to otherwise take steps to improve the quality of child care nationally.

Infants and toddlers have been specifically designated by the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families as a priority for attention by all ACF programs. Close cooperation with Early Head Start is underway to address these populations.

HEAD START

Head Start is a national program which provides comprehensive developmental services for America's low-income, pre-school children ages three to five and social services for their families. Approximately 1,500 community-based non-profit and for profit organizations and school systems develop unique and innovative programs to meet specific needs. Head Start provides diverse services to meet the goals of three major content areas: early childhood development and health services; family and community partnerships; and program design and management.

Grants are awarded to local public agencies or private non-profit and for profit agencies. The community must contribute twenty percent of the total cost of a Head Start program. Head Start programs operate in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories.

The 1994 Head Start Reauthorization established a new program, Early Head Start, for low-income pregnant women and families with infants and toddlers. The program was designed with the advice of the Advisory Committee on Services to Families with Infants and Toddlers, which was established by the Secretary of HHS. The program focuses on four cornerstones essential to quality programs: child development, family development, community building, and staff development. The program is accompanied by a major research effort to identify, develop, and apply measures of quality and outcomes for children and families.

The Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) is a longitudinal study of a nationally-representative sample of 3200 children and families in 40 Head Start programs. OMB approval was granted in July 1997, following a field test of 2400 children in Spring 1997. Full implementation began in fall 1997 and will include assessment of the same children both before and after their Head Start experience as well as after a year of kindergarten. Data sources include parent interviews, staff interviews, teacher questionnaires, classroom observations, and direct child assessments.

Most of the Head Start program's appropriation funds local Head Start projects. The remainder is used for: training and technical assistance to assist local projects in meeting the Head Start program performance standards and in maintaining and improving the quality of local programs; research, demonstration, and evaluation activities to test innovative program models and to assess program effectiveness; and required monitoring activities. The three program goals are: enhance children's growth and development; strengthen families; and children receive educational services.

DATA VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION

For performance measures which are supported, in part, by the Head Start Program Information Report, automated edit checks of most fields are used to ensure accuracy. These data are collected at all sites and there is an annual 100 percent response rate. Data collection for the Child and Family Experiences Survey (FACES) includes carefully defined collection procedures and methods for maximizing response rates. The methodology includes employing probability proportional size procedures for selection of data collection sites and the use of a central study processing point for data cleansing, entry and verification. These procedures are specifically noted in Head Start's OMB-approved study design.

The Head Start Monitoring and Tracking System is based upon and validated by independent contract program reviewers who record grantees’ level of compliance with performance standards.

 

6. Improve the health status of children Approach for the Strategic Objective: For children enrolled in Head Start, provide access to regular medical and dental examinations, immunizations and required medical and dental treatments.

HEAD START: HEALTH STATUS& #9;

& #9;& #9;& #9;

Head Start emphasizes the importance of the early identification of health problems. Every child is involved in a comprehensive health program, which includes immunizations, medical, dental, and mental health, and nutritional services. The program goal is: children in Head Start (HS) receive health and nutritional services.

(See the previous Head Start section under Objective 5 for information about the program and coverage of coordination, data and other issues.

7. Increase safety, permanency, and well-being of children and youth Approach for the Strategic Objective: Help children and youth while they are living with their own families, when appropriate. When necessary place children and youth in stable, family-like settings consistent with the needs of each child or youth. Support children and youth with developmental disabilities in individual and small group dwellings that will include them in community life.

Child Welfare

ACF funds a number of programs that focus on preventing maltreatment of children in troubled families, protecting children from abuse, and finding permanent placements for those who cannot safely return to their homes. Programs such as Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living provide stable environments for those children who cannot remain safely in their homes, assuring the child's safety and well-being while their parents attempt to resolve the problems that led to the out-of-home placement. When the family cannot be reunified, foster care provides a stable environment until the child can be placed permanently with an adoptive family. Adoption Assistance funds are available for a one-time payment for the costs of adopting a child as well as for monthly subsidies to adoptive families for care of the child.

In 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (PL 105-89). Among other provisions designed to improve the child welfare system and protect children, it directs the Secretary of HHS to consult with governors, State legislatures, and State and local public officials responsible for administering child welfare programs and develop a set of outcome measures that can be used to assess the performance of States in operating child protection and child welfare programs. The Secretary must also, in consultation with State and local public officials and child welfare advocates, study, develop, and recommend to Congress an Adoption Incentive System to provide payments to any State based on the State's performance under such a system. This new program is the first of its kind in child welfare to tie outcomes with funding, authorizing incentive payments to be used to reward States for increasing their number of adoptions.

Finally, in collaboration with States, Tribes, advocacy groups, foundations and others, ACF has developed new program monitoring procedures that focus on the quality of child welfare services and the outcomes to children and families. (Following the reviews, States will receive immediate feedback on the extent to which their programs are achieving the stated objectives in accordance with a set of standards for each outcome area.) Outcomes will be measured by the partners who participated in this developmental process. Outcomes will be measured by the goals and subgoals below, and any additional measures a State may choose (measures may change based on the results of future partner consultations):

• SAFETY: The quality of child care services will improve over time. Children are protected from abuse and neglect in their homes. The risk of harm to children will be minimized.
• PERMANENCY: (a) Provide children permanency and stability in their living situations; (b) Minimize the disruption to the continuity of family and other relationships.
• FAMILY AND CHILD WELL-BEING: (a) Enhance families' capacities to provide for their children’s needs; (b) Minimize the disruption to the continuity of family and other relationships.

Ultimately, decisions about the placement of children are made by judges in juvenile and family court systems throughout the nation. Improved judicial handling of child welfare cases will be essential for the achievement of permanency goals for children. Children in the child welfare system have many medical and mental health problems, while many of their parents are incapacitated by chronic substance abuse, mental health problems, homelessness, limited education, and similar problems. The availability of services from other sectors to meet these needs is uneven. The expansion or contraction of services in various parts of the country will have an impact on our performance. Major changes to assistance programs for low income families as part of welfare reform will also have an unknown impact on the child welfare system over the next several years.

During the development of the Adoption 2002 Initiative, and the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the Children’s Bureau conducted and is conducting a broad- based consultation process with a wide range of policy experts, advocates, foster and adoptive parents, and other interested individuals to ground the Department’s examination of strategies and issues in the daily experiences of participants in the child welfare system. There was also extensive public involvement in the development and implementation of the Family Preservation and Support Program (now reauthorized as the "Promoting Safe and Stable Families" program), both at the Federal level and in the States.

DATA VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION:

Both the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) and the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) conduct extensive edit checks for internal reliability. For AFCARS, if a State's data fails certain edit checks, it incurs a financial penalty. An additional 700 edit checks are conducted to improve data quality. All edit check programs are shared with the States. NCANDS and AFCARS are also part of the State-wide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) compliance reviews which are currently being piloted.

In addition, there is a separate AFCARS compliance review being piloted which focuses on data mapping. As these reporting systems improve, the operationalization of various outcomes has become more refined. Furthermore, as the number of States reporting increases, the values of the measures change and they become more reflective of the total population.

On September 18, 1998, the Department published an NPRM that implements ACF's proposed State Plan compliance review processes for child and family services and title IV-E eligibility, the statutory prohibitions regarding race preference in Foster and adoptive placements (the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act), and the ASFA amendment to the title IV-E foster care maintenance program. Approximately 175 public comments on the rule have been received and are currently being reviewed and considered. The Department expects to publish a final rule by the end of the calendar year.

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

EDUCATION

The education goal is: Increase the number of students with developmental disabilities who reach their educational goals.

HEALTH

The health goal is: Improve the health of people with developmental disabilities and increase their access to the full range of needed health care services.

Targets for these goals have been developed through the consensus process. (See information on the DD partnership process, performance goals, data, and resources under Strategic Objective 1, above.)

YOUTH

The Runaway and Homeless Youth Program began in 1974 in response to concern about increasing numbers of runaway youth who were exposed to exploitation and the dangers of street life. It has subsequently been expanded to assist homeless youth on both a short-term basis and in making the transition to independent living. In the course of a year, an estimated 500,000 to 1.5 million young people run away from or are forced out of their homes, and an estimated 200,000 are homeless and living on the streets. The ages of these runaways range from younger than 11 to over 18, with more than half being age 15 or 16. Approximately 66 percent of the runaways seek assistance from youth shelters because of problems with parental relationships.

Over the past several years, ACF has sponsored several efforts to broaden and re-focus the agency's mission to stress a "youth development" approach to serving young people that encourages communities to provide the setting and services needed for their positive growth and development. & #9;

A major support for these efforts is the development of a theoretical framework to be used as a basis for policy development and programmatic initiatives. The framework can be used by program developers, program managers and youth service professionals in developing and implementing service models and approaches that will redirect youth in high risk situations toward positive pathways of development. Based on this framework, ACF has identified four key principles that are important in the development of young people as they work toward a successful and productive adulthood. They are: (1) a sense of industry and competency; (2) a feeling of connectedness to others and to society; (3) a belief in their control over their fate in life; and (4) a stable identity.

ACF has established performance goals and measures attendant to each goal. These performance goals are derived from both the legislative mandate and the youth development framework. The identification of performance indicators and performance measures based on a youth development model will be accomplished in a manner that solicits input and ideas from a wide variety of organizations and individuals involved in youth issues.

ACF expects to arrive at a consensus model for the indicators and measures that will eventually be used to assess the increased effectiveness of the work of FYSB grantees, and the improvement in the safety and well-being of the youth these grantees serve. Until the consensus indicators and measures are available, interim performance goals will be used: improve services to youth and increase youth well-being.

DATA VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION

Current available data sources include the Runaway and Homeless Youth Management Information System and the Runaway and Homeless Youth Monitoring System. When the effort to identify performance indicators and outcome measures is complete, a reworking of these two systems will be necessary and desirable. ACF expects to broaden these systems to apply to youth programs in general and to better target them on desired program and youth outcomes. There are no current data sources for youth that are involved in the development of individualized service plans or in activities geared toward developing their independence. In addition, as the systems change, the relevance of the current baseline data must be re-evaluated.

ACF has implemented both an automated and manual system to ensure the data collected are accurate and correct. The RHYMIS software has built-in validation, verification and quality assurance routines to assist grantees in producing high quality data. The RHYMIS Data Quality report may be run at any time by RHYMIS users, affording them an automated method to identify missing or invalid data. Additionally, a series of data validation checks occur automatically prior to each data transfer. After the data are received by the contractor, they are put through an additional series of checks to assure that the format is correct and virus-free.

Strategic Goal 3:

Increase the health and prosperity of communities and Tribes

8. Build healthy, safe and supportive communities and Tribes Approach for the Strategic Objective: Strengthen local communities through community partnerships and improving civic participation; increase community development investments so that families can lead healthy, safe and productive lives. Work with Tribes and Native American communities to develop strategies and programs that will promote social and economic development and self-sufficiency.

Community Services

The purpose of the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program is to provide a range of services and activities having a measurable and potentially major impact on causes of poverty in the community. The CSBG Act requires States to pass through 90% of the Federal funds allocated to eligible entities, which in most cases are Community Action Agencies (CAAs). Program Goal: Ensure that low-income people have a stake in their community.

Results-Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA): Prior to passage of GPRA, ACF was already in the process of developing a monitoring and technical assistance strategy which focused on increasing the capacity of local agencies to increase program performance toward achieving results. ROMA is a management practice that incorporates the use of outcomes or results into the administration, management, and operation of human services. It provides a framework of national goals at the family, community and agency levels for a flexible transition to an outcome orientation and an opportunity to create and use a variety of indicators for local community action agencies. ROMA encompasses: (1) a menu of outcome-oriented measures which leave maximum flexibility at the local level; (2) implementation tools for measuring incremental successes and assessing agency capacity such as scales and self assessment matrices; (3) electronically-provided economic and demographic data mapping at the neighborhood level for conducting community needs assessment and planning; (4) training and technical assistance plans to ensure timely phasing of the total approach; and (5) reporting compatible with local, State and Federal need for information.

As part of the ongoing work with partners that is at the basis of the ROMA approach, an extensive set of goals and measures is under discussion. There are goals relevant to individuals, families, communities, agencies, and partnerships. Since many low-income clients of community action agencies are also receiving TANF, measuring the effectiveness of follow-up services is a priority. Not all States are at the same level in the use of outcome measures, but there are at least a dozen or so that have that capability, while more are moving in the same direction.

DATA SOURCES, VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION

Data are gathered by the CSBG Information System, which is being modified to accommodate an outcome-based system. Previously, the emphasis has been on collecting data voluntarily to give feedback to States and local agencies about their progress and/or need for technical assistance and training. States provide information on the sources and uses of CSBG funds and on the expenditure of those funds by major program categories. ACF is presently disseminating to States and localities a comprehensive description of requirements, which they will need to meet in order to conduct proper surveys and report valid results. A list of specific survey questions with definitions, possible follow-up questions and close-ended questions with options is also being distributed. In so doing, ACF is trying to ensure some degree of uniformity in an otherwise flexible environment.

FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION

The mission of the Family Violence Prevention and Services program is to assist States in their efforts to increase public awareness about and prevent family violence and to provide immediate shelter and related assistance for victims of family violence and their dependents. It is also part of the mission to provide, through a network of national resource centers, for research, technical assistance, and training related to family violence programs to States, local public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and other persons seeking such assistance.

Domestic violence encompasses all acts of violence against women within the context of family or intimate relationships. It is an issue of increasing concern because it has a negative effect on all family members, especially children. Domestic violence is not confined to any one socioeconomic, ethnic, religious, racial, or age group. It is the leading cause of injury to women in the United States. Department of Justice statistics report that women in the United States are more likely to be assaulted, injured, raped or killed by a male partner than by any other type of assailant.

The Family Violence Program is beginning the task of developing performance indicators and outcome measures for services to victims of domestic violence and their dependents. This effort will be accomplished in collaboration with the States, State domestic violence coalitions, the national resource center network, and Federal-level partners.

DATA SOURCES, VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION

Current and available data sources and informational systems are inadequate to accurately report on information, resource development and support services that are in place to assist victims of domestic violence. ACF has begun the development of a management information system, which should eventually be applicable and helpful in the identification of performance indicators and outcome measures.

ACF is in the early stages of the development of a voluntary aggregate data reporting system for the family violence program. Moreover, in collaboration with other Federal agencies and State and local partners, ACF has begun to establish a topology of domestic violence services acceptable to all organizations and agencies in the field. By FY 1999, 50 percent of the States and 25 percent of the Tribes will have received survey methodology training and technical assistance in order to conduct assessments on the adequacy of the resource plan.

LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE (LIHEAP)

States, Indian Tribes/Tribal organizations and Insular areas that wish to assist low-income households in meeting the costs of home energy may apply for a LIHEAP block grant. Grantees must provide a LIHEAP plan, which includes eligibility requirements, benefit levels, and the estimated amount of funds to be used for each type of LIHEAP assistance. Public participation in the development of grantees' plans is required. Within very broad Federal guidelines, States design their own programs and have the authority to determine how to implement or target their programs and how best to carry out the purposes of LIHEAP. HHS has a very limited role in determining how LIHEAP funds are spent.

LIHEAP appropriations are allocated to the States on the basis of a statutory formula that gives greater weight to cold temperatures and results in great discrepancies in per capita funding. This in turn leads to large differences in average benefits.

No two States allocate their block grant resources or establish program eligibility standards in the same way. There is a statutory range but not a fixed income standard for determining whether a household is income eligible for LIHEAP. Comparison of performance data among States may be affected by differences in eligibility cutoffs and other program criteria selected by States.

The issue of measuring the performance of block grants has been addressed by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and others, looking at the feasibility and appropriateness of applying GPRA requirements to block grants. There are problems inherent in applying GPRA requirements to federally funded programs where the States have extensive flexibility.

We are continuing to collaborate with LIHEAP grantees and stakeholders to refine GPRA goals and measures through a LIHEAP GPRA Partnership Project, funded through small purchase contracts with the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association. A national dialogue is being conducted to develop consensus among State LIHEAP offices, other stakeholders, and ACF in designing and implementing a GPRA performance measurement system for LIHEAP. The role of the LIHEAP GPRA Partnership Project, in part, is to determine whether the HHS selections for the FY 1999 and FY 2000 GPRA Plans are the best way to accurately reflect the achievements of the program.

DATA VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION

By statute, each grantee must submit an annual report on the number of households served during the previous fiscal year and the number of those households that have members who are elderly or young children, as well as other data. The reports will be reviewed for mathematical accuracy, consistency, and comparison with previous years, in order to verify performance. ACF will provide technical assistance to LIHEAP grantees in developing a performance measurement system for evaluating the targeting of eligible households with vulnerable members.

NATIVE AMERICANS

ACF’s Administration for Native Americans operates programs mandated to provide grant funding to the full range of Native American populations, including in the Continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii. This includes Indian Tribes, Native Alaskan villages, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, urban Indian organizations, and other Native American organizations and communities. Promoting the goal of social and economic self-sufficiency through local self-determination is the cornerstone of ANA’s program philosophy. Self-sufficiency is that level of development at which a Native American community can control and internally generate resources to provide for the needs of its members and meet its own economic and social goals. Social and economic underdevelopment is the paramount obstacle to the self-sufficiency of Native American communities and families.

ANA is the only Federal agency serving all Native Americans, including over 500 federally recognized Tribes, 60 Tribes that are State-recognized or seeking Federal recognition, Indian organizations, over 200 Alaska villages, Native Hawaiian communities, and populations throughout the Pacific basin. Included in the authorization for this new block grant system were provisions for block grants to eligible Tribes. Federally-recognized Indian Tribes are now provided the opportunity to administer their own TANF programs in a manner similar to the States. (Federal administration of Tribal TANF is in the ACF Office of Community Services.)

In 1981, ACF collaborated with Tribes and Native communities to develop the innovative Social and Economic Development Strategies (SEDS) program. SEDS is based on the premise that a local community has the primary responsibility for determining its own needs, planning and implementing its own programs, and for use of its own natural and human resources. In initiating the SEDS approach, ACF developed a framework of three interrelated goals:

• To assist Native American leadership in exercising control over their resources;
• To foster the development of stable, diversified local economies which provide jobs, promote economic well-being, and reduce dependency on social services;
• To support local access to and coordination of programs and services which safeguard the health and well-being of people, essential elements for a thriving and self-sufficient community.

ANA faces unique challenges in formulating goals and measuring results. As a discretionary grant program funding projects designed and implemented at the local level, the differences between each project is considerable in terms of size, scope, community goals, and funding levels. Because tribes and Native American communities set their own goals and priorities, we request objective progress reports throughout the project period of the grant, and an objective evaluation report once the grant has ended. This system provides us with information on goals and measures, but these are solely unique to the tribe or community. Another factor to be considered is where each grantee is on the continuum of social and economic development. Administrative and organizational capacity varies greatly among grantees, making more difficult the prospect of developing more "conventional" measures. ANA will continue to work with its partners to develop meaningful GPRA measures within the context of sovereignty.

DATA SOURCES, VERIFICATION, AND VALIDATION

The primary source for data collection on performance measures information is the internal data system "Project Information and Evaluation System" (PIES), and the upcoming Grant Award Tracking and Evaluation System (GATES). All funded grants have an entry in these systems, and a full description of the project as well as the goals and objectives are included. It will be necessary for ACF to design and perform systematic validation surveys of grant applicants' proposals regarding the types of projects and proposed participants, including trends and changes from other periods; potential applicants' use of technology; and training and technical assistance providers' outcomes and delivery levels.

Strategic Goal 4:
Build a results-oriented organization

9. Streamline ACF organizational layers Approach for the Strategic Objective: Change the way ACF does business by reducing bureaucratic levels and relying more on teams; maintain or increase values such as effectiveness, efficiency, and diversity while reducing the number of managers.

The 1998 supervisor to staff ratio stood at 1:7. The supervisor personnel numbers did not decrease at the expected rate. We are continually realigning staff, which should have a noticeable impact on our future manager to staff ratio and allow us to reach our goal of 1:9 in FY 1999.

By October 2000, ACF will streamline 30 separate grant programs into a single comprehensive system of electronic processing and transfers to benefit grantees by more timely and efficient grants processing, more accurate data, less down time and enabling quicker start-up. This improvement will also overcome the Year 2000 programming flaw embedded in current grants programs.

While ACF has been managing toward results since the early 1990’s, we still have a long way to go and many challenges ahead. For a number of major programs, ACF is largely dependent upon State administrative systems for the collection of the performance data, e.g. Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Developmental Disabilities, Refugee Resettlement, Child Welfare, Child Support Enforcement, Child Care, and Low Income Home Energy Assistance programs. Other ACF programs, e.g., Head Start, Youth, CSBG, and Family Violence, are reliant on local community data systems. Native American programs will be using two internal data tracking systems (Project Information and Evaluation System and the Grant Award Tracking and Evaluation System). The Head Start information will be collected at local grantee sites through the Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) which has rigorously defined collection procedures. Some of these programs plan to use survey information to supplement the data.