ACF OPRE: ACF Annual Performance Plans and Reports

APPENDICES to the PERFORMANCE PLAN

A.1 Approach to performance measurement

ACF and its partners began "focusing on results" before GPRA was in effect. Efforts to reach consensus on outcomes prompted extensive discussion of strategic objectives, legislative requirements, data sources and availability; led to a fuller understanding of outcomes and the relationships to process and output measures; and fostered closer partnership collaborations.

Projected results and impacts vary across goals and objectives depending on the nature of the issues, the identification of appropriate measures and the ability to collect the data. In areas where results are quantifiable and data are available, ACF can report results on a more timely basis. In other areas, where outcomes are qualitative or more complex, additional efforts are required to achieve consensus on appropriate outcomes and measures of success, and to design, develop and implement systems for data collection. This is illustrated by efforts to measure high performance under welfare reform, quality in Head Start, and improvements in child protective services, foster care, and adoptions.

ACF has preserved the original goals and objectives of its overall mission and many individual program goals have remained constant. Continuous program improvement requires ongoing consultation, technical assistance, and coordination across partnerships resulting in some performance measures being modified, dropped or replaced.

Methodology and rationale:Nearly all of ACF's GPRA measures are outcome-oriented and every program has a process in place with its partners to finalize those measures which are developmental. Some of ACF's programs, where funds are limited and programs are implemented by grantees with a limited funding base (such as diverse community youth agencies or sovereign Native American Tribes) have identified process and interim outcome measures. Limitations of the data collection infrastructure and partnership capacities have delayed the availability of robust and reliable outcome data.

The selection of performance measures carries certain risks, such as creating unintended consequences. ACF has endeavored to be mindful of these. While no formal assessments have been made to predict unintended consequences, these have been an important part of the agenda in discussions with partners around goal setting and measurement. For example, in welfare reform, similar job training programs prior to TANF were reviewed, where ill-effects such as "creaming" occurred, in which programs were rewarded for placing clients in jobs. This resulted in programs selecting the more sturdy and employable recipient population for placement. To cite another example in TANF, targeting "caseload reduction" could hasten the premature exit of fragile families from the support of welfare before they were ready for self-sufficiency. Thus, TANF measures have stressed new employment, retention of jobs, and increase of earnings rather than limiting measures to participation rates.

Data verification and validation and other data issues:Because data for ACF programs are mostly collected by grantees and partners, such as States, with collection schedules written into statutes and regulations, several programs have not yet completed the analysis of FY 2000 data. Each program uses considerable resources to verify and validate program data through automatic edit checks, manual reviews or audits, and other forms of quality control and assurance.

Specific data issues are discussed in the individual performance goal sections. ACF has developed a number of different strategies to deal with these issues. There are a number of broad data-related challenges affecting ACF's performance plan. Resolving these challenges (listed below) and other data issues is necessary, time-consuming, difficult, and costly.

Quantitative and qualitative measurement of outcomes in social programs are experimental and still being validated.
States, Tribes and non-profit grantees vary in their ability to collect, produce and report reliable data.
Data validation and verification are highly complex and costly.
Particularly for our numerous new or changed programs, baseline data are frequently unavailable and must be developed before progress can be measured.
Data collection systems fully geared to State flexibility are still being implemented.
Investments in the design, development and implementation of data collection systems are costly and must be balanced against other priorities, at all levels-Federal, State and local.

Many ACF grantees receive programmatic funds that the legislation either designates or permits to be used for data collection. Discretionary, formula, and entitlement grant awards generally carry reporting requirements directed at facilitating oversight and measuring performance. However, block grants and devolution of program authority to States and other levels of government have resulted in limitations on ACF's collection of data. ACF advocates that recipients of its funds collect a reasonable amount of data from which to determine performance and assure program integrity. For some programs, performance results can be measured and validated through the administrative data that States use to manage their programs.

For a number of major programs, ACF is largely dependent upon State administrative systems for collecting 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 programs, CSBG, and Family Violence, are reliant on local community data systems. Native Americans programs use two internal data tracking systems (Project Information and Evaluation System and the Grant Award Tracking and Evaluation System.). The Head Start information is collected at local grantee sites through the Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) which has rigorously defined collection procedures. Several of these programs use survey information to supplement the data.

As a result of many of the challenges listed above, there is a substantial delay in the availability of administrative data in many ACF State grant programs. These delays can reduce knowledge of current program activity, and hinder policy-making and program planning, but sometimes they are inherent in the goals and measures of the program, e.g., job retention and earnings gain in TANF. In FY 2001, ACF will work with DHHS and OMB to develop a plan for reducing the delay in the availability of State administrative data, where appropriate. The plan will identify the length of time between the end of the program year and the availability of program data for public use for each of ACF's major programs in FY 2000; identify the obstacles to publishing data in a more timely manner and, where appropriate, propose a strategy for eliminating these obstacles.

Currently, ACF has the following major data system infrastructures in place: the National Directory of New Hires (Child Support and TANF), the Unemployment Insurance Wage data (UI), the Child Support Survey; the Residential Energy Consumption Survey; March Current Population Survey (CPS) Supplement (Census Bureau); the Refugee Resettlement Survey; Head Start Family and Child Experiences (FACES) Survey; and the National Child Welfare Longitudinal Study.

A.2 Changes and improvements over previous year

ACF has made a number of improvements in this FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan. An executive summary has been added. The FY 2002 plan includes additional information on detailed changes between the Final FY 2001 Plan submitted in February 2000 and the Revised Final FY 2001 Plan including which targets are new, which have been discontinued and which are still developmental (see Appendix A.5 for a summary table). Each of the ACF programs was asked to re-examine its measures and targets, and many programs created a more focused set of measures, e.g., dropping some measures, providing improved measures and targets based on the most recent available data and by narrowing or refining existing measures.

Section I provides additional information on implementing the ACF Priority Workplans, describes strategies aimed at achieving performance goals and identifies major management improvement efforts. Summary charts on the status of FY 1999 and 2000 performance data have been added. Appendix A.4 provides an updated chart for performance data omitted from the prior FY 1999 Performance Report.

In Section II, under each of the strategic goals and objectives, performance goals and measures are discussed in greater detail, along with a fuller discussion of program activities and strategic approaches directed at improving performance. Program-wide performance, identification of partnerships and crosscutting issues, and resource and data issues, including frequency of reporting, are summarized.

The FY 2002 submission is based on budgetary resources from the FY 2002 President's Budget. The detailed budget linkage table (Appendix A.6) has an additional column that provides budget program account numbers.

ACF has endeavored to project targets based on FY 1998 or FY 1999 baseline data wherever possible. There are a few measures that still lack baselines because programs are implementing new initiatives and data collection activities. Baselines for those measures will be established upon completion of start-up and developmental activities. In a very few cases, the targets or measures are stated in ways that cause baselines to change annually (e.g., continuous improvement targets or legislatively defined targets); for those a context has been provided in the narrative.

More descriptive information has been provided in a number of areas: (1) a more comprehensive discussion of program coordination activities and data issues under the program areas; (2) a revision of certain goals and measures to reflect program experience using the same baseline data wherever possible; (3) additional narrative explaining the FY 2001 and 2002 measures; and (4) a status update on FY 2001 measures.

A section on program evaluation has been added to Appendix A.6.

In this version, both the FY 2002 and FY 2001 targets are repeated in the narrative section. Because programs are still refining the wording of many of the measures, it is critical that the specific wording be included in the annual performance plan section for future tracking purposes.

A.3 Linkage to DHHS and OPDIV strategic plans

The ACF Annual Performance Plan links directly with three of the DHHS Strategic Plan Goals:

Improve the economic and social well-being of individuals, families, and communities in the
United States;
Improve access to health services and ensure the integrity of the Nation's health
entitlement and safety net programs; and
Improve the quality of health care and human services.

ACF GOALS AND THE DHHS STRATEGIC PLAN

DHHS STRATEGIC GOALS Strategic Objectives	CORRESPONDING ACF STRATEGIC GOALS Strategic Objectives
GOAL 2: IMPROVE THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING OF INDIVIDUALS, FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES IN THE UNITED STATES 2.1 Increase the economic independence of low-income families including those receiving welfare	GOAL 1: INCREASE ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE AND PRODUCTIVITY FOR FAMILIES 1. Increase employment 2. Increase independent living 4. Increase affordable child care
2.2 Increase the parental involvement and financial support of non-custodial parents in the lives of their children.	3. Increase parental responsibility
2.3 Improve the healthy development and learning readiness of preschool children	GOAL 2: IMPROVE HEALTHY DEVELOPMENT, SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH 5. Increase the quality of child care to promote childhood development 6. Improve the health status of children
2.4 Improve the safety and security of children and youth	7. Increase safety, permanency and well-being of children and youth
2.6 Increase independence and quality of life of persons with long-term care needs.	2. Increase independent living
2.7 Improve the economic and social development of distressed communities	GOAL 3: INCREASE THE HEALTH AND PROSPERITY OF COMMUNITIES AND TRIBES 8. Build healthy, safe and supportive communities and Tribes
GOAL 3: IMPROVE ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES AND ENSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE NATION'S HEALTH ENTITLEMENT AND SAFETY NET PROGRAMS 3.1 Increase the percentage of the Nation's children and adults who have health insurance coverage	6. Improve the health status of children
GOAL 4: IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE AND HUMAN SERVICES 4.4 Develop knowledge that improves the quality and effectiveness of human services practice.	(ACF research and demonstration program investments are targeted to improve the quality of services related to objectives 1-8.)
IMPROVE PERFORMANCE	GOAL 4: BUILD A RESULTS-ORIENTED ORGANIZATION 9. Develop and retain a highly skilled, strongly motivated staff 10. Improve automated data and mgmt systems

A.4 FY 1999 Performance Data Omitted from Prior FY 1999 Performance Report

Performance Goals	FY 99 Target	FY 99 Actual Performance	Reference (page # in printed document)
TANF
1.1a. All States meet the TANF all-families work participation rates.	100%	100%	Px M-32
1.1b. All States meet the TANF two-parent families work participation rates.	100%	74%	Px M-32
Developmental Disabilities
1.3a. Increase the number of adults with developmental disabilities who obtain integrated jobs as a result of DD program intervention	9,517	8,959	Px M-38
1.3b. Increase the number of businesses/employers that employ and support people with developmental disabilities as a result of DD program intervention	4,353	1,113	Px M-38
2.1a. Increase the number of people with developmental disabilities owning or renting their own homes as a result of DD program intervention	2,079	34,904	Px M-53
7.2a. Increase the number of students with developmental disabilities who are served in more integrated/inclusive educational settings as a result of DD program intervention.	8,800	10,901	Px M-111
7.3a. Increase the number of health care providers trained to meet the health needs of people with developmental disabilities as a result of DD program interventions.	4,000	4,100	Px M-112
Refugee Resettlement
1.4a. Increase the number of refugees entering employment through ACF-funded refugee employment services by at least 5% annually from FY 1997 actual performance.	5l,597	50,208	Px M-45
1.4b. Increase the number of entered employments with health benefits available as a subset of full-time job placements by 5% annually from the FY 1997 actual performance.	27,767	28,425	Px M-45
1.4c. Increase the number of refugee cash assistance cases closed due to employment by at least 5% annually as a subset of all entered employments from the FY 1997 actual performance.	16,480	16,445	Px M-45
1.4d. Increase the number of 90-day job retentions as a subset of all entered employments by at least 5% annually from the FY 1997 actual performance.	37,936	36,055	Px M-45
1.4e. Increase the number of refugees who enter employment through the Matching Grant (MG) program as a percentage of all MG employable adults by at least 5% annually from the calendar year 1997 actual performance.	8,620	9,713	Px M-45
1.4f. Increase the number of refugee families (cases) that are self-sufficient (not dependent on any cash assistance) within the first 4 months after arrival by at least 4% annually from the calendar year 1997 actual performance.	5,710	6,497	Px M-45
Child Support
3.1a. Increase the paternity establishment percentage among children born out of wedlock	96%	106%	Px M-64
3.1b. Increase the percentage of IV-D cases with support orders	74%	60%	Px M-64
3.1c. Maintain the IV-D collection rate for current support	71%	52%	Px M-64
3.1d. Maintain the percentage of paying cases among IV-D arrearage cases	46%	54%	Px M-64
3.1e. Increase the cost-effectiveness ratio (total dollars collected per $1 of expenditures).	$5.00	$3.92	Px M-65
Child Welfare
7.1a. Decrease the percentage of children with substantiated reports of maltreatment who have a repeated substantiated report of maltreatment within 12 months.	21% (12%)*	11%	Px M-104
7.1f. Increase the number of adoptions	24,000 (41,000)*	46,000	Px M-105
7.1g. Increase the number of guardianships	6,300	5,015	Px M-105
7.1h. Decrease the median length of time in foster care until adoption	38 mos (40 mos)*	42 mos	Px M-106
7.1i. Decrease the adoption time difference between white and African-American children	9 mos (14 mos)*	19 mos	Px M-106
7.1j. Decrease the adoption time difference between white and Hispanic children	4 mos	5 mos	Px M-106
7.1k. Increase adoptions by relatives	15%%	14%	Px M-106
7.1l. Increase guardianships by relatives	70%	57%	Px M-106
7.1m. Decrease the mean number of placement settings per episode	2.0	3.0	Px M-106
Family Violence
8.2a. Increase the number of Federally recognized Indian Tribes that have family violence prevention programs	162	174	Px M-144
Native Americans
8.4a. Increase the number of grants that include elder participation	44	55	Px M-158
8.4b. Maintain the number of TA visits per year to diverse Native American population with emphasis on urban Native organizations, rural & non-Federally recognized Tribes	1,400	1,450	Px M-158

A.5 Status of FY 2000 Data and Detailed Changes between the Final FY 2001 Plan
and the Revised Final FY 2001 Plan

Status of FY 2000 Data and FY 2001 Measures Includes changes, status of developmental measures and availability of data for FY 2000 Performance Report. Measures are not listed if they remain as they were presented in the Final FY 2001 Annual Performance Plans (APP).
*1. Increase employment*
TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES
Results will be available for measures 1.1a-b in August 2001 and 1.1c-e December 2001 for FY 2000 Performance Report: States are being given up to 11 months to provide data for each quarter. Time will also be needed for validation and verification of the data. Measure 1.1d has been revised to "in the next two consecutive quarters" to agree with the revised rule for the HPB.
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (EMPLOYMENT)
Three FY 2001 targets for measures 1.3a-c were decreased from the Final FY 2001 Plan based on FY 1999 and 2000 performance. The baseline for measure 1.3a was revised from FY 1999 to FY 2000 due to changes in data reporting by States.
REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT
Results will be available for FY 2000 Performance Report in April/May 2001: Annual, unduplicated FY 2000 data is due 45 days after end of year, circa November 15. Because individual State reports may be missing and time needed to validate and verify the data, final State data will be available in April 2001; final MG data in May 2001. Measure 1.4c performance for FY 1998 was corrected from 16,078 to 16,978.
SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT
Results will be available for FY 2000 Performance Report in May 2002. Changes in Measures from the Final FY 2001 Plan: Targets were increased to be consistent with achievements in FY 1998.
*2. Increase independent living*
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (HOUSING)
FY 2001 target 2.1a has been increased based on FY 2000 performance. The baseline for measure 2.1a was revised from FY 1999 to FY 2000 due to changes in data reporting by States.
INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT ACCOUNTS
Status of measures: Measures to be developed. Results are not available for FY 2000 Performance Report. Demonstration grants funded in FY 1999 will operate for 3-5 years.
*3. Increase parental responsibility*
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Status of measures: Increase was changed to maintain to be consistent with projected target for measure 3.1d. New baselines were established for all measures using Final FY 1999 data available as of December 2000. . Measures 3.1b-c and 3.1e were decreased and measures 3.1a and 3.1d were increased for FY 2001 targets based on performance in FY 1999. Results will be available for FY 2000 Performance Report in October 2001.
*4. Increase affordable child care*
CHILD CARE: AFFORDABILITY
Results will be available for FY 2000 Performance Report in May 2001. Most of the data for these measures are from State reports, which are not due until the end of CY 2000. Performance data will be available by April 30, 2001. The target for measure 4.1a was decreased and measure 4.1b was increased based on performance in FY 1999. Language in measure 4.1c was revised from "maintain" to "reduce and maintain" to be consistent with target projection.
*5. Increase quality of child care to promote childhood development*
CHILD CARE: QUALITY
See CHILD CARE: AFFORDABILITY above. Measures 5.1a and 5.1b are based on calendar year totals. Measure 5.1a has been changed to measure the number of regulated child care centers and homes that are accredited; ACF does not have an accurate count of the total number of facilities or accreditation tally.
HEAD START (CHILD DEVELOPMENT)
Results for the performance report for FY 1999 and 2000 for measures 5.2a-f and 5.2i represent a combined cohort. The seven measures that FACES provides cover a two-year period for each cohort. The word "scale" has been inserted to clarify the measurement.
*6. Improve the health status of children*
HEAD START (HEALTH)
No changes.
*7. Increase safety, permanency, well-being of children and youth*
CHILD WELFARE
Status of measures: The baseline year is CY 1998 for measure 7.1b and FY 1998 for the remaining measures. The data for AFCARS strengthened significantly in FY 1998 when financial penalties began to be imposed on States for failure to report and failure to report data, which meets certain quality standards. Therefore, data from that year is being used as the baseline. The baselines for measures that use/used other data sources were changed to FY 1998 so that measures would be consistent. Status of work with partners: Extensive consultations with partners were undertaken and have brought about a number of changes in the FY 2002 measures. A detailed description of this process can be found in Child Welfare Section.Final results will be available for FY 2000 Performance Report: Final FY 2000 data for most measures will be available June 2001; the delay is due to workload created by the Child and Family Services Reviews and the Annual Report. Measure 7.1b and 7.1f will be available September 2001 and measure 7.1a will be available October 2002 The following measures have been dropped: measures 7.1a, 7.1h, 7.1i, 7.1j, 7.1k, and 7.1m. The following measures were added: measures 7.1b and 7.1n. The explanation for these changes can be found in Child Welfare Section entitled Performance Measures for FY 2002 and Final Measures for FY 2001.
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (EDUCATION)
FY 2001 target was increased based on FY 1999 performance.
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (HEALTH)
No changes.
YOUTH PROGRAMS
New "youth development outcome domains" logic model: "Program goals" in the FY 2001 APP have been revised, replaced, and supplemented by a new logic model structure organized by outcome domains based on research in positive youth development. Some of the outcome domains are paired or overlap. Each domain (e.g., "Safe and Stable Living Situations") includes an outcome statement relating the domain to RHY program specifics (e.g., "Runaway and homeless youth find safety, shelter and services that support their well-being and development into adults.") Revised program goals (e.g., "Provide appropriate shelter, counseling, and other support services to youth and their families in high-risk situations") flow from each outcome domain.Status of measurable performance goals from FY 2001 APP (explanations of changes are in the main Youth Program chapter): Measure 7.4i: phrase "add a tenth State" is modified to "add additional States as resources become available." Measures 7.4j, 7.4k and 7.4l are discontinued after FY 2001 results are reported, if these are available post RHYMIS-LITE. Progress in streamlining RHYMIS into RHYMIS-LITE will impact the selection, dating and modification of baselines. Final results for FY 2000 will be complete in June 2001 due to the transition from a less reliable (RHYMIS) to a more reliable (RHYMIS-LITE) data source, FY 2000 data and possibly much of FY 2001 data may be subject to implementation and start-up anomalies.
8. Build healthy, safe & supportive communities and Tribes
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Final results will be available for FY 2000 Performance Report in July 2002 due to are lags in collecting data in a block grant program. FY 2001 targets for measure 8.1a was decreased and 8.1b was increased based on FY 1998 performance.
FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION
Measure 8.2b was increased from 10,000 to 11,000 based on FY 2000 performance.
LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE (LIHEAP)
The words "or who is disabled" has been dropped from measure 8.3a.
NATIVE AMERICANS PROGRAMS
Results will be available for FY 2000 Performance Report in September 2001. FY 1997 total for measure 8.4b was corrected.
A RESULTS-ORIENTED ORGANIZATION
*9. Develop and retain a highly skilled, strongly motivated staff*
Final results will be available for FY 2000 Performance Report in June 2001. FY 2001 target of increasing manager to staff ratio has been dropped and replaced with a more meaningful measure related to ACF's need to maintain, retain and train staff to carry out its mission in the 21^st Century.
*10. Improve automated data and management systems*
Final results will be available for FY 2000 Performance Report in June 2001. The FY 2001 target has been changed to more accurate language: "develop and implement GATES II, which will capture and validate grant information submitted by grantees using the Web"

A.6 Performance Measurement Linkages

Information technology planning: During the past fiscal year, ACF has actively utilized the ACF Information Technology Review Board (ITRB) in accordance with requirements contained in the Clinger-Cohen Act (also known as the Information Technology Management Reform Act (ITMRA). The overall purpose of the ACF ITRB is (1) to monitor the performance of selected ongoing major ACF information technology investments or to consider proposed new major investments and (2) to convene for matters that concern ACF IT policies and issues. In accordance with Clinger-Cohen, the ACF ITRB completed or is in the process of implementing ten priority Investment Technology policies:

IT procurements: ACF will implement annual, centralized replacement planning and purchasing for PC's and related equipment. Replacement budget plans will be presented annually to the ACF ITRB for approval.
Standard desktop PC hardware: ACF implements a standard desktop PC hardware configuration and utilizes a holistic, performance-based contract for delivery to the desktop.
Standard PC software: ACF implements and maintains a standard desktop PC software configuration.
FY 2000 IT training: ACF will plan and budget training centrally for all ACF standard-PC desktop software training and for local LAN systems administrator training. Training for all ACF standard PC software is available through our Distance Learning initiative. Limited classroom training is available centrally, and training in each software is provided through centralized budgets.
Internet/intranet technologies: ACF will provide enhanced support for Internet and Intranet publishing by operating state-of-the-art web servers and related technologies. Central Office/Regional Office Internet publishing activities are subject to Office of Public Affairs review to ensure compliance with applicable policies and procedures.
ACF network remote access: ACF will expand and enhance its remote access services agency-wide to meet the 21^st Century work environment. The results of feasibility studies and analyses of alternatives will be presented for review by the ITRB, as necessary.
Desktop video conferencing: ACF will continue to support improved capabilities for point-to-point video conferencing within ACF, and/or Internet-based video conferencing within ACF and/or with outside parties (within available budgets including, possibly, program funds). Future recommendation will be presented to the ITRB under the leadership of the videoconferencing team and Region VI.
DHHS-wide administrative systems: ACF will work with the Department to improve administrative systems software, which will begin with a new Web-based HR/Payroll system that will provide the Department with higher quality HR service and integrated functionality.
Electronic grants initiative (GATES II): ACF will implement a next generation of electronic grant making through an "Electronic Grants Initiative" that will comprise the "GATES II" application. Plans and designs presented to the ITRB are consistent with the new Government Paperwork Elimination Act.
Electronic file storage: ACF will develop technologies for efficient archiving of documents from paper and/or electronic originals. Electronic document management technology is a Department-wide interest, and is constrained by regulatory requirements (e.g. EFOIA). ACF will continue to work in collaboration with the Department and will update the ITRB on progress in this area.

In addition, ACF continues to monitor the following IT investments:

IT support activities associated with the Expanded Federal Parent Locator Service, mandated by Welfare Reform Legislation: the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA);
Completion of Business Process Reengineering of the Grants Administration Process through the use of the Grants Administration Tracking and Evaluation Systems (GATES);
Continued implementation of IT support activities associated with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF); and
ACF successfully completed all Y2K internal and outreach systems required for human service delivery programs.

Cost accounting: Beginning in FY 1998, all government reporting entities were required to implement, and be audited on, full cost accounting (also known as managerial cost accounting) as part of the annual financial statements audit process. Beginning with the FY 1998 audit process, ACF was required to present all costs directly associated with a program, as well as all costs indirectly supporting that program. Based on Federal law and OMB guidance, the programs against which these costs had to be reported were ACF's major program areas as identified in the GPRA Annual Performance Plan.

To implement a credible and auditable method to fulfill the full cost accounting requirements for the FY 1999 audit, ACF allocated its Federal Administration budget indirect costs proportionately among the major program areas on the basis of direct FTE. (Indirect costs include salaries and benefits for staff not working directly on one of the fourteen program activities; costs of training, personnel, budget, travel, systems, facilities, supplies, and rent.) To accomplish this, ACF senior staff in headquarters and the regions completed a Staff Resource Survey providing the total number of staff working directly on program activities in one or more of the major program areas; and the total number of staff not working directly on program activities. Staff in this category included planning, administrative, and front office staff.

Fractions of staff were indicated for those working in more than one major program area. Contractors and detailees out of an organization were excluded from a manager's count while detailees into an organization from another office were included.

Where an organization encompassed one entire major program area, e.g., Developmental Disabilities, Child Support, Native Americans Program, only the total number of on-board staff for that organization were indicated. Staff offices that provided crosscutting activities reported on-board staff as "Other staff not working directly on program activities." Offices where program distinctions could be made (e.g., ACYF, OCS) reported on both items.

Completed survey data were collated and analyzed in an automated spreadsheet and provided to the HHS Program Service Center (PSC) to allocate the indirect costs in proportion to the resulting direct staff ratio. This data supported PSC's development of ACF's Statement of Net Cost. ACF managers were advised to retain documentation that explains how they arrived at their numbers in the event that auditors requested to review this process.

Our cost accounting strategy was accepted by the auditing firm (Clifton Gunderson), PSC, ASMB and the OIG. Other OPDIVs also requested copies of our methodology and survey instrument. ACF is using the same strategy for FY 2002 with the addition of one program area, Individual Development Accounts.

Program evaluation: While States have been given increasing latitude in administering programs, they depend on national leadership and partnership in developing reliable information, technical assistance, and the development and dissemination of proven or promising methods for achieving and measuring success. Extant research and early results of major studies underway helped shape significant changes in Federal and State policy and legislation affecting low-income families and children.

The effects of these programmatic changes and increase in State flexibility are not fully understood. For example, the TANF legislation limits the duration of eligibility for public assistance, the percentage of the caseload who may be excluded from work requirements, and the conditions for teen parent assistance for which States may expect Federal support. The statute also allows States wide discretion in designing services to meet these and other provisions. Effective State decision-making requires timely and reliable information on the consequences of alternative policy and program choices and the experiences of other States. As policy and program design devolves to States and localities, it is vital that these levels of government have reliable information for decision-making and that the effects of different policy and program choices on quality and accessibility are understood. Documenting, understanding, interpreting and facilitating the exchange of information and experiences among States is essential to providing high quality services to promote the well being of families and children.

As ACF continues to focus on results-oriented management, evaluations play an increasingly important role in program improvement. Program evaluations are directed at evaluating effectiveness, assessing the achievement of performance results, assessing the impacts of human services, and improving program management. While program evaluations are largely directed at assessing the effectiveness of individual projects within a program, the ACF performance measurement system is the primary mechanism used to monitor annual progress in achieving ACF's strategic and performance goals.

Specific Examples of Ongoing Evaluations that Support Major Goals in ACF Performance Plan

Goal One: Improve the economic independence and productivity for families:Data from a variety of national, State and program-specific sources provided valuable insights and information for developing strategies, measures and targets for Goal One and attendant strategies. For example, the national evaluation of welfare-to-work strategies produced valuable information on the effectiveness of the JOBS program in seven sites and provided the basis for many reforms in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).

A number of implementation strategies support Goal One objectives and focus on identifying best practices and effective program practices and disseminating these to other service providers through Federal technical assistance and capacity-building activities. Evaluations of these efforts point to the success of many of these strategies. For example, there is substantial evidence that many welfare-to-work experiments have been adopted by States. Many elements of successful demonstrations were adopted in the welfare reform provisions of TANF. Additionally, ACF is funding research to provide more information on the role of fathers in strengthening family formation and functioning to identify and eliminate barriers that impede involvement with their children.

Goal 2: Improve Healthy Development, Safety and Well Being of Children and Youth:Evaluations demonstrate the success of working through programs, such as Head Start and Child Care, to link children to health care, e.g. Descriptive Study of Head Start Health Services (a 1996 study of a representative sample of 1200 children in 40 Head Start programs) and current Head Start Program Information Report data and Child Care State plans. A study issued in October 1999, Access to Child Care for Low-Income Working Families, examined the availability of child care subsidies to eligible families and a NICHD Study of early child care examined the outcomes of children attending centers that meet professional standards. The Family and Child Experiences Survey, a longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample, provides valuable data on child performance in areas of cognitive and social skills indicating readiness to learn more in kindergarten. Research and evaluation studies of child care services assist in promoting effective practices and provide a better understanding of child care supply, demand, unmet need, quality and cost for those transitioning from welfare to work.

Additionally, State and program administrative data are particularly useful in assessing trends and establishing targets for child welfare, abuse and neglect, early learning (Head Start) and child care. The Department's third annual report, America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-being, provided a secondary source of trend data for these objectives. Recent evaluative data indicates substantial increases in adoptions in FY 1997 and FY 1998, indicating the success of these strategies. Also, GAO recently found that the use of adoption incentives increases the likelihood of adoption of older and minority children and is cost effective (GAO/HEHS-97-73).

Future Evaluations that will inform performance measures:

Objective	Subject	Methodology	End Date	Agency
1.1 Increase Employment	Evaluation of Employment Retention and Advancement strategies; impact of welfare reform on child outcome measures; rural welfare to work strategies; effectively serving special populations	Impact Analyses (experimental or non-experimental design)	Variable (late 2000-2005)	ACF/OPRE
3.1 Increase Parental Responsibility	Evaluation of the role of both parents in providing financial and emotional support to their children			ACF/OCSE
4.1 Increase affordable child care	Evaluations of changing dynamics of the child care system in the larger framework of welfare reform			ACF/OPRE/CCB
5.1 Healthy Development and Learning Readiness of Children	Continuation of "A National Study of Child Care for Low-Income Families"	Surveys, Site Visits	2002	ACF/OPRE/CCB
5.2 Head Start	Continuation of the Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) to provide outcome-based information on the social and cognitive progress of Head Start Children	Interviews, Observations, Assessments & Surveys	Every 3 years; Each cohort followed through kindergarten	ACF/HSB
7.1 Safety, Permanency and Well- Being of Children and Youth	Continuation of national longitudinal study of child welfare; complimentary studies concerning structural decision making and effectiveness of services provided for families and children	Surveys, interviews	On-going in 3-5 year cycles	ACF/OPRE/CB
7.1	Systematic review of child welfare outcomes in areas of safety, permanency and child and family well-being	Monitoring, state RO-CO partnership monitoring visits, previsit statewide assessments, analysis and use of existing data from NCANDS and AFCARS	On-going	ACF/CB
7.1	Evaluation technical assistance to grantees to improve local evaluations and encourage cross-site cooperation and consensus on data elements	Contracts	Second phase 10/1/00 to 9/29/02	ACF/CB
7.1	Evaluation of the impact of family preservation and support services	Contracts (surveys, site visits, research and evaluation)	Date-phased	ACF/CB, CORE, OPRE, ASPE

Linkage with budget: ACF has identified eight program objectives to provide a framework for individual programs and program activities to collaborate anddirect their efforts to achieve ACF-wide cross-cutting program goals. This approach enables ACF partners in State, Tribal, and local governments and nonprofit and private agencies to use the various program resources within ACF to provide early childhood enrichment, and to increase the economic and social well-being and productivity of families. ACF does not have a direct relationship with beneficiaries and in many cases has a tertiary relationship through States and State grantees.

The following Program & Financing (P&F) schedules have been aggregated:

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Child Support Enforcement
Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Refugee and Entrant Assistance
Social Services Block Grant

The following activities within the Children and Families Services Programs P&F schedule have been aggregated:

Community Services Block Grant programs: Community services block grants, Community services discretionary programs
Developmental Disabilities: State grants, Protection and advocacy, Special projects; University affiliated projects

The following activities within a P&F schedule are free-standing:

Individual Development Accounts
Family violence/battered women's shelters and domestic violence hotline;
Head Start
Native Americans Programs

The following have been consolidated combining activities from more than one P&F schedule:

Child Care: combining Child Care Entitlement to States and Child Care and Development Block Grant
Child Welfare: combining Children's Research and Technical Assistance and Child Welfare (Child abuse State grants; child abuse discretionary grants, Community based resource centers, Abandoned infants assistance, Temporary child care and crisis nurseries); Child welfare services (Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living); Family Preservation and Support; Child welfare training; Adoption opportunities; Adoption initiatives
Youth Programs: Runaway and homeless youth; Runaway youth transitional living, education and prevention grants to reduce sexual abuse of runaway, homeless and street youth

Cross walk of ACF goals and objectives with the budget:

The budget structure is a program-based account structure that allows ACF to assign amounts to the agency's strategic goals based on the activities of the program line-item. In the budget justifications, the budget narrative is consistent with the goals and objectives in the performance plan. It discusses which strategic goal(s) each budget line-item supports and includes selected performance measures in the narratives. A number of budget line items and their associated funds apply to more than one strategic goal or objective. In the table that follows, these line items have been listed under each relevant objective with selected measures.

To avoid duplicative counting, the dollar amounts are only associated with one appearance of their line item, usually where the associated measures most directly relate to the statutory purpose of the particular funding amount (except for Social Services Research, which has been distributed in a rough approximation of its allocation). In their appearances elsewhere, the dollar amounts are left blank and indicated with an asterisk. This table is for presentation and overview purposes, not for budgeting or performance analysis. The selected measures are representative and not intended to fully define the performance associated with the total budget under that category. Allocation of funding subtotals for each specific measure or performance goal within the objectives is not realistic. In the case of "parental responsibility" (child support enforcement), dollars collected have been substituted for collection rate (the measurement dimension for the corresponding APP target) to provide uniformity to the table. A column has been added which identifies the budget program account number. Budget and other dollar figures are in millions. The budget linkage table on the following pages is not a formal budget presentation.

Detailed Budget Linkage Table

(not for budget analysis)

(dollars in millions)

GPRA ACF STRATEGIC GOALS and Objectives With selected performance measures (Program Activity)	Program/Budget Line Items (not a formal budget presentation) (Program subtotals are shown where needed.)	Budget Program Account No.	FY 2000 Appropriation	FY 2001 Enacted	FY 2002
I. INCREASE ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE & PRODUCTIVITY FOR FAMILIES (1.1-4.1)	Strengthening Fatherhood	-	0	0	60.0
	Projects of National Significance	-	0	0	4.0
1. Increase Employment	*Subtotal*	-	0.0	0.0	64.0
TANF performance measure (1.1) By FY 00, increase the % of adult TANF recipients who become newly employed By FY 01, increase the % of adult TANF recipients who become newly employed By FY 02, increase the % of adult TANF recipients who become newly employed.	State Family Assistance Grants (TANF)	1552	16488.7	16488.7	16488.7
	State Penalties	1552	0	0	(10.0)
	Family Assistance Grants to Territories	1552	77.9	77.9	77.9
	Matching Grants to Territories	1552	15.0	15.0	15.0
	Supp Grants for Population Increases	1552	***	***	***
	Tribal Work Programs	1552	7.6	7.6	7.6
	Social Services Research	1536	3.5	11.4	3.6
	State and Local Welfare Administration	1501	16.7	1.0	0
	TANF Bonus for Decreased Illegitimacy	1552	100.0	100.0	100.0
	TANF High Performance Bonus Reward	1552	***	***	***
	Emergency Assistance	1501	94.0	37.0	0
	Welfare Research	1536	15.0	15.0	15.0
	*TANF/welfare subtotal:*	-	16818.4	16753.6	16697.8
Refugee Performance Measure (1.4) Increase the number of refugees entering employment from ORR-funded employment related services by 5% annually. (Baseline: In 1997, there were 46,800 refugees entering employment.) FY 00 target: 54,176; FY 01 target: 56,885; FY 02 target: 59,730	Transitional, Med Svcs - Refugee Resettlement	1503	220.7	225.2	227.3
	Employment Services - Refugee Resettlement	1503	143.9	143.6	143.6
	Targeted Assistance - Refugee Resettlement	1503	49.5	49.5	49.5
	Preventive Health - Refugees	1503	4.8	4.8	4.8
	Victims of Torture	1503	7.3	10.0	10.0
	Victims of Trafficking	-	0	5.0	10.0
	Repatriation	1501	.8	1.0	1.0
	*Refugee subtotal:*	-	427.0	434.1	446.2
SSBG (1.5). Maintain at the FY 1998 baseline the number of child recipients of daycare services that are funded in whole or in part by SSBG funds FY 01 and FY 02 targets: 2,399,827 children	Social Services Block Grant	1534	1775.0	1725.0	1700.0
	*Social Services Block Grant subtotal*	-	1775.0	1725.0	1700.0
	Developmental Disabilities (DD) State Grants*	1536	*	*	*
Total funding per objective	-	-	19020.4	18912.7	18908.0
2. Increase Independent Living	DD - State Grants	1536	65.7	67.8	67.8
Developmental disabilities performance measure (2.1-2.2) FY 00: 2132 people with DD own or rent their homes FY 01: 36,000 people with DD own or rent their homes FY 02: 37,000 of people with DD owning or renting their own homes	Social Services Research	1536	0.3	0.2	0.2
	DD - Protection and Advocacy *	1536	28.1	33.0	33.0
	DD - University Affiliated Projects	1536	18.2	21.8	21.8
	DD - Special Projects	1536	10.2	10.9	10.7
	*DD Subtotal*	-	122.2	133.5	133.3
	Individual Development Accounts	1536	10.0	25.0	25.0
Total funding per objective	-	-	132.5	158.7	158.5
3. Increase Parental Responsibility
Child support enforcement performance measure (3.1) FY 00: Increase the IV-D collection rate for current support to 71% FY 01: Increase collection rate for current support from the FY 99 baseline of 52% to 54%. FY 02: Increase the IV-D collection rate for current support to 55%.	Federal Incentive Payments - Child Support	1501	396.0	416.0	450.0
	State Administrative Costs - Child Support	1501	2806.5	3247.8	3413.8
	Federal Parent Locator Service	1552	26.0	26.5	27.0
	Access and Visitation - Child Support	1501	10.0	10.0	10.0
	CSE Hold Harmless	1501	10.2	10.0	10.0
	Payments to Territories	1501	19.1	23.0	23.0
	Social Services Research	1536	0	1.0	1.0
Total funding per objective	-	-	3267.8	3734.3	3934.8
4. Increase Affordable Child Care
Child care affordability performance measure (4.1) FY 01: Increase the percentage of potentially eligible children who receive CCDF subsidies from the FY 1998 baseline of 10% to 12.5%. FY 02: Increase the percentage of eligible children... to 13%	Child Care and Development Block Grant	1515	1172.7	1990.0	1790.0
	Social Services Research	1536	.5	.9	.5
	Child Care Mandatory	1550	1177.5	1177.5	1177.5
	Child Care Matching	1550	1136.2	1331.7	1478.3
	Tribal Mandatory	1550	47.3	51.3	54.3
	AFDC/JOBS Child Care	1501	1.0	2.0	0
	After School Certificates	-	0	0	400.0
	Research and Evaluation Fund	1536	10.0	10.0	10.0
	Training & Tech. Assist.-CC Entitlement	1550