CSBG Report to Congress FY 2008

Publication Date: July 19, 2012

Introduction

Community Services Block Grant Program Report to Congress Fiscal Year 2008

 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Introduction
Definitions
The FY 2008 CSBG Network
State Uses of CSBG Funds in FY 2008
CAA Accomplishments in FY 2008
Summary of the Planned Uses of Funds by States and Eligible Entities
Participants of CAA Programs
CSBG Special State Technical Assistance Grants
Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA)
National Performance Goals and Indicators
National Performance Outcomes
National Performance Targets and Trends
Conclusion

Executive Summary

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

The Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 CSBG Program Report to Congress, which includes the CSBG Program Performance Measurement Report, is mandated at Sections 678E(b )(2) and 678B( c) of the CSBG Act. Both reports are required to be submitted together to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions and the House Committee on Education and Labor by Section 678B(c) of the CSBG Act.

The FY 2008 program data for the CSBG Report to Congress was gathered by the Community Services Block Grant Information System (CSBG IS) survey, administered by the National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP). The 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico provided information about the level and uses of CSBG funds, their activities, and the number and characteristics of families and individuals participating in CSBG programs. In addition, HHS conducted evaluations of State compliance among all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico during the reporting period through: 1) a State-by-State survey, and 2) State Assessments on the use of CSBG Funds in the States of De1aware, Idaho, Mississippi, and Utah.

The Appendix of the report provides more extensive information on the FY 2008 State Assessments and data pertaining to CSBG program uses of funds, services, and client characteristics.

Community Services Block Grant Program Mission and Purpose

The CSBG mission is to provide funds to alleviate the causes and conditions of poverty in communities in States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, U.S. Territories, Federal and State-recognized Indian Tribes and Tribal organizations, and other eligible entities. Other eligible entities include Community Action Agencies (CAA), migrant and seasonal farmworkers, or other organizations designated by the States. In FY 2008, the State-administered network of local agencies consisted of 1,073 CSBG eligible entities that created, coordinated and delivered programs and services to low-income Americans in 99% of U.S. counties. The CSBG Act sets forth how funds are distributed to States and the rules eligible entities must abide by to be eligible for CSBG funds. Grantees receiving funds under the CSBG program are required to provide services and activities addressing employment, education, and better use of available income, housing, health, nutrition, and emergency services.

Fiscal Year 2008 State CSBG Program Funding

In FY 2008, Congress appropriated $653.8 million for the Community Services Block Grant. Of those funds, $643.4 million were allocated to States and Tribes. During FY 2008, $617 million was expended by States including $77.5 million carried over from FY 2007. Eligible entities received 92 percent of these funds (nearly $567 million).

Each State designates a State agency to act as the lead agency for the purposes of administering CSBG. State CSBG agencies are responsible for developing the State plan, conducting reviews of eligible entities, and ensuring CSBG funds are directed toward the statutory purposes of the CSBG program. The CSBG Act requires that 90 percent of the funds that States receive be allocated to eligible entities who administer the CSBG program at the community level.

The remaining funds may be used at the State's discretion for programs that help to accomplish the CSBG program goals. Discretionary funds are primarily used for activities such as Statewide initiatives, including: research; information dissemination; coalition building; demonstration projects; training and technical assistance: geographic service expansion; volunteer mobilization; disaster relief: health care; and other programs that address needs identified by the State agencies.

CSBG Program Performance Measurement

Over the past decade, States and eligible entities receiving CSBG funds have been working to achieve six national performance goals:

Goal 1: Low-income people become more self-sufficient.

Goal 2: The conditions in which low-income people live are improved.

Goal 3: Low-income people own a stake in their community.

Goal 4: Partnerships among supporters and providers of service to low-income people are achieved.

Goal 5: Agencies increase their capacity to achieve results.

Goal 6: Low-income people, especially vulnerable populations, achieve their potential by strengthening family and other supportive systems.

To enable national reporting of a set of core CSBG results among States and local agencies, 12 common categories, or indicators, of performance were identified from FY s 2001 to 2003 data. Since 2004, these 12 National Performance Indicators (NPIs) have measured the impact of CSBG programs and activities on families and communities. The NPIs are related to the six national performance goals in that they measure incremental progress toward achieving each of the larger goals, which require specific steps along the way to success. The NPIs cover the following outcome areas:

1.1 - Employment

1.2 - Employment Supports

1.3 - Economic Asset Enhancement and Utilization

2.1 - Community Improvement and Revitalization

2.2 - Community Quality of Life and Assets

3.1 - Civic Investment

3.2 - Community Empowerment through Maximum Feasible Participation

4.1 - Expanding Opportunities through Community-Wide Partnerships

5.1 - Broadening the Resource Base

6.1 - Independent Living

6.2 - Emergency Assistance

6.3 - Child and Family Development

 

Fiscal Year 2008 CSBG Program Highlights of Accomplishments and Performance Outcomes

CSBG-funded eligible entities provide services with both CSBG funds and funds from other sources. The following are examples of the services provided by these entities using CSBG and other funding sources:

  • All 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico measured and reported on outcomes regarding individuals served using CSBG funds, and the impact on the community, either using the Secretary's Results Oriented Management and Accountability System, or a local or State adaptation of the system as allowed in the CSBG Act.
  • Nearly 16.4 million individuals were served by local CSBG eligible entities.
  • NPIs were used for reporting data on family, community, and agency improvement outcomes as well as CSBG performance targets.
  • Volunteers provided nearly 47.8 million hours of support, the equivalent of 22,988 full-time employees' annual labor. If valued at the independent sector wage, which adjusts for skill levels of non-profit volunteers, the volunteers' time was worth $968.2 million.
  • CSBG eligible entities provided services to more than 1.4 million families headed by single mothers.
  • 262,174 low-income participants were connected to health care services for themselves or a family member in support of employment stability.
  • 437,603 low-income participants obtained food assistance in support of employment stability.
  • 362,813 low-income families in CAA tax preparation programs received Federal or State tax credits. ($274,482,126 was the total amount of tax credits received.)
  • 6,389 low-income families were helped to obtain child support payments. ($18,378,573 was the total amount of payments.)
  • 6,479 low-income families opened new Individual Development Accounts or other savings accounts. ($6,749,830 was the total amount of savings.)

Federal Monitoring and Oversight

The CSBG Act requires the HHS Secretary annually to conduct fiscal year evaluations of the use of funds received by the States. Accordingly, OCS conducts State Assessments (SAs) to examine the implementation, performance, compliance, and outcomes of a state's CSBG program to certify that the State is adhering to the provisions set forth in Sections 687B and 676(b) of the CSBG Act.

In FY 2007, OCS conducted a monitoring selection process to determine which States would receive the most benefit from a State Assessment and to establish a schedule for Fiscal Years 2007 - 2009 monitoring. Selection of States was based on several criteria including risk-based issues. Examples include evidence of past problems among eligible entities as well as other criteria, such as poverty indicators, number of clients served in a State, complexity of the State's monitoring efforts compared to the State's physical size, and a ranking of States that submitted their CSBG State Plans or Information Survey data late. OCS also issued Information Memorandum 105 advising States that OCS would begin conducting both on-site and desk monitoring during FY 2008. In FY 2008, OCS conducted on-site reviews of the use of CSBG funds by the States of Delaware and Utah. In addition, OCS conducted desk reviews of the use of CSBG funds by the States of Idaho and Mississippi.

It is a priority of HHS to ensure the integrity and continuous improvement of the CSBG program. The SAs are effective tools for monitoring program integrity and for targeting CSBG discretionary training and technical assistance funds. They are a key component of ongoing program integrity and accountability efforts in CSBG.

Introduction

The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program provides core funding to States and local communities through a network of CSBG eligible entities, commonly referred to as "Community Action Agencies" (CAAs). CSBG-funded programs coordinate a broad array of anti-poverty efforts in almost every county in the nation. State and local programs revitalize low-income communities, and empower low-income families and individuals to become fully self-sufficient. By law, an agency that receives the CSBG designation and funding as a Community Action Agency:

  • Is governed by a tripartite board composed of representatives of the low-income neighborhoods being served, elected local officials, and key community resources, such as business and commerce, faith-based organizations, other service providers, and community groups;
  • Conducts periodic assessments of the poverty needs and conditions within its community and serves as a principal source of information about, and advocate for, addressing those needs;
  • Develops goals and strategies to empower low-income people, reduce poverty, increase self- sufficiency, and improve conditions and opportunities within the community that support family stability and advancement;
  • Mobilizes and coordinates programs and resources within the agency and with partnering public and private service providers to achieve family and community improvement goals; and,
  • Maintains a performance-focused system for assessing and reporting the effectiveness of its anti- poverty strategy in terms of results achieved among low-income people and neighborhoods.

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

This report complies with Sections 678E(b)(2) and 678B(c) of the CSBG Act. The CSBG Act requires that the Secretary submit together annually to the Congress the report required at Section 678E(b )(2) on the CSBG statistical database (CSBG Program Report) and the report required at Section 678B( c) on the results of fiscal year evaluations conducted in several States on the use of CSBG funds (CSBG State Assessments). In addition, Section 678E{b)(2)(E) of the CSBG Act requires the Secretary to include in the annual report "a summary of each State's performance results and the results for the eligible entities submitted by the States." This report provides the information required for Fiscal Year (FY) 2008.

The FY 2008 program data for the CSBG Program Report was gathered by the Community Services Block Grant Information System (CSBG IS) survey, administered by the National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP). The 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico provided information about the level and uses of CSBG funds, their activities, and the number and characteristics of families and individuals participating in CSBG programs.

In addition, HHS conducted evaluations of State compliance among all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico during the reporting period through: 1) a State-by-State survey, and 2) State Assessments of four State CSBG agencies on their use of CSBG funds. The results of the State Assessments conducted in the States of Delaware, Idaho, Mississippi, and Utah are provided in Appendix A of this report. Specifically, the CSBG Act requires HHS to report on the following topics, which are presented in this report:

  • A summary of the planned uses of funds by each State and the eligible entities in the State;
  • A description of how funds were spent by the State and eligible entities, including a breakdown of funds spent on:
    • Administrative costs, and,
    • Delivery of local services by eligible entities;
  • Information on the number of entities eligible for funds, including:
  • The number of low-income persons served, and
  • Demographic data on low-income populations served by eligible entities;
  • A comparison of the planned and actual uses of the funds by each State;
  • A summary describing training and technical assistance offered by the State to help correct deficiencies during the year covered by the report;
  • A summary of States' performance outcomes of Community Action as collected and submitted by the States; and,
  • Results of fiscal year evaluations conducted in several States on the use of CSBG funds (State Assessments).

Definitions

Administrative Costs

Administrative costs are equivalent to typical indirect costs or overhead. As distinguished from program administration or management expenditures that qualify as direct costs, administrative costs refer to central executive functions that do not directly support a specific project or service. Incurred for common objectives that benefit multiple programs administered by the grantee organization or the organization as a whole, administrative costs are not readily assignable to a particular program funding stream. States may use as much as five percent of the State block grant funds for their administrative costs.

Community Action Agencies (CAAs)

CAAs are local private and public nonprofit organizations that carry out the Community Action Program (CAP), which was founded by the 1964 Economic Opportunity Act to fight poverty in the United States. Each CAA, also referred to as a local eligible entity, is governed by a tripartite board composed of representatives of the low-income neighborhoods being served, elected local officials, and key community resources, such as business and commerce, faith-based organizations, other service providers, and community groups.

Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)

The CSBG is authorized under Section 674 of the Community Services Block Grant Act of 1981 (CSBG Act), as amended by the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational services Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-285). The Office of Community Services (OCS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) administers the block grant. CSBG funds are allocated to the States and other jurisdictions (including tribes, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and territories) through a formula. The CSBG formula determines each jurisdiction's funding level based on poverty population.

Community Services Block Grant Information System (CSBG IS)

The CSBG IS collects information about the level and uses of CSBG funds, their activities, and the number and characteristics of families and individuals participating in CSBG programs from the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP) administers the survey.

Community Services Block Grant Network

The various organizations involved in planning and implementing programs funded through CSBG. The network includes local CSBG-eligible entities; CSBG Lead Agencies and their national association; State Community Action Agency Associations; national associations; and related organizations that collaborate and participate with CSBG-eligible entities in their efforts on behalf of low-income people.

Direct Program Costs

Direct program costs can be identified with delivery of a particular project, service, or activity intended to achieve an objective of the grant. For the CSBG, those purposes and eligible activities are specified in the authorizing Act and reflected in the national Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) performance measures. Direct program costs are incurred for the service delivery and management components within a particular program or project.

Discretionary Projects

Discretionary projects can include statewide capacity building programs, such as programs that address a particular need and involve State-level planning; research; training and technical assistance to eligible entities; and competitive or demonstration programs to eliminate one or more causes of poverty. Funds also may be expended for a broad range of programs run by eligible entities and other organizations to address needs identified by State agencies.

Grants to Eligible Entities

The CSBG Act requires that 90 percent of State block grant funds be allocated to local eligible entities.

Local Eligible Entities

The CSBG Act requires States to allocate block grant funds to "designated" local agencies, defined as "eligible entities," and commonly referred to as "Community Action Agencies" (CAAs).

National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP)

NASCSP is the national association charged with advocating and enhancing the leadership role of States in preventing and reducing poverty. NASCSP's vision encompasses the empowerment of low-income families to reach self-sufficiency in its broadest context, by helping States attain full utilization of their resources and implement an extensive array of services to these families in urban, suburban, and rural communities

National Performance Indicators (NPIs)

The NPIs are related to the six national Community Action goals. The NPIs measure incremental progress toward achieving each of the larger goals, which require specific steps along the way to success.

Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA)

ROMA is a management and evaluation strategy that measures and reports the performance outcomes of Community Action Agencies' work toward promoting self-sufficiency, family stability, and community revitalization. ROMA was created in 1994 by the Monitoring and Assessment Task Force, an ongoing task force of Federal, state, and local community action officials, as a performance-based initiative designed to preserve the anti-poverty focus of community action and to promote greater effectiveness among state and local agencies receiving CSBG funds. The 1998 CSBG Reauthorization Act requires C AAs to implement ROM A or an alternative system for measuring performance and results.

The FY 2008 CSBG Network

The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) supports a State-administered, nationwide network of local organizations whose purpose is to reduce the causes of poverty in the low-income communities they serve.

Eligible entities, primarily Community Action Agencies (CAAs), carry out their mission by creating, coordinating and delivering a broad array of programs and services to their communities. In FY 2008, 1,073 CSBG eligible entities served 99% of U.S. counties. These entities' core Federal support, institutional framework, and shared mission come from CSBG. In total. eligible entities reported allocating financial resources totaling $11.9 billion, including $597.9 million from CSBG, $7.7 billion from non-CSBG Federal sources, $1.5 billion from State sources, $883 million from local sources, and $1.2 billion from private sources. For purposes of this report, the designation "CAA" or "CAAs" will refer to all local organizations within the CSBG Network.

Table 1 shows the number of CSBG-funded e1igible entities in FY 2008, by type, in each State. State- specific details on CSBG eligible entities included in the CSBG IS survey can be found in Appendix B.

Table 1: Local Organizations by Type

Category of Eligible Entity

Unduplicated Count of Entities

Number of States

Community Action Agencies

939

52

Limited Purpose Agencies (specializing in only one or two kinds of programs)

22

10

Migrant and/or Seasonal Farm Worker Organizations

8

5

Local Government Agencies

72

8

Tribes and Tribal Organizations

15

4

Others

17

3

Total

1,073 52

52

 


State Uses of CSBG Funds in FY 2008

In FY 2008, Congress appropriated $653.8 million for the Community Services Block Grant. Of those funds, $643.4 million was allocated to States and tribes. During FY 2008, $617 million was expended by States including $77.5 million carried over from FY 2007. More detailed information regarding State CSBG expenditures in FY 2008 can be found in Appendix B Table 1. There are three allowable uses for State CSBG funds: grants to local eligible entities, State administrative costs, and discretionary projects.

Grants to Local Eligible Entities

The CSBG Act requires at least 90% of the CSBG funds to be allocated to local eligible entities. In FY 2008, the 1,073 CAAs expended nearly $567 million, or 92%, of these funds. These funds supported the management, infrastructure and operations of the CAAs. The block grant funded personnel work to coordinate multiple programs, fill gaps in services, manage systems to avoid duplication, and improve the continuity of services and activities for participants. CSBG-funded staff were also assigned to build local partnerships for reducing poverty. In addition, CSBG covered indirect expenses associated with the space, equipment, materials, and services needed for the CAAs to work effectively.

Table 2: Uses of Federal CSBG Funds

Use of Funds

Amount Expended*

Number of States

Percentage of Total Funds Expended

Grants to Local Entities

`$566,954,000

52

92%

State Administrative Costs

$26,275,600

52

4%

Discretionary Projects

$23,774,700

47

4%

Total Expended in FY 2008

$617,004,300**

52

100%

Carried Forward to FY 2009

$80,898,900

39

N/A

 

* All dollar figures in this table are rounded to the nearest hundred. As a result, columns may not exactly add up to the totals shown.
** Includes FY 2008 Funds as well as $77.5 million carded over from FY 2007.

State Administrative Costs

States may use as much as 5% of their allocation of the block grant for their State's administrative costs, with the exception of States that have very small allocations, which may use more. However, many States routinely use less than the allowable 5%. As Table 2 shows, 4% of total funds expended in FY 2008 were used for State administrative expenditures.

The block grant funded all or part of 559 State agency positions, the equivalent of about 235 full-time State employees (FTEs). Just as the local agencies administer a number of Federal and State programs in conjunction with CSBG, so do the State CSBG offices. Altogether, State CSBG offices administered 217 programs in addition to CSBG.

State-specific details, showing the FTEs and responsibilities of CSBG State administrators, are provided in Appendix B.

Discretionary Projects

The remaining funds may be used at the State's discretion for programs that help to accomplish the statutory purposes of the block grant. Forty-seven States used 4% of their collective funds expended in FY 2008, nearly $23.8 million, for discretionary initiatives. These included:

  • State-wide initiatives, such as programs that address a particular need and involve State-level planning, research, information dissemination, coalition building and/or intra-State coordination;
  • Grants, awarded to CAAs through a vigorous process, that support exemplary competitive or demonstration programs to eliminate one or more causes of poverty;
  • Training and technical assistance to local agencies; and
  • Expansion to new geographic areas.

State-level initiatives funded by discretionary grants can be found in Appendix B.

 

CAA Accomplishments in FY 2008
Nationwide Resources


In FY 2008, 1,073 CAAs reported allocated financial resources totaling $11.9 billion, including $597.9 million from CSBG,1 $7.7 billion from non-CSBG Federal sources, $1.5 billion from State sources, $883 million from local sources, and $1.2 billion from private sources. Although CSBG was a small part of the total, the flexibility it provides to CAAs allows them to fund staff, infrastructure, and activities not supported by other resources. While Federal programs, predominantly those of HHS, provided two- thirds of FY 2008 non-CSBG funding, private partners contributed over $1.2 billion, more than CSBG itself.

Figure 1: Resources by Funding Source (State, Local, and Private*) as Compared to CSBG
 

1This amount includes CSBG funds directly allocated to eligible entities, plus any discretionary funds awarded to eligible entities in FY 2008. Note that a portion of allocated funds may have been carried forward to the next fiscal year. This figure differs from the amount in Table 2 because it represents CSBG allocations, whereas Table 2 represents expenditures.

 

Figure 1 shows the FY 2008 non-Federal resources by funding source compared to CSBG. State- specific details, including Federal and State funding as well as private and local resources, are provided in Appendix B.

Altogether, the non-Federal sources of funds matched CAA CSBG dollars by a ratio of $5.96 to every dollar ($1.00) of CSBG. If the value of volunteer hours is included ($279.7 million), the ratio of non- Federal resources to each CSBG dollar increases to $6.43.2 The "leveraging" ratio of CSBG to non- Federal funding, an important indicator of CAAs' efficacy as discussed above, was 37% higher than 2001 and 7% higher than FY 2007. Figure 2 shows the non-Federal resources leveraged by CSBG funds in FY 2008, in 2001 dollars.

A major function of CSBG-paid CAA staff is developing resources to meet community needs. The high leveraging ratio reflects CAAs' progress towards this goal. CAAs develop partnerships to offer opportunities for private donors, businesses, and volunteers to donate their resources or time to improve the lives of families in their communities. They also generate Federal, State, and local government support by obtaining contracts, grants, and partnership agreements. The total financial resources of a given year reflect the organization's resource development work of the previous few years.

Figure 2: Non-Federal Leveraging per CSBG Dollar ($1.00) in 2001 Dollars
 

2 The value of volunteer hours can be estimated using the July 24, 2007 Federal minimum wage of $5.85 an hour. Calculated in this way, the 47.8 million volunteer hours recorded by agencies in FY 2008 increased the network's resources by $279.7 million. This is a conservative estimate, however, to value donations of time and skill at the minimum wage. CAAs organize help offered by medical professionals, CPAs, attorneys, teachers, retired executives, printers, and builders, as well as homemakers and low-wage workers in the community. Research by the Independent Sector estimates that the average value of volunteer hours in 2008 was $20.25-see Dollar Value of a Volunteer Hour: 1980-2008 (Washington, DC, 2008), Using this more realistic figure would mean that CAAs received volunteer support worth $968.2 million.

The CAA Approach

CAAs typically draw upon resources from many limited-purpose programs to support individual participants and families striving to increase their economic security. CAA programs either fill a gap in community supports or coordinate existing facilities and services.

CAAs also mobilize initiatives that benefit entire communities, such as effective responses to predatory lending or a local industry closure. Typically, CAAs must develop the investment partnerships or coalitions that support community improvement.

The people, facilities, and equipment needed for this work are often supported by CSBG. The block grant funding permits CAAs to support national and state programs to meet local needs. Although most CAAs manage multiple programs that are classified by the group served (such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children; Crime Victims Assistance Program; or Emergency Services to the Homeless), CAA projects are classified by the conditions causing poverty that the CSBG Act identifies as major barriers to economic security. They include inadequate:

·  Employment

·  Education

·  Income Management

·  Housing

·  Emergency Services

·  Nutrition

·  Health Care

·  Linkages

·  Self-Sufficiency

 

Figure 3 below shows how CAAs apportioned their CSBG funds among these categories. A project in anyone category might further progress toward a variety of a CANs goals, and many projects fall into more than one of these categories.

 

Figure 3: Local Agency Uses of CSBG Funds in FY 2008
 

Summary of the Planned Uses of Funds by States and Eligible Entities

In FY 2008, States planned to use CSBG funds to provide resources for direct delivery of local services to individuals and families participating in eligible entities' programs. A comparison of planned and actual uses of funds is provided later in Appendix B.

Description of How Funds Were Spent by States and Eligible Entities

Reflected in Appendix B, and summarized below, is a breakdown of State spending by program services category. The largest categories of CSBG expenditures were emergency services and self-sufficiency programs. Uses of CSBG funds are reflected in the data tables contained in this report.

Employment Programs

In FY 2008, States reported spending approximately $60 million in CSBG funding to support a range of services designed to assist low-income individuals in obtaining and maintaining employment. These services include:

  • Support for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program recipients who are preparing to transition to self-sufficiency or former TANF recipients who need additional support to find or maintain employment;
  • Support for job retention, including counseling, training, and supportive services, such as transportation, child care, and the purchase of uniforms or work clothing;
  • Skills training, job application assistance, resume writing, and job placement;
  • On-the-job training and opportunities for work;
  • Job development, including finding employers willing to recruit through the agency, facilitating interviews, creating job banks, providing counseling to employees, and developing new employment opportunities in the community;
  • Vocational training for high school students and the creation of internships and summer jobs; and/or,
  • Other specialized adult employment training.

Education Programs

In FY 2008, States reported spending approximately $71 million in CSBG funds to provide education services. Services supported include:

  • Adult education, including courses in English as a Second Language (ESL) and General Education Development (GED) preparation with flexible scheduling for working students;
  • Supplemental support to improve the educational quality of Head Start programs;
  • Child care classes, providing both child development instruction and support for working parents or home child care providers;
  • Alternative opportunities for school dropouts and those at risk of dropping out;
  • Scholarships for college or technical school;
  • Guidance about adult education opportunities in the community;
  • Programs to enhance academic achievement of students in grades K-12, while combating drug or alcohol use and preventing violence; and/or,
  • Computer-based courses to help train participants for the modern-day workforce.

Income Management Programs

States reported spending approximately $34 million in CSBG funds on income management programs in FY 2008. Services supported include:

  • Development of household assets, including savings;
  • Assistance with budgeting techniques;
  • Consumer credit counseling;
  • Business development support;
  • Homeownership assistance;
  • Energy conservation and energy consumer education programs, including weatherization;
  • Tax counseling and tax preparation assistance; and/or,
  • Assistance for the elderly with claims for medical and other benefits.

Housing Programs

In FY 2008, States reported spending approximately $46 million for CSBG-coordinated housing programs to improve the living environment of low-income individuals and families. Services supported include:

  • Homeownership counseling and loan assistance;
  • Affordable housing development and construction;
  • Counseling and advocacy about landlord/tenant relations and fair housing concerns;
  • Assistance in locating affordable housing and applying for rent subsidies and other housing assistance;
  • Transitional shelters and services for the homeless;
  • Home repair and rehabilitation services;
  • Support for management of group homes; and/or,
  • Rural housing and infrastructure development.

Emergency Services Programs

In FY 2008. States reported spending approximately $113 million in CSBG funds for emergency services to manage many kinds of crises, including:

  • Emergency temporary housing;
  • Rental or mortgage assistance and intervention with landlords;
  • Cash assistance/short term loans;
  • Energy crisis assistance and utility shut-off prevention;
  • Emergency food, clothing, and furniture;
  • Crisis intervention in response to child or spousal abuse;
  • Emergency heating system repair;
  • Crisis intervention telephone hotlines;
  • Linkages with other services and organizations to assemble a combination of short-term resources and longer-term support; and/or,
  • Natural disaster response and assistance.

Nutrition Programs

In FY 2008, States reported spending approximately $40 million in CSBG funds to support nutrition programs. Services supported include:

  • Organizing and operating food banks;
  • Assisting food banks of faith-based and civic organization partners with food supplies and/or management support;
  • Counseling regarding family and children's nutrition and food preparation;
  • Distributing surplus United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) commodities and other food supplies;
  • Administering the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) nutrition program;
  • Preparing and delivering meals, especially to the homebound elderly;
  • Providing meals in group settings; and/or,
  • Initiating self-help projects, such as community gardens, community canneries, and food buying groups.

Linkages

In FY 2008, States reported spending approximately $86 million in CSBG funds on linkage initiatives. Linkage programs can involve any or all of a variety of local activities which CSBG supports, including:

  • Coordination among programs, facilities, and shared resources through information systems, communications systems, and shared procedures;
  • Community needs assessments, followed by community planning, organization, and advocacy to meet these needs;
  • Creation of coalitions for community changes, such as reducing crime or partnering businesses with low-income neighborhoods in order to plan long-term development;
  • Efforts to establish links between resources, such as transportation and medical care and programs that bring services to the participants, such as mobile clinics or recreational programs, and management of continuum-of-care initiatives;
  • The removal of barriers, such as transportation problems, that hinder low-income individuals' abilities to access their jobs or other necessary activities; and/or,
  • Support for other groups of low-income community residents who are working for the same goals as the eligible entity.

Self-Sufficiency Programs

In FY 2008, States reported spending approximately $93 million in CSBG funds on self-sufficiency programs. These programs offer a continuum of services to assist families in becoming more financially independent. Services supported include:

  • An assessment of the issues facing the family or family members and the resources the family brings to address these issues:
  • A written plan for becoming more financially independent and self-supporting; and/or
  • Identifying resources to help the participant implement the plan (i.e. clothing, bus passes, emergency food assistance, career counseling, family guidance counseling, referrals to the Social Security Administration for disability benefits, assistance with locating possible jobs, assistance in finding long-term housing, etc.).

Health Programs

In FY 2008, States reported spending approximately $23 million on CSBG-funded health initiatives that are designed to identify and combat a variety of health problems in the community served. CSBG funds may be used to address gaps in the care and coverage available in the community. Services supported include:

  • Recruitment of uninsured children to a State insurance group or State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP);
  • Recruitment of volunteer medical personnel to assist uninsured low-income families;
  • Prenatal care, maternal health, and infant health screenings;
  • Assistance with pharmaceutical donation programs; Health-related information for all ages, including Medicare/Medicaid enrollment and claims filing;
  • Immunization;
  • Periodic screening for serious health problems, such as tuberculosis, breast cancer, HIV infection, and mental health disorders;
  • Health screening of all children;
  • Treatment for substance abuse;
  • Other health services, including dental care, health insurance advocacy, CPR training, and education about wellness, obesity, and first aid; and/or,
  • Transportation to health care facilities and medical appointments.

 

Other Programs

In FY 2008, States reported spending approximately $16 million on CSBG-funded programs that could not be placed in any of the other nine statutory service categories.

Programs for Youth and Seniors

In FY 2008, as part of the aforementioned $579 million3 spent on direct delivery of local services, States reported spending approximately $58 million in CSBG funds on programs serving youth, and approximately $55 million in CSBG funds on programs serving seniors. Services noted under these categories were targeted exclusively to children and youth from ages 12 to 18 or persons over 55 years of age. Table 16 in Appendix B provides the expenditures made by each State for programs serving youth and seniors. Youth programs supported include:

  • Recreational facilities and programs;
  • Educational services;
  • Health services and prevention of risky behavior;
  • Delinquency prevention; and/or,
  • Employment and mentoring projects.

Seniors' programs help seniors to avoid or ameliorate illness or incapacity; address absence of a caretaker or relative; prevent abuse and neglect; and promote wellness. Services supported include:

  • Home-based services, including household or personal care activities that improve or maintain well-being;
  • Assistance in locating or obtaining alternative living arrangements;
  • In-home emergency services or day care;
  • Group meals and recreational activities;
  • Special arrangements for transportation and coordination with other resources;
  • Case management and family support coordination; and/or,
  • Home delivery of meals to ensure adequate nutrition.

3 This amount represents all CSBG funds expended by CAAs during FY 2008. All dollar amounts for CSBG expenditure categories listed on pages 11-16 are rounded to the nearest million. Full CSBG expenditure amounts by category can be found in Appendix B Table 15.

Participants of CAA Programs

In FY 2008, CAAs in every State reported information about the participants in their programs and projects, including programs funded with CSBG funds and other funding sources. Nearly 16.4 million individuals, who were members of more than 7.1 million families, participated in CAA programs. The CSBG IS survey captured demographics of three-quarters of this population.

The CSBG Network serves a heterogeneous group of low-income Americans who live in a wide variety of communities. However, typical CAA program participants in FY 2008 were White, below the Federal Poverty Guideline, and members of families that relied on either a breadwinner's wages or retirement income.

Figure 4: Poverty Status of CAA Program Participant Families

Individuals and families aided by CAAs face poverty and economic insecurity in varying degrees. Out of the 4.7 million families reporting their poverty status to CAAs in FY 2008, 71.6% were at or below the Federal Poverty Guideline (FPG), $17,600 for a family of three.4 More than 1.5 million families, 33%, were "severely poor," with incomes at or below 50% of the FPO, or below $8,800 for a family of three. Figure 4 shows the proportion of families with incomes at or below percentages of the FPG, Only 15.1 % of all participant families had incomes higher than 125% of the Poverty Guideline. The income of these families could have been reported at the end of a program, after their income had increased as a result of services received.

4 The Federal Poverty Guideline for 2008 is available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08poverty.shtml

CAAs served about 22% of all those who were in poverty in FY 2008, and at least 3.4 million others with slightly higher incomes.5

Income Sources

This report groups data on sources of family income into five categories. Income sources are wages, government assistance, retirement benefits, child support, and "no income," which includes families whose members are neither employed nor enrolled in support programs. The following statistics outline key income trends in the CSBG Network:

  • More than 85% of participant families reporting one or more sources of income, or 3.2 million families, included a worker, an unemployed job-seeker, or a retired worker.
  • More than 1.2 mi1lion low-wage CAA families relied solely on their wages for income in FY 2008.
  • CAAs served more than 1.3 million retired families living on low retirement incomes. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) provided income to less than 12% of the families served by CAAs. Many family members within these recipient families worked while receiving TANF. The population that CAAs served was equivalent to about 26% of the average monthly TANF population.6 Furthermore, CAAs in 12 States reported providing services to at least half of the State's average monthly TANF population.
  • Over 610,000 families came to their CAAs with no income at all. They were not enrolled in income support programs, most were without liquid assets, and many had recently lost their sources of support, namely their wages.

5 The U.S. Census Bureau records the number of individuals living in poverty in each State, but the CSBG IS records the number of families with incomes below the poverty guideline in each State. The number of individuals in poverty served by each State's CAAs can be reasonably well estimated by multiplying the number of participant families by the average family size to obtain a count of individuals, and then multiplying all individuals by the percentage of CAA families with incomes at or below the poverty threshold.

6 Family totals and the network's share are based on comparisons to the average monthly caseload of families during FY 2008, shown by the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, at /programs/ofa/programs/tanf/data-reports. Data from the District of Columbia were omitted from the TANF analysis because the Federal T ANF samples were inadequate in size.

 

Figure 5: Sources of Income for CAA Program Participant Families


Family Structure of Participants

Figure 6 shows that 49% of participating families included children; 35% of families with children had both parents present, 59% were headed by a single mother, and 6% were headed by a single father. Single-parent families have the highest poverty rate of all family types and nearly two-thirds of all CAA program participants' households with children were of this type in FY 2008.7

7 Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D, Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, Income. Poverty. and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008, Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, (Washington, DC), 2009, 10.

 

Figure 6: Family Composition of CAA Program Participants

More than one-third of all families reporting family composition - over 1.8 million were people who lived alone, many of whom were elderly or disabled. Individuals living alone are disproportionately likely to be poor.? During FY 2008, they made up only 17% of the entire U.S. population, but 27% of the U.S. population living in poverty.8

CAAs served more than 1.8 million two- or three-person families and about 52,000 families with eight or more members. The average family size of the participants who were surveyed was 2.57 members per family.

Race and Ethnicity of Participants

CAA program participants are ethnically and racially diverse. Ethnicity data offered by over 10.1 million individuals indicated that 17% identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino. In nine States, 30% or more of the participants self-identified as Hispanic or Latino.

Participants' survey responses about their race show that 57.9% were White, 27.7% were African- American, 1.8% were American Indian or Alaska Native, 1.8% were Asian, 4.2% were multi-racial, 0.2% were Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and 6.4% were of another race.

8 DeNavas-Walt, Proctor and Smith, 14. Numbers were taken from the Census Bureau's count of unrelated individuals.

Figure 7: Age Groups of CAA Program Participants
 

Children in CAA Programs

The participants in CAA programs included more than 5.1 million children, youth, and young adults. In fact, children made up more than a third of all individuals served. Over 1.6 million children, or 15% of all CAA program participants, were five years of age or younger, as Figure 7 shows.

Seniors in CAA Programs

Almost 18% of CAA program participants reporting age, or nearly 2 million people, were 55 years or older, and nearly 45% of the participants in that age group were 70 years or older. CAAs helped these older participants maintain their independence and remain engaged in their communities.

Barriers to Self-Sufficiency

Most CAA program participants face many barriers to achieving economic security. For instance, in FY 2008, CAA program participants reported the following statistics:

  • Health Risks: Health insurance data offered by more than 8.5 million participants indicated that 35% were without medical insurance. Most of the uninsured were adult low-wage workers, who are not covered by Medicare or Medicaid. Research has found that the lack of any health insurance is a strong predictor of future critical hardships for families at all income levels, but it is particularly strong for those with incomes below 200% of the Poverty Guideline.9
  • Disabilities: Disability data collected from 8.7 million participants indicated that 16% of the CAA program participants had a disability.
  • Lack of Education: Only 60% of adults older than 24 had as much as a high school diploma or equivalency certificate, and only 19% had undertaken any post-secondary study.

State-specific data on participant characteristics are available in Appendix B.

9 Heather Boushey, Staying Employed After Welfare: Work Supports and Job Quality Vital to Employment Tenure and Wage Growth, EPI Briefing Paper, Economic Policy Institute (Washington, DC, June 2002). http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_bp128.

 

CSBG Special State Technical Assistance Grants

Under the CSBG program, funds may be used by the Secretary to assist States in carrying out corrective action activities and to conduct monitoring to correct programmatic deficiencies of eligible entities. When a State determines that an eligible entity has a deficiency, the CSBG Act mandates that the State offer training and technical assistance, if appropriate, to help correct such a deficiency. In some instances, the problem to be addressed may be of such a complex or pervasive nature that it cannot be addressed adequately with the resources available to the State agency administering the CSBG program. To enhance State technical assistance efforts and help avoid the need for eligible entity termination hearings and proceedings, OCS awarded three competitive Special State Technical Assistance grants:

California/Nevada Community Action Partnership (Cal/Neva)
225 30th Street, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95816

This pilot project was a partnership between two State community action associations, Cal/Neva and Nevada Community Action Association (NCAA). Funds were awarded to help develop a new approach to systematically identifying and providing agency specific training and technical assistance to Community Services Block Grant funded agencies. The project used a Strength Based Needs Assessment (SBNA) model for vulnerable and/or in-crisis eligible entities to assess and assist three CSBG eligible entities located in Pasadena, San Jose, and Long Beach, California.

The SBNA model uses organizational performance standards based on the nationally recognized Community Action Partnership Standards of Excellence and consists of two phases. The first phase involves a comprehensive agency diagnoses and the identification of training and technical assistance needed to strengthen the agency's capacity to perform. The second phase consists of a comprehensive, multi-year training and technical assistance work schedule that moves the agency toward excellence in governance, administration, planning, operations and finance. In addition, a project report was developed and provided to the Office of Community Services.

Massachusetts Association for Community Action, mc. (MASSCAP)
105 Chauncy Street, Suite 301
Boston, MA 02111

The Northeast Institute for Quality Community Action (NTQCA) was established by a coalition in 2005. The coalition includes MASSCAP, Connecticut Association for Community Action, Inc., and the Rhode Island Community Action Association. NIQCA operates as a program of MASSCAP and serves Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. m addition, NIQCA provided technical assistance, under a pilot project, in New York. NIQCA promotes management excellence by enabling eligible entities to assess management practices against best practice standards through a twelve step process of self-assessment, peer review, and improvement planning.

In FY 2008, NIQCA provided technical assistance and training to five eligible entities, sponsored a professional development training conference to address high priority management issues identified through NIQCA's Quality Community Action System, conducted training workshops at regional conferences, and developed and distributed a Board Self Assessment Tool customized for periodic review of board performance and productivity. NIQCA continued to update its web site, niqca.org, with best practice policies and practices in areas ranging from governance to finance.

Virginia Community Action Partnership, Inc.
700 East Franklin, Suite 14T2
Richmond, VA 23219

This training and technical assistance project enhanced eligible entity management and program performance by increasing access to resources available from Virtual CAP. Virtual CAP is a unique national web-based resource designed to increase the capacity of State and local eligible entities to achieve results through strengthened organizational practices and enhanced service delivery. The site provides an in-depth look at innovative programs and projects developed by eligible entities throughout the United States. Useful links are available so that materials and information can also be downloaded from related websites.

The project also provided direct technical assistance to ten at-risk eligible entities in Maryland, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oregon, and Virginia. Emphasis was placed on correcting identified deficiencies in governance, leadership development, organizational assessment, community needs assessments, strategic planning, financial management, community partnerships, and program development.

 

Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA)

Results Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) was created in 1994 by an ongoing task force of Federal, State, and local CSBG Network officials the Monitoring and Assessment Task Force (MATF). Based upon principles contained in the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, ROMA provides a framework for continuous growth and improvement among the local Community Action Agencies and a basis for State leadership and assistance toward those ends.

In 1998, the CSBG Reauthorization Act made Results Oriented Management and Accountability, or another performance measurement system that meets the requirements of Section 678E of the Act, a requirement for receiving Federal CSBG funds. The Act also established October 1,2001 as the starting date for reporting CSBG Network outcomes in the context of ROMA performance-based management principles. This statutory mandate has changed both the nature and pace of ROMA implementation throughout the CSBG Network. Local Community Action Agencies have been encouraged to undertake a number of ROMA implementation actions that focus on results oriented management and results oriented accountability .

Results Oriented Management

  • Assess poverty needs and conditions within the community;
  • Define a clear agency anti-poverty mission for the CSBG Network and a strategy to address those needs, both immediate and longer term, in the context of existing resources and opportunities in the community;
  • Identify specific improvements, or results, to be achieved among low-income people and the community; and
  • Organize and implement programs, services, and activities, such as advocacy, within the agency and among "partnering" organizations, to achieve anticipated results.

Results Oriented Accountability

  • Develop and implement strategies to measure and record improvements in the condition of low- income people and the communities in which they live that result from CSBG Network intervention;
  • Use information about outcomes, or results, among agency tripartite boards and staff to determine the overall effectiveness, contribute to annual and long-range planning, and support agency advocacy, funding, and community partnership activities.

State CSBG lead agencies and State Community Action Associations have been encouraged to work as a team to advance ROMA performance-based concepts among local agencies through on-going training and technical assistance.

National Performance Goals and Indicators

The Community Services Block Grant Act Section 678E(a)(1) required States administering the CSBG program to implement by FY 2001 a management and evaluation strategy that measures and reports the performance outcomes of CAAs.

From 2001 to 2003, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Community Services (OCS) worked with national, State, and local Community Action Agency officials to identify the kinds of results and performance targets that might best reflect the multi-faceted work of CAAs and that could be collected and reported in a manner that presented an accurate indication of national program impact. The 12 National Performance Indicators that are used to organize and report FY 2008 outcomes, and the identification of the four performance indicators for which target information is collected, are a result of that collaboration.

National Performance Goals

Over the past decade, States and local entities receiving CSBG funds have been working to achieve six national performance goals:

Goal 1: Low-income people become more self-sufficient.

Goal 2: The conditions in which low-income people live are improved.

Goal 3: Low-income people own a stake in their community.

Goal 4: Partnerships among supporters and providers of service to low-income people are achieved.

Goal 5: Agencies increase their capacity to achieve results.

Goal 6: Low-income people, especially vulnerable populations, achieve their potential by strengthening family and other supportive systems.

National Performance Indicators

To enable greater aggregation and national reporting of the most universal and significant CSBG results among States and local agencies, 12 common categories, or indicators, of CAA performance have been identified from FYs 2001 to 2003 data. Since 2004, these 12 National Performance Indicators (NPIs) have measured the impact of CSBG programs and activities on families and communities. The NPIs are related to the six national performance goals in that they measure incremental progress toward achieving each of the larger goals, which require specific steps along the way to success. The NPIs cover the following outcome areas:

1.1 - Employment

1.2 - Employment Supports

1.3 - Economic Asset Enhancement and Utilization

2.1 - Community Improvement and Revitalization

2.2 - Community Quality of Life and Assets

3.1 - Civic Investment

3.2 - Community Empowerment through Maximum Feasible Participation

4.1 - Expanding Opportunities through Community-Wide Partnerships

5.1 - Broadening the Resource Base

6.1 - Independent Living

6.2 - Emergency Assistance

6.3 - Child and Family Development

Moreover, while establishing common definitions for reporting family, community, and agency improvement outcomes, the NPIs enable State and local CAAs to convey broad family and community outcomes. These outcomes are the result of the strategic use of a variety of change mechanisms, including service provision and program coordination, both within each agency and with partnering organizations in the broader community.

National Performance Outcomes
Results of the Community Services Block Grant

The outcomes in this report represent some of the most common activities of all C AAs as categorized among the 12 NPIs. The structure of the CSBG allows the agencies that receive funding the discretion to participate in a broad range of activities to meet the unique needs of their communities. Each agency captured outcome data specific to its individualized goals and priorities. It should be noted that not all agencies participated in the activities that generated outcomes for every NPI, nor do these indicators represent all of the outcomes achieved by agencies.

 

During FY 2008, State and local entities reported outcomes in support of the 12 National Performance Indicators.

1.1:  Employment

After receiving CAA program assistance, participants achieved the following employment outcomes:

108,493

Unemployed low-income people obtained a job.

36,131

Low-income people with jobs obtained an increase in salary.

31,728

Low-income people received "living wage" jobs with benefits.10

 

10 There is no definitive national "living wage." As a result, each local agency must define what constitutes a "living wage" and appropriate benefits in their service area.

1.2:  Employment Supports

As a result of CAA program assistance, the following barriers to initial or continuous employment were reduced or eliminated through linkages to assistance and direct services:

Lack of Job Skills

120,248

Low-income people obtained pre-employment skills and received training program certificates or diplomas.

Lack of Education

19,225

Low-income people completed Adult Basic Education or GED coursework and received certificates or diplomas.

8,566

Low-income people completed post-secondary education and obtained a certificate or diploma.

Lack of Care for Children

57,125

Low-income participants enrolled school-aged children in before and after school programs in order to obtain or maintain jobs.

163,692

Low-income participants obtained child care for pre-school children or dependents in order to acquire or maintain employment.

Lack of Transportation

71,660

Low-income participants gained access to reliable transportation and/or a driver's license in order to acquire or maintain employment.

Lack of Health Care

262,174

Low-income participants obtained health care services for themselves or a family member in support of employment stability.

Lack of Housing

84,468

Low-income participants obtained safe and affordable housing in support of employment stability.

Lack of Food and Nutrition

437,603

Low-income participants obtained food assistance in support of employment stability.

1.3:  Economic Asset Enhancement


As a result of CAA programs, low-income families achieved an increase in non-employment financial assets:

Tax Credits

362,813

Low-income families in CAA tax preparation programs received Federal or State tax credits.

$274.482,126 was the total amount of tax credits received.
Child Support Payments

6,389

Low-income families were helped to obtain child support payments.

$18,378,573 was the total amount of payments.
Utility Savings

411,704

Low-income families were enrolled in special telephone lifeline programs or received energy bill discounts.

 

$79,481,426 was the total amount of aggregated savings.

1.3:  Economic Asset Utilization


As a result of CAA program assistance, which included programs such as financial management, budget skills training, business development and other related activities, low-income families gained financial management skills that enabled them to better use their resources and achieve their asset goals:

Maintain a Family Budget

65,801

Low-income families demonstrated the ability to complete and maintain a budget for over 90 days.

$3,531,453 was the total amount of savings.
Individual Development Accounts and Other Savings

6,479

Low-income families opened Individual Development Accounts or other savings accounts.

$6,749,830 was the total amount of savings.
Capitalize Small Business

654

Low-income families began small businesses with accumulated savings.

$1,019,550 was the total amount of savings.
Enroll in Higher Education

1,059

Low-income families pursued post-secondary education with accumulated savings.

$996,562 was the total amount of savings.
Purchase a Home

1,359

Low-income families purchased a home with accumulated savings.

$9,013,897 was the total amount of savings.

2.1:  Improvement and Revitalization Local agencies receiving CSBG funds increased and preserved community opportunities and resources for low-income people through programs, partnerships, and advocacy:

Living Wage Jobs

17,123

Accessible "living wage" jobs were created or preserved in the community.

New Housing

21,352

Safe and affordable housing units were built or preserved in the community.

Improved or Preserved Housing

180,715

Existing housing units were improved or preserved through construction, weatherization, or rehabilitation.

Health Care Services

774,617

Accessible and affordable health care services/facilities for low-income people were created or saved from elimination.

Child Care and Child Development

102,656

Child care or child development placement opportunities for low-income children were created or saved from elimination.

Youth Programs

71,998

Before or after school program placement opportunities for low-income youth were created or saved from elimination.

Transportation

3,272,568

Transportation opportunities for low-income people (public transportation routes, rides, carpool arrangements, car purchase and maintenance) were created, expanded, or saved from elimination.

Educational Opportunities

149,672

Educational programs or opportunities for low-income people were created, expanded, or saved from elimination (including literacy, job training, Adult Basic Education/GED, and post-secondary education).

2.2:  Community Quality of Life and Assets


Community Action Agency initiatives and advocacy improved the quality of life and assets in low- income neighborhoods:

Community Facilities

223,294

Community facilities were created, expanded, or saved from reduction or elimination as a result of CAA initiatives.

Community Services

324,213

Community services were created, expanded, or saved from reduction or elimination as a result of CAA initiatives.

Commercial Services

148,778

Commercial services within low-income communities were created, expanded, or saved from elimination as a result of CAA initiatives.

"Quality-of-Life" Resources

291,977

Neighborhood "quality-of-life" resources, such as parks, youth sports teams, recreation centers, special police foot patrols, and volunteer neighborhood watch programs, were created, expanded, or preserved as a result of CAA initiatives.

3.1:  Civic Investment


Community Action Agencies sought and encouraged volunteer assistance from community residents. Volunteers helped the agencies achieve program outcomes, and those offering their services often experienced a greater sense of connection and commitment to the community's well-being and future.

47,814,444 Hours of service were volunteered to Community Action Agency activities.

CAAs encouraged and assisted low-income people in engaging in activities that support and promote their own well-being and that of their community:

COMMUNITY DECISION-MAKING

71,289

Low-income people were able to participate in formal community organizations, government, boards, or councils that provide input to decision-making and policy setting through CAAs.

COMMUNITY BUSINESS OWNERSHIP

2,344

Low-income people were helped by CAAs to acquire businesses in their community.

HOMEOWNERSHIP IN THE COMMUNITY

6,966

Low-income people were helped by CAAs to purchase their own home in the community.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

223,679

Low-income people were engaged in non-governance community activities or groups created or supported by CAAs.

4.1: Expanding Opportunities Through Community-Wide Partnerships

147,466

Organizations (i.e., State and local governments and service agencies, faith-based organizations, health care providers, educational and job training institutions, commercial enterprises, businesses, and foundations) worked with CAAs to promote family and community outcomes.

19,552

Of the organizations above were faith-based organizations.

5.1:  Broadening the Resource Base


Community Action Agencies mobilized and utilized resources from a variety of sources to carry out anti-poverty services, advocacy, and coordination responsibilities. Below is the breakdown of funding sources for FY 2008: local public 7% Other Federal _Program, [not (SSG) I 64% I I ·includes 47.S Million Volunteer Hours valued at $5.85/hr

6.1: Independent Living


Vulnerable individuals received services from Community Action Agencies, which assisted them in maintaining an independent living situation:

1,290,575

Senior citizens received services and maintained an independent living situation as a result of services.

874,458

Individuals with disabilities received services and maintained an independent living situation as a result of services.

6.2: Emergency Assistance


Community Action Agencies administered a variety of emergency services that helped families and individuals obtain and maintain self-sufficiency:

Emergency Services

Number of Families

Food and Nutrition

12,098,006*

Emergency Vendor Payments, Including Fuel/Energy

2,678,942

Temporary Shelter

246,191

Emergency Medical Care

82,576

Protection from Violence

53,304

Legal Assistance

70,433

Emergency Transportation

777,858

Disaster Relief

67,192

*Composite households and families reported.

6.3: Child and Families Development
Community Action Agencies administered a variety of programs and services that helped infants, children, youth, parents, and other adults achieve developmental and enrichment goals:

Infants and Children

472,546

Infants and children obtained age-appropriate immunizations, medical and dental care.

1,393,436

Infants and children were assisted in their growth and development as a result of adequate nutrition.

368,652

Infants and children were assisted in developing school readiness skills through participation in pre-school activities.

208,291

Children who participated in pre-school activities became developmentally ready to enter kindergarten or first grade.

Youth

145,823

Youth experienced improved physical health. growth and development.

112,729

Youth experienced improved social/emotional development.

58,977

Youth avoided risk-taking behavior for a defined period of time.

30,824

Youth reduced involvement with the criminal justice system.

113,770

Youth increased their academic, athletic, or social skills by participating in before or after school programs.

Parents and Other Adults

172,371

Parents and/or other adults learned and exhibited improved parenting skills.

220,056

Parents and/or other adults learned and exhibited improved family functioning skills.

National Performance Targets and Trends


In addition to CSBG's performance measurement initiative, the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has established a government-wide initiative to use performance targets and outcome measures to assess the program efficiency and effectiveness of all Federally-funded domestic assistance programs. As a result, the Office of Community Services (OCS) began to develop and report CSBG performance targets, or anticipated levels of result achievement, beginning in FY 2004. This FY 2008 report represents the fifth year of collecting performance targets based on the NPIs.

The nature and scope of national Community Action Agency outcome reporting has been incorporated into the NPIs. OCS is collecting baseline information concerning CAA performance targets to which future years' performances may be compared. This information will serve as a means of gauging the effectiveness and efficiency of CAA program activities. This section of the FY 2008 report provides target performance levels for the following four NPIs:

  • National Performance Indicator 1.1 Employment
  • National Performance Indicator 1.3 - Economic Asset Enhancement and Utilization
  • National Performance Indicator 6.2 Emergency Assistance
  • National Performance Indicator 6.3 Child and Family Development

Section 678E of the CSBG Act requires agencies to measure their performance and achievement in carrying out their goals. To that end, agencies set targets for the number of participants they expect to achieve the goals and then collect data on the number of participants who achieve the goals.

As the data accrue, agencies relate their abilities to predict performance outcomes by dividing the number of participants achieving the goal by the number expected to achieve the goal. The resulting percentage assesses agencies' knowledge of their programs as well as the success of the participants.

Trends since FY 2004 indicate that agencies' abilities to set targets continue to improve as the anticipated and actual numbers converge. Tables 3 through 6 reveal performance outcomes for the four initial target indicators, whereas Figures 8 and 9 display performance trends for the first two performance measures of NPI 1.1. Administration for Children and Families • Office of Community Services 41

NPI1.1
Table 3 shows performance measures for NPI 1.1. This table depicts how agencies set and met their outcome goals for NPI 1.1.

Table 3: National Performance Indicator 1.1 - Employment

Performance Measure

Enrolled in Program

Expected to Achieve the Outcome (Target

Achieving the Outcome

Percentage Achieving the Target

Unemployed and obtained a job

231,934

116,381

108,493

93.2%

Employed and obtained an increase in employment income

75,554

41,270

36,131

87.5%

Achieved "living wage" employment and benefits

64,688

33,389

31,728

95.0%

Total

372,176

191,040

176,352

92.3%

 

 

Figure 8 shows the number of CAA program participants who have gained employment as a result of Community Action Agency initiatives between FYs 2001 and 2008. As can be seen in Figure 8 below, the number of program participants gaining employment as a result of CAA programs has increased by 54% since FY 2001 and decreased by 8% since the previous fiscal year.

Figure 8: Community Action Program Participants Obtaining Employment

Figure 9 provides trend information for the numbers of CAA program participants who have experienced an increase in income from employment as a result of CAA intervention between FYs 2001 and 2008.

Figure 9: Community Action Program Participants Increasing Their Income From Employment

The figure above illustrates that every year since 2001. as a result of CAA assistance, at least 30,000 low- income program participants with jobs obtained an increase in income from employment. The number of individuals experiencing greater income from employment has increased by 11 % since FY 2001 and decreased by 2% since FY 2007. The significant variance between FY 2004 and FY 2005 is due to changes in the data collection system and the National Performance Indicators.

NPI1.3
Table 4 shows performance measures for NPI 1.3. This table depicts how agencies set and met their outcome goals for Economic Asset Enhancement and Utilization.

Table 4: National Performance Indicator 1.3 - Economic Asset Enhancement and Utilization

Performance Measure

Enrolled in Program

Expected to Achieve the Outcome (Target)

Achieving the Outcome

Percentage Achieving the Target

Identified and received Federal/State tax credits

417,336

309,395

362,813

117.3%

Received court-ordered child support

18,161

7,083

6,389

90.2%

Received telephone and energy discounts

517,841

421,212

411,704

97.7%

Developed/maintained a family budget for 90 days or more

90,774

60,473

65,801

108.8%

Opened Individual Development Account (IDA) and increased savings

16,941

7,156

6,479

90.5%

Used IDA to capitalize business

2,692

729

654

89.7%

Used IDA to pursue higher education

3,736

1,558

1,059

68.0%

Used IDA to purchase a home

7,297

2,001

1,359

67.9%

Total

1,074,778

809,607

856,258

105.8%

 

 

NP16.2
Table 5 shows performance measures for NPI 6.2. This table depicts how agencies set and met their outcome goals for Emergency Assistance.

Table 5: National Performance Indicator 6.2 - Emergency Assistance

Performance Measure

Emergency Service

Families Needing Service*

Families Receiving Service*

Percentage of Emergency Needs Met

Strengthened family and other vulnerable populations via emergency assistance

Food and Nutrition

12,924,206

12,098,006

93.6%

Emergency Vendor Payments

3,304,508

2,678,942

81.1%

Temporary Shelter

306,499

246,191

80.3%

Emergency Medical Care

90,173

82,576

91.6%

Protection from Violence

68,714

53,304

77.6%

Legal Assistance

81,342

70,433

86.6%

Emergency Transportation

793,687

777,858

98.0%

Disaster Relief

68,208

67,192

98.5%

Total

17,637,337

16,074,502

91.1%

 

*These figures reflect that some households needed and received more than one emergency service.

NPI 6.3
Table 6 shows performance measures for NPI 6.3. This table depicts how agencies set and met their outcome goals for Child and Family Development.

Table 6: National Performance Indicator 6.3 - Child and Family Development

Performance Measure

Enrolled in Program

Expected to Achieve the Outcome (Target)

Achieving the Outcome

Percentage Achieving the Target

Infants and Children

Improved immunization, medical, dental care

517,858

464,124

472,546

101.8%

Improved nutrition (physical health)

1,444,431

1,237,465

1,393,436

112.6%

Achieved school readiness skills

392,345

351,169

368,652

105.0%

Improved developmental readiness for kindergarten or first grade

274,319

213,817

208,291

97.4%

Youth

Improved physical health and development

240,900

138,185

145,823

105.5%

Improved social and emotional development

130,214

99,609

112,729

113.2%

Avoided risk-taking behaviors

74,766

60,070

58,977

98.2%

Reduced involvement with the criminal justice system

36,845

30,913

30,824

99.7%

Increased academic, athletic, social skills

139,114

99,688

113,770

114.1%

Adults

Improved parenting skills

203,921

170,204

172,371

101.3%

Improved family functioning skills

257,948

203,871

220,056

107.9%

Total

3,712,661

3,069,115

3,297,475

107.4%

 

 

Conclusion
CSBG performance outcomes continue to establish baselines for future performance. In FY 2008, there was an increase in individuals seeking assistance from CAAs as a result of the state of the economy. One indicator of the economic hardships faced by individuals and families is employment. According to the CSBG Information System Survey, there was an increase of nearly 25% in the number of families receiving unemployment insurance from FY 2007 to FY 2008, and a decrease of 17% in the number of individuals achieving "living wage" employment and benefits.11

The CSBG National Performance Indicators are also a tool for setting priorities and monitoring progress. In 2008 CAAs continued to meet the pressing needs of the population. For example, 774,617 accessible and affordable health care services/facilities for low-income people were created or saved from elimination, an increase of 17% over 2007. In addition, 874,458 individuals with disabilities received services and maintained an independent living situation as a result of services, a 19% increase over 2007.

Emergency and safety-net services such as food, temporary shelter, and disaster relief increased substantially in 2008. The number of emergency situations in which food was distributed increased 33% to 12,098,006. Agencies increased more than twofold their assistance for disaster relief, from 30,591 to 67,192.

Child and family development needs of low-income infants and children were met by agencies in 2008, as well. The number of infants and children that were assisted in their growth and development as a result of adequate nutrition increased 22%. Youth experiencing an improvement in social/emotional development also increased 22%, while youth experiencing an improvement in physical health, growth, and development increased 36%.

The adoption of NPIs for the Community Services Block Grant program in FY 2004 has enabled States and Community Action Agencies receiving CSBG funding to report program outcomes in a manner that captures both the scope and depth of anti-poverty work performed in more than 1,000 communities across the nation.

11 The number of individuals receiving unemployment insurance in FY 2007 was 140,856 compared to 175,336 in FY 2008. The number of individuals achieving "living wage" benefits decreased from 38,259 in FY 2007 to 31,728 in FY 2008.

Appendix A and Appendix B of the Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2008 are not posted due to 508 compliance requirements. A hard copy of the report in its entirety is available upon request. Please email CSBG@acf.hhs.gov with your name and mailing address.

Download FREE Adobe Acrobat® Reader™ to view PDF files located on this site. Home | About CSBG | Grantees | Guidance, Policies and Procedures | Publications and Reports | Grants Awards | Resources | CSBG Partners

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

Last Reviewed Date: