Managing for Results
Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between Resources and Results at the Administration for Children and Families Gao ID: GAO-03-9 December 10, 2002Encouraging a clearer and closer link between budgeting, planning, and performance is essential to improving federal management and instilling a greater focus on results. Through work at various levels within the organization, this report on the Administration for Children and Families (ACF)--and its two companion studies on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (GAO-03-258) and the Veterans Health Administration (GAO-03-10)--records (1) what managers considered successful efforts at creating linkages between planning and performance information to influence resource choices and (2) the challenges managers face in creating these linkages.
The Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) budget and performance planning processes are clearly related but are not fully integrated. Budget and planning align more closely after ACF sends the budget request and performance plan to the Department of Health and Human Services for review. Finally, unlike budget formulation, budget execution largely occurs in the regional offices, where resource allocation is often driven by program performance. Officials in ACF's Head Start, Child Support Enforcement, and Community Services Block Grant programs described three general ways in which decisions at the programmatic level are influenced by performance: (1) training and technical assistance money is often allocated based on needs and grantee performance, (2) partnerships and collaboration help ACF work with grantees towards common goals and further the administration's agenda, and (3) organizing and allocating regional staff around agency goals allow employees to link their day-to-day activities to longer-term results and outcomes. While ACF must overcome some difficult barriers to further budget and performance integration, it has begun to identify and implement mitigation strategies for some of these issues. For example, ACF conducts much of its work through nonfederal service providers, which often limits the extent to which ACF can influence national performance goals and can seriously complicate data collection. To address this, ACF has successfully collaborated with providers to develop national performance goals and build data collection capacity. This has also raised awareness of the importance of collecting and reporting performance data uniformly. Since ACF programs are often only part of a network of long-term federal, state, and local efforts to address serious health and social concerns, attributing a particular outcome to a particular program can be difficult. ACF has addressed this issue by using program evaluations to help isolate the effects of a particular program, strengthening the link between outputs and outcomes, and identifying intermediate outputs and outcomes to help measure program performance. The organizational culture change necessary to support the linkages between resources and results takes time, but change is beginning to take root. Some managers and staff reported a noticeable difference in the use and understanding of outcomes versus outputs, and outcome-based performance agreements for managers and staff are becoming more common.
GAO-03-9, Managing for Results: Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between Resources and Results at the Administration for Children and Families
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-9
entitled 'Managing For Results: Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between
Resources and Results at the Administration for Children and Families'
which was released on December 10, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial
Management and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government
Reform, House of Representatives.
December 2002:
Managing For Results:
Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between Resources and Results at the
Administration for Children and Families:
GAO-03-9:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-09, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and Intergovernmental
Relations, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Encouraging a clearer and closer link between budgeting, planning, and
performance is essential to improving federal management and instilling
a greater focus on results. Through work at various levels within the
organization, this report on the Administration for Children and
Families (ACF)--and its two companion studies on the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (GAO-03-258) and the Veterans Health Administration (GAO-03-
10)-- records (1) what managers considered successful efforts at
creating linkages between planning and performance information to
influence resource choices and (2) the challenges managers face in
creating these linkages.
What GAO Found:
The Administration for Children and Families‘ (ACF) budget and
performance planning processes are clearly related but are not fully
integrated. Budget and planning align more closely after ACF sends the
budget request and performance plan to the Department of Health and
Human Services for review. Finally, unlike budget formulation, budget
execution largely occurs in the regional offices, where resource
allocation is often driven by program performance.
Officials in ACF‘s Head Start, Child Support Enforcement, and Community
Services Block Grant programs described three general ways in which
decisions at the programmatic level are influenced by performance:
(1) training and technical assistance money is often allocated based on
needs and grantee performance, (2) partnerships and collaboration help
ACF work with grantees towards common goals and further the
administration‘s agenda, and (3) organizing and allocating regional
staff around agency goals allow employees to link their day-to-day
activities to longer-term results and outcomes.
While ACF must overcome some difficult barriers to further budget and
performance integration, it has begun to identify and implement
mitigation strategies for some of these issues. For example:
* ACF conducts much of its work through nonfederal service providers,
which often limits the extent to which ACF can influence national
performance goals and can seriously complicate data collection. To
address this, ACF has successfully collaborated with providers to
develop national performance goals and build data collection capacity.
This has also raised awareness of the importance of collecting and
reporting performance data uniformly.
* Since ACF programs are often only part of a network of long-term
federal, state, and local efforts to address serious health and social
concerns, attributing a particular outcome to a particular program can
be difficult. ACF has addressed this issue by using program evaluations
to help isolate the effects of a particular program, strengthening the
link between outputs and outcomes, and identifying intermediate outputs
and outcomes to help measure program performance.
* The organizational culture change necessary to support the linkages
between resources and results takes time, but change is beginning to
take root. Some managers and staff reported a noticeable difference in
the use and understanding of outcomes versus outputs, and outcome-based
performance agreements for managers and staff are becoming more common.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-09].
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Paul Posner at (202) 512-
9573 or Denise Fantone at (202) 512-4997.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Scope and Methodology:
The Current Budget and Planning Process:
Performance Information Influences Program, Budget, and Staffing
Decisions in Various Ways:
Linking Resources to Results Is an Evolving Process:
Agency Comments:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Efforts to Strengthen the Link between Resources and
Results in the ACF West-Central Hub, Dallas Regional Office:
Background:
Budgeting and Planning in Dallas Is an Integrated, Interactive Process
Focused on Results:
Appendix II: Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between Resources and
Results in the ACF Pacific Hub, San Francisco Regional Office:
Background:
Strategic Planning at Region 9 Seeks to Engage, Inform, and Educate
Staff:
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Glossary:
Tables:
Table 1: Responsibilities of Key Offices and Positions for Strategic
Planning, Budgeting, and Regional/Headquarters Operations:
Table 2: Key Elements in Work Planning, Fiscal Years 1998-2002:
Figures:
Figure 1: ACF Organizational Chart:
Figure 2: ACF‘s Budget and Planning Process:
Figure 3: OPRE GPRA Template:
Figure 4: Excerpt from Hub Work Plan:
Figure 5: West-Central Hub Organization Chart:
Figure 6: Key Components of Dallas‘ Strategic Planning Process:
Figure 7: Excerpts from the West-Central Hub Regional Work Plan and
Dallas OCSE Program Plan:
Figure 8: Results-Based Information Tracking System Report:
Figure 9: San Francisco Regional Office Structure:
Abbreviations:
ACF: Administration for Children and Families:
ATO: Office of Administration and Technology:
CAA: Community Action Agency:
CIRCLE: Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning and
Education:
CSBG: Community Services Block Grant:
CSE: Child Support Enforcement:
CYDU: Children and Youth Development Unit:
FRC: Federal Regional Council:
GABI: Grant Application and Budget Review Instrument:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
OCS: Office of Community Services:
OCSE: Office of Child Support Enforcement:
OLAB: Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPRE: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation:
ORO: Office of Regional Operations:
PART: Program Assessment Rating Tool:
PSU: Program Support Unit:
QAT: Quality Assurance Team:
RBITS: Results-Based Information Tracking System:
RHY: Runaway and Homeless Youth:
ROMA: Results Oriented Management and Accountability:
SBC: Secretary's Budget Council:
SCHIP: State Children's Health Insurance Program:
SRR: Secretary's Regional Representative:
SSU: Self-Sufficiency Unit:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
T/TA: Training and Technical Assistance:
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
December 10, 2002:
The Honorable Stephen Horn:
Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management
and Intergovernmental Relations:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
During the past decade, Congress and the Executive Branch have sought to
improve federal management and instill a greater focus on results.
Through enactment of a number of major management reforms, Congress has
created a statutory framework with the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) as its centerpiece. [Footnote 1] One of
GPRA‘s major purposes is to encourage a closer and clearer linkage
between planning, performance”i.e., results”and the budget process.
Each administration takes a slightly different approach to implementing
results management. Improving the integration of budget and performance
is a high priority initiative included in the President‘s Management
Agenda. [Footnote 2] A central piece of that is the Office of
Management and Budget‘s (OMB) new diagnostic tool, the Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART). PART is designed to provide a consistent
approach to reviewing program design, planning, and goals development
as well as program management and results. OMB expects to use PART
assessments in considering department and agency budget submissions for
the fiscal year 2004 President‘s Budget request to Congress. [Footnote
3]
In a number of different reports to the Congress, GAO has examined
different aspects of the resources-to-results linkage. A series of
three reports described agencies‘ progress over a 4-year period in
linking performance plans, budgets, and, in the most recent report,
financial statements. [Footnote 4] We found that between fiscal years
1999 and 2002, agencies progressed significantly in showing a direct
link between expected performance and requested program activity
funding levels through structural changes or cross-walks”the first step
in defining the performance consequences of budgetary decisions. We
concluded that additional effort was needed to more clearly describe
the relationship between performance expectations, requested funding,
and consumed resources. Furthermore, we said that the uneven extent and
pace of developing these relationships were reflective of mission
complexity and differences in operating environments across the
government. Finally, we observed that describing the planned and actual
use of resources in terms of measurable results was an essential long-
term effort that would take time and adaptation on the part of all
agencies.
In another approach to defining performance and resource integration, we
developed a framework of budget practices that we believe can contribute
to an agency‘s capacity to manage for results. [Footnote 5] We viewed
these practices as desirable dimensions of budgeting that could be
implemented in many different ways to reflect the characteristics and
circumstances of a particular agency. Both our assessments of
performance and budget account alignments and the framework of budget
practices have led to the next phase of work and the subject of this
report. This report”one of a group of three”looks at the resources-to-
results link from the perspective of agency managers charged with
making the linkage happen.
The objectives of this report on Administration for Children and
Families (ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
and its two companion studies on the Veterans Health Administration
within the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, are to document (1) what managers in these three agencies
considered successful efforts at creating linkages between planning and
performance information to influence resource choices and (2) the
challenges they face in doing so. For the purposes of this report, we
take a broad view of performance information”possible sources include
GPRA, program evaluations, grant applications, and statistical
information about program funding and grantees. We neither evaluated
their choices nor critiqued their processes. Instead, we asked managers
to describe when and how planning and performance information was
included in the budget cycle, to explain what strategies were used and
why, and to provide evidence that there was a related programmatic
effect. A third purpose was to show that there are multiple ways to get
at these linkages, and that there can be successful applications even
if progress in budget and performance integration is uneven.
Budgeting is and will remain an exercise in political choice, in which
performance can be one, but not necessarily the only, factor underlying
decisions. However, efforts to infuse performance information into
resource allocation decisions can more explicitly inform budget
discussions and focus them”both in Congress and in agencies”on expected
results, rather than on inputs. We believe that showcasing agencies‘
successes with and challenges in integrating budgeting and planning may
prove useful to other agencies; Congressional authorizing,
appropriation, and oversight committees; and OMB in the shared goal of
strengthening the link between program performance and resources.
Results in Brief:
ACF‘s fiscal year 2002 budget request is linked to its GPRA goals but,
in general, formulation is not guided by past program performance. That
is, the process does not begin with an evaluation of past program
performance to inform the upcoming year‘s budget request. Thus, budget
and performance planning are clearly related but are not fully
integrated with each other. Budget and performance plans are based on
departmental budget and planning guidance which is jointly reviewed by
and, as needed, supplemented by ACF‘s Office of Legislative Affairs and
Budget (OLAB) and Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE).
ACF budget and planning officials told us that they communicate
frequently and work closely together to ensure consistency in the
budget and performance plan. Budget and planning align more closely
after ACF sends the budget request and performance plan to the
department for review. At that point, HHS and ACF work together to
ensure that the budget and plan are consistent and support each other.
Unlike budget formulation, budget execution largely occurs in the
regional offices, where resource allocation is often driven by
program performance.
Many strategies play critical roles in ACF‘s efforts to strengthen the
link between resources and results across a number of the agency‘s main
functions. Officials we interviewed in ACF‘s Head Start, Child Support
Enforcement (CSE), and Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) programs
noted that decisions at the programmatic level are influenced by
performance. For instance, they said that training and technical
assistance (T/TA) money is often allocated based on needs and grantee
performance. Creative partnerships and collaborative strategies help
ACF work with grantees towards common goals and further the
administration‘s agenda. The knowledge regional offices possess about
their states‘ and grantees‘ capacity to provide services can also play
a critical role in resource allocation. Finally, ACF regional managers
and staff in the San Francisco and Dallas offices report that
organizing and allocating staff around agency goals and priorities
allows them to link their day-to-day activities to longer-term results
and outcomes and to be better able to respond to emerging issues and
work more efficiently.
Budget and performance integration is a long-term process”ACF continues
to build on its successes and learn from its challenges as it moves
towards institutionalizing the practice of linking resources and
results. Although ACF must still overcome some difficult barriers, it
has begun to identify and implement mitigation strategies for some of
these issues. For example:
* ACF conducts much of its work through ’third parties“”states,
localities, and other nonfederal service providers”which often limits
the extent to which ACF can influence national performance goals and
can seriously complicate data collection. To improve program management
and accountability, ACF has had success in collaborating with its
partners to develop national performance goals and building data
collection capacity at the state and local levels. Collaboration and
partnerships have also raised awareness as to the importance of
collecting and reporting performance data in a uniform fashion.
* Isolating a particular program‘s effect on outcomes can be difficult
when it is part of a multipronged effort. ACF programs are often only
part of a network of federal, state, and local efforts to address
serious health and social concerns, and attributing a particular
outcome to a particular program can be difficult. Further, these issues
require long-term investments, the effects of which may not be known
for many years. Measuring the annual effects of these collective
investments much less any one part is often difficult and may not be
particularly useful. ACF has addressed this issue by using program
evaluations to help isolate the effects of a particular program,
strengthening the link between outputs and outcomes, and identifying
intermediate outputs and outcomes to help measure program performance.
* Finally, the organizational culture change necessary to support the
linkages between resources and results takes time, and wide-scale
implementation and institutionalization of performance-based
management is clearly a work in progress. It appears, though, that
change is beginning to take root. As a result of increased training and
education, some managers and staff reported a noticeable difference in
the use and understanding of outcomes versus outputs. In many cases,
performance agreements for both managers and staff are tied to GPRA
goals, and are increasingly associated with progress towards achieving
outcomes.
We presented a draft of this report to HHS for comment. HHS officials
generally agreed with our findings and provided technical
clarifications, which were made as appropriate.
Background:
ACF, a major program office within HHS, is responsible for programs that
promote the economic and social well-being of low-income and
disadvantaged children, families, and their communities. Headed by the
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, ACF‘s seven program
offices [Footnote 6] and various staff offices offer policy direction,
information services, and funding through a variety of grants to third-
party service providers such as state and local governments and
nongovernmental organizations. Of the more than $45 billion provided
for in fiscal year 2002, over 85 percent went to just five program
areas administered by third parties: Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families ($16.7 billion), Head Start ($6.5 billion), Foster Care and
Adoption Assistance ($6.6 billion), Child Care ($4.8 billion), and
Child Support Enforcement and Family Support ($4 billion).
ACF‘s work is driven by the four GPRA goals indicated in its annual
performance plan: (1) increase economic independence and productivity
for families, (2) improve healthy development, safety, and well being of
children and youth, (3) increase the health and prosperity of
communities and tribes, and (4) build a results-oriented organization.
[Footnote 7]
As we have previously reported, [Footnote 8] ACF linked these goals to
its funding request by aggregating and consolidating program activities
from multiple budget accounts and linking the associated funding
requests to sets of performance goals, which it referred to as
’objectives“ of these four main goals. In fiscal year 2002, ACF‘s
leadership also established nine key priorities to provide targeted
opportunities for collaboration on mission-critical crosscutting
activities. [Footnote 9]
As figure 1 shows, ACF is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has 10
regional offices within five broad geographic areas of the country
known as hubs. [Footnote 10] Regional offices contain about 50 percent
of all ACF employees and are responsible for administering most of
ACF‘s programs and ensuring that program and administrative funds are
spent in accordance with ACF goals and initiatives. Headquarters is
responsible for setting policy, budget formulation, strategic planning,
and legislative affairs. Table 1 describes in further detail the
responsibilities of key offices and positions as they pertain to
strategic planning and budgeting as well as regional-headquarters
operations and relations.
Figure 1: ACF Organizational Chart:
[See PDF for image]
This figure depicts the ACF Organizational Chart and denotes the
following information:
HHS interview locations;
ACF interview locations;
Other ACF locations.
Source: GAO and ACF.
[End of figure]
Table 1: Responsibilities of Key Offices and Positions for Strategic
Planning, Budgeting, and Regional/Headquarters Operations:
Office: Headquarters: Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget (OLAB):
Responsibilities:
* Designs and develops budget-estimating models and procedures to
project future program costs for mandatory and entitlement programs in
order to justify ACF program budgets and policy.
* Provides guidance to ACF program and staff components in preparing
material in support of budget development and negotiates budget issues
with the department and OMB.
* Manages the preparation of ACF‘s administrative (salaries and
expense) budget.
* Requests apportionments from OMB for appropriated funds, issues
allotments to program and staff offices, and manages internal ACF funds
control.
Office: Headquarters: Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation
(OPRE);
Responsibilities:
* Supports ACF‘s strategic planning.
* Collects, compiles, analyzes, and disseminates data.
* Provides coordination and leadership in implementing GPRA.
* Provides guidance, analysis, technical assistance, and oversight to
ACF programs and across programs on planning, performance measurement,
and research and evaluation methodologies.
Office: Headquarters: Office of Regional Operations (ORO);
Responsibilities:
* Oversees the performance and operation of all regional offices.
* Presents regional administrative (salaries and expense) budgets to
OLAB.
* Coordinates with program offices on regional strategies and
implementing program initiatives.
* Supports Hub directors and regional administrators in establishing
and implementing crosscutting program initiatives.
Office: Regions: Hubs;
Responsibilities:
* Functionally consolidate 10 regional offices to reduce duplication
and improve service delivery.
* Each hub leader is a Senior Executive Service Hub Director who is
accountable for all ACF results within the hub.
Office: Regions: Secretary‘s Regional Representatives (SRR);
Responsibilities:
* Liaisons between HHS agency regional offices and headquarters.
* Represents the department in direct official dealings with state,
local, and tribal governmental officials and offices as well as
nongovernment organizations.
Source: GAO based on ACF documents.
[End of table]
As a subordinate unit in HHS, ACF is not an independent entity; its
processes, activities, and goals must be seen in the context of the
general strategic direction in which HHS is moving. For example, HHS‘
requirement that its agencies provide performance information with
agency funding requests for fiscal year 2003 is an outgrowth of the
GPRA planning process and recent attention to the need for timely and
reliable performance information with which to evaluate programs. In
keeping with its One Department initiative, HHS‘ desire to present a
more standardized performance plan for fiscal year 2004 requires its
constituent agencies to reduce their total number of performance
measures by at least 5 percent while simultaneously increasing their
outcome measures by at least 5 percent. The need to respond effectively
to these and other priorities and initiatives has led to changes in
ACF‘s work planning processes and/or how performance is evaluated in
the regional offices we visited.
Many factors affect the nature of ACF‘s budget and planning process. For
example, much of ACF funding, including to some extent, how
’discretionary“ funds may be spent, is directed by statute. For example,
because of the prescriptive nature of the funding requirements in the
Head Start authorizing legislation, nearly 20 percent of the $338.5
million increase Head Start received in fiscal year 2002 was designated
for teacher salary increases. This limits the extent to which ACF
controls how Head Start funds are spent.
Further, over 70 percent of ACF‘s budget funds mandatory programs in
which funding levels are determined by formula for disbursement or
eligibility rules regardless of program performance. However, ACF
officials told us that, as required by HHS, ACF has taken steps to
connect resources and performance by linking the incremental request to
key ACF priorities and goals. [Footnote 11] While this does not
explicitly lead to performance-based budget decisions, linking funding
requests to expected performance is, as we have previously reported,
[Footnote 12] the first step in defining the performance consequences
of budget decisions. As discussed later in this report, it is during
budget execution, for mandatory and discretionary programs alike, that
ACF‘s use of training and technical assistance (T/TA) and travel funds
and use of staff resources currently show the strongest link between
resources and results.
Scope and Methodology:
To address the objectives in this report, we selected two regional
offices (Region VI, Dallas, and Region IX, San Francisco) and three
diverse programs (Head Start, Child Support Enforcement, and the
Community Services Block Grant) that represent ACF‘s self-described
best examples of how managers used performance information to inform
the resource allocation process. We also obtained staff and management
views on the challenges to further budget and performance integration.
More detailed information on our scope and methodology, including
fuller descriptions of the programs we studied, is in appendix III. A
glossary follows that appendix.
We conducted our work from January through May 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
The Current Budget and Planning Process:
Formulation of ACF‘s budget and its performance plan are closely related
but they are not fully integrated. ACF‘s budget and performance plan are
based on joint budget and planning guidance issued by HHS in the spring,
and the funding request is linked to ACF‘s GPRA goals. However,
formulation does not begin with evaluating past program performance to
inform the upcoming year‘s budget request and performance plan. Budget
and planning become more closely aligned when the budget request and
annual performance plan are sent to the HHS budget and planning staff
for review. Finally, allocating resources based on performance is most
integrated into day-to-day management during budget execution, which is
largely decentralized to the regional offices. (OLAB and OPRE, ACF‘s
budget and planning offices, respectively, play small roles in this
part of the process.) Figure 2 depicts a timeline for a typical ACF
budget and planning cycle as well as the roles and responsibilities of
the various key players at each stage of the process.
Figure 2: ACF‘s Budget and Planning Process:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of ACF‘s Budget and Planning Process.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Budget Formulation and Performance Planning Are Closely Related but Are
Not Completely Integrated:
ACF‘s GPRA planning process follows the budget process and must be
completed according to the budget timeline, but formulation does not
begin with a formal look-back at program performance to help shape the
upcoming year‘s budget request and performance plan; thus, the processes
are not yet completely integrated. However, ACF does link its funding
requests for program activities to GPRA goals. OLAB and OPRE work
together to review and clarify the HHS budget and planning guidance,
and, as appropriate, distribute supplemental guidance throughout ACF.
Also, officials describe frequent communication throughout the
formulation process. This is in keeping with practices we have
previously reported as those an agency can use to link performance
information to the budget process. [Footnote 13]
OLAB is responsible for developing headquarters‘ salaries and expense
(S&E) budgets with input from program offices. Meanwhile, program
offices and regions develop program budgets and regional S&E budgets,
respectively, with OLAB ensuring that these budgets align with
assumptions outlined in HHS guidance. OLAB also ensures that ACF‘s
budget package as a whole supports ACF‘s priorities and the department‘s
and OMB‘s external monitoring and reporting requirements.
OPRE oversees the preparation of ACF‘s annual performance plan and
provides guidance, analysis, and T/TA to the program units as they
develop the plan‘s substance. For example, in addition to HHS‘
guidance”which includes a standardized format for the performance plan
and a description of the types of information to be included in each
section”OPRE provides a template that combines an example of an ACF
program performance plan with a section-by-section explanation of HHS
guidance, as well as tips on content. Figure 3 shows an excerpt from
OPRE‘s template, with shaded areas representing OPRE‘s explanations and
guidance.
Figure 3: OPRE GPRA Template:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of the OPRE GPRA Template, and contains
the following information:
Performance targets for FY 2004 should be consistent with available
resources and program implementation strategies. If trend data indicate
that the FY 2003 targets were too ambitious or too limited, consider
revising and project FY 2004 targets based on these revisions. FY 2002
targets are final and cannot be revised. Include any missing actual
performance data from FY 2000 and 2001.
Source: ACF fiscal year 2004 planning guidance.
[End of figure]
Budget Formulation and Performance Planning Are More Closely Related
during Departmental Review:
The alignment between budget and planning increases during the second
phase of ACF budget formulation when HHS planning staff works with ACF
to help ensure that the proposed plan and budget are consistent. As an
example, senior HHS planning staff described an instance last year in
which the ACF draft performance plan showed a particular discretionary
program improving its performance by 5 percent a year, but HHS
questioned the feasibility of the performance goal since ACF did not
request additional funds for that program. ACF agreed to revisit this
goal but, because it was set collaboratively with states, did not
change it. [Footnote 14]
HHS also requires its operating divisions to present their budgets to
the Secretary‘s Budget Council (SBC). The Council is chaired by the
Assistant Secretary for Budget, Technology, and Finance, and made up of
HHS assistant secretaries and other members of HHS senior leadership.
The presentations provide an opportunity for each HHS operating
division to present its budget and discuss its proposals for addressing
the Secretary‘s initiatives such as fatherhood and healthy marriages.
Based on these presentations, the Council makes recommendations on HHS‘
budget package. HHS budget staff refines these recommendations and
presents a final budget package to the Secretary for his decision.
HHS also uses the SBC presentations in the push to more closely relate
budget formulation and program performance. Last year, for the first
time, HHS required its agencies to present to the Council performance
information on their programs. In this first effort, capturing the
quality of program results without overwhelming the Secretary with
information proved difficult. As a result, the presentation did not
afford information robust enough to use at the program level”the level
at which the Secretary makes decisions.
In hopes of better informing the fiscal year 2004 budget process, and in
light of OMB‘s decision to publish PART ratings for selected federal
programs in the 2004 budget, HHS officials told us that they required
the operating divisions to score their 31 selected programs using PART.
These scores, along with PART scores independently derived by HHS staff
and, where available, OMB PART scores were included in the SBC budget
presentations. When the Secretary received the SBC‘s budget
recommendations, PART assessments for 31 of HHS‘s approximately 300
programs were also available. Officials hoped that structuring the
information this way would make it easier for the Secretary to use.
Allocating Resources Based on Performance Is Most Integrated into Day-
to-day Management of ACF Programs:
Budget and planning are more fully integrated during budget execution;
that is, at the operational level in the regions where ACF programs are
generally administered on a day-to-day basis. While the budget execution
process varies among hubs and regions, all regions are required to
develop and operate according to work plans that link program and
agency goals and objectives with expected performance. Regions are
expected to spend their funds in accordance with these plans which are
to articulate activities and projects to be completed that year and how
projects connect to key ACF priorities and goals. [Footnote 15] Figure
4 depicts an excerpt from a hub work plan.
Figure 4: Excerpt from Hub Work Plan:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of the West-Central Hub FY2002 Key
Priorities Matrix.
Source: ACF West-Central Hub fiscal year 2002 key priorities matrix.
[End of figure]
Performance Information Influences Program, Budget, and Staffing
Decisions in Various Ways:
In the offices we visited, ACF employs various strategies to help ensure
that resource allocation is driven by program performance, thus
strengthening the link between resources and goals. At the program
level, ACF officials told us that training and technical assistance
(T/TA) and salaries and expense funds are often allocated based on
program performance and needs. Collaborative strategies are used at
both the local and federal levels to more effectively address common
goals and strengthen resource allocation decisions. Finally, managers
and staff in both regions told us that organizing and allocating staff
resources based on agency goals and program needs helps them feel
connected to and responsible for the results their programs achieve as
well as the national priorities towards which they are working.
Regions Allocate T/TA and S&E Funds Based on Program Performance and
Needs:
Dallas and San Francisco regional staff prioritize and allocate T/TA
resources according to agency goals and program needs. For example,
Dallas staff uses the Head Start Monitoring and Tracking System and the
annual Child Support Enforcement (CSE) self-assessments and financial
audits to identify grantees that have or are likely to have T/TA needs
during the fiscal year. Based on these assessments, staff create and
follow work plans that focus their efforts on those grantees throughout
the year.
Identifying problems early and working collaboratively helps address and
correct issues promptly and constructively.
These strategies pay off even when a grantee can not be saved. Dallas
officials told us that in Head Start they believe relationships forged
with grantees are largely responsible for the ability of program
managers to convince a grantee voluntarily to relinquish its grant”a
less costly and time-consuming process than if ACF were to forcibly
terminate a grant. For example, last fiscal year ACF discovered that a
Head Start grantee overspent its prior year federal Head Start funds.
ACF explained to the grantee that it was unable to provide the grantee
with additional funding for its Head Start program. Because the grantee
could not run its program without receiving additional funds, ACF
recommended that the grantee consider relinquishing the grant. As a
result of ACF's recommendation, the grantee voluntarily relinquished
its program due to financial mismanagement. Dallas officials estimate
that the federal government can save as much as $50,000 in legal fees
for each grant that is relinquished versus terminated. Further, ACF
officials told us, Head Start children and families experience less
disruption in service delivery when a grant is relinquished rather than
terminated.
San Francisco officials told us that they are beginning to use the new
Grant Application and Budget Review Instrument (GABI) in conjunction
with other information to compare actual grantee performance to
performance targets. GABI‘s national cost data help identify applicants
with unusually high administrative costs, teacher/classroom ratios,
etc.
Collaborative Strategies and Knowledge Help Achieve Program Goals and
Strengthen Resource Allocation Decisions:
ACF was better able to achieve CSE program goals by partnering with
states to create a CSE national strategic plan based on common goals.
ACF reports that states and ACF developed and agreed upon the plan‘s
four goals, related objectives, and indicators. These goals,
objectives, and indicators are aligned with the CSE-related portion of
the ACF GPRA performance plan. Because ACF and states define and
measure the CSE program‘s achievements with the same yardstick, they
now work together towards a common purpose.
Furthermore, the GPRA performance measures are the same as those used
to determine each state‘s CSE incentive payment. In theory, these
payments are intended to reward states that meet the performance
measures. As a result, states have an incentive to work towards the
GPRA measures and ACF can report on state and program performance and
explicitly show what level of program performance was achieved
nationally for the level of funding in a particular year.
Even though a large percentage of funds is driven by formula or
eligibility, strategies that leverage resources from a variety of
sources and knowledge about grantees‘ capacity to deliver services can
lead to more informed resource allocation decisions during budget
formulation and execution. For example, the administration planned to
request funds in fiscal year 2002 for a new program for maternity group
home services. ACF had internal discussions as to the legislative
authority under which the funds should be requested. Both the Runaway
and Homeless Youth Act (RHY) and Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) programs were mentioned as possible candidates.
Although at first TANF seemed the more natural choice, ACF ultimately
requested the program funding under RHY based on information from
regional officials about the state agencies and community providers in
their regions as well as their ability to successfully administer these
programs”information that headquarters staff may have been too far
removed from program implementation to observe. [Footnote 16]
Theoretically, this money will be better spent and program goals are
more likely to be achieved than if the funds were appropriated through
TANF.
The Dallas and San Francisco regional offices also described several
performance-informed resource allocation decisions that occurred during
budget execution. For example, the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 gave tribes the opportunity to
run their own CSE programs. These programs are directly related to
ACF‘s first and third GPRA goals: to increase economic independence and
productivity for families (goal 1) and to increase the health and
prosperity of communities and tribes (goal 3). ACF has begun to direct
resources to activities that will prepare tribes to fully support these
programs. For example, Dallas officials told us that Dallas‘ record for
achieving results and its experience with CSE tribal demonstration
projects and special improvement projects were part of the reason it
received additional funds from headquarters in fiscal year 2001 to
develop and pilot a training curriculum for new federal tribal child
support specialists; the program was subsequently approved by the CSE
program office for use nationwide.
In fiscal year 2002, the West-Central Hub again received additional
funds to assess tribal/state court relationships within the Hub and
identify best practices to be shared nationwide.
Regional staff works towards achieving ACF goals and moving the
administration‘s agenda forward by expending T/TA resources on assisting
state and local programs that are already providing compatible services.
For example, in Texas, Dallas staff helped the state incorporate the
administration‘s ’Good Start, Grow Smart“ early literacy initiative
into the training curriculum for the CIRCLE [Footnote 17] initiative,
an existing early literacy training program for Texas Head Start
teachers. Similarly, San Francisco staff worked with Arizona state
officials to tap into existing programs in Arizona aimed at increasing
young fathers‘ financial responsibility for their children and use
these programs as a vehicle to support the administration‘s initiatives
to promote responsible fatherhood and healthy marriages. Arizona has
implemented a program that helps couples learn relationship,
communication, and listening skills to promote healthy marriages.
Through participation in and representation on interagency councils, ACF
seeks to use its resources more efficiently to achieve its goals that
cut across HHS and other federal departments. For example, the San
Francisco region participates in the Region IX Federal Regional Council
(FRC), an interagency body that seeks to foster efficiency and
effectiveness through intergovernmental and public/private partnerships
to achieve administration goals and priorities. After determining that
several of its federal agency members were planning community events to
address the administration‘s faith-based initiative, FRC established a
working group to share information and coordinate activities, and ACF
engaged with other FRC members to organize a youth seminar on the
topic.
ACF also participated in FRC task forces to address economic
development, social, health, and environmental issues in North Richmond
and East Palo Alto, two low-income communities in the San Francisco
region. These efforts have resulted in community improvements such as
expanded Head Start services, employment of TANF recipients, and
holiday toy and book drives for needy children. Region 9 officials also
participated in community meetings in both areas and provided
information on ACF funding opportunities, programs, and services in
North Richmond. In addition, San Francisco is involved in an FRC
initiative focused on employment and economic development strategies in
the San Joaquin Valley in support of the administration‘s effort to
move the welfare reform agenda forward. Similarly, the HHS Regional
Managers‘ Council helps HHS agencies and components in Region IX work
together to achieve crosscutting goals. For example, the Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services, ACF, and the Health Resources and
Services Administration joined forces to address State Children‘s
Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and Medicaid issues to increase
enrollment among underserved minority children.
ACF‘s Office of Community Services (OCS) and its Regional Liaison
initiative further illustrate the value of collaboration in achieving
outcomes and goals. To promote the Community Services network”agencies
that create, coordinate, and deliver programs and services to low-income
Americans”as an asset to other regional activities and to address
crosscutting needs at the local level, ACF‘s OCS and Dallas piloted an
OCS Regional Liaison in 1997. Based on the success of the pilot, OCS
liaisons were designated in each region in 1998. As an example of the
central role played by the liaisons, the lead liaison in Dallas was
instrumental in developing a Head Start Early Alert System that was
eventually implemented nationwide. [Footnote 18]
OCS also seeks to broker support for community concerns and goals and to
leverage network resources to help fulfill the administration‘s
initiative on community partnerships. For example, OCS has partnered
with the Health Resources and Services Administration to improve
services to low-income people by bringing together community health
centers and CAAs to address health concerns at the community level. To
address awareness and access concerning public benefits for the aging
and disabled community, OCS has partnered with the National Council on
Aging and the faith-based community on education and outreach efforts.
OCS, in partnership with the Community Services network, created
’Results Oriented Management and Accountability“ (ROMA). OCS describes
ROMA as a goal-oriented framework that binds and holds accountable a
local network of community action agencies in a standardized way while
allowing them the flexibility to develop their own processes and
outcomes consistent with local preferences and state objectives. ROMA
is based on the six national performance goals related to the Community
Services Block Grant (CSBG) program and balances family-, community-,
and agency-level program outcomes. Although participation in ROMA
itself is voluntary, the CSBG statute requires all states to
participate in a performance measurement system by fiscal year
2001”either ROMA or another one. OCS is trying to achieve full ROMA
implementation in time for the fiscal year 2003 CSBG program
reauthorization.
Organizing and Allocating Staff Resources Based on Program Goals and
Needs Help Connect Staff to Desired Outcomes:
Creating a flexible workforce that can work across program boundaries
allows staff to work together to achieve outcomes and focus on total
performance throughout a state rather that on individual program
outcomes. Most of the ACF/San Francisco office is organized into ’state
teams“ in which staff are responsible for multiple programs within a
subset of states in the region rather than being responsible for a
single program across the region. Officials told us that this
organization allows them to shift duties as necessary when agency
priorities shift. For example, an employee on the Arizona/Nevada team
was able to shift from working with Nevada on child support issues to
working with Arizona on the Child and Family Services Review, a labor-
intensive effort, where more staff were needed. In other instances,
staff were able to focus on ACF‘s crosscutting priorities (e.g.,
strengthening marriage), which support the purposes of various
programs, rather than on each individual program to meet the
administration's vision for ACF. On the California team, staff primarily
responsible for the TANF and Child Care programs actively work together
and support each other as needed.
Dallas created ’21st Century Specialists,“ employees with
multidisciplinary, broadly defined position descriptions that allow
them to carry out a variety of functions within and across programs
because their position descriptions set general performance standards
not tied to specific functions or programs. Dallas officials reported
that, given the opportunity to explore and implement new ways to
achieve goals, staff have begun to identify crosscutting opportunities
and form natural partnerships among programs in order to achieve
desired outcomes.
Linking Resources to Results Is an Evolving Process:
While ACF has progressed in better aligning its resources with program
goals and desired results, almost all managers and staff we spoke with
recognized that strengthening the link between resources and results is
a work in progress, and that many challenges still need to be addressed
before ACF can more fully integrate budget and planning. ACF has
identified several significant barriers to further linking resources and
results, including the effects third-party providers have on its
ability to either influence program outcomes or to collect and report
program performance information; difficulties in determining a
particular program‘s effectiveness; and the organizational culture
change required to support more results-oriented operations. ACF has
begun to identify and implement mitigation strategies to address these
issues.
Third-Party Issues Limit ACF‘s Ability to Work towards National
Performance Goals and to Collect, Verify, and Report Performance
Information:
ACF conducts much of its work through ’third parties“”states,
localities, and other non-federal service providers”which often limits
the extent to which ACF directly influences program outcomes. This is
especially true since many ACF programs by law provide grantees
flexibility in how federal funds may be spent. Although program
activities must meet the general federal purposes of the program, ACF‘s
grantees are able to make funding choices that may not support the
achievement of specific national performance goals or performance
targets.
Third-party issues can also affect ACF‘s ability to report on program
results promptly and consistently. For a number of major programs, ACF
relies on state administrative data systems for performance
information. In many cases, final reports are due 90 to 120 days or
more after the federal fiscal year ends, creating a delay in available
data. Moreover, many programs contain voluntary requirements that give
grantees great flexibility in reporting. As previously discussed, ACF
has successfully used collaborative strategies to get providers to buy
into and work towards national priorities.
ACF has worked to help its service providers develop an understanding of
ACF‘s GPRA responsibilities and the importance of consistent, prompt,
and accurate performance data collection and reporting. ACF used ROMA to
respond to the administration‘s emphasis on results-based, client-
focused accountability and enjoyed a 75 percent implementation rate by
fiscal year 1999 even though participation in a performance measurement
system was not required until fiscal year 2001. When data collection
issues arose as one of the most significant barriers to full ROMA
implementation, OCS pledged to use a significant portion of its
technical assistance resources and administrative support activities to
implement ROMA across the network, including helping grantees increase
their capacity for data collection and reporting.
ACF is also working with the HHS Data Council to assess unmet data needs
for major programs, and, using the collaborative methods described in
this report, is progressing in getting grantees to agree to consistent
data definitions and reporting requirements for some programs.
Difficulty Isolating a Particular Program‘s Effect on Outcomes Affects
ACF‘s Ability to Determine Program Effectiveness:
Since ACF is part of a network of federal, state, local, and
nongovernmental efforts aimed at improving long-term social health and
social outcomes, attributing a particular outcome to any particular
effort can be a great challenge. Further, because outcomes may not be
known for many years, annually measuring the results of these
collective investments much less any one part is often difficult and
may not be particularly useful.
To help mitigate these problems, ACF uses information from program
evaluations and has also begun to identify intermediate outcomes and
monitor progress towards them. For example, Head Start is currently
undergoing a 6-year study intended to establish evidence of a link
between outputs and outcomes for the Head Start program. The study will
compare outcomes for Head Start children to non-Head Start children
while controlling for socioeconomic factors, parenting practices, and
demographics. It will then determine conditions that positively or
negatively affected the outcomes. ACF and regional staff have also
offered training to their employees to help them better understand and
articulate the link between program outputs and outcomes, and to develop
intermediate performance outcomes and targets necessary to show
progress towards longer-term goals.
Organizational Culture Change Seen as Needed to Strengthen Performance
and Budget Integration Is a Slow Process:
ACF and HHS officials repeatedly told us that the culture change
necessary to support and strengthen the linkages between resources and
results takes time but is beginning to take root. Some managers and
staff reported a noticeable difference over time in employees‘
understanding of and ability to define measurable outcomes linked to
agency goals and initiatives as well as a desire to hold employees
accountable for achieving results. For example, goal-oriented, project-
based work plans have become the standard in the regions we visited.
Also, performance contracts for both managers and staff are now or soon
will be tied to agency goals and initiatives, and are viewed as
increasingly focused on outcomes.
Managers and staff also report a clearer understanding of the difference
between outputs and outcomes, and the use of outcome measures is
becoming more common. For example, after providing the training
described above on program outputs and outcomes, San Francisco managers
reported noticeable improvement in the use and nature of outcomes
described in unit workplans. In Dallas, employees are beginning to
create their own performance goals”stepping stones to longer-term
goals”for which they are held accountable each year. Regional managers
told us that they have also begun to help program staff break down 5-
year program outcomes into 1-year targets geared towards elements
states and grantees can accomplish within the reporting time frame.
Agency Comments:
We requested comments on a draft of this report from The Policy
Exchange/Institute for Educational Leadership and the Department of
Health and Human Services. The Policy Exchange agreed with the
substance of the report and we incorporated its technical comments as
appropriate. It also made suggestions for future GAO work in this area.
HHS generally agreed with the substance of the report and submitted
technical comments that were incorporated as appropriate. HHS disagreed
with our use of the term ’budget execution“ to describe their regional
offices‘ role in resource allocation decisions, which they characterize
as ’program implementation.“ We view budget execution as a management
function that is broader than those activities traditionally performed
by a central budget office. A glossary of terms can be found at the end
of this report.
In addition, we provided drafts of the Dallas and San Francisco regional
office appendixes to the appropriate regional officials for technical
review and have incorporated their comments where appropriate.
As agreed with your office, we are sending copies of this report to the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, appropriate Congressional
committees, and other interested parties. We will make copies available
to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact me on (202) 512-9573 or Denise Fantone, Assistant
Director, on (202) 512-4997 if you or your staff have any questions
about this report. Major contributors to this report were Amy
Friedlander, Jackie Nowicki, Keith Slade, and James T. Whitcomb.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Paul L. Posner:
Managing Director, Strategic Issues:
Federal Budget Analysis:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Efforts to Strengthen the Link between Resources and
Results in the ACF West-Central Hub, Dallas Regional Office:
Background:
The Administration for Children and Families‘ (ACF) West-Central Hub is
responsible for carrying out ACF programs and initiatives in the 11-
state Hub area. [Footnote 19] When the Hub was created in 1996, the Hub
Director created program teams in its two regional offices”Dallas and
Denver”and assigned lead program responsibilities to each region based
on its strengths. Thus, Dallas has the lead for the Developmental
Disabilities, Runaway and Homeless Youth, Technology, and Early Head
Start programs. Denver has the lead for Child Welfare, Child Care, and
Head Start programs. Also, cross-Hub teams, using staff from both
regions, coordinate crosscutting issues and provide a unified approach
to meeting the needs of states and other grantees in the Hub.
Figure 5 shows how the West-Central Hub is organized. The Regional Hub
Director is located in Dallas and is responsible for providing
leadership and guidance to all partners (for example, grantees, state,
and local governments) in the Hub. Dallas (Region VI) serves Arkansas,
Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Denver (Region VIII) serves
Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
Dallas‘ Office of Administration and Technology (ATO) ’owns“ the
strategic planning process. ATO provides guidance to program staff with
regard to approaching key activities and projects, measuring and
monitoring performance, and achieving outcomes highlighted in the work
plan. ATO also holds training and workshops throughout the year to help
program units and staff understand regional goals and strategies. Two
program offices in each region support and administer ACF grantees and
programs in the Hub.
Figure 5: West-Central Hub Organization Chart:
[See PDF for image]
Source: ACF West-Central Hub.
[End of figure]
Budgeting and Planning in Dallas Is an Integrated, Interactive Process
Focused on Results:
Strategic planning in Dallas is a dynamic process that is sensitive to
changing circumstances in the region and headquarters. The Hub work
plan is developed via a strategic planning process dependent on top-down
guidance from senior leadership and bottom-up input from staff. Aligning
regional staffing responsibilities with the goals in the work plan has
encouraged innovation among staff and clearer linkages between resources
and results. The regional work plan and Dallas‘ project management
systems reinforce these linkages.
Strategic Planning Incorporates Top-Down Guidance and Bottom-Up Input:
Strategic planning in Dallas is an integrated and evolving process. When
planning and implementing projects that support the work plan, Dallas
leadership and staff continually reevaluate evolving priorities and
circumstances affecting their work. As new needs, priorities, or project
ideas surface during the year, key activities and associated resources
are adjusted as necessary. ATO ensures that it is an inclusive process
resulting in a work plan tied to ACF goals and priorities, built from
the bottom up, and reflective of senior leadership‘s guidance. The
strategic planning process reflects program staff perspectives on the
needs of grantees and the communities they serve as well as benefits
from their first-hand knowledge of strategies that have been
successful. ATO encourages collaboration in developing the work plan by
sponsoring work sessions and staff meetings throughout the year.
Managers told us that working on activities and projects that
contribute to national goals has become important to staff over time.
An inclusive strategic planning process appears to help maintain a
focus on outcomes by making the resulting day-to-day activities
meaningful for staff.
To assist staff with strategic planning, ATO developed Managing for
Results: A Guide for Strategic Management Within the West-Central Hub.
The guide focuses on the critical elements of successful strategic
planning, successful implementation of the strategic plan, and
monitoring, evaluation, and review of the strategic plan. Figure 6
shows the key elements of Dallas‘ strategic planning process.
Figure 6: Key Components of Dallas‘ Strategic Planning Process:
[See PDF for image]
Key components (work in a cyclical manner):
* Strategic planning;
* Resource planning: dollars,employees, capital,information technology;
* Development and implementation;
* Performance monitoring and data collection;
* Evaluation and reporting.
In practice, the cycle may not be sequential. This graphic shows the
interrelationship between key components. Planning and budgeting are
interactive.
Source: ACF West-Central Hub.
[End of figure]
Dallas Has Encouraged Staffing Innovation and Accountability:
Rethinking staffing in two key ways has encouraged employee innovation
and strengthened the Hub‘s focus on results, according to managers. New
’21st Century Employee“ positions have multidisciplinary, broadly
defined position descriptions that allow staff to carry out a variety
of functions within and across programs. These new positions have
provided staff with the opportunity to take a crosscutting view among
programs and identify opportunities to form natural partnerships in
order to achieve outcomes. Also, linking employees‘ day-to-day
activities to goals and priorities through such instruments as outcome-
based employee performance contracts has brought encouraging results to
the region. For example, managers report that employees have a stronger
sense of contribution and responsibility towards achieving program
goals. Focusing on outcomes rather than process and outputs creates an
opportunity for individuals to exercise their creativity and run with
new project ideas, and helps to hold staff accountable for results in
the region.
To help staff develop performance contracts clearly aligned with
organizational goals, Dallas‘ Employee Communication and Performance
Management Team created a resource guide that provides results-based
tools and techniques for developing performance contracts that align
with organizational goals. [Footnote 20] Employee performance plans tie
into the Regional Hub Administrator‘s performance contract, which in
turn is tied to the work plan. The guide helps employees distinguish
between activities”the actions used to produce results”and
accomplishments, which are the value-added results produced by the
activities. The guide also illustrates how to measure and monitor
performance and accomplishments included in performance contracts.
Regional Work Plans and Project Management Systems Reinforce the Link
between Inputs, Activities, and Outcomes:
Work plans and project management systems reinforce the link between
resources (inputs) needed to complete projects (activities) aimed at
achieving goals (outcomes). Annually, program offices create program
plans on which the regional work plan is based. Built in a matrix
format, the work plan reinforces the linkage between regional goals and
objectives, including GPRA goals, with outcome measures, performance
indicators, and the key activities necessary to achieve regional goals
and objectives. Also, the key activities are linked to timelines and
status indicators noting, for example, when an activity has been
completed. Key activities in the program plans crosswalk to the work
plan, which tends to contain more broadly defined regional-level
activities. Program units request funding for projects that contribute
to the activities in the regional work plan and program plans, thus
completing resources-results linkage. Projects and their associated
funding are tracked in Dallas‘ project management system, the Results-
Based Information Tracking System (RBITS). RBITS tracks how project
funds are spent and also shows the connection between the project,
regional goals, ACF goals, and HHS goals.
RBITS is a real-time project management system to help staff better link
resources with results throughout the year. RBITS tracks budgeted vs.
actual spending, including remaining funds on a project basis. These
data are used to ’find“ leftover funds that can be shifted from
completed projects to new projects or priorities. Also, RBITS
historical spending data can provide baseline information for
projecting future project cost estimates. For example, the cost of a 6-
month technical assistance project in Austin can be reasonably
estimated with RBITS historical data. RBITS projects are coded in
various ways (for example, by HHS goal, ACF goal, key priorities, staff
person, date) allowing ATO to generate various reports from the
database; RBITS reports are accessible to everyone working in the
region.
Figure 7 shows portions of the fiscal year 2002 West-Central Hub
regional work plan (also called the key priorities matrix) and Dallas
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) fiscal year 2002 program
plan for the fatherhood and healthy marriage initiatives. The shaded
’key task“ in the program plan crosswalks to the shaded ’key activity“
in the regional work plan. The shaded area of the RBITS report in
figure 8 on the adjacent page illustrates examples of projects that
support the key tasks and activities described above, and shows how the
Dallas Regional Office tracks spending associated with these
activities.
Figure 7: Excerpts from the West-Central Hub Regional Work Plan and
Dallas OCSE Program Plan:
[See PDF for image]
Source: ACF West-Central Hub.
[End of figure]
Figure 8: Results-Based Information Tracking System Report:
[See PDF for image]
Source: ACF West-Central Hub.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between Resources and
Results in the ACF Pacific Hub, San Francisco Regional Office:
Background:
The Pacific Hub office, located in San Francisco, comprises the
Administration for Children and Families‘ (ACF) Region 9 (San Francisco)
and Region 10 (Seattle). The Hub Director oversees overall Hub
operations and is directly responsible for overseeing the Region 9
office. The Hub Director has no line authority over the Regional
Administrator who runs the Seattle office. [Footnote 21] Thus, the Hub
Director relies on cooperation with the other regional offices to
effect change in Region 10.
Region 9 is organized into three units: a Program Support Unit (PSU), a
Self-Sufficiency Unit (SSU), and a Children and Youth Development Unit
(CYDU). The Quality Assurance Team (QAT) in PSU coordinates the
development of work plans, provides program technical support, and gives
technical assistance to states on sampling plans and data validation.
SSU and CYDU provide program and financial management services,
technical administration, and technical assistance to states and
grantees in the administration of the ACF grant programs for which
states and grantees are responsible. [Footnote 22] Figure 9 shows the
Region 9 organizational structure.
Figure 9: San Francisco Regional Office Structure:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of the San Francisco regional office
structure.
Source: ACF Region 9.
[End of figure]
Strategic Planning at Region 9 Seeks to Engage, Inform, and Educate
Staff:
Officials told us that the goal of strategic planning in the region is
to create processes that link resources to results while engaging,
informing, and educating staff as to the value of focusing on program
outcomes. To this end, they have embarked on several efforts: (1)
organizing staff into state teams to allow a more integrated approach
to service delivery, (2) developing regional work plans that link
activities to priorities and goals and focus on outcomes, and (3)
issuing accomplishment reports linked to the regional work plan. They
said that, as a result, Region 9 is poised to use strategic planning as
a management tool to improve results and allocate resources.
State Teams Provide a Flexible, Crosscutting Approach to Service
Delivery:
Region 9 officials told us that they have reorganized to create state
teams”rather than program-focused teams”to allow better integration,
more efficient use of resources, and better customer service. They said
that these teams allow them to be more flexible and to more easily
recognize and take advantage of the natural program linkages. In turn,
staff can help grantees take advantage of these linkages in their own
programs. For example, Region 9 staff helped Arizona use Head Start
programs as vehicles to strengthen the role of young fathers in their
children‘s lives”something that would be traditionally viewed as a
Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program goal. State-based teams allow
Region 9 to shift its focus when agency priorities shift and focus on
ACF priorities (e.g., strengthening marriage) rather than specific
programs to meet the administration's vision for ACF. The
reorganization also helped the office to continue providing service
despite increases in workload and reductions in staffing levels at the
regional office”from more than 100 in the early 1990s to approximately
65. Lastly, managers report that their staff are now able to provide a
single point of contact for grantees in a state, which is particularly
important for Indian tribes.
The Work Planning Process Strives to Link Activities to Goals and
Strengthen the Focus on Outcomes:
Over time, Region 9 officials told us that they have tried to guide the
work planning process and the work plans themselves to link more
closely to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), involve
staff at all levels, and focus more directly on outcomes. Officials
said that the early work plans (pre-fiscal year 1998) were simply a
list of strategies to be achieved, organized by major ACF priorities.
Recently, these work plans have become a way of showing how the region
plans to allocate resources to specific activities to achieve GPRA
goals and the Secretary‘s crosscutting initiatives. The Hub more
recently has also adopted this approach. The plans have also begun to
include expected outcomes by which the Hub and region can measure the
extent to which they have achieved their stated goals. Table 2
describes some key elements of the work planning process and work plans
in fiscal years 1998 to 2002.
Table 2: Key Elements in Work Planning, Fiscal Years 1998-2002:
FY 1998: Plans linked to ACF priorities:
* Regional plan compiled by QAT – no program staff involvement.
FY 1999: Plans linked to ACF priorities:
* Teams developed regional work plans based on QAT template.
* Focus on outcomes begins to emerge.
FY 2000: Plans linked to GPRA goals/crosscutting priorities:
* ACF priorities explicitly linked to ACF GPRA goals in regional work
plan.
* Staff gains increased awareness of GPRA.
* Hub plan created to address crosscutting priorities.
FY 2001: Plans linked to GPRA goals/crosscutting priorities:
* Plans reflect regional office and headquarters key activities.
* Plans and reports are streamlined.
* Focus on outcomes is further strengthened.
FY 2002: Plans linked to GPRA goals/crosscutting priorities:
* Crosscutting priorities strengthen efforts to utilize Hub resources,
not just regional resources.
* Cost/funding sources.
Source: GAO analysis.
A senior planning official described the following progression of San
Francisco‘s work plans and work planning process. Prior to fiscal year
1998, work planning in Region 9 consisted of individual, activity-based
unit work plans. In fiscal year 1998, in an attempt to reduce the
workload of program staff, they were not required to participate in
creating work plans. Instead, QAT compiled a regional work plan and
linked the activities to the seven key priorities ACF had at the time.
The region found that, in addition to less accurately reflecting the
region‘s work, the centralized process weakened the staff‘s connection
between their work and program goals.
Beginning in fiscal year 1999, work planning was turned back to the
program units, but QAT provided a work plan template to help the units
create more uniform plans focused more on outcomes rather than outputs.
Managers said this cultural shift was one of the most important changes
in the region. To help people understand and articulate the difference
between program outputs and outcomes, QAT provided voluntary training
sessions. Senior leadership views the staff‘s ability to understand and
articulate the difference between the two as a major breakthrough”one
that was key to helping staff understand how their performance affects
program performance and results, and an important step in holding people
accountable for results.
In fiscal year 2000, in keeping with the way headquarters program units
and senior leadership plan and report, ACF required the regions to
crosswalk their activities to ACF‘s four GPRA goals. San Francisco was
able to accomplish this because the seven key priorities”to which
Region 9‘s work plan was connected”clearly linked to the goals.
Regional managers told us that this helped staff make the connection
between their work and ACF‘s larger GPRA goals in a way they had not
been able to before. Also, on its own initiative, the Pacific Hub
created a work plan (in addition to the regional work plan) to address
crosscutting initiatives and to better leverage Hub resources.
The region continued to strengthen its work plan in fiscal year 2001 by
further developing an emphasis on outcomes, and by streamlining its work
plans and reports. We observed that the fiscal year 2001 work plan also
indicated, for each outcome, key activities to be completed by the
region and by headquarters. Managers told us that they began to see
staff change the way they thought about their work”the planning process
was becoming more than just a process.
Fiscal year 2002 was a transition year: ACF's new leadership created
nine crosscutting priorities to which the work plans were to be linked.
Region 9 included activities related to these priorities in its work
planning. Managers view the crosscutting nature of the new priorities
as another step forward in their previous efforts to design activities
that use Hub resources rather than regional resources. For each
activity, the 2002 Hub plan also began to flesh out costs, funding
sources, and timelines for completion.
Accomplishment Reports Link to Work Plans and Help Reinforce Outcomes:
Region 9 officials told us that accomplishment reports link to work
plans and further involve staff in the strategic planning process,
reminding staff of how their work relates to program outcomes and
achieving agency goals. They said that initially the process included
mostly upper management with varying involvement or participation from
staff, but that staff has increasingly participated in reporting. For
example, in past years, the Hub Director sent "accomplishment reports"
to headquarters that summarized information on the achievements of the
regional office. In fiscal year 2000, the regional work plan was
amended to include a section for accomplishments specifically linked to
strategic resources in the work plan, and staff responsible for the
achievement kept the plan up-to-date.
Similar to the work plans, Region 9‘s accomplishment reports are
organized by initiatives and goals, and have become less process-
oriented and more outcome-oriented over time. For example, the fiscal
year 1998 accomplishment report to headquarters, the region's first,
reports on the activities performed, not the outcomes achieved by
staff. The fiscal year 1999 accomplishment report began to focus on
outcomes by using measures to quantify objectives. In fiscal year 2000,
headquarters required that senior staff tie accomplishment reports to
their own performance. Region 9 officials said that although
accomplishment reports were not required for fiscal years 2001 and
2002, Region 9 provided them anyway and the Hub Director used that
information to support her own fiscal year 2001 performance report; she
is expected to do the same for fiscal year 2002.
Region 9 Is Poised to Use Its Work Plan to Manage More Effectively:
After 5 years of strategic planning efforts, Region 9 has progressed in
institutionalizing the link between day-to-day activities and program
outcomes. Under strong senior leadership, the region has begun to take
the next step”using its work plan to manage more effectively. The
Pacific Hub participated in OPRE training in April 2002 to learn how to
use the annual GPRA plan as a performance management tool.
Specifically, the training was meant to help staff use the performance
plan to more effectively target training and technical assistance
resources, provide a framework for aligning the administration's key
priorities with its mission and goals, and provide opportunities for
cross-program collaboration. To this end, OPRE focused on models for
linking inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes as a tool for the
regions to develop their work plans. The planned agenda for an upcoming
video conference includes developing models on how to achieve the
results in their work plans.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To address the objectives in this report, we asked the Administration
for Children and Families (ACF) to identify several regional offices and
programs that they felt best represented how managers used performance
information to inform the resource allocation process. Using their
suggestions as a guide, we then selected for inclusion in our study two
regional offices (Region VI, Dallas, and Region IX, San Francisco) and
three diverse programs (Head Start, Child Support Enforcement, and the
Community Services Block Grant).
Head Start, [Footnote 23] begun in 1965, is a $6.5 billion
discretionary, federally administered categorical grant program the
primary goal of which is to promote the school-readiness of children in
low-income families. ACF administers the Head Start program through the
Head Start Bureau and ACF‘s regional offices nationwide. ACF awards
grants directly to local agencies, which provide a wide range of
program services”educational, medical, dental, nutrition, mental
health, and social services”to low-income preschool children and their
families. The approximately 1,400 service providers include public and
private school systems, community action agencies and other private
nonprofit organizations, local government agencies, and Indian tribes.
The program supports ACF Goal 2: to improve healthy development,
safety, and well-being of children and youth.
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was established in 1975
under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. It is a mandatory federal
program administered or managed by states, whose mission is to ensure
that children are financially supported by both their parents. State and
local governments work towards establishing paternity and support
orders, locating parents, and enforcing support orders. The Office of
Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) is responsible for overseeing the
program, which includes providing support to states. The CSE program
received almost $4 billion in funding for fiscal year 2002. Collections
reached $18.9 billion in fiscal year 2001, but OCSE reported that about
$89 billion in child support was legally owed but unpaid at the end of
fiscal year 2000. The federal government and the states share both the
administrative costs of operating the program and any recovered costs
and fees at the rate of 66 percent federal and 34 percent state. The $4
billion in CSE funding includes a $450 million incentives program. The
Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998 changed the basis
for awarding incentives from cost-efficiency to rewarding achievement
of five performance-based outcome measures. In fiscal year 2000, one-
third of the incentive payments awarded to those states that met the
performance standards were based on the new formula and the remaining
two-thirds were based on the old formula. The phase-in will be
completed by fiscal year 2002. CSE supports ACF Goal 1: to increase
economic independence and productivity for families.
The Office of Community Services (OCS) provides support and assistance
to states and grantees that provide a range of human and economic
development services and activities at the state and local levels.
Working through community action agencies (CAAs) and community
development corporations, OCS programs seek to reduce poverty,
revitalize low-income communities, and empower low-income individuals
and families to become self-sufficient. The $650 million Community
Services Block Grant is the primary community service program through
which grantees receive OCS funds. [Footnote 24] To help focus on
results, OCS relies on Results Oriented Management and Accountability
(ROMA), a goal-oriented framework that binds and holds accountable CAAs
in a standardized way while allowing them the flexibility to develop
their own processes and outcomes consistent with local preferences and
state objectives.
We reviewed budget and planning documents for the programs and regions
in our study, including strategic plans, annual performance plans,
performance reports, budgets, and work plans. We also reviewed a variety
of reports for general background information on (1) recent
administration initiatives, (2) GPRA implemention, (3) recent public
administration literature, and (4) GAO reports on prior case studies
and general management reviews.
We also obtained staff and management views on the challenges to further
budget and performance integration. We conducted structured interviews
with agency budget, program, and planning officials in each region and
program we studied. We also interviewed departmental budget and
planning staff with ACF oversight responsibilities. Among other things,
we asked about (1) roles and responsibilities, (2) how performance
information was used in program, resource, and staffing decisions, (3)
how planning and budgeting were related, and (4) challenges they faced
to further budget and performance integration. The following bureau,
offices, regions, and programs were included in our review.
* The Department of Health and Human Services‘ (HHS) Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Budget, Technology and Finance, and the Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
* ACF‘s Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget, Office of Planning,
Research, and Evaluation, and Office of Regional Operations.
* ACF‘s Head Start Bureau (Head Start program); the Office of Community
Services (Community Services Programs); and the Office of Child Support
Enforcement (Child Support Enforcement program).
* ACF‘s West-Central Hub, Dallas Regional Office in Texas, and the
Pacific Hub, San Francisco Regional Office in California.
Although we broadly summarize the views of these officials for reporting
purposes, their observations may not necessarily be generalized across
ACF. Regarding ACF‘s responses about its specific budgeting and planning
strategies and practices, where possible, we reviewed supporting
documentation. However, we did not observe the actual implementation of
these processes and therefore cannot independently verify that they
function as indicated in the supporting documentation.
We requested comments on a draft of this report from HHS and The Policy
Exchange/Institute for Educational Leadership. These comments are
discussed in the letter. In addition, we provided drafts of the Dallas
and San Francisco Regional Office appendixes to regional officials for
technical review and have incorporated their comments where
appropriate.
We conducted our work from January through May 2002 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. A glossary can be
found at the end of this report.
[End of section]
Glossary:
Annual Performance Plan: Yearly plans that set annual goals with
measurable target levels of performance.
Base Budgeting: A technique that requires public officials to
periodically justify and reaffirm the particular program (and its
entire budget) under consideration. Usually used in contrast to
incremental budgeting, which takes previous year‘s amounts as given.
Block Grants: Grants that provide funds for a wide range of activities
within a broadly defined functional area.
Budget Execution: The process of developing operating plans for the
upcoming fiscal year; implementing the plans by allocating, obligating,
monitoring, and reallocating budgetary resources; and reporting on the
resulting obligations and outlays.
Budget Formulation: The process of developing an agency‘s budget
request for inclusion in the President‘s budget request and its
supporting justifications for Congress.
Categorical Grants: Grants designed to stimulate and support programs
in specific areas of national interest.
Discretionary Appropriations/Spending: Discretionary appropriations
refer to budgetary resources provided in appropriation acts.
Discretionary spending refers to outlays controlled through the
congressional appropriation process.
Incremental Budgeting: Viewing the budget request with reference to the
amount provided for the previous fiscal year. An assumption that most
activities in the current budget will be continued and new initiatives
will be financed from additional resources, not from cutbacks in
existing programs. (See Base Budgeting above)
Mandatory Spending/Amount: Mandatory spending refers to outlays for
entitlement programs such as food stamps, Medicare, and veterans‘
pensions. By defining eligibility and setting the benefit or payment
rules, Congress controls spending for these programs indirectly rather
than directly through the appropriations process. Also referred to as
’direct spending.“ Mandatory amount generally means budget authority or
budget outlays. Congress and the President cannot increase or decrease
this type of spending without changing existing substantive law.
Outcome: A description of the intended result, effect, or consequence
that will occur from carrying out a program or activity.
Output: A description of the level of activity or effort that will be
produced or provided over a period of time or by a specified date.
Performance Budgeting: The general concept of linking performance
information with budget requests (or, with resources).
Program, Project, or Activity: An element within a budget account.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Other significant legislation includes the Chief Financial Officers
Act of 1990 (CFO Act) and related legislation, which created a
structure for the management and reporting of the government‘s
finances; and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, which required agencies to take an orderly, planned approach
to their information technology needs.
[2] The President‘s Management Agenda, which by focusing on 14 targeted
areas”5 governmentwide goals and 9 program initiatives”seeks to improve
the management and performance of the federal government.
[3] Office of Management and Budget, Program Performance Assessments
for the FY 2004 Budget, M-02-10, (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2002).
[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Budgeting: Initial
Experiences Under the Results Act in Linking Plans with Budgets,
AIMD/GGD-99-67 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 1999); U.S. General
Accounting Office, Performance Budgeting: Fiscal Year 2000 Progress
in Linking Plans with Budgets, AIMD-99-239R (Washington, D.C.: July 30,
1999); U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Agency
Progress in Linking Performance Plans with Budgets and Financial
Statements, GAO-02-236 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 4, 2002).
[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Budget Practices
in Federal Agencies, GAO-01-1084SP (Washington, D.C.: August 2001).
[6] The seven program offices are the Office of Family Assistance; the
Administration on Children, Youth and Families; the Office of Child
Support Enforcement; the Office of Refugee Resettlement; the
Administration on Developmental Disabilities; the Administration for
Native Americans; and the Office of Community Services.
[7] In their technical comments on a draft of this report, HHS
officials said that in May 2002, ACF‘s fourth goal was revised to:
’Manage resources to improve performance.“
[8] GAO-02-236.
[9] These nine priorities are: (1) fatherhood, (2) healthy marriage,
(3) faith-based/community initiatives, (4) positive youth development,
(5) next phase of welfare reform, (6) enhancing early literacy of
children, (7) rural initiative, (8) prevention, and (9) One Department.
[10] As of October 1, 2002, ACF eliminated its hub structure. ACF will
operate in a 10 regional office structure in alignment with the HHS One
Department initiative. While ACF plans to reassign functions currently
performed at the hub level to the regional offices, it does not intend
to eliminate efficiencies that have been realized from cross-regional
partnerships. In fact, ACF plans to build on the benefits of these
partnerships, including cost efficiencies, innovation, and knowledge
expansion.
[11] Although budget officials told us that ACF‘s focus on the budget
is primarily incremental, they pointed out that program officials
regularly focused on a program‘s base budget. HHS officials said that
reviewing the base budget is useful in thinking about strategic
direction and that GPRA is a constant reminder of how a program‘s total
budget is employed. ACF and HHS officials told us that program
reauthorizations also provide an opportunity to focus on base budgets.
[12] GAO-02-236.
[13] GAO-01-1084SP.
[14] In their technical comments on a draft of this report, HHS
officials said that because many programs in ACF generally do not
receive funding increases from year to year (i.e., level-funded),
programs and grantees are encouraged to improve both efficiencies and
effectiveness as a way of improving performance. This year, HHS
officials said, ACF revised the goal to less than 5 percent”a level
still believed to encourage improved performance.
[15] During budget execution, OLAB ensures compliance with the
department‘s system of funds control by requesting apportionments,
providing allotments and allowances, and responding to external
monitoring and reporting requirements. Also, OLAB is responsible for
centrally administered budget items such as salaries, benefits
payments, and rents. In contrast, regional offices‘ role during budget
execution is to make resource decisions that support planned
performance consistent with program goals and objectives.
[16] Although no funds were appropriated for a new program providing
maternity group home services, Congress, in fiscal year 2002,
appropriated $88 million for RHY activities and encouraged ACF to
deliver services similar to those for which it requested funds through
RHY‘s existing program activities.
[17] Launched in 1999, the Center for Improving the Readiness of
Children for Learning and Education (CIRCLE) is a partnership program
between the University of Texas and the Texas Education Agency to
emphasize early literacy and get kids ready for kindergarten.
[18] Because 40 percent of Head Start programs nationwide are
administered by Community Action Agencies (CAA), Dallas focused its
early alert system on CAA/Head Start programs as a way both to help
Head Start grantees avoid losing their grants and to assist individual
CAAs when usual T/TA channels have not worked. Strengthening CAAs
reportedly has had spillover benefits to other programs and services
because of the number and breadth of federal programs CAAs often
administer.
[19] The 11 states in the ACF West-Central Hub include: Arkansas,
Colorado, Louisiana, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
[20] Results-based tools and techniques include, for example, tree
diagrams, which can be used to break broad goals into the detailed
actions needed to achieve them.
[21] Region 9 serves the states and federally recognized tribes of
Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada; the territories of Guam and
American Samoa; and the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall
Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the
Republic of Palau. Region 10 serves the states and federally recognized
tribes of Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
[22] SSU is responsible for TANF, CSE, the Child Care and Development
Fund, Foster Care and Adoption Assistance, Child Welfare, Child Abuse
and Neglect, and Developmental Disabilities. CYDU is responsible for
programs such as Head Start and Runaway and Homeless Youth.
[23] Head Start is authorized by Title VI, Subtitle A, Chapter 8,
Subchapter B of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-
35).
[24] The Community Services Block Grant was established by Title VI,
Subtitle B of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-
35), and was most recently amended and reauthorized through the
Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational
Services Act of 1998 (P.L.105-285).
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full text files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports Order GAO
Products heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
