Grant Programs: Design Features Shape Flexibility, Accountability, and
Performance Information (Letter Report, 06/22/98, GAO/GGD-98-137).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO conducted a comparative study
of block grants and similar programs that give state or local
governments substantial flexibility in determining how funds are to be
used, focusing on: (1) examining the design characteristics of these
programs that have implications for flexibility, accountability, and
programs' ability to collect information about performance as envisioned
in the Government Performance and Results Act; (2) identifying the kinds
and sources of performance information that programs with various
characteristics have utilized and the strengths and weaknesses of this
information; and (3) providing guidance to legislators and agency
officials concerning the information collection options available for
programs with various designs.

GAO noted that: (1) flexible grants are an adaptable policy tool and are
found in fields from urban transit to community mental health; (2)
flexible grant programs vary greatly in the kind and degree of
flexibility afforded to state or local entities, distribution of
accountability across levels of government, and availability of direct
measures of program performance; (3) program variation reflects
differences in three key design features: (a) whether national
objectives for the grant are primarily performance-oriented or primarily
fiscal; (b) whether the grant funds a distinct program with its own
operating structure or contributes to the stream of funds supporting
state or local activities; and (c) whether it supports a single major
activity or diverse activities; (4) flexibility is narrowest, but
accountability to the federal level clearest, in programs that focus on
a single major activity and pursue national performance objectives
through a distinct operating structure; (5) flexibility is broadest in
programs designed with the fiscal objective of adding to the stream of
funds supporting diverse state or local activities; (6) in these broadly
flexible programs, the federal agency's role is limited to providing
funds; (7) program direction and accountability are assigned to the
state level; (8) design features also have implications for the
availability of performance information; (9) although most reported
simple activity or client counts, relatively few flexibility programs
collected uniform data on the outcomes of state or local service
activities; (10) collecting such data requires conditions that do not
exist under many flexible program designs, and even where overall
performance of a state or local program can be measured, the amount
attributable to federal funding often cannot be separated out; (11)
accordingly, flexible programs drew on other sources to obtain an
overall picture of performance; (12) understanding grant design features
and their implications can assist policymakers in applying the Results
Act and in designing or redesigning grant programs; and (13) considering
a particular program's national purpose, the federal agency role, and
prospects for measuring performance attributable to the program can help
agency officials and policy makers understand what program-generated
information on results they can realistically expect and when
alternative sources of information will be needed.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-98-137
     TITLE:  Grant Programs: Design Features Shape Flexibility, 
             Accountability, and Performance Information
      DATE:  06/22/98
   SUBJECT:  Accountability
             Comparative analysis
             Block grants
             Congressional/executive relations
             Program evaluation
             Federal/state relations
             Grant administration
             Reporting requirements
             State-administered programs
             Financial management
IDENTIFIER:  HHS Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program
             Community Development Block Grant
             Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant
             Byrne Formula Grant
             HHS Maternal and Child Health Program
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

June 1998

GRANT PROGRAMS - DESIGN FEATURES
SHAPE FLEXIBILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY,
AND PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

GAO/GGD-98-137

Grant Program Design Features

(966701)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AAA - Area Agency on Aging
  ACF - Administration for Children and Families
  AOA - Administration on Aging
  BJA - Bureau of Justice Assistance
  CCDBG - Child Care and Development Block Grant
  CDBG - Community Development Block Grant
  CDC - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  CPD - Community Planning and Development
  CSBG - Community Services Block Grant
  DOT - Department of Transportation
  ETA - Employment and Training Administration
  FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
  FTA - Federal Transit Administration
  GPRA - Government Performance and Results Act
  HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
  HIV - Human immunodeficiency virus
  HRSA - Health Resources and Services Administration
  HUD - Department of Housing and Urban Development
  JTPA - Job Training Partnership Act
  LEA - Local education agency
  LIHEAP - Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program
  NHS - National Highway System
  NHTSA - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  OESE - Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget
  PHHS - Preventive Health and Health Services
  RDA - Recommended daily allowance
  SAMHSA - Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
  SDA - Service Delivery Area
  SEA - State education agency
  STP - Surface Transportation Program
  TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-277438

June 22, 1998

The Honorable William H.  Frist
Chairman, Education Task Force
Committee on the Budget
United States Senate

The Honorable Fred Thompson
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

Congress today faces the difficult question:  Can grant programs be
designed to promote flexibility at the state or local level as in
traditional block grants, yet still provide the information needed to
ensure accountability and support federal policy decisions?  With
block grant proposals on the horizon in education and other areas and
the first performance plans now in under the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA or the Results Act), this topic could
hardly be more timely. 

In response to your request, we conducted a comparative study of
block grants and similar programs that give state or local
governments substantial flexibility in determining how funds are to
be used.  The study covered 21 programs in diverse policy areas, from
transportation to community mental health.  Our objectives were to
(1) examine the design characteristics of these programs that have
implications for flexibility, accountability, and programs' ability
to collect information about performance as envisioned in the Results
Act; (2) identify the kinds and sources of performance information
that programs with various characteristics have utilized and the
strengths and weaknesses of this information; and (3) provide
guidance to legislators and agency officials concerning the
information collection options available for programs with various
designs. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Flexible grants--block grants and similar programs that give state or
local governments the flexibility to adapt funded activities to fit
the state or local context--are an adaptable policy tool and are
found in fields from urban transit to community mental health. 
Flexible grant programs vary greatly in the kind and degree of
flexibility afforded to state or local entities, distribution of
accountability across levels of government, and availability of
direct measures of program performance.  Program variation reflects
differences in three key design features:  whether national
objectives for the grant are primarily performance-oriented or
primarily fiscal; whether the grant funds a distinct "program" with
its own operating structure or contributes to the stream of funds
supporting state or local activities; and whether it supports a
single major activity or diverse activities. 

Flexibility is narrowest, but accountability to the federal level
clearest, in programs that focus on a single major activity and
pursue national performance objectives through a distinct operating
structure.  Flexibility is broadest in programs designed with the
fiscal objective of adding to the stream of funds supporting diverse
state or local activities.  In these broadly flexible programs, the
federal agency's role is limited to providing funds.  Program
direction and accountability are assigned to the state level. 

Design features also have implications for the availability of
performance information.  Although most reported simple activity or
client counts, relatively few flexible programs collected uniform
data on the outcomes of state or local service activities. 
Collecting such data requires conditions (such as uniformity of
activities, objectives, and measures) that do not exist under many
flexible program designs, and even where overall performance of a
state or local program can be measured, the amount attributable to
federal funding often cannot be separated out.  Accordingly, flexible
programs drew on other sources, including program evaluation studies,
research and demonstration studies of service delivery methods, and
aggregate data, to obtain an overall picture of performance. 

Understanding grant design features and their implications can assist
policymakers in applying the Results Act and in designing or
redesigning grant programs.  Considering a particular program's
national purpose, the federal agency role, and prospects for
measuring performance attributable to the program can help agency
officials and policymakers understand what program-generated
information on results they can realistically expect and when
alternative sources of information will be needed.  This report
closes with a design framework to assist policymakers in ensuring
that accountability and information needs are met, whatever the type
of design selected for a new or revised grant program. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2


      CATEGORICAL PROGRAMS, BLOCK
      GRANTS, AND FLEXIBILITY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

Grants to state and local governments have historically been
classified as either categorical grants or block grants.  In terms of
this historic classification, the typical categorical grant permits
funds to be used only for specific, narrowly defined purposes and
populations and includes administrative and reporting requirements
that help to ensure both financial and programmatic accountability. 
These features, on the one hand, can make it easier for Congress to
ascertain how funds have been used, and with what result.  On the
other hand, a grant system comprising numerous and overlapping
specific programs, each with its own target populations and
requirements, can create difficulties at the service delivery level. 
The combined coverage of related specific programs may be poorly
matched to local needs, and differing eligibility and reporting
requirements complicate program administration for service providers
who receive funds from multiple grants. 

The block grant approach can avoid these disadvantages.\1 In
principle, block grants award funds to state or local governments, to
be used at their discretion to support a range of activities aimed at
achieving a broad national purpose.  Consistent with their historic
aim of devolving federal program responsibilities to, or supporting
programs at, the state or local level, the block grants of the past
(such as those of the 1980s) had limited administrative and reporting
requirements.  These features avoid many of the rigidities and
burdens associated with multiple categorical grants.  However, as our
past reports have observed, these features also make it difficult for
federal policymakers to ascertain how funds are being used and to
verify that programs are achieving their intended purpose.\2

In practice, the "categorical" and "block" grant labels and their
underlying definitions represent the ends of a continuum and overlap
considerably in its middle range.  Some block grants have from their
inception covered only a single major activity, and thus offer
flexibility within a narrow range.  The addition of constraints over
the years has moved others toward the categorical end of the
spectrum.  Conversely, some initially categorical grants (such as
Special Programs for Aging--Supportive Services and Senior Centers)
have broadened and increased local flexibility over time and now look
much like block grants.  We use the term "flexible programs" to
include all programs, however labeled, whose features put them in the
block grant range. 


--------------------
\1 Waivers from individual program requirements that enable a
jurisdiction to combine funds from several programs more effectively
can provide flexibility as well.  For a report on the Department of
Education's waiver program, see Education Programs:  Information on
the Ed-Flex Demonstration Project (GAO/HEHS-98-61R, Dec.  15, 1997). 

\2 Block Grants:  Characteristics, Experience, and Lessons Learned
(GAO/HEHS-95-74, Feb.  9, 1995) and Block Grants:  Issues in
Designing Accountability Provisions (GAO/AIMD-95-226, Sept.  1,
1995). 


      THE RESULTS ACT, PERFORMANCE
      MEASUREMENT, AND
      ACCOUNTABILITY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2

The Results Act embodies the current interest in holding federal
agencies accountable for program performance.  It requires each
federal agency to develop a multiyear strategic plan that (1) states
the agency's mission; (2) identifies long-term strategic goals for
each major function or operation; (3) describes how the agency
intends to achieve those goals; (4) shows how annual performance
goals relate to strategic goals; (5) identifies key factors beyond
the agency's control that could affect achievement of strategic
goals; and (6) describes how program evaluations informed the plan
and provides a schedule of future program evaluations.  Agency
strategic plans are the starting point for agencies to set annual
goals for programs and to measure the performance of programs in
achieving those goals. 

Program goals and performance measures covering each program activity
set forth in the agency's budget are to be presented in annual
performance plans.\3 The first such plans, covering fiscal year 1999,
were submitted to Congress in the spring of 1998.  Each performance
plan will be followed by a performance report that compares actual
performance with the goals set forth in the performance plan and
explains the reasons for slippage in cases where goals were not met
and, if the goal was impractical or not feasible, the reasons for
that and the actions recommended.  Finally, the report is to include
the summary findings of program evaluations completed during the
fiscal year covered by the report. 

Reviewing the Results Act's requirements in light of traditional
block grant design, we identified several questions that would likely
arise in applying the Act to flexible programs. 

  -- How can the Act take account of the federal goal of supporting
     state or local efforts and objectives and the limited agency
     role that accompanies this goal in traditional block grant
     design? 

  -- When design features limit the federal agency's ability to
     collect information through grantee reports, what performance
     measures can broadly flexible programs reasonably be expected to
     provide under the Act, and by what means? 

  -- How can programs that contribute to a variety of measurable
     goals--goals also served by other programs--be fit into the
     reporting structure? 

In addition, we foresaw potential difficulties in discussing the
"results" of flexible programs.  The Results Act emphasizes measuring
results in terms of program outputs, service levels, or outcomes, as
opposed to the resources (inputs) and processes required to meet
performance goals.  (These terms and their relation to one another
are explained in greater detail under Scope and Methodology, below). 
At the same time, the Act defines "outcomes" in terms of a program's
intended purpose, whatever that may be. 

This purpose-based definition is a source of potential confusion over
terminology.  For example, the resources available to a program would
ordinarily be considered inputs.  But if the program's purpose was to
leverage resources available to an activity, an increase in inputs
would be that program's intended output, outcome, or result.  The
potential for confusion increases when programs at more than one
level of government are involved--for example, when a federal program
supports state programs that, in turn, deliver services to clients. 
Although federal funds ultimately result in client outcomes, the
federal program may focus on an intermediate outcome, such as
increasing the quantity of state services or the number of clients
served. 


--------------------
\3 Agencies may use the program activities currently listed in their
budget, or may aggregate, disaggregate, or consolidate program
activities for performance plan and reporting purposes as long as
these actions do not minimize the significance of any major agency
function or activity. 


      APPLYING THE RESULTS ACT TO
      FLEXIBLE PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.3

Studies of the early implementation of the Act suggest that programs
that do not deliver a readily measurable product or service are
likely to have difficulty meeting Results Act performance measurement
and reporting requirements.\4 Intergovernmental grant programs--and
particularly those with the flexibility inherent in classic block
grant design--may be particularly likely to have difficulty producing
performance measures at the national level and raise delicate issues
of accountability.  We set out to examine these potential
difficulties and how they might be addressed. 


--------------------
\4 Managing for Results:  Analytic Challenges in Measuring
Performance (GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138, May 30, 1997) and The Government
Performance and Results Act:  1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will
Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997). 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3


      DEFINITION AND SELECTION OF
      FLEXIBLE PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Drawing on the background materials summarized above, we defined a
flexible grant program as one that offers state and local governments
flexibility to define and implement a federal grant program in light
of local needs and conditions.  To identify flexible programs, we
reviewed studies by GAO, the Congressional Research Service, and
others on the block grants of the 1980s and program descriptions in
the Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance and privately published
grant catalogues.  After creating a list of programs that appeared to
offer flexibility, we eliminated programs that were narrow in scope,
subject to detailed regulation, or relatively small in federal dollar
terms (less than $100 million).  Programs such as Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) that were too new to have
produced performance reports or evaluation data were also eliminated
from consideration.  This winnowed the list to 21 programs,
administered by 12 agencies located in 6 cabinet departments, as
listed in table 1.  A summary of each program is included in appendix
I. 



                                     Table 1
                     
                          Programs Included in Our Study

                    Agency              Program
Department          ------------------  ----------------------------------------
Education           OESE                Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
                                        Communities--State Grants\a

                                        Title VI Innovative Education Program
                                        Strategies

Health and Human    ACF                 Child Care and Development Block Grant
Services (HHS)                          (CCDBG)

                                        Child Welfare Services State Grants\a

                                        Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)

                                        Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
                                        Program (LIHEAP)

                                        Social Services Block Grant

                    AOA                 Special Programs for the Aging--
                                        Nutrition Services\a

                                        Special Programs for the Aging--
                                        Supportive Services and Senior Centers\a

                    CDC                 Preventive Health and Health Services
                                        (PHHS) Block Grant

                    HRSA                Maternal and Child Health Services Block
                                        Grant

                    SAMHSA              Community Mental Health Services Block
                                        Grant

                                        Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment
                                        Block Grant

Housing and Urban   CPD                 Community Development Block Grants
Development (HUD)                       (CDBG)--Entitlement Program

                                        Community Development Block Grants--
                                        States

Justice             BJA                 Byrne Formula (Drug Control and System
                                        Improvement) Grants\a

Labor               ETA                 Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)--
                                        titles II-A and II-C

Transportation      FHWA                National Highway System (NHS)\a
(DOT)
                                        Surface Transportation Program (STP)

                    FTA                 Urbanized Area Formula Program\a

                    NHTSA/FHWA          State and Community Highway Safety
                                        Grants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:

ACF - Administration for Children and Families
AOA - Administration on Aging
BJA - Bureau of Justice Assistance
CDC - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CPD - Community Planning and Development
ETA - Employment and Training Administration
FHWA - Federal Highway Administration
FTA - Federal Transit Administration
HRSA - Health Resources and Services Administration
NHTSA - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
OESE - Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
SAMHSA - Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

\a Not formally designated a block grant. 

Source:  GAO analysis based on grant program directories. 

These 21 programs were listed in the Appendix to the Budget for FY
1999 as follows: 

  -- 3 grant programs (LIHEAP, Child Care and Development, and Social
     Services) each constituted a budget account,

  -- 11 were listed individually as a program activity within a
     budget account,

  -- 1 (Aging--Nutrition) was divided into two program activities
     (congregate meals and home-delivered meals), and

  -- The remaining 6 grant programs (2 SAMHSA grants, 2 CDBG grants,
     JTPA, and Child Welfare) were not listed as separate program
     activities. 


      ASPECTS OF PERFORMANCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

Our identification of performance-related program objectives and
measures was guided by Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
documents prepared to assist agencies in meeting the performance
measurement requirements of the Results Act.  OMB identified five
aspects of performance, each representing a major step in the process
of converting program resources into program results.  These are

  -- inputs:  the resources (dollars, staff, technology, capital) the
     manager has available to carry out the program or activity;

  -- activities:  the actions through which program purposes are
     carried out (OMB uses the term "service delivery," but we prefer
     "activities" because not all programs deliver services and
     because "allowable activities" listed in grant statutes are
     typically the basis for reporting.);

  -- outputs:  goods, products, or services produced (amount,
     quality, quantity or other attributes, cost);

  -- outcomes:  the results of a program (e.g., client benefits or
     program consequences) compared with its intended purpose; and

  -- impact or net impact:  direct or indirect effects or
     consequences; outcomes that would not have occurred in the
     absence of the program. 

How these aspects of performance relate to each other in the typical
service program is depicted in figure 1.  As the lower part of the
figure indicates, performance can be measured in terms of several
underlying dimensions or criteria, such as quantity, quality, cost,
or client reach (coverage of the targeted population). 

   Figure 1:  Performance Spectrum
   and Measurement

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a OMB uses the term "service delivery."

Source:  Adapted from OMB. 

As mentioned previously, the meaning of any given measures is
contingent on a program's purpose.  For example, if a program's
purpose is to leverage resources, its output would be measured in
terms of dollars or other resources--units that are ordinarily
considered inputs and that may indeed be inputs for a related program
or activity.  To avoid linguistic confusion, we base our terminology
on what is being measured at the operating or service delivery
program level.  For example, we consistently call dollars to support
service delivery an "input." If such dollars function as output from
the federal program perspective, we make this clear. 


      DATA SOURCES AND DATA
      ANALYSIS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

We consulted the authorizing statute, regulations (if any), and other
official guidance for each program.  We obtained copies of reporting
forms; examples of completed grantee and federal agency reports;
information on databases utilized by the program; a report from each
mandated national evaluation; and copies of other program
evaluations, research or demonstration studies, or effective practice
documents referenced in program literature.  We also spoke with
agency staff concerned with program management, evaluation, and
performance measurement.  Information from these various sources was
converted to numeric codes accompanied by a text summary of design
features (including flexibility and accountability) and of
performance information, by source, for each program.  We conducted
our review from January through November 1997 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Our review focused solely on the federal level.  We did not consult
state or local officials of the programs we studied.  Although we
asked agency officials about, and noted the existence of, substantial
variation across states in program implementation, we did not pursue
these differences in any detail.  It is also important to note that
our analysis of program objectives and measures reflects conditions
predating the submission of performance plans under the Results Act. 
Officials for several of the programs were in the process of
rethinking objectives and measures in light of Results Act
requirements but had not framed specific plans, and some programs
were approaching reauthorizations that might result in major changes. 
Finally, in noting the strengths and weaknesses of information
sources, we relied on comments by reviewers who had examined those
sources and on our knowledge of such sources in general.  We did not
conduct independent evaluations of the data. 

We asked agency staff to review the program summaries prepared for
the draft of this report for accuracy and completeness and
incorporated corrections into the summaries as appropriate. 


   GRANT PROGRAMS VARY
   CONSIDERABLY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Our review of flexible grant program features revealed that these
programs differ substantially from one another.  We found variation
in the level of government to which key program decisions were
delegated, management flexibility and constraints with respect to
grant-funded activities, funding and related constraints, and
availability of performance information.  (A summary of each program,
organized in terms of these characteristics and other key features,
is included in app.  I.)


      FLEXIBILITY TAKES MANY FORMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Flexibility varies in terms of who gets it (states, local units, or
both) and the types of decisions covered and applicable constraints. 
Each of the programs we studied offered flexibility in at least one
decision area of key importance for performance and accountability,
and some offered flexibility in several areas.  The
performance-related decision areas we considered were

  -- distribution of funds to subrecipients:  What entities will
     receive funds to carry out activities, and in what amounts? 

  -- choice of activities:  What allowable activities will funds
     support? 

  -- allocation of grant funds across activities:  How much will be
     spent on each? 


         FLEXIBILITY IS DELEGATED
         TO STATES, LOCAL
         ENTITIES, OR BOTH
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1.1

Although funds went first of all to the state in 19 of our 21
programs, 9 of them required that the bulk of state grant funds be
further distributed to specified local entities.  In some, like the
two Special Programs for the Aging, the local entities operated under
the umbrella of state planning and supervision.  In others, such as
the two education grants, activity selection and resource allocation
decisions were lodged at the local level and the state was given a
minimal supervisory role.  Only two of our programs--Community
Services and CDBG Entitlement--awarded funds directly to regional or
local units of government. 


         DELEGATED DECISIONS ARE
         SUBJECT TO VARIOUS
         CONSTRAINTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1.2

As is typical of federal grants, each of our programs listed
allowable activities--that is, activities for which grant funds could
be used.  The activities listed were of a broad, general nature for
some programs and quite specific in others, and in a few cases even
included transferring funds to another grant program.  State or local
choice with respect to these activities, however, was subject to a
variety of constraints.  Some of the constraints we found placed on
choice of activities included

  -- allowing only one major activity or group of related activities
     (e.g., Job Training Partnership Act programs);

  -- allowing only specified activities for which approaches of
     proven effectiveness were available, with exceptions permitted
     only when supported by data and analysis (e.g., State and
     Community Highway Safety);

  -- requiring one particular activity (e.g., specific activities to
     reduce access to tobacco products by persons under the age of 18
     under the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Grant, or
     laws requiring sex offenders to be tested for human
     immunodeficiency virus (HIV) if the victim requests it under the
     Byrne Formula grants) while allowing choice among other
     allowable activities; and

  -- requiring that each allowable activity be undertaken somewhere
     in the state (e.g., Community Services Block Grant). 

Discretion over funds allocation for many programs was constrained by
caps (limits on the percentage of funds that could be spent on a
given activity) or set-asides (required minimum percentages to be
used for a specific activity).  A number of programs also included
fiscal provisions that constrained states' use of their own
funds--for example, by requiring that states "match" federal dollars
with state dollars, maintain former levels of state spending, or use
federal funds to supplement rather than replace or supplant state
funds. 

Table 2 summarizes conditions of limited, moderate, and broad state
flexibility for each decision area with respect to those areas and
constraints discussed thus far. 



                                     Table 2
                     
                        Variations in Flexibility in Three
                                  Decision Areas

                                                          Allocation of grant
Flexibil  Distribution to                                 funds across
ity       subrecipients           Choice of activities    activities
--------  ----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------
Limited   Grant specifies         Grant allows only one   Caps or set-asides
          substate recipients     major activity          apply to two or more
          and amounts per         (7 programs)            activities (7
          recipient                                       programs)
          (7 programs)

Moderate  Recipients are          Grant allows at least   Caps or set-asides
          specified, but state    several activities,     apply to one activity
          sets amounts (4         but places constraints  (5 programs)
          programs)               on choice among them
                                  (9 programs)

Broad     State selects           Grant allows            No caps or set-asides
          recipients and          unconstrained choice    (9 programs)
          determines amounts (10  among a broad range of
          programs)               activities
                                  (5 programs)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO analysis of program features. 

Among the programs we reviewed, only two (Social Services and
Preventive Health) granted states broad flexibility on all three
dimensions.  The title VI Innovative Education Program delegated
similarly broad flexibility over activities and resource allocation
to the local level.  Seven additional programs had at least moderate
flexibility in all three areas, and no program was limited in all
three decision areas.  Combinations of flexibility and constraint
took many different forms.  For example, the Maternal and Child
Health Services Program allowed broad flexibility with respect to
subrecipients and activities, but included set-asides that directed
the majority of funds to children's services. 


      ACCOUNTABILITY PROVISIONS
      PRESENT A MIXED PICTURE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

The delegations of decision power that define each level of
government's role in managing program-funded activities also identify
the aspects of program performance for which each can be held
accountable.  As we have seen, flexible programs in our study lodged
decision power (and thus accountability) at the state and local
levels to varying degrees and with varying constraints.  We
investigated whether the lines of delegation downward were
accompanied by provisions (such as standards or reporting
requirements) that established accountability for performance to the
federal funding agency, and we found a mixed picture. 

We first looked for the inclusion of objectives, standards, and
criteria for performance in program provisions.  Fifteen of the 21
programs incorporated national operational standards, objectives, or
criteria concerning some aspect or dimension of performance.  Such
objectives focused most commonly on activities (e.g., the requirement
that the National Highway System meet federal approved design
standards).  However, six programs included service output objectives
or standards (such as job retention standards under JTPA), and nine
included outcome objectives (e.g., energy savings from home
weatherization activities under LIHEAP).  Thirteen programs,
including those in the health areas, incorporated reference to state
standards or required states to set objectives.  Four included no
reference to standards or objectives at any level of government. 

Finally, we examined data collection and reporting provisions, which
establish who must report what to whom.  Among our programs, four
lacked authority to collect uniform data on performance from
grantees.  Eight did not require an agency performance report to
Congress on the program, and two did not require state or local
program or performance reports to the funding agency.\5 Fifteen
programs, including two that awarded decision powers to local
entities, required state, but not local, reports. 


--------------------
\5 All agencies and programs must submit certain standard government
reports, such as reports under the Chief Financial Officers Act of
1990. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC MEASURES OF
      PERFORMANCE ARE LIMITED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

As past studies and our findings on data collection and reporting
suggested might be the case, we found that among our programs, the
program-specific performance information collected through program
operations was limited.  All but one, Child Welfare Services,
collected data on some aspect of performance.  However, about
one-third reported only aggregate client counts and dollars spent on
each allowable activity.  Fourteen programs had service output data,
and of these, only five obtained outcome data from program
operations. 


   VARIATION REFLECTS KEY DESIGN
   FEATURES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

In addition to varying in the ways just described, the programs in
our study differed greatly from each other in terms of a few key
design features--national objectives, nature of operations, and
diversity of activities--each representing an important policy
choice.  We found that these features, singly and in combination,
defined the flexibility given to grantees, accountability for
performance, and likely availability of performance information. 


      NATIONAL OBJECTIVES: 
      PERFORMANCE-RELATED OR
      FISCAL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

Our first key feature concerns the nature of the national objectives
to be served through the federal grant program.  We are not speaking
here of such broad, ultimate national purposes as decreasing poverty,
but rather of the more immediate, direct, and concrete objectives to
be attained through the provision of grant funds.  Grant programs'
objectives can be characterized as either performance-related or
fiscal. 

Performance-related objectives focus on service or production
activities and their results.  In our study, we found objectives
representing many aspects of performance measurable under the Results
Act, including

  -- leveraging resources (input),

  -- improving service quality (activity),

  -- increasing coverage of targeted populations (client reach), and

  -- achieving specified service outputs or outcomes. 

For example, the central objective of the grants for Special Programs
for the Aging--Nutrition Services is to provide nutritious meals
(activity) to needy older Americans (client reach) so as to improve
nutrition and reduce social isolation (outcomes). 

Fiscal or financial assistance objectives focus on providing dollars
to support or expand activities.  Typical fiscal objectives include
increasing support for meritorious goods or underfunded services and
targeting grant funding to needy jurisdictions.\6 For example, the
objective of the Title VI Innovative Education grants is to provide
funds to support local educational reform efforts.  In performance
measurement terms, fiscal objectives translate into an emphasis on
increasing inputs so as to increase the quantity of activities or
outputs in general or to targeted clients or areas. 

The presence of performance objectives and provisions that implement
them constrains flexibility, provides the basis for performance
measurement and accountability, and signals a federal role in
managing performance under the grant.  When objectives are purely
fiscal, accountability to the federal agency focuses on fiscal
matters.  For example, if the national objective is to encourage
states to provide more of a nationally important service (like
substance abuse prevention and treatment), states may be held
accountable for using grant funds to supplement rather than to
supplant their own spending on that service. 


--------------------
\6 These and other fiscal objectives are discussed in Federal Grants: 
Design Improvements Could Help Federal Resources Go Further
(GAO/AIMD-97-7, Dec.  18, 1996). 


      NATURE OF OPERATION:  AS A
      PROGRAM OR A FUNDING STREAM
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

A second critical feature concerns whether national objectives are to
be achieved through a grant-specific operating program or simply
through adding to the stream of funds supporting ongoing state or
local programs.  An operating program is a program in the commonsense
meaning of the term.  It has performance requirements and objectives
and carries out distinct programwide functions through a distinct
delivery system in such a way that grant-funded activities, clients,
or products are clearly identifiable.  Several of the programs we
studied, such as the Aging--Nutrition Services program, were of this
nature. 

Grants in our study that operated as a funding stream were not
federal "programs" in this sense.  Here, the federal agency provided
funds that were merged with funds from state or local sources (and
sometimes from other federal sources as well) to support state or
local activities allowable under the flexible grant.  The grant was
one funding source among many, and the programs supported were state
or local programs.  For example, the Child Welfare Program supports
state foster care, child care, child protection, and adoption and
related services, the bulk of whose funding comes from other federal
and nonfederal sources. 

Like performance objectives, we found that operation as a national
program gave the federal agency a role in managing performance under
the grant.  Operation as a program also simplified the task of
getting uniform information about performance attributable to grant
funds.  It made it possible to identify which activities were
supported, the amount of federal funds allocated to each, and to
various extents, the results of federal support. 

By contrast, we observed that in programs that operate as a funding
stream, the activities supported were managed at the state or local
level.  In the words of agency staff, quoting state officials, "These
aren't federal programs, they are state programs that receive federal
funds." The federal agency's role was limited accordingly, and it
sometimes involved little more than seeing that applications for
funding were properly submitted, compliance or audit issues were
resolved, and money was disbursed in a timely fashion.  Where
grant-funded activities were managed at the local level, as in the
two education programs we studied, title VI Innovative Education and
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities, the state's role was
similarly limited. 

Operation as a funding stream complicates the task of getting
uniform, program-specific information.  We found that when grant
funds were part of a stream, it was possible to identify which
activities federal funds supported and the amount allocated to each. 
But once added to the overall budget for a state or local activity,
federal dollars lost their identity, and their results could not be
separated out--particularly when the federal share was small.  Thus,
the only program outcome measures available were likely to be for the
state or local service delivery program, not the federal funding
program. 


      ACTIVITIES:  SINGLE OR
      DIVERSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

The third key feature concerns diversity of activities.  Having only
one major activity, as in the Aging--Nutrition program, narrowed the
scope of flexibility but eased the task of measuring and holding
grantees accountable for performance.  Finding a common metric for
performance was rarely feasible for programs that funded activities
that had little in common with each other from state to state. 

We found that these features tend to occur in four major combinations
that have important implications for flexibility, accountability, and
performance information. 


   DESIGN FEATURES FORM FOUR MAJOR
   COMBINATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Examining how the design features were used in the 21 diverse
programs we studied, we identified four major combinations or design
types.  We have summarized them in table 3, which shows design
features, examples, and summary comments associated with each type. 
As the last column indicates, state or local flexibility and control
over performance objectives and performance management increase as
you move down the table. 



                                     Table 3
                     
                       Grant Design Features in Combination

          Nature    Diversit
National  of        y of
objectiv  operatio  activiti
es        ns        es        Examples              Comments
--------  --------  --------  --------------------  ----------------------------
Performa  Program   Single    Job Training          Federal role is
nce-                major     Partnership Act,      substantial.
related             activity  titles II-A and II-
                              C                     State or local flexibility
                                                    is narrowest.
                              Special Programs for
                              the Aging--           Most likely to include
                              Nutrition Services    national service outcome
                                                    objectives.

                                                    Most likely to have program
                                                    performance information at
                                                    the national level.

          Funding   Single    Child Care and        Federal-state balance is
          stream    major     Development Block     established case by case.
                    activity  Grant
                    to                              Flexibility varies with
                    diverse   Preventive Health     diversity of activities.
                    activiti  and Health Services
                    es        Block Grant           Performance objectives and
                                                    measures may be state or
                                                    local.

                                                    Less likely to have national
                                                    performance information.

Fiscal    Program   Diverse   Community             State or local level is
          (or       activiti  Development Block     dominant.
          project)  es        Grant--Entitlement
                                                    Flexibility is broad.
                              Byrne Formula Grants
                                                    Likely to have performance
                                                    and evaluation information
                                                    at the project level.

          Funding   Single    Title VI: Innovative  Federal role is confined to
          stream    major     Education Program     providing funds.
                    activity  Strategies
                    to                              Flexibility varies with
                    diverse   Social Services       diversity of activities.
                    activiti  Block Grant
                    es                              Gives broadest discretion to
                                                    grantee.

                                                    Least likely to have
                                                    performance information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO analysis of program features. 

Grants of our first type pursue performance-related objectives
through a distinct operating structure (top row).  Grants in our
study that exemplified this type were closest to the conventional
notion of a "program." They focused on a single major activity and
included programwide performance objectives and, sometimes, service
outcome objectives.  Because of this, the agencies that administered
grants in this group were able (with proper authorization) to collect
nationally uniform information about performance from grantees.  For
example, the national objectives of the Job Training Partnership Act
are to provide job training that leads to increases in employment and
earnings of youths and adults facing serious barriers to
participation in the work force.  To evaluate the results of the
program in achieving these objectives, the terms of the grant require
recipient organizations to provide counts of activities provided,
demographic characteristics of individuals served, employment
outcomes, and program costs. 

Our second grant design type covers performance-related, funding
stream grants (second row), which involve national performance
objectives yet operate through state or local programs.  Most
programs of this type in our study covered a state or local function
or delivery system (such as preventive health) involving various
activities.  National performance objectives typically concerned
system improvement or capacity-building, ensuring access to services,
service quality, and targeting of activities to priority populations. 
Several grants in this group require state or local grantees to set
their own performance objectives of various kinds.  Provisions of the
Preventive Health and Health Services Block Grant, for example,
require each state to fund activities related to Healthy People 2000
objectives and to measure and report the progress of the state in
meeting the objectives selected.\7 About half of the programs in this
group provided information on program outputs. 

Our third type includes grants with fiscal objectives (third row)
that provide support for program-like--rather than ongoing--state or
local activities.  These activities often take the form of
projects--similar to operating programs in having clear boundaries,
but with a clear start and finish as well.  Grant provisions for some
of our programs in this group included national criteria for
selecting activities, such as the benefits test that applies to
projects supported by Community Development Block
Grants--Entitlement.  Otherwise, performance objectives and measures
were set at the operating level.  Under the Byrne Formula (Drug
Control and System Improvement) Grant Program, for example, states
are required to set performance objectives for activities that are
funded and to evaluate the success of these activities in achieving
those objectives. 

Our fourth type concerns fiscal funding stream grants (bottom row). 
They allow a broad range of activities and represent the classic
block grant design of the early 1980s.  Consistent with their
purpose, grants of this design in our study required only the
information needed to determine how much was spent on each activity
and to verify that funds were used for allowable purposes and that
any requirements related to fiscal objectives (such as maintenance of
effort) were met.  Some of these programs made an effort to get
service output information (such as client counts), but even this
could be difficult.  For example, where actual counts of recipients
served are not available, the Social Services Block Grant program
accepts counts based on estimation procedures that may vary in their
statistical validity. 


--------------------
\7 Healthy People 2000 is a national cooperative effort by
government, voluntary, and professional organizations to improve the
health of all Americans.  It has established some 300 specific health
objectives and uses more than 200 data systems and data sets to
measure progress toward those objectives.  Many states set objectives
linked to the Healthy People framework, but targeted to local
concerns and issues. 


   BALANCING FLEXIBILITY AND
   ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPLICATIONS
   FOR INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

These four design types present very different situations with
respect to grantee accountability--what grantees are held accountable
for and the level of government that is accountable for
performance--and the information needed to support it.  They also
differ with respect to the information needed to support program
decisions at the national level and prospects for getting this
information through grantee reporting, as opposed to other means. 


      GRANTEE ACCOUNTABILITY TO
      THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND THE
      INFORMATION NEEDED TO
      SUPPORT IT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

As our previous report has noted, accountability is an elusive
concept whose meaning depends on the context.\8 At a minimum, all
state grantees are accountable to the federal level for financial
management and for using funds to support allowable activities, as
verified through annual audits.  Beyond that, the accountability of
grant recipients to the federal level varies from grant to grant.  We
observed that the variation reflected the type of objective, and if
performance objectives were involved, whether the federal level
managed the program or merely added to the stream of funds supporting
state or local programs.  We describe the situation for each type of
grant below, with a focus on performance issues. 

Accountability for performance to the federal level was most
extensive in grants we studied that included national performance
objectives and operated as distinct programs--grants with the most
limited flexibility.  As mentioned previously, programs of this type
collected and reported information in line with their performance
objectives, which were concerned with program implementation,
outputs, or (when possible to measure) direct outcomes of services. 
(End outcomes are another matter, which we discuss in the next
section.)

Objectives, information, and reporting were similarly lined up in
programs we studied that had primarily fiscal objectives and operated
as funding streams.  But here, accountability focused on fiscal
matters.  The funding agency was accountable for ensuring compliance
with fiscal objectives.  However, the activities funded were under
state or local direction, and accountability for the conduct and
outcomes of funded activities was to state or local authorities under
whatever arrangements they had put in place.  Federal reporting
requirements were minimal, and performance information did not
necessarily flow to the federal funding agency. 

The grants that combine federal performance objectives with operation
through state or local programs present puzzling performance
measurement and accountability issues, particularly for service
outcome objectives.  Activities supported with federal funds and the
information collected about performance generally differed from state
to state.  (This difficulty affected fiscal-objective operating
programs as well.) While state or local program outcomes in total
were measurable for some programs, the component attributable to
federal funding could not be separated out.  Thus, measuring
performance at the level of the federal program through grantee
reporting was not feasible.  For accountability purposes, measuring
overall performance of the state or local program would not
necessarily be appropriate, particularly when the federal grant
contributes only a small fraction of the cost.  However, state
program data or even statewide indicators were sometimes adopted as
performance measures, as in the Preventive Health program. 


--------------------
\8 See GAO/AIMD-95-226, Sept.  1, 1995. 


      STRENGTHENING ACCOUNTABILITY
      AND INFORMATION AT THE STATE
      LEVEL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.2

Assuming that operation through state or local programs is feasible,
how can national grant programs encourage the achievement of national
performance objectives and encourage accountability for performance,
yet respect state and local authority, interests, and differences? 
We found several approaches to this dilemma among our programs.  Some
approaches sought to strengthen accountability to the state or local
agency that received federal funds.  (They were designed to mitigate
the risk that existing state or local oversight and management
arrangements might be insufficient to ensure strong performance.) For
example, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, which has a
national objective of increasing service quality, directs states or
localities to set service delivery or quality standards and monitor
whether their own standards are being met.  States and localities are
then accountable to the federal agency for implementing these
provisions. 

The Department of Education has been experimenting with a different
approach.  The Department grants temporary exemptions (waivers) from
certain federal program requirements to states or school districts
that demonstrate that the waiver will lead to educational
improvements.  These waivers are intended as a tool to expand the
flexibility available to local school districts in exchange for
increased accountability for student achievement.  The results of
this experiment are not yet in.\9

One final example of an approach to serving national objectives
through state or local activities relies on the techniques embodied
in the Government Performance and Results Act--that is, requiring
states or localities to set performance objectives for the activities
or projects they choose to support with federal funds and to report
to the federal funding agency on progress toward meeting those
objectives.  Provisions of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act, for example, require states and local education
agencies to establish drug use and violence prevention-objectives,
report the outcomes of state and local programs, and assess their
effectiveness toward meeting the objectives. 

Under this "results" approach, accountability for performance remains
at the level of the state or local agency doing the reporting, not
the federal or state agency to whom the report is directed.  The
federal or state agency receives the information but does not use it
for program management.\10 This information, however, can be useful
in assessing the degree to which national objectives for the program
are being met, a subject to which we now turn. 


--------------------
\9 Education Programs:  Information on the Ed-Flex Demonstration
Project (GAO/HEHS-98-61R, Dec.  15, 1997). 

\10 See Safe and Drug-Free Schools:  Balancing Accountability With
State and Local Flexibility (GAO/HEHS-98-3, Oct.  10, 1997). 


   INFORMATION TO SUPPORT PROGRAM
   DECISIONS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

To make decisions about the programs they oversee, congressional
committees are likely to need evaluative information--information
that tells them whether, and in what important respects, a program is
working well or poorly, as well as whether performance objectives are
being met.  As we noted previously, performance data collected from
grantees can be an important source of information.  Uniform data
from program operations have the advantage of being program specific. 
However, collecting reliable uniform data at the national program
level requires conditions--such as uniformity of activities,
objectives, and measures--that are unlikely to exist under many
flexible grant program designs.  Even where overall performance can
be measured, the amount attributable to federal funding often cannot
be separated out.  Additionally, some programs have ultimate outcome
goals, such as increasing highway safety, which are measurable only
through aggregate data.  Finally, the time frame over which
performance data are collected, typically 1 year, may be inadequate
to capture long-term outcomes. 

More importantly, performance data from program operations cannot
answer the full range of questions that are likely to arise during
congressional oversight.  We have found that Congress is also likely
to need

  -- descriptive information that goes beyond the general summary
     level to convey a sense of the variety of conditions under which
     the program operates and how federal funds are actually being
     used--for flexible grants, information that shows how grant
     funds fit into the context of other programs is of particular
     interest;

  -- information about program implementation, including whether
     feasibility or management problems are evident and whether the
     methods used to deliver services are of known or likely
     effectiveness;

  -- information concerning positive or negative side effects of the
     program; and

  -- information that will help determine whether this program's
     strategy is more effective in relation to its cost than others
     that serve the same purpose.\11

Some of this information is likely to be available from federal
agency staff, particularly if the agency plays an active oversight or
technical assistance role.  But much of it comes from other sources,
including program evaluations, research and demonstration studies,
and aggregate data.  We found that agencies made use of these
sources, both singly and in combination. 


--------------------
\11 Program Evaluation:  Improving the Flow of Information to the
Congress (GAO/PEMD-95-1, Jan.  30, 1995). 


      PROGRAM EVALUATION STUDIES
      ANSWER A VARIETY OF
      QUESTIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

Program evaluations are defined as individual, systematic studies
conducted periodically or on an ad hoc basis to assess how well a
program is working.  Evaluations can address the extent to which
program activities conform to requirements, how successfully a
program meets its objectives, or the net effect it has on
participants.  Other types of evaluations can address program
outcomes or impacts in comparison to the cost of producing them. 
Typically, evaluations gather performance information from a sample
of sites under controlled conditions and are conducted by experts
outside the program. 

Eight of the programs we studied have been evaluated on a national
basis.  Evaluations were done for programs of every type and purpose
and focused on a variety of questions, as these examples illustrate. 

  -- A 1994 evaluation measured the impact of the JTPA titles II-A
     and II-C programs by comparing program outcomes with estimates
     of what would have happened in the absence of the program.  The
     study found that access to JTPA produced gains in earnings for
     adult men and women but did not significantly increase youths'
     earnings or decrease their welfare benefits.  The authors of the
     study concluded that youths might need more intensive services
     than adults or services of a different type.\12

  -- Using information from interviews, on-site reviews, and
     nutritional analysis of meals provided, a 1993-95 evaluation of
     the Aging--Nutrition program demonstrated that it had succeeded
     in targeting elderly who were at risk for poor nutrition and
     that participants had higher daily intakes of nutrients and more
     social contacts per month than a comparable group of
     nonparticipants.\13

  -- A study of a sample of district-level Safe and Drug-Free Schools
     programs in the early 1990s found that while some school-based
     drug prevention programs had small positive effects on student
     outcomes, implementation was characterized by variability in the
     services actually delivered, limited funds, competing demands on
     staff time, and the use of approaches that have not shown
     evidence of effectiveness.\14

  -- A 1994 evaluation of the CDBG--Entitlement Program examined data
     from 96 communities and concluded that they had the capability
     to implement the program effectively and were making beneficial
     use of the flexibility it afforded, as Congress intended.\15

In addition to conducting programwide evaluations, nine agencies
evaluated particular aspects of their programs, such as the injury
prevention component of the Child Care and Development Block Grant. 

National program evaluations have the potential to answer questions
about program performance in depth and provide an overall assessment
of how effectively and efficiently a program operates in terms of its
implementation, outcomes, impacts, and cost-effectiveness.  However,
national programwide evaluations are expensive in terms of dollars
and time and frequently require capacities and resources beyond those
provided for program management.  Also, programwide evaluation data
are typically periodic and often cover too few sites to support
national estimates of performance. 

Although many programs encourage state and local evaluations, only
one program we examined mandated programwide state-level evaluations,
and only three mandated programwide local evaluations.  Although
these evaluations are potentially useful for state and local program
managers and providers, we found they were limited in their ability
to provide information on program performance on a national level. 
Reviews of state and local evaluations under the programs we studied
indicated that such evaluations varied widely in scope and
sophistication.  In many cases, resources and capacities for
conducting formal evaluations were limited.  Programs tended to find
these evaluations more helpful in identifying successful practices
than in providing information about overall program effectiveness. 
Also, differences in evaluation questions and methodologies made it
difficult to aggregate results to provide a national picture or to
systematically compare the effectiveness of alternative projects
aimed at the same objective. 


--------------------
\12 Larry L.  Orr and others, Does Training for the Disadvantaged
Work?  Evidence from the National JTPA Study (Washington, D.C.:  The
Urban Institute Press, 1996). 

\13 Michael Ponza, James C.  Ohls, and Barbara E.  Millen, Serving
Elders at Risk:  The Older Americans Act Nutrition Programs, National
Evaluation of the Elderly Nutrition Program, 1993-1995, Executive
Summary (Washington, D.C.:  U.S.  Department of Health and Human
Services, 1996). 

\14 E.  Suyapa Silvia and Judy Thorne, School-Based Drug Prevention
Programs:  A Longitudinal Study in Selected School Districts,
Executive Summary (Research Triangle Park, NC:  Research Triangle
Institute, 1997). 

\15 Christopher Walker and others, "Federal Funds, Local Choices:  An
Evaluation of the Community Development Block Grant Program"
(Washington, D.C.:  The Urban Institute Press, 1994). 


      RESEARCH PROVIDES
      INFORMATION ON THE
      EFFECTIVENESS OF METHODS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.2

Information on the effectiveness of service delivery methods comes
largely from research and demonstration studies.  Knowledge to
support effective practice is well established in some of the subject
areas covered in our sample of grants and was incorporated into
program provisions (such as service standards) or in companion
technical assistance or knowledge dissemination programs. 

Information based on research can be used very effectively by
programs when links between activities and outcomes are known.  Among
our programs, those related to the physical and biological science
areas, such as health and transportation, had the most direct links
to research and demonstration studies.  For example, the Federal
Highway Administration has approved standards and guidelines for
construction projects to help build in safety and efficiency for the
projects it helps support and funds activities to increase the
knowledge base in areas related to transportation safety and
efficiency.  The Maternal and Child Health Program makes extensive
use of research for all aspects of program operation, including
training requirements for providers and the nature and extent of
activities provided.  Programs in the human services areas included
in our study were less directly tied to research findings. 


      AGGREGATE MEASURES PROVIDE
      INDIRECT EVIDENCE OF
      PERFORMANCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.3

Aggregate measures are survey or record-based data that describe the
general status of a population or the availability of a product or
service.  Some of these data used by programs in our study, such as
state vital statistics records, were developed independently but have
proven to be useful indicators for related programs.  Others, such as
those developed by DOT, were developed expressly to serve as outcome
indicators for federal programs. 

About half of the programs we examined (10 of 21) used aggregate data
for purposes other than formula allocation.  Programs in health and
transportation, with objectives that address building or
strengthening an entire service delivery system, have particularly
drawn on such data.  To assess state progress toward meeting the
Healthy People 2000 health goals, for example, the Preventive Health
program uses state-level data from a wide variety of federal and
state reporting systems, including national health, transportation,
and education surveys, and state records, such as cancer registries
and vital statistics.  DOT makes extensive use of aggregate data,
including federal data from the Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, and Environmental Protection Agency, as well as data from
private organizations, such as the American Automobile Manufacturers
Association's Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures and the Eno
Transportation Foundation's Transportation in America. 

Aggregate measures of social, environmental, educational, or health
outcomes can be useful in assessing the combined results of related
programs whose individual impact cannot be readily disaggregated. 
Additionally, they allow uniform and independent comparisons over
time and place little or no burden on service providers and
resources.  However, data collected by these measures have the
disadvantage of not being program specific, and their connection to
any particular program may be difficult or impossible to determine. 
In addition, programs that provide a relatively small contribution to
overall resources in an area, no matter how well they operate, are
likely to have very little effect on aggregate results. 


      MANY PROGRAMS USE SOURCES IN
      COMBINATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.4

Thirteen programs used information from other sources along with, or
as a substitute for, performance measures collected through program
operations.  The programs using these multiple sources had
information that covered more aspects of program performance than
programs that relied upon a single source.  Data from different
sources complemented each other in interesting ways.  For example: 

  -- DOT draws on data from a large array of sources to assess the
     state of the transportation system and the comprehensive results
     of its programs.  For example, data from the Fatal Accident
     Report System, compiled by DOT from multiple sources, including
     state police accident reports, vehicle registration files, and
     emergency medical reports, are used to monitor DOT's progress in
     meeting the national safety goals of its highway programs,
     including the Surface Transportation Block Grant and the State
     and Community Highway Safety Program.  Data from HHS' Health,
     United States, the National Safety Council's Accident Facts, and
     the European Council of Ministers of Transit's Statistical
     Report on Road Accidents are used with DOT data to measure
     trends and to compare accident severity in the United States
     with that in other countries.  DOT uses findings from
     engineering research to approve design standards and to provide
     safety guidelines for construction and rehabilitation projects. 
     Findings from human resource research are disseminated to
     encourage states and communities to fund education and
     prevention programs that have been successful. 

  -- The Child Care and Development Block Grant has used information
     from a variety of sources to augment program data.  For example,
     data from the Bureau of Census' Survey of Income and Program
     Participation, including statistics on child care arrangements,
     population coverage, and costs, have been used to address the
     availability and affordability of child care resources. 
     Findings from research and their practical applications for
     state-level child care policymakers are disseminated through
     symposiums to improve the quality of child care. 

  -- Energy assistance questions of direct relevance for LIHEAP have
     been included in two national surveys, the Bureau of the Census'
     Current Population Survey and the Department of Energy's
     Residential Energy Consumption Survey.  Program officials use
     these data to determine the characteristics of families
     participating in the LIHEAP program and to compare the energy
     consumption and expenditure patterns of all households,
     non-low-income households, low-income households, and LIHEAP
     recipient households. 

  -- HHS' Administration on Aging drew information on performance in
     the Aging--Nutrition program from a program implementation
     evaluation conducted by AOA and the Office of Inspector General
     that examined how well nutrition and client targeting objectives
     were being addressed; from compliance reviews conducted by
     regional office administrators that examined how states assess
     Area Agencies on Aging and service providers; from a major
     review of the research literature on nutrition and the elderly;
     and from the congressionally mandated national evaluation.  AOA
     also developed a new, congressionally mandated database and
     standard reporting system that was designed to support an
     outcome orientation and develop definitions and reporting
     practices that could be used across an array of federal
     programs. 

Using data from different sources for these purposes can involve
technical difficulties.  Definitions and data collection conventions
may vary from one source to another.  Additionally, data are likely
to have been collected at different points in time.  Such differences
must be taken into account when data from diverse sources are used
together, or results might be misleading. 

We found that all of the information sources we described were more
likely to be available when backed by statutory authorization and
budget resources than when they were not.  As we observed in our
earlier study, Congress is more likely to get the information it asks
for and pays for.\16


--------------------
\16 See GAO/PEMD-95-1. 


   CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS AND
   DESIGN FRAMEWORK
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

Our study was prompted by interest in determining how existing
flexible programs obtain information about performance as envisioned
under the Results Act and what guidance we might offer with respect
to (1) the treatment of such programs under the Results Act and (2)
the design of future flexible programs--or redesign of existing
programs--to help ensure that adequate information about performance
is available. 


      APPLYING THE RESULTS ACT TO
      FLEXIBLE PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

In summarizing the Results Act's requirements, we noted three aspects
of the Act that seemed of particular importance for flexible
programs.  They are its emphasis on (1) defining results in terms of
program purpose, (2) aggregating activities sensibly for planning and
reporting, and (3) employing alternative sources of information where
performance was difficult to measure through program operations.  We
offer concluding observations on each of these points. 

In applying the Results Act, it is important to clarify whether
federal objectives for a flexible grant program extend only to the
initial stages of performance--enhancing resources or increasing the
quantity of state or local services--or include the production of end
results (such as client outcomes).  The funding agency's ability to
influence or control state or local activities and their outcomes,
given the program design, is also an important factor to consider in
deciding whether the program can reasonably be linked to the
achievement of end results in an agency's performance plan. 

With respect to aggregation, the primary question is whether a given
flexible grant program can reasonably be treated as a free-standing
activity that contributes to a particular agency performance goal.  A
few of the programs we studied had performance goals unlike those of
other agency-funded activities and could appropriately be treated in
this manner.  However, a number of others contributed toward client
outcome goals or indicators that receive support through other
agency-funded activities as well.  In shared-goal situations,
aggregation or consolidation seems preferable to treating the
individual grant program as the unit of analysis.  Aggregation and
disaggregation decisions are likely to be particularly complicated
for grants that contribute toward a wide variety of end-outcome
goals. 

As we have seen, some flexible programs' designs inherently limit the
prospect of collecting programwide performance data through program
operations.  In applying the Results Act, it is important to
recognize these limitations and to provide for information to be
gathered through program evaluations and other sources, such as those
we have illustrated. 


      A FRAMEWORK FOR GRANT DESIGN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.2

Our findings suggest that the design of a flexible grant program
involves choosing among policy options that, in combination,
establish the degree of flexibility afforded to states or localities;
the relevance of performance objectives for grantee accountability;
whether accountability for performance rests at the federal, state,
or local level; and prospects for measuring performance through
grantee reporting. 

Considering design features and their implications can help
policymakers ensure that accountability and information are
adequately provided for, whatever type of design is selected.  To
assist in this process, we have developed a framework that depicts
the grant design policy choices discussed in this report and factors
that might be considered at each point in the form of a decision tree
(see fig.  2).  Each choice has implications regarding the degree of
flexibility provided to states or local entities, the type of
performance information that can be collected through program
operations, and the level at which this information is used for
accountability purposes. 

   Figure 2:  Grant Design
   Framework

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  GAO analysis of grant program features and information
sources. 

The critical choice points in each decision path can be framed as
questions, such as: 

  -- Are national objectives primarily fiscal or
     performance-oriented?  If objectives are of both types, both
     decision paths should be followed. 

  -- What are these objectives? 

  -- If there are national performance objectives, is a national
     program needed to achieve them, or could they feasibly be
     attained through state or local programs?  This question is
     particularly relevant to new service outcome objectives, such as
     decreasing drug use among students.  State and local programs
     designed with different objectives in mind may have difficulty
     incorporating this new objective.  Or conditions that enable
     achievement of that outcome (such as solid knowledge of how to
     produce it) may not be met. 

  -- What implementing provisions are needed to support attainment of
     these objectives?  Implementing provisions might include
     constraints on activities and funds distribution or operational
     objectives, standards, and criteria for performance.  These can
     be set for the program as a whole or delegated to the level of
     government responsible for program management. 

For state or local programs, the next question would be whether the
program would operate as a funding stream or support distinct
projects.  This having been decided, the next general questions are: 

  -- What data are needed for grantee accountability, and is it
     feasible to collect these data from providers?  As we have seen,
     diverse activities and funding stream operation may make the
     collection of uniform data difficult.  The answers to these
     questions provide the basis for setting grantee reporting
     requirements. 

  -- Is additional information needed for program oversight?  If so,
     the logical next step is to provide for such information to be
     gathered and reported through program evaluation studies or
     other relevant, cost-effective means. 

We use the title VI Innovative Education Program Strategies grant
program to illustrate how figure 2 flows.  The objectives of the
grant, to support local education reform and innovation, are
primarily fiscal, putting us on the upper decision path on our
diagram.  Funds may be used to support local projects (such as magnet
schools), but the title VI program's purpose does not require that
project-level performance objectives be set, so we continue to the
step of designing provisions to match fiscal objectives. 

Title VI has such provisions, stating that grant funds may not be
used to supplant funds from nonfederal sources and that the state
must maintain prior levels of fiscal effort.  To obtain information
required for accountability, the program requires local districts to
describe their intended use of the funds and how this will contribute
to the grant's objectives of supporting education reform.  States,
drawing on district records, must report biennially on general uses
of funds, types of services furnished, and students served.  As these
data are of limited utility for program oversight, Congress mandated
national evaluation reports on this program in 1986 and 1994.  The
1994 report provided information about federal share, the size of
state and local grants, how funds were used, the minimal performance
accountability requirements imposed by states, and the difficulty of
evaluating a program that provides supplemental resources for other
activities. 

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities grant provides a
further illustration.  Funds support local activities that serve
national performance objectives to prevent violence in and around
schools and the illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs.  The
presence of these objectives puts us on the lower,
performance-oriented path of the flow chart.  Funded activities are
not implemented through a national operating program but, rather,
through state and local programs, reflecting at least the hope that
national objectives could be achieved through these programs. 
However, some national program provisions do apply.  Local programs
must be comprehensive and convey the message that the illegal use of
alcohol and other drugs is wrong and harmful.  These national
requirements notwithstanding, the local education agencies are
responsible for setting performance goals, deciding how to pursue
them, and reporting to the state in terms of those goals. 

Moving along the state and local path on our diagram, we come to the
question of whether drug and violence prevention programs function as
distinct projects or as funding streams.  The recent evaluation study
suggests the latter.\17 Examining what appeared to be comprehensive
school-based drug prevention programs, this study found so much
variation within districts in what was being done that local
activities hardly met our definition of a "program." As to the
feasibility question on the diagram, collecting performance
data--beyond student counts--for drug prevention programs has proven
difficult.  Reporting requirements make reference to local program
outcomes, but states are simply asked to provide whatever relevant
data they can.  Reflecting these limitations, provision has been made
to gather data from other sources, including state-level data from
national surveys of youth drug use, for program oversight.  Although
the Department of Education is required to report on the national
program every 3 years, the lack of uniform information on program
activities and effectiveness may limit the report's usefulness.  The
evaluation study, which covered the period 1990-1995, provided
insight into the adequacy of resources, the extent to which
activities reflect research findings, implementation issues, student
outcomes, and state and local evaluations.  Further evaluation
studies are planned. 


--------------------
\17 Silvia and Thorne, School-Based Drug Prevention Programs (1997). 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.3

We are sending copies of this report to the Ranking Minority Member
of each of your Committees and the Chairman and Ranking Minority of
the House Committee on Budget and Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight.  We will also make copies available to others on request. 

Please contact me or Gail MacColl, Assistant Director, at (202)
512-7997 if you or your staff have any questions. 

Susan S.  Westin
Associate Director, Advanced Studies
 and Evaluation Methodology


PROGRAM SUMMARIES
=========================================================== Appendix I


   BYRNE FORMULA (DRUG CONTROL AND
   SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT) GRANTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.1

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Department of Justice


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.2

To reduce and prevent illegal drug activity, crime, and violence and
to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.3

Provides funds to state and local governments to carry out specific
programs designed to improve the functioning of the criminal justice
system, with an emphasis on violent crime and serious offenders. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.4

Funds are to be used to support activities in 26 areas that address
the objectives cited above.  These include education activities for
law enforcement officials that are designed to reduce the demand for
illegal drugs, multijurisdictional task force activities, improving
correctional institutions, and prevention and enforcement programs
related to gangs.  States are required to allocate at least 5 percent
of funds to improve criminal justice records.  Beginning in 1994,
states that don't have a law requiring sex offenders to be tested for
HIV if the victim requests such testing will lose 10 percent of their
formula allotment.  States are required to establish measurable
objectives and evaluate projects in terms of achieving these
objectives. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.5

Federal spending for 1997 was about $497 million, of which $25
million was made available for a drug-testing initiative.  Each state
receives the greater of either $500,000 or 0.25 percent of the amount
available for the program.  Remaining funds are distributed according
to state population.  In 1996, state awards ranged from $500,000 to
$52 million.  A 25-percent match on a project or on a governmental
unit basis is required from state or local funds.  Generally, locals
are guaranteed a specified percentage of funds, based on the total
share they contribute to state and local criminal justice
expenditures.  Regarding the remaining funds, states must give
priority to localities with the greatest needs.  The Byrne Program
has contributed less than 1 percent of state and local criminal
justice expenditures. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.6

No uniform provider data are required except for descriptions of
funded activities, funding levels, and names of subgrantees.  BJA
generates national program information from on-site monitoring. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1.7

A 1996 BJA programwide study analyzed the extent to which projects
supported by Byrne Formula funds in fiscal year 1991 continued after
Byrne funding ceased and identified factors associated with
institutionalization.  Project institutionalization rates were used
to indicate how well the program was meeting its primary goal of
supporting state and local law enforcement agencies.  Other studies
have included a BJA and National Institute of Justice analysis of
state strategic planning efforts and evaluations of 56 projects. 
Many state and local evaluations have been conducted, but their
results are difficult to aggregate owing to differences in
methodologies and outcome measures. 


   CHILD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT
   BLOCK GRANT (CCDBG)
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.1

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health
and Human Services


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.2

To make grants available to states, territories, and tribes to
increase the overall quality, affordability, and supply of child
care.  Direct services are targeted to children in low- income
families with parents who work or attend job training. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.3

Provides funds to states, territories, and tribes for child care
services and quality improvement and to increase the supply of child
care. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.4

States must allow the full range of parental choice of child care
providers, including center-based, group home, family, and in-home
care, by offering certificates that parents can give to the provider
of their choice.  States are required to set health and safety
standards and monitor providers.  States must ensure that parents
have unlimited access to their child and child care providers,
provide consumer education services, and maintain public records of
complaints made against child care providers.  Not less than 4
percent of funds must be used for quality improvement activities and
to increase the supply of child care. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.5

Federal fiscal 1997 funding for the block grant was about $956
million.  Historically, CCDBG did not require state matching funds or
maintenance of fiscal effort.  In fiscal year 1997, three other child
care programs were repealed and their funding was consolidated under
the provisions of CCDBG.  Three separate funding sources for CCDBG
were initiated.  The new Mandatory Fund and the Discretionary Fund
(formerly CCDBG) require no state match.  The new Matching Fund
provides federal dollars to match state spending according to a
formula reflecting the proportion of children in the state under age
13, if the state complies with various fiscal requirements.  The
fiscal year 1997 funding from the three sources, collectively known
as the Child Care and Development Fund, was about $3 billion. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.6

State reports provide state-level data specific to CCDBG as well as
data on other federal child care and preschool programs.  Information
is reported on the number of children assisted according to the
category of provider, how assistance is made available to families
(i.e., through grants, contracts, or certificates), and estimates of
the number of families receiving various forms of consumer education. 
Information on income, size, structure of, and reasons for families
receiving services is also collected and reported.  Formerly, counts
of child care programs, caregivers, salary data, partnership
activities to promote business involvement, results of state
monitoring, and reductions in child care standards were collected. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2.7

Information on national child care needs, costs, availability, and
quality is available from the Bureau of the Census, the Department of
Education, and many private research and advocacy organizations.  No
programwide evaluation has been conducted. 


   CHILD WELFARE SERVICES STATE
   GRANTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.1

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health
and Human Services


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.2

To establish, extend, and strengthen child welfare services provided
by state and local agencies to enable children to remain in their own
homes or, when this is not possible, to provide alternative
placements. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.3

Supports state child welfare programs.  States may provide services
directly or through subgrantees. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.4

Funds may be used for a broad array of child protective services,
including costs of personnel to provide services, licensing, and
standard-setting for child care agencies and institutions, homemaker
services, return of runaway children, child abuse prevention, and
reunification services.  Funds for foster care, day care, and
adoption services are capped to the amounts received by states in
fiscal year 1979 for child welfare programs.  States must provide
assurances that all children in foster homes receive certain specific
protections, including maintaining a statewide information system for
children in foster care, establishing due process protections for
families, and conducting periodic case reviews.  States are required
to submit a description of the quality assurance system they will
use, but not the data produced by the system.  ACF reviews of the
foster care systems in each state are no longer required to verify
the implementation of foster care protections. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.5

Federal spending in fiscal year 1997 was about $292 million.  Each
eligible jurisdiction receives a base amount of $70,000.  Additional
funds are allocated by formula.  States receive federal matching at a
rate of 75 percent of their expenditures up to the limit of the
state's allocation.  In fiscal year 1996, state grants ranged from
about $118,000 to $21.4 million.  The average amount was $4.4
million.  Amounts from this grant program are small in comparison
with child welfare funding from other federal and nonfederal sources. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.6

Performance reports are not required, and program-specific
performance data are not available.  State consolidated plans include
descriptions of the services to be provided and of the geographic
areas where these services will be available. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3.7

All states administering related programs under title IV-B, Subpart
1:  Family Preservation, and Subpart 2:  Support Services, or title
IV-E:  Foster Care and Adoption Assistance are required to maintain
data systems to track cost, type, and level of care; staff management
and training; entry and exit rates of children in substitute care;
and intake information.  These data cover the state program, not just
services funded by this grant.  Before 1995, states were not required
to submit data to ACF. 


   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
   GRANTS (CDBG)--ENTITLEMENT
   PROGRAM
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.1

Community Planning and Development (CPD), Department of Housing and
Urban Development


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.2

To develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a
suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities,
principally for persons of low and moderate income.  To foster
well-planned, coordinated housing and community development
activities by providing a consistent source of federal assistance to
cities and urban counties. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.3

Provides funds to central cities and urban counties.  Entitlement
communities develop their own programs and funding priorities. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.4

Communities may undertake a wide range of activities directed toward
neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and provision of
improved community facilities and services.  Activities must either
benefit low- and moderate-income persons, help eliminate slums or
blight, or meet other community development needs having a particular
urgency.  Funds can be used as the nonfederal share of other federal
program grants.  Restrictions on the percentage of funds used to
establish or expand public services apply. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.5

Federal funds allocated in fiscal year 1997 were about $3.06 billion. 
In that year, 975 entities were eligible to receive funds according
to a statutory formula.  No matching funds are required.  Targeting
requirements ensure that communities use program funding to benefit
low- and moderate-income persons.  Grantees have to certify that at
least 70 percent of program funds, over a period of 1, 2, or 3 years,
will benefit low- and moderate-income persons.  Aggregate and
individual public benefit tests are applied to economic development
activities.  Generally, for each activity, at least one job must be
created per $50,000 of CDBG aid or one low- or moderate-income person
must be served for each $1,000 of aid.  Additionally, on an annual
basis, the aggregate of a grantee's economic development activities
must create one job per $35,000 of CDBG aid or serve one low- and
moderate-income person per $350 of CDBG funds used. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.6

Grantees complete an annual performance and evaluation report that
includes project-level information on accomplishments, costs incurred
by participating entities, indications of how a grantee would change
projects as a result of its experience, and an evaluation of how
funds were used to benefit low- and moderate-income persons. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:4.7

External data (e.g., the Bureau of the Census' Population and Housing
Survey) are used for formula allocations and benchmarking purposes. 
Several evaluation studies were conducted.  A 1994 national
evaluation by the Urban Institute addressed the capacity,
flexibility, and political effects of the program.  Other evaluations
have focused on specific activities, such as revolving loan funds. 


   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
   GRANTS--STATES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.1

Community Planning and Development (CPD), Department of Housing and
Urban Development


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.2

To develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a
suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunities,
principally for persons of low and moderate income.  To foster
well-planned, coordinated housing and community development
activities by providing a consistent source of federal assistance to
units of general local government. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.3

Provides funds to states, which develop their own programs and
funding priorities.  These priorities guide states' redistribution of
funds to units of general local government that are not populous
enough to receive entitlement funds.  Forty-eight states and Puerto
Rico participate in this program.  Most funds are distributed
competitively, though four states distribute a portion of their funds
according to a state-developed formula.  (Two states have chosen not
to participate in this program.  In New York and Hawaii, HUD
continues to distribute funds directly to units of general local
government through the HUD- administered Small Cities CDBG Program.)


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.4

CDBG encompasses a wide range of activities directed toward
neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and provision of
improved community facilities and services.  Activities must either
benefit low- and moderate-income persons, help eliminate slums or
blight, or meet other community development needs having a particular
urgency.  Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas are statutorily
required to set aside 10 percent of their funds for projects in
colonias--communities in the U.S.-Mexico border region that lack
sanitary water, sewage facilities, and housing, and that existed as
colonias before this program was created. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.5

Fiscal year 1997 spending was about $1.2 billion.  Seventy percent of
the aggregate use of funds, over a period specified by the state of 3
years or less, must benefit low- and moderate-income individuals. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.6

States are required to establish objectives consistent with the
national objectives and to report progress in meeting these goals. 
State annual performance reports include a description of the use of
funds during the program year, an assessment of the relationship of
that use to the states' objectives, the reason for any changes in the
plan, and indications as to how the program would change as a result
of this experience.  States determine how they collect information
from units of general local government receiving grant funds. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:5.7

In the early days of the state CDBG program, HUD conducted several
studies on state takeover of small-city CDBG funding.  These studies
examined changes states made in program priorities and processes,
analyzed the effects of these changes on funding patterns, and
compared states' initial experiences and performances.  A later study
evaluated the success rates of economic development loans made under
this program to businesses to guide future investment strategies. 


   COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH
   SERVICES BLOCK GRANT
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.1

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA),
Department of Health and Human Services


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.2

To enable states and territories to plan, carry out, and evaluate
state plans for providing comprehensive community mental health
services to adults with a serious mental illness and to children with
a serious emotional disturbance. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.3

Provides financial assistance to states to be used at their
discretion consistent with program objectives and requirements. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.4

Services are to be provided only through community mental health
centers that meet certain criteria and through other appropriate,
qualified community programs.  State plans must provide for an
organized community-based system of care that considers all available
resources and services (however funded), including rehabilitation,
employment, housing, educational, medical and dental, and other
support services needed to enable clients to function in the
community.  Plans must also provide for case management services for
clients that receive substantial amounts of public funds or services,
integrated services for children, and outreach to and services for
the homeless.  Inpatient services are not eligible for support. 
States must review 5 percent of service providers each year and
establish a Mental Health Planning Council to review the state plan
and monitor and evaluate the allocation and adequacy of mental health
services annually. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.5

Federal spending for fiscal year 1997 was $275 million.  Awards range
from about $50,000 to $33 million, with an average of $4.4 million. 
As of 1993, block grant funds were around 5.6 percent of state mental
health agency revenues for community programs.  Maintenance of fiscal
effort provisions apply to expenditures for children as well as to
overall expenditures for community mental health services. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.6

State reports (included in the application) describe achievements in
relation to state objectives (including quantitative targets) for the
year just completed, which are to cover each of the program criteria
summarized above.  Applications include incidence and prevalence data
on mental illness among the target populations using standard
definitions; standard measures are not yet available but are under
development.  Data on community mental health services, treatment
options, and resources are also included. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:6.7

There has been no national evaluation of this program.  Annual
program reviews are conducted by State Mental Health Planning
Councils, but Council members are generally not experts in
evaluation, and their reviews may or may not be accompanied by backup
information.  The funding agency sponsors research on prevention and
service delivery models in mental health and conveys findings to
grantees as part of its technical assistance activities. 


   COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT
   (CSBG)
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7.1

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health
and Human Services


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7.2

To provide services and activities that have a measurable and major
impact on the causes of poverty.  Objectives include assisting
low-income individuals to obtain adequate jobs, education, and
housing; make better use of available income; obtain emergency
assistance when needed; remove obstacles to self-sufficiency; and
achieve greater participation in community affairs.  Other objectives
include establishing coordination between social service programs and
encouraging private sector entities to ameliorate poverty. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7.3

Provides funds to support local activities and projects.  Goals and
objectives are set by states, but states are required to subgrant at
least 90 percent of their allotment to locally based community action
agencies or organizations that serve migrant or seasonal farmworkers. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7.4

Activities that fall within seven broad service categories,
reflective of the program's objectives, are eligible for funding,
provided that the principal beneficiaries are persons of low and
modest income levels.  At least one activity of each type must be
provided within a state. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7.5

Federal spending in fiscal 1997 was $490 million.  States are
required to ensure that any agency or organization that received
funds previously under this program will not have future funding
terminated or proportionally reduced unless the state can determine
cause under conditions and procedures set by federal mandate.  Five
percent of funds can be transferred to certain other federal block
grants.  No maintenance of effort or state matching funds are
required.  In fiscal year 1996, CSBG financial assistance to states
ranged from $2.2 million to $346 million.  Overall, CSBG has
contributed less than 10 percent of the resources managed, leveraged,
and coordinated by the community action agencies. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7.6

States and local entities are not required to provide uniform
performance data.  ACF has relied on contracted private entities to
survey states on a voluntary basis to obtain information describing
state allocations, local activities, operations of state CSBG
administering agencies, state managerial and programmatic
accomplishments, and counts of dollars spent and individuals served. 
At present, a contract is in place to establish a new data collection
system. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:7.7

No national program evaluations have been conducted.  We found no
ties between external, aggregate income data or research findings and
program operations and assessments. 


   JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT
   (JTPA)--TITLES II-A AND II-C
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8.1

Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Department of Labor


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8.2

To establish programs to prepare disadvantaged adults (title II-A)
and youths (title II-C) for participation in the labor force by
providing job training and other services designed to increase
employment and earnings, develop educational and occupational skills,
and decrease welfare dependency. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8.3

States receive formula grants and, in turn, subgrant funds to Service
Delivery Areas (SDAs)--geographical areas that include one or more
local governments or a state that has been designated to provide job
training--according to a federal formula that reflects unemployment
and poverty rates.  Within each SDA, a private industry council works
with local governments to develop job training plans that meet local
needs, select groups that will receive grants, and act as the
administrative agency for the SDA.  States have responsibility for
the approval of the plans and monitoring for compliance.  Minimum
performance standards and measures for SDAs are set at the federal
level. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8.4

Funds support direct and on-the-job training, education, job
counseling, and supportive services.  States are required to set
aside 5 percent of funds to provide incentive payments to SDAs that
exceed performance standards and 8 percent to support state education
coordination and grants.  At least 50 percent of each state's
allotment must fund direct training services.  Additionally, 5
percent of title II-A funds are set aside to support activities for
older individuals.  Services are targeted to economically
disadvantaged individuals who face serious barriers to employment. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8.5

Federal spending in program year 1997 was about $895 million for
title II-A and $127 million for title II-C.  Matching is required for
100 percent of the 8-percent state education grants. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8.6

States, administrative entities, and recipients are required to
report information, including descriptions of activities provided and
the length of time participants were engaged in them; characteristics
of participants; and outcome measures, such as the occupations in
which participants were placed. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:8.7

These programs have been the subject of several nationwide and
state-level evaluations.  For example, a 1994 national evaluation
examined program impacts on the earnings and employment of adult men
and women and out-of-school male and female youth.  This study found
that effects for adults were positive but that the program did not
increase the earnings of male and female youths, which suggested that
new ways were needed to serve some groups.  Other evaluations have
studied differences in cost-effectiveness between programs in urban
and rural areas and the effectiveness of adult work-place literacy
techniques. 


   LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY
   ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (LIHEAP)
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9.1

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health
and Human Services


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9.2

To provide funds to states so that they can subsidize the home energy
costs of low-income persons, including the elderly and disabled. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9.3

Awards funds to states, which, in turn, either distribute them to
eligible households or to an energy supplier on behalf of such
households. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9.4

In addition to providing direct and indirect subsidies, up to 15
percent of funds may be used for low-cost residential weatherization. 
Another 10 percent may be allocated for weatherization if states can
demonstrate that they meet three statutory requirements, including
that the proposed weatherization services will produce savings in
energy costs. 

States may use up to 5 percent of their total allotment to encourage
and enable households to reduce their heating and cooling needs. 
Leveraging Incentive Funds may be awarded to states that supply
additional benefits to eligible households beyond those provided
through federal funds.  Up to 25 percent of the incentive funds may
be set aside for grantees that provide LIHEAP services through
community-based nonprofit organizations to help eligible households
reduce their energy vulnerability under a program known as the
Residential Energy Assistance Challenge.  States are required to
provide the highest level of assistance to households with the lowest
incomes and the highest energy costs, taking family size into
account. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9.5

Federal spending for fiscal year 1997 was about $1.2 billion.  No
matching funds are required. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9.6

An annual report is required on the number and income level of
households served; the number of participating households with
individuals who are elderly, disabled, or with young children; and
the number and income level of families who applied for assistance. 
An additional report identifying services that were provided, number
of households served, level of benefits provided, and number of
unserved households is required from grantees that expend up to 5
percent of funds for services designed to reduce home energy needs. 
To supplement program information, HHS has used voluntary state
surveys to gather estimates of households to be served, funds
available, funds to be obligated, and income eligibility cutoffs.  To
qualify for leveraging incentive funds, grantees must report on the
leveraged resources provided to low-income households during the
previous base period. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:9.7

No programwide evaluations have been conducted.  Specific energy
assistance questions have been included in two national surveys, the
Bureau of the Census' Current Population Survey and the Department of
Energy's Residential Energy Consumption Survey.  These data are used
to determine the socioeconomic characteristics of LIHEAP participants
and energy consumption and expenditure patterns of all
non-low-income, low-income, and LIHEAP recipient households. 
(Project-level evaluations are required for activities funded by the
Residential Energy Assistance Challenge option.)


   MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH
   SERVICES BLOCK GRANT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:10


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:10.1

Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of
Health and Human Services


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:10.2

To enable states to maintain and strengthen their role in planning,
promoting, coordinating, and evaluating health care for pregnant
women, mothers, infants, and children (particularly children with
special health care needs) and in providing health services for
mothers and children who do not have access to adequate health care,
particularly those from low-income families. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:10.3

Primarily, the grant assists states in building a maternal and child
care health service infrastructure that ensures needed services are
in place for and readily accessible to vulnerable populations. 
States have the flexibility to allocate resources. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:10.4

Fifteen percent of the block grant is set aside for special projects
of regional and national significance and for integrated community
service system programs.  States may use block grant funds to develop
systems of health care and related services, such as health
education, case management, training, and the evaluation of maternal
and child care services, and to deliver clinical care to the target
population.  At least 30 percent of funds must support preventive and
primary care services for children, and an additional 30 percent must
be used for services to children with special health care needs. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:10.5

Federal spending in fiscal year 1997 was about $681 million.  Any
amount appropriated over $600 million is retained by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to fund specialized projects and activities
in areas with high infant mortality rates.  In fiscal year 1996,
assistance to states ranged from around $155,000 to $41.9 million. 
The average state grant was $9.7 million.  States must ensure that $3
of state and local funds or resources will be expended for maternal
and child health for each $4 of federal program funds.  State and
local contributions are generally twice that of the federal
contribution, but large variations among states exist.  In general,
state contributions have to equal at least the amount paid in 1989. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:10.6

States are required to report annually.  Program-specific state-level
data reported include number served by population category,
proportion of each category with health insurance, type of services
provided, and expenditures by service and population type.  Beginning
in fiscal year 1999, all states must report on 18 national
performance measures. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:10.7

State annual reports also include statewide data on the number of
medical service providers by category, number of births, infant
mortality by race and ethnicity, percent of low-weight births by race
and ethnicity, perinatal death rates, rates of fetal alcohol
syndrome, rates of infant drug dependency, percentages of women
without prenatal care by trimester, and immunization rates for
2-year-old children.  No programwide evaluation has been completed,
although various components of the program, such as injury
prevention, have been evaluated.  A large research base supports
grant activities. 


   NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM (NHS)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:11


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.1

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.2

To provide for the construction and improvement of interconnected
principal arterial routes that serve major population centers,
international border crossings, ports, airports, public
transportation facilities, and other major transportation facilities
and destinations; meet national defense requirements; and serve
interstate and interregional travel. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.3

Assists state transportation agencies in developing an integrated,
interconnected transportation system.  States can transfer up to 50
percent of NHS funds to the Surface Transportation Program (STP), and
if the Secretary of Transportation approves, up to 100 percent. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.4

Funds may support 14 categories of transportation and
transportation-related activities on roads designated as part of the
Interstate System or other principal arterial highways.  Activities
include highway construction, safety and operational improvements,
reconstruction, resurfacing, highway research and development, fringe
and corridor parking, and wetland mitigation projects related to
highway projects.  States are required to perform a life-cycle cost
analysis and a value engineering analysis for each NHS project
segment that costs over $25 million and to meet design standards
approved by FHWA.  A state may request exemption from FHWA's detailed
oversight of design and construction activities, including approval
of preliminary plans, specifications, and estimates; concurrence in
the award process; construction reviews; and final inspection. 
Projects have to comply with the Clean Air Act and meet DOT and
Environmental Protection Agency targets.  Ten percent of funds must
be expended through contracts with small businesses owned by
disadvantaged persons. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.5

Federal spending in fiscal year 1997 was about $3.3 billion. 
Generally, federal funds can be used to cover up to 80 percent of
project costs, but certain projects can be funded at higher federal
shares.  State apportionments of federal funds are affected by a
variety of incentives and sanctions. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.6

Financial information is compiled on individual projects as well as
the overall program.  Performance information is compiled as part of
the biennial assessment of the nation's highway conditions. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:11.7

DOT compiles aggregate information from other agencies on
transportation facilities, services, flow, context, and the
unintended consequences of transportation (safety, energy use, and
environmental impacts).  No national programwide evaluations of this
program have been conducted.  Projects and particular program
components have been evaluated. 


   PREVENTIVE HEALTH AND HEALTH
   SERVICES (PHHS) BLOCK GRANT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:12


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:12.1

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of
Health and Human Services


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:12.2

To provide states, territories, and certain tribal governments with
the resources to improve the health status of their populations. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:12.3

Contributes funds toward the support of state-directed preventive
health services.  Funds go to state health departments, which have
discretion to make awards to local health agencies and
community-based organizations. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:12.4

Supports activities to improve the health status of the population so
as to meet Healthy People 2000 national health promotion and disease
prevention objectives; rodent control and community fluoridation
programs; planning, establishing, and improving (but not simply
operating) emergency medical services; services to the victims of sex
offenses and prevention of sex offenses; and related administrative
and evaluation

activities.  Each state selects the Healthy People 2000 objectives to
be addressed with grant funds.  Most states use funds for
cardiovascular prevention, community-based health promotion
activities, and rape prevention.  Beyond that, each state does things
differently. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:12.5

Federal funding for state grants for fiscal year 1997 was about $148
million.  State awards ranged from about $31,500 to $10 million, with
an average of $1.4 million.  Maintenance of fiscal effort is
required.  Although PHHS grant funds constitute about 1 percent of
federal and state public health expenditures overall, they are a
major source of funding for preventive health activities. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:12.6

For each activity funded, the state reports activity or output data,
such as number of community programs supported or number of clients
served by the state program. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:12.7

For each Healthy People 2000 objective selected, the state also
reports statewide data as measured by Healthy People 2000 indicators
drawn from such uniform data sets as vital statistics, the Behavioral
Risk Factor Surveillance System, or the state cancer registry.  A
federal contractor collects the data from federal sources and sends
them to the states, which then fill in state-generated information. 
No national program evaluation has been conducted.  However, CDC has
assessed the effectiveness of and published guidelines for numerous
preventive health services.  Such guidelines on effective preventive
health practice get incorporated into this program through
professional, rather than administrative, channels.  Standards of
practice are very concrete for some areas, such as immunization, and
less fixed in others, such as health promotion. 


   SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND
   COMMUNITIES--STATE GRANTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:13


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:13.1

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of
Education


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:13.2

To support programs aimed at meeting the national education goal of
preventing illegal drug use among students and violence in and around
schools. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:13.3

Funds are awarded to state education agencies (SEAs), but not less
than 91 percent of the SEA money is then distributed by formula to
local education agencies (LEAs) to support drug and violence
prevention programs under their direction.  For some LEAs, the grant
is one of several sources of funds for drug prevention activities;
for others, it is the sole source of funds.  Both SEAs and LEAs must
identify goals and objectives for drug and violence prevention. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:13.4

LEA funds can be used for comprehensive drug and alcohol prevention
programs (including instruction, family counseling, early
intervention, referral to rehabilitation, staff development); for
educational, cultural, and recreational activities before and after
school; and for evaluation.  Not more than 20 percent of the funds
can be spent on safety-related activities, such as "safe zones of
passage," school metal detectors, and security personnel.  SEA funds
may be used for administration, technical assistance, demonstration
projects, evaluation and other supporting activities, or to meet
special needs.  All programs supported under the grant must convey
the message that illegal use of alcohol and other drugs is wrong and
harmful. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:13.5

Federal spending in fiscal year 1997 was about $531 million, of which
$415 million went directly to SEA and LEA activities.  Awards ranged
from $2 million to $46 million, with an average of $8 million.  In
the districts included in the national evaluation study, LEA drug
prevention program funding averaged $6-$8 per pupil from grant funds
and $10 per pupil from all sources.  Maintenance of fiscal effort
provisions apply. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:13.6

States are required to report triennially on activities funded and
number of LEAs, schools, and students participating.  State reports
also cover program effectiveness and progress toward achieving SEA
measurable goals and objectives, using whatever outcome information
the state can provide.  LEAs provide information the SEA needs to
complete its report. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:13.7

SEA reports also include data on violent incidents in all schools and
state-level survey data on the incidence and prevalence of drug use
among students.  A national evaluation study conducted during 1990-95
examined drug prevention program activities (comparing them with
research-based evidence of effective practice) and local program
evaluations and collected data on student outcomes in 19 school
districts.  The program statute requires an independent biennial
evaluation of the national impact of the program. 


   SOCIAL SERVICES BLOCK GRANT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:14


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:14.1

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health
and Human Services


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:14.2

To assist states to provide social services that are directed toward
one of the following broad goals:  (1) achieving or maintaining
self-support to prevent, reduce, or eliminate dependency; (2)
achieving or maintaining self-sufficiency to reduce or prevent
dependency; (3) preventing or remedying neglect, abuse, or
exploitation of children and adults; (4) preventing or reducing
inappropriate institutional care; and (5) securing admission or
referral for institutional care when other forms of care are not
available and providing services to individuals in institutions. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:14.3

Assists each state to furnish social services according to
state-determined priorities. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:14.4

States can use funds to support any of a broad range of social
services.  For example, funds may be used to provide activities
needed to operate or improve other social service programs; pay for
administrative, staff, and training costs; or support agency
operations.  Some restrictions, including prohibitions regarding the
use of funds to provide cash payments as a service, apply.  There are
no set-asides or caps. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:14.5

Federal funding for fiscal year 1997 was about $2.5 billion.  Ten
percent of funds may be transferred to support activities funded by
related federal block grants (Preventive Health and Health Services,
Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment, Community Mental Health,
Maternal and Child Health, and Low-Income Home Energy Assistance
Program).  Additionally, the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 allows states to transfer up
to 10 percent of the new Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Block Grant to this grant.  At the federal level, there are no
performance criteria or standards.  In fiscal year 1996, allocations
to states ranged from $97,000 to $333 million.  The average allotment
was $50 million. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:14.6

States are asked to provide counts of services provided, number of
adults and children served, expenditures by service type, and type of
organizations that provide the services.  These data may be actual,
sampled, or estimated.  No outcome or impact data are available. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:14.7

A major programwide qualitative evaluation, published in 1992,
addressed the first 10 years of the grant.  This evaluation examined,
within the context of flexibility, the perceptions of state and
county officials regarding the effectiveness of the program and
identified innovative and successful state practices.  Other
evaluations examined specific activities funded by the grant, such as
one that compared services provided to senior citizens under this
grant with services furnished under the Administration on Aging's
Supportive Services and Senior Centers Program. 


   SPECIAL PROGRAMS FOR THE
   AGING--NUTRITION SERVICES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:15


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:15.1

Administration on Aging (AOA), Department of Health and Human
Services


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:15.2

To support nutrition services to older Americans, including meals,
nutrition education, facilitating access to meals, and providing
nutrition-related supportive services to maintain health,
independence, and quality of life. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:15.3

Provides grants to State Agencies on Aging.  States, using their own
formulas (which AOA must approve), distribute funds to
state-designated Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs).  States are
responsible for ensuring that AAAs and service providers meet program
requirements and assurances as set out in their area plans and comply
with state and local laws regarding food handling and the like. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:15.4

Local projects funded by this title III-C program must provide at
least one hot or other appropriate meal, which provides one-third of
the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) at least once a day, 5 days a
week (except in rural areas, where a lesser frequency is determined
feasible), to eligible people over age 60 and their spouses.  AAAs
must reasonably accommodate participants' special dietary needs. 
Meals may be provided in a congregate setting or delivered to the
home.  For home-delivered meals, priority is given to serving frail
elderly, the homebound, or the isolated.  Projects must conduct
outreach and nutrition education activities.  They may solicit
voluntary contributions.  States must utilize the advice of
dietitians in program planning and provide technical assistance and
training for program staff. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:15.5

Federal spending for fiscal year 1997 included $364.4 million for
congregate meals and $105.3 million for home-delivered meals.  For
the two meal types combined, awards ranged from around $126,000 to
$43.7 million, averaging about $8 million.  This program has
maintenance of fiscal effort requirements.  States may transfer up to
30 percent of their funds between their congregate and home meal
programs.  They may also transfer 20 percent of their funds to title
III-B:  Supportive Services and Senior Centers Program. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:15.6

Under a system developed in response to 1992 legislation, states
report uniform data, including number of congregate and
home-delivered meals served, program income and expenditures, number
of persons served, and number who were at high risk for poor
nutrition.  Client characteristics such as age; poverty; and, for
home-delivered meals, client's extent of impairment in performing
activities of daily living are also reported.  Client and service
counts are totals for the service as a whole, not just the portion
funded from this grant. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:15.7

A national evaluation of this program for 1993-95 described the
participants, assessed how well the program reached the disabled and
poor elderly, and estimated the impact on nutritional intake and
social contacts of participants as compared with nonparticipants with
similar characteristics.  The RDA requirements are based on research,
which also supports the premise that good health requires adequate
nutrition. 


   SPECIAL PROGRAMS FOR THE
   AGING--
   SUPPORTIVE SERVICES AND SENIOR
   CENTERS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:16


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:16.1

Administration on Aging (AOA), Department of Health and Human
Services


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:16.2

To encourage states and area agencies on aging to develop and
implement comprehensive and coordinated community-based services for
older individuals through the planning and provision of supportive
services, including multipurpose senior centers. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:16.3

Provides grants to State Agencies on Aging.  States, using their own
formulas (which AOA must approve), distribute funds to
state-designated Area Agencies on Aging.  States are responsible for
ensuring that AAAs and service providers meet program requirements
and assurances as set out in their area plans. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:16.4

This title III-B program covers a wide range of supportive services
from homemaker and chore services to recreation and crime prevention. 
Special priority is given to providing services that provide access
to other services (such as transportation, outreach, information and
assistance, language, and case management); in-home services; and
legal services, such as legal representation for wards in
guardianship proceedings.  Funds can also be used for renovation,
acquisition, and construction of multipurpose senior centers.  AAAs
must set specific objectives for providing services to individuals
having the greatest economic or social need, particularly low-income
minority individuals.  States must support an effective ombudsman
program. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:16.5

Federal spending for fiscal year 1997 was $291 million.  Awards
ranged from around $70,000 to $27.1 million, with an average of $5.1
million.  Each state is guaranteed a minimum allotment; beyond that,
funds are allotted based on the proportion of individuals aged 60 and
older in each state.  Within-state distribution formulas must also
reflect the proportion of individuals 60 and over.  Federal funds
cover 85 percent of the cost of supportive services statewide; the
state must contribute not less than 25 percent of the nonfederal
share from state or local public sources.  The amount states may set
aside for conducting outreach demonstration is capped at 4 percent of
funds allotted, after paying for area plan administration. 
Maintenance of fiscal effort provisions apply, and program funds are
to supplement, not supplant, other sources.  States may transfer up
to 20 percent of funds between this program and the senior nutrition
program.  Service providers can solicit voluntary contributions, but
the contributions must be used to increase services. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:16.6

Under a reporting system developed in response to 1992 legislation,
states now report service unit counts, unduplicated client counts,
and expenditures by type of service and detailed client
characteristics (including indicators of ability to perform
activities of daily living).  Client and service unit counts are
totals for the service as a whole, not just the portion funded from
this grant. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:16.7

There has been no national evaluation of this program, and program
documents incorporate little reference to research. 


   STATE AND COMMUNITY HIGHWAY
   SAFETY GRANTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:17


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:17.1

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)/Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:17.2

To reduce traffic accidents and deaths, injuries, and property damage
resulting from accidents. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:17.3

These grants help state safety agencies develop programs to further
national and state highway safety objectives.  At least 40 percent of
a state's allocation must be passed through to its subdivisions or
used by the state on behalf of localities. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:17.4

NHTSA/FHWA have identified nine highway safety program areas of
national priority for which effective countermeasures have been
developed.  Activities in these areas (including alcohol and drug
countermeasures, occupant protection, emergency medical services, and
roadway safety) are eligible for funding.  Before fiscal year 1998,
states proposing such activities had to describe the problem,
identify the countermeasure designed to stabilize or reduce it, and
provide supporting trend data.  If states funded identified
countermeasures for priority problems, funding was expedited.  If
funds were to be used for other problems, additional data and
analysis had to be submitted to NHTSA or FHWA for approval.  NHSTA
funds, accounting for about 90 percent of the grant, were used for
projects related to human behavior, and FHWA funds were used for
roadway safety.  Pedestrian, bicycle safety, and speed control
programs were jointly administered by both agencies.  Beginning in
fiscal year 1998, a new performance-based process was established. 
States are now responsible for setting highway safety goals and
implementing programs to achieve them. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:17.5

Federal spending in fiscal year 1997 was $140 million.  Matching
funds in amounts that vary by activity and circumstances are
required.  No match is needed for the U.S.  territories and Native
American programs.  If states do not have a highway safety plan that
conforms to statutory provisions, formula funds are reduced by not
less than 50 percent.  A state may receive additional funds under a
related incentive program if specific criteria are met.  In 1997,
financial assistance to states ranged from $340,000 to $13 million,
with an average of $2.2 million.  The federal share of funding for
all state and local highway traffic safety programs is relatively
small, generally ranging from 1 to 3 percent. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:17.6

Before fiscal year 1998, states were required to submit annual
evaluation reports on activities and projects funded under this
program.  For each funded program area, states were to describe each
project, project-level costs, accomplishments, and status.  Beginning
in fiscal year 1998, states were required to submit annual reports
describing progress in meeting highway safety goals, using identified
performance measures. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:17.7

States collect and report aggregate data on highway deaths and
injuries.  NHTSA's first national evaluation of its state grants
programs is now in progress.  The evaluation will examine whether
projects focused on major safety and program needs, the consequences
of removing federal highway safety grants, and whether results were
compared with planned objectives. 


   SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION AND
   TREATMENT BLOCK GRANT
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:18


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:18.1

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA),
Department of Health and Human Services


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:18.2

To provide financial assistance to states and territories to support
alcohol and other drug abuse prevention, treatment, and
rehabilitation activities. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:18.3

Provides funds to be used at the state's discretion to achieve
statutory objectives, including the fulfillment of certain
requirements.  States set criteria for particular treatment services. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:18.4

At least 35 percent of the state's grant funds must be used for
prevention and treatment activities related to alcohol, at least 35
percent for activities related to other drugs, and at least 20
percent for primary prevention services.  States must increase the
availability of treatment services for pregnant women and women with
dependent children, establish a treatment capacity management program
to facilitate admissions of intravenous drug users, make tuberculosis
services available to individuals receiving substance abuse
treatment, establish and maintain a revolving loan fund for group
homes for recovering substance abusers, and improve referrals to
treatment.  "Designated states" must provide early intervention
services for HIV-positive substance abusers.  States must also make
it unlawful for any manufacturer, retailer, or distributor of tobacco
products to sell or distribute any such product to persons under the
age of 18; enforce the law by unannounced, random inspections; and
substantially meet target inspection failure rates negotiated with
the Secretary of Health and Human Services. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:18.5

Federal spending for fiscal year 1997 was about $1.3 billion.  Awards
ranged from $70,000 to $181 million.  Maintenance of fiscal effort
requirements apply, and failure to maintain effort may result in the
reduction of a state's allotment by an equal amount.  A state's grant
may be suspended or terminated for material noncompliance with
conditions required for the receipt of the grant.  States that fail
to comply with the tobacco requirement face possible loss of 10 to 40
percent of their award. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:18.6

The state annual report includes a description of services provided;
information on needs and treatment capacity, entities funded, and
amounts expended per activity; and a statement of progress toward
reaching objectives identified for the year.  It must include outcome
data on under-18 tobacco enforcement activities.  Work has begun on
identifying data for prevention activities. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:18.7

SAMHSA collects national and state-level data on provider
organizations (however funded), services, resources, and clients.  It
also supports a national survey of substance abuse among the general
population.  There have been some state-level evaluations of this
program, but no national evaluation.  SAMHSA has evaluated the
effectiveness of publicly funded prevention strategies and treatment
methods.  It has also developed treatment and prevention protocols
and disseminated them through technical assistance activities. 


   SURFACE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM
   (STP)
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:19


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:19.1

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:19.2

To assist state and local transportation development and improvement. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:19.3

Helps fund state and local activities and projects. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:19.4

Permits a wide array of transportation projects, including
construction, mitigation of environmental damage, transit, carpool
projects, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.  Funds cannot be
used for local roads and rural minor collectors.  Once the funds are
distributed to the state, each state must set aside 10 percent for
safety construction activities (i.e., hazard elimination and
rail-highway crossings) and 10 percent for transportation
enhancements, which encompass a broad range of environmental-related
activities.  The state must divide 50 percent (62.5 percent of the
remaining 80 percent) of the funds by population between each of its
areas over 200,000 and the remaining areas of the state.  The
remaining 30 percent (37.5 percent of the remaining 80 percent) can
be used in any area of the state. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:19.5

Federal spending in fiscal year 1997 was $3.9 billion.  In general,
the federal share is 80 percent, and the state share is 20 percent. 
For interstate highway projects, the federal share ranges from 86.5
to 90.7 percent.  Each state must receive at least 90 percent of
every dollar it is estimated to have contributed to the Highway
Account of the Highway Trust Fund.  States can transfer funds from
other transportation formula grants to STP.  States are required to
contract 10 percent of funds with small businesses owned by
disadvantaged persons.  The 1991 authorizing legislation contained
incentives and sanctions, many of which were rescinded, including
those pertaining to national speed limits and motorcycle helmet laws,
in 1995.  Sanctions for states that fail to have a mandatory seat
belt law remain, but DOT has waived penalties for states that meet an
alternative standard. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:19.6

For large projects of over $1 billion, comparisons of accomplishments
with objectives, including explanations for slippages, cost overruns,
or high unit costs, are reported.  Where output can be quantified, a
computation of cost per unit of output may be required.  Financial
information is compiled on individual projects as well as the overall
program. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:19.7

DOT reports aggregated transportation information collected from
national surveys, other federal agencies, states, state subdivisions,
and private entities.  These data are compiled into basic layers of
information:  facilities data (the location and connectivity of
transportation facilities); service data (carrier locations and
services provided); flow data (freight, weight, and vehicular
movement); geographic and economic context data; and data on
consequences of transportation, such as safety, energy use, and
environmental impacts.  No national programwide evaluations of this
program have been conducted.  Projects and particular program
components have been evaluated. 


   TITLE VI INNOVATIVE EDUCATION
   PROGRAM STRATEGIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:20


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:20.1

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of
Education


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:20.2

To assist state and local education agencies in the reform of
elementary and secondary education. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:20.3

Provides funds to support local education activities.  The grant
award is administered by the state.  However, not less than 85
percent of funds are distributed by formula to LEAs.  Responsibility
for program design and implementation rests with local educational
agencies and school personnel.  SEAs are expressly prohibited from
influencing LEAs' decisions regarding use of funds, and state
oversight is generally restricted to reviewing compliance and fiscal
accountability. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:20.4

Funds can be used for local projects and programs in eight broad
areas:  technology-based reform approaches; acquisition and use of
instructional materials; education reform projects, including magnet
schools; programs to improve higher order thinking skills among
disadvantaged students; adult and student literacy programs; programs
for the gifted and talented; school reform programs consistent with
the Goals 2000 Educate America Act; and school improvement programs
related to the federal title I program of education for the
disadvantaged.  LEAs have complete discretion in allocating funds
across the allowable activities.  If its service area includes
private schools, the LEA must ascertain whether those schools wish to
participate, and if so, it must ensure the equitable participation of
private school students. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:20.5

The fiscal year 1997 appropriation was $310 million.  In the prior
year, with a total of $275 million, amounts per state ranged from
about $1.4 million to $32 million.  In 1991-92, the appropriation of
$450 million constituted less than 0.5 percent of state education
budgets.  At that level, the median award for small districts was
$5,200; for very large districts, the median was $360,000. 
Maintenance of fiscal effort and supplement, not supplant, provisions
apply. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:20.6

SEAs must report biennially on use of funds, type of services
provided, and number of children served.  LEAs must provide the state
with the information required for fiscal audit and program
evaluation. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:20.7

There have been two national evaluation studies of this program, with
reports in 1986 and 1994.  Both focused on program implementation. 
States have also conducted evaluations in past years and must again
evaluate the effectiveness of statewide and local programs in fiscal
year 1998.  The Department of Education's nonregulatory guidance
encourages LEAs to use approaches that are consistent with principles
of effectiveness established through research. 


   URBANIZED AREA FORMULA PROGRAM
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:21


      FEDERAL AGENCY
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:21.1

Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation


      OBJECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:21.2

To assist in financing the acquisition, construction, leasing,
planning, and improvement of facilities and equipment for use in mass
transportation service and the payment of operating expenses to
improve or continue mass transport. 


      NATURE
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:21.3

Provides funds to support public and private mass transportation
projects in urbanized areas of over 50,000.  Key decisionmaking rests
with designated public transit entities or with the governor,
depending on the size of the area's population. 


      ACTIVITIES AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:21.4

Funds can be used for transit projects for urbanized areas of 50,000
or more people.  All major transit capacity expansions must be
preceded by a major investment study that justifies projects based
upon a comprehensive review of its mobility improvements,
environmental benefits, cost-effectiveness, and operating
efficiencies.  Funded projects must be included in the urbanized
area's transportation improvement program and the state
transportation improvement program and approved by FTA and FHWA. 


      FUNDING AND RELATED
      CONSTRAINTS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:21.5

Federal spending in fiscal year 1997 was about $2 billion.  The
federal share ranges from 50 to 90 percent, depending upon the type
of activity supported.  Authorizing legislation allows for the
transfer of funds among various transit and highway transportation
programs.  Program income cannot be used to refund or reduce the
local share of the grant from which it was earned, but may be used
for the local share of other transit projects. 


      PROGRAM-SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
      INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:21.6

Transit authorities or states are required to provide milestone,
financial, and final project reports and to report significant events
that affect the schedule, costs, capacity, or usefulness of funded
activities.  Milestone reports track performance in terms of goals,
reasons for slippage or high unit costs, and outcomes stated in terms
of costs per unit.  At least every 3 years, the Secretary of
Transportation reviews and evaluates the performance of the recipient
in carrying out the program, including the extent to which program
activities are consistent with proposed activities and the planning
process required. 


      OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix I:21.7

All grant recipients must maintain and report systemwide financial
and operating information on a quarterly basis.  DOT maintains a
reporting system, by uniform categories, to accumulate mass
transportation financial and operating data.  Information includes
service descriptions, ridership information, expenditure data,
information on funding, descriptions of fleet size and composition,
and counts of revenue miles and hours.  Outcome measures include
uniform calculations of service efficiency, cost efficiency, and
service effectiveness. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION

Gail S.  MacColl, Assistant Director
Elizabeth W.  Scullin, Communications Analyst

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND HUMAN
SERVICES DIVISION

Kathleen D.  White, Evaluator-in-Charge
James J.  Crosson, Evaluator



RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 0

Program Evaluation:  Agencies Challenged by New Demand for
Information on Program Results (GAO/GGD-98-53, Apr.  24, 1998). 

Performance Measurement and Evaluation:  Definitions and
Relationships (GAO/GGD-98-26, April 1998). 

Balancing Flexibility and Accountability:  Grant Program Design in
Education and Other Areas (GAO/T-GGD/HEHS-98-96, Feb.  11, 1998). 

Federal Education Funding:  Multiple Programs and Lack of Data Raise
Efficiency and Effectiveness Concerns (GAO/T-HEHS-98-46, Nov.  6,
1997). 

The Government Performance and Results Act:  1997 Governmentwide
Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997). 

Managing for Results:  Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance
(GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138, May 30, 1997). 

Federal Grants:  Design Improvements Could Help Federal Resources Go
Further (GAO/AIMD-97-7, Dec.  18, 1996). 

Safe and Drug-Free Schools:  Balancing Accountability With State and
Local Flexibility (GAO/HEHS-98-3, Oct.  10, 1997). 

Block Grants:  Issues in Designing Accountability Provisions
(GAO/AIMD-95-226, Sept.  1, 1995). 

Block Grants:  Characteristics, Experience, and Lessons Learned
(GAO/HEHS-95-74, Feb.  9, 1995). 

Program Evaluation:  Improving the Flow of Information to the
Congress (GAO/PEMD-95-1, Jan.  30, 1995). 


*** End of document. ***