Department of Health and Human Servces

OFFICE OF

INSPECTOR GENERAL

TIME EXTENSIONS AND FUNDING

SUPPLEMENTS FOR OHDS

DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

VlCl. 
Richard P. Kusserow 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OEI-04-89-00801 
cl3a  OFFICE OF INSPECfOR GENERA

The mission of the Offce of Inspector General (DIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 
amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Servces' (HHS) 
programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This 
statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and 
inspections conducted by three DIG operating components: the Office of Audit Servces, the 
Office of Investigations, and the Offce of Evaluation and Inspections. The DIG also informs 
the Secretary of HHS of program, and management problems, and recommends courses to 
correct them. 
OFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICE 
The DIG's Offce of Audit Servces (OAS) provides all auditing services for HHS, either by 
conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. 
Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in 
carryng out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent 
assessments of HHS programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and 
mismanagement and to promote economy and effciency throughout the Department. 
OFFICE OF INSTIGATIONS 
The DIG's Offce of Investigations (01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative 
investigations of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of 
unjust enrichment by providers. The investigative efforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions 
administrative sanctions, or civil money penalties. The 01 also oversees State Medicaid fraud 
control units which investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in 
the Medicaid program. 
AN 
OFFICE OF EVALUATION  INSPECfONS 
The DIG's Offce of Evaluation and Inspections (DEI) conducts short-term management and 
program evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department 
the Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection 
reports generate rapid, accurate, and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability, 
and effectiveness of departmental programs. 
DEI's Atlanta Regional Office staff prepared this report under the direction of Jesse J. 
Flowers, Regional Inspector General, and Chris Koehler, Deputy Regional Inspector General. 
Principal DEI staff included: 
Ruth Reiser  Susan Hardwick, Headquarters 
Jim Wilson  Barbara Tedesco, Technical 
Christopher Anglin  Support Staff  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY

PUROSE 
To determine the (1) extent and characteristics of Coordinated Discretionary Funds 
Program grants that received time extensions and funding supplements, (2) reasons for 
approving multiple extensions and supplements, and (3) whether the Office of Human 
Development Servces followed requirements in approving time extensions and funding 
supplements. 
BACKGROUN 
The Office of Human Development Servces (OHDS) established the Coordinated 
Discretionary Funds Program (CDP) in 1982 to coordinate research, training and 
demonstration grant projects that cut across OHDS agencies. The CDP is intended to 
provide specified time limit funding, rather than ongoing funding for social servces. 
Time extensions and funding supplements for CDP grants must be approved by 
OHDS funding agencies -
Administration on Aging,

Administration for Children, Youth and Families 
Administration on Developmental Disabilities 
Administration for Native Americans, and 
Office of Policy, Planning and Legislation. 
In August 1991, all OHDS agencies except the Administration on Aging (AoA) 
merged with the Family Support Administration, forming the Administration for 
Children and Familes (ACF). 
METHODOLOGY 
To determine the extent and characteristics of CDP grants that received time 
extensions and funding supplements, we examined 454 grants (1) awarded in fiscal 
years 1986, 1987 and 1988 by central offices of OHDS agencies, and (2) closed-out by 
October 1990. To determine the reasons for approval of multiple extensions and 
supplements and OHDS adherence to its requirements, we reviewed 47 grant fies 
selected through stratified random sampling from 97 grants that had received two or 
more time extensions or funding supplements. For each grant in the sample, we 
reviewed the official grant fies and interviewed grants officers when needed to clarify 
and understand material.  FIINGS

Ti 
exenns 
were commn for CDP 
grants. 
About 58 percent of the 454 grants reviewed had received time extensions, but three-
fourths had only a single extension of short duration. 
The reasons for multiple time extensions were either to complete or to expand the 
original scope of work. Those grantees receiving multiple time extensions to complete 
their work frequently reported that their award notices had arrived at the end of a 
fiscal year -- only weeks or days prior to scheduled start dates -- causing them to get a 
late start. The majority of new CDP awards are made in the last quarter of a fiscal 
year. 
Few CDP grants received fuing supplements. 
OHDS staff generall followed reqirements for approving both multiple ti exenns 
and fuing supplements. 
RECOMMNDATION 
ACF and AoA shoul award CDP grants earlier in a  awarding the 
ne  fical year rather than 
majority of  grants in the lat qurter. 
Such practice will allow needed start-up or lead time for grantees to begin projects on 
schedule. Further, it should decrease the number of grants that receive time 
extensions due to late starts. We recognize that ACF and AoA schedules for 
announcing, reviewing, and approving grants wil need to be revised to implement this 
recommendation. 
COMMNT 
The draft report was circulated for comment to the Administration for Children and 
Familes (ACF) and the Administration on Aging. Both agencies concurred 
with the 
findings and recommendation and are taking steps to award grants prior to the fourth 
quarter. 
The ACF agreed with our recommendation on the basis of improving management of 
its workload rather than decreasing the number of extensions due to late starts. 
believe the recommendation could have both impacts -- improving agency workload 
management, and precluding grantees from requesting extensions due to late notice of 
grant awards. In response to ACF's technical comments, we made changes to clarify 
our information where necessary.  ..................................................................................... . 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  ..  . ..  ..  ..  ..  ....  
. ..  ..  ..  ..  ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ....    ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ...   ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  .. .. . 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

E)O 
INODUCfON 
FIINGS 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 
Time Extensions Were Common for CDP Grants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 
Few CDP Grants Received Funding Supplements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 
OHDS Generally Followed Requirements 
for Approving Extensions and Supplements 
RECOMMNDATION 
AGENCY COMMNT 
ENDNOTE 
APPENDICE 
A: Actual Length of CDP Grants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A
B: Number of Time Extensions 

B .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C: Extensions and Supplements by Type of Grant  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. C
D: 
Extensions and Supplements by Type of Grantee  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D
E: Number of Funding Supplements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E
F: Summary of OHDS Grant Awards and Supplements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. F
G: Agency Comments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G INTRODUCTION

PUROSE 
To determine the (1) extent and characteristics of Coordinated Discretionary Funds 
Program grants that received time extensions and funding supplements, (2) reasons for 
approving multiple extensions and supplements, and (3) whether the Office of Human 
Development Servces followed requirements in approving time extensions and funding 
supplements. 
BACKGROUN 
The Office of Human Development Servces (OHDS) administered the Coordinated 
Discretionary Funds Program which combined grant management support for 
discretionary grant programs of all OHDS agencies. In August 1991, after we started 
our inspection, OHDS reorganized. All OHDS agencies, except the Administration on 
Aging, merged with the Family Support Administration, forming the Administration 
for Children and Familes (ACF). 
The findings and information in this report are applicable to both the OHDS 
components of the newly formed ACF and AoA. 
Ofce of Humn Development Servces 
The OHDS included four program agencies and an Office of Policy. They were: 
Administration for Children, Youth and Families (ACY), 
Administration on Aging (AoA), 
Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD), 
Administration for Native Americans (ANA), and 
Office of Policy, Planning and Legislation (OPPL). 
Each program agency served a separate client population. One program agency, AoA, 
reported directly to the Secretary, but received grants management support from 
OHDS. 
Fun 
Coordinated Dicretionary  Program 
In 1982, OHDS created the Coordinated Discretionary Funds Program (CDP) to 
coordinate research, training and demonstration grant projects that cut across OHDS 
agencies. 
Under CDP, all agencies shared one grants management office, a single solicitation 
announcement, and a central computerized information system in OHDS' Office of  , "
Management Servces (OMS). However, CDP maintained each OHDS program 
agency and OPPL identity for each grant. Each grant had (1) a project officer 
assigned by the appropriate program agency or OPPL, and (2) a grants officer 
assigned from OMS. These two individuals were responsible for administering CDP 
grants. Beginning in 1989, AoA issued separate grant announcements, but continued 
to use other OMS servces. 
Most CDP grants awarded from 1986 through 1988 and included in our study were 
made by ACYF. The chart below shows the percentage of CDP grants made by each 
OHDS program agency and OPPL. 
DISTRIBUTION OF CDP GRATS BY AGENCY 
(24%) 
ADA 
DPPL (4%) 
ACYF (64%) 
ANA (5%) 
ADD (3%) 
In each grant announcement, OHDS specified Federal Register, intended 
, in the 
duration for each grant project, and the maxmum amount of funding. OHDS usually 
specified the grant time periods as 12, 17, 24 or 36 months. Further, OHDS 
announcements stated  The CDP is not intended to provide funds for ongoing social 
servces, or to serve as a supplemental source of funds for local activities which need 
operating subsidies. 
The OHDS classified most CDP grants into three  , demonstration 
tyes -- research
and training. The tyical applicants were state and local governments, private and 
public non-profit agencies, and educational-research organizations. 
Procedures for Approvig Time Exensons and Funing Supplements 
Grantees may request extensions of time and supplemental funding. OHDS advises 
grantees of the total length of time for their projects and the amount of Federal funds 
for the first budget period. A budget period is usually 12 months, representing a time  segment into which a grant project is divided for funding purposes. Both the 
appropriate agency project officer and OHDS grants officer must review and approve 
grantee requests before a grant time period can be extended or additional funds 
granted. 
The project and grants officers have authority to recommend approval of (1) no-cost 
extensions of time up to 12 months, and (2) supplemental funding up to 25 percent of 
the total approved grant for a current budget period. 
The director of grants management in OHDS' OMS must approve no-cost extensions 
over 12 months.

Grantees who request funding supplements exceeding 25 percent of a current budget 
period must compete with other applicants for available funds. However, if project 
and grants management officers determine that a grant project is of outstanding merit 
the Assistant Secretary for Human Development Servces (ASHD) or the 
Commissioner on Aging may waive the competitive requirement. 
A revised Notice of Financial Assistance Awarded (FAA) is OHDS' official 
notification to grantees that their requested time extension and funding supplement 
was approved. The FAA is signed by the grants officer, and commissioner and budget 
officer of the appropriate OHDS program agency. 
Prevous Stuies

Both the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the U.S. House of Representatives 
Committee on Government Operations have completed studies on the CDP grant 
2 These 
program. studies showed that monitoring and oversight of OHDS 
discretionary grants were insufficient. However, the studies did not specifically address 
procedures for approving time extensions and funding supplements.

AN 
SCOPE  METHODOLOGY 
We examined 454 CDP grants (1) awarded in fiscal years 1986, 1987 or 1988 by 
central offices of AoA, ACYF, ADD, ANA, and OPPL, and (2) closed-out by October 
1990. We excluded ACYF' s Head Start grants and ANA' s Social & Economic 
Development grants because, unlike other CDP grants, the same grantees are 
frequently refunded from year to year. 
We analyzed descriptive data from OHDS' Grants Management Information System 
(GMIS) to determine the extent and characteristics of all 454 grants that received 
either time extensions or funding supplements. We analyzed the characteristics of 
grants to determine if there were differences in program agency,  , tye of
tye of grant
grantee, and size of grant for grants with extensions or supplements.  To determine (1) reasons for approval of extensions and funding supplements and 
(2) if OHDS followed its requirements, we reviewed a stratified random sample of 47 
of the 454 grants. We stratified the 454 grants by agency and by those grants that had 
received two or more time extensions or a supplement. Ninety-seven of the 454 grants 
had more than one time extension or a funding supplement. 
From the stratified universe of 97 grants, we selected a sample of 55 that had received 
either multiple time extensions or supplemental funds. We randomly selected half of 
the grants in AoA and ACYF. Because of the small number of grants in ADD, ANA, 
and OPPL that had experienced either multiple time extensions or supplemental 
funding, we selected 100 percent. OHDS' OMS could locate files for 47 of the 55 
grants included in our sample. Our stratified universe contained 38 from AoA, 34 
from ACYF, 4 from ADD, 8 from ANA and 7 from OPPL? Our sample of 47 grants 
contained 19 from AoA, 12 from ACYF, 4 from ADD, 7 from ANA and 5 from 
OPPL. 
For each grant in the sample, we reviewed the official grants files and intervewed 
grants officers when needed to clarify and understand material.  FINDINGS

TI 
GRA 
EXTNSIONS WERE COMMON FOR CDP 
Ti 
Exent and Legth of  Exensns 
The OHDS approved time extensions for 259 of the 454 grants we reviewed -- about 
57 percent. Of the 259 approved extensions, 184 had only a single extension -- about 
71 percent. The remaining 75 grants received more than one extension, as the 
following chart ilustrates. 
GRAS 
PERCENTAGE OF 454 CDP 
WITH TIME EXTENSIONS

No Extensions (43%)

195 
Multiple Extensions (17%) 
Single Exension 
184 
percentages ar rounded to the neaest whole number 
The initial contracts for most grants were 24 months or less which is in accord with the 
Federal Register.  Although grants with extensions 
grant lengths advertised in the 

usually exceeded the advertised guidelines, 71 percent of all 454 grants finished within 
24 months. Time extension for grants that received only one extension averaged four 
months. For  , the extension period averaged nine 
grants receiving multiple extensions
months. OHDS agencies seldom approved extensions exceeding 12 months. Only 
AoA had more than one such case. Appendix A 
gives the actual length of grants 
including extension periods, for grants approved by each OHDS agency.  Charactertics of Grants wih Time Exenons 
The percentage of grants extended in each OHDS agency varied widely. AoA grants 
for example, were much more likely to receive an extension than ACYF grants. 
The following chart shows variation in single and multiple time extensions by the four 
OHDS program agencies and Office of Policy. Appendix B shows the number of 
grants with extensions for each agency.

GRAS 
EXTENDED BY ODDS AGENCY 
100% 
Single 
85%  Multiple 
82% 
80% 
62% 
60% 
40% 
20% 
AOA  ACYF  ADD  ANA  OPPL 
Granting Agency 
There was less variation by tye of grant or grantee. One tye of grant was not more 
likely to receive time extensions than another type. Appendix C gives the number of 
grants with extensions by type of grant for each OHDS agency. 
However, there was a statistically significant difference by type of grantee. 
Government grantees were more likely to get extensions than educational-research 
4 The relationship 
organizations, public non-profit, or private agencies. between tye
of grantee and time extension for all agencies combined is shown in the following 
chart. However, this relationship varies by OHDS agency, as appendix D ilustrates.  Type of Grantee  Percent with Exensions 
Government 
Educational 
Public non-profit 
Private agencies

Ti 
Reasons for Multiple  Exenons 
The most common reason reported by grantees for requesting time extensions was to 
complete their initial grant workplan. Grantees for the 75 grants that received more 
than one such extension tyically justified the extensions based on 
grant execution started late 
sampling delays 
product development and review by consultants took longer than anticipated 
delays due to staff ilness or recruitment problems, and 
state legislative requirements, such as getting bids for printing, delayed 
performance. 
Grantees reported that award notices frequently are received only weeks or days prior 
to scheduled start dates, causing them to get a late start. As a result, more time was 
needed to complete grant workplans. The OMS must allocate CDP funds for each 
fiscal year by year s end. The schedule for publishing CDP announcements and 
reviewing grant applications has resulted in a time crunch at the end 
of a fiscal year. 
Accordingly, the majority of new CDP awards are not made until the last quarter of 
the fiscal year. Of the grantees in our sample requesting time extensions due to late 
arrival of the award notice, three-fourths of the grants were awarded in the last 
quarter of the fiscal year. 
The second most common reason reported by grantees for multiple time extensions 
was to expand original scope of work by adding new and more activities. Examples of 
such expansion requests include widening dissemination efforts, allowing a longer 
follow-up measurement period, expanding training to include more volunteers 
providing more workshops, and adding extra data sources.  GRA 
FEW CDP  RECEIVD FUING SUPPLEMENT 
Exent and Size of Funing Supplemts 
The OHDS approved supplemental funding for 38 of the 454 CDP grants we reviewed 
-- about nine percent. The supplemental funding for these grants represented three 
percent of all CDP grant funds approved during the period from 1986 through 1988 
and included in this study. 
Twenty-six of the 38 supplemented grants also received a time extension. 
The following chart shows the percentage of grants that all OHDS agencies combined 
approved for funding supplements. Appendix E shows the number of grants with 
supplemental funding for each OHDS agency. 
PERCENTAGE OF 454 CDP GRATS 
FUING 
WITH  SUPPLEMENTS 
No Supplements (92%)

416 
Supplement Only (3%)

upplement & Ex. (6%)

percntages are rounded to the neaest whole number 
The grants ranged from an average of $86 000 in ACYF to $216 000 in OPPL. The 
size of funding supplements ranged from an average of $21 000 for ANA grants to 
$96 000 for ADD. 
Only 38 of the 454 grants received supplemental funding; however, almost half (18) of 
the supplements exceeded 25 percent of the total approved grant budget, requiring 
approval by the Assistant Secretary for Human Development Servces (ASHD) or the 
Commissioner on Aging. The percentage of supplements that exceeded the 25 
percent threshold varied widely among the program agencies, as shown in appendix F.  Appendix F also shows the initial award amount, supplemental funding amount 
average award and supplement, and supplement amount as a percentage of total 
award amount for each OHDS agency. 
Characteritics of Grants with Funing Supplements 
, the extent each OHDS agency supplemented grants with 
As with time extensions
added funding varied considerably (See chart below). Likewise, the frequency of 
funding supplements varied by size of grant. However, there was very little variation 
between grants with supplements by tye of grant or grantee. 
100 
GRAS 
RECEIVING FUDING SUPPLEMENTS
BY OHDS AGENCY 
Supplement Only 
Supplement & Exension 
35% 
ACYF 
AOA  ADD  ANA  OPPL 
Granting Agency 
In each agency, larger grants received a supplement more frequently than smaller 
ones. Only 48 percent of the 454 grants had contracts exceeding $100 000; however 
89 percent of the funding supplements were for grants that originally exceeded 
$100 000. 
There was no significant difference in percent of grants receiving funding supplements 
when analyzed by tye of grant and tye of grantee. 
Reasons for Funing Supplements 
Grantees most commonly requested supplemental funding to expand scope of work. 
Examples of such expansions include adding a control group, investigating a new 
problem area, conducting additional workshops, or expanding the number of trainees.  Split-funding was the other major reason for funding supplements. Prior to 1988 
OHDS occasionally awarded more grants in a fiscal year than could be fully funded. 
OHDS promised grantees that they would provide the remainder of the funds in the 
next fiscal year. Under this practice, called split-funding, grants received only a 
portion of the amount promised in the first budget period. OHDS agencies provided 
the remainder in the following fiscal year in the form of a funding supplement. 
Funding supplements due to split-funding always exceeded 25 percent of the approved 
budget. Split-funding no longer occurs. 
OHDS GENERAY FOLLWED REQUIMENT IN APPROVIG 
AN FUING 
EXTNSIONS  SUPPLEMENT 
Exensons 
Approvals for Time 
The official Notice of Financial Assistance Awarded (FAA) had required signatures 
S of 75 OHDS 
for all grants with multiple time extensions. However, for 36 percent
grants with multiple time extensions, at least one of the three required signatures was 
late. The FAA form was not dated until after the extension period had begun. 
such cases where a grantee proceeds with a grant project prior to receiving official 
approval, it is at their own risk. 
All grants with time extensions over 12 months contained the OMS grants 
management office director s justification. 
Approvals for Funing Supplements 
All required FAA signatures for funding supplements were in the fies. 
Eighteen grants received funding supplements that exceeded 25 percent of current 
approved budget. The required authorizations for supplements exceeding 25 percent 
of budget were in the fies for grants in AoA, ACY, and ANA 
For ADD grants, one of the three funding supplements that exceeded 25 percent of 
current budget did not have the required ASHD approval. The other two had the 
required approval. In OPPL, three of four funding supplements that exceeded the 25 
percent threshold did not have a memo from the ASHD authorizing the high-cost 
supplement, as required. Each of these four funding supplements that lacked ASHD 
approval was due to split-funding. 
None of the 18 grants that exceeded 25 percent of budget were required to recompete 
for funding. Each grantee was given approval to deviate from the competition 
requirement.  RECOMMENDA TIONS

The following recommendation targets only those tlme extensions attributed to late 
arrival of award notices. 
ACF and AoA should award CDP grants earlier in a fisca year rather than awardig 
the majority of new grants in the last quarter. 
Such practice will allow for needed start-up or lead time 
for grantees to begin projects 
on schedule. Further, it should decrease the number of grants that receive time 
extensions due to late starts. We recognize that ACF and AoA schedules for 
announcing, reviewing and approving grants will need to be revised to implement this 
recommendation.  AGENCY COMMENTS

The Administration for Children and Familes (ACF) and the Administration on Aging 
commented on the draft report. Their comments and our responses are summarized 
below. Appendix G contains the full text of the agencies' comments. 
ACF Commnts 
The ACF agreed with the thrust of the recommendation from an agency workload 
management perspective. ACF has already implemented several steps to accelerate 
its grant program announcement and evaluation process. 
However, the ACF does not believe that altering grant award schedules will affect the 
extent of multiple extensions of project periods. ACF commented that multiple 
extensions due to late arrival of awards is not widespread. The agency partly based 
this opinion on our finding that only a portion of the 17 percent of grants with 
multiple extensions were due to late awards. Further, the agency noted that grantees 
with well planned projects have start-up time built into their proposed project periods. 
The start-up time allows grantees to stay on schedule even when the period between 
notice of award and the start date is very short. 
OIG Response 
We believe that ACF's acceleration of its grant award notices wil not only improve 
agency workload management, but also preclude grantees from requesting extensions 
due to late notice of grant awards. The problem of extensions due to late arrival of 
award notices is more widespread than just that reported by us for grants with 
multiple extensions. Many grantees that received single extensions also reported that 
their award notices were received only weeks or days prior to scheduled start dates 
causing them to get a late start. Further, we are not suggesting that ACF tailor its 
grant awards to meet the varyng preferences of each 
individual grant applicant. 
In response to ACF's technical comments, we made changes to clarify our information 
where necessary. 
AoA Comments 
The AoA concurred with our recommendation. The agency is making every effort to 
schedule announcements, review and approve grants prior to the fourth quarter. Since 
1989, AoA has awarded most new grants in the third quarter, except in 1991. 
OIG Response 
We believe AoA' s efforts to award grants prior to the fourth quarter 
will result in 
fewer grant extensions due to late starts.  ENDNOTES

U. S. Department of Health and Human Servces, Office of Human Development 
Servces HDS Discretionary Grants 
, Grants and Contracts Management Division. 
Administration Manual.  (HDS/GAM TN 86-
1), p. 1
U. S. Department of Health and Human Servces, Office of Inspector General 
Review of Selected Practices in Managing Discretionary Grants. 
Office of Audit. 

Office of Human Development Servces. (Audit Control Number 12-33129). 
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General 
Management Advisory Report: Awarding and 
Office of Audit Servces. 

Monitoring Discretionary Grants. Human Development Servces
. (Number A-12-
89-00142). 
U. S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations. 
Mismanagement of the Office of Human Development Servces: Undermining 
Programs for Children. the Disabled. and the Elderly. (Washington, D. c.: U. 
Government Printing Office, 1987, 100th Congress, 1st Session, House Report 
100-57). 
Six additional grants with multiple time extensions or funding supplements were 
closed-out after we selected our sample. The additional grants are included in the 
study universe.

Our chi-square test yielded a value of 17.29 which indicates a difference among all 
tyes of grantees at the 99 percent confidence level. Further, our t test showed 
that (1) at the 99 percent confidence level, government grantees were more likely 
to get time extensions than private agency grantees; (2) at the 95 percent 
confidence level, government grantees were more likely to get time extensions 
than educational-research grantees; and (3) at the 90 percent confidence level 
government grantees were more likely to get extensions than public non-profit 
agency grantees. 
At the 95 percent confidence level, the percentage of grants with late 
authorization signatures can fall in an interval of 27 percent to 44 percent based 
on the 43 grants in our sample that received multiple time extensions.  APPENDIX A

GRA 
AcrAL LENGTH OF CDP 
YES 
FISCAL  19861988 
Granting  oe=17 Mos.  18-24 Mos.  25-36 Mos.  36 Mos.  Tot. 
Agency 
NO.  NO.  NO.  NO.  NO. 
AOA  111 
ACYF  150  287 
ADD 
ANA 
OPPL 
Total for  102  219  118  454 
OHDS  APPENDIX 

TI 
NUER  GRA DURG 
OF  EXTNSIONS FOR CDP 
YES 
FISCAL  1986-1988 
Granting  Total  Grants With 
Agency  Grants 
No Extensions  Single Extension  Multiple 
Extensions 
No.  No.  No. 
AOA  111 
ACYF  287  157  102 
ADD 
ANA 
OPPL 
TOTAL  454  195  184  APPENDIX 

OHDS CDP GRA EXSIONS AN SUPPLE BY TYE OF GRA 
Demonstra- Research  Training  Servce  Other  Total 
tion 
ADMIS1RTION ON AGING 
Single Exension 
Multiple 
Exensions 
Supplement Only 
Both Exension 
and Supplement 
No Exensions 
or Supplements 
Total for AOA 
Single Exension 
Multiple 
Exensions 
Supplement Only 
Both Exension 
and Supplement 
No Exensions 
or Supplements 
Total for ACYF 
ADMIS1RTION ON DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILIT 
Single Exension 
Multiple 
Exensions 
Supplement Only 
Both Exension 
and Supplement 
No Exensions 
or Supplements 
Total for ADD 
C - 1
 OHDS CDP GRA EXTSIONS AN SUPPLEME BY TYE OF GRA

contiued 
Demonstra- Research  Training  Service  Other  Total 
tion 
ADMIS1RTION FOR NATI AMICANS 
Single Exension 
Multiple 
Exensions 
Supplement Only 
Both Exension 
and Supplement 
No Exensions 
or Supplements 
Total for ANA 
PLAG AN 
OFACE OF POLICY  LEGISlATION 
Single Exension 
Multiple 
Exensions 
Supplement Only 
Both Exension 
and Supplement 
No Exensions 
or Supplements 
Total for OPPL 
OHDS AGENCIE COMBIND 
Single Exension 
Multiple 
Exensions 
Supplement Only 
Both Exension 
and Supplement 
No Exensions 
or Supplements 
Total for OHDS 
C - 2  APPENDIX D

GRA 
OHDS CDP GRA EXNSIONS AN SUPPLEME BY TYE OF 
Gov  Public Non- Private  Educational  Total 
Profit  Agencies  Organizations 
ADMIS1RTION ON AGING 
Exensions 
Supplement Only 
Both Exension 
and Supplement 
No Exensions 
or Supplements 
Total for AOA  30 
63 43 
FAM 
ADMIS1RTION FOR CIDREN, YOUT AN 
Exensions 
Supplement Only 
Both Exension 
and Supplement 
No Exensions 
or Supplements 
Total for ACYF 
ADMIS1RTION ON DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILIT 
Exensions 
Supplement Only 
Both Exension 
and Supplement 
No Exensions 
or Supplements 
Total for ADD 
D - 1  GRA

OHDS CDP GRA EXSIONS AN SUPPLEME BY TYE OF 
contiued 
Govt.  Public Non- Private  Educational  Total 
Profit  Agencies  Organizations 
ADMISTRTION FOR NATI AMICANS 
Exensions 
Supplement Only 
Both Exension 
and Supplement 
No Exensions 
or Supplements 
Total for ANA 
PLAG AN 
OFFCE OF POLICY  LEGISLATION 
Exensions 
Supplement Only 
Both Exension 
and Supplement 
No Exensions 
or Supplements 
Total for OPPL 
OHDS AGENCIE COMBIND 
Extensions 
Supplement Only 
Both Exension 
and Supplement 
No Exensions 
or Supplements

Total for OHDS 
D - 2  APPENDIX 

NUER  FUING  GRA DURG 
OF  SUPPLEMENT FOR COP 
YES 
FISCAL  198198 
Granting  Total  Grants With 
Agency  Grants 
No Supplements  Supplement Only  Supplement and 
Exension 
No.  No.  No. 
AOA  111  100 
ACYF  287  275 
ADD 
ANA 
OPPL 
TOTAL  454  416 
E - 1
 APPENDIX 

SUMY  GRA AWARS AN FUING SUPPLEME 
OF OHDS 
(dollar in thousnds) 
Granting  # of  Grant  Avg.  # of  Total  Avg.  Supp. as  Supp. Over 
Agency  Grants  Awards  Award  Grants  Funding  Supp  %of  25% of 
With  Supp.  Award  Budget 
Supps. 
No. 
AOA  111  $17 596  $159  $498  $45 
ACYF  287  $24 802  $86  $332  $28 
ADD  694  $180  $382  $96 
ANA  014  $144  $85  $21 
OPPL  321  $216  $487  $70 
454  $52 427  $115  784  $47 
TOTAL 
including funding supplements 
F - 1
 APPENDIX G

DRA 
AGENCY COMMNT ON  REPORT 
G 
 , " 
" ' ~~~
(p.  ., 
"'"UU- H.uh J. UJ. .l.&LIH &. HU  lAN SERVICES 
'I 
"""ra 
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILlE 
March 23, 1992 
370 L'Enfant Promenade, S. 
Washington, D.C. 2047 
To: 
Richard P. Kusserow 
Inspector General

From: 
Jo Anne B. Barnhart 
Assistant Secretary f

Chiljren and Fam

' ie

nts on the Offi 
Subj ect : 
Comm 
of Inspector General'
Report: " s Draft
Time Extensions and Funding Supplements for 
OHDS Discretionary Grants
 OEI-04-89-00801 
We have reviewed the Inspector General'
s draft inspection report

Time Extensions and Funding Supplements for OHDS Discretionary

Grants 
and find that it accurately reflects the former 
experience in granting time extensions and supplemental  OHDS'
funds to
grantees during fiscal years 1986 through 
1988. We have the
following comments with regard to the findings and the one

recommendation in the report.

OIG Finding:

Time extensions were common for CDP grants

Although 58 percent of grants received time extensions

three-fourths had only a single extension of short 
duration. 
Grantees receiving multiple time extensions frequently

mentioned that their award notices had arrived at the end 

a fiscal year -- only weeks or days prior to scheduled start

start. 
dates -- causing them to get a late 
The majority of
yneewa rC.D P aiwia)r ds are made in the last quarter of a fiscal
ACF Comment: 
The report bases its recommendation on the above finding. It
should be pointed out that of the 454 grants reviewed for 
s study, only 75  the
GIG' 
(17%) received multiple time extensions.
Moreover 
, these 75 grantees indicated at least five separate
factors associated with not being able to complete project work

plans as originally scheduled. 
Only one of these factors related
to "late" execution of the grant award. 
(The others were
completely independent of grantor agency actions.

Assuming that

each of the five factors was equally responsible for causing

delays on the part of these 75 grantees
, it is not likely that

mc:re than 
approximately 15 out of  454LgJFP  e*e would 
c1te the Federal grant award date as a tA8to 
Gas  ?l!t 3. 3% 
ated w1th 
their requiring multiple time extensions. 
:':J';I
1-1:.".1l .rJ""  
N!  .:0 :2" 
031\!3 
3CJ  2 - Richard P. Kusserow

page 
secondly, the report fails to recognize that it is infeasible to

schedule grant awards to meet the varying preferences of

individual applicants and, equally important, that any set

schedule for awarding grants will please some applicants but

discomfit others. Assuming that initiation of project activities

is dependent on Federal funding, grant applicants should make no

presumptions concerning when they can actually begin implementing

their projects until they are notified that they are funded.
Well-
planned projects that are dependent on Federal funds for 
their initiation should build start-up time into their proposed

project periods. The vast majority of our grantees appear to

understand these requirements and complete their proj 
ects without 
requesting multiple time extensions attributable to "late
" grant

award dates. 
OIG Recommendation: 
ACF and AoA should award CDP grants earlier in a fiscal year

rather than awarding the majority of new grants in the last

quarter. 
Such practice would allow for needed start-up or lead time

for grantees to begin projects on schedule. This practice
should decrease the number of time extensions due to late

starts. We recognize that ACF and AoA schedules for

announcing, reviewing and approving grants will need to be

revised to accomplish this recommendation. 
ACF Comment: 
We concur. Al 
though we agree with the thrust of this 
recommendation from an agency workload management perspective, we

do not believe, based on the evidence, that the problem cited in

the OIG Report is widespread or that altering grant award

schedules will affect the incidence of multiple extensions of

project 
periods. We are concerned that the majority of our CDP 
grants are being awarded in the fourth quarter and we have

already taken steps to address this concern. 
At a recent ACF Senior Staff jRegional Administrators ' meeting, we

discussed how we could accelerate our grant program announcements

process. I 
have already implemented some of the recommendations
from this meeting. 
For example, the ACF publication schedules
for announcing, reviewing and approving discretionary and formula 
grants have been revised. New deadlines have been established

for the submission and review of program announcements by ACF

off ices. 
A six-
week limit has been placed on the evaluation
process 
(from the closing date of the announcement to the 
submission of a decision package (s) to the front office). These 
new requirements were outlined in my memorandum to ACF Senior

Staff 
, dated November 12 , 1991.  (p. 
e 3 - Richard P. Kusserow

ents 
echnical CO 
The report contains several references to discussions with

gran7t)ee s on their reasons for requesting time extensions.

These discussions are reflected in the OIG 
recommenda tion and, as such, should be added to4 t.h e

description of the methodology on pages i and  Reference 
to discussions with grants officers (p. 4) should also be
referenced on page i. 
To fully reflect the findings discussed in the body of the

report 
, we suggest that two statements be added to the 
ii: 
executi ve summary on page 
Under the heading: "Time extensions were common for CDP

grants  state: 
" a third bullet should be added to 
. the 
"After late starts  most frequent reason for 
requesting a time extension was to expand the original

scope of work by adding new and more activities" (see
page 7). 
Under the heading: "Few CDP grants received funding

supplements, " we suggest that the following statement 
be added: "When granted, supplements most commonly were

used to expand the scope of work" (see page 9). 
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the recommendations

in this report. If I can be of further assistance in this

regard 
, please let me know.  ~~~
""''''''' - ..
Sec 
HU  Of 
DEPARTM OF HETI &  SERVICE  of th 
( E  Admtron on Agg 
201 
Wasgt, D.C. 
APR 'e 

TO:  Richard P. Kusserow 
Inspector General

FROM:  u. s. Commissioner on Aging 
SUBJECT:  Time Extensions and Funding supplements 
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report on the

Time Extensions and Funding supplements" on discretionary grants

at the Administration on Aging (AoA) for Fiscal Years 1986

through 1988. We are pleased that the requirements for approval 
followed. 
However, you 
of time extensions and supplements were 
recommended that AoA award CDP grants earlier in a fiscal year

rather than awarding the majority of new grants in the last

quarter. We concur, and understand this recommendation is of

most importance. 
During the time period of the study AoA was a part of the CDP

process , however, since 1989 we issued our own Discretionary 
Funds Program announcement and with the exception of 1991 most

new grants were awarded in the third quarter.

AoA is making every effort to schedule announcing, reviewing and

approving grants prior to the fourth quarter.

1:1 
77\111;7'"'
C. ' (. 00, 
.0 0  l.OUI 
.. Vr-Y':jO "I',  ,I.I  .:.n.  :.2..", ..;J.. 
G31\1383B