United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

June 1998 GRANT PROGRAMS

Design Features Shape

Flexibility,

Accountability, and

Performance

Information

GAO/GGD-98-137

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

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 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

Page 1 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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.

Page 2 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

Background

Categorical Programs,

Block Grants, and

Flexibility

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

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).

Page 3 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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.

The Results Act,

Performance

Measurement, and

Accountability

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

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.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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.

Applying the Results Act to

Flexible Programs

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).

Page 5 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

Scope and

Methodology

Definition and Selection of

Flexible Programs

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.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

Table 1: Programs Included in Our Study

Department Agency Program

Education OESE Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities—State Grantsa

Title VI Innovative Education Program Strategies

Health and Human Services

(HHS)

ACF Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG)

Child Welfare Services State Grantsa

Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)

Social Services Block Grant

AOA Special Programs for the Aging—Nutrition Servicesa

Special Programs for the Aging—Supportive Services and Senior Centersa

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

Development (HUD)

CPD Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)—Entitlement Program

Community Development Block Grants—States

Justice BJA Byrne Formula (Drug Control and System Improvement) Grantsa

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

Transportation (DOT) FHWA National Highway System (NHS)a

Surface Transportation Program (STP)

FTA Urbanized Area Formula Programa

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

aNot formally designated a block grant.

Source: GAO analysis based on grant program directories.

Page 7 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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 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).

Page 8 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

Figure 1: Performance Spectrum and Measurement

Government policies

and priorities

Department/agency

mission, goals

Program mandate

and objectives

Policy and

program

context

Five

measurable

aspects of

performance

 Inputs

Dollars

Staff

Technology

Capital

 Outputs

Goods and services

Other products

 directed at external

 clients

 Outcomes

Client benefits

Program

 consequences

Impact

Net impact due

 to program

Underlying

dimensions

of performance

measurement

 Measures of effectiveness

Client reach

Client satisfaction

Social/economic impacts

Contribution to objectives

 Measures of productivity

Quantity(input/output ratios)

Quality (according to standards)

Cost (unit cost of output)

 Measures of economy

Budget variance

Resource utilization

 Activities

Work tasks

Functions

Program

 support

a

aOMB 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.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

Data Sources and Data

Analysis

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

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.)

Page 10 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

Flexibility Takes Many

Forms

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

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

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

Page 11 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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

Flexibility Distribution to subrecipients Choice of activities

Allocation of grant

funds across activities

Limited Grant specifies substate recipients

and amounts per recipient 

(7 programs)

Grant allows only one major activity 

(7 programs)

Caps or set-asides apply to two or

more activities (7 programs)

Moderate Recipients are specified, but state

sets amounts (4 programs)

Grant allows at least several activities,

but places constraints on choice

among them (9 programs)

Caps or set-asides apply to one

activity (5 programs)

Broad State selects recipients and

determines amounts (10 programs)

Grant allows unconstrained choice

among a broad range of activities 

(5 programs)

No caps or set-asides (9 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.

Page 12 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

Accountability Provisions

Present a Mixed Picture

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.

Program-Specific Measures

of Performance Are

Limited

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.

5

All agencies and programs must submit certain standard government reports, such as reports under

the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990.

Page 13 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

Fourteen programs had service output data, and of these, only five

obtained outcome data from program operations.

Variation Reflects Key

Design Features

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

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

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).

Page 14 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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.

Nature of Operation: As a

Program or a Funding

Stream

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.

Page 15 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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

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

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.

Page 16 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

Table 3: Grant Design Features in Combination

National

objectives

Nature of

operations

Diversity of

activities Examples Comments

PerformancerelatedProgram Single major

activity

Job Training Partnership Act,

titles II-A and II-C

Special Programs for the

Aging—Nutrition Services

Federal role is substantial.

State or local flexibility is narrowest.

Most likely to include national service outcome

objectives.

Most likely to have program performance

information at the national level.

Funding

stream

Single major

activity to

diverse

activities

Child Care and Development

Block Grant

Preventive Health and Health

Services Block Grant

Federal-state balance is established case by case.

Flexibility varies with diversity of activities.

Performance objectives and measures may be state

or local.

Less likely to have national performance information.

Fiscal Program (or

project)

Diverse

activities

Community Development

Block Grant—Entitlement

Byrne Formula Grants

State or local level is dominant.

Flexibility is broad.

Likely to have performance and evaluation

information at the project level.

Funding

stream

Single major

activity to

diverse

activities

Title VI: Innovative Education

Program Strategies

Social Services Block Grant

Federal role is confined to providing funds.

Flexibility varies with diversity of activities.

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

Page 17 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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

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.

Page 18 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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.

Balancing Flexibility

and Accountability

and Implications for

Information

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

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

8

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

Page 19 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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.

Strengthening

Accountability and

Information at the State

Level

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

Page 20 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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.

Information to

Support Program

Decisions at the

Federal Level

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

9

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

1997).

10See Safe and Drug-Free Schools: Balancing Accountability With State and Local Flexibility

(GAO/HEHS-98-3, Oct. 10, 1997).

Page 21 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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.

Program Evaluation

Studies Answer a Variety

of Questions

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.

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

1995).

Page 22 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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.

12Larry L. Orr and others, Does Training for the Disadvantaged Work? Evidence from the National

JTPA Study (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1996).

13Michael 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).

14E. 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).

15Christopher Walker and others, “Federal Funds, Local Choices: An Evaluation of the Community

Development Block Grant Program” (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1994).

Page 23 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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.

Research Provides

Information on the

Effectiveness of Methods

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

Page 24 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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

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.

Page 25 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

Many Programs Use

Sources in Combination

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

Page 26 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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

Concluding

Observations and

Design Framework

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

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.

16See GAO/PEMD-95-1.

Page 27 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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

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

Page 28 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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.

Page 29 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

Figure 2: Grant Design Framework

Define 

national

objectives

Yes

Primarily

Performance

Specify national

fiscal objectives

Primarily

Fiscal

Yes

Are project

level performance

objectives 

needed?

Yes

Projects?

No

No

Design provisions

to match fiscal 

objectives

(check for 

unintended

effects)

Identify fiscal 

data

needed for 

accountability

Reconsider

Yes

Specify national

performance

objectives

Design provisions to 

match objectives

Check for 

unintended 

consequences and

revise if needed

Feasible to

achieve 

objectives through 

state or local

programs?

No

Is a national 

program needed 

to meet 

objectives?

Provide for state

or local 

performance

objectives and 

measures if

needed

Identify

 information

needed for grantee

performance 

accountability

Grant operates

as a funding

stream

Will state or 

local activities

take project

form?

Identify project

performance data

needed for

accountability

No

A

B

C

Yes

No

Page 30 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

Feasible to collect

performance

data from grantees?

Is additional

information needed

for program

oversight?

No

Yes Yes

Yes

Will contribution

of federal funds

be distinguishable?

Is it possible

to collect data

at the project

level?

Set project

reporting

requirements

Set programwide

performance

measurement 

and reporting 

requirements

Collect fiscal

data

Set 

Requirements

Feasible to

collect data

from providers?

Additional

fiscal

information

needed?

Collect

performance

data

Identify other

information and

arrange for its

provision

No

Yes

Identify and 

provide alternative 

mechanisms

for overseeing 

performance 

accountability

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

A

B

C

Key tasks

Page 31 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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

Page 32 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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

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

Page 33 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
B-277438 

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.

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

Page 34 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Page 35 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Program Summaries

38

Byrne Formula (Drug Control and System Improvement) Grants 38

Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) 39

Child Welfare Services State Grants 41

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)—Entitlement

Program

42

Community Development Block Grants—States 44

Community Mental Health Services Block Grant 45

Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) 47

Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)—titles II-A and II-C 48

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) 49

Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant 51

National Highway System (NHS) 53

Preventive Health and Health Services (PHHS) Block Grant 54

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities—State Grants 55

Social Services Block Grant 57

Special Programs for the Aging—Nutrition Services 58

Special Programs for the Aging—

Supportive Services and Senior Centers

60

State and Community Highway Safety Grants 62

Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant 63

Surface Transportation Program (STP) 65

Title VI Innovative Education Program Strategies 66

Urbanized Area Formula Program 68

Appendix II 

Major Contributors to

This Report

70

Related GAO Products 72

Tables Table 1: Programs Included in Our Study 7

Table 2: Variations in Flexibility in Three Decision Areas 12

Table 3: Grant Design Features in Combination 17

Figures Figure 1: Performance Spectrum and Measurement 9

Figure 2: Grant Design Framework 30

Page 36 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Contents

Abbreviations

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

Page 37 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Byrne Formula (Drug

Control and System

Improvement) Grants

Federal Agency Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Department of Justice

Objectives To reduce and prevent illegal drug activity, crime, and violence and to

improve the functioning of the criminal justice system.

Nature 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

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

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

Page 38 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

contributed less than 1 percent of state and local criminal justice

expenditures.

Program-Specific

Performance Information

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

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)

Federal Agency Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and

Human Services

Objectives 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 Provides funds to states, territories, and tribes for child care services and

quality improvement and to increase the supply of child care.

Page 39 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Activities and Related

Constraints

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

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

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

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.

Page 40 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Child Welfare Services

State Grants

Federal Agency Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and

Human Services

Objectives 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 Supports state child welfare programs. States may provide services

directly or through subgrantees.

Activities and Related

Constraints

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

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.

Page 41 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Program-Specific

Performance Information

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

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

Federal Agency Community Planning and Development (CPD), Department of Housing and

Urban Development

Objectives 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 Provides funds to central cities and urban counties. Entitlement

communities develop their own programs and funding priorities.

Activities and Related

Constraints

Communities may undertake a wide range of activities directed toward

neighborhood revitalization, economic development, and provision of

Page 42 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

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

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

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

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.

Page 43 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Community

Development Block

Grants—States

Federal Agency Community Planning and Development (CPD), Department of Housing and

Urban Development

Objectives 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 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

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.

Page 44 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Funding and Related

Constraints

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

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

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

Federal Agency Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA),

Department of Health and Human Services

Objectives 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 Provides financial assistance to states to be used at their discretion

consistent with program objectives and requirements.

Page 45 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Activities and Related

Constraints

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

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

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

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.

Page 46 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Community Services

Block Grant (CSBG)

Federal Agency Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and

Human Services

Objectives 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 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

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

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.

Page 47 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Program-Specific

Performance Information

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

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

Federal Agency Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Department of Labor

Objectives 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 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.

Page 48 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Activities and Related

Constraints

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

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

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

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)

Federal Agency Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and

Human Services

Page 49 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Objectives To provide funds to states so that they can subsidize the home energy

costs of low-income persons, including the elderly and disabled.

Nature 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

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

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

funds are required.

Program-Specific

Performance Information

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

Page 50 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

funds, grantees must report on the leveraged resources provided to

low-income households during the previous base period.

Other Sources of

Information

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

Federal Agency Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of

Health and Human Services

Objectives 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 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

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

Page 51 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

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

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

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

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.

Page 52 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

National Highway

System (NHS)

Federal Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation

Objectives 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 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

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

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

Page 53 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

apportionments of federal funds are affected by a variety of incentives and

sanctions.

Program-Specific

Performance Information

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

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

Federal Agency Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health

and Human Services

Objectives To provide states, territories, and certain tribal governments with the

resources to improve the health status of their populations.

Nature 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

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

Page 54 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

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

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

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

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

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

Education

Page 55 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Objectives To support programs aimed at meeting the national education goal of

preventing illegal drug use among students and violence in and around

schools.

Nature 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

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

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

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.

Page 56 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Other Sources of

Information

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

Federal Agency Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and

Human Services

Objectives 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 Assists each state to furnish social services according to state-determined

priorities.

Activities and Related

Constraints

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.

Page 57 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Funding and Related

Constraints

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

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

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

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

Objectives To support nutrition services to older Americans, including meals,

nutrition education, facilitating access to meals, and providing

Page 58 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

nutrition-related supportive services to maintain health, independence,

and quality of life.

Nature 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

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

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

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

Page 59 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

and service counts are totals for the service as a whole, not just the

portion funded from this grant.

Other Sources of

Information

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

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

Objectives 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 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

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

Page 60 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

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

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

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

There has been no national evaluation of this program, and program

documents incorporate little reference to research.

Page 61 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

State and Community

Highway Safety

Grants

Federal Agency National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)/Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation

Objectives To reduce traffic accidents and deaths, injuries, and property damage

resulting from accidents.

Nature 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

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

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

Page 62 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

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

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

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

Federal Agency Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA),

Department of Health and Human Services

Objectives To provide financial assistance to states and territories to support alcohol

and other drug abuse prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation activities.

Page 63 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Nature 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

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

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

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

SAMHSA collects national and state-level data on provider organizations

(however funded), services, resources, and clients. It also supports a

Page 64 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

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)

Federal Agency Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation

Objectives To assist state and local transportation development and improvement.

Nature Helps fund state and local activities and projects.

Activities and Related

Constraints

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

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

Page 65 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

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

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

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

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

Education

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

and secondary education.

Page 66 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

Nature 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

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

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

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

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

Page 67 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

approaches that are consistent with principles of effectiveness established

through research.

Urbanized Area

Formula Program

Federal Agency Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation

Objectives 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 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

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

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

Transit authorities or states are required to provide milestone, financial,

and final project reports and to report significant events that affect the

Page 68 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix I 

Program Summaries

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

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.

Page 69 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

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

Page 70 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

Page 71 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Related GAO Products

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).

(966701) Page 72 GAO/GGD-98-137 Grant Program Design Features
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100