DEPARTMENT 

 of HEALTH 

 and HUMAN 

 SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

ON AGING

FY 2011 Online Performance Appendix
i 

 

Introduction 

The FY 2011 Online Performance Appendix is one of several documents that fulfill the 

Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) performance planning and reporting 

requirements. HHS achieves full compliance with the government Performance and Results Act 

of 1993 and Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-11 and A-136 through the HHS 

agencies’ FY 2011 Congressional Justifications and Online Performance Appendices, the 

Agency Financial Report, and the Summary of Performance and Financial Information. These 

documents are available at http://www.hhs.gov/budget/. 

The FY 2011 Congressional Justification and accompanying Online Performance Appendices 

contain the updated FY 2009 Annual Performance Report and the FY 2011 Annual Performance 

Plan. The Agency Financial Report provides fiscal and high-level performance results. The 

HHS Citizens’ Report summarizes key past and planned performance and financial information. 
ii 

 

From the Administration On Aging 

The Administration on Aging (AoA) FY 2011 Online Performance Appendix demonstrates 

AoA’s commitment to providing high-quality, efficient services to the most vulnerable elders. 

Through effective program management and strategic investment of grant funds, AoA is 

systematically advancing its mission of developing a comprehensive, coordinated and costeffective system of home and community-based services that helps older adults maintain their 

independence and dignity. AoA’s three performance measurement categories of program 

efficiency, client outcomes and effective targeting contribute to the success of the national aging 

services network in achieving AoA’s key strategic goals to: 

• Empower older people, their families, and other consumers to make informed decisions 

about, and to be able to easily access, existing health and long-term care options. 

• Enable seniors to remain in their own homes with high quality of life for as long as 

possible through the provision of home and community-based services, including 

supports for family caregivers. 

• Ensure the rights of older people and prevent their abuse, neglect and exploitation. 

The infrastructure of the national aging services network and its community service providers 

serve as the foundation of AoA’s service delivery. During 2011, the network will be 

implementing these goals by focusing on services supporting health and independence, 

caregivers and vulnerable elders. States, Tribal organizations, clients and grantees have provided 

data documenting performance in this report. AoA works closely with each of these groups to 

assure high quality, accurate reporting. To the best of my knowledge, the performance data 

reported by the Administration on Aging in this FY 2011 Online Performance Appendix are 

accurate, complete and reliable. The involvement of these established providers in offering costeffective and consumer-friendly aging services is critical to ensuring the success of these 

initiatives for senior citizens and families throughout the United States. 

Kathy Greenlee 

Assistant Secretary for Aging 
iii 

 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION ON AGING 

FY 2011 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT 

Introduction.................................................................................................................................... i

From the Administration On Aging............................................................................................ ii

Overview of Performance for the Aging Services Program...................................................... 1

Performance Measurement Detail............................................................................................... 6

Narrative by Activity .................................................................................................................... 7

I . Health and Independence....................................................................................................... 7 

Home and Community-Based Supportive Services.............................................................. 13 

Nutrition Services................................................................................................................. 17 

Native American Nutrition and Supportive Services............................................................ 21 

Preventive Health Services................................................................................................... 23 

II. Caregiver Services............................................................................................................... 24 

Services for Native American Caregivers............................................................................. 28 

Alzheimer’s Disease Supportive Services Program ............................................................. 30 

Lifespan Respite Care........................................................................................................... 31 

III. Protection of Vulnerable Older Americans........................................................................ 32 

IV. Network Support and Demonstrations............................................................................... 36 

Health and Long-Term Care Programs................................................................................. 36 

Program Innovations............................................................................................................. 37 

Aging Network Support Activities....................................................................................... 38 

Discussion of AoA Support for HHS Strategic Plan................................................................ 40

Link to HHS Strategic Plan ....................................................................................................... 41

Summary of Findings and Recommendations from Completed Program Evaluations....... 47

Data Source and Validation Table ............................................................................................ 48

National Survey Data.................................................................................................................. 53

Discontinued Performance Measures Table............................................................................. 54
iv 

 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Health and Independence................................................................................................. 7 

Table 2. Home and Community-Based Supportive Services....................................................... 13 

Table 3. Nutrition Services.......................................................................................................... 17 

Table 4. Native American Nutrition and Supportive Services .................................................... 21 

Table 5. Preventive Health Services............................................................................................ 23 

Table 6. Family Caregiver Support Services............................................................................... 24 

Table 7. Native American Caregiver Support Services............................................................... 28 

Table 8. Alzheimer’s Disease Supportive Services Program ...................................................... 30 

Table 9. Lifespan Respite Care.................................................................................................... 31 

Table 10. Long-Term Care Ombudsman..................................................................................... 32 

Table 11. Health and Long-Term Care ........................................................................................ 36 

Table 12. Aging Network Support Activities.............................................................................. 38 

Table 13. Link to HHS Strategic Plan ......................................................................................... 41 

Table 14. Summary of Full Cost Table........................................................................................ 45 

Table 15. Data Source and Validation Table ............................................................................... 48 

Table 16. Discontinued Measures................................................................................................ 54 
1 

 

Overview of Performance for the Aging Services Program 

AoA program activities have a fundamental common purpose which reflects in the legislative 

intent of the Older Americans Act (OAA) and the AoA Mission: to help elderly individuals 

maintain their dignity and independence in their homes and communities through 

comprehensive, coordinated, and cost effective systems of long-term care, and livable 

communities across the U.S. To reflect this unified purpose, AoA has aggregated all budget line 

items into a single Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) program, AoA’s Aging 

Services Program, for purposes of performance measurement. 

The Aging Services Program’s fundamental purpose, in combination with the legislative intent 

that the National Aging Services Network actively participate in supporting community-based 

services with particular attention to serving economically and socially vulnerable elders, led 

AoA to focus on three measurement areas to assess program activities through performance 

measurement: 1) improving efficiency; 2) improving client outcomes; and 3) effectively 

targeting services to vulnerable elder populations. Each outcome measure is representative of 

several activities across the Aging Services Program budget and progress toward achievement of 

the outcome is tracked using a number of indicators. The efficiency measure and corresponding 

indicators are reflective of the Office of Management of Budget (OMB) requirements to measure 

efficiency for all program activities. The client outcome measure includes indicators focusing on 

consumer assessment of service quality and outcome indicators focusing on nursing home 

predictors, successful caregiver program operation and protection of the vulnerable elderly. The 

targeting measure and indicators focus on ensuring that States and communities serve the most 

vulnerable elders, those that are most in need of these services. Taken together, the three 

measurement areas and their corresponding 16 performance indicators are designed to reflect 

AoA’s and HHS’ strategic goals and objectives and in turn measure success in accomplishing 

AoA’s and HHS’ missions. 

Current Performance Information 

An analysis of AoA’s performance trends shows that through FY 2008 most indicators have 

steadily improved. It also points to some key observations about the potential of AoA and the 

National Aging Services Network in meeting the challenges posed by the growth of the 

vulnerable older adult population, the changing care preferences of aging baby boomers, the 

fiscal difficulties faced by State Medicaid budgets, and the expanding needs of both the elderly 

and their caregivers. Below are some examples of these observations: 

• OAA programs keep severely disabled clients independent and in the community: 

Homebound older adults that have three or more impairments in Activities of Daily Living 

are at a high risk for nursing home placement. Measures of the Aging Network’s success at 

serving this vulnerable population is a proxy for success at nursing home delay and 

diversion. In FY 2003, the Aging Network served home-delivered meals to 280,454 clients 

with three or more ADL impairments and by FY 2008 that number grew by 24% to 349,934 

clients. Another approach to measuring AoA’s success is the newly developed nursing home 

predictor score. The components of this composite score are all predictive of nursing home 

placement based on scientific literature and AoA’s Performance Outcome Measurement 
2 

 

Project which develops and tests performance measures. The components include such items 

as percent of clients that are transportation disadvantaged and the percent of congregate meal 

clients that live alone. As the score increases, the prevalence of nursing home predictors in 

the OAA service population increases. In 2003, the nursing home predictor score was 46.57 

and has increased to 60.6 in FY 2008. 

• OAA programs are efficient: The National Aging Services Network is providing high 

quality services to the neediest elders and doing so in a very prudent and cost-effective 

manner; as an example, AoA has significantly increased the number of clients served per 

million dollars of AoA funding. Without controlling for inflation, OAA programs have 

increased efficiency by over 36% between FY 2002 and 2008, serving 8,301 clients per 

million dollars of AoA in FY 2008 compared to 6,103 clients served per million dollars of 

AoA funding in FY 2002. This increase in efficiency is understated since the purchasing 

power of a million dollars in 2008 is significantly less than in 2002 due to inflation. 

• OAA programs build system capacity: OAA programs stay true to their original intent to 

“encourage and assist State agencies and Area Agencies on Aging to concentrate resources in 

order to develop greater capacity and foster the development and implementation of 

comprehensive and coordinated systems.” (OAA Section 301). This is evident in the 

leveraging of OAA funds with State funds (almost $3 in State funds for every dollar of OAA 

funds), as well as in the expansion of projects such as the Aging and Disability Resource 

Center initiative, which grew from 24 states to 45 states with 197 sites participating in this 

key program in FY 2008. 

Clients report that these services contribute in an essential way to maintaining their 

independence and they express a high level of satisfaction with these services. National Survey 

respondents in 2008 found that 88% of meal clients rated services good to excellent and likewise 

over 96% of transportation clients rated services good to excellent. To help ensure the 

continuation of these trends in core programs, AoA makes extensive use of its discretionary 

funding to test innovative service delivery models for State and local program entities to attain 

measurable improvements in program activities. For example, AoA has worked with the Centers 

for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs to better integrate 

funding for long-term care service delivery, eliminate duplication, improve access to care for 

elderly individuals and provide alternatives to Medicaid spend down with flexible service dollars 

and consumer direction through Aging and Disability Resource Centers and the Community 

Living Program. 

Performance for FY 2011 

The FY 2011 requested funding level will support AoA core program operations with increases 

in key supportive services that enhance seniors’ independence including transportation, respite 

care, and caregiver counseling and training. New initiatives will yield increased outputs 

including more ADRC. They will also contribute to achievement of efficiency and outcome 

performance targets. 
3 

 

Performance Detail 

Taken as a whole, AoA’s performance measures and indicators form an interconnected system of 

performance measurement akin to the three legs of a stool (efficiency, outcomes and targeting) 

holding up AoA’s mission and strategic goals that include: 

 

1. Empower older people, their families, and other consumers to make informed decisions 

about, and to be able to easily access, existing health and long-term care options; 

2. Enable seniors to remain in their own homes with a high quality of life for as long as 

possible through the provision of home and community-based services, including 

supports for family caregivers; 

3. Empower older people to stay active and healthy through Older Americans Act services 

and the new prevention benefits under Medicare; 

4. Ensure the rights of older people and prevent their abuse, neglect and exploitation; and 

5. Maintain effective and responsive management. 

AoA does not want efficiency derived from reductions in service quality nor service quality and 

outcomes achieved through “cherry picking” of clients that might do well regardless of OAA 

services. Below is a summary of each measurement area, its indicators and their relationship to 

AoA’s and HHS’ strategic goals. 

Measure 1: Improve Efficiency 

Program efficiency is a necessary and important measure of the performance of AoA programs 

for two principal reasons. First, it is important to be a careful steward of Federal funds. Second, 

the OAA intended Federal funds to act as catalyst in generating capacity for these program 

activities at the State and local levels. It is the expectation of the OAA that States and 

communities increasingly improve their capacity to serve elderly individuals efficiently and 

effectively with both Federal and State funds. 

Improvements in program efficiency support the HHS Goal #1 to improve the safety, quality, 

affordability and accessibility of long-term care and Goal #3 to promote the economic and social 

well-being of individuals, families, and communities as well as support all of AoA’s Strategic 

Goals. Through maximized utilization of resources, improvements in program efficiency ensure 

affordable and accessible community-based long-term care is available to promote the wellbeing of seniors and their family caregivers. 

For FY 2011, there are three efficiency indicators for AoA program activities. The first indicator 

addresses performance efficiency at all levels of the National Aging Services Network in the 

provision of home and community-based services, including caregiver services. The second 

indicator demonstrates the efficiency of AoA in providing services to Native Americans. The 

third indicator assesses the efficiency of the Senior Medicare Patrol program. 
4 

 

A summary of program efficiency indicators for FY 2011 follows: 

Indicator 1.1: For Home and Community-based Services including Nutrition Services, 

and Caregiver services increase the number of clients served per million dollars of AoA 

funding. 

Indicator 1.3: Increase the number of units of service provided to Native Americans per 

thousand dollars of AoA funding. 

Indicator 1.5: SMP projects will increase the total dollar amount referred for further 

action. 

Measure 2: Improve Client Outcomes 

While improving efficiency, AoA is committed to maintaining quality and improving client 

outcomes. The FY 2011 performance budget includes eight indicators supporting AoA’s measure 

of improving client outcomes. To AoA, these are the core performance outcome indicators for 

our programs. AoA has multiple quality assessment indicators in this plan reflecting separate 

assessments provided by elders for services such as meals, transportation and caregiver 

assistance. Also, in developing the outcome indicators, AoA included measures to assess AoA’s 

most fundamental outcome: to keep elders at home and in the community, and to measure results 

important to family caregivers. The measures for the Ombudsman program focuses on the core 

purposes of this program: advocacy on behalf of older adults. 

Again, this measurement area supports all of AoA’s Strategic Goals but is most strongly tied to 

Goal 2 to enable seniors to remain in their own homes with a high quality of life for as long as 

possible, Goal 3 to empower older adults to stay active and healthy and Goal 4 to ensure the 

rights of older people and prevent their abuse, neglect and exploitation. Improving client 

outcomes is also supportive of HHS Goal 2 to prevent and control disease, injury, illness and 

disability across the lifespan, and protect the public from infectious, occupational, environmental 

and terrorist threats and HHS Goal 3 to promote the economic and social well-being of 

individuals, families and communities. Improving client outcomes ensures that the efficient use 

of resources is sufficient to make a difference. Without this measure, the National Aging 

Services Network could misinterpret AoA’s intent and maximize efficiency to the point that 

client impacts are no longer realized. These two measurement areas promote a balance between 

efficiency and effectiveness. 

A summary of the client outcome indicators for FY 2011 follows: 

Indicator 2.6: Reduce the percent of caregivers who report difficulty in getting services. 

Indicator 2.9a: 90% of home delivered meal clients rate services good to excellent. 

Indicator 2.9b: 90% of transportation clients rate services good to excellent. 
5 

 

Indicator 2.9c: 90% of National Family Caregiver Support Program clients rate services 

good to excellent. 

Indicator 2.10: Improve well-being and prolong independence for elderly individuals as 

a result of home and community-based services. 

Indicator 2.11: Increase the percentages of transportation clients who live alone. 

Indicator 2.12: Decrease the number of complaints per long-term care facility. 

Indicator 2.13: Decrease the percentage of complaints for abuse, neglect and 

exploitation in nursing homes. 

Measure 3: Effectively Target Services to Vulnerable Elderly 

AoA’s philosophy in establishing its targeting measure and associated indicators holds that 

targeting is of equal importance to efficiency and outcomes because it ensures that AoA and the 

National Aging Services Network will focus their services on the neediest, especially when 

resources are scarce. Without targeting measures, efforts to improve efficiency and outcomes 

could result in unintended consequences whereby entities might attempt to focus their efforts 

toward individuals who are not the most vulnerable. Such an outcome would be inconsistent with 

the intent of the OAA, which specifically requires the network to target services to the most 

vulnerable elders. Such a result would also be inconsistent with the mission of AoA, which is to 

help vulnerable elders maintain their independence in the community. To help seniors remain 

independent, AoA and the National Aging Services Network must focus their efforts on those 

who are at the greatest risk of institutionalization: persons who are disabled, poor, and residing in 

rural areas. 

Effective targeting of OAA services supports AoA’s Strategic Goal 1 by ensuring access to longterm care options for the economically and socially vulnerable; Goal 2 by enabling the most 

vulnerable seniors to remain in their own homes with a high quality of life; Goal 3 by 

empowering those likely to experience health disparities to stay active and healthy through OAA 

services; and Goal 4 by ensuring the rights of vulnerable elders. HHS Strategic Goals 2 and 3 

are also supported through targeting of OAA services. This measure indicates AoA’s success at 

focusing limited resources on those most in need of health promotion and protection, disease 

prevention and assistance with emergency preparedness (HHS Goal 2) and at promoting the 

economic and social well-being of vulnerable seniors (HHS Goal 3). Thus, AoA’s three 

indicators for effective targeting are crucial for ensuring that services are targeted to the most 

vulnerable client groups. 

Indicator 3.1: Increase the number of caregivers served. 

Indicator 3.2: Increase the number of older persons with severe disabilities who receive 

home-delivered meals. 
6 

 

Indicator 3.3: The percentage of OAA clients served who live in rural areas is at least 

10% greater than the percent of all US elders who live in rural areas. 

Indicator 3.4: Increase the number of States that serve more elderly living below the 

poverty level than the prior year. 

AoA’s success at achieving performance measure targets across the three areas (efficiency, client 

outcomes, and targeting) is also related to HHS Goal 4 to advance scientific and biomedical 

research and development related to health and human services. AoA has invested significant 

resources and continues to work with national partners including AHRQ, CDC, and NIA in the 

adoption of evidence-based programs at the community level which is reflected in our positive 

performance results. 

Aging Services Program – Performance Summary 

AoA has used a streamlined approach to performance measurement since FY 2005, by design, 

most of the current performance indicators are cross-cutting and the established performance 

targets are usually dependent on multiple budget line items. The following table summarizes 

AoA’s performance measures and results from FY 2006 to FY 2011. 

Table 1. Summary of Performance Targets and Results Table 

Administration on Aging 

Fiscal 

Year 

Total 

Targets 

Targets with 

Results Reported

Percent of Targets 

with Results 

Reported 

Total 

Targets 

Met 

Percent of 

Targets Met 

2006 15 15 100% 13 87% 

2007 16 16 100% 13 81% 

2008 14 14 100% 9 64% 

2009 15 NA NA NA NA 

2010 15 NA NA NA NA 

2011 16 NA NA NA NA 

Performance Measurement Detail

A detailed discussion of the Administration on Aging’s (AoA) performance follows. Each 

budget activity will have a separate performance section, however, there will be some 

redundancy since most of the performance measures apply to or are impacted by multiple budget 

line items. 
7 

 

Narrative by Activity 

I . Health and Independence 

Table 1. Health and Independence 

Measure 1.1: For Home and Community-based Services including Nutrition Services, and Caregiver services 

increase the number of clients served per million dollars of AoA funding. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 7,618 Sep 30, 2012 

2010 7,742 Sep 30, 2011 

2009 8,422 Sep 30, 2010 

2008 8,300 8,301 

(Target Met) 

2007 7,110 8,346 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 6,257 8,188 

(Target Exceeded) 

Measure 2.10: Improve well-being and prolong independence for elderly individuals as a result of AoA's Title III 

home and community-based services. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 62 May 31, 2013 

2010 61 May 31, 2012 

2009 56 May 31, 2011 

2008 54.5 60.6 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 New in FY 2008 60.17 

(Target Not In Place) 

2006 52.2 

(Target Not In Place) 

Measure 3.3: The percentage of OAA clients served who live in rural areas is at least 10% greater than the percent 

of all US elders who live in rural areas. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 30.5% Sep 30, 2012 

2010 30.5% Sep 30, 2011 

2009 30.5% Sep 30, 2010 

2008 30.5% 35.1% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 30.5% 34.8% 

(Target Exceeded) 
8 

 

FY Target Result 

2006 30.5% 32.2% 

(Target Exceeded) 

Measure 3.4: Increase the number of States that serve more elderly living below the poverty level than the prior 

year. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 30 Sep 30, 2012 

2010 30 Sep 30, 2011 

2009 28 Sep 30, 2010 

2008 24 29 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 20 24 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 17 18 

(Target Exceeded) 

Note: For presentation which ties to the budget AoA highlighted specific measures that are most directly related, 

however multiple performance outcomes are impacted by this program because AoA’s performance measures 

(efficiency, effective targeting, and client outcomes) assess network-wide performance in achieving current strategic 

objectives. AoA outcome measures will be reviewed going forward to ensure continued effective measurement of 

program performance. 

Performance Narrative 

Performance measures for the Health and Independence cluster are focused on 

1) Improving Program Efficiency; 2) Improving Client Outcomes and Maintaining High Levels 

of Service Quality; and 3) Effectively Targeting Services to Vulnerable Populations. 

Performance Measure 1: Improve Program Efficiency 

Indicator 1.1: For Home and Community-based Services including Nutrition Services, 

and Caregiver services increase the number of clients served per million dollars of AoA 

funding. 

Performance Results (Efficiency) 

For the past six years, AoA has achieved its efficiency performance targets. In FY 2008, the 

Aging Services Network served 8,301 clients per million dollars of OAA funding. 

Performance has trended upward (with the exception of a decline between 2007 and 2008) and 

performance targets (calculated as percentage increases over the FY 2002 baseline) have been 

consistently achieved. This reflects the success of ongoing initiatives to improve program 

management and expand options for home and community-based care. Medicare Part D, Aging 

and Disability Resource Centers (ADRCs), and increased commitments and partnerships at the 

State and local levels have all had a positive impact on program efficiency. The latest 
9 

 

performance data, showing a decline from 2007 to 2008, can be attributed to the substantial 

inflationary pressures of fuel cost as high as $4/gallon and related increases in food costs. 

Declining performance is expected to continue in FY 2009 due to the economic downturn. 

Performance Targets (Efficiency) 

The target for FY 2010 has been adjusted to 7,742 clients per million dollars of AoA funding. 

While AoA anticipates continued efficient operations at the State and AAA levels, these 

organizations may experience hardships associated with the current economic downturn. The 

target for FY 2011 is 7,618. The budget request level will yield an increase over FY 2010 for 

people served and units of service. 

Performance Measure 2: Improve Client Outcomes and Maintain a High Level of Service 

Quality 

The FY 2011 performance budget for Health and Independence includes two indicators 

supporting AoA’s goal of improving client outcomes and three indicators to monitor the 

continued high level of consumer-reported service quality. To AoA, these are the core 

performance outcome indicators for our programs. There is one overarching client outcome 

indicator that will be included in this section; the others will be included in the sections on 

Supportive Services, Nutrition Services, and Caregiver Services. The client outcome indicator 

for FY 2011 follows: 

Indicator 2.10: Improve Well-Being and Prolong Client Independence: 

Composite index of nursing home predictors will increase. An increase in the 

nursing home predictor index means an increase in the frequency of nursing home 

predictors in the client population which is a strong proxy for nursing home 

diversion. 

Performance Measure Changes (Outcomes) 

The purpose of this measure, new for FY 2008, is to demonstrate the success of Health and 

Independence related services and program innovations in developing tools that enable the Aging 

Services Network to delay or defer nursing home placement. 

The components of the composite index of nursing home predictors are as follows: 

1. Increase the percentage of caregivers reporting that services help them provide 

care longer. 

Rationale: This variable from AoA's Annual National Surveys of OAA Service 

Recipients was validated as a nursing home predictor for the Family Caregiver 

Support Program by the Performance Outcome Measurement Project (POMP) 

grantees. 

2. Increase the percentage of transportation clients who are transportation 

disadvantaged. (Defined as unable to drive or use public transportation). 
10 

 

Rationale: Data from the Third National Survey of OAA Service Recipients 

show that older persons receiving transportation services who are “transportation 

disadvantaged” are more disabled and vulnerable and less likely to receive the 

information and assistance that they need. Specifically, they are more likely to 

exhibit Activities of Daily Living/Instrumental Activities of Daily Living 

(ADL/IADL) limitations; more likely to have stayed overnight in a hospital in the 

past year, more likely to have stayed overnight in a nursing home or rehabilitation 

facility and more likely to be socially isolated (all key predictors of nursing home 

placement (see Predicting Elderly People’s Risk for Nursing Home Placement, 

Hospitalization, Functional Impairment and Mortality by Edward Alan Miller and 

William G. Weissert)). They are also less likely to know how to contact their 

case manager and less likely to understand an explanation of their services. This 

subpopulation is more vulnerable to a loss of independence and less aware of 

service options. 

3. Increase percentage of congregate meal recipients who live alone. 

Rationale: Living alone is a predictor of nursing home placement (see Predicting 

Elderly People’s Risk for Nursing Home Placement, Hospitalization, Functional 

Impairment and Mortality by Edward Alan Miller and William G. Weissert) and 

congregate meal recipients who live alone exhibit numerous other characteristics 

that can make them more vulnerable to loss of independence. For example, data 

from the Second National Survey of OAA Service Recipients show that they are 

more nutritionally vulnerable. They are less likely to eat three meals a day; they 

are in poorer health; they are less likely to socialize; they are more likely to be 

low income; and they are more likely be 85 or older. Furthermore, they are more 

likely to utilize beneficial health promotion/disease activities offered at the meal 

site such as fitness activities and health screenings. 

4. Increase the percentage of home delivered meal recipients with 3+ IADL 

limitations. 

Rationale: Multiple IADL limitations is a predictor of nursing home placement 

(see Predicting Elderly People’s Risk for Nursing Home Placement, 

Hospitalization, Functional Impairment and Mortality by Edward Alan Miller and 

William G. Weissert and the Urban Institute’s 2003 study entitled "Estimates of 

the Risk of Long Term Care - Assisted Living and Nursing Home Facilities" 

available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/riskest.htm) and data from the Third 

National Survey of OAA Service Recipients show that home-delivered meal 

recipients with three or more IADL limitations exhibit numerous other 

characteristics that make them vulnerable to loss of independence. For example, 

they are more likely to have ADL limitations, they are more like to exhibit 

numerous health conditions; they are more likely to be homebound and they are 

more likely to suffer from food insecurity. Further, improved nutrition can help 

manage many of the diseases that they suffer from (e.g. heart disease, diabetes, 

and osteoporosis). 
11 

 

AoA calculated the composite score using OAA Title III expenditures as reported in the State 

Program Report to weight the four components. 

 

Performance Results (Outcomes) 

This performance measure was first used in FY 2008 the resulting score was 60.6, exceeding the 

target of 54.5. Previous years of data show an upward trend as follows: 

FY 2003: 46.57 

FY 2004: 50.00 

FY 2005: 50.99 

FY 2006: 52.18 

FY 2007: 60.17 

FY 2008: 60.6 

AoA believes that this composite index of nursing home predictors will continue to trend upward 

at a more modest rate. The trend clearly shows a steady increase in the nursing home predictor 

index which is a strong proxy for nursing home diversion. 

Performance Targets (Outcomes) 

The performance target for FY 2010 is 61 and the performance target for FY 2011 is 62. As 

indicated above, performance for this indicator has been steadily improving. While AoA has 

observed declines in service levels due to states’ and other non-Federal resources’ fiscal 

challenges stemming from the economic downturn, performance targets for FY 2010 and 

FY 2011 are showing modest increases based on the increase in funding level for nutrition and 

the additional increases for FY 2011 included in this request. 

Performance Measure 3: Effectively Target Services to Vulnerable Elders 

There are three indicators for effective targeting of Health and Independence related services. 

Two indicators with broad applicability are included in this section and the other is included in 

the sections on Nutrition Services. The two FY 2008 indicators for Health and Independence 

follow: 

Indicator 3.3: The percentage of OAA clients served who live in rural areas is at least 

10% greater than the percent of all US elders who live in rural areas. 

Indicator 3.4: Increase the number of States that serve more elderly living below the 

poverty level. 

Performance Results (Targeting) 

AoA achieved the performance targets for the two general targeting indicators for FY 2008 as 

follows: 
12 

 

Indicator 3.3: The percentage of OAA clients served who live in rural areas is at 

least 10% greater than the percent of all US elders who live in rural areas. 

The FY 2008 target is calculated to be 30.5%. For FY 2008, 35.1 percent of OAA clients 

live in rural areas exceeding the performance target. Data reporting for this variable has 

fluctuated somewhat with the inception of the revised State Program Report in FY 2005, 

however, reporting seems to be stabilized at this time. Targets have consistently been 

met or exceeded. 

Indicator 3.4: Increase the number of States that serve more elderly living below the 

poverty level. 

The FY 2008 performance target was 24 States. Data for FY 2008 indicate that 29 States have 

increased the Title III clients in poverty, exceeding the FY 2008 performance target. Over the 

past five years there has been some annual fluctuation with performance. Performance seems to 

have stabilized and is trending upward as the importance of targeting to vulnerable populations is 

emphasized. 

Performance Targets (Targeting) 

The performance target for Indicator 3.3 will remain at census +10% (30.5%) for FY 2010 and 

FY 2011. The performance targeting level is considered appropriate in that it places emphasis on 

providing services to rural elders, as required by the OAA, while acknowledging the needs of 

non-rural vulnerable older Americans. 

The performance targets for Indicator 3.4 are 30 States in FY 2010 and FY 2011. These targeted 

performance levels reflect the commitment of the aging network to provide services to low 

income elderly, a group that is especially vulnerable and tends to have more health problems and 

nutritional needs. 
13 

 

Home and Community-Based Supportive Services

Table 2. Home and Community-Based Supportive Services 

Measure 1.1: For Home and Community-based Services including Nutrition Services, and Caregiver services 

increase the number of clients served per million dollars of AoA funding. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 7,618 Sep 30, 2012 

2010 7,742 Sep 30, 2011 

2009 8,422 Sep 30, 2010 

2008 8,300 8,301 

(Target Met) 

2007 7,110 8,346 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 6,257 8,188 

(Target Exceeded) 

Measure 2.9b: 90% of transportation clients rate services good to excellent. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 90% May 31, 2013 

2010 90% May 31, 2012 

2009 90% May 31, 2011 

2008 90% 96.7% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 New in FY 2008 96.1% 

(Target Not In Place) 

2006 98% 

(Target Not In Place) 

Measure 2.10: Improve well-being and prolong independence for elderly individuals as a result of AoA's Title III 

home and community-based services. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 62 May 31, 2013 

2010 61 May 31, 2012 

2009 56 May 31, 2011 

2008 54.5 60.6 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 New in FY 2008 60.17 

(Target Not In Place) 

2006 52.2 

(Target Not In Place) 
14 

 

Measure 2.11: Increase the percentage of transportation clients who live alone. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 72% May 31, 2013 

2010 70% May 31, 2012 

2009 70% May 31, 2011 

2008 New in FY 2009 67.3% 

(Target Not In Place) 

2007 66% 

(Target Not In Place) 

2006 66% 

(Target Not In Place) 

Note: For presentation which ties to the budget AoA highlighted specific measures that are most directly related, 

however multiple performance outcomes are impacted by this program because AoA’s performance measures 

(efficiency, effective targeting, and client outcomes) assess network-wide performance in achieving current strategic 

objectives. AoA outcome measures will be reviewed going forward to ensure continued effective measurement of 

program performance. 

Performance Narrative 

Performance measures for the Home and Community-Based Supportive Services are focused on 

1) Improving Program Efficiency; 2) Improving Client Outcomes and Maintaining High Levels 

of Service Quality; and 3) Effectively Targeting Services to Vulnerable Populations. 

Performance Measure 1: Improve Program Efficiency 

Indicator 1.1 includes persons receiving Home and Community-Based Supportive 

Services. A detailed discussion of this indicator’s performance can be found on 

pages 8-9. 

Performance Measure 2: Improve Client Outcomes and Maintain a High Level of Service 

Quality 

The FY 2011 performance plan includes three outcome indicators for Home and 

Community-Based Supportive Services. 

Indicator 2.9b: 90% of transportation clients rate services good to excellent. 

Indicator 2.10: Improve well-being and prolong independence for elderly individuals as 

a result of AoA’s Title III home and community-based services. 

Indicator 2.11: Increase the percentages of transportation clients who live alone. 

Indicator 2.10 is a composite index of nursing home predictors which cuts across all 

services. A detailed description of this indicator can be found under that section on pages 

9-11. Indicators 2.9b and 2.11 are discussed below. 
15 

 

Performance Measure Changes (Outcomes) 

In the FY 2008 budget, AoA revised the indicators related to consumer assessment of service 

quality. This was done to standardize the measures. When the earlier measures were 

incorporated into the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) plan, the performance 

measurement surveys for specific services each had different quality measures. The surveys 

have been revised so that some questions are the same across services. Specifically, we 

discontinued: 

Maintain high percentage of transportation clients rating services very good to 

excellent (Indicator 2.2). 

We replaced the above indicator with the following: 

At least 90% of transportation clients rate the service good to excellent 

(Indicator 2.9b). 

In the FY 2009 budget, we introduced a new performance indicator: 

Indicator 2.11: Increase the percentage of transportation clients who live alone. 

Living alone is a key predictor of nursing home placement. In addition, a review of data from 

our national surveys has shown that clients living alone have more ADL and IADL limitations 

and more serious health conditions than transportation clients not living alone. This population 

is much more vulnerable to a loss of independence. Increasing this percentage is a good proxy 

for increasing nursing home delay of diversion. 

Performance Results (Outcomes) 

Performance data show that the FY 2007 performance target was achieved for the following 

indicator: 

Indicator 2.9b: 90% of transportation clients rate services good to excellent. 

Although Indicator 2.9b was new in FY 2008, trend data indicates that performance has been 

consistently very high, ranging from 96% to 98% over the past four years. The performance of 

the Aging Services Network, in maintaining such high consumer-reported service quality, is 

particularly impressive when viewed in the context of annually improving program efficiency. 

Indicator 2.11 is new for FY 2009. FY 2008 performance is 67.3% a slight increase over 66% 

reported in FY 2007. 
16 

 

Performance Targets (Outcomes) 

For Indicator 2.9b, performance targets will remain at 90% for FY 2010 and FY 2011. 90% is 

the threshold for detecting statistical difference in this consumer-reported service quality 

indicator. 

 

For Indicator 2.11, the performance targets for FY 2010 and FY 2011 are 70% and 72%, 

respectively.

Performance Measure 3: Effectively Target Services to Vulnerable Elders 

Indicators 3.3 and 3.4 include persons receiving Home and Community-Based Supportive 

Services. A detailed discussion of these indicators’ performance can be found under the Health 

and Independence section on pages 11-12.
17 

 

Nutrition Services 

Table 3. Nutrition Services 

Measure 1.1: For Home and Community-based Services including Nutrition Services, and Caregiver services 

increase the number of clients served per million dollars of AoA funding. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 7,618 Sep 30, 2012 

2010 7,742 Sep 30, 2011 

2009 8,422 Sep 30, 2010 

2008 8,300 8,301 

(Target Met) 

2007 7,110 8,346 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 6,257 8,188 

(Target Exceeded) 

Measure 2.9a: 90% of home delivered meal clients rate services good to excellent. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 90% May 31, 2013 

2010 90% May 31, 2012 

2009 90% May 31, 2011 

2008 90% 91.03% 

(Target Met) 

2007 New in FY 2008 90.4% 

(Target Not In Place) 

2006 94% 

(Target Not In Place) 

Measure 2.10: Improve well-being and prolong independence for elderly individuals as a result of AoA's Title III 

home and community-based services. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 62 May 31, 2013 

2010 61 May 31, 2012 

2009 56 May 31, 2011 

2008 54.5 60.6 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 New in FY 2008 60.17 

(Target Not In Place) 

2006 52.2 

(Target Not In Place) 
18 

 

Measure 3.2: Increase the number of older persons with severe disabilities who receive home-delivered meals. 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 325,000 Dec 31, 2012 

2010 325,000 Dec 31, 2011 

2009 378,613 Dec 31, 2010 

2008 364,590 349,934 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 350,568 359,143 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 322,522 345,752 

(Target Exceeded) 

Note: For presentation which ties to the budget AoA highlighted specific measures that are most directly related, 

however multiple performance outcomes are impacted by this program because AoA’s performance measures 

(efficiency, effective targeting, and client outcomes) assess network-wide performance in achieving current strategic 

objectives. AoA outcome measures will be reviewed going forward to ensure continued effective measurement of 

program performance. 

Performance Narrative 

Performance measures for Nutrition Services are focused on 1) Improving Program Efficiency; 

2) Improving Client Outcomes and Maintaining High Levels of Service Quality; and 

3) Effectively Targeting Services to Vulnerable Populations. 

Performance Measure 1: Improve Program Efficiency 

Indicator 1.1 includes persons receiving Nutrition Services. A detailed discussion of this 

indicator’s performance can be found on pages 8-9. 

Performance Measure 2: Improve Client Outcomes and Maintain a High Level of Service 

Quality 

For FY 2011, there are two outcome indicators which directly relate to Nutrition 

Services: 

Indicator 2.9a: 90% of home-delivered meal clients rate services good to 

excellent. 

Indicator 2.10: Improve Well-being and Prolong Client Independence. 

Indicator 2.10 is a composite index of nursing home predictors which cuts across all 

services. A detailed description of this indicator can be found under that section on pages 

9-11. 
19 

 

Performance Measure Changes (Outcomes) 

In the FY 2008 budget, AoA revised the indicators related to consumer assessment of service 

quality. This was done to standardize the measures. When the earlier measures were 

incorporated into the GPRA plan, the performance measurement surveys for specific services 

each had different quality measures. The surveys have been revised so that some questions are 

the same across services. Specifically, we discontinued: 

Indicator 2.1: Maintain high client satisfaction with home-delivered meals. 

We replaced the above indicator with the following: 

At least 90% of home-delivered meal clients rate the service good to excellent 

(Indicator 2.9a). 

Performance Results (Outcomes) 

FY 2008 performance data show that the FY 2008 performance target was achieved for the 

following indicator: 

Indicator 2.9a: Maintain high client satisfaction with home-delivered meals. 

Between 2003 through 2007 90% - 94% of home delivered meal participants indicated high 

satisfaction with the meals. A target of 90% was established for subsequent years, as a threshold 

for indicating client reported high quality. The FY 2008 performance is 91.03%, based on the 

upper range of the confidence level. The upcoming program evaluation for nutrition will more 

completely examine these changes and provide additional guidance for improvement. 

Performance Targets (Outcomes) 

Performance targets for this indicator will remain at 90% for FY 2010 and FY 2011. Ninety 

percent is the threshold for detecting statistical difference in this consumer-reported service 

quality indicator.

Performance Measure 3: Effectively Target Services to Vulnerable Elders 

There are three targeting indicators that relate directly to Nutrition Services as follows: 

Indicator 3.2: Increase the number of severely disabled clients receiving selected home and 

community-based services (home-delivered meals). 

Also, Indicators 3.3 and 3.4 include persons receiving Nutrition Services. A detailed discussion 

of the performance for Indicators 3.3 and 3.4 can be found under the Health and Independence 

section on pages 11-12. A discussion of performance for Indicator 3.2 follows. 
20 

 

Performance Results (Targeting) 

FY 2008 performance data show that the FY 2008 performance target was not achieved for the 

following indicator: 

Indicator 3.2: Increase the number of severely disabled clients (defined as persons with 

three or more Activities of Daily Living (ADL) limitations) who receive selected (homedelivered meals) home and community-based services. 

The FY 2008 target was 364,590, a 30% increase over the FY 2003 baseline of 280,454. Actual 

performance for FY 2008 was 349,934. Performance for this key indicator had trended upward 

for four years. This performance indicator is a proxy for nursing home diversion since people 

with 3+ADL limitations are generally nursing home eligible. The decline in performance 

between 2007 and 2008 is attributed to increased operating costs from food and fuel inflation. 

However, this indicator is still performing at a level 24% higher than the 2003 baseline. The 

FY 2009 target is unrealistically high given the state of the economy. 

Performance Targets (Targeting) 

The FY 2010 performance target is 325,000. The FY 2011 target is also 325,000. The FY 2010 

target has been reduced. Fiscal and staffing constraints at the State and local level are expected 

to adversely impact performance through FY 2010. These fiscal constraints are somewhat offset 

by Recovery Act funds that will be totally expended by the end of FY 2010. The FY 2011 

budget request level will generate 12 million fewer meals, but the number of people with severe 

disabilities served through home delivered meals is expected to remain constant due to the aging 

services network focus on targeting services to those most in need. 
21 

 

Native American Nutrition and Supportive Services 

Table 4. Native American Nutrition and Supportive Services 

Measure 1.3: For Title VI Services, increase the number of units of service provided to Native Americans per thousand 

dollars of AoA funding. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 330 Jul 31, 2012 

2010 300 Jul 31, 2011 

2009 277 Jul 31, 2010 

2008 273 333 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 264 312 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 242 281 

(Target Exceeded) 

Note: For presentation which ties to the budget AoA highlighted specific measures that are most directly related, 

however multiple performance outcomes are impacted by this program because AoA’s performance measures (efficiency, 

effective targeting, and client outcomes) assess network-wide performance in achieving current strategic objectives. AoA 

outcome measures will be reviewed going forward to ensure continued effective measurement of program performance. 

Performance Narrative 

Native American Nutrition and Supportive Services provide grants to eligible tribal organizations to 

promote the delivery of home and community-based supportive services and nutrition services. The 

performance measurement strategy for Native American Services aligns with the performance 

measurement strategy for Health and Independence services. 

Performance measures for Native American Nutrition and Supportive Services are focused on 

1) Improving Program Efficiency; 2) Improving Client Outcomes and Maintaining High Levels of 

Service Quality; and 3) Effectively Targeting Services to Vulnerable Populations. 

Performance Measure 1: Improve Program Efficiency 

For FY 2010, there is one efficiency indicator that directly relates to Native American Nutrition and 

Supportive Services: 

Indicator 1.3: For Title VI Services (nutrition, supportive services, caregiver services 

and other activities), increase the number of services provided per thousand dollars of 

AoA funding. 
22 

 

Performance Results 

In FY 2008, as in the prior four years, AoA achieved its efficiency performance target; the 

Title VI grantees provided 333 units of service per thousand dollars of OAA funding, exceeding the 

performance target of 273. 

When the performance target for FY 2008 was established, it was thought to be ambitious. Improved 

program efficiency was to be achieved through best practices. It was anticipated that the ADRCs and 

other program innovations would enhance operations throughout the Aging Services Network by 

establishing replicable information and access improvement strategies such as “single-entry points.” 

However, the unanticipated occurred. After the enactment of the Medicare Prescription Drug 

Benefit, CMS sought the assistance of AoA and the Aging Services Network in providing 

information and assistance on this new benefit to Medicare recipients and their family members. As 

a result, the Aging Services Network experienced an influx of new service recipients as more people 

became aware of service options. 

Performance has consistently trended upward and performance targets (calculated as percentage 

increases over the FY 2002 baseline) have been consistently achieved over the past 5 years. 

Moreover, performance for FY 2006-FY 2008 showed substantial increases. Title VI grantees have 

shown impressive capacity to leverage additional funding to meet the increasing demand for services. 

Performance Targets (Efficiency) 

Because of the impressive performance noted above, the 2010 target for Indicator 1.3 has 

been increased to 300, 36% over the 2002 baseline. The FY 2011 performance target is 330, 

a 50% increase over the baseline. We anticipate the economic downturn will result in some 

decline in performance between 2008 and 2010, with 2011 performance returning to 2008 

levels. 
23 

 

Preventive Health Services 

Table 5. Preventive Health Services 

Output AB: The Number of people served with health and disease prevention programs. (Developmental) 

FY Target Result 

2011 New in FY 2013 Baseline 

Note: For presentation which ties to the budget AoA highlighted specific measures that are most directly related, 

however multiple performance outcomes are impacted by this program because AoA’s performance measures (efficiency, 

effective targeting, and client outcomes) assess network-wide performance in achieving current strategic objectives. AoA 

outcome measures will be reviewed going forward to ensure continued effective measurement of program performance. 

Performance Narrative 

AoA will monitor the performance of the Preventive Health programs utilizing annual state reports. 

Since AoA is promoting evidence-based systems, and states will have a variety of choices of health 

promotion and disease prevention systems this measure will illustrate the number of seniors impacted 

by services. 

Performance Measure Output AB: Number of People Provided Preventive Health Services 

Indicator Output AB: The Number of people served with health and disease prevention 

programs. 

Performance Results 

This is a developmental indicator and results are expected to be available in late 2011. The 

baseline will be used to identify targets for 2013 and beyond. 

Performance Targets (Outcomes) 

Targets will be set for 2013 and subsequent years once baseline data is available.
24 

 

II. Caregiver Services 

Table 6. Family Caregiver Support Services 

Measure 1.1: For Home and Community-based Services including Nutrition Services, and Caregiver services increase 

the number of clients served per million dollars of AoA funding. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 7,618 Sep 30, 2012 

2010 7,742 Sep 30, 2011 

2009 8,422 Sep 30, 2010 

2008 8,300 8,301 

(Target Met) 

2007 7,110 8,346 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 6,257 8,188 

(Target Exceeded) 

Measure 2.6: Reduce the percent of caregivers who report difficulty in getting services. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 30% May 31, 2013 

2010 30% May 31, 2012 

2009 35% May 31, 2011 

2008 35% 24.6% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 35% 32.1% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 43% 46.5% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

Measure 2.9c: 90% of NFCSP clients rate services good to excellent. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 90% May 31, 2013 

2010 90% May 31, 2012 

2009 90% May 31, 2011 

2008 90% 95.4% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 New in FY 2008 93.8% 

(Target Not In Place) 

2006 94% 

(Target Not In Place) 
25 

 

Measure 2.10: Improve well-being and prolong independence for elderly individuals as a result of AoA's Title III home 

and community-based services. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 62 May 31, 2013 

2010 61 May 31, 2012 

2009 56 May 31, 2011 

2008 54.5 60.6 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 New in FY 2008 60.17 

(Target Not In Place) 

2006 52.2 

(Target Not In Place) 

Measure 3.1: Increase the number of caregivers served. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 755,000 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 560,000 Aug 31, 2011

2009 731,545 Aug 31, 2010 

2008 762,000 675,243 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 1,000,000 731,545 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2006 900,000 678,489 

(Target Not Met) 

Note: For presentation which ties to the budget AoA highlighted specific measures that are most directly related, 

however multiple performance outcomes are impacted by this program because AoA’s performance measures (efficiency, 

effective targeting, and client outcomes) assess network-wide performance in achieving current strategic objectives. AoA 

outcome measures will be reviewed going forward to ensure continued effective measurement of program performance. 

Performance Narrative 

Performance measures for Caregiver Services are focused on 1) Improving Program Efficiency; 

2) Improving Client Outcomes and Maintaining High Levels of Service Quality; and 3) Effectively 

Targeting Services to Vulnerable Populations. 

Performance Measure 1: Improve Program Efficiency 

Indicator 1.1 includes persons receiving caregiver services. A detailed discussion of this 

indicator’s performance can be found on pages 8-9. 

Performance Measure 2: Improve Client Outcomes and Maintain a High Level of Service 

Quality 

For FY 2010, the following indicators relate directly to Caregiver Services. 
26 

 

Indicator 2.6: Reduce the percentage of caregivers reporting difficulty getting 

services. 

Indicator 2.9c: 90% of Family Caregiver Support clients rate services good to 

excellent. 

Indicator 2.10: Improve Well-being and Prolong Client Independence. 

Indicator 2.10 is a composite index of nursing home predictors which cuts across all services. 

A detailed description of this indicator can be found under the Health and Independence 

section on pages 9-11. 

Indicators 2.6 and 2.9c are discussed below. 

Performance Measure Changes (Outcomes) 

In the FY 2008 budget, AoA revised the indicators related to consumer assessment of service quality. 

This was done to standardize the measures. When the earlier measures were incorporated into the 

performance plan, the performance measurement surveys for specific services each had different 

quality measures. The surveys have been revised so that some questions are the same across services. 

Specifically, we discontinued: 

Indicator 2.3: Maintain high client satisfaction among caregivers of elders. 

We replaced the above indicator with the following: 

At least 90% of National Family Caregiver Support Program clients rate the services good 

to excellent (Indicator 2.9c). 

Performance Results (Outcomes) 

For FY 2008, the most recent year for which data is available. The quality indicator achieved its 

performance target. Both of the outcome indicators also met performance targets. 

Indicator 2.9c: 90% of NFCSP clients rate services good to excellent. 

The new quality indicator for FY 2008 showed performance of 96.7% of caregivers rating services 

good to excellent. AoA anticipates that performance for this indicator will remain above 90% for 

subsequent years. 

While it is important to maintain high levels of service quality and to improve program efficiency and 

targeting, improving program outcomes is of paramount importance. For FY 2008, there were two 

outcome indicators associated with the caregiver program. 

Indicator 2.6: Reduce the percent of caregivers who report difficulty getting services. 
27 

 

In FY 2003 the baseline of 64% was established. Ambitious performance targets of seven percentage 

point annual decreases were established at that time. The target for FY 2007 was 35%. Performance 

in FY 2007 was 32.1%. Performance is showing consistent improvement with the FY 2008 actuals 

show a substantial decrease to 24.6% caregivers indicating that they had difficulty getting services. 

The successful maturation of the caregiver program and initiatives to improve access to service are 

likely responsible for this improvement. 

Indicator 2.10: Improve well-being and prolong independence for elderly individuals as a 

result of AoA’s Title III home and community-based services. 

Indicator 2.10 is discussed on pages 9-11. 

Performance Targets (Outcomes) 

Performance targets for Indicator 2.6 are 30% for FY 2010 and FY 2011. If data show 

continued strong performance for this indicator, future year targets may be revised downward. 

Performance targets for Indicator 2.9c will remain at 90% for FY 2010 and FY 2011. Ninety percent 

is the threshold for detecting statistical difference in this consumer-reported quality indicator. 

Performance Measure 3: Effectively Target Services to Vulnerable Elders 

For prior years, there was one targeting indicator for Caregiver Services. 

Indicator 3.1: Increase the number of caregivers served. 

Performance Results (Targeting) 

The FY 2008 performance target of 762,000 was not achieved. In FY 2008, 675,243 caregivers 

received services. 

AoA had revised its targeting methodology for this measure. Performance targets for 

FY 2008 and FY 2009 were established using the marginal cost approach plus more realistic 

performance expectations consistent with current funding levels. Increasing the number of 

caregivers served is a critical component of AoA’s efforts to prolong the ability of vulnerable 

elderly persons to live in their homes. Over 80% of caregivers receiving services report that the 

services have “helped them provide care longer” and over 45% of caregivers report that without 

services their care recipients would be unable to maintain their current living arrangements. 

Unfortunately, the caregiver program which frequently relies on in-home services was affected 

by the economic impact of high gas prices and other inflationary pressures resulted in 

performance decline for FY 2008. We project the decline will continue through FY 2010. 

Performance Targets (Targeting) 

The performance target for Indicator 3.1 is 755,000 for FY 2011. This is consistent with the 

current request and expected economic conditions. 
28 

 

Services for Native American Caregivers 

Table 7. Native American Caregiver Support Services 

Measure 2.6: Reduce the percent of caregivers who report difficulty in getting services. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 30% May 31, 2013 

2010 30% May 31, 2012 

2009 35% May 31, 2011 

2008 35% 24.6% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 35% 32.1% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 43% 46.5% 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

Measure 2.9c: 90% of NFCSP clients rate services good to excellent. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 90% May 31, 2013 

2010 90% May 31, 2012 

2009 90% May 31, 2011 

2008 90% 95.4% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2007 New in FY 2008 93.8% 

(Target Not In Place) 

2006 94% 

(Target Not In Place) 

Measure 3.1: Increase the number of caregivers served. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 755,000 Aug 31, 2012 

2010 560,000 Aug 31, 2011 

2009 731,545 Aug 31, 2010 

2008 762,000 675,243 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 1,000,000 731,545 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2006 900,000 678,489 

(Target Not Met) 
29 

 

Note: For presentation which ties to the budget AoA highlighted specific measures that are most directly related, 

however multiple performance outcomes are impacted by this program because AoA’s performance measures 

(efficiency, effective targeting, and client outcomes) assess network-wide performance in achieving current strategic 

objectives. AoA outcome measures will be reviewed going forward to ensure continued effective measurement of 

program performance. 

Performance Narrative 

Native American caregivers provide grants to eligible tribal organizations to promote the 

delivery of services that assist Native American family and informal caregivers. The 

performance measurement strategy for Native American Services aligns with the performance 

measurement strategy for Health and Independence services. 

Performance measures for the Native American caregivers are focused on 

1) Improving Program Efficiency; 2) Improving Client Outcomes and Maintaining High Levels 

of Service Quality; and 3) Effectively Targeting Services to Vulnerable Populations. 

Performance Measure 2: Improve Client Outcomes and Maintain a High Level of 

Service Quality 

Outcome and Service Quality information is obtained specifically for the Title VI program 

through comprehensive, multileveled program evaluations. The evaluation conducted by 

Mathematica Policy Research Inc. (1993-1995) found that the responses from Native American 

Service recipients are comparable with results gathered from the service quality questions asked 

of Title III nutrition participants. While there are no on-going data sources specifically for 

Title VI outcomes and service quality, Native Americans participate in the National Surveys 

conducted for Title III services and the following outcome indicators are considered annual 

proxies for Native American indicators. 

• Caregiver Difficulty Reduction: Decrease to 35% the percentage of caregivers 

reporting difficulties in dealing with agencies to obtain services from the FY 2003 

base of 64% (Indicator 2.6). 

• Caregiver Quality Assessment: 90% of caregivers rate National Family 

Caregiver Support Program services good to excellent (Indicator 2.9c). 

Performance Measure 3: Effectively Target Services to Vulnerable Elders 

Indicator 3.1: Increase the Number of Caregivers Served: As part of the caregiver 

program implementation it is essential that the National Aging Services Network 

reach out to caregivers. FY 2008 data indicate that 675,243 caregivers currently 

receive services. 

A detailed discussion of this indicator’s performance can be found under the 

Caregiver Services section on page 27.
30 

 

Alzheimer’s Disease Supportive Services Program

Table 8. Alzheimer’s Disease Supportive Services Program 

Measure ALZ.1: Percent of ADSSP grant funds dedicated to implementing evidence-based programs. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 60% Dec 31, 2012 

2010 New in FY 2011 

2008 59% 

(Target Not In Place) 

Note: For presentation which ties to the budget AoA highlighted specific measures that are most directly related, 

however multiple performance outcomes are impacted by this program because AoA’s performance measures 

(efficiency, effective targeting, and client outcomes) assess network-wide performance in achieving current strategic 

objectives. AoA outcome measures will be reviewed going forward to ensure continued effective measurement of 

program performance. 

Performance Narrative 

AoA is promoting evidence-based systems to assist caregivers serving people with Alzheimer’s 

disease, and grantees have a variety of systems to implement. This measure will enable AoA to 

track the transition to the new ways of doing business which are expected to improve client 

outcomes. 

Performance Measure Output ALZ.1: Percentage of Funds Used for Evidence-based 

Programs 

Indicator ALZ.1: Percent of ADSSP grant funds dedicated to implementing evidencebased programs. 

Performance Results 

This is a new indicator with no prior performance target. Baseline results indicate that 

59% of funds are currently used in evidence-based programs. 

Performance Targets (Outcomes) 

The FY 2011 target is 60% of funds which represents growth toward the goal of greater 

application of evidence based programs as more evidence-based options become available.
31 

 

 Lifespan Respite Care

Table 9. Lifespan Respite Care 

Output AE: Increase the number of people served as a result of Lifespan Respite Care. (Developmental) 

FY Target Result 

2011 New in FY 2013 Baseline 

Note: For presentation which ties to the budget AoA highlighted specific measures that are most directly related, 

however multiple performance outcomes are impacted by this program because AoA’s performance measures 

(efficiency, effective targeting, and client outcomes) assess network-wide performance in achieving current strategic 

objectives. AoA outcome measures will be reviewed going forward to ensure continued effective measurement of 

program performance. 

Performance Narrative 

The intent of the Lifespan Respite Care program is to expand and enhance respite care services 

to family members, improve coordination of respite care, and reduce family caregiver strain. 

Grantees are provided broad discretion for implementation strategies, while this indicator can be 

used to measure the impact from disparate approaches. 

Performance Measure Output ALZ.1: Increase the number of people served with Respite 

Care. 

Indicator Output AE: Increase the number of people served as a result of Lifespan 

Respite Care. 

Performance Results 

This is a developmental indicator and results are expected to be available late in FY 2011. 

The baseline will be used to identify targets for 2013 and beyond. 

Performance Targets (Outcomes) 

Targets will be set for 2013 and subsequent years once baseline data is available.
32 

 

III. Protection of Vulnerable Older Americans 

Table 10. Long-Term Care Ombudsman 

Measure 1.2: For Title VII Services, increase the number of Ombudsman complaints resolved or partially resolved 

per million dollars of AoA funding. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2010 Discontinued 

2009 11,346 Sep 30, 2010 

2008 11,439 10,089 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 11,811 10,801 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

2006 10,062 10,745 

(Target Exceeded) 

Measure 2.7: Improve the Ombudsman complaint resolution rates. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2010 Discontinued 

2009 32 Sep 30, 2010 

2008 30 24 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 15 35 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 15 27 

(Target Exceeded) 

Measure 2.12: Decrease the number of complaints per LTC facility. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 3.9 Sep 30, 2012 

2010 4.06 Sep 30, 2011 

2009 New in FY 2010 Sep 30, 2010 

2008 4.06 

(Target Not In Place) 

2007 4.28 

(Target Not In Place) 

2006 4.47 

(Target Not In Place) 
33 

 

Measure 2.13: Decrease the percentage of complaints for Abuse, Gross Neglect and Exploitation in nursing homes. 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 19.5% Sep 30, 2012 

2010 20% Sep 30, 2011 

2009 New in FY 2010 Sep 30, 2010 

2008 20.18% 

(Target Not In Place) 

2007 21.63% 

(Target Not In Place) 

2006 22.21% 

(Target Not In Place) 

Note: For presentation which ties to the budget AoA highlighted specific measures that are most directly related, 

however multiple performance outcomes are impacted by this program because AoA’s performance measures 

(efficiency, effective targeting, and client outcomes) assess network-wide performance in achieving current strategic 

objectives. AoA outcome measures will be reviewed going forward to ensure continued effective measurement of 

program performance. 

Performance Narrative 

Performance measurement for the Protection of Vulnerable Older Americans programs focuses 

on 1) Improving Client Outcomes and 2) Maintaining High Levels of Service Quality. These 

programs, which focus on the prevention of elder abuse and neglect, are targeted to the most 

vulnerable elder Americans. The Long-Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman program, which focuses 

on protection of those elderly residing in long-term care facilities, will provide the representative 

performance measures for this section. 

Changes in Measures

The two current performance measures, Indicator 1.2 and Indicator 2.7 are being replaced 

because they do not capture the current program focus. In recent years, the Ombudsman 

program has been employing a more proactive approach to head off problems and lessen the 

need for complaints. An increased emphasis has been placed on training, consultations and 

regular (quarterly) facility visits. 

This approach is yielding positive results. The average number of complaints per facility is 

declining and while the total number of complaints declines, complaints for abuse and neglect in 

nursing homes are declining at a faster rate. 

AoA is introducing the two new performance measures. 

Indicator 2.12: Decrease the average number of complaints per Long-Term Care 

facility. 
34 

 

Indicator 2.13: Decrease the percentage of complaints for Abuse, Gross Neglect and 

Exploitation in nursing homes. 

It is important to note that complaint resolution will always be of paramount importance. 

However, over the past six years, complaints have been resolved or partially resolved at a rate of, 

on average, 77%. The percentage of complaints not resolved in a satisfactory manner ranges 

from 5.66% to 6.72% over 6 years with roughly 3% withdrawn, 8% determined no action needed 

and 5% referred to other agencies. AoA will continue to monitor the complaint resolution rate to 

assure it remains at the current high level of performance. 

Performance Measure 1: Improve Program Efficiency 

For FY 2011, the efficiency measure has been replaced by an additional outcome measure. 

Performance Results (Efficiency) 

The FY 2008 performance target was not achieved for this indicator. The FY 2008 target was 

11,439 complaints resolved or partially resolved per million dollars of OAA funding. Actual 

2008 performance was 10,089. As noted above, current program efforts are focused on 

minimizing complaints by increased facility visitation and consultations. Therefore, the total 

number of complaints is declining while resolution rates remain relatively constant. This 

measure does not reflect the current program focus and has been discontinued. 

Performance Measure 2: Improve Client Outcomes and Maintain a High Level of Service 

Quality 

The existing measure for the Ombudsman program assesses the efforts of States to improve the 

successful resolution of complaints by residents of nursing homes and other institutions. 

Indicator 2.7: Improve Ombudsman complaint resolution rates. 

This measure is subject to much state by state fluctuation and, while complaint resolution is of 

paramount importance, some States are solving complaints at such a high rate, improvement for 

them is unrealistic. This indicator, along with Indicator 1.2 is being discontinued. See above for 

discussion of new indicators. 

Performance Results (Outcomes) 

The FY 2008 performance target of 30 was not met. FY 2008 data indicates that the 

Ombudsman complaint resolution rates improved in 24 States. For each of the past five years, at 

least 24 States have shown improvement, with annual fluctuations. While the total number of 

complaints is declining, States are improving their resolution rates even as the focus shifts to 

prevention. The continuous program performance improvement demonstrates that it is of the 

greatest importance that complaints involving the most vulnerable of the elderly are successfully 

resolved. However, establishing annual targets is unrealistic given that improvement rates vary 

from year to year. 
35 

 

Performance Targets (Outcomes) 

For new Indicator 2.12, decrease the number of complaints per LTC facility, the FY 2010 target 

is 4.06 and the FY 2011 target is 3.9. 

For new Indicator 2.13, decrease the percentage of complaints for Abuse, Gross Neglect and 

Exploitation in nursing homes, the FY 2010 target is 20% and the FY 2011 target is 19.5%. 

AoA anticipates that serious fiscal and personal constraints will hinder the proactive efforts; 

consultations, regular facility visits and FTE levels are expected to decline in FY 2009 and 

FY 2010. 

Performance Measure 3: Effective Targeting to Vulnerable Elders 

Since the Ombudsman Program is already targeted to a vulnerable population and serves a 

prevention purpose, a formal targeting measure is not applicable. However, the frequency of 

visits to facilities by Ombudsmen is an effective indicator and was discussed by the Institute of 

Medicine (IOM) as a measure of program effectiveness in the 1995 evaluation of the program. 

In FY 2008, 83% of the 16,749 nursing facilities nationwide received at least quarterly visits not 

in relation to a complaint from the Ombudsman Program with 18 States reporting 100% of 

facilities visited at least quarterly. 
36 

 

IV. Network Support and Demonstrations 

Health and Long-Term Care Programs

Table 11. Health and Long-Term Care 

LTC.2: Percent of individuals who indicate ADRC information and counseling contribute to informed decision 

making. (Developmental) 

FY Target Result 

2011 New in FY 2013 Baseline 

Note: For presentation which ties to the budget AoA highlighted specific measures that are most directly related, 

however multiple performance outcomes are impacted by this program because AoA’s performance measures 

(efficiency, effective targeting, and client outcomes) assess network-wide performance in achieving current strategic 

objectives. AoA outcome measures will be reviewed going forward to ensure continued effective measurement of 

program performance. 

Performance Narrative 

The performance measurement for Long-Term Care Programs focuses on the key intent of these 

programs which is to aid individuals in making informed decisions about alternatives to 

institutional care, and enabling individuals with disabilities to remain in the community. 

Performance Measure LTC.2: Informed decision making through ADRC 

Indicator LTC.2: Percent of individuals who indicate ADRC information and 

counseling contribute to informed decision making. 

Performance Results 

This is a developmental indicator and results are expected to be available in late 2011. 

The baseline will be used to identify targets for 2013 and beyond. 

Performance Targets (Outcomes) 

Targets will be set for 2013 and subsequent years once baseline data is available.
37 

 

Program Innovations 

The knowledge generated through Program Innovations grants helps to ensure that AoA’s core 

programs maintain and improve performance. Program Innovations support program 

performance for AoA’s core programs, Health and Independence services, Family Caregiver 

Services, Services to Native Americans, Protection of Vulnerable Older Americans, and Aging 

Services Network Support Activities. Program Innovations outcomes are reflected in 

performance targets for Health and Independence services and Protection of Vulnerable Older 

Americans. 
38 

 

Aging Network Support Activities

Table 12. Aging Network Support Activities 

Measure 1.4: For Senior Medicare Patrol, increase the number of beneficiaries trained per million dollars of AoA 

funding. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2010 Discontinued 

2009 41,230 Sep 30, 2010 

2008 49,600 36,479 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 48,980 39,216 

(Target Not Met) 

2006 37,200 42,767 

(Target Exceeded) 

Measure 1.5: SMP projects will increase the total dollar amount referred for further action. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2011 $2,750,000 Sep 30, 2012 

2010 $2,500,000 Sep 30, 2011 

2009 New in FY 2010 Sep 30, 2010 

2008 $2,345,299 

(Target Not In Place) 

2007 $1,517,360 

(Target Not In Place) 

Note: For presentation which ties to the budget AoA highlighted specific measures that are most directly related, 

however multiple performance outcomes are impacted by this program because AoA’s performance measures 

(efficiency, effective targeting, and client outcomes) assess network-wide performance in achieving current strategic 

objectives. AoA outcome measures will be reviewed going forward to ensure continued effective measurement of 

program performance. 

Performance Narrative 

Performance measurement for Aging Services Network Support Activities is focused on 

1) Improving Program Efficiency. These activities provide on-going support for the National 

Aging Services Network and help seniors and their families obtain information about care 

options and benefits. The Senior Medicare Patrol Program (SMP) will provide the representative 

performance measures for this section. 

Performance Measure 1: Improve Program Efficiency 

For FY 2011, there is one efficiency indicator that directly measures Network Support and 

Demonstrations. 
39 

 

Indicator 1.5: SMP projects will increase the total dollar amount referred for further 

action. 

This indicator, replacing Indicator 1.4, is new in FY 2010. 

Performance Results (Efficiency) 

The FY 2008 performance target for Indicator 1.4 was not achieved. In FY 2008, Senior 

Medicare Patrols reported training 36,479 beneficiaries per million dollars of funding. 

There are two factors which explain the FY 2008 performance shortfall. First, we believe that 

much of this decline is attributed to the extensive involvement of the aging services network in 

Medicare prescription drug enrollment which resulted in misleadingly high numbers in FY 2005. 

The FY 2008 performance target had been revised upward based on FY 2005 performance. 

Lacking any special initiative or new funding source it was unrealistic to project that 

performance would be sustained at FY 2005 levels. In addition, a new reporting system was 

implemented in FY 2007 and there have been reporting problems. 

Performance Targets (Efficiency)

Indicator 1.4 has been replaced by Indicator 1.5. The total number of beneficiaries trained will 

fluctuate from year to year (1.4) and is subject to economic downturns and other program 

initiatives. Indicator 1.5 which measures the dollar amount, referred for further action, should 

show steady increase as the program successfully matures. 

The performance target for FY 2010 is $2,500,000 and the performance target for FY 2011 is 

$2,750,000. 
40 

 

Discussion of AoA Support for HHS Strategic Plan 

The mission of the AoA is to help individuals maintain their dignity and independence in their 

homes and communities through comprehensive, coordinated, and cost effective systems of 

long-term care, and livable communities across the U.S. To carry out this mission, AoA has 

developed a strategic plan with five strategic goals. 

• Goal 1: Empower older people, their families and other consumers to make 

informed decisions about, and to be able to easily access, existing health and long 

term care options. 

• Goal 2: Enable seniors to remain in their own homes with high quality of life for 

as long as possible through the provision of home and community-based services, 

including supports for family caregivers. 

• Goal 3: Empower older people to stay active and healthy through Older 

Americans Act services and the new prevention benefits under Medicare. 

• Goal 4: Ensure the rights of older people and prevent their abuse, neglect and 

exploitation. 

• Goal 5: Maintain effective and responsive management. 

AoA’s budget funds a variety of services to seniors and their family caregivers including home 

and community-based supportive and nutrition services, and protection of vulnerable elders. 

AoA program performance and outcome data demonstrate that these services are effective. 

AoA’s strategic goals and program activities contribute to the achievement of all the strategic 

priorities of the Department and are linked to 12 specific HHS objectives. The following 

crosswalk shows the links between the AoA and HHS Strategic Goals and Objectives: 
41 

 

Link to HHS Strategic Plan 

Table 13. Link to HHS Strategic Plan 

The table below shows the alignment of AoA's strategic goals with HHS Strategic Plan goals. 

HHS Strategic Goals 

AoA Goal 

1: 

Empower 

older 

people and 

their 

families to 

make 

informed 

decisions 

about, and 

be able to 

easily 

access, 

existing 

home and 

community 

based 

options.

AoA Goal 

2: Enable 

seniors to 

remain in 

their own 

homes with 

high quality 

of life for 

as long as 

possible 

through the 

provision of 

home and 

communitybased 

services 

including 

supports for 

family 

caregivers.

AoA Goal 

3: 

Empower 

older 

people to 

stay active 

and healthy 

through 

Older 

Americans 

Act 

Services 

and the 

new 

prevention 

benefits 

under 

Medicare.

AoA Goal 

4: Ensure 

the rights of 

older people 

and prevent 

their abuse, 

neglect, and 

exploitation.

1 Health Care Improve the safety, quality, affordability 

and accessibility of health care, including behavioral 

health care and long-term care.

1.1 Broaden health insurance and long-term care 

coverage.

X X No No

1.2 Increase health care service availability and 

accessibility. X X No No

1.3 Improve health care quality, safety and cost/value. X X X X

1.4 Recruit, develop, and retain a competent health care 

workforce. No X No X

2 Public Health Promotion and Protection, Disease 

Prevention, and Emergency Preparedness Prevent and 

control disease, injury, illness and disability across the 

lifespan, and protect the public from infectious, 

occupational, environmental and terrorist threats.

2.1 Prevent the spread of infectious diseases. No No X No

2.2 Protect the public against injuries and environmental 

threats. No No X No

2.3 Promote and encourage preventive health care, 

including mental health, lifelong healthy behaviors and 

recovery.

X No X X

2.4 Prepare for and respond to natural and man-made 

disasters. X No No No
42 

 

HHS Strategic Goals 

AoA Goal 

1: 

Empower 

older 

people and 

their 

families to 

make 

informed 

decisions 

about, and 

be able to 

easily 

access, 

existing 

home and 

community 

based 

options.

AoA Goal 

2: Enable 

seniors to 

remain in 

their own 

homes with 

high quality 

of life for 

as long as 

possible 

through the 

provision of 

home and 

communitybased 

services 

including 

supports for 

family 

caregivers.

AoA Goal 

3: 

Empower 

older 

people to 

stay active 

and healthy 

through 

Older 

Americans 

Act 

Services 

and the 

new 

prevention 

benefits 

under 

Medicare.

AoA Goal 

4: Ensure 

the rights of 

older people 

and prevent 

their abuse, 

neglect, and 

exploitation.

3 Human Services Promote the economic and social 

well-being of individuals, families, and communities.

3.1 Promote the economic independence and social wellbeing of individuals and families across the lifespan. X N X o X No

3.2 Protect the safety and foster the well being of children 

and youth. No No No No

3.3 Encourage the development of strong, healthier and 

supportive communities. X X X X

3.4 Address the needs, strengths and abilities of 

vulnerable populations. X X X X

4 Scientific Research and Development Advance 

scientific and biomedical research and development 

related to health and human services.

4.1 Strengthen the pool of qualified health and behavioral 

science researchers. No No No No

4.2 Increase basic scientific knowledge to improve 

human health and human development. No No No No

4.3 Conduct and oversee applied research to improve 

health and well-being. No No No No

4.4 Communicate and transfer research results into 

clinical, public health and human service practice. X X X X
43 

 

HHS Strategic Goal 1 Health Care - Improve the safety, quality, affordability and accessibility 

of health care, including behavioral health care and long-term care. 

All four objectives under HHS’s first strategic goal are supported by the AoA Strategic Plan. 

Specific AoA strategies supporting the Health Care objective include AoA’s Goal 1, Strategic 

Objective 1.1: provide streamlined access to health and long-term care through Aging and 

Disability Resource Center (ADRC) demonstration projects. In addition, AoA and the Aging 

Services network has succeeded in increasing by 27% the number of severely disabled 

individuals who receive in-home and community based services from 397,000 in FY2005 to 

more than 506,000 in FY 2008. Nursing home eligible clients who receive services in their own 

home report high levels of quality with their services; 92% of home delivered meal clients 

reporting that the meals help them stay longer in their own home. 

HHS Strategic Goal 2 Public Health Promotion and Protection, Disease Prevention, and 

Emergency Preparedness - Prevent and control disease, injury, illness and disability across the 

lifespan, and protect the public from infectious, occupational, environmental and terrorist threats. 

As with HHS’s first strategic goal, AoA’s Strategic Plan supports all four objectives under HHS 

Goal 2. AoA’s Strategic Objective 3.2: promote the use of the prevention benefits under 

Medicare is one example of how AoA is working toward the HHS goal of public health 

promotion and disease prevention. AoA and the Aging Services Network were natural and 

essential partners with CMS in the implementation of Medicare Part D and are now using this 

partnership to help beneficiaries understand and effectively utilize Medicare prevention benefits, 

thereby, advancing HHS Objective 2.1: prevent the spread of infectious disease and Objective 

2.2: promote and encourage preventive health care, including mental health, lifelong healthy 

behaviors and recovery. 

HHS Strategic Goal 3 Human Services - Promote the economic and social well-being of 

individuals, families and communities. 

All four AoA Strategic Goals link to HHS Objectives 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4. Objective 3.2 is not 

included since it is specific to children and youth. HHS Goal 3 is closely tied to the strategic 

objectives and activities under AoA Goal 2: enable seniors to remain in their own homes with 

high quality of life for as long as possible through the provision of home and community-based 

services, including supports for family caregivers. Most older people entering nursing homes are 

private pay individuals, and those who end up on Medicaid, usually do so as a result of spending 

down their income and assets. AoA is also providing opportunities for seniors to maintain their 

independence through less costly home and community-based services and supporting HHS 

Objective 3.1: promote the economic independence and social well-being of individuals, family 

and communities through the promotion of consumer-directed approaches to home and 

community-based services. 
44 

 

HHS Strategic Goal 4 Scientific Research and Development - Advance scientific and 

biomedical research and development related to health and human services. 

HHS Objective 4.4: communicate and transfer research results into clinical, public health and 

human service practice – is tied to all four of AoA’s Strategic Goals. AoA continues to work 

with national partners including AHRQ, CDC and NIA to deploy, through the Aging Services 

Network, the use of evidence-based disease and disability prevention programs for older people 

at the community level – AoA’s Strategic Objective 3.1. These interventions involve tools and 

techniques seniors can use to better manage their chronic conditions, reduce their risk of falling, 

and improve their nutrition and their physical and mental health. 

AoA activities are designed and managed to advance AoA’s strategic priorities; to reduce the 

institutional bias in our long-term care system and to support livable communities where 

Americans are able to stay at home, remain connected to the community, easily access the 

resources they need, and are empowered to drive their own future. An overarching strategy is to 

help the Aging Services Network, local aging organizations and their community service 

providers to develop sustainable, cost-efficient and effective programs that not only serve the 

needs of older adults today but also facilitate systems changes at the State and local level that 

will better position these same organizations for the future. 
45 

 

Table 14. Summary of Full Cost Table 

Summary of Full Cost

(Budgetary Resources in Millions) 

Administration on Aging 

HHS Strategic Goals & Objectives FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 

1: Health Care - Improve the safety, quality, affordability, and 

accessibility of health care, including behavioral health and 

long-term care.

 

63.172 

 

48.163 

 

48.078 

1.1 Broaden health insurance and long-term care coverage. 

46.070 

 

30.997 

 

30.913 

1.2 Increase health care availability and accessibility. - - - 

1.3 Improve health care quality, safety, cost and value. 

17.102 

 

17.166 

 

17.165 

1.4 Recruit, develop, and retain a competent health care 

workforce. - - - 

2: Public Health Promotion and Protection, Disease 

Prevention, and Emergency Preparedness - Prevent and 

control disease, injury, illness, and disability across the 

lifespan, and protect the public from infectious, occupational, 

environmental, and terrorist threats. 

21.289 

 

21.307 

 

21.321 

2.1 Prevent the spread of infectious diseases. - - - 

2.2 Protect the public against injuries and environmental 

threats. - - - 

2.3 Promote and encourage preventive health care, including 

mental health, lifelong healthy behaviors, and recovery.

 

21.289 

 

21.307 

 

21.321 

2.4 Prepare for and respond to natural and manmade 

disasters. - - - 

3: Human Services - Promote the economic and social wellbeing of individuals, families and communities.

 

1,430.118 

 

1,450.116 

 

1,558.613 

3.1 Promote the economic independence and social wellbeing of individuals and families across the lifespan.

 

1,184.834 

 

1,200.865 

 

1,304.959 

3.2 Protect the safety and foster the well-being of children and 

youth. - - - 

3.3 Encourage the development of strong, healthy, and 

supportive communities. - - - 

3.4 Address the needs, strengths, and abilities of vulnerable 

populations.

 

245.284 

 

249.251 

 

253.654 

4: Scientific Research and Development - Advance 

scientific and biomedical research and development related to 

health and human services. - - - 

4.1 Strengthen the pool of qualified health and behavioral 

science researchers. - - - 

4.2 Increase basic scientific knowledge to improve human 

health and human development. - - - 

4.3 Conduct and oversee applied research to improve health 

and well-being. - - - 

4.4 Communicate and transfer research results into clinical, 

public health, and human service practice. - - - 

Total 

1,514.579 

 

1,519.586 

 

1,628.012 
46 

 

Note: The FY 2011 Performance Budget reflects the decision made in conjunction with OMB assessments to move 

to one consolidated GPRA program that covers all programmatic activities. The full cost of this consolidated 

program is equal to the total program level for AoA, which includes administrative resources and demonstration 

activities funded through annual appropriations as well as resources from the Medicare trust fund, which are used to 

support health care anti-fraud, waste and abuse activities (HCFAC) and to provide Medicare enrollment assistance 

(MIPPA). It does not include accrued liabilities not directly paid by AoA, such as employee health benefits and 

Federal retirement costs. Because the Performance Budget contains three measures (efficiency, consumer outcomes, 

and effective targeting) that each separately cover the full scope of AoA’s program activities, and therefore reflect 

the full cost of all program activities, AoA has not included separate full cost by measure tables in the Performance 

Budget. AoA has provided a display of its program line items allocated by HHS Strategic Plan objective. AoA's 

programs as a whole impact all four HHS strategic plan goals. However, for this exhibit AoA used professional 

judgment to allocate programs to HHS Strategic Objective based on predominance of a given program. Program 

Administration costs have been allocated proportionally to each objective based on total program funding within that 

objective.
47 

 

Summary of Findings and Recommendations from Completed Program 

Evaluations

As a part of AoA’s commitment to program improvement, program evaluation activities 

underwent a transformation in which a comprehensive framework and approach was adopted that 

involves process, impact and cost analyses. Through these efforts The Title III-C Elderly 

Nutrition Services Program and Title VI Nutrition, Supportive and Family Caregiver Services to 

Native Americans evaluations have been designed. A contract to implementation the Title III-C 

Elderly Nutrition Services Program evaluation was awarded in FY 2009. This comprehensive 

multi-year evaluation is scheduled to be complete in FY 2012. Using the framework, evaluation 

design for the Title III-E National Family Caregiver Support Program will be finalized in 

FY 2010. 

In FY 2008, the study, Evaluation of Select Consumer, Program, and System Characteristics 

under the Supportive Services Program (Title III-B) of the Older Americans Act that examined 

the Title III-B Home and Community-Based Supportive Services was released. The study found 

that the Title III-B program had successfully extended services to the targeted population – 

vulnerable older adults at risk for nursing home placement. High risk of nursing home 

placement was defined as living alone, having three or more Activities of Daily Living (ADL) 

impairments and older age (aged 75+). The percent of program participants exhibiting high risk 

characteristics increased over the study period between 3 and 10 percentage points depending on 

the service received (personal care, homemaker or chore services). Users of transportation 

services relied heavily on these services, with over half reporting that the service was used for at 

least 75% of their trips. Most of these participants lived alone and were at least 75 years old. 

The study found that home care usage was low given the frailty of the population. The average 

number of home care hours per person per week was 1 to 2 hours. This likely reflects the gap 

filling use of the program. The aging network typically refers participants to other programs or 

providers of care (state-provided home care, Medicaid, and private providers) whenever possible, 

reserving OAA services for those seniors ineligible for other programs. These findings were 

similar for case management services with the typical client receiving 10 hours per year. This is 

consistent with Title III-B case management’s role as a temporary brokerage service linking 

individuals to other supportive services rather than providing an ongoing service. 

In addition, participants were highly satisfied. For example, over 80% of survey respondents 

rated home care services as positive. Finally, Title III-B program funds are highly leveraged. 

Depending on the service, the study found that for every $1 of Title III-B funding, local 

programs leverage $2 to $6 from other sources. Overall, the study found that the Title III-B 

program is a key component of the Older Americans Act and is performing as intended; assisting 

vulnerable older adults to remain independent and active in their communities. The final report 

can be accessed at http://www.aoa.gov/AoARoot/Program_Results/docs/Program_Eval/IIIB%20Final%20Report_6_26_07.doc. 
48 

 

Data Source and Validation Table 

Table 15. Data Source and Validation Table 

Agency Macro Program: Health and Independence 

Measure Data Source Data Validation

1.1

3.3

3.4

State Program 

Report data is 

annually 

submitted by 

states.

The web-based submissions include multiple data checks for consistency. 

Multi-year comparison reports are reviewed by AoA and state staff. AoA 

staff follow-up with states to assure validity and accuracy. After revisions, 

states certify the accuracy of their data.

2.10 State Program 

Report and 

National Survey.

This is a composite measure that utilizes data from multiple sources. One 

source is the State Program Report. Another source is the National Survey. 

State Program Report data is annually submitted by states. The web-based 

submissions include multiple data checks for consistency. Multi-year 

comparison reports are reviewed by AoA and state staff. AoA staff followup with states to assure validity and accuracy. After revisions, states 

certify the accuracy of their data. The National Survey draws a sample of 

Area Agencies is used to obtain a random sample of clients receiving 

selected services. Trained staff administers telephone surveys. Results are 

analyzed and compared to client population to assure representative 

sample.

Agency Program: Home and Community-Based Supportive Services 

Measure Data Source Data Validation

1.1 

2.11 

State Program 

Report data is 

annually 

submitted by 

states. 

The web-based submissions include multiple data checks for consistency. 

Multi-year comparison reports are reviewed by AoA and state staff. AoA 

staff follow-up with states to assure validity and accuracy. After revisions, 

states certify the accuracy of their data. 
49 

 

Measure Data Source Data Validation

2.9b National Survey AoA’s national survey uses a range of quality assurance procedures to 

validate data on OAA participants and services which covers all the steps 

in the survey process. The surveys have consistently achieved a 

cooperation rate of over 80% for the sampled Area Agencies on Aging and 

over 90% for the sample of clients who are currently participating in OAA 

programs. These high cooperation rates occur because of several important 

steps in the quality assurance process, including intensive follow-up to 

contact and interview as many service participants as possible, and calling 

back at times that are convenient for respondents. After the surveys are 

complete, range and consistency checks and edits, in conjunction with the 

CATI software applications, ensure that only correct responses appear in 

the data files. The data is weighted during three post-survey steps to ensure 

accuracy. This includes using the inverse of the probability of selection to 

weight the sample of agencies and clients, adjusting for any non-response 

patterns and bias that might otherwise occur, and post-stratification of 

control totals to ensure consistency with official administrative records.

2.10 State Program 

Report and 

National Survey. 

This is a composite measure that utilizes data from multiple sources. One 

source is the State Program Report. Another source is the National Survey. 

State Program Report data is annually submitted by states. The web-based 

submissions include multiple data checks for consistency. Multi-year 

comparison reports are reviewed by AoA and state staff. AoA staff followup with states to assure validity and accuracy. After revisions, states 

certify the accuracy of their data. The National Survey draws a sample of 

Area Agencies is used to obtain a random sample of clients receiving 

selected services. Trained staff administers telephone surveys. Results are 

analyzed and compared to client population to assure representative 

sample. 

Agency Program: Nutrition Services 

Measure Data Source Data Validation

1.1 

3.2 

State Program 

Report data is 

annually 

submitted by 

states. 

The web-based submissions include multiple data checks for consistency. 

Multi-year comparison reports are reviewed by AoA and state staff. AoA 

staff follow-up with states to assure validity and accuracy. After revisions, 

states certify the accuracy of their data. 
50 

 

Measure Data Source Data Validation

2.9a National Survey AoA’s national survey uses a range of quality assurance procedures to 

validate data on OAA participants and services which covers all the steps 

in the survey process. The surveys have consistently achieved a 

cooperation rate of over 80% for the sampled Area Agencies on Aging and 

over 90% for the sample of clients who are currently participating in OAA 

programs. These high cooperation rates occur because of several important 

steps in the quality assurance process, including intensive follow-up to 

contact and interview as many service participants as possible, and calling 

back at times that are convenient for respondents. After the surveys are 

complete, range and consistency checks and edits, in conjunction with the 

CATI software applications, ensure that only correct responses appear in 

the data files. The data is weighted during three post-survey steps to ensure 

accuracy. This includes using the inverse of the probability of selection to 

weight the sample of agencies and clients, adjusting for any non-response 

patterns and bias that might otherwise occur, and post-stratification of 

control totals to ensure consistency with official administrative records.

2.10 State Program 

Report and 

National Survey. 

This is a composite measure that utilizes data from multiple sources. One 

source is the State Program Report. Another source is the National Survey. 

State Program Report data is annually submitted by states. The web-based 

submissions include multiple data checks for consistency. Multi-year 

comparison reports are reviewed by AoA and state staff. AoA staff followup with states to assure validity and accuracy. After revisions, states 

certify the accuracy of their data. The National Survey draws a sample of 

Area Agencies is used to obtain a random sample of clients receiving 

selected services. Trained staff administers telephone surveys. Results are 

analyzed and compared to client population to assure representative 

sample. 

Agency Program: Native American Nutrition and Supportive Services

Measure Data Source Data Validation

1.3 Title VI Reporting 

System, Budget 

amounts as 

appears in the 

Congressional 

Justification 

Annual reports submitted by grantees, reviewed by AoA staff who followup with questions. Tribal officials certify report is accurate. AoA staff 

review record keeping system during regular on-site monitoring. 
51 

 

Agency Macro Program: Family Caregiver Support Services 

Measure Data Source Data Validation

1.1

2.6

3.1 

State Program 

Report data is 

annually 

submitted by 

states. 

The web-based submissions include multiple data checks for consistency. 

Multi-year comparison reports are reviewed by AoA and state staff. AoA 

staff follow-up with states to assure validity and accuracy. After revisions, 

states certify the accuracy of their data. 

2.9c National Survey AoA’s national survey uses a range of quality assurance procedures to 

validate data on OAA participants and services which covers all the steps 

in the survey process. The surveys have consistently achieved a 

cooperation rate of over 80% for the sampled Area Agencies on Aging 

and over 90% for the sample of clients who are currently participating in 

OAA programs. These high cooperation rates occur because of several 

important steps in the quality assurance process, including intensive 

follow-up to contact and interview as many service participants as 

possible, and calling back at times that are convenient for respondents. 

After the surveys are complete, range and consistency checks and edits, in 

conjunction with the CATI software applications, ensure that only correct 

responses appear in the data files. The data is weighted during three postsurvey steps to ensure accuracy. This includes using the inverse of the 

probability of selection to weight the sample of agencies and clients, 

adjusting for any non-response patterns and bias that might otherwise 

occur, and post-stratification of control totals to ensure consistency with 

official administrative records. 

2.10 State Program 

Report and 

National Survey. 

This is a composite measure that utilizes data from multiple sources. One 

source is the State Program Report. Another source is the National 

Survey. State Program Report data is annually submitted by states. The 

web-based submissions include multiple data checks for consistency. 

Multi-year comparison reports are reviewed by AoA and state staff. AoA 

staff follow-up with states to assure validity and accuracy. After revisions, 

states certify the accuracy of their data. The National Survey draws a 

sample of Area Agencies is used to obtain a random sample of clients 

receiving selected services. Trained staff administers telephone surveys. 

Results are analyzed and compared to client population to assure 

representative sample. 

Agency Program: Services for Native American Caregivers 

Measure Data Source Data Validation

2.6

3.1

State Program 

Report data is 

annually 

submitted by 

states.

The web-based submissions include multiple data checks for consistency. 

Multi-year comparison reports are reviewed by AoA and state staff. AoA 

staff follow-up with states to assure validity and accuracy. After revisions, 

states certify the accuracy of their data.
52 

 

Measure Data Source Data Validation

2.9c National Survey AoA’s national survey uses a range of quality assurance procedures to 

validate data on OAA participants and services which covers all the steps 

in the survey process. The surveys have consistently achieved a 

cooperation rate of over 80% for the sampled Area Agencies on Aging 

and over 90% for the sample of clients who are currently participating in 

OAA programs. These high cooperation rates occur because of several 

important steps in the quality assurance process, including intensive 

follow-up to contact and interview as many service participants as 

possible, and calling back at times that are convenient for respondents. 

After the surveys are complete, range and consistency checks and edits, in 

conjunction with the CATI software applications, ensure that only correct 

responses appear in the data files. The data is weighted during three postsurvey steps to ensure accuracy. This includes using the inverse of the 

probability of selection to weight the sample of agencies and clients, 

adjusting for any non-response patterns and bias that might otherwise 

occur, and post-stratification of control totals to ensure consistency with 

official administrative records.

Agency Macro Program: Protection of Vulnerable Older Americans 

Measure Data Source Data Validation

1.2

2.7

2.12

2.13 

National 

Ombudsman 

Reporting System 

State Program Report data is annually submitted by states. Multi-year 

comparison reports are reviewed by AoA. AoA staff follow-up with states 

to assure validity and accuracy. 

Agency Program: Aging Network Support Activities 

Measure Data Source Data Validation

1.4

1.5

SMP state program 

directors submit data 

semiannually to HHS 

OIG.

Program data is reviewed by SMP Resource Center for input 

discrepancies; follow-up as needed to ensure validity and 

accuracy. OIG reviews SMP performance report submissions, 

validating documentation of savings reported.
53 

 

National Survey Data 

AoA’s national survey employs a range of quality assurance procedures to guarantee the 

validity of data on OAA participants and services. These quality assurance procedures cover 

all steps in the survey process, from the development of the samples of agencies and service 

recipients, to the computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) editing that occurs during 

the survey, and the post-survey weighting of the data to assure that the sample is truly 

representative of the universe of clients and services. 

Senior statisticians have designed a sample of agencies and service recipients that ensure an 

accurate representation of OAA programs, and the project staff focus their attention on 

achieving a high response rate, which maximizes the survey’s precision. The surveys have 

consistently achieved a cooperation rate of over 80% for the sampled Area Agencies on Aging 

and for the sample of clients who are currently participating in OAA programs. These high 

cooperation rates occur because of several important steps in the quality assurance process, 

including intensive follow-up to contact and interview as many service participants as possible, 

calling back at times that are convenient for respondents. 

After the surveys are complete, range and consistency checks and edits, in conjunction with the 

CATI software applications, ensure that only correct responses appear in the data files. Also, the 

statisticians weight the data during three important post-survey steps to ensure accuracy. First, 

the sample of agencies and clients is weighted using the inverse of the probability of selection. 

Second, there is an adjustment for any non-response patterns and bias that might otherwise 

occur. Third, the data are post-stratified to known control totals to ensure consistency with 

official administrative records. 
54 

 

Discontinued Performance Measures Table 

Table 16. Discontinued Measures 

Macro Program: Health and Independence 

Program: Home and Community-Based Supportive Services 

Measure 2.2: Maintain high client satisfaction with transportation services. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2007 82% 82.3% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 82% 85% 

(Target Exceeded) 

Measure 2.9: 90% or more of Title III service recipients rate services good to excellent (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2007 90% 92.4% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 N/A 95.2% 

(Target Not In Place) 

 

Measure Data 

Source Data Validation

2.2 

2.9 

National 

Survey 

AoA’s national survey uses a range of quality assurance procedures to validate data on OAA participants 

and services which covers all the steps in the survey process. The surveys have consistently achieved a 

cooperation rate of over 80% for the sampled Area Agencies on Aging and over 90% for the sample of 

clients who are currently participating in OAA programs. These high cooperation rates occur because of 

several important steps in the quality assurance process, including intensive follow-up to contact and 

interview as many service participants as possible, and calling back at times that are convenient for 

respondents. After the surveys are complete, range and consistency checks and edits, in conjunction with 

the CATI software applications, ensure that only correct responses appear in the data files. The data is 

weighted during three post-survey steps to ensure accuracy. This includes using the inverse of the 

probability of selection to weight the sample of agencies and clients, adjusting for any non-response 

patterns and bias that might otherwise occur, and post-stratification of control totals to ensure consistency 

with official administrative records. 

Program: Nutrition Services 

Measure 2.1: Maintain high client satisfaction with Home Delivered Meals. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2007 93% 94.5% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 93% 94% 

(Target Exceeded) 
55 

 

Measure 2.4: Maintain high client satisfaction with congregate meals (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2007 93% 94% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 93% 97% 

(Target Exceeded) 

Measure Data 

Source Data Validation

2.1 

2.4 

National 

Survey 

AoA’s national survey uses a range of quality assurance procedures to validate data on OAA participants 

and services which covers all the steps in the survey process. The surveys have consistently achieved a 

cooperation rate of over 80% for the sampled Area Agencies on Aging and over 90% for the sample of 

clients who are currently participating in OAA programs. These high cooperation rates occur because of 

several important steps in the quality assurance process, including intensive follow-up to contact and 

interview as many service participants as possible, and calling back at times that are convenient for 

respondents. After the surveys are complete, range and consistency checks and edits, in conjunction with 

the CATI software applications, ensure that only correct responses appear in the data files. The data is 

weighted during three post-survey steps to ensure accuracy. This includes using the inverse of the 

probability of selection to weight the sample of agencies and clients, adjusting for any non-response 

patterns and bias that might otherwise occur, and post-stratification of control totals to ensure consistency 

with official administrative records. 

Macro Program: Family Caregiver Support Services 

Measure 2.3: Maintain high client satisfaction with caregiver of elders. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2007 87% 95.5% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 87% 95% 

(Target Exceeded) 

Measure 2.5: Increase percent of caregivers who report that services helped them care longer for older individuals 

(Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2007 75% 77% 

(Target Exceeded) 

2006 68% 57% 

(Target Not Met but Improved) 

 
56 

 

Measure Data 

Source Data Validation

2.3 

2.5 

National 

Survey 

AoA’s national survey uses a range of quality assurance procedures to validate data on OAA participants 

and services which covers all the steps in the survey process. The surveys have consistently achieved a 

cooperation rate of over 80% for the sampled Area Agencies on Aging and over 90% for the sample of 

clients who are currently participating in OAA programs. These high cooperation rates occur because of 

several important steps in the quality assurance process, including intensive follow-up to contact and 

interview as many service participants as possible, and calling back at times that are convenient for 

respondents. After the surveys are complete, range and consistency checks and edits, in conjunction with 

the CATI software applications, ensure that only correct responses appear in the data files. The data is 

weighted during three post-survey steps to ensure accuracy. This includes using the inverse of the 

probability of selection to weight the sample of agencies and clients, adjusting for any non-response 

patterns and bias that might otherwise occur, and post-stratification of control totals to ensure consistency 

with official administrative records. 

Macro Program: Protection of Vulnerable Older Americans 

Measure 1.2: For Title VII Services, increase the number of Ombudsman complaints resolved or partially resolved 

per million dollars of AoA funding. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2010 Discontinued

2009 11,346 Sep 30, 2010

2008 11,439 Sep 30, 2009

2007 11,811 10,801 

(Target Not Met but Improved)

2006 10,062 10,745 

(Target Exceeded)

Measure 2.7: Improve the Ombudsman complaint resolution rates. (Outcome)

FY Target Result 

2010 Discontinued

2009 32 Sep 30, 2010

2008 30 24 

(Target Not Met)

2007 15 35 

(Target Exceeded)

2006 15 27 

(Target Exceeded)

Measure Data Source Data Validation

1.2 

2.7 

National Ombudsman 

Reporting System 

State Program Report data is annually submitted by states. Multi-year comparison reports 

are reviewed by AoA. AoA staff follow-up with states to assure validity and accuracy. 
57 

 

Macro Program: Network Support and Demonstrations 

Measure 1.4: For Senior Medicare Patrol, increase the number of beneficiaries trained per million dollars of AoA 

funding. (Outcome) 

FY Target Result 

2010 Discontinued

2009 41,230 Sep 30, 2010

2008 49,600 36,479 

(Target Not Met) 

2007 48,980 39,216 

(Target Not Met)

2006 37,200 42,767 

(Target Exceeded)

Measure Data Source Data Validation

1.4 SMP state program directors 

submit data semiannually to 

HHS OIG. 

Program data is reviewed by SMP Resource Center for input discrepancies; followup as needed to ensure validity and accuracy. OIG reviews SMP performance report 

submissions, validating documentation of savings reported.