Department of Health and Human Servces


OFFICE OF


INSPECTOR GENERAL


TIME EXTENSIONS AND FUNDING


SUPPLEMENTS FOR OHDS


DISCRETIONARY GRANTS


VlCl. 

Richard P. Kusserow 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

cl3a OEI-04-89-00801 
OFFICE OF INSPECfOR GENERA


The mission of the Offce of Inspector General (DIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 

amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Servces' (HHS) 

programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This 

statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and 

inspections conducted by three DIG operating components: the Office of Audit Servces, the 

Office of Investigations, and the Offce of Evaluation and Inspections. The DIG also informs 

the Secretary of HHS of program, and management problems, and recommends courses to 

correct them. 

OFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICE 

The DIG's Offce of Audit Servces (OAS) provides all auditing services for HHS, either by 

conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. 

Audits examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in 

carryng out their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent 

assessments of HHS programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and 

mismanagement and to promote economy and effciency throughout the Department. 

OFFICE OF INSTIGATIONS 

The DIG's Offce of Investigations (01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative 

investigations of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of 

unjust enrichment by providers. The investigative efforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions 

administrative sanctions, or civil money penalties. The 01 also oversees State Medicaid fraud 

control units which investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program. 

OFFICE OF EVALUATION AN INSPECfONS 

The DIG's Offce of Evaluation and Inspections (DEI) conducts short-term management and 

program evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department 

the Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection 

reports generate rapid, accurate, and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability, 

and effectiveness of departmental programs. 

DEI's Atlanta Regional Office staff prepared this report under the direction of Jesse J. 

Flowers, Regional Inspector General, and Chris Koehler, Deputy Regional Inspector General. 

Principal DEI staff included: 

Ruth Reiser Susan Hardwick, Headquarters 

Jim Wilson Barbara Tedesco, Technical 

Christopher Anglin Support Staff 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


PUROSE 

To determine the (1) extent and characteristics of Coordinated Discretionary Funds 

Program grants that received time extensions and funding supplements, (2) reasons for 

approving multiple extensions and supplements, and (3) whether the Office of Human 

Development Servces followed requirements in approving time extensions and funding 

supplements. 

BACKGROUN 

The Office of Human Development Servces (OHDS) established the Coordinated 

Discretionary Funds Program (CDP) in 1982 to coordinate research, training and 

demonstration grant projects that cut across OHDS agencies. The CDP is intended to 

provide specified time limit funding, rather than ongoing funding for social servces. 

Time extensions and funding supplements for CDP grants must be approved by 

OHDS funding agencies -­

Administration on Aging,


Administration for Children, Youth and Families 

Administration on Developmental Disabilities 

Administration for Native Americans, and 

Office of Policy, Planning and Legislation. 

In August 1991, all OHDS agencies except the Administration on Aging (AoA) 

merged with the Family Support Administration, forming the Administration for 

Children and Familes (ACF). 

METHODOLOGY 

To determine the extent and characteristics of CDP grants that received time 

extensions and funding supplements, we examined 454 grants (1) awarded in fiscal 

years 1986, 1987 and 1988 by central offices of OHDS agencies, and (2) closed-out by 

October 1990. To determine the reasons for approval of multiple extensions and 

supplements and OHDS adherence to its requirements, we reviewed 47 grant fies 

selected through stratified random sampling from 97 grants that had received two or 

more time extensions or funding supplements. For each grant in the sample, we 

reviewed the official grant fies and interviewed grants officers when needed to clarify 

and understand material. 
FIINGS


Ti exenns were commn for CDP grants. 

About 58 percent of the 454 grants reviewed had received time extensions, but threefourths had only a single extension of short duration. 

The reasons for multiple time extensions were either to complete or to expand the 

original scope of work. Those grantees receiving multiple time extensions to complete 

their work frequently reported that their award notices had arrived at the end of a 

fiscal year -- only weeks or days prior to scheduled start dates -- causing them to get a 

late start. The majority of new CDP awards are made in the last quarter of a fiscal 

year. 

Few CDP grants received fuing supplements. 

OHDS staff generall followed reqirements for approving both multiple ti exenns 

and fuing supplements. 

RECOMMNDATION 

ACF and AoA shoul award CDP grants earlier in a fical year rather than awarding the 

majority of ne grants in the lat qurter. 

Such practice will allow needed start-up or lead time for grantees to begin projects on 

schedule. Further, it should decrease the number of grants that receive time 

extensions due to late starts. We recognize that ACF and AoA schedules for 

announcing, reviewing, and approving grants wil need to be revised to implement this 

recommendation. 

COMMNT 

The draft report was circulated for comment to the Administration for Children and 

Familes (ACF) and the Administration on Aging. Both agencies concurred with the 

findings and recommendation and are taking steps to award grants prior to the fourth 

quarter. 

The ACF agreed with our recommendation on the basis of improving management of 

its workload rather than decreasing the number of extensions due to late starts. 

believe the recommendation could have both impacts -- improving agency workload 

management, and precluding grantees from requesting extensions due to late notice of 

grant awards. In response to ACF's technical comments, we made changes to clarify 

our information where necessary. 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS


E)O 

INODUCfON 

FIINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Time Extensions Were Common for CDP Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 

Few CDP Grants Received Funding Supplements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 

OHDS Generally Followed Requirements 

for Approving Extensions and Supplements 

RECOMMNDATION 

AGENCY COMMNT 

ENDNOTE 

APPENDICE 

A: Actual Length of CDP Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AB: Number of Time Extensions 

C: Extensions and Supplements by Type of Grant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. CD: Extensions and Supplements by Type of Grantee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DE: Number of Funding Supplements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. EF: Summary of OHDS Grant Awards and Supplements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. FG: Agency Comments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G­

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION


PUROSE 

To determine the (1) extent and characteristics of Coordinated Discretionary Funds 

Program grants that received time extensions and funding supplements, (2) reasons for 

approving multiple extensions and supplements, and (3) whether the Office of Human 

Development Servces followed requirements in approving time extensions and funding 

supplements. 

BACKGROUN 

The Office of Human Development Servces (OHDS) administered the Coordinated 

Discretionary Funds Program which combined grant management support for 

discretionary grant programs of all OHDS agencies. In August 1991, after we started 

our inspection, OHDS reorganized. All OHDS agencies, except the Administration on 

Aging, merged with the Family Support Administration, forming the Administration 

for Children and Familes (ACF). 

The findings and information in this report are applicable to both the OHDS 

components of the newly formed ACF and AoA. 

Ofce of Humn Development Servces 

The OHDS included four program agencies and an Office of Policy. They were: 

Administration for Children, Youth and Families (ACY), 

Administration on Aging (AoA), 

Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD), 

Administration for Native Americans (ANA), and 

Office of Policy, Planning and Legislation (OPPL). 

Each program agency served a separate client population. One program agency, AoA, 

reported directly to the Secretary, but received grants management support from 

OHDS. 

Coordinated Dicretionary Fun Program 

In 1982, OHDS created the Coordinated Discretionary Funds Program (CDP) to 

coordinate research, training and demonstration grant projects that cut across OHDS 

agencies. 

Under CDP, all agencies shared one grants management office, a single solicitation 

announcement, and a central computerized information system in OHDS' Office of 
, 

Management Servces (OMS). However, CDP maintained each OHDS program 

agency and OPPL identity for each grant. Each grant had (1) a project officer 

assigned by the appropriate program agency or OPPL, and (2) a grants officer 

assigned from OMS. These two individuals were responsible for administering CDP 

grants. Beginning in 1989, AoA issued separate grant announcements, but continued 

to use other OMS servces. 

Most CDP grants awarded from 1986 through 1988 and included in our study were 

made by ACYF. The chart below shows the percentage of CDP grants made by each 

OHDS program agency and OPPL. 

DISTRIBUTION OF CDP GRATS BY AGENCY 

ADA (24%) 

DPPL (4%) 

ACYF (64%) ANA (5%) 

ADD (3%) 

In each grant announcement, OHDS specified , in the Federal Register, intended 

duration for each grant project, and the maxmum amount of funding. OHDS usually 

specified the grant time periods as 12, 17, 24 or 36 months. Further, OHDS 

announcements stated The CDP is not intended to provide funds for ongoing social 

servces, or to serve as a supplemental source of funds for local activities which need 

operating subsidies. 

The OHDS classified most CDP grants into three tyes -- research, demonstration 

and training. The tyical applicants were state and local governments, private and 

public non-profit agencies, and educational-research organizations. 

Procedures for Approvig Time Exensons and Funing Supplements 

Grantees may request extensions of time and supplemental funding. OHDS advises 

grantees of the total length of time for their projects and the amount of Federal funds 

for the first budget period. A budget period is usually 12 months, representing a time 
segment into which a grant project is divided for funding purposes. Both the 

appropriate agency project officer and OHDS grants officer must review and approve 

grantee requests before a grant time period can be extended or additional funds 

granted. 

The project and grants officers have authority to recommend approval of (1) no-cost 

extensions of time up to 12 months, and (2) supplemental funding up to 25 percent of 

the total approved grant for a current budget period. 

The director of grants management in OHDS' OMS must approve no-cost extensions 

over 12 months.


Grantees who request funding supplements exceeding 25 percent of a current budget 

period must compete with other applicants for available funds. However, if project 

and grants management officers determine that a grant project is of outstanding merit 

the Assistant Secretary for Human Development Servces (ASHD) or the 

Commissioner on Aging may waive the competitive requirement. 

A revised Notice of Financial Assistance Awarded (FAA) is OHDS' official 

notification to grantees that their requested time extension and funding supplement 

was approved. The FAA is signed by the grants officer, and commissioner and budget 

officer of the appropriate OHDS program agency. 

Prevous Stuies


Both the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Government Operations have completed studies on the CDP grant 

program.2 These studies showed that monitoring and oversight of OHDS 

discretionary grants were insufficient. However, the studies did not specifically address 

procedures for approving time extensions and funding supplements.


SCOPE AN METHODOLOGY 

We examined 454 CDP grants (1) awarded in fiscal years 1986, 1987 or 1988 by 

central offices of AoA, ACYF, ADD, ANA, and OPPL, and (2) closed-out by October 

1990. We excluded ACYF' s Head Start grants and ANA' s Social & Economic 

Development grants because, unlike other CDP grants, the same grantees are 

frequently refunded from year to year. 

We analyzed descriptive data from OHDS' Grants Management Information System 

(GMIS) to determine the extent and characteristics of all 454 grants that received 

either time extensions or funding supplements. We analyzed the characteristics of 

grants to determine if there were differences in program agency, tye of grant, tye of grantee, and size of grant for grants with extensions or supplements. 
To determine (1) reasons for approval of extensions and funding supplements and 

(2) if OHDS followed its requirements, we reviewed a stratified random sample of 47 

of the 454 grants. We stratified the 454 grants by agency and by those grants that had 

received two or more time extensions or a supplement. Ninety-seven of the 454 grants 

had more than one time extension or a funding supplement. 

From the stratified universe of 97 grants, we selected a sample of 55 that had received 

either multiple time extensions or supplemental funds. We randomly selected half of 

the grants in AoA and ACYF. Because of the small number of grants in ADD, ANA, 

and OPPL that had experienced either multiple time extensions or supplemental 

funding, we selected 100 percent. OHDS' OMS could locate files for 47 of the 55 

grants included in our sample. Our stratified universe contained 38 from AoA, 34 

from ACYF, 4 from ADD, 8 from ANA and 7 from OPPL? Our sample of 47 grants 

contained 19 from AoA, 12 from ACYF, 4 from ADD, 7 from ANA and 5 from 

OPPL. 

For each grant in the sample, we reviewed the official grants files and intervewed 

grants officers when needed to clarify and understand material. 
FINDINGS


TI EXTNSIONS WERE COMMON FOR CDP GRA 

Exent and Legth of Ti Exensns 

The OHDS approved time extensions for 259 of the 454 grants we reviewed -- about 

57 percent. Of the 259 approved extensions, 184 had only a single extension -- about 

71 percent. The remaining 75 grants received more than one extension, as the 

following chart ilustrates. 

PERCENTAGE OF 454 CDP GRAS 

WITH TIME EXTENSIONS


No Extensions (43%)


195 

Multiple Extensions (17%) 

Single Exension 

184 

percentages ar rounded to the neaest whole number 

The initial contracts for most grants were 24 months or less which is in accord with the 

grant lengths advertised in the 
 Federal Register. Although grants with extensions 

usually exceeded the advertised guidelines, 71 percent of all 454 grants finished within 

24 months. Time extension for grants that received only one extension averaged four 

months. For grants receiving multiple extensions, the extension period averaged nine 

months. OHDS agencies seldom approved extensions exceeding 12 months. Only 

AoA had more than one such case. Appendix A gives the actual length of grants 

including extension periods, for grants approved by each OHDS agency. 
Charactertics of Grants wih Time Exenons 

The percentage of grants extended in each OHDS agency varied widely. AoA grants 

for example, were much more likely to receive an extension than ACYF grants. 

The following chart shows variation in single and multiple time extensions by the four 

OHDS program agencies and Office of Policy. Appendix B shows the number of 

grants with extensions for each agency.


GRAS EXTENDED BY ODDS AGENCY 

100% Single 

82% 85% Multiple 

80% 

62% 

60% 

40% 

20% 

AOA ACYF ADD ANA OPPL 

Granting Agency 

There was less variation by tye of grant or grantee. One tye of grant was not more 

likely to receive time extensions than another type. Appendix C gives the number of 

grants with extensions by type of grant for each OHDS agency. 

However, there was a statistically significant difference by type of grantee. 

Government grantees were more likely to get extensions than educational-research 

organizations, public non-profit, or private agencies.4 The relationship between tye of grantee and time extension for all agencies combined is shown in the following 

chart. However, this relationship varies by OHDS agency, as appendix D ilustrates. 
Type of Grantee Percent with Exensions 

Government 

Educational 

Public non-profit 

Private agencies


Reasons for Multiple Ti Exenons 

The most common reason reported by grantees for requesting time extensions was to 

complete their initial grant workplan. Grantees for the 75 grants that received more 

than one such extension tyically justified the extensions based on 

grant execution started late 

sampling delays 

product development and review by consultants took longer than anticipated 

delays due to staff ilness or recruitment problems, and 

state legislative requirements, such as getting bids for printing, delayed 

performance. 

Grantees reported that award notices frequently are received only weeks or days prior 

to scheduled start dates, causing them to get a late start. As a result, more time was 

needed to complete grant workplans. The OMS must allocate CDP funds for each 

fiscal year by year s end. The schedule for publishing CDP announcements and 

reviewing grant applications has resulted in a time crunch at the end of a fiscal year. 

Accordingly, the majority of new CDP awards are not made until the last quarter of 

the fiscal year. Of the grantees in our sample requesting time extensions due to late 

arrival of the award notice, three-fourths of the grants were awarded in the last 

quarter of the fiscal year. 

The second most common reason reported by grantees for multiple time extensions 

was to expand original scope of work by adding new and more activities. Examples of 

such expansion requests include widening dissemination efforts, allowing a longer 

follow-up measurement period, expanding training to include more volunteers 

providing more workshops, and adding extra data sources. 
FEW CDP GRA RECEIVD FUING SUPPLEMENT 

Exent and Size of Funing Supplemts 

The OHDS approved supplemental funding for 38 of the 454 CDP grants we reviewed 

-- about nine percent. The supplemental funding for these grants represented three 

percent of all CDP grant funds approved during the period from 1986 through 1988 

and included in this study. 

Twenty-six of the 38 supplemented grants also received a time extension. 

The following chart shows the percentage of grants that all OHDS agencies combined 

approved for funding supplements. Appendix E shows the number of grants with 

supplemental funding for each OHDS agency. 

PERCENTAGE OF 454 CDP GRATS 

WITH FUING SUPPLEMENTS 

No Supplements (92%)


416 

Supplement Only (3%)


upplement & Ex. (6%)


percntages are rounded to the neaest whole number 

The grants ranged from an average of $86 000 in ACYF to $216 000 in OPPL. The 

size of funding supplements ranged from an average of $21 000 for ANA grants to 

$96 000 for ADD. 

Only 38 of the 454 grants received supplemental funding; however, almost half (18) of 

the supplements exceeded 25 percent of the total approved grant budget, requiring 

approval by the Assistant Secretary for Human Development Servces (ASHD) or the 

Commissioner on Aging. The percentage of supplements that exceeded the 25 

percent threshold varied widely among the program agencies, as shown in appendix F. 
Appendix F also shows the initial award amount, supplemental funding amount 

average award and supplement, and supplement amount as a percentage of total 

award amount for each OHDS agency. 

Characteritics of Grants with Funing Supplements 

As with time extensions, the extent each OHDS agency supplemented grants with 

added funding varied considerably (See chart below). Likewise, the frequency of 

funding supplements varied by size of grant. However, there was very little variation 

between grants with supplements by tye of grant or grantee. 

100 GRAS RECEIVING FUDING SUPPLEMENTSBY OHDS AGENCY 

Supplement Only 

Supplement & Exension 

35% 

AOA ACYF ADD ANA OPPL 

Granting Agency 

In each agency, larger grants received a supplement more frequently than smaller 

ones. Only 48 percent of the 454 grants had contracts exceeding $100 000; however 

89 percent of the funding supplements were for grants that originally exceeded 

$100 000. 

There was no significant difference in percent of grants receiving funding supplements 

when analyzed by tye of grant and tye of grantee. 

Reasons for Funing Supplements 

Grantees most commonly requested supplemental funding to expand scope of work. 

Examples of such expansions include adding a control group, investigating a new 

problem area, conducting additional workshops, or expanding the number of trainees. 
Split-funding was the other major reason for funding supplements. Prior to 1988 

OHDS occasionally awarded more grants in a fiscal year than could be fully funded. 

OHDS promised grantees that they would provide the remainder of the funds in the 

next fiscal year. Under this practice, called split-funding, grants received only a 

portion of the amount promised in the first budget period. OHDS agencies provided 

the remainder in the following fiscal year in the form of a funding supplement. 

Funding supplements due to split-funding always exceeded 25 percent of the approved 

budget. Split-funding no longer occurs. 

OHDS GENERAY FOLLWED REQUIMENT IN APPROVIG 

EXTNSIONS AN FUING SUPPLEMENT 

Approvals for Time Exensons 

The official Notice of Financial Assistance Awarded (FAA) had required signatures 

for all grants with multiple time extensions. However, for 36 percentS of 75 OHDS 

grants with multiple time extensions, at least one of the three required signatures was 

late. The FAA form was not dated until after the extension period had begun. 

such cases where a grantee proceeds with a grant project prior to receiving official 

approval, it is at their own risk. 

All grants with time extensions over 12 months contained the OMS grants 

management office director s justification. 

Approvals for Funing Supplements 

All required FAA signatures for funding supplements were in the fies. 

Eighteen grants received funding supplements that exceeded 25 percent of current 

approved budget. The required authorizations for supplements exceeding 25 percent 

of budget were in the fies for grants in AoA, ACY, and ANA 

For ADD grants, one of the three funding supplements that exceeded 25 percent of 

current budget did not have the required ASHD approval. The other two had the 

required approval. In OPPL, three of four funding supplements that exceeded the 25 

percent threshold did not have a memo from the ASHD authorizing the high-cost 

supplement, as required. Each of these four funding supplements that lacked ASHD 

approval was due to split-funding. 

None of the 18 grants that exceeded 25 percent of budget were required to recompete 

for funding. Each grantee was given approval to deviate from the competition 

requirement. 
RECOMMENDA TIONS


The following recommendation targets only those tlme extensions attributed to late 

arrival of award notices. 

ACF and AoA should award CDP grants earlier in a fisca year rather than awardig 

the majority of new grants in the last quarter. 

Such practice will allow for needed start-up or lead time for grantees to begin projects 

on schedule. Further, it should decrease the number of grants that receive time 

extensions due to late starts. We recognize that ACF and AoA schedules for 

announcing, reviewing and approving grants will need to be revised to implement this 

recommendation. 
AGENCY COMMENTS


The Administration for Children and Familes (ACF) and the Administration on Aging 

commented on the draft report. Their comments and our responses are summarized 

below. Appendix G contains the full text of the agencies' comments. 

ACF Commnts 

The ACF agreed with the thrust of the recommendation from an agency workload 

management perspective. ACF has already implemented several steps to accelerate 

its grant program announcement and evaluation process. 

However, the ACF does not believe that altering grant award schedules will affect the 

extent of multiple extensions of project periods. ACF commented that multiple 

extensions due to late arrival of awards is not widespread. The agency partly based 

this opinion on our finding that only a portion of the 17 percent of grants with 

multiple extensions were due to late awards. Further, the agency noted that grantees 

with well planned projects have start-up time built into their proposed project periods. 

The start-up time allows grantees to stay on schedule even when the period between 

notice of award and the start date is very short. 

OIG Response 

We believe that ACF's acceleration of its grant award notices wil not only improve 

agency workload management, but also preclude grantees from requesting extensions 

due to late notice of grant awards. The problem of extensions due to late arrival of 

award notices is more widespread than just that reported by us for grants with 

multiple extensions. Many grantees that received single extensions also reported that 

their award notices were received only weeks or days prior to scheduled start dates 

causing them to get a late start. Further, we are not suggesting that ACF tailor its 

grant awards to meet the varyng preferences of each individual grant applicant. 

In response to ACF's technical comments, we made changes to clarify our information 

where necessary. 

AoA Comments 

The AoA concurred with our recommendation. The agency is making every effort to 

schedule announcements, review and approve grants prior to the fourth quarter. Since 

1989, AoA has awarded most new grants in the third quarter, except in 1991. 

OIG Response 

We believe AoA' s efforts to award grants prior to the fourth quarter will result in 

fewer grant extensions due to late starts. 
ENDNOTES


U. S. Department of Health and Human Servces, Office of Human Development 

Servces, Grants and Contracts Management Division. HDS Discretionary Grants 

Administration Manual. (HDS/GAM TN 86- 1), p. 1­

U. S. Department of Health and Human Servces, Office of Inspector General 

Office of Audit. 
 Review of Selected Practices in Managing Discretionary Grants. 

Office of Human Development Servces. (Audit Control Number 12-33129). 

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General 

Office of Audit Servces. 
 Management Advisory Report: Awarding and 

Monitoring Discretionary Grants. Human Development Servces. (Number A-12-

89-00142). 

U. S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Operations. 

Mismanagement of the Office of Human Development Servces: Undermining 

Programs for Children. the Disabled. and the Elderly. (Washington, D. c.: U. 

Government Printing Office, 1987, 100th Congress, 1st Session, House Report 

100-57). 

Six additional grants with multiple time extensions or funding supplements were 

closed-out after we selected our sample. The additional grants are included in the 

study universe.


Our chi-square test yielded a value of 17.29 which indicates a difference among all 

tyes of grantees at the 99 percent confidence level. Further, our t test showed 

that (1) at the 99 percent confidence level, government grantees were more likely 

to get time extensions than private agency grantees; (2) at the 95 percent 

confidence level, government grantees were more likely to get time extensions 

than educational-research grantees; and (3) at the 90 percent confidence level 

government grantees were more likely to get extensions than public non-profit 

agency grantees. 

At the 95 percent confidence level, the percentage of grants with late 

authorization signatures can fall in an interval of 27 percent to 44 percent based 

on the 43 grants in our sample that received multiple time extensions. 
APPENDIX A


AcrAL LENGTH OF CDP GRA 

FISCAL YES 19861988 

Granting oe=17 Mos. 18-24 Mos. 25-36 Mos. 36 Mos. Tot. 

Agency NO. NO. NO. NO. NO. 

AOA 111 

ACYF 150 287 

ADD 

ANA 

OPPL 

Total for 102 219 118 454 

OHDS 
APPENDIX 


NUER OF TI EXTNSIONS FOR CDP GRA DURG 

FISCAL YES 1986-1988 

Granting Total Grants With 

Agency Grants No Extensions Single Extension Multiple 

Extensions 

No. No. No. 

AOA 111 

ACYF 287 157 102 

ADD 

ANA 

OPPL 

TOTAL 454 195 184 
APPENDIX 


OHDS CDP GRA EXSIONS AN SUPPLE BY TYE OF GRA 

Demonstra- Research Training Servce Other Total 

tion 

ADMIS1RTION ON AGING 

Single Exension 

Multiple 

Exensions 

Supplement Only 

Both Exension 

and Supplement 

No Exensions 

or Supplements 

Total for AOA 

Single Exension 

Multiple 

Exensions 

Supplement Only 

Both Exension 

and Supplement 

No Exensions 

or Supplements 

Total for ACYF 

ADMIS1RTION ON DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILIT 

Single Exension 

Multiple 

Exensions 

Supplement Only 

Both Exension 

and Supplement 

No Exensions 

or Supplements 

Total for ADD 

C - 1

OHDS CDP GRA EXTSIONS AN SUPPLEME BY TYE OF GRA


contiued 

Demonstra- Research Training Service Other Total 

tion 

ADMIS1RTION FOR NATI AMICANS 

Single Exension 

Multiple 

Exensions 

Supplement Only 

Both Exension 

and Supplement 

No Exensions 

or Supplements 

Total for ANA 

OFACE OF POLICY PLAG AN LEGISlATION 

Single Exension 

Multiple 

Exensions 

Supplement Only 

Both Exension 

and Supplement 

No Exensions 

or Supplements 

Total for OPPL 

OHDS AGENCIE COMBIND 

Single Exension 

Multiple 

Exensions 

Supplement Only 

Both Exension 

and Supplement 

No Exensions 

or Supplements 

Total for OHDS 

C - 2 
APPENDIX D


OHDS CDP GRA EXNSIONS AN SUPPLEME BY TYE OF GRA 

Gov Public Non- Private Educational Total 

Profit Agencies Organizations 

ADMIS1RTION ON AGING 

Exensions 

Supplement Only 

Both Exension 

and Supplement 

No Exensions 

or Supplements 

Total for AOA 

ADMIS1RTION FOR CIDREN, YOUT AN FAM 

Exensions 63 43 30 

Supplement Only 

Both Exension 

and Supplement 

No Exensions 

or Supplements 

Total for ACYF 

ADMIS1RTION ON DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILIT 

Exensions 

Supplement Only 

Both Exension 

and Supplement 

No Exensions 

or Supplements 

Total for ADD 

D - 1 
OHDS CDP GRA EXSIONS AN SUPPLEME BY TYE OF GRA


contiued 

Govt. Public Non- Private Educational Total 

Profit Agencies Organizations 

ADMISTRTION FOR NATI AMICANS 

Exensions 

Supplement Only 

Both Exension 

and Supplement 

No Exensions 

or Supplements 

Total for ANA 

OFFCE OF POLICY PLAG AN LEGISLATION 

Exensions 

Supplement Only 

Both Exension 

and Supplement 

No Exensions 

or Supplements 

Total for OPPL 

OHDS AGENCIE COMBIND 

Extensions 

Supplement Only 

Both Exension 

and Supplement 

No Exensions 

or Supplements


Total for OHDS 

D - 2 
APPENDIX 


NUER OF FUING SUPPLEMENT FOR COP GRA DURG 

FISCAL YES 198198 

Granting Total Grants With 

Agency Grants No Supplements Supplement Only Supplement and 

Exension 

No. No. No. 

AOA 111 100 

ACYF 287 275 

ADD 

ANA 

OPPL 

TOTAL 454 416 

E - 1

APPENDIX 


SUMY OF OHDS GRA AWARS AN FUING SUPPLEME 

(dollar in thousnds) 

Granting # of Grant Avg. # of Total Avg. Supp. as Supp. Over 

Agency Grants Awards Award Grants Funding Supp %of 25% of 

With Supp. Award Budget 

Supps. 

No. 

AOA 111 $17 596 $159 $498 $45 

ACYF 287 $24 802 $86 $332 $28 

ADD 694 $180 $382 $96 

ANA 014 $144 $85 $21 

OPPL 321 $216 $487 $70 

454 $52 427 $115 784 $47 

TOTAL 

including funding supplements 

F - 1

APPENDIX G


AGENCY COMMNT ON DRA REPORT 

G ­

, 

(p. ., 

"'"UU- H.uh J. UJ. .l.&LIH &. HU lAN SERVICES 'I 

"""ra 

ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILlE 

March 23, 1992 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S. 

Washington, D.C. 2047 

To: Richard P. Kusserow 

Inspector General


From: Jo Anne B. Barnhart 

Assistant Secretary f


Chiljren and Fam
' ie


Subj ect : Comm nts on the Offi Report: " of Inspector General' s Draft Time Extensions and Funding Supplements for 

OHDS Discretionary Grants
 OEI-04-89-00801 

We have reviewed the Inspector General' s draft inspection report
 Time Extensions and Funding Supplements for OHDS Discretionary


Grants and find that it accurately reflects the former 

experience in granting time extensions and supplemental OHDS'

grantees during fiscal years 1986 through funds to

following comments with regard to the findings and the one
 1988. We have the

recommendation in the report.


OIG Finding:


Time extensions were common for CDP grants


Although 58 percent of grants received time extensions


three-fourths had only a single extension of short duration. 

Grantees receiving multiple time extensions frequently


mentioned that their award notices had arrived at the end 


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


dates -- causing them to get a late start. The majority of new CDP awards are made in the last quarter of a 

year. fiscal ii) 

ACF Comment: 

The report bases its recommendation on the above finding. It should be pointed out that of the 454 grants reviewed for 

GIG' s study, only 75 the (17%) received multiple time Moreover extensions. , these 75 grantees indicated at least five separate

factors associated with not being able to complete project work
 plans as originally scheduled. 

to "late" execution of the grantOnly one of these factors related award. (The others were completely independent of grantor agency actions.


each of the five factors was equally responsible for causing
 Assuming that


delays on the part of these 75 grantees , it is not likely that
 mc:re than approximately 15 out of 454LgJFP e*e c1te the Federal grant award date as a tA8to Gas ?l!t 3. 3% would 

their requiring multiple time extensions. ated w1th 

..l.J :':J';I 1-1:"1 r"" 

N! .:0 :2" 

031\!3 3CJ 
2 - Richard P. Kusserow
 page 

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


schedule grant awards to meet the varying preferences of


individual applicants and, equally important , that any set


schedule for awarding grants will please some applicants but


discomfit others. Assuming that initiation of project activities


is dependent on Federal funding, grant applicants should make no


presumptions concerning when they can actually begin implementing


their projects until they are notified that they are funded. Well-planned projects that are dependent on Federal funds for 

their initiation should build start-up time into their proposed


project periods. The vast majority of our grantees appear to
 understand these requirements and complete their proj ects without 

requesting multiple time extensions attributable to "late " grant
 award dates. 

OIG Recommendation: 

ACF and AoA should award CDP grants earlier in a fiscal year


rather than awarding the majority of new grants in the last


quarter. 

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


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


starts. We recognize that ACF and AoA schedules for


announcing, reviewing and approving grants will need to be


revised to accomplish this recommendation. 

ACF Comment: 

We concur. Al though we agree with the thrust of this 

recommendation from an agency workload management perspective, we


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


the OIG Report is widespread or that altering grant award


schedules will affect the incidence of multiple extensions of
 project periods. We are concerned that the majority of our CDP 

grants are being awarded in the fourth quarter and we have


already taken steps to address this concern. 

At a recent ACF Senior Staff jRegional Administrators ' meeting, we
 discussed how we could accelerate our grant program announcements
 process. I have already implemented some of the recommendations from this meeting. For example , the ACF publication schedules

for announcing, reviewing and approving discretionary and formula 

grants have been revised. New deadlines have been established


for the submission and review of program announcements by ACF
 off ices. A six-week limit has been placed on the evaluation

process (from the closing date of the announcement to the 

submission of a decision package (s) to the front office). These 

new requirements were outlined in my memorandum to ACF Senior
 Staff , dated November 12 , 1991. 
(p. 

e 3 - Richard P. Kusserow


echnical CO ents 

The report contains several references to discussions with


grantees on their reasons for requesting time extensions.
 7) These discussions are reflected in the OIG 

recommenda tion and, as such, should be added to the


description of the methodology on pages i and 4. Reference 

to discussions with grants officers (p. 4) should also be

referenced on page i. 

To fully reflect the findings discussed in the body of the


report , we suggest that two statements be added to the 

executi ve summary on page ii: 

Under the heading: "Time extensions were common for CDP


grants " a third bullet should be added to state: 

"After late starts . the most frequent reason for 

requesting a time extension was to expand the original


scope of work by adding new and more activities" (see page 7). 

Under the heading: "Few CDP grants received funding


supplements, " we suggest that the following statement 

be added: "When granted, supplements most commonly were
 used to expand the scope of work" (see page 9). 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the recommendations


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


regard , please let me know. 
..

DEPARTM OF HETI & HU SERVICE Of of th Sec 

( E Admtron on Agg 

Wasgt, D.C. 201 

APR 'e 


TO: Richard P. Kusserow 

Inspector General


FROM: u. s. Commissioner on Aging 

SUBJECT: Time Extensions and Funding supplements 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report on the


Time Extensions and Funding supplements " on discretionary grants


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


through 1988. We are pleased that the requirements for approval 

of time extensions and supplements were followed. However, you 

recommended that AoA award CDP grants earlier in a fiscal year


rather than awarding the majority of new grants in the last


quarter. We concur , and understand this recommendation is of


most importance. 

During the time period of the study AoA was a part of the CDP


process , however, since 1989 we issued our own Discretionary 

Funds Program announcement and with the exception of 1991 most


new grants were awarded in the third quarter.


AoA is making every effort to schedule announcing, reviewing and


approving grants prior to the fourth quarter.


1:1 

77\111;7'"' C. ' .0 0 (. 00, l.OUI 

rY:j I, II .. V-' O"' ,. .:.. ..., n :2" ..;J.. 

G31\1383B