Managing for Results: Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between Resources and Results at the Administration for Children and Families
Published: 2002-12-10T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Encouraging a clearer and closer link between budgeting, planning, and performance is essential to improving federal management and instilling a greater focus on results. Through work at various levels within the organization, this report on the Administration for Children and Families (ACF)--and its two companion studies on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (GAO-03-258) and the Veterans Health Administration (GAO-03-10)--records (1) what managers considered successful efforts at creating linkages between planning and performance information to influence resource choices and (2) the challenges managers face in creating these linkages.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) budget and performance planning processes are clearly related but are not fully integrated. Budget and planning align more closely after ACF sends the budget request and performance plan to the Department of Health and Human Services for review. Finally, unlike budget formulation, budget execution largely occurs in the regional offices, where resource allocation is often driven by program performance. Officials in ACF's Head Start, Child Support Enforcement, and Community Services Block Grant programs described three general ways in which decisions at the programmatic level are influenced by performance: (1) training and technical assistance money is often allocated based on needs and grantee performance, (2) partnerships and collaboration help ACF work with grantees towards common goals and further the administration's agenda, and (3) organizing and allocating regional staff around agency goals allow employees to link their day-to-day activities to longer-term results and outcomes. While ACF must overcome some difficult barriers to further budget and performance integration, it has begun to identify and implement mitigation strategies for some of these issues. For example, ACF conducts much of its work through nonfederal service providers, which often limits the extent to which ACF can influence national performance goals and can seriously complicate data collection. To address this, ACF has successfully collaborated with providers to develop national performance goals and build data collection capacity. This has also raised awareness of the importance of collecting and reporting performance data uniformly. Since ACF programs are often only part of a network of long-term federal, state, and local efforts to address serious health and social concerns, attributing a particular outcome to a particular program can be difficult. ACF has addressed this issue by using program evaluations to help isolate the effects of a particular program, strengthening the link between outputs and outcomes, and identifying intermediate outputs and outcomes to help measure program performance. The organizational culture change necessary to support the linkages between resources and results takes time, but change is beginning to take root. Some managers and staff reported a noticeable difference in the use and understanding of outcomes versus outputs, and outcome-based performance agreements for managers and staff are becoming more common.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: During the past decade, Congress and the Executive Branch have sought to  improve federal management and instill a greater focus on results. Through  enactment of a number of major management reforms, Congress has  created a statutory framework with the Government Performance and  Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) as its centerpiece. One of GPRA’s major  purposes is to encourage a closer and clearer linkage between planning,  performance—i.e., results—and the budget process. Each administration  takes a slightly different approach to implementing results management.  Improving the integration of budget and performance is a high priority  initiative included in the President’s Management Agenda. A central piece  of that is the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) new diagnostic  tool, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). PART is designed to  provide a consistent approach to reviewing program design, planning, and  goals development as well as program management and results. OMB  expects to use PART assessments in considering department and agency  budget submissions for the fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget request to  Congress.
In a number of different reports to the Congress, GAO has examined  different aspects of the resources-to-results linkage. A series of three  reports described agencies’ progress over a 4-year period in linking  performance plans, budgets, and, in the most recent report, financial  statements. We found that between fiscal years 1999 and 2002, agencies  progressed significantly in showing a direct link between expected  performance and requested program activity funding levels through  structural changes or cross-walks—the first step in defining the  performance consequences of budgetary decisions. We concluded that  additional effort was needed to more clearly describe the relationship  between performance expectations, requested funding, and consumed  resources. Furthermore, we said that the uneven extent and pace of  developing these relationships were reflective of mission complexity and  differences in operating environments across the government. Finally, we  observed that describing the planned and actual use of resources in terms  of measurable results was an essential long-term effort that would take  time and adaptation on the part of all agencies.
In another approach to defining performance and resource integration, we  developed a framework of budget practices that we believe can contribute  to an agency’s capacity to manage for results. We viewed these practices as  desirable dimensions of budgeting that could be implemented in many  different ways to reflect the characteristics and circumstances of a  particular agency. Both our assessments of performance and budget  account alignments and the framework of budget practices have led to the  next phase of work and the subject of this report. This report—one of a  group of three—looks at the resources-to-results link from the perspective  of agency managers charged with making the linkage happen.
The objectives of this report on Administration for Children and Families  (ACF) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its  two companion studies on the Veterans Health Administration within the  Department of Veterans Affairs and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,  are to document (1) what managers in these three agencies considered  successful efforts at creating linkages between planning and performance  information to influence resource choices and (2) the challenges they face  in doing so. For the purposes of this report, we take a broad view of  performance information—possible sources include GPRA, program  evaluations, grant applications, and statistical information about program  funding and grantees. We neither evaluated their choices nor critiqued their  processes. Instead, we asked managers to describe when and how planning  and performance information was included in the budget cycle, to explain  what strategies were used and why, and to provide evidence that there was  a related programmatic effect. A third purpose was to show that there are  multiple ways to get at these linkages, and that there can be successful  applications even if progress in budget and performance integration is  uneven.
Budgeting is and will remain an exercise in political choice, in which  performance can be one, but not necessarily the only, factor underlying  decisions. However, efforts to infuse performance information into  resource allocation decisions can more explicitly inform budget  discussions and focus them—both in Congress and in agencies—on  expected results, rather than on inputs. We believe that showcasing  agencies’ successes with and challenges in integrating budgeting and  planning may prove useful to other agencies; Congressional authorizing,  appropriation, and oversight committees; and OMB in the shared goal of  strengthening the link between program performance and resources.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: ACF, a major program office within HHS, is responsible for programs that  promote the economic and social well-being of low-income and  disadvantaged children, families, and their communities. Headed by the  Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, ACF’s seven program  offices and various staff offices offer policy direction, information  services, and funding through a variety of grants to third-party service  providers such as state and local governments and nongovernmental  organizations. Of the more than $45 billion provided for in fiscal year 2002,  over 85 percent went to just five program areas administered by third  parties: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($16.7 billion), Head  Start ($6.5 billion), Foster Care and Adoption Assistance ($6.6 billion),  Child Care ($4.8 billion), and Child Support Enforcement and Family  Support ($4 billion).
ACF’s work is driven by the four GPRA goals indicated in its annual  performance plan: (1) increase economic independence and productivity  for families, (2) improve healthy development, safety, and well being of  children and youth, (3) increase the health and prosperity of communities  and tribes, and (4) build a results-oriented organization. As we have  previously reported, ACF linked these goals to its funding request by  aggregating and consolidating program activities from multiple budget  accounts and linking the associated funding requests to sets of  performance goals, which it referred to as “objectives” of these four main  goals. In fiscal year 2002, ACF’s leadership also established nine key  priorities to provide targeted opportunities for collaboration on mission- critical crosscutting activities.
As figure 1 shows, ACF is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has 10  regional offices within five broad geographic areas of the country known as  hubs. Regional offices contain about 50 percent of all ACF employees and  are responsible for administering most of ACF’s programs and ensuring  that program and administrative funds are spent in accordance with ACF  goals and initiatives. Headquarters is responsible for setting policy, budget  formulation, strategic planning, and legislative affairs. Table 1 describes in  further detail the responsibilities of key offices and positions as they  pertain to strategic planning and budgeting as well as regional- headquarters operations and relations.
As a subordinate unit in HHS, ACF is not an independent entity; its  processes, activities, and goals must be seen in the context of the general  strategic direction in which HHS is moving. For example, HHS’ requirement  that its agencies provide performance information with agency funding  requests for fiscal year 2003 is an outgrowth of the GPRA planning process  and recent attention to the need for timely and reliable performance  information with which to evaluate programs. In keeping with its One  Department initiative, HHS’ desire to present a more standardized  performance plan for fiscal year 2004 requires its constituent agencies to  reduce their total number of performance measures by at least 5 percent  while simultaneously increasing their outcome measures by at least 5  percent. The need to respond effectively to these and other priorities and  initiatives has led to changes in ACF’s work planning processes and/or how  performance is evaluated in the regional offices we visited.
Many factors affect the nature of ACF’s budget and planning process. For  example, much of ACF funding, including to some extent, how  “discretionary” funds may be spent, is directed by statute. For example,  because of the prescriptive nature of the funding requirements in the Head  Start authorizing legislation, nearly 20 percent of the $338.5 million  increase Head Start received in fiscal year 2002 was designated for teacher  salary increases. This limits the extent to which ACF controls how Head  Start funds are spent.
Further, over 70 percent of ACF’s budget funds mandatory programs in  which funding levels are determined by formula for disbursement or  eligibility rules regardless of program performance. However, ACF officials  told us that, as required by HHS, ACF has taken steps to connect resources  and performance by linking the incremental request to key ACF priorities  and goals. While this does not explicitly lead to performance-based  budget decisions, linking funding requests to expected performance is, as  we have previously reported, the first step in defining the performance  consequences of budget decisions. As discussed later in this report, it is  during budget execution, for mandatory and discretionary programs alike,  that ACF’s use of training and technical assistance (T/TA) and travel funds  and use of staff resources currently show the strongest link between  resources and results.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To address the objectives in this report, we selected two regional offices  (Region VI, Dallas, and Region IX, San Francisco) and three diverse  programs (Head Start, Child Support Enforcement, and the Community  Services Block Grant) that represent ACF’s self-described best examples of  how managers used performance information to inform the resource  allocation process. We also obtained staff and management views on the  challenges to further budget and performance integration. More detailed  information on our scope and methodology, including fuller descriptions of  the programs we studied, is in appendix III. A glossary follows that  appendix.
We conducted our work from January through May 2002 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: The Current Budget and Planning Process
paragraphs: Formulation of ACF’s budget and its performance plan are closely related  but they are not fully integrated. ACF’s budget and performance plan are  based on joint budget and planning guidance issued by HHS in the spring,  and the funding request is linked to ACF’s GPRA goals. However,  formulation does not begin with evaluating past program performance to  inform the upcoming year’s budget request and performance plan. Budget  and planning become more closely aligned when the budget request and  annual performance plan are sent to the HHS budget and planning staff for  review. Finally, allocating resources based on performance is most  integrated into day-to-day management during budget execution, which is  largely decentralized to the regional offices. (OLAB and OPRE, ACF’s  budget and planning offices, respectively, play small roles in this part of the  process.) Figure 2 depicts a timeline for a typical ACF budget and planning  cycle as well as the roles and responsibilities of the various key players at  each stage of the process.
subsections: section_title: Budget Formulation and Performance Planning Are Closely Related but Are Not Completely Integrated
paragraphs: ACF’s GPRA planning process follows the budget process and must be  completed according to the budget timeline, but formulation does not  begin with a formal look-back at program performance to help shape the  upcoming year’s budget request and performance plan; thus, the processes  are not yet completely integrated. However, ACF does link its funding  requests for program activities to GPRA goals. OLAB and OPRE work  together to review and clarify the HHS budget and planning guidance, and,  as appropriate, distribute supplemental guidance throughout ACF. Also,  officials describe frequent communication throughout the formulation  process. This is in keeping with practices we have previously reported as  those an agency can use to link performance information to the budget  process.
OLAB is responsible for developing headquarters’ salaries and expense  (S&E) budgets with input from program offices. Meanwhile, program  offices and regions develop program budgets and regional S&E budgets,  respectively, with OLAB ensuring that these budgets align with  assumptions outlined in HHS guidance. OLAB also ensures that ACF’s  budget package as a whole supports ACF’s priorities and the department’s  and OMB’s external monitoring and reporting requirements.
OPRE oversees the preparation of ACF’s annual performance plan and  provides guidance, analysis, and T/TA to the program units as they develop  the plan’s substance. For example, in addition to HHS’ guidance—which  includes a standardized format for the performance plan and a description  of the types of information to be included in each section—OPRE provides  a template that combines an example of an ACF program performance plan  with a section-by-section explanation of HHS guidance, as well as tips on  content.  Figure 3 shows an excerpt from OPRE’s template, with shaded  areas representing OPRE’s explanations and guidance.
section_title: Budget Formulation and Performance Planning Are More Closely Related during Departmental Review
paragraphs: The alignment between budget and planning increases during the second  phase of ACF budget formulation when HHS planning staff works with ACF  to help ensure that the proposed plan and budget are consistent. As an  example, senior HHS planning staff described an instance last year in  which the ACF draft performance plan showed a particular discretionary  program improving its performance by 5 percent a year, but HHS  questioned the feasibility of the performance goal since ACF did not  request additional funds for that program. ACF agreed to revisit this goal  but, because it was set collaboratively with states, did not change it.
HHS also requires its operating divisions to present their budgets to the  Secretary’s Budget Council (SBC). The Council is chaired by the Assistant  Secretary for Budget, Technology, and Finance, and made up of HHS  assistant secretaries and other members of HHS senior leadership. The  presentations provide an opportunity for each HHS operating division to  present its budget and discuss its proposals for addressing the Secretary’s  initiatives such as fatherhood and healthy marriages. Based on these  presentations, the Council makes recommendations on HHS’ budget  package. HHS budget staff refines these recommendations and presents a  final budget package to the Secretary for his decision.
HHS also uses the SBC presentations in the push to more closely relate  budget formulation and program performance. Last year, for the first time,  HHS required its agencies to present to the Council performance  information on their programs. In this first effort, capturing the quality of  program results without overwhelming the Secretary with information  proved difficult. As a result, the presentation did not afford information  robust enough to use at the program level—the level at which the Secretary  makes decisions.
In hopes of better informing the fiscal year 2004 budget process, and in  light of OMB’s decision to publish PART ratings for selected federal  programs in the 2004 budget, HHS officials told us that they required the  operating divisions to score their 31 selected programs using PART. These  scores, along with PART scores independently derived by HHS staff and,  where available, OMB PART scores were included in the SBC budget  presentations. When the Secretary received the SBC’s budget  recommendations, PART assessments for 31 of HHS’s approximately 300  programs were also available. Officials hoped that structuring the  information this way would make it easier for the Secretary to use.
section_title: Allocating Resources Based on Performance Is Most Integrated into Day-to-day Management of ACF Programs
paragraphs: Budget and planning are more fully integrated during budget execution;  that is, at the operational level in the regions where ACF programs are  generally administered on a day-to-day basis. While the budget execution  process varies among hubs and regions, all regions are required to develop  and operate according to work plans that link program and agency goals  and objectives with expected performance. Regions are expected to spend  their funds in accordance with these plans which are to articulate activities  and projects to be completed that year and how projects connect to key  ACF priorities and goals. Figure 4 depicts an excerpt from a hub work  plan.
section_title: Performance Information Influences Program, Budget, and Staffing Decisions in Various Ways
paragraphs: In the offices we visited, ACF employs various strategies to help ensure  that resource allocation is driven by program performance, thus  strengthening the link between resources and goals. At the program level,  ACF officials told us that training and technical assistance (T/TA) and  salaries and expense funds are often allocated based on program  performance and needs. Collaborative strategies are used at both the local  and federal levels to more effectively address common goals and  strengthen resource allocation decisions. Finally, managers and staff in  both regions told us that organizing and allocating staff resources based on  agency goals and program needs helps them feel connected to and  responsible for the results their programs achieve as well as the national  priorities towards which they are working.
subsections: section_title: Regions Allocate T/TA and S&E Funds Based on Program Performance and Needs
paragraphs: Dallas and San Francisco regional staff prioritize and allocate T/TA  resources according to agency goals and program needs. For example,  Dallas staff uses the Head Start Monitoring and Tracking System and the  annual Child Support Enforcement (CSE) self-assessments and financial  audits to identify grantees that have or are likely to have T/TA needs during  the fiscal year. Based on these assessments, staff create and follow work  plans that focus their efforts on those grantees throughout the year.
Identifying problems early and working collaboratively helps address and  correct issues promptly and constructively.
These strategies pay off even when a grantee can not be saved. Dallas  officials told us that in Head Start they believe relationships forged with  grantees are largely responsible for the ability of program managers to  convince a grantee voluntarily to relinquish its grant—a less costly and  time-consuming process than if ACF were to forcibly terminate a grant. For  example, last fiscal year ACF discovered that a Head Start grantee  overspent its prior year federal Head Start funds. ACF explained to the  grantee that it was unable to provide the grantee with additional funding  for its Head Start program. Because the grantee could not run its program  without receiving additional funds, ACF recommended that the grantee  consider relinquishing the grant. As a result of ACF's recommendation, the  grantee voluntarily relinquished its program due to financial  mismanagement.  Dallas officials estimate that the federal government can  save as much as $50,000 in legal fees for each grant that is relinquished  versus terminated. Further, ACF officials told us, Head Start children and  families experience less disruption in service delivery when a grant is  relinquished rather than terminated.
San Francisco officials told us that they are beginning to use the new Grant  Application and Budget Review Instrument (GABI) in conjunction with  other information to compare actual grantee performance to performance  targets. GABI’s national cost data help identify applicants with unusually  high administrative costs, teacher/classroom ratios, etc.
section_title: Collaborative Strategies and Knowledge Help Achieve Program Goals and Strengthen Resource Allocation Decisions
paragraphs: ACF was better able to achieve CSE program goals by partnering with  states to create a CSE national strategic plan based on common goals. ACF  reports that states and ACF developed and agreed upon the plan’s four  goals, related objectives, and indicators. These goals, objectives, and  indicators are aligned with the CSE-related portion of the ACF GPRA  performance plan. Because ACF and states define and measure the CSE  program’s achievements with the same yardstick, they now work together  towards a common purpose.
Furthermore, the GPRA performance measures are the same as those used  to determine each state’s CSE incentive payment. In theory, these payments  are intended to reward states that meet the performance measures. As a  result, states have an incentive to work towards the GPRA measures and  ACF can report on state and program performance and explicitly show  what level of program performance was achieved nationally for the level of  funding in a particular year.
Even though a large percentage of funds is driven by formula or eligibility,  strategies that leverage resources from a variety of sources and knowledge  about grantees’ capacity to deliver services can lead to more informed  resource allocation decisions during budget formulation and execution.  For example, the administration planned to request funds in fiscal year  2002 for a new program for maternity group home services. ACF had  internal discussions as to the legislative authority under which the funds  should be requested. Both the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act (RHY)  and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs were  mentioned as possible candidates. Although at first TANF seemed the more  natural choice, ACF ultimately requested the program funding under RHY  based on information from regional officials about the state agencies and  community providers in their regions as well as their ability to successfully  administer these programs—information that headquarters staff may have  been too far removed from program implementation to observe.  Theoretically, this money will be better spent and program goals are more  likely to be achieved than if the funds were appropriated through TANF.
The Dallas and San Francisco regional offices also described several  performance-informed resource allocation decisions that occurred during  budget execution. For example, the Personal Responsibility and Work  Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 gave tribes the opportunity to run  their own CSE programs. These programs are directly related to ACF’s first  and third GPRA goals: to increase economic independence and  productivity for families (goal 1) and to increase the health and prosperity  of communities and tribes (goal 3). ACF has begun to direct resources to  activities that will prepare tribes to fully support these programs. For  example, Dallas officials told us that Dallas’ record for achieving results  and its experience with CSE tribal demonstration projects and special  improvement projects were part of the reason it received additional funds  from headquarters in fiscal year 2001 to develop and pilot a training  curriculum for new federal tribal child support specialists; the program  was subsequently approved by the CSE program office for use nationwide.
In fiscal year 2002, the West-Central Hub again received additional funds to  assess tribal/state court relationships within the Hub and identify best  practices to be shared nationwide.
Regional staff works towards achieving ACF goals and moving the  administration’s agenda forward by expending T/TA resources on assisting  state and local programs that are already providing compatible services.  For example, in Texas, Dallas staff helped the state incorporate the  administration’s “Good Start, Grow Smart” early literacy initiative into the  training curriculum for the CIRCLE initiative, an existing early literacy  training program for Texas Head Start teachers. Similarly, San Francisco  staff worked with Arizona state officials to tap into existing programs in  Arizona aimed at increasing young fathers’ financial responsibility for their  children and use these programs as a vehicle to support the  administration’s initiatives to promote responsible fatherhood and healthy  marriages. Arizona has implemented a program that helps couples learn  relationship, communication, and listening skills to promote healthy  marriages.
Through participation in and representation on interagency councils, ACF  seeks to use its resources more efficiently to achieve its goals that cut  across HHS and other federal departments. For example, the San Francisco  region participates in the Region IX Federal Regional Council (FRC), an  interagency body that seeks to foster efficiency and effectiveness through  intergovernmental and public/private partnerships to achieve  administration goals and priorities. After determining that several of its  federal agency members were planning community events to address the  administration’s faith-based initiative, FRC established a working group to  share information and coordinate activities, and ACF engaged with other  FRC members to organize a youth seminar on the topic.
ACF also participated in FRC task forces to address economic  development, social, health, and environmental issues in North Richmond  and East Palo Alto, two low-income communities in the San Francisco  region. These efforts have resulted in community improvements such as  expanded Head Start services, employment of TANF recipients, and  holiday toy and book drives for needy children. Region 9 officials also  participated in community meetings in both areas and provided  information on ACF funding opportunities, programs, and services in North  Richmond. In addition, San Francisco is involved in an FRC initiative  focused on employment and economic development strategies in the San  Joaquin Valley in support of the administration’s effort to move the welfare  reform agenda forward. Similarly, the HHS Regional Managers’ Council  helps HHS agencies and components in Region IX work together to achieve  crosscutting goals. For example, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid  Services, ACF, and the Health Resources and Services Administration  joined forces to address State Children’s Health Insurance Program  (SCHIP) and Medicaid issues to increase enrollment among underserved  minority children.
ACF’s Office of Community Services (OCS) and its Regional Liaison  initiative further illustrate the value of collaboration in achieving outcomes  and goals. To promote the Community Services network—agencies that  create, coordinate, and deliver programs and services to low-income  Americans—as an asset to other regional activities and to address  crosscutting needs at the local level, ACF’s OCS and Dallas piloted an OCS  Regional Liaison in 1997. Based on the success of the pilot, OCS liaisons  were designated in each region in 1998. As an example of the central role  played by the liaisons, the lead liaison in Dallas was instrumental in  developing a Head Start Early Alert System that was eventually  implemented nationwide.
OCS also seeks to broker support for community concerns and goals and to  leverage network resources to help fulfill the administration’s initiative on  community partnerships. For example, OCS has partnered with the Health  Resources and Services Administration to improve services to low-income  people by bringing together community health centers and CAAs to address  health concerns at the community level. To address awareness and access  concerning public benefits for the aging and disabled community, OCS has  partnered with the National Council on Aging and the faith-based  community on education and outreach efforts.
OCS, in partnership with the Community Services network, created  “Results Oriented Management and Accountability” (ROMA). OCS  describes ROMA as a goal-oriented framework that binds and holds  accountable a local network of community action agencies in a  standardized way while allowing them the flexibility to develop their own  processes and outcomes consistent with local preferences and state  objectives. ROMA is based on the six national performance goals related to  the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) program and balances  family-, community-, and agency-level program outcomes. Although  participation in ROMA itself is voluntary, the CSBG statute requires all  states to participate in a performance measurement system by fiscal year  2001—either ROMA or another one. OCS is trying to achieve full ROMA  implementation in time for the fiscal year 2003 CSBG program  reauthorization.
section_title: Organizing and Allocating Staff Resources Based on Program Goals and Needs Help Connect Staff to Desired Outcomes
paragraphs: Creating a flexible workforce that can work across program boundaries  allows staff to work together to achieve outcomes and focus on total  performance throughout a state rather that on individual program  outcomes. Most of the ACF/San Francisco office is organized into “state  teams” in which staff are responsible for multiple programs within a subset  of states in the region rather than being responsible for a single program  across the region. Officials told us that this organization allows them to  shift duties as necessary when agency priorities shift. For example, an  employee on the Arizona/Nevada team was able to shift from working with  Nevada on child support issues to working with Arizona on the Child and  Family Services Review, a labor-intensive effort, where more staff were  needed.  In other instances, staff were able to focus on ACF’s crosscutting  priorities (e.g., strengthening marriage), which support the purposes of  various programs, rather than on each individual program to meet the  administration's vision for ACF.  On the California team, staff primarily  responsible for the TANF and Child Care programs actively work together  and support each other as needed.
Dallas created “21st Century Specialists,” employees with multidisciplinary,  broadly defined position descriptions that allow them to carry out a variety  of functions within and across programs because their position  descriptions set general performance standards not tied to specific  functions or programs. Dallas officials reported that, given the opportunity  to explore and implement new ways to achieve goals, staff have begun to  identify crosscutting opportunities and form natural partnerships among  programs in order to achieve desired outcomes.
section_title: Linking Resources to Results Is an Evolving Process
paragraphs: While ACF has progressed in better aligning its resources with program  goals and desired results, almost all managers and staff we spoke with  recognized that strengthening the link between resources and results is a  work in progress, and that many challenges still need to be addressed  before ACF can more fully integrate budget and planning. ACF has  identified several significant barriers to further linking resources and  results, including the effects third-party providers have on its ability to  either influence program outcomes or to collect and report program  performance information; difficulties in determining a particular program’s  effectiveness; and the organizational culture change required to support  more results-oriented operations. ACF has begun to identify and implement  mitigation strategies to address these issues.
subsections: section_title: Third-Party Issues Limit ACF’s Ability to Work towards National Performance Goals and to Collect, Verify, and Report Performance Information
paragraphs: ACF conducts much of its work through “third parties”—states, localities,  and other non-federal service providers—which often limits the extent to  which ACF directly influences program outcomes. This is especially true  since many ACF programs by law provide grantees flexibility in how  federal funds may be spent. Although program activities must meet the  general federal purposes of the program, ACF’s grantees are able to make  funding choices that may not support the achievement of specific national  performance goals or performance targets.
Third-party issues can also affect ACF’s ability to report on program results  promptly and consistently. For a number of major programs, ACF relies on  state administrative data systems for performance information. In many  cases, final reports are due 90 to 120 days or more after the federal fiscal  year ends, creating a delay in available data. Moreover, many programs  contain voluntary requirements that give grantees great flexibility in  reporting. As previously discussed, ACF has successfully used  collaborative strategies to get providers to buy into and work towards  national priorities.
ACF has worked to help its service providers develop an understanding of  ACF’s GPRA responsibilities and the importance of consistent, prompt, and  accurate performance data collection and reporting. ACF used ROMA to  respond to the administration’s emphasis on results-based, client-focused  accountability and enjoyed a 75 percent implementation rate by fiscal year  1999 even though participation in a performance measurement system was  not required until fiscal year 2001. When data collection issues arose as one  of the most significant barriers to full ROMA implementation, OCS pledged  to use a significant portion of its technical assistance resources and  administrative support activities to implement ROMA across the network,  including helping grantees increase their capacity for data collection and  reporting.
ACF is also working with the HHS Data Council to assess unmet data needs  for major programs, and, using the collaborative methods described in this  report, is progressing in getting grantees to agree to consistent data  definitions and reporting requirements for some programs.
section_title: Difficulty Isolating a Particular Program’s Effect on Outcomes Affects ACF’s Ability to Determine Program Effectiveness
paragraphs: Since ACF is part of a network of federal, state, local, and  nongovernmental efforts aimed at improving long-term social health and  social outcomes, attributing a particular outcome to any particular effort  can be a great challenge. Further, because outcomes may not be known for  many years, annually measuring the results of these collective investments  much less any one part is often difficult and may not be particularly useful.
To help mitigate these problems, ACF uses information from program  evaluations and has also begun to identify intermediate outcomes and  monitor progress towards them. For example, Head Start is currently  undergoing a 6-year study intended to establish evidence of a link between  outputs and outcomes for the Head Start program. The study will compare  outcomes for Head Start children to non-Head Start children while  controlling for socioeconomic factors, parenting practices, and  demographics. It will then determine conditions that positively or  negatively affected the outcomes. ACF and regional staff have also offered  training to their employees to help them better understand and articulate  the link between program outputs and outcomes, and to develop  intermediate performance outcomes and targets necessary to show  progress towards longer-term goals.
section_title: Organizational Culture Change Seen as Needed to Strengthen Performance and Budget Integration Is a Slow Process
paragraphs: ACF and HHS officials repeatedly told us that the culture change necessary  to support and strengthen the linkages between resources and results takes  time but is beginning to take root. Some managers and staff reported a  noticeable difference over time in employees’ understanding of and ability  to define measurable outcomes linked to agency goals and initiatives as  well as a desire to hold employees accountable for achieving results. For  example, goal-oriented, project-based work plans have become the  standard in the regions we visited. Also, performance contracts for both  managers and staff are now or soon will be tied to agency goals and  initiatives, and are viewed as increasingly focused on outcomes.
Managers and staff also report a clearer understanding of the difference  between outputs and outcomes, and the use of outcome measures is  becoming more common. For example, after providing the training  described above on program outputs and outcomes, San Francisco  managers reported noticeable improvement in the use and nature of  outcomes described in unit workplans. In Dallas, employees are beginning  to create their own performance goals—stepping stones to longer-term  goals—for which they are held accountable each year. Regional managers  told us that they have also begun to help program staff break down 5-year  program outcomes into 1-year targets geared towards elements states and  grantees can accomplish within the reporting time frame.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We requested comments on a draft of this report from The Policy  Exchange/Institute for Educational Leadership and the Department of  Health and Human Services. The Policy Exchange agreed with the  substance of the report and we incorporated its technical comments as  appropriate. It also made suggestions for future GAO work in this area.  HHS generally agreed with the substance of the report and submitted  technical comments that were incorporated as appropriate. HHS disagreed  with our use of the term “budget execution” to describe their regional  offices’ role in resource allocation decisions, which they characterize as  “program implementation.” We view budget execution as a management  function that is broader than those activities traditionally performed by a  central budget office. A glossary of terms can be found at the end of this  report.
In addition, we provided drafts of the Dallas and San Francisco regional  office appendixes to the appropriate regional officials for technical review  and have incorporated their comments where appropriate.
As agreed with your office, we are sending copies of this report to the  Secretary of Health and Human Services, appropriate Congressional  committees, and other interested parties. We will make copies available to  others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge  on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on (202) 512-9573 or Denise Fantone, Assistant Director,  on (202) 512-4997 if you or your staff have any questions about this report.  Major contributors to this report were Amy Friedlander, Jackie Nowicki,  Keith Slade, and James T. Whitcomb.
section_title: Efforts to Strengthen the Link between Resources and Results in the ACF West- Central Hub, Dallas Regional Office
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) West-Central Hub is  responsible for carrying out ACF programs and initiatives in the 11-state  Hub area. When the Hub was created in 1996, the Hub Director created  program teams in its two regional offices—Dallas and Denver—and  assigned lead program responsibilities to each region based on its  strengths. Thus, Dallas has the lead for the Developmental Disabilities,  Runaway and Homeless Youth, Technology, and Early Head Start programs.  Denver has the lead for Child Welfare, Child Care, and Head Start  programs. Also, cross-Hub teams, using staff from both regions, coordinate  crosscutting issues and provide a unified approach to meeting the needs of  states and other grantees in the Hub.
Figure 5 shows how the West-Central Hub is organized. The Regional Hub  Director is located in Dallas and is responsible for providing leadership and  guidance to all partners (for example, grantees, state, and local  governments) in the Hub. Dallas (Region VI) serves Arkansas, Louisiana,  New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Denver (Region VIII) serves Colorado,  Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
Dallas’ Office of Administration and Technology (ATO) “owns” the strategic  planning process. ATO provides guidance to program staff with regard to  approaching key activities and projects, measuring and monitoring  performance, and achieving outcomes highlighted in the work plan. ATO  also holds training and workshops throughout the year to help program  units and staff understand regional goals and strategies. Two program  offices in each region support and administer ACF grantees and programs  in the Hub.
section_title: Budgeting and Planning in Dallas Is an Integrated, Interactive Process Focused on Results
paragraphs: Strategic planning in Dallas is a dynamic process that is sensitive to  changing circumstances in the region and headquarters. The Hub work  plan is developed via a strategic planning process dependent on top-down  guidance from senior leadership and bottom-up input from staff.  Aligning  regional staffing responsibilities with the goals in the work plan has  encouraged innovation among staff and clearer linkages between resources  and results. The regional work plan and Dallas’ project management  systems reinforce these linkages.
subsections: section_title: Strategic Planning Incorporates Top-Down Guidance and Bottom-Up Input
paragraphs: Strategic planning in Dallas is an integrated and evolving process. When  planning and implementing projects that support the work plan, Dallas  leadership and staff continually reevaluate evolving priorities and  circumstances affecting their work. As new needs, priorities, or project  ideas surface during the year, key activities and associated resources are  adjusted as necessary. ATO ensures that it is an inclusive process resulting  in a work plan tied to ACF goals and priorities, built from the bottom up,  and reflective of senior leadership’s guidance. The strategic planning  process reflects program staff perspectives on the needs of grantees and  the communities they serve as well as benefits from their first-hand  knowledge of strategies that have been successful. ATO encourages  collaboration in developing the work plan by sponsoring work sessions and  staff meetings throughout the year. Managers told us that working on  activities and projects that contribute to national goals has become  important to staff over time. An inclusive strategic planning process  appears to help maintain a focus on outcomes by making the resulting day- to-day activities meaningful for staff.
To assist staff with strategic planning, ATO developed Managing for  Results: A Guide for Strategic Management Within the West-Central Hub.  The guide focuses on the critical elements of successful strategic planning,  successful implementation of the strategic plan, and monitoring,  evaluation, and review of the strategic plan.  Figure 6 shows the key  elements of Dallas’ strategic planning process.
section_title: Dallas Has Encouraged Staffing Innovation and Accountability
paragraphs: Rethinking staffing in two key ways has encouraged employee innovation  and strengthened the Hub’s focus on results, according to managers. New  “21st Century Employee” positions have multidisciplinary, broadly defined  position descriptions that allow staff to carry out a variety of functions  within and across programs. These new positions have provided staff with  the opportunity to take a crosscutting view among programs and identify  opportunities to form natural partnerships in order to achieve outcomes.  Also, linking employees’ day-to-day activities to goals and priorities  through such instruments as outcome-based employee performance  contracts has brought encouraging results to the region. For example,  managers report that employees have a stronger sense of contribution and  responsibility towards achieving program goals. Focusing on outcomes  rather than process and outputs creates an opportunity for individuals to  exercise their creativity and run with new project ideas, and helps to hold  staff accountable for results in the region.
To help staff develop performance contracts clearly aligned with  organizational goals, Dallas’ Employee Communication and Performance  Management Team created a resource guide that provides results-based  tools and techniques for developing performance contracts that align with  organizational goals. Employee performance plans tie into the Regional  Hub Administrator’s performance contract, which in turn is tied to the  work plan. The guide helps employees distinguish between activities—the  actions used to produce results—and accomplishments, which are the  value-added results produced by the activities. The guide also illustrates  how to measure and monitor performance and accomplishments included  in performance contracts.
section_title: Regional Work Plans and Project Management Systems Reinforce the Link between Inputs, Activities, and Outcomes
paragraphs: Work plans and project management systems reinforce the link between  resources (inputs) needed to complete projects (activities) aimed at  achieving goals (outcomes). Annually, program offices create program  plans on which the regional work plan is based. Built in a matrix format,  the work plan reinforces the linkage between regional goals and objectives,  including GPRA goals, with outcome measures, performance indicators,  and the key activities necessary to achieve regional goals and objectives.  Also, the key activities are linked to timelines and status indicators noting,  for example, when an activity has been completed. Key activities in the  program plans crosswalk to the work plan, which tends to contain more  broadly defined regional-level activities. Program units request funding for  projects that contribute to the activities in the regional work plan and  program plans, thus completing resources-results linkage. Projects and  their associated funding are tracked in Dallas’ project management system,  the Results-Based Information Tracking System (RBITS). RBITS tracks  how project funds are spent and also shows the connection between the  project, regional goals, ACF goals, and HHS goals.
RBITS is a real-time project management system to help staff better link  resources with results throughout the year. RBITS tracks budgeted vs.  actual spending, including remaining funds on a project basis. These data  are used to “find” leftover funds that can be shifted from completed  projects to new projects or priorities.  Also, RBITS historical spending data  can provide baseline information for projecting future project cost  estimates. For example, the cost of a 6-month technical assistance project  in Austin can be reasonably estimated with RBITS historical data. RBITS  projects are coded in various ways (for example, by HHS goal, ACF goal,  key priorities, staff person, date) allowing ATO to generate various reports  from the database; RBITS reports are accessible to everyone working in the  region.
Figure 7 shows portions of the fiscal year 2002 West-Central Hub regional  work plan (also called the key priorities matrix) and Dallas Office of Child  Support Enforcement  (OCSE) fiscal year 2002 program plan for the  fatherhood and healthy marriage initiatives. The shaded “key task” in the  program plan crosswalks to the shaded “key activity” in the regional work  plan. The shaded area of the RBITS report in figure 8 on the adjacent page  illustrates examples of projects that support the key tasks and activities  described above, and shows how the Dallas Regional Office tracks  spending associated with these activities.
section_title: Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between Resources and Results in the ACF Pacific Hub, San Francisco Regional Office
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Pacific Hub office, located in San Francisco, comprises the  Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) Region 9 (San Francisco)  and Region 10 (Seattle).  The Hub Director oversees overall Hub operations  and is directly responsible for overseeing the Region 9 office. The Hub  Director has no line authority over the Regional Administrator who runs  the Seattle office. Thus, the Hub Director relies on cooperation with the  other regional offices to effect change in Region 10.
Region 9 is organized into three units:  a Program Support Unit (PSU), a  Self-Sufficiency Unit (SSU), and a Children and Youth Development Unit  (CYDU).  The Quality Assurance Team (QAT) in PSU coordinates the  development of work plans, provides program technical support, and gives  technical assistance to states on sampling plans and data validation. SSU  and CYDU provide program and financial management services, technical  administration, and technical assistance to states and grantees in the  administration of the ACF grant programs for which states and grantees are  responsible. Figure 9 shows the Region 9 organizational structure.
section_title: Strategic Planning at Region 9 Seeks to Engage, Inform, and Educate Staff
paragraphs: Officials told us that the goal of strategic planning in the region is to create  processes that link resources to results while engaging, informing, and  educating staff as to the value of focusing on program outcomes. To this  end, they have embarked on several efforts: (1) organizing staff into state  teams to allow a more integrated approach to service delivery,   (2) developing regional work plans that link activities to priorities and  goals and focus on outcomes, and (3) issuing accomplishment reports  linked to the regional work plan.  They said that, as a result, Region 9 is  poised to use strategic planning as a management tool to improve results  and allocate resources.
subsections: section_title: State Teams Provide a Flexible, Crosscutting Approach to Service Delivery
paragraphs: Region 9 officials told us that they have reorganized to create state teams— rather than program-focused teams—to allow better integration, more  efficient use of resources, and better customer service. They said that these  teams allow them to be more flexible and to more easily recognize and take  advantage of the natural program linkages. In turn, staff can help grantees  take advantage of these linkages in their own programs. For example,  Region 9 staff helped Arizona use Head Start programs as vehicles to  strengthen the role of young fathers in their children’s lives—something  that would be traditionally viewed as a Child Support Enforcement (CSE)  program goal. State-based teams allow Region 9 to shift its focus when  agency priorities shift and focus on ACF priorities (e.g., strengthening  marriage) rather than specific programs to meet the administration's vision  for ACF. The reorganization also helped the office to continue providing  service despite increases in workload and reductions in staffing levels at  the regional office—from more than 100 in the early 1990s to  approximately 65. Lastly, managers report that their staff are now able to  provide a single point of contact for grantees in a state, which is  particularly important for Indian tribes.
section_title: The Work Planning Process Strives to Link Activities to Goals and Strengthen the Focus on Outcomes
paragraphs: Over time, Region 9 officials told us that they have tried to guide the work  planning process and the work plans themselves to link more closely to the  Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), involve staff at all  levels, and focus more directly on outcomes. Officials said that the early  work plans (pre-fiscal year 1998) were simply a list of strategies to be  achieved, organized by major ACF priorities. Recently, these work plans  have become a way of showing how the region plans to allocate resources  to specific activities to achieve GPRA goals and the Secretary’s  crosscutting initiatives. The Hub more recently has also adopted this  approach. The plans have also begun to include expected outcomes by  which the Hub and region can measure the extent to which they have  achieved their stated goals.  Table 2 describes some key elements of the  work planning process and work plans in fiscal years 1998 to 2002.
A senior planning official described the following progression of San  Francisco’s work plans and work planning process. Prior to fiscal year  1998, work planning in Region 9 consisted of individual, activity-based unit  work plans. In fiscal year 1998, in an attempt to reduce the workload of  program staff, they were not required to participate in creating work plans.  Instead, QAT compiled a regional work plan and linked the activities to the  seven key priorities ACF had at the time. The region found that, in addition  to less accurately reflecting the region’s work, the centralized process  weakened the staff’s connection between their work and program goals.
Beginning in fiscal year 1999, work planning was turned back to the  program units, but QAT provided a work plan template to help the units  create more uniform plans focused more on outcomes rather than outputs.  Managers said this cultural shift was one of the most important changes in  the region. To help people understand and articulate the difference  between program outputs and outcomes, QAT provided voluntary training  sessions. Senior leadership views the staff’s ability to understand and  articulate the difference between the two as a major breakthrough—one  that was key to helping staff understand how their performance affects  program performance and results, and an important step in holding people  accountable for results.
In fiscal year 2000, in keeping with the way headquarters program units and  senior leadership plan and report, ACF required the regions to crosswalk  their activities to ACF’s four GPRA goals. San Francisco was able to  accomplish this because the seven key priorities—to which Region 9’s  work plan was connected—clearly linked to the goals. Regional managers  told us that this helped staff make the connection between their work and  ACF’s larger GPRA goals in a way they had not been able to before. Also, on  its own initiative, the Pacific Hub created a work plan (in addition to the  regional work plan) to address crosscutting initiatives and to better  leverage Hub resources.
The region continued to strengthen its work plan in fiscal year 2001 by  further developing an emphasis on outcomes, and by streamlining its work  plans and reports. We observed that the fiscal year 2001 work plan also  indicated, for each outcome, key activities to be completed by the region  and by headquarters. Managers told us that they began to see staff change  the way they thought about their work—the planning process was  becoming more than just a process.
Fiscal year 2002 was a transition year: ACF's new leadership created nine  crosscutting priorities to which the work plans were to be linked. Region 9  included activities related to these priorities in its work planning. Managers  view the crosscutting nature of the new priorities as another step forward  in their previous efforts to design activities that use Hub resources rather  than regional resources. For each activity, the 2002 Hub plan also began to  flesh out costs, funding sources, and timelines for completion.
section_title: Accomplishment Reports Link to Work Plans and Help Reinforce Outcomes
paragraphs: Region 9 officials told us that accomplishment reports link to work plans  and further involve staff in the strategic planning process, reminding staff  of how their work relates to program outcomes and achieving agency  goals. They said that initially the process included mostly upper  management with varying involvement or participation from staff, but that  staff has increasingly participated in reporting.  For example, in past years,  the Hub Director sent "accomplishment reports" to headquarters that  summarized information on the achievements of the regional office.  In  fiscal year 2000, the regional work plan was amended to include a section  for accomplishments specifically linked to strategic resources in the work  plan, and staff responsible for the achievement kept the plan up-to-date.
Similar to the work plans, Region 9’s accomplishment reports are organized  by initiatives and goals, and have become less process-oriented and more  outcome-oriented over time. For example, the fiscal year 1998  accomplishment report to headquarters, the region's first, reports on the  activities performed, not the outcomes achieved by staff. The fiscal year  1999 accomplishment report began to focus on outcomes by using  measures to quantify objectives.  In fiscal year 2000, headquarters required  that senior staff tie accomplishment reports to their own performance.  Region 9 officials said that although accomplishment reports were not  required for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, Region 9 provided them anyway  and the Hub Director used that information to support her own fiscal year  2001 performance report; she is expected to do the same for fiscal year  2002.
section_title: Region 9 Is Poised to Use Its Work Plan to Manage More Effectively
paragraphs: After 5 years of strategic planning efforts, Region 9 has progressed in  institutionalizing the link between day-to-day activities and program  outcomes. Under strong senior leadership, the region has begun to take the  next step—using its work plan to manage more effectively. The Pacific Hub  participated in OPRE training in April 2002 to learn how to use the annual  GPRA plan as a performance management tool. Specifically, the training  was meant to help staff use the performance plan to more effectively target  training and technical assistance resources, provide a framework for  aligning the administration's key priorities with its mission and goals, and  provide opportunities for cross-program collaboration. To this end, OPRE  focused on models for linking inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes as a  tool for the regions to develop their work plans. The planned agenda for an  upcoming video conference includes developing models on how to achieve  the results in their work plans.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To address the objectives in this report, we asked the Administration for  Children and Families (ACF) to identify several regional offices and  programs that they felt best represented how managers used performance  information to inform the resource allocation process.  Using their  suggestions as a guide, we then selected for inclusion in our study two  regional offices (Region VI, Dallas, and Region IX, San Francisco) and three  diverse programs (Head Start, Child Support Enforcement, and the  Community Services Block Grant).
Head Start, begun in 1965, is a $6.5 billion discretionary, federally  administered categorical grant program the primary goal of which is to  promote the school-readiness of children in low-income families. ACF  administers the Head Start program through the Head Start Bureau and  ACF’s regional offices nationwide. ACF awards grants directly to local  agencies, which provide a wide range of program services—educational,  medical, dental, nutrition, mental health, and social services—to low- income preschool children and their families. The approximately 1,400  service providers include public and private school systems, community  action agencies and other private nonprofit organizations, local  government agencies, and Indian tribes. The program supports ACF Goal 2:  to improve healthy development, safety, and well-being of children and  youth.
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was established in 1975  under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. It is a mandatory federal  program administered or managed by states, whose mission is to ensure  that children are financially supported by both their parents. State and  local governments work towards establishing paternity and support orders,  locating parents, and enforcing support orders. The Office of Child Support  Enforcement (OCSE) is responsible for overseeing the program, which  includes providing support to states. The CSE program received almost $4  billion in funding for fiscal year 2002. Collections reached $18.9 billion in  fiscal year 2001, but OCSE reported that about $89 billion in child support  was legally owed but unpaid at the end of fiscal year 2000. The federal  government and the states share both the administrative costs of operating  the program and any recovered costs and fees at the rate of 66 percent  federal and 34 percent state. The $4 billion in CSE funding includes a $450  million incentives program. The Child Support Performance and Incentive  Act of 1998 changed the basis for awarding incentives from cost-efficiency  to rewarding achievement of five performance-based outcome measures.  In fiscal year 2000, one-third of the incentive payments awarded to those  states that met the performance standards were based on the new formula  and the remaining two-thirds were based on the old formula. The phase-in  will be completed by fiscal year 2002. CSE supports ACF Goal 1: to increase  economic independence and productivity for families.
The Office of Community Services (OCS) provides support and assistance  to states and grantees that provide a range of human and economic  development services and activities at the state and local levels. Working  through community action agencies (CAAs) and community development  corporations, OCS programs seek to reduce poverty, revitalize low-income  communities, and empower low-income individuals and families to become  self-sufficient. The $650 million Community Services Block Grant is the  primary community service program through which grantees receive OCS  funds. To help focus on results, OCS relies on Results Oriented  Management and Accountability (ROMA), a goal-oriented framework that  binds and holds accountable CAAs in a standardized way while allowing  them the flexibility to develop their own processes and outcomes  consistent with local preferences and state objectives.
We reviewed budget and planning documents for the programs and regions  in our study, including strategic plans, annual performance plans,  performance reports, budgets, and work plans. We also reviewed a variety  of reports for general background information on (1) recent administration  initiatives, (2) GPRA implemention, (3) recent public administration  literature, and (4) GAO reports on prior case studies and general  management reviews.
We also obtained staff and management views on the challenges to further  budget and performance integration. We conducted structured interviews  with agency budget, program, and planning officials in each region and  program we studied. We also interviewed departmental budget and  planning staff with ACF oversight responsibilities. Among other things, we  asked about (1) roles and responsibilities, (2) how performance  information was used in program, resource, and staffing decisions, (3) how  planning and budgeting were related, and (4) challenges they faced to  further budget and performance integration. The following bureau, offices,  regions, and programs were included in our review.
The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office of the  Assistant Secretary for Budget, Technology and Finance, and the Office  of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
ACF’s Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget, Office of Planning,  Research, and Evaluation, and Office of Regional Operations.
ACF’s Head Start Bureau (Head Start program); the Office of  Community Services (Community Services Programs); and the Office of  Child Support Enforcement (Child Support Enforcement program).
ACF’s West-Central Hub, Dallas Regional Office in Texas, and the Pacific  Hub, San Francisco Regional Office in California.
Although we broadly summarize the views of these officials for reporting  purposes, their observations may not necessarily be generalized across  ACF. Regarding ACF’s responses about its specific budgeting and planning  strategies and practices, where possible, we reviewed supporting  documentation. However, we did not observe the actual implementation of  these processes and therefore cannot independently verify that they  function as indicated in the supporting documentation.
We requested comments on a draft of this report from HHS and The Policy  Exchange/ Institute for Educational Leadership. These comments are  discussed in the letter. In addition, we provided drafts of the Dallas and San  Francisco Regional Office appendixes to regional officials for technical  review and have incorporated their comments where appropriate.
We conducted our work from January through May 2002 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. A glossary can be  found at the end of this report.
section_title: Glossary
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to  support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve  the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American  people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and  policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help  Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s  commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,  integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to GAO  Mailing Lists” under “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs