Accountability Measures Crosswalk

Appendix 1
CSBG State Accountability Measure Crosswalk/ACSI Measures Highlighted
Note: This table is provided to assist in cross-referencing the State Accountability Measures (as published in CSBG IM-144 on October 2, 2015) with related questions in the CSBG Model State Plan (OMB No: 0970-0382), and
the proposed CSBG Annual Report, Module 1, State Administration (60-day comment version as published June 17, 2016). Accountability Measures and Questions that are directly relevant to the American Customer Satisfaction
Index (ACSI) are highlighted in yellow. If no question related to a specific Accountability Measure is included in either the State Plan or the Annual Report, the related cell in the the table is left blank.
Accountability Measure
Related Question in Model State Plan
Related Question in Proposed Annual Report
1Sa (i) - The State’s Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) State Plan included CSBG-specific 3.2 - Describe the State’s CSBG-specific goals for State
B1 - Describe progress in meeting the State’s CSBG-specific
goals and strategies for State administration of CSBG.
administration of CSBG under this State Plan.
goals for State administration of CSBG under this State Plan.
1Sa (ii) - The State’s Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) State Plan explained specific
steps the State took in developing the State plan to involve the eligible entities.
1Sb (i) - Using data from a nationally administered survey of eligible entities, and feedback from
OCS and other sources, the State adjusted its plan (in the next State plan submission), as
appropriate, to improve performance regarding the extent of eligible entity participation in
developing the State plan.

3.4a - Describe the specific steps the State took in developing
the State Plan to involve the eligible entities.
3.4b - How has the State adjusted State Plan development
procedures under this State Plan, as compared to past plans, in
order 1) to encourage eligible entity participation and 2) to
ensure the State Plan reflects input from eligible entities? Any
adjustment should be based on the State’s analysis of past
performance in these areas, and should consider feedback from
eligible entities, OCS, and other sources, such as the public
hearing. If the State is not making any adjustments, provide
further detail.

1Sb (ii) - Using data from a nationally administered survey of eligible entities, and feedback from
OCS and other sources, the State adjusted its plan (in the next State plan submission), as
appropriate, to improve performance regarding how well the State plan reflects the input of the
eligible entities.

3.4b - How has the State adjusted State Plan development
procedures under this State Plan, as compared to past plans, in
order 1) to encourage eligible entity participation and 2) to
ensure the State Plan reflects input from eligible entities? Any
adjustment should be based on the State’s analysis of past
performance in these areas, and should consider feedback from
eligible entities, OCS, and other sources, such as the public
hearing. If the State is not making any adjustments, provide
further detail.

2Sa - The State made funds available to eligible entities within 30 calendar days after the Federal 7.4a - Does the State plan to make funds available to eligible
award was provided, or consistently and without interruption.
entities no later than 30 calendar days after OCS distributes the
Federal award? If no, describe State procedures to ensure funds
are made available to eligible entities consistently and without
interruption.

B3 - How has the State considered feedback from eligible
entities, OCS, and other sources, such as the public hearing
and/or customer satisfaction surveys such as the American
Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)? What actions have been
taken as a result of this feedback?

B3 - How has the State considered feedback from eligible
entities, OCS, and other sources, such as the public hearing
and/or customer satisfaction surveys such as the American
Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)? What actions have been
taken as a result of this feedback?

E3b - If the State was not able to make CSBG funds available
within 30 calendar days after OCS distributed the Federal award,
and was not able ensure that funds were made available
consistently and without interruption, provide an explanation of
the circumstances below along with a description of planned
corrective actions.

2Sb - Using data from a nationally administered survey of eligible entities and feedback from
OCS and other sources, the State adjusted its plan (in the next State plan submission), as
appropriate, to improve the quality of grant and/or contract administration.

7.5 - How is the State improving grant and/or contract
administration procedures under this State Plan as compared to
past plans? Any improvements should be based on analysis of
past performance, and should consider feedback from eligible
entities, OCS, and other sources, such as the public hearing. If
the State is not making any improvements, provide further
detail.

3Sa - The State used its discretionary funds in accordance with the planned strategy and budget
outlined in the State plan.

7.9 - Does the State have remainder/discretionary funds? If yes E7 - Describe how the State used remainder/discretionary
was selected, describe how the State plans to use
funds.
remainder/discretionary funds in the table below.

1

Appendix 1
CSBG State Accountability Measure Crosswalk/ACSI Measures Highlighted
Accountability Measure
3Sb - Using data from a nationally administered survey of eligible entities, and feedback from
OCS and other sources, the State adjusted its plan (in the next State plan submission), as
appropriate, to improve its use of remainder/discretionary funds.

Related Question in Model State Plan
7.11 - How is the State adjusting the use of
remainder/discretionary funds under this State Plan as
compared to past plans? Any adjustment should be based on the
State’s analysis of past performance, and should consider
feedback from eligible entities, OCS, and other sources, such as
the public hearing. If the State is not making any adjustments,
provide further detail.

3Sc - The State completed the training and technical assistance activities specified in its State
plan, and/or made appropriate adjustments in response to unanticipated emergency needs.

8.1 - Describe the State’s plan for delivering CSBG-funded
training and technical assistance to eligible entities under this
State Plan by completing the table below. Add a row for each
activity: indicate the timeframe; whether it is training, technical
assistance or both; and the topic. (CSBG funding used for this
activity is referenced under item 7.9(a), Use of
Remainder/Discretionary Funds.)

3Sd - Using data from a nationally administered survey of eligible entities, and feedback from
OCS and other sources, the State adjusted its plan (in the next State plan submission), as
appropriate, to improve the training and technical assistance provided to the eligible entities.

8.4 - How is the State adjusting the training and technical
assistance plan under this State Plan as compared to past plans?
Any adjustment should be based on the State’s analysis of past
performance, and should consider feedback from eligible
entities, OCS, and other sources, such as the public hearing. If
the State is not making any adjustments, provide further detail.

4Sa (i) - The State conducted monitoring activities as directed by the CSBG Act and outlined in
the State plan.

10.1 - Specify the proposed schedule for planned monitoring
visits including: full on-site reviews; on-site reviews of newly
designated entities; follow-up reviews – including return visits to
entities that failed to meet State goals, standards, and
requirements; and other reviews as appropriate.

H1 - Briefly describe the actual monitoring visits conducted
during the reporting year including: full on-site reviews; on-site
reviews of newly designated entities; follow-up reviews –
including return visits to entities that failed to meet State goals,
standards, and requirements; and other reviews as appropriate. If
a monitoring visit was planned during the year but not
implemented, provide a brief explanation.

4Sa (ii) - The State disseminated monitoring reports to local entities within 60 calendar days.

10.3 - According to the State’s procedures, by how many
calendar days must the State disseminate initial monitoring
reports to local entities?
10.6 - Describe the State’s process for reporting eligible entities
on QIPs to the Office of Community Services within 30
calendar days of the State approving a QIP?
10.14 - How is the State adjusting monitoring procedures in this
State Plan as compared to past plans? Any adjustment should be
based on the State’s analysis of past performance, and should
consider feedback from eligible entities, OCS, and other sources,
such as the public hearing. If this State is not making any
adjustments, provide further detail.

H3 - Were all State monitoring reports distributed to eligible
entities within the timeframes outlined in State procedures?

10.5 - How many eligible entities are currently on Quality
Improvement Plans?

4Sc - Were all eligible entities on Quality Improvement Plans
resolved within the schedule agreed upon by the State and
eligible entity?

4Sa (iii) - The State reported eligible entities on Quality Improvement Plans (QIPs) to OCS
within 30 calendar days of the State approving the QIP.
4Sb - Using data from a nationally administered survey of eligible entities, and feedback from
OCS and other sources, the State adjusted its plan (in the next State plan submission), as
appropriate, to improve its monitoring activities.

4Sc - Percent of eligible entities resolved identified findings/deficiencies within the schedule,
agreed upon by the State and eligible entity, outlined in the Quality Improvement Plan (QIP).

2

Related Question in Proposed Annual Report

F1 - Describe how the State delivered CSBG-funded training
and technical assistance to eligible entities by completing the
table.

H5 - Did the State report all eligible entities on QIPs to the
Office of Community Services within 30 calendar days of the
State approving a QIP?

Appendix 1
CSBG State Accountability Measure Crosswalk/ACSI Measures Highlighted
Accountability Measure
4Sd - From all eligible entity single audits that require a management decision, the percent that
the State issued a management decision within six months of acceptance of the audit report by
the FAC (Federal Audit Clearinghouse).

Related Question in Model State Plan
Related Question in Proposed Annual Report
10.12 - Describe State procedures for issuing management
H7 - Briefly describe any management decisions issued
decisions for eligible entity single audits, as required by Block
according to State procedures of eligible entity single audit.
Grant regulations applicable to CSBG at 45 CFR 75.521. If
these procedures are described in the State monitoring protocols
attached under item 10.2, indicate the page number.

5S (i) - The State submitted to OCS the State’s CSBG Annual Report by the OCS-established
deadline.
5S (ii) - The State submitted to each eligible entity written feedback regarding the entity’s
performance in meeting ROMA goals, as measured through National Performance Indicator
(NPI) data, within 60 calendar days of submitting the State’s Annual Report.

Submisstion to be recorded by online system.

5S (iii) - The State submitted to the eligible entities and State Community Action association
9.10 - Describe how the State will provide feedback to local
information about performance on the State accountability measures, within 60 calendar days of entities and State Community Action Associations regarding
getting feedback from OCS.
performance on State Accountability Measures.

G6 - Describe how the State provided feedback to local entities
and State Community Action Associations regarding
performance on State Accountability Measures.

6Sa - “x” percent of eligible entities in the State met all the State-adopted organizational
standards.

D2 - Please provide the percentage of eligible entities that met
all State-adopted organizational standards in the reporting
period.
D3a - If the State identified eligible entities with unmet
organizational standards for which it was determined that TAPs
or QIPs would not be appropriate, please provide a narrative
explanation.
G1 - Please review and confirm all areas for linkage and
coordination outlined in the CSBG State Plan.

TBD

6Sb - The State had in place Technical Assistance Plans (TAPs) and/or Quality Improvement
Plans (QIPs) for all eligible entities with unmet standards.18

8.2 - Does the State have in place Technical Assistance Plans
(TAPs) or Quality Improvement Plans (QIPs) for all eligible
entities with unmet organizational standards, if appropriate?

7Sa - The State provided both quantitative data and examples of how the State CSBG office
maintained and created linkages within State government to assure the effective delivery of
services to low-income people and communities.

9.1 - Describe the linkages and coordination at the State level
that the State plans to create or maintain to ensure increased
access to CSBG services to low-income people and
communities under this State Plan and avoid duplication of
services (as required by the assurance under Section 676(b)(5)).
Describe or attach additional information as needed.

7Sb - Using data from a nationally administered survey of eligible entities, and feedback from
OCS and other sources, the State adjusted its plan (in the next State plan submission), as
appropriate, to improve its communication efforts.

9.11 - How is the State adjusting the Communication plan in
this State Plan as compared to past plans? Any adjustment
should be based on the State’s analysis of past performance, and
should consider feedback from eligible entities, OCS, and other
sources, such as the public hearing. If the State is not making
any adjustments, provide further detail.

8S - By 20xx, the State achieved/maintained an Overall Satisfaction score of “x”.

3.5 - Provide the State’s target for eligible entity Overall
Satisfaction during the performance period: ___.

3

B2 - Provide the State's most recent target for eligible entity
Overall Satisfaction during the performance period.