CSBG State Accountability Measures

Appendix 2
STATE ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES
These measures are tied to the critical activities required by the CSBG Act and laid out in the
State plan. They are an indication of how efficiently and effectively the State implemented the
elements of the State plan, and what impact the State’s efforts had on the performance of local
eligible entities. The “performance period” for each of the measures is generally the Federal
Fiscal Year (FFY). These measures apply to the States’ interactions with all eligible entities.
Development of the State Plan
During the performance period…
1Sa. The State’s Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) State Plan
i. included CSBG-specific goals and strategies 1 for State administration of CSBG; and
ii. explained specific steps the State took in developing the State plan to involve the
eligible entities.
1Sb. Using data from a nationally administered survey2 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:
i. the extent of eligible entity participation in developing the State plan; and
ii. how well the State plan reflects the input of the eligible entities. 3
Implementation of the State Plan
Distribution of Funds
During the performance period…
2Sa. The State made funds available to eligible entities within 30 calendar days after the
Federal award was provided, or consistently and without interruption. 4
1

Goals are related to statewide administration of CSBG; strategies are activities that support specific
goals and are related to the content areas of the Model State Plan. For example, a goal might be that all
eligible entities are using a statewide data system by 2017; the strategies supporting this goal might
include allocation of discretionary/remainder funds for IT purchases and/or data system training and
technical assistance for eligible entities. In the State’s Model State Plan, these strategies would be
detailed in Section 7, Use of Funds and Section 8, Training and Technical Assistance, respectively.
Another example of a goal might be to increase employment opportunities for CSBG
participants. Strategies supporting this goal might include collaborating with State workforce partners to
participate in a Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Combined State Plan (as described in Section
9 of the State plan) and/or distributing articles on workforce opportunities as part of a communication
plan (described in Section 9). A final example of a goal might be to support eligible entities in meeting
all organizational standards; a strategy supporting this goal could be targeted training and technical
assistance (as described in Section 8).
2
OCS will use the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), OMB-approved methodology.
3
State Accountability Measures 1Sb, 2Sb, 3Sb, 3Sd, 4Sb, and 7Sb are measures of eligible entity
satisfaction with the state’s performance of critical elements of the State plan.
4
This measure does not apply to funds distributed by OCS as small, irregular allotments, such as those
distributed during a continuing resolution budget period.

Page 2
2Sb.

Using data from a nationally administered survey5 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.

Use of Remainder/Discretionary Funds
During the performance period…
3Sa. The State used its discretionary funds in accordance with the planned strategy and budget
outlined in the State plan. 6
3Sb. Using data from a nationally administered survey7 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.
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
3Sd. Using data from a nationally administered survey9 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.
Grantee Monitoring and Corrective Action
During the performance period…
4Sa. The State…
i. conducted monitoring activities as directed by the CSBG Act and outlined in the State
plan;
ii. disseminated monitoring reports to local entities within 60 calendar days; and
iii. reported eligible entities on Quality Improvement Plans (QIPs) 10 to OCS within 30
calendar days of the State approving the QIP. 11
4Sb. Using data from a nationally administered survey12 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). 13
4Sd. From all eligible entity single audits that require a management decision, the percent 14
that the State issued a management decision within six months of acceptance of the audit
report by the FAC (Federal Audit Clearinghouse). 15

5

OCS will use the ACSI, OMB-approved methodology.
This will be a semi-annual measure in the future, possibly FY 2017.
7
OCS will use the ACSI, OMB-approved methodology.
8
This will be a semi-annual measure in the future, possibly FY 2017.
9
OCS will use the ACSI, OMB-approved methodology.
10
Quality Improvement Plans (QIPs) are described in section 678C of the CSBG Act.
11
This will be a semi-annual measure in the future, possibly FY 2017.
12
OCS will use the ACSI, OMB-approved methodology.
13
This will be a semi-annual measure in the future, possibly FY 2017.
6

Page 3
Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting
During the performance period…
5S.
The State submitted to:
i. OCS the State’s CSBG Annual Report by the OCS-established deadline; 16
ii. 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; and
iii. the eligible entities and State Community Action association information about
performance on the State accountability measures, within 60 calendar days of getting
feedback from OCS.
Organizational Standards for Eligible Entities
During the performance period…
6Sa. “x” percent 17 of eligible entities in the State met all the State-adopted organizational
standards.
6Sb. The State had in place Technical Assistance Plans (TAPs) and/or Quality Improvement
Plans (QIPs) for all eligible entities with unmet standards. 18
State Linkages and Communication
During the performance period…
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.
7Sb. Using data from a nationally administered survey19 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.
Eligible Entity Satisfaction
During the performance period…
8S.
By 20xx, the State achieved/maintained an Overall Satisfaction score of “x”. 20

14

The goal for this measure is 100 percent compliance. The State will establish a baseline percentage in
the first year and, if the percentage is less than 100 percent, will track improvement in subsequent years.
15
As required by 45 CFR 75.521, Management Decisions.
16
The annual report includes information such as CSBG program data, National Performance Indicators
(NPIs) data, and information on State administration of CSBG, and State performance on CSBG
Accountabilty Measures.
17
The State will establish a baseline percentage in the first year and, if the percentage is less than 100
percent, will set targets for improvement in subsequent years.
18
If the State, according to the State’s corrective action procedures, does not plan to put a QIP in place for
an eligible entity with one or more unmet organizational standards, the State should institute a TAP to
support the entity in meeting the standard(s).
19
OCS will use the ACSI, OMB-approved methodology.
20
OCS will use the ACSI. The State will propose a target score in the CSBG State plan, which will be
based on the results of the most recent ACSI survey of the State’s eligible entities.