Detailed Information on the
Physical Education Program Assessment

Provide technical assistance to Fiscal Year 2007 new and continuation grantees to promote reporting consistent data for program performance measures.

Work with Congress to eliminate this separate, categorical program for physical education.

Conduct a national evaluation of the program

Revise existing performance measures and data collection practices for the program so that grantees report data that are comparable across sites and provide a better assessment of the program's overall effectiveness.

Refine and implement an efficiency measure for the program.

Develop options for a national evaluation to identify needed improvements to, and assess the effectiveness of, the program.

Posting meaningful grantee-level performance data on the program web site.

Measure: The percentage of students served by the grant actively participating in physical education activities. (2004 cohort)

Explanation:This measure applies to the 2004 and 2005 grantees. A new measure has been developed since the program was assessed which applies to later grantee cohorts.

Measure: The percentage of students served by the grant who make progress toward meeting State standards for physical education. (2004 cohort)

Explanation:This measure applies to the 2004 and 2005 grantees. A new measure has been developed since the program was assessed which applies to later grantee cohorts.

Measure: The percentage of students served by the grant actively participating in physical education activities. (2005 cohort)

Explanation:This measure applies to the 2004 and 2005 grantees. A new measure has been developed since the program was assessed which applies to later grantee cohorts.

Measure: The percentage of students served by the grant who make progress toward meeting State standards for physical education. (2005 cohort)

Explanation:This measure applies to the 2004 and 2005 grantees. A new measure has been developed since the program was assessed which applies to later grantee cohorts.

Measure: The percentage of students served by the grant who engage in (i) 150 min. of moderate to vigorous physical activity/week (elementary school) ; and/or (ii) 225 min. of moderate to vigorous physical activity/week (middle, high school). (2006 cohort)

Explanation:This new measure applies to grantees from 2006 on.

Measure: The cost per student who achieves the level of physical activity required to meet the physical activity measure above (150 min. elementary school and/or 225 min. middle, high school). (2006 cohort)

Explanation:This new measure applies to grantees from 2006 on.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Under this program, local educational agencies and community-based organizations receive funds to initiate, expand, or enhance physical education programs for students in grades kindergarten through 12 in order to help students make progress toward meeting State standards for physical education. Grantees can use a variety of techniques to encourage students to adopt enduring physical activity and healthy eating practices, including enhancing training opportunities for teachers and staff, implementing physical education and nutrition education curricula, and providing cooperative skill-building activities for students. Applicants are encouraged to propose research-based projects that reflect an integrated, comprehensive approach to lifelong physical fitness for their students.

Evidence: Title V, Part D, Subpart 10 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Authorizing Legislation). Federal Register Notice, February 4, 2004. Information and Application Procedures for Fiscal Year 2004.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The focus of the program is to address the lifelong health and wellbeing of all children. Reports from the Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture have repeatedly shown that children are developing habits that lead to unhealthy lifestyles: exercising less and eating less nutritious food and more junk food. These reports also show that our nation's children are increasingly out of shape. Finally, recent research indicates that children who participate in daily physical activities do better academically. In addition, there is a strong interest in this program. Since 2001, the number of applicants applying for this grant has grown significantly. For example, during the 2004 grant competition, our office received over 1500 applications. This is an increase of more than 200% from 2001.

Evidence: Findings from a recent report from the Surgeon General's Office indicate that nearly half of American youths 12-21 years of age are not vigorously active on a regular basis.* Although approximately half of all high school students attended physical education classes on one or more days during the week, rates decline by grade; 73% of ninth-graders reported attending one or more physical education classes a week compared to 31% of seniors.** In addition, according to the USDA, most young people are not following Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommendations: of U.S. youth aged 6-19, 67% exceed dietary guidelines recommendations for fat intake, 72% exceed recommendations for saturated fat intake. Only 21% of high school students eat the recommended five daily servings of fruits and vegetables (when fried potatoes and potato chips are excluded). As a result of all of these factors, there are twice as many overweight youth (age 6-11) and three times as many overweight adolescents (age 12-19) as there were twenty years ago.*** In addition, research suggests that physically active children perform well academically. For example, a California study showed that higher academic achievement was directly correlated with higher levels of fitness at each grade level.**** Another preliminary study, conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, found that increased levels of physical activity have a positive effect on academic achievement.***** * Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion: 1996. **Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2001. ***Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. ****California Department of Education. "State Study Proves Physically Fit Kids Perform Better Academically." Available at: www.cde.ca.gov/news/releases2002/rel37.asp ***** Hillman, C., H., Castelli, D. M., & Buck, S. (submitted for review). Physical Fitness and Cognitive Function in Healthy Preadolescent Children. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Generally, physical education programs are funded through State and school district budgets. To the extent this program functions as a short-term catalyst designed to redirect physical education programs, it does not duplicate local efforts. If the program were to support long-term efforts that fill in State and local funding gaps, it would duplicate efforts that should be State and local responsibilities. Education has implemented the PEP grants is the only federally funded resource designed to re-orient physical education toward a more comprehensive, integrated approach to physical activity, teacher training, nutrition education, and fitness assessment for students in kindergarten through the 12th grade. Other federal resources related to youth and adolescent physical fitness and nutrition exist, but they are either in the form of information dissemination, curricula design tools, or state grants. The state grants available are for agencies administering the National School Lunch Program or the Child and Adult Care Food Program, and offer mini-grants to school districts to conduct nutrition education and physical education activities. However, these state grants are not as comprehensive in scope or objective as the PEP grants. In addition, the most recent School Health Policies and Programs Study, released in 2000, reports that only 16 states (including the District of Columbia (DC)) provided funding for staff development in physical education (PE). Information collected by ED staff is consistent with this finding.

Evidence: For fiscal year 2005, the Departments of Health and Human Services' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Agriculture (USDA) both have resources available for improving kids' eating and physical activity habits. For example, the CDC's marketing campaign "VERB" provides parents and professionals with resources and tools to get tweens (ages 9-13) physically active. This program's web site is www.cdc.gov/verb. The USDA's Team Nutrition grants support the President's HealthierUS Initiative. These grants assist State agencies in their efforts to improve children's lifelong physical activity and eating habits. This program's web site is www.fns.usda.gov/tn/Grants/2005app.html. In addition, private and non-profit organizations, such as the Young Men's and Women's Christian Associations, the Boys and Girls' Clubs of America, Nickelodeon, and General Mills, have partnered with communities and/or offered funding to improve children's overall wellness. The CDC periodically produces the School Health Policies and Programs Study. This national survey assesses school health policies at the State, district, and school levels. The OSDFS state standards report is an in-house, working document used to capture State policies and State appropriations for physical education. Institute of Medicine's Preventing Childhood Obesity: Health in the Balance.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: This program operates as intended by Congress and does not have any major flaws. This program operates under a fair and open competitive process, and efficiently awards grants to school districts and community-based organizations to support their efforts to improve children's physical fitness and eating habits. The program's non-Federal cost matching requirement does make it difficult for some entities to compete for program funds. The authorizing statute requires grantees to provide a 10% match in the first year, and a 25% match in subsequent years. The intended purpose of this match requirement is to foster program sustainability beyond the grant period. If grantees have to invest a portion of their own resources into the program, then the likelihood of capacity building, sustainability, and long-term results is good. In satisfying the matching requirement, some applicants (particularly the neediest) have difficulty identifying non-federal resources that are directly related to and allowable under the program. For example, we have had applicants offer literacy training or donated articles of clothing, such as t-shirts or tennis shoes, as their match. As a result, the Department must occasionally significantly reduce an award to an amount supported by the allowable match, or even determine that a proposal is ineligible for funding because the matching requirement is not met. To support the neediest applicants, who experience the most difficulty in meeting the match requirement, the Department might create a national technical assistance center. Through such a center, we could help grantees identify appropriate funding sources for the program's cost matching requirement. We could also help grantees identify research-based strategies, and proactively work with grantees to address GPRA performance measures. The potential benefits of such a center were also discussed in the 2004 PEP report to Congress.

Evidence: For each grant proposal, applicants must use ED form 524 to summarize their budget for both Federal funds requested and proposed match. In addition, each applicant must provide a narrative that provides an itemized budget breakdown for activities by category. The budget narrative is used to conduct a cost analysis of the applicant's budget to ensure that all cost items are allowable and related to the project's objectives. Throughout the performance period of the grant, grant monitors also review and analyze budget information reported on the annual performance reports to ensure satisfactory progress towards project goals, and to ensure the grantee is meeting the matching requirement.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The program's intended beneficiaries are local educational agencies (LEAs) and community-based organizations (CBO's), and the students they serve. Program grants are made only to eligible entities to initiate, expand, or enhance physical education programs for students in grades kindergarten through 12 to help them make progress toward meeting State standards for physical education, consistent with the Congressional design for the program. Although the statute does not include provisions that target the neediest LEAs or CBOs, the Department seeks to focus assistance on applicants with significant need for program services by including "need for project" as a selection criterion for the grant competition, and weighting that criterion at 20 out of a possible 100 points. Peer reviewers are given guidance on how to evaluate the quality of an applicant's response to this criterion. For example, reviewers are asked to evaluate how well an applicant identified its State standards, and then described the gaps or weaknesses in their current physical education program relative to those standards. Applicants describe their need to initiate physical education programs in their applications. In addressing the need for a program, applicants typically describe a lack of resources, infrastructure, or services to meet State standards and, frequently, a growing epidemic in childhood obesity. These descriptions are frequently supported by statistics that specifically highlight the alarming physical health conditions of their student population or community. Here are some examples of how applicants effectively described the need to develop a physical education program: ?? An applicant in a rural Washington community had to completely eliminate its physical education (PE) staff due to economic pressures. With no PE teachers available, classroom teachers assumed the responsibility of providing PE instruction. These classroom teachers, however, have no training in PE curriculum and instruction. Teachers provide games that require little preparation, and these games have little or no alignment with Sate standards in PE. As a result, there's been a decline in the quality of PE for this community, resulting in students testing below national averages. In the fall of 2003, screening tests for this district revealed that 42% of its students ranked at the at-risk or overweight category as measured by their body mass index. ?? In a small Alaskan community, one school serves all students in kindergarten through the 12th grade. This school has no gym facility, and there are no facilities to accommodate recreational activities for students. There is no funding for a comprehensive standards-based curriculum or PE instructors. As with other school districts in a similar situation, classroom teachers provide PE instruction and have little or no training in the essential components of a comprehensive physical education program. Based on data from a 2001 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 42% of Alaskan students do not eat fruit and vegetables regularly, and 32% of Alaskan students do not get enough exercise. For this applicant, PEP funding would develop a comprehensive physical education and wellness curriculum, and provide resources to recruit and train certified PE staff. ?? A Texas applicant described its economically disadvantaged population as having a high percentage of children at-risk for overweight or already overweight. According to statistics provided in the proposal, 20% of Texas children ages 6 to 18 years old are overweight, and another 20% are at risk of being overweight. Similarly, 38% of children ages 10-13 near the Texas/Mexico border are overweight compared to 14% nationally for the same age group. Many school districts in Texas do not have sufficient resources to develop the curriculum, provide training, and purchase equipment to fully meet the State's standards for physical education.

Evidence: Authorizing Legislation, 2004 PEP Grant Application and Peer Reviewer Guide

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program has established key performance measures for assessing the effectiveness of the Carol M. White Physical Education Program: (a) The percentage of students served by the grant actively participating in physical education activities will increase; and (b) The percentage of students served by the grant who make progress toward meeting state standards for physical education will increase.

Evidence: The grant length is three years; therefore, the program's GPRA measures serve as both annual and long-term performance measures. These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, applicants for a grant under this program are advised to give careful consideration to these two outcomes in conceptualizing the design, implementation, and evaluation of their proposed project. Baseline data for these measures are expected to be available with the FY 2004 cohort, as part of the program performance reports due in June 2005. Currently, grantees are not required to report standardized data. We recognize that this will make it difficult to analyze the program's overall effectiveness in meeting the defined performance measures. However, if Congress elects to support the program in FY 2006, we plan to explore options to improve the comparability of data. For example, using data reported from the FY 2004 cohort, one option may be to cross-check State standards to determine if there are common data by which projects can be compared to evaluate whether students served by the grant are making progress towards State standards. Another option may be to use data reported this fiscal year as a benchmark to determine what common data elements can be used in future years to better evaluate whether students served by the grant are increasing their physical activity.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Beginning with the FY 2004 cohort, we will collect data for the key annual performance measures. We plan to establish targets based on this data by the end of FY 2005.

Evidence:  

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program's GPRA performance measures are: 1) percentage increase in the number of students served by the grant actively participating in physical education activities, and 2) percentage increase in the number of students served by the grant who make progress toward meeting state standards in physical education. The program makes grant awards for a maximum budget period of three years. The program's GPRA measures serve as both its annual and long-term performance measures. Each year, grantees will provide information on the two measures, and we expect to see improvement in both measures from year to year and over the life of each cohort of grants. Currently, grantees are not required to report standardized data. We recognize that this will make it difficult to analyze the program's overall effectiveness in meeting the defined performance measures. However, if Congress elects to support the program in FY 2006, we plan to explore options to improve the comparability of data. For example, using data reported from the FY 2004 cohort, one option may be to cross-check State standards to determine if there are common data by which projects can be compared to evaluate whether students served by the grant are making progress towards State standards. Another option may be to use data reported this fiscal year as a benchmark to determine what common data elements can be used in future years to better evaluate whether students served by the grant are increasing their physical activity. The Department has also taken steps to develop a meaningful efficiency measure for the PEP. A tentative measure is the cost (weighted by number of students) of developing a program that results in students participating in the level of weekly physical activity recommended by the CDC. While current data sources do not permit the Department to collect and analyze these data, the Department is exploring means for doing so, such as a new performance report.

Evidence:  

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Beginning with the FY 2004 cohort, we will collect data for the key performance measures. As a result, baseline data won't be available until the end of FY 2005 to establish targets.

Evidence:  

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The program's two key performance measures are: 1) percentage increase in the number of students served by the grant actively participating in physical education activities, and 2) percentage increase in the number of students served by the grant who make progress toward meeting state standards in physical education. After making an award, program officers contact all grant recipients to discuss performance measures, and to ensure that evaluation plans account for these measures. Performance measures are also discussed at a mandatory new grantee meeting. In addition, all grant recipients are required to provide annual reports that demonstrate substantial progress towards meeting these performance measures within their program. If the annual report discloses poor performance toward meeting these performance measures, then one result may be to place special conditions on the grantee, such as delaying continued funding until there is comfort with the progress being made.

Evidence:  

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: No independent national evaluation of this program has been conducted. However, All grants funded in FY 2004 include evaluation activities, and some include independent evaluations. We plan to explore the development of a national program evaluation using the statutory provision authorizing reservation of funds for evaluation activities, if the Congress elects to support the program in FY 2006 and future years.

Evidence:  

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Funding levels are not tied to achievement of specific goals. However, the Department's budget submissions show the full cost (including S &E) for all programs. This Administration policy for this program has been to phase it out over two years.

Evidence:  

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Beginning in fiscal year 2004, the Department revised the program announcement to encourage applicants to propose more comprehensive programs that incorporate a broader range of activities and that include one or more of the program elements defined in the legislation. In addition, the Department increased the length of the grant period from one year to a period of up to three years. This extension allows more time for grantees to implement high-quality that address the physical, dietary, cognitive, behavioral, and social aspects of physical fitness and build capacity to make systemic improvements in the nature of its physical education programs. Currently, grantees are not required to report standardized data. We recognize that this will make it difficult to analyze the program's overall effectiveness in meeting the defined performance measures. However, if Congress elects to support the program in FY 2006 , we will explore options to improve the comparability of data. For example, using data reported from the FY 2004 cohort, one option may be to cross-check State standards to determine if there are common data by which projects can be compared to evaluate whether students served by the grant are making progress towards state standards. Another option may be to use data reported this fiscal year as a benchmark to determine what common data elements can be used in future years to better evaluate whether students served by the grant are increasing their physical activity. Finally, as noted under 2.3, we are developing an efficiency measure for the program and will take actions to implement it in FY 2006. In addition, on May 3, 2004, we submitted a report to Congress that offered three major recommendations to improve the effectiveness of PEP. First, we recommended increased capacity to fund a national evaluation study to help strengthen our efforts to shape a program that is evidence-based and produces intended outcomes. Until such increased funding is received, we plan to explore the development of a program evaluation using the statutory provision authorizing the reservation of funds for evaluation activities. Second, we recommended funding to create a national technical assistance center for current and future grantees. Through a technical assistance center, we could help grantees: 1) find high-quality, evidence-based programs, 2) identify gaps and weaknesses in their program design, 3) help grantees collaborate with other community organizations, and 4) strategically plan for program sustainability. Finally, we recommended increased partnership with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture to share resources and best practices to strengthen physical activity, health, and nutrition programs in our schools.

Evidence: 2004 Grant Application packet, and 2004 Report to Congress.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The agency develops a partnership with grantees throughout the life of the project. In developing this partnership, performance information is collected in a timely manner through on-going communications between the grantee and the agency contact. This is done by regular conference calls, e-mail exchanges, or written communication with the grantees. The grantee is also required to submit an annual performance report to determine program effectiveness. Program staff thoroughly reviews performance reports to determine if grantees have made substantial progress in meeting program goals and objectives. Beginning with the FY 2004 cohorts, the agency established GPRA performance measures for assessing the effectiveness of the program. Baseline data for these measures will not be available for assessment until the end of FY 2005. These data, combined with monitoring activities, will help the agency determine what improvements need to be made within the program. To make the data collected through performance reports more meaningful in terms of measuring progress toward program objectives, we plan to explore options to improve the comparability of data, beginning with the FY 2005 baseline data. For example, using data reported from the FY 2004 cohort, one option may be to cross-check State standards to determine if there are common data by which projects can be compared to evaluate whether students served by the grant are making progress towards State standards. Another option may be to use data reported this fiscal year as a benchmark to determine what common data elements can be used in future years to better evaluate whether students served by the grant are increasing their physical activity. Office staff also rely on project director meetings and conferences to address program performance and identify areas of improvement. The mandatory project directors' meetings are used to train grantees on management responsibilities and performance expectations for their grant. To that end, grantees receive information on fiscal and administrative responsibilities, reporting requirements, and audit requirements. Grantees also receive information specific to their grant programs, such as program restrictions, program accountability and sustainability, and performance objectives. Regularly, OSFDS hosts a conference to highlight various school-related issues. Staff use these conferences also to address areas of program weakness detected through site visits, performance calls, and reports. For example, at this year's conference PEP grantees will have a workshop on effective evaluation - an area of needed improvement for grantees. This workshop will outline criteria for evaluating school-based approaches to physical education programs. It will then move into a discussion of effective approaches to a quality evaluation plan. The workshop panelists will discuss the effectiveness of various evaluation methodologies, tools, and measures, and resources specific to physical education programs, and will explain how to design an effective evaluation plan directly tied to intended outcomes.

Evidence: The agency uses the U.S. Department of Education's Grant Performance Report (ED 524B) to collect performance information from grantees. 2004 Project Directors' Meeting Agenda; 2005 OSDFS Conference Agenda

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The performance agreement for the Assistant Deputy Secretary establishes expectations for this (and other OSDFS programs) to be implemented according to agreed upon schedules. For example, the Assistant Deputy Secretary is accountable for meeting set schedules in awarding both new and continuation awards. The Assistant Deputy Secretary is also accountable for developing a reporting tool to identify and track actions on high-risk grantees, and for developing monitoring plans. Performance agreements for individual grant monitors for this program establish standards for grant program implementation, including the development of a monitoring strategy to track and evaluate grantees' progress in achieving results. These agreements also require program monitors to apply appropriate tools (site visits, performance reports and performance calls) to proactively identify and address poor performance or high-risk grantees. In addition, program monitors are expected to regularly monitor a grantee's drawdown activity to determine whether any cause for concern exists. Using the Department's Grants Administration and Payment System, monitors are able to view a grantee's expenditure of funds. Grantees are contacted if excessive drawdowns occur, or if grant funds are not used within a reasonable period of time. If the program monitor determines that funds have been used inappropriately or ineffectively, there are several courses of action, including site visits, the return of Federal funds, or the placement of special conditions (e.g. grantee payment on a reimbursement system) Our program partners (grantees) are held accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results through monitoring visits, conferences, grantee workshops, and the development and review of annual performance reports. Information obtained from these sources is used to determine continuation funding, and contributed significantly to Department efforts to strengthen this program by encouraging the development of more comprehensive programs. Use of tools such as "watch list" (see answer to Q 3.7 for fuller discussion) help identify grantees that are potential candidates for "high risk" grantee status.

Evidence: EDPAS agreements, Monitoring Plan, Watch List Criteria

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Program funds are routinely obligated in a timely manner (consistent with established schedules). A thorough analysis of an applicant's budget is conducted prior to the awarding of funds. During this analysis, staff ensure that budgeted items are necessary, reasonable, and allocable, and support the objectives of the program.

Evidence: ED financial management system printouts; individual budget analysis worksheets and notes

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Because the grants supported under this program vary significantly in scope and content, it isn't feasible to develop a standard cost formula that would be appropriate for all grantees. However, as part of pre-award budget reviews and negotiations, staff use professional judgment and experience to assess cost efficiency. Budget reviews are conducted by a limited number of staff, working as a team in order to assure a consistent result across applicants. Staff carefully review both direct and indirect cost requests, and require applicants to provide proof of negotiated restricted indirect cost rates. As a part of staff review, applicants must exclude "distorting" costs from their request for indirect costs. To assist with the grant competition, grantee conference planning, and administrative management, we entered into a performance-based contract with ESI. Based on this performance-based contract, ESI is incited to perform timely and accurately. Through this contract, we executed an online peer review process that greatly improved efficiency and resulted in cost savings. Overall, this contract has saved approximately 20-30% in program execution costs. As discussed under 2.3, the Department is developing a specific efficiency measure for this program (relating to the costs of establishing a physical education program that results in students participating in a recommended amount of weekly physical activity) and will take steps to operationalize that measure during FY 2006.

Evidence: Individual budget analysis reviews

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: President Bush launched the HealthierUS initiative to help Americans live longer, better and healthier lives. The initiative also directed Federal agencies, s including Education, HHS, Transportation, Interior, Labor, Veteran's Affairs, and Housing and Urban Development, Agriculture, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Personnel Management to develop plans to promote physical activity and health for all Americans. Second, a memorandum of understanding exists between the Departments of Education (ED), Agriculture (USDA), and Health and Human Services (HHS). This MOU was created in June 2002 to strengthen and promote the education and health of the Nation's school-aged children and youth. The MOU establishes a framework of cooperation for the Departments to work together to encourage all youth to adopt healthy eating and physical activity behaviors in order to curb the increasing rate of at-risk for overweight and overweight kids. The MOU task force has collaborated to promote USDA's Team Nutrition and the Presidential Active Lifestyle Award program. The task force has also initiated a public/private partnership with Action for Healthy Kids, an alliance of state teams working to improve the health of children in schools. Third, there is the Interagency Committee on School Health (ISCH). The ISCH is a multi-agency collaboration between several agencies, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency and Justice. This committee focuses on improving the effectiveness of school health programs for school-aged children and youth. Finally, over the past several years, HHS' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of Adolescent and School Health, has detailed a staffer to ED's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools to assist with developing strategies to improve the health of children attending public schools. As an in-house expert on children's health issues, this person shares information about relevant publications, research, conferences, and other activities. This person also assists in coordinating joint efforts between CDC and ED. Through the various vehicles described above, we have recently collaborated or partnered on the following products or events: ?? FY 2004 application packet for the PEP competition. We worked with the CDC to provide accurate data on the unhealthy habits of children related to nutrition and physical activity. ?? As part of the HealthierUS Initiative, HHS, USDA, and ED collaborated last year on a simultaneous back-to-school event. The Secretary from each agency launched a HealthierUS Challenge at various sites around the country. These series of events demonstrated a coordinated effort among the three agencies to address inactivity, overweight, and obesity issues among children. ?? The new Local Wellness Policy Requirement, enacted as part of the Child Wellness and WIC Reauthorization Act in June 2004, requires that all school districts have local wellness policies in place by the 2006-2007 school year. The Act also requires that USDA collaborate with ED and CDC on the creation of technical assistance materials and resources to be available when requested. Through this collaboration the USDA has established a great web-based resource, available at www.fns.usda.gov/tn. We have sent to every State and to District Superintendents letters??signed by USDA, CDC, and Department of Education-- explaining the policy requirements and resources available. In these letters, we emphasized the importance of using existing resources in the community, such as work being done through PEP grants, Coordinated School Health efforts, or Team Nutrition and that work should complement any ongoing efforts.

Evidence:

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: This, and other OSDFS programs, benefit from the generally improved financial management practices employed by the Department. For example, recent audits have not identified material weaknesses in the Department's financial management practices. Other Department enhancements, including monitoring excessive grantee drawdowns, identification and "flagging" of high-risk grantees, development of mandatory monitoring plans, enhanced oversight of indirect cost claims by grantees, and emphasis on risk assessment, provide a strong framework for effective financial management.

Evidence: ED audits, GPOS Handbook, GAPS system enhancements

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: While no material management deficiencies have been identified for this program, the Department has taken several steps to address creating a system of internal controls designed to enhance program management. In addition to the steps discussed in response to Question 3.6, OSDFS has developed a "watch list" for each of its program that identifies and records information about grantees that exhibit potentially significant problems. In constructing the list, staff consider grantee progress along a number of dimensions including financial issues, program management and performance. The goal of the list is to help focus attention and resources on "troubled" grantees and provide technical assistance designed to prevent more serious problems and potential designation of grantees as "high risk". This watch list approach works in conjunction with the Office's monitoring plan that uses a variety of monitoring strategies including performance and mid-point calls, review and analysis of performance reports, and a limited number of on-site visits. To improve management of the PEP program, we are also looking at options to collect better data. Consequently, this fiscal year, we will begin to explore options to improve the comparability of data across projects. For example, if we were to require standardized data, we would improve our ability to determine outcome drivers and measure the program's effectiveness.

Evidence: OSDFS Watch List, Monitoring Plan

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: All applications are reviewed according to the requirements of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), Part 75. All reviewers conduct an independent off-site review and post their comments and scores to a secure web site. During the 2004 grant competition, four selection criteria were used to evaluate applications: Need for Project (20 points), Significance (20 points), Quality of Project Design (35 points), and Quality of Project Evaluation (25 points). Peer reviewers were given specific guidance on how to evaluate the quality of an applicant's response to each criterion to ensure ratings accurately reflected the merits of each application reviewed. In addition, office staff facilitated and monitored the work of each review panel and ensured that the reviewers' judgments regarding strengths and weaknesses of an application were clearly substantiated by the score given.

Evidence: Peer review contract requirements, EDGAR, grant competition technical review forms, and peer reviewer training materials.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: We developed a monitoring plan for all grant programs. This monitoring plan establishes guidelines and describes tools (such as site visits, performance reports and performance calls) for evaluating a grantee's performance. The plan is thorough in its description of identifying performance problems or opportunities to provide technical assistance. In addition to providing general guidance and tools, the monitoring plan includes a schedule of site visits, by program, anticipated for the applicable fiscal year. For this program, performance monitoring is provided for all grant recipients. For fiscal year 2005, our office is providing on-site monitoring for 5% of the 2004 cohort; so far we have visited two of the planned 11 sites. These on-site visits focus on troubled and exemplary projects. Troubled grantees are those that are experiencing fiscal, management, or performance challenges. For example, if a grantee has had a great deal of turnover with its project director position, or has had excessive drawdown activity, then a site visit may be warranted. Exemplary grantees are those that have innovative, comprehensive programs that incorporate a coordinated approach to implementation. Exemplary programs are typically detected during routine performance calls and annual reports. In addition to the monitoring plan, the Office also developed a Watch List. This watch list is used to closely monitor grantees that are experiencing problems that could lead to a high-risk status designation. The three areas of risk that concern us most are: performance, financial, and management. For each of these areas, we've provided both indicators and monitoring actions. This proactive tool will help us address and resolve problems more effectively and efficiently.

Evidence: Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools 2004 Monitoring Plan and Watch List.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The Office collects information through performance reporting and monitoring to measure how well it is meeting the prescribed indicators (i.e., how well the Office is achieving its objectives). Through these data collection efforts, the Office is able to evaluate its effectiveness. GPRA measures for the program are included in the Department's Program Performance Data Base. Information about program measures is available on the Department's website; that information will be supplemented with information about targets and eventually aggregate performance information when it becomes available. While there is no current process to make individual grantee performance data available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner, the office is considering a pilot effort to develop a template and posting such information on the Department's website.

Evidence:  

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The maximum program length for this program is three years. As such, the program's GPRA measures are both the annual and long-term performance measures. Beginning with the FY 2004 cohort, we will collect data for the key performance measures. As a result, baseline data won't be available until the end of FY 2005 to establish targets.

Evidence:  

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: We are currently unable to assess. Beginning with the 2004 cohort, we will collect data for the key performance measures. As a result, we won't know whether the program has achieved its annual performance goals until the end of 2005. THIS ANSWER MAY BE REVISED ONCE THE 2004 DATA ARE AVAILABLE.

Evidence:  

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: To assist with the grant competition, grantee conference planning, and administrative management, we entered into a performance-based contract with ESI. Based on this performance-based contract, ESI is incited to perform timely and accurately. Through this contract, we executed an online peer review process that greatly improved efficiency and resulted in cost savings. Overall, this contract has saved approximately 20-30% in program execution costs. These savings are based on eliminating travel costs for almost 400 reviewers and meeting space for two week's worth of review. There are also efficiencies in providing an electronic peer review process that don't exist with a manual process. In addition, this program encouraged and accepted electronic applications, beginning with the fiscal year 2004 grant competition. Of the 1510 applicants that applied, 18% submitted an electronic application. Providing an electronic application process increases efficiencies in time management and productivity and supports the Administration's initiative on electronic government.

Evidence:  

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Consistent with the response to Question 1.3, we are unable to identify a program in the public or private sector with a similar purpose and goals.

Evidence:  

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: While no independent national evaluation has been conducted for this program, beginning with FY 2004, some grants include independent evaluations at the local level that will provide an analysis of a particular project's effectiveness. These evaluations will not be available until the fall.

Evidence: PEP grant applications and performance reports.