ExpectMore.gov


Detailed Information on the
Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership Assessment

Program Code 10002106
Program Title Leveraging Educational Assistance Partnership
Department Name Department of Education
Agency/Bureau Name Department of Education
Program Type(s) Block/Formula Grant
Assessment Year 2004
Assessment Rating Results Not Demonstrated
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 20%
Strategic Planning 12%
Program Management 78%
Program Results/Accountability 20%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $65
FY2008 $64
FY2009 $0

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2005

Develop long-term performance measures for this program.

Action taken, but not completed The Department is currently focusing on developing data sources to support measures for the larger campus-based student aid programs; this process will inform the development of meaningful measures for the LEAP program. The Department will meet with OMB this spring to determine the feasibility of developing program-specific data.
2005

Request no additional Federal funds for this program since Federal assistance is no longer

Action taken, but not completed No funding was included for this program in the FY 2007 and FY 2008 President's Budget.

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Annual Output

Measure: Percentage of States that maintain or increase support for need-based grant programs.


Explanation:% of States that maintain or increase support for need-based grant programs

Year Target Actual
2003   77%
2004  
2005  
2006  
Annual Output

Measure: Correlation of income distribution of LEAP recipients to Pell Grant recipients to show that LEAP is well targeted at providing aid to low-income students.


Explanation:Income distribution of LEAP participants comparable to Pell Grants. The measure would be the correlation between the income distribution of Pell Grant recipient to LEAP/SLEAP recipients.

Year Target Actual
2003   0.985
2004  
2005  
2006  
Annual Efficiency

Measure: Administrative Unit Cost


Explanation:These rates reflect the lifetime administrative cost per award made in a given fiscal year. Measures are based on annual and projected activity-based cost data and program obligation information. Targets and updated actual data are under development. (Unit costs for LEAP are significantly higher than those for other student aid programs because of the small number of awards - 52 in 2004, for example, compared to 5.3 million for Pell Grants in the same year.)

Year Target Actual
2002 n/a $868.51
2003 n/a $2,879.33
2004 n/a $5,189.40
2005 n/a n/a
2006 n/a n/a
2007 n/a n/a
2008 TBD
2009 TBD

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score
1.1

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program's purpose is to make grants available to States to assist States in providing their own grants to eligible students seeking higher education.

Evidence: Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, section 415A(a).

YES 20%
1.2

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

Explanation: The LEAP program may no longer be needed. When the program was first authorized as the SSIG program in 1972, 28 States had undergraduate need-based grant programs. Today all but two States have need-based student grant programs. State grant levels have expanded greatly over the years, and most States significantly exceed the statutory matching requirements. For academic year 2002-2003, for example, estimated State matching funds totaled nearly $1 billion. States would be free to continue to maintain or increase this level of commitment in the absence of the $67 million LEAP program.

Evidence: Program data on State participation and funding levels.

NO 0%
1.3

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

Explanation: This small program is clearly duplicative, given the existence of multiple Federal, State, institutional, and private student financial assistance programs which together provide over $100 billion in annual aid to students.

Evidence: The Federal government provides students grants through the Pell Grant and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant programs, and work assistance through the Work-Study program. NSF also offers aid opportunities that are very similar to those available under SLEAP. In addition, virtually all States operate student grant and/or work assistance programs which could be maintained in the absence of LEAP.

NO 0%
1.4

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

Explanation: Although the program's requirement for a State dollar-for-dollar--and, in the case of SLEAP, 2-for-1--match, as well as the maintenance of effort requirements, serve to leverage a relatively small amount of Federal aid to maximize State investments, the program is serving a mission that has already been achieved.

Evidence: Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, section 415C, 415E(d), (e); FSA administrative structure and funding data.

NO 0%
1.5

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Although program funds are allocated to States in "an amount which bears the same ratio' as the number of students who are deemed eligible in such State for participation in (LEAP) bears to the total number of such students in all the States," this provision is based on ensuring that States cannot receive less than was awarded in 1979 which is not an effective way to target program resources.

Evidence: Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, section 415B; program funding history.

NO 0%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 20%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score
2.1

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 Department is in the process of developing long-term performance measures. (1) do States maintain or increase support for need-based grant progrms; (2) how targeted program funds are toward low-income students; and (3) how effieintly is the program administered.

Evidence: Program data on State participation, funding levels, and income distribution of LEAP participants. Also, FSA unit cost data.

NO 0%
2.2

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

Explanation: As noted above under 2.1, the Department is developing long-term performance measures. The anticipated targets are that States will maintain or increase support for need-based grants and that funds will be well targeted toward low-income students.

Evidence: Program data on income of program recipients, and State participation and funding levels.

NO 0%
2.3

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: Beginning in 2004, the Department will implement annual performance measures. Over time, these measures will enable the Department to assess the program's success in achieving its statutory purpose.

Evidence: Program data on income of program recipients, and State participation and funding levels.

NO 0%
2.4

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

Explanation: The Department is developing long-term performance measures. The anticipated targets are that States will maintain or increase support for need-based grants and that funds will be well targeted toward low-income students. Baselines and targets are being developed and will be finalized in September 2004.

Evidence: Program data on income of program recipients, and State participation and funding levels.

NO 0%
2.5

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: States that participate in the program are committed to ensuring that funding for need-based grant programs increase and that program funds are appropriately targeted at low-income students in their state. The funding formula, however, currently includes a base gurantee that prevents States from having their allocation reduced even if the number of eligible students in the State declines. So, there is no financial harm or benefit from ensuring that program goals are met. .

Evidence:  

NO 0%
2.6

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 evaluations have been conducted.

Evidence:  

NO 0%
2.7

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: The measures discussed in 2.1 are new, and will be reflected in future budget requests. The program's redundancy, however, and the extent to which States can continue to provide aid without this relatively small Federal investment have informed the decision to request no new funding for this program.

Evidence: FY 2003, 2004, 2005 President's Budgets. Prior Administration Budget's have also not requested funding for this program.

NO 0%
2.8

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

Explanation: The Department is working to develop effecitive, program-specific performance measures, as discussed under 2.1.

Evidence: Establishment of new performance measures and goals.

YES 12%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 12%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score
3.1

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: LEAP financial and program participation information is collected regularly and used by the Department to work with States on program management issues.

Evidence: LEAP program and financial data. For instance, reports submitted by States allow the Department to monitor funding levels and assure compliance with the program requirements including the distribution of awards and the standards used to determine that students have substantial financial need.

YES 11%
3.2

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: Currently, ED cannot demonstrate how federal managers and program partners are held accountable for program goals. However, the Department has initiated several efforts to improve accountability in its programs. First, ED is in the process of ensuring that EDPAS plans -- which link employee performance to relevant Strategic Plan goals and action steps ' hold Department employees accountable for specific actions tied to improving program performance (FSA will do the same for employee performance plans developed under its Performance Based Organization authority). ED is also revising performance agreements for its SES staff to link performance appraisals to specific actions tied to program performance. Finally, ED is reviewing its grant policies and regulations to see how grantees can be held more accountable for program results.

Evidence: The President's Management Agenda scorecard (Human Capital and Budget & Performance Integration initiatives) notes ED's efforts to improve accountability. The Department's Discretionary Grants Improvement Team (DiGIT) recommendations indicate that ED is reviewing its grant policies and recommendations.

NO 0%
3.3

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

Explanation: ED obligates LEAP funds obligated consistently with the overall program plan. The Department also has procedures for reporting actual expenditures, comparing them against the intended use, and taking timely and appropriate action when funds are not spent as intended.

Evidence: Department of Education financial management reports

YES 11%
3.4

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: To date, the Department has not established procedures for this program to measure and achieve efficiencies in program operations. However, ED is in the process of developing its competitive sourcing Green Plan, and is working to improve the efficiency of its grantmaking activities. The Department has also established a strengthened Investment Review Board to review and approve information technology purchases agency-wide. Finally, ED's Federal Student Aid office has plans to implement a comprehensive unit cost measurement system for the student aid programs.

Evidence: Department Investment Review Board materials. ED's Discretionary Grants Improvement Team (DiGIT) recommendations.

NO 0%
3.5

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The LEAP program is part of a group of interrelated Federal, State, and institutional financial aid programs which work together to accomplish the shared goal of increasing access to higher education. The Federal student aid programs share a common application and needs analysis process that is also used by all but 5 States and most institutions as the basis for their own need-based aid. (Only 6 States require applicants to submit additional information beyond that collected on the FAFSA.) In addition, institutional financial aid administrators package the various forms of aid to best meet the needs of each eligible student.

Evidence: Program structure, including aid packaging process and widespread use of FAFSA for Federal and State aid.

YES 11%
3.6

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Department has taken major steps to improve its financial management over the past several years. The Department received unqualified audit opinions for FY 2002 and 2003, has received a score of green for financial management on the President's Management Scorecard, and is in compliance with major Federal financial management statutes.

Evidence: Reports completed by GAO, ED's Inspector General, and independent auditors.

YES 11%
3.7

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

Explanation: The Department Office of Federal Student Aid is in the process of developing program-specific unit cost measures to better assess management efficiency. FSA has also taken other actions to improve the management of student aid programs.

Evidence:  

YES 11%
3.B1

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

Explanation: Program participants (states) are subject to regular oversight, including institutional audits and periodic program reviews. These oversight activities, together with program and financial reports, provide sufficient knoweldge of grantee activities.

Evidence: Department regulations and reporting requirements.

YES 11%
3.B2

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: Annual data submitted by the States contain compliance information, and performance data. The data is available to the public.

Evidence: Program operations and financial reports.

YES 11%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 78%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score
4.1

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

Explanation: Long term program performance goals are being established; however, when this effort is complete, historical data should be available to assess program performance retrospectively.

Evidence: Program data on State participation and funding levels and the distribution of student awards.

NO 0%
4.2

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

Explanation: Annual program performance goals are being established; however, when this effort is complete, historical data should be available to assess program performance retrospectively.

Evidence: Program data on State participation and funding levels and the distribution of student awards.

NO 0%
4.3

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

Explanation: The Department has yet to develop and implement efficiency measures to quantitively assess performance improvements.

Evidence: FSA is developing unit cost data that will be used for the efficiency measure for the LEAP program.

NO 0%
4.4

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

Explanation: As noted above, the program's requirement for a State dollar-for-dollar--and, in the case of SLEAP, 2-for-1--match, as well as the maintenance of effort requirements, serve to leverage a relatively small amount of Federal aid to maximize State investments. Performance of this program compares favorabley to campus-based ones. Preliminary data from NPSAS suggest that LEAP awards are nearly as well targeted as FSEOG awards and better targeted than FWS and Perkins awards.

Evidence: Program funding data.

YES 20%
4.5

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

Explanation: No independent evaluations have been conducted.

Evidence:  

NO 0%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 20%


Last updated: 09062008.2004SPR