Detailed Information on the
Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Assessment

Set baseline and targets for newly developed efficiency measure.

Use data collected on newly developed performance measure to monitor and improve performance.

Working with grantees and other agency partners to support and improve child welfare program evaluation.

Implementing a newly developed performance measure for an annual decrease in the rate of first-time child maltreatment.

Working to develop and implement an efficiency measure.

Working with grantees and other agency partners to support and improve child welfare program evaluation. Milestone: Collaborate with grantees and national organizations regarding the evaluation of prevention programs, including presentation on economic evaluation of prevention programs at an American Public Health Association conference and inclusion of sessions on evaluation of prevention programs at 16th National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect.

Use data collected on newly developed performance measure to monitor and improve performance. Milestone: Collect and compile data from Annual Reports.

Set baseline and targets for newly developed efficiency measure. Milestone: Analyze baseline data.

Use data collected on newly developed performance measure to monitor and improve performance. Milestone: Develop data validation procedures for FY 2006 data submission.

Working with grantees and other agency partners to support and improve child welfare program evaluation. Milestone: Fund new discretionary grants to replicate and evaluate programs to prevent child abuse and neglect by providing nurse home visitation services and by providing or referring parents who would benefit from them to healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood services.

Measure: Decrease the rate of first-time victims per 1,000 children, based on National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) reporting of the child maltreatment victims each year who had not been maltreatment victims in any prior year.

Explanation:This is an annual outcome measure that tracks the rate of first-time child maltreatment victims (maltreatment victims who have not been maltreatment victims in any prior year) per 1,000 children as both a long-term goal and with annual targets.

Measure: Increase the percentage of Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) total funding that supports evidence-based and evidence-informed child abuse prevention programs and practices. (Measure added, February 2007)

Explanation:Recognizing that the use of evidence-based and evidence-informed practices often facilitates the efficiency and effectiveness of funding, CBCAP has developed an efficiency measure to reflect progress towards this goal. The Children's Bureau and its National Resource Center for CHCAP are working closely with the States to promote more rigorous evaluations of their funded programs. Over time, the program expects to increase the number of effective programs and practices that are implemented, thereby maximizing the impact and efficiency of CBCAP funds.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Community-Based Grants for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (CBCAP) program has a very clear purpose: to support community-based efforts to develop, operate, expand, and enhance initiatives aimed at the prevention of child abuse and neglect; to support networks of coordinated resources and activities to better strengthen and support families to reduce the likelihood of child abuse and neglect; and to foster understanding, appreciation, and knowledge of diverse populations in order to be effective in preventing and treating child abuse and neglect.

Evidence: Title I, Subtitle B of the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003; Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) 2003 (42 U.S.C. 5116 et. seq.), as amended by Pub. L. 108-36, enacted June 25, 2003. Attachment: CAPTA Legislation (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/capta03/index.htm)

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

Explanation: Findings from the States that have completed their Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSRs) thus far indicate that many States and communities lack adequate prevention and community-based services for families. There is a need for comprehensive family assessments and for greater engagement of parents in the case planning process. Since the provision of prevention services and the emphasis on parent engagement have always been strong components of the CBCAP program, coordination between the State's CFSR process and the development and operation of the CBCAP program greatly contributes to the overall child welfare system improvement and consequently the prevention of child maltreatment.

Evidence: (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/index.htm) FY 2003 GPRA Annual Performance Report Final CFSR Reports: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/staterpt/index.htm Program Improvement Plans (PIPS): www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/pip/index.htm Individual Key Findings Reports 2001-2004: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/key/index.htm

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

Explanation: CBCAP is a primary prevention program, providing interventions to prevent child abuse before it occurs as well as interventions to prevent the recurrence of child maltreatment. The CBCAP program is the only federally funded formula grant program available with the specific purpose of preventing child abuse and neglect. The federal funding is the seed money or 'glue money' used to encourage larger investments in prevention efforts from the State and local governments, as well as the private and non-private sectors. Unlike other programs, the CBCAP funding requirements are specific in defining the Lead Agency role and the task of providing public education and awareness about child abuse prevention as well as a broad array of preventive services through community-based networks.

Evidence: No other Federal program of a similar nature exists. At the State level, the program is not, by design, duplicative.

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

Explanation: Under the formula grant design of the program, funding is allocated directly to the States to determine local needs based on a mandated needs assessment process. The CBCAP funds encourage the use of innovative mechanisms at the State and local level to blend Federal, State, local and private funds for program activities. The formula grant design of this program recognizes that States have the capacity to most effectively and efficiently deliver a state-wide network with the goal of creating a seamless system to protect children from abuse and neglect. The CAPTA legislation requires that 70 percent of the CBCAP funds be allocated proportionately among the States based on the number of children under age 18 residing in each State with a base grant of $175,000. The legislation further requires that 30 percent of funds be allotted proportionately among the States based on the amount of private, State or other non-Federal funds leveraged and directed through the currently designated State lead agency in the preceding fiscal year for child abuse prevention programs and activities.

Evidence: CAPTA Legislation (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/capta03/index.htm),CBCAP Program Instruction (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/pi/pi0404.htm), Leveraged Funds Worksheet.

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

Explanation: The designated Lead Agencies in each State receiving the CBCAP funds are either the Children's Trust and Prevention Fund agencies (approximately 40% of States) or the State Child Welfare Agency, Child Abuse Prevention Division (in approximately 60% of the States). Along with direct responsibility for child abuse prevention activities in the State, the Lead Agencies receiving CBCAP funds are required to inventory and describe their current unmet needs and current community based and prevention focused programs and activities to prevent child abuse and neglect. Program requirements include a provision that States must provide a report that demonstrates that they have addressed the inventory of unmet needs and provides a description of current services. The assessment of information from the grantees also considers how well funds are targeted to meet the program purpose and whether funds are protected against supplantation as the CBCAP Program Instruction clearly states that funds should not supplant existing State funding.

Evidence: CAPTA Legislation (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/capta03/index.htm, CBCAP Program Instruction (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/pi/pi0404.htm)

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: CBCAP has created a new long-term performance measure: to decrease the rate of first-time victims of child maltreatment. This rate will be calculated based on NCANDS data. In addition, HHS program staff is working on a second measure that will track the decrease in first-time perpetrators of child abuse.

Evidence: National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS)

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

Explanation: CBCAP will use 2003 NCANDS data on the number of first-time maltreatment victims per 1,000 children as its baseline. It will then require a consistent reduction in this rate from year to year. In 2002, 31 States reported information on the number of first-time victims. HHS will work closely with States to continuously increase this response rate. CBCAP will use 2003 NCANDS data on the number of first-time maltreatment victims per 1,000 children as its baseline prevalence rate. It will then require a minimum 0.20 reduction in that rate each year. As of 2002, the number of first-time victims per 1,000 children stood at 6.94.

Evidence: NCANDS

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: CBCAP does not have any efficiency measures, nor are any under development. According to the PART guidance, it must receive a "No" for this question.

Evidence:

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

Explanation: According to the PART guidance, this question must receive a "No" if question 2.3 also receives a "No."

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: Since CBCAP's performance measure have only been recently developed, there has not yet been time to coordinate with its partners. However, HHS has agreed to work with States to convey the importance of its new measures and the timely submission of relevant NCANDS data on first-time maltreatment.

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: There have been no evaluations of sufficient scope, quality, and independence conducted, nor is there planning documentation in place that describes a program evaluation (of sufficient scope, quality, and independence) to be conducted in the near future. Though all State Lead Agencies are required to include an evaluation component at the State level, it is not clear that these State-specific evaluations are independent, and there are no national evaluations of CBCAP. The studies and reviews supplied as evidence by ACF that have been conducted at the national level are not targeted evaluations of CBCAP as defined by PART guidance.

Evidence: National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW) (www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/core/ongoing_research/afc/wellbeing_intro.html) Third National Incidence Study (NIS3) (nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/statsinfo/nis3.cfmNational Evaluation of Family Support Programs (www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/core/pubs_reports/famsup/fam_sup_vol_a_intro.html) Report of Emerging Practices in the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ep_fs.htm)

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: ACF is developing a budget request for the FY 2006 performance budget which integrates performance and budget information. However, it is necessary, but alone not sufficient for HHS to submit a more fully integrated budget for all of ACF. ACF must be able to answer "What would an additional $x million (or a y% increase) buy in CBCAP services?" In other words, what does the marginal dollar buy toward the program's long-term or annual performance measures. It is not sufficient for ACF's budget to align programs and dollars by strategic goal, or to account for the full costs of CBCAP. ACF must show how it would expect CBCAP performance to change as funding levels change.

Evidence: President's Budget for 2005 CAPTA Legislation (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/capta03/index.htm) CBCAP Program Instruction: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/pi/pi0404.htm Child Maltreatment 2002: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/index.htm Child Welfare Outcomes 2001: Annual Report: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cwo01/index.htm

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

Explanation: The Children's Bureau uses evaluation-style data collected at the Federal, State, local and program level on CBCAP programs to plan strategically for program changes and improvements. Data from the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR) and from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) as well as information from grantee evaluations and reports, technical assistance provider reports, and Federal Project Officer reviews of applications and annual reports are analyzed and used to formulate legislative proposals and other changes. Modifications to the CBCAP program are made through instructions sent to the State Lead Agencies in the annual Program Instruction (PI), through the agency's legislative proposals, and through continuous improvement activities of the technical assistance provider.

Evidence:  

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 CBCAP grantees are required to submit an annual performance report each year that includes both qualitative and quantitative performance information. The annual performance report is intended to demonstrate the extent to which CBCAP grantees are in compliance with the requirements for the funds as specified in the CAPTA legislation and the CBCAP Program Instruction. The performance information from each State CBCAP grantee also includes information from sub-grantees on local program activity and effectiveness. Each of the required elements of the annual performance report is related to the key goals of the CBCAP program. The State CBCAP agency uses the information compiled for the annual performance report to guide program funding and policy decisions. The Children's Bureau uses the annual CBCAP performance reports to monitor progress toward meeting key program goals and addressing unmet needs in communities, identify technical assistance needs and recommend technical assistance resources from the FRIENDS National Resource Center to assist CBCAP grantees.

Evidence: A recent management action based on performance information was the revision of the CBCAP 2004 Program Instruction (PI) to strengthen the coordination between the CBCAP program activities with ongoing child welfare systems change efforts (CFSRs and IV-B planning), as well as a focus on evaluating the outcomes of funded programs and activities Program Instruction: CBCAP 2004, Attachment 3: Coordination with the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR)/Program Improvement Plan (PIP)Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP)/Annual Progress and Services Report (APSR) Processes: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/pi/pi0404.htm

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 grantees are held accountable for performance through specific documentation including the initial applications, annual program plan and budget which outlines State allowable claims, population-based allocations, leveraged funds-based allocations and final State allocations. The initial and annual performance reports are reviewed by the CBCAP federal project officer, regional officer and FRIENDS National Resource Center. Feedback is given by each reviewer and implementation of changes is required as needed. The CBCAP grantees are also held accountable for performance related to CBCAP long-term measures and outcomes through the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) process and the State Program Improvement Plans (PIPs).

Evidence: OCAN Staff Employee Performance Management System (EPMS) plans specify relevant performance objectives for Federal staff.The CBCAP Program Instruction and FRIENDS cooperative agreement specify performance expectations for the grantees and the National Resource Center.State Program Improvement Plans (PIPs) www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/pip/index.htm

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

Explanation: ACF awards CBCAP grants on a formula basis. CPCAP funds are obligated within two days after receipt by the grants office of the approval memo from the program office. Obligation takes place at the time the Grants Officer certifies the grants in the Grants Administration Tracking and Evaluation System (GATES) Funds are then transmitted to the accounting office and the Payment Management System (PMS) which makes the funds available to the grantees. States have three years to expend the funds. States are required to submit annual Financial Status Reports (SF-269) and any funds reported as unobligated at the end of the three year period are recouped. Financial status reports are reviewed by the FPO and the Grants Management Specialist to insure that funds are expended appropriately. Requests by grantees to carryover funds from previous years require detailed documentation of appropriateness and are reviewed by both the FPO and the Grants Management Specialist for a determination.

Evidence: CBCAP Program Instruction www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/pi/pi0404.htm Memorandum from Program Office to Grants Office Decision Meeting Memorandum August 13, 2003Transmittal No. 4-001FRP (obligation of FY 2002 funds) **FY 2000 Terms and Conditions Sample SF 269A (shows FY 2000 funds fully obligated by September 30, 2003)

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 purpose of the program is to strengthen families and ensure the safety of children who may be subject to abuse and/or neglect, the establishment of a national efficiency goal raises the danger of perverse pressures that could endanger the lives of abused and neglected children.

Evidence: CAPTA Legislation: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/capta03/index.htm, CBCAP Program Instruction: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/pi/pi0404.htm

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The CAPTA legislation and the CBCAP Program Instruction (PI) issued by the Children's Bureau specifically require that the CBCAP grantees collaborate with related federal, state, local and private programs. The core elements of the program as specified in the legislation and the PI include state and community interagency partnerships and an interdisciplinary, collaborative public-private structure. Further, CBCAP programs are encouraged to seek innovative approaches to coordinating funding streams and are required to leverage additional funds to augment federal funds. Many CBCAP grantees issue joint funding announcements (e.g., Title IV-B & CBCAP) and have coordinated referral systems in place. The assurances to be provided by the CEO of the CBCAP grantee agency specifically require an interdisciplinary collaborative structure.

Evidence: CAPTA Legislation: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/capta03/index.htm, CBCAP Program Instruction: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/pi/pi0404.htm

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Financial management practices presently in place for the CBCAP grant program include reviews of SF269s by the Office of Grants Management Specialist and regional and central office assessment and monitoring of grantee funding requests and budget change requests. The CBCAP Annual Grantee's Meeting sponsored by the Children's Bureau includes a session with Grants Management staff on financial management and accountability for CBCAP grantees.

Evidence: CBCAP Program Instruction: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/pi/pi0404.htm OMB Circular A133: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a133/a133.html

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

Explanation: The Program Instruction (PI) is used as a vehicle to improve practice by providing guidance to the State Lead Agencies on the implementation of programs consistent with the CAPTA legislative mandates as well as with the other administrative priorities within the Children's Bureau. The most recent PI includes changes based on the 2003 reauthorization of CAPTA as well as requirements for enhancing collaboration with the State CFSR process and the PIP. Ongoing Federal Project Officer contact including regular conference calls, individual telephone and email communications, and the annual grantee meeting are additional vehicles for management review and improvement. Grantee issues are identified and addressed as early as possible and technical assistance targeted to deficiencies. In addition, the Children's Bureau uses the Employee Performance Management System (EPMS) to evaluate how well staff does in supporting the goals of the Bureau, ACF, HHS, and the CBCAP program. When staff performance falls below acceptable levels, corrective steps are taken.

Evidence: CBCAP Program Instruction: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/pi/pi0404.htm

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

Explanation: The annual reports submitted by CBCAP grantees provide documentation of program activities in relation to program requirements and purposes of the funding. Regular and ongoing oversight and monitoring is provided by the ACF Federal Project Officer assisted by the FRIENDS National Resource Center. Monitoring includes monthly conference calls with grantees to discuss program activities as well as site visits by FRIENDS Resource Center staff.

Evidence:  

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: CBCAP grantee performance data is collected and reported in a number of ways. The annual performance reports from each CBCAP grantee provide individual grantee information. Other reports provide aggregate data resulting from the implementation of CBCAP programs in the States. These reports of aggregate data include the CFSR State and summary reports, the Child Welfare Outcomes Report and the report of the data from the voluntary National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) resulting in the annual Child Maltreatment report. The availability of these reports and these data is made known through both electronic (web and listserve) means as well as through dissemination of hard copy reports to selected target audiences and by request of the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information.

Evidence: CBCAP 2004 Program Instruction, Section 2.b (1)-(10), pp. 22: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/pi/pi0404.htm CBCAP Annual Performance Reports (see 2.1)Child and Family Services State Reports and Summary Report: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/staterpt/index.htm http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/results.htmChild Welfare Outcomes 2001: Annual Report: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cwo01/index.htm Child Maltreatment 2002: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/index.htm All of these reports are available to the public. The first by request through a FOIA and the remaining reports through the Children's Bureau web site and from the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information.

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

Explanation: While the Children's Bureau has just completed Child and Family Service Reviews for all States this past March (2004), and the first program improvement plans (PIPs) have recently been completed, they have not yet been evaluated. Also, the Children's Bureau is still in the process of establishing additional 'baselines' for evaluating whether adequate progress is being achieved for the CBCAP program's long-term performance goals of safety and well-being and thus cannot yet report on annual progress toward the long-term targets. However, there was a 0.24 first-time maltreatment rate reduction from 2000 to 2001, followed by a 0.04 increase from 2001 to 2002. (No data prior to 2000 is available.)

Evidence: GPRA Long-term Strategic Goal: By FY 2008, the Child and Family Service Review (CFSR) process will have resulted in the States demonstrating continuous improvement by having 90 percent (328) of the individual outcomes that they are expected to achieve (364 total) remaining penalty free. NCANDS Child File Data

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

Explanation: According to the PART guidance, this question must receive a "No" if question 2.3 also receives a "No."

Evidence:

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

Explanation: The goal of the CBCAP program is child abuse and neglect prevention. Studies that have conducted cost-benefit and cost-failure analysis have found that the positive outcomes of prevention programs, with even relatively small reductions in the rate of child maltreatment, demonstrate that prevention can be cost effective. The financial cost of child maltreatment is difficult to estimate because both direct costs as well as the indirect costs of its long-term consequences must be accounted for, but it is clear that the cost of prevention programs is relatively low compared to the cost of foster care and other interventions that are a consequence of child abuse and neglect (Prevention Pays: The Costs of Not Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect, 2003).

Evidence: CAPTA Legislation: CAPTA Legislation (www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/capta03/index.htm) Child Maltreatment 2002: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws/pi/pi0404.htm CBCAP Annual Performance Reports (see 2.1)Prevention Pays: The Costs of Not Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect (2003) nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/prevenres/pays.cfm. An Ounce of Prevention: A Report from the Washington Council for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (2004). Children's Trust Fund of Washington.

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

Explanation: There are no truly comparable programs. The performance of CBCAP, however, does compare favorably to such private sector organizations as Prevent Child Abuse America, which do not support child abuse prevention efforts in every State. Non-federal programs, even with a similar focus on community-based prevention efforts are not comparable because of the difference in scope.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: As noted in response to 2.6 above, there have been no evaluations of sufficient scope, quality, and independence conducted, nor is there planning documentation in place that describes a program evaluation (of sufficient scope, quality, and independence) to be conducted in the near future.

Evidence: Please see evidence provided in response to question 2.6.