csbg performance measure report - 2001.pdf

8/11/2019 CSBG Performance Measure Report - 2001.pdf

1/58

Contents

From the Desk of Jane Wallis Gumble 1

Organizational and Program Profile 2-5

Description of CSBG Data Collection and Analysis Methods 6-8

Results Oriented Management and Accountability in Massachusetts 8-11

Community Action Planning and Preliminary Data Analysis 11-13

Clients Served by the CAA Network in Massachusetts 13-16

Evidence of Resource Development 16-19Use of CSBG funds by Eligible Entities 19-21

Management of CSBG Discretionary Funds 22-23

Selected Project Descript ion CSBG Discretionary Funds 24-29

v CSBG Scholarships Program

v CSBG Scales and Ladders Project Phase II

v Skills Development and Information Technology Access Centers

v Family Enrichment Program

v Neighborhood Planning and Environmental Justice Pilot Project

v Community Food and Nutrition Program (CFNP)

A Report on the National Goals and Outcome Measures 29-36

Anecdotal Evidence of Clients Achieving Self -Sufficiency 36-42

Description of Innovative Programs 42-50

Future Direction

50-51Appendices 52-56


2/58

Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community DevelopmentCSBG Performance Measure Report - 2001

2

ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROGRAM PROFILE

The Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development(DHCD) is a state agency established by Chapter 23B of the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts General Laws. By investing over $470 million in state and federaloperating, capital and trust funds, DHCDs numerous programs address theCommonwealths need for affordable housing, as well as community and neighborhooddevelopment. The mission of DHCD is to strengthen cities, towns, and neighborhoodsand enhance the quality of life of Massachusettss residents. To accomplish this mission,DHCD provides leadership, professional assistance, and financial resources to promotesafe, decent affordable housing opportunities, economic vitality of communities andsound municipal management. DHCD forges partnerships with regional and localgovernments, public agencies, community-based organizations, and the businesscommunity to achieve common goals and objectives. In all of these efforts, DHC Drecognizes and respects the diverse needs, circumstances, and characteristics of

individuals and communities.

The Department of Housing and Community Development is committed to:

Programs and funding that target populations of low to moderate

incomes and those with special needs;

Coordinated, integrated and balanced agency responses to address the

comprehensive needs and interests of communities;

Programs and technical assistance designed to facilitate informed

decision-making at the local level, and to encourage self-sufficiency ofresidents and communities; and

Sound business practices that ensure the highest standards of public

accountability and responsibility.

DHCD implements its mission of strengthening cities, towns, and neighborhoodsand enhancing the quality of life of Massachusettss residents through the Office of theDirector, the Office of Administration and Finance and four programmatic divisions: theDivision of Neighborhood Services, Division of Municipal Development, Division of PublicHousing and Rental Assistance, and the Division of Private Housing. The Director ofDHCD is a cabinet-level official appointed by the Governor of the Commonwealth toadminister and maintain executive authority over all phases of departmental activitiesand coordinate policy with the Governor and Administration. The Office of the Directorincludes the Deputy Director, Chief of Staff, Chief Counsel, Deputy Director for Policy

Development, Deputy Director for Administration and Finance, and the Director ofCommunication.

Through its four divisions, DHCD operates programs that benefit non-profitorganizations, local housing authorities, private and non-profit housing developers, andmany municipal governments across the Commonwealth. There are also several


3/58


3

commissions and quasi-public agencies affiliated with DHCD such as, the HousingAppeals Committee, Commission on Indian Affairs, Manufactured Housing Commission,Community Development Finance Corporation, Community Economic Development

Assistance Corporation, Massachusetts Housing, and the Massachusetts HousingPartnership Fund.

Some of the major programs and activities funded by DHCD include:

Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Program

Community Enterprise Economic Development (CEED) Program

Community Food and Nutrition Program (CFNP)

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program

Construction and rehabilitation of public housing

Federal (Section 8) and state (Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program)subsidized housing

Fuel Assistance

Homeownership opportunities for low and moderate income people

Housing certification for municipalities

Housing Consumer Education Centers (HCEC)

Housing rehabilitation

Local economic development

Low Income Housing Tax Credit

Municipal government capacity building

Neighborhood Housing Services program

Oversight of the operation and management of 254 local housing

authorities

Special needs housing

Technical assistance to municipalities

Weatherization Assistance Program

Due to the passage of the Massachusetts Economic Opportunity Act of 1984, theGovernor of the Commonwealth has designated the Department of Housing and

Community Development (DHCD) as the lead agency for administering the CommunityServices Block Grants (CSBG) in Massachusetts.

There are 25 community-based, nonprofit organizations, designated by the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services and the Director of DHCD, to serve ascommunity action agencies (CAA) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Private,nonprofit CAAs must have tri-partite boards of directors, consisting of one-third publicofficials, at least one-third representatives of the poor, and the remainder of the boardseats of the private sector. The historical and enabling source of funding for these CAAs

is the CSBG Act. Since 1981, Congress has annually appropriated, through the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)

funds to the state, which in turn distributes it to Community Action Agencies. DHCDdistributes CSBG funds to the Commonwealths network of 25 CAAs based on a historicalfunding formula. CSBG funds support CAA core operations and many anti-povertyservices.


4/58


4

CAAs are mandated to develop, implement, coordinate, and evaluate theeffectiveness of a variety of anti-poverty programs, and to assist low income families andindividuals residing in their designated service area to achieve greater economic self-sufficiency. Community Action Agencies are the only non-profit organizations that are

uniquely positioned in their respective local communities to identify and mitigateconditions of poverty that prevent people from becoming self-sufficient. Lack ofsufficient income and affordable housing, homelessness, nutritional risk, or a lack ofaffordable transportation are just a few of the barriers that affect people from movingfrom poverty to self-sufficiency. The mission of the CSBG program: to provide a rangeof services and activities having a measurable and potentially major impact on causes ofpoverty in the community or those areas of the community where poverty is aparticularly acute problem

1, calls for a comprehensive service delivery system to address

theseissues.

There are seven (7) broad anti-poverty goals outlined in the CSBGReauthorization Act of 1998, Section 676, Application and Plan that stipulate a variety of

purposes. The activities are:

to remove obstacles and solve problems that block the achievement of self-sufficiency...;

to secure and retain meaningful employment;

to attain an adequate education, with particular attention toward improvingliteracy skills of the low-income families in the communities involved which mayinclude carrying out family literacy initiatives;

to make better use of available income;

to obtain and maintain adequate housing and a suitable living environment;

to obtain emergency assistance through loans, grants, or other means to meetimmediate and urgent family and individual needs; and

to achieve greater participation in the affairs of the communities involved,including the development of public and private grassroots partnerships withlocal law enforcement agencies, local housing authorities, private foundations,and other public and private partners.

To ensure compliance with the CSBG Assurances and other related administrativeand programmatic guidelines, DHCD established a community action planning system,which requires each CAA to develop a Community Action Plan (CAP) every three years.

Each CAP includes:

a Mission Statement;

1From Sec. 6759(c)(1) (A) of the CSBG Act.


5/58


5

community needs and internal assessment that will identify strengths andweaknesses of an organization;

a description of the service delivery systems developed to assist low income

families and individuals;

a description of National Goals and Outcome Measures to be used to monitorand evaluate the CAAs success in promoting self-sufficiency, family stability,and community revitalization;

a description of how linkages will be developed, coordinated, and maintainedto fill identified gaps in services through information, referral, casemanagement, and follow-up consultation;

a description of how CSBG funding will be coordinated with otherpublic/private resources to maximize the efficiency of programs and activitiesand a description of how the CAA will use the funds to support innovative

community and neighborhood-based initiatives, which may includefatherhood initiatives and other initiatives with the goal of strengtheningfamilies and encouraging effective parenting; and

a vision statement that identifies how the organization anticipates operatingand servicing its clients.

With the 1993 passage of the Government Performance Reform Act (GPRA) andthe CSBG Reauthorization Act in 1998, Community Action Agencies (CAAs) and stateagencies are now required to implement performance measurement systems at everyaspect of the CSBG program including Community Action Planning. The Result OrientedManagement and Accountability (ROMA) as described in the CSBG Reauthorization Act of1998 is a response to the GPRA. There is an increased level of need to document and

demonstrate the performance of the CSBG program, as it is scheduled for reauthorizationin 2003. The CSBG Information System, multi-year strategic planning and programoutcome report will become more and more important in demonstrating that CSBG hasbeen effective in helping people move out of poverty and also that the CAAs are uniquely

positioned in their respective communities to achieve this very important goal.

Keeping these important changes in mind, two years ago the Department ofHousing and Community Development (DHCD) began presenting CSBG data in a morecoherent and meaningful fashion. Last years CSBG Performance Measure Report was animportant turning point in this endeavor. The goal of this years report is to measure theefficacy of the CSBG program at three levels: individual client/family self-sufficiency,agency capacity, and community revitalization. In other words, presented informationshould not only highlight the pervasiveness of poverty in the state, but also measure theimpact and benefit of this very important public investment.


6/58


7/58


7

DHCD compared information provided during the last two fiscal years to identifyand correct any major anomalies. Any major change in data outside the normal rangewas verified directly with CAAs. All CSBG carry over funds and CSBG discretionary grantswere verified internally with the Division of Neighborhood Services Fiscal Affairs Unit.Client demographic data was verified with CAAs when there was a variation of 10% or

more between the subtotal of any individual or family demographic characteristic and thetotal individual or families served. The average demographic data reporting rates forindividual and family characteristics are outlined as follows:

Gender 99.96%

Age 98.30%

Ethnicity 82%

Health Insurance and Disability 87.30%

Family Type 94.20%

Family Size 99.83%

Source of Family Income 95.71%

Level of Family Income 94.7%

Housing Characteristics 95.10%

Even though these collection rates were high compared to previous years, therewere variations within individual and family demographic characteristics. This variation indata collection rate can be largely attributed to a number of factors ranging fromincomplete intake to the very nature of a CAA program where it is often very difficult toobtain all the necessary information that makes up the CAA demographic report. Duringfiscal year 2001, DHCD noticed a large increase in the total number of individuals servedthrough the CAA network in Massachusetts due to inclusion of all Fuel Assistancehousehold members in the demographic report for the first time in Massachusetts. Thischange has also caused a drop in the collection rate for the Ethnicity category as the Fuel

Assistance program requires that CAAs collect race or ethnicity related data from only

from head of Fuel Assistance recipient households. However, the 30% increase in CAAclients is not solely due to the change in Fuel Assistance reporting.

For program outcome data, DHCD relied on the six (6) CSBG National Goals andOutcome Measures developed by the Monitoring and Assessment Task Force (MATF)headed by the Office of Community Services (OCS), U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services. Outcome measures developed by DHCD for major programs4were also

measured and reported. DHCD first developed these outcome measures in 1998 andrevised them during 2001 to capture consistent program specific outcomes across thestate. Outcome data from CAAs were grouped by each of the six (6) National Goals andthen sorted by outcome measures and then by CSBG service categories and units of

measurement5. These units of measurement were used consistently throughout all 25

CAAs so that an accurate outcome report can be prepared for the state.

4Child Care, Head Start, Women Infant and Children, Nutrition, Housing Assistance, and Information andReferral programs.5Housing Units, dollars raised, number of adult individuals, number of families/households, number of boardmembers, and number of partnerships/coalitions.


8/58


8

The CSBG Information System (IS) Survey collects a comprehensive set ofvaluable client demographic, fiscal, and program outcome data. This data, incombination with narratives provided by CAAs as anecdotal evidence of effectiveness ofCSBG program, became the foundation of this Massachusetts CSBG Annual PerformanceMeasure Report.

RESULTS ORIENTED MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY (ROMA) INMASSACHUSETTS

Since 1998, DHCD has been addressing ROMA in a statewide and coherentfashion, allowing CAAs to strengthen their identified assets, mitigate deficiencies, anddevelop a comprehensive service delivery mechanism for low income individuals andfamilies.

DHCD approached the implementation of ROMA by recognizing and supporting

the development of Information and Technology capacity at local levels, ROMA training

and technical assistance, piloting the Scales and Ladders model for service delivery andcommunity action planning.

As part of DHCDs on-going ROMA implementation process, representatives fromDHCD and the Massachusetts Community Action Program Directors Association(MASSCAP) met with representatives from the Office of Community Services (OCS),

Administration for Chi ldren and Families to discuss the status of ROMA implementation inMassachusetts. Although it was recognized that Massachusetts is implementing ROMAsuccessfully, a general concern for OCS was that only 28 percent of the Board ofDirectors of the 25 Community Action Agencies have participated in formal ROMA

training. The need for further ROMA training was agreed upon and became part ofMassachusetts ROMA implementation plan. In response to this finding, DHCD appliedfor and received a $35,300 Training, Technical Assistance and Capacity Building Program

grant from OCS. Awarded jointly to DHCD and MASSCAP, this grant is for a boardtraining project focusing on the Board of Directors function and capacity building for all25 Community Action Agency boards. The training will be reinforced by an interactiveforum on the MASSCAP website that will provide on-going ROMA support and training tothe Boards. DHCD has decided to retain the services of Rensselaervile Institute, a New

York based training and technical assistance institute, for the purpose of ROMA boardtraining.

Furthermore, DHCD used $100,000 in CSBG discretionary funds to furtherintegrate implementation of ROMA at CAA staff level. DHCD, along with theRensselaerville Institute, just concluded the process of implementing a verycomprehensive and ambitious training and technical assistance project. During fiscalyear 2001-2002, DHCD staff met with CAA and MASSCAP representatives and developeda ROMA Vision Statement for Massachusetts. Consultants from the RensselaervilleInstitute conducted the forum and presented an outline of a regional ROMA training forMassachusetts CAAs. Recognizing that the CAA planners are key to the development ofagency objectives, in July 2001, DHCD hosted its first CSBG annual application workshop


9/58


9

session for CAA planners and planning department staff. Held at the College of the HolyCross in Worcester, Massachusetts, the workshop was attended by 24 out of the 25 CAAsin Massachusetts. Consultants from Rensselaerville Institute and DHCD staff jointlyconducted the session that included topics such as: outcome overview and mindsetshifts, preparing fiscal year 2002 CSBG Annual Application, and further integration of

outcome thinking. The workshop ended with a brief CAA self-assessment on outcomethinking and management. The session was attended by 53 people representing DHCDand CAAs staff members, including six executive directors. Later that year, DHCD hostedfour and half day long regional CORE ROMA training sessions. Over 200 staff members,including several executive directors attended these sessions. One of the CAAs fromeach region hosted these regional sessions in Boston, Hadley, Carver, and Lowell,Massachusetts. Following the Core ROMA training, all 25 agencies prepared performancetarget outlines for selected programs and presented the outlines to DHCD. The outlineswere reviewed by DHCD staff and consultants from the Rensselaerville Institute. Duringthe months of March through May 2002, individual agency training and technicalassistance site visits were conducted by a consultant paired with DHCD staff. DHCD is

revising the existing CSBG annual application and reporting process so that it is more in

line with the new outcome framework developed by DHCD and Rensselaerville Institute.

Information Technology has been an integral part of DHCDs ROMAimplementation plan. Since 1998, DHCD has been allocating CSBG discretionary funds toCAAs to develop their information technology capacity so that a better service deliveryand reporting system can be developed. Last year, the Director of DHCD authorized theuse of an additional $100,000 in CSBG discretionary funds for the creation of a DHCD-CAA E-Government network initiative. The project, which is slated to be completed bythe end of 2002, is designed to achieve at least three major performance targets: (1) all25 Community Action Agencies will be able electronically transfer CSBG fiscal, client

demographic, and outcome data to DHCD; (2) staff members at all 25 CAAs will be ableto compile, analyze, and transfer CSBG data to DHCD with limited supervision andtechnical assistance; and (3) DHCD will have access, without compromising strict client

confidentiality standards, to a statewide CSBG database from which further analyses andsnapshot reports may be generated for policy and decision making purposes. At present,DHCD is working with a software company to develop a customized web-basedapplication that will facilitate this new data collection and data analysis environment forCSBG program in Massachusetts.

On the programmatic side, DHCD for the second time awarded a total of$120,000 in CSBG discretionary funds to implement a Scales and Ladders Pilot program

at eight CAAs in Massachusetts. With this second round of Scales and Ladders Pilotgrants, 11 out of 25 CAAs in Massachusetts will have the capacity to run family self-sufficiency projects using the Massachusetts Family Self-Sufficiency Scales and Ladderstool. This intense matrix-based case system allows case managers at local CAAs todevelop an intervention strategy for low-income clients using a tool that initially assessesand plots clients on a five-step assessment system: (1) Thriving; (2) Safe; (3) Stable; (4)

At-Risk; and (5) In-Crisis. A matrix is defined as a measurement tool that can measuremovement or progress along this continuum or range from a beginning point, forexample In Crisis, to an end point, Thriving. The matrix measures incremental progress,stabilization or decline of a clients condition. The Massachusetts matrix involves 11


10/58


10

scales ranging from Employment to Community Participation. Within each Scale thereare several indicators that are used for determining a clients assessment step. Forexample, according to the Employment scale, an unemployed client with no or a badwork history that is not looking for a job will be assessed as being In Crisis. On theother hand, the same client may be assessed as being Safe according to Health Scale if

the person has access to subsidized or free medical care and has the ability to deal withhealth related needs. On the Housing Scale, a homeless person with no mailing addresswill automatically fall under In Crisis category. Even though each scale to some extentprovides an accurate picture of client situations, it is important to understand the inter-relationship among these scales. Therefore, no one scale is sufficient to move a clientfrom poverty to self-sufficiency the best approach is to apply a number of scales oneach family or individual client during the initial intake and then develop a comprehensiveservice delivery strategy involving several scales. Several scales, such as Housing,Education, Employment, Health, and Transportation should be applied concurrently.CAAs are currently utilizing scales at several major CAA programs, i.e., Head Start, ChildCare, Adult Education, Employment and Training, Family Homeless Shelter and Family

Self-Sufficiency. It is anticipated that by the end of this second phase of pilot program,

close to 900 individuals in family setting will have benefited from this initiative many ofwhom are refugees and immigrants, have children in the Head Start and subsidized childcare programs. Some families are living in homeless shelters and some are in individualshelters. A small number of clients are from family self-sufficiency type programs.

The following table summarizes the Massachusetts Family Self-Sufficiency Scalesand respective indicators for each Scale:

Table 1: The Massachusetts Family Self-Sufficiency Scale and Indicators

SCALES INDICATORSEmployment Employment Type, Wages, Benefits, Skills/Work History

Education and LiteracyChild Education Attendance, Parent Involvement, Academic Performance, andDevelopmentAdult Education Learning/Credential, Planning, Literacy, Skills, and ValuesHealth Health Coverage, Affordability, Family Health,

Substance/Alcohol Abuse, and Mental/Behavioral HealthYouth and Family Development

ChildcareChoice, Availability, and Overall Quality

Family Development Safety, Family/Social Network, Goal Setting, Support andHousehold Composit ion.

Housing Affordability, Options, Threat, In-Transition, and Quality ofHousing

Income Management Basic Needs, Debt, Budgeting, Savings, and CreditTransportation Access, Affordability, and Vehicle SafetyResident Participation Participation/Involvement, Community Support, Perception of

Safety, and VotingNutrit ion Emergency/Supplemental Food, Access, and Nutritional

Practice

In order for the states Community Action Agency network to efficiently promoteself-sufficiency for CSBG clients, DHCD requires that each CAA develop and submit a


11/58


11

comprehensive Community Action Plan every three years. The last plan developed in2000, expires in 2002 and CAAs are currently going through their fiscal year 2003-2005Community Action Planning process. The overall goal of the planning process is toidentify local needs and develop appropriate service delivery strategies includingstrategies for measuring program results. DHCDs Community Action Planning process,

which predates the ROMA Act, requires each CAA to submit their planning documents inthree batches: (1) Action Planning or an outline of the proposed planning process; (2)Needs Assessment Rationale including tools for collecting internal and external needsassessment data; and (3) a complete Community Action Plan.

COMMUNITY ACTION PLANNING & PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS

Results from the 2002 needs assessment process will not be available for reviewuntil late this year. During the last planning process, an overwhelming number of CAAsidentified lack of affordable housing, lack of good paying jobs, and transportation as themajor issues. Risk of losing housing, high cost of food, lack of available childcare, fear of

crime, lack of job skills and literacy also were identified as major barriers to self

sufficiency.

In spite of some major successes in the CAA network, poverty and the conditionsof poverty remain problems in Massachusetts. Statistical reports and anecdotal evidenceindicate that the definition of poverty is taking a new turn. More and more working classpeople are experiencing conditions of poverty as the cost of living, especially housingcosts both in terms of property price and rents, has increased disproportionately inMassachusetts. According to an estimate, between 1994 and 2005 approximately 25%

of the jobs with most projected growth pay poverty wages6. The high cost of food and

health care, especially for seniors, is also becoming a determining factor in movingpeople out of poverty.

A white paper7 published by the Massachusetts Housing Partnership Fund

indicated that Massachusetts home prices are higher than any other state in the nation.During 2000, new home prices were 48% higher than the national average in 2000. Thepaper indicated that local zoning restrictions and resistance to housing construction is amajor reason for such high housing prices in Massachusetts. It is true that oftenrestrictive local zoning laws make it difficult for a developer to build multi-family housingor convert an existing single family home into multi-family units.

Furthermore, demographic shifts in many cities and towns in Massachusetts willnow require review and redesign of service delivery strategies. A Massachusetts Institute

for Social and Economic Research (MISER) analysis8 indicated, Compared to the racial

composition of the Commonwealth in 1990, the population in 2000 was more diverse.When comparing the 1990 race and ethnicity categories to the one race only categories

from Census 2000, it was noticed that the highest rate of growth was among theAsian/Pacific Islanders. That group showed a 67.8% increase since 1990. Hispanics

6The State of the States: Massachusetts 2000, Grassroots Factbooks, Vol 3, Series 1, Jan. 2000. 7Edward Moscovitch, Why Are Massachusetts Home Prices So High?, Housing Debate, Spring 2001. 8Census 2000, Press Release, MISER, March 21, 2001.


12/58


12

showed a growth rate of 49.1%, Native Americans experienced a growth rate of 22.7%,and Blacks had a growth rate of 14.4%. In contrast, the White population showed adecline of 0.7% since 1990. DHCD observed an increase among White CSBG clients by2.53%, compared to fiscal year 2000. Clients in all other ethnic/racial categoriesincreased by less than one percentage point, expect for African Americans. There has

been a 1.54% drop among African American client population in 2001.

The following chart further illustrates these changes.

Chart 1: CAA Clients by Ethnicity/Race

Change in CAA Clients by Ethnicity/Race - 2000 vs. 2001

-1.54

0.05

2.53

0.76 0.32

0.46

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

% Changed

Ethnicity/Race

PercentChanged

BLACK

WHITE

HISPANIC

N.AMERICAN

ASIAN

OTHER

A comparative analysis of 1990 and 2000 Census information shows thatMassachusetts ranked 28th in the nation in terms of population increase. Massachusetts

reported 332,672 more people in 2000 Census than in the 1990 Census demonstratingthat Massachusetts' population grew by only 5.5% during the last 10 years. Regionally,this change is not very significant, as the states of New Hampshire and Vermont gainedpopulation at the rate of 11.4% and 8.2% respectively. However, further analysis ofMassachusetts Census information shows some significant demographic variations in thestates population growth. For example, the Cape and Islands region experienced thehighest growth, while many areas lost population. The three counties that make up the

Cape and Islands area experienced the highest population growth on average a growthrate of approximately 35.4%, which is significantly above the states average populationgrowth rate of 5.5%. The population growth rates for these three counties were asfollows: Barnstable County 19.11%; Dukes County 28.88% and Nantucket County 58.30%. On the other hand, Berkshire county lost residents compared to 1990 census.Further analysis indicated that 13.5% of the total population for the Commonwealth

could be identified as senior citizens (65 years or older). Barnstable and BerkshireCounty has the highest elderly population in the state approximately 23% and 18% ofthe population in these two counties respectively fall within the senior citizen category.In all other counties, approximately 14% to 15% of the total population is elderly.

Approximately 12.5% of the CAA clients in fiscal year 2001 came from the 70+ years oldage group. Twenty-two percent of all clients served by CAAs were from the 55 years orolder age group.


13/58


13

More analysis of Census and primary data collected during CAA needsassessment and intake process will be conducted. It is important to understand thatresources can no longer be allocated in a traditional manner given the fact that publicfunding for human service industry is shrinking due to economic slowdown and financial

crisis looming from the tragic events of September 11. More and more collaborationamong public, private, and the non-profit sector is necessary in maximizing existingresources and overcoming the effects of budget cuts.

The CAAs on-going community action planning process must stress theimportance of linking and coordinating services within a CAAs service area. In simplisticterms, the CAA planning process should be redefined as a continued process foridentifying and prioritizing needs. Strategies must be developed to meet existing andunmet new needs of the low-income population. In this process, CAAs need to identify

gaps in services and develop linkages with other service providers in situations whenthe CAA alone cannot meet all the needs. The needs assessment process combined with

the CSBG fiscal, demographic, and outcome data should show the pervasiveness of

poverty and the positive impact of CAA anti-poverty initiatives in Massachusetts.

CLIENTS SERVED BY THE CAA NETWORK IN MASSACHUSETTS

Each of the 25 CAAs collected individual and family level demographic

characteristics of clients served by the CAA and reported to DHCD in January 2002, forservices provided during the months of October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001.Overall, these individual and family characteristics both at the individual CAA and at theState levels offer some interesting and intriguing trends.

During fiscal year 2001, a total of 382,225 unduplicated numbers of individualsfrom 227,774 families received services from CAAs in Massachusetts. There has been a33% increase in clients served by CAAs during fiscal year 2001. In other words, CAAs

reported 94,031 more individuals in fiscal year 2001. This increase can be attributedlargely to the reporting of additional members of Fuel Assistance households.Nevertheless, DHCD has observed a steady growth in CSBG clients for the last three

fiscal years.

DHCDs analysis9of family level data indicated that 37,595 families reported noincome at all. Another 31,193 families reported income derived from the Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Even though 42,527 families reported that theyderived income from employment only, an additional 58,229 families reported incomefrom employment and some other sources. It can be inferred that more than half of allCAA clients were employed and yet were eligible for CAA services. A review of thefamily income levels of these clients may validate this observation. A little over 21% ofall families reported income fell within the very low-income range or under 50% of the

federal poverty level. An astounding 74% of all families reported an income within 125%

of federal poverty level. For a family of four, the 125% of federal poverty level for fiscalyear 2001 was $22,625, which was significantly below the Massachusetts Self-Sufficiency

9Actual percentage could not be determined as families report both single and multiple income sources.


14/58


14

Standards10

for that year. Furthermore, growing trends of income inequality makes it

more difficult for families to strive in this environment. A recent report11

from the

Economic Policy Institute/Center on Budget Policy Priorities indicates that between thelate 1980s and the late 1990s, the average income of the poorest fifth of families

decreased by approximately 7% or $1,190. At the same time, the average income of therichest five percent of families increased by almost 18%. The richest five percent familiesmade $38,760 more in late 1990s than what they made in late 1980s.

Chart 2: Level of Family Income 1999 through 2001

TRENDS IN FAMILY INCOME LEVEL

(% OF HHS POVERTY LEVEL)

42.22

37.18 39.14

24.95 25.0322.06

16.57 16.1412.51

9.53

16.0710.53

10.210.536.73

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1999 2000 2001FISCAL YEAR

%O

FFAMILIES

Up to 75%

76-100%

101-125%

126-150%

151% andabove

The majority of individual CAA clients were women. One third or 33% of familieswere single parent female head of households. Of the remaining two thirds of families almost another one third (32%) of households reported that they were single person

households and another one third of households reported to be single parent male, twoparents, or no children households.

Children continue to be a major client group for CAAs in Massachusetts. Duringfiscal year 2001, CAAs served a total of 108,932 children under the age of 18, which isalmost one third (32%) of all clients served by CAAs. The client population for this agegroup has increased by 57,227 individuals from that of the previous year. During 2001,the number of children served between the ages of 6-11 years and 12-17 yearsincreased 19,491 and 18,556 individuals respectively.

The following chart illustrates CSBG clients by age groups for the last two fiscal years.

Chart 3: CAA Clients by Age Groups

10Jean Beacon, Laura Henze Russell, The Sufficiency Standard: Where Massachusetts Families Stand, WomensEducation and Industrial Union, January 2000. 11Pulling Apart: A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends, Economic Policy Institute/Center on BudgetPolicy Priorities, April 2002.


15/58


15

05

101520253035

40

2000 2001

FISCAL YEARS

INDIVIDUAL CLIENTS - BY AGE GROUP (PERCENT OF TOTAL)

0-5 yrs

6-11 yrs

12-17 yrs

18-23 yrs

24-44 yrs

45-54 yrs

55-69 yrs

70+ yrs

Fifty-five percent (55%) of all families served by CAAs reported to have at least

one child. A U.S. Census Bureau estimate12

from 1997 showed that 17.0% ofMassachusettss children were below poverty level, which was three percentage pointslower than the nationwide average of 19.9% for that year. Poverty among children

continues to be a problem. In fact a report13

published recently showed that the United

States, with more than one in five children living in poverty, has the highest rate ofchildhood poverty among many industrialized western nations. Even though the averagerate of poverty among young children (0-6) in Massachusetts was 15.6% for a three yearperiod between 1994 and 1998, still it was significantly lower than the national averageof 23.1%. The poverty rate among children will even be significantly higher, if povertyamong the under 18-age group is considered. There are reports indicating that theoverall poverty rate in the United States is declining even though the existing povertyrate is still very high.

There has been a 3.83% increase in CSBG clients from 2000 to 2001 for the

under 18-age group. The rates of increase for three age groups, i.e., 0-5, 6-11, and 12-17 years were 2.89%, 4.67% and 3.92% respectively. CAAs are reporting more andmore clients for the under 18-age group when the total number of clients for other age

groups14

remained largely unchanged.

DHCDs CSBG information system survey further revealed that:

Thirty-three percent (33%) of all families served were singleparent/female head of households. Actually there has been a drop in

12County Estimates of People in Age Under 18 for Poverty in Massachusetts, U.S. Census Bureau,http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25000.html>

13Paul Scherrer, US has highest childhood poverty rate of industrial countries, WBS,.

1418-23 years, 24-44 years, 45-55 years.


16/58


16

single parent/female head of households and an increase in singleparent/male and single person households during fiscal year 2001.

Almost one-third (32%) of all CAA client households were single persons.The family size of CAA clients remained unchanged except for slight

increases (less than 1%) in single person families and families of six.

Nineteen percent (19%) of all families reported no income. Even though

the proportional share of families with no income remained unchangedfrom fiscal year 2000, there were additional 4,030 client families whohad no reportable income.

CAAs served an additional 8,844 homeowners and 10,824 renter families

during fiscal year 2001. This increase is proportionate to the overallincrease in CSBG client families. At the same time, there has been a1.22% drop in homeless client families.

The following charts highlight additional individual and family characteristics:

Chart 4: Family Housing Characteristics in 2001

FAMILY HOUSING STATUS - 2001

OTHER

11%HOMELESS

3%

RENT

61%

OWN

25%

OWN

RENT

HOMELESS

OTHER

EVIDENCE OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

In addition to CSBG dollars, CAAs in Massachusetts leveraged a total of $448million from non-CSBG federal, state, local public and private sources this is a $74million or 19.85% increase from the previous fiscal year. On average, for each CSBGdollar spent, CAAs leveraged thirty-four dollars. The largest increase in federal funds toCAAs was noted in the Fuel Assistance program followed by increases in Head Start,Section 8 subsidized housing and the Women Infant and Children (WIC) programs. As

in previous years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services remained thelargest federal funding source.


17/58


17

Funding for State housing and homeless, early childhood education, and seniorprograms all increased during fiscal year 2001. Overall, funding from state sourcesincreased by $15.6 million dollars, which is a 12% increase from the previous fiscal year.

An analysis of funding from local government and private sources indicates a

three-fold increase in funds appropriated by local governments. Yet the overall fundingfrom local government sources remained largely unchanged due to a drop in in-kindresources.

Total non-CSBG funding from the federal, state, local private and public sourcesfor the last three fiscal years is illustrated in the chart on the following page:


18/58


18

Chart 5: Non-CSBG Funds Leveraged by the CAA Network

$448,484,020

$374,199,442

329,883,540

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

2001 2000 1999

FISCAL YEAR

CAA NON-CSBG FUNDING LEVEL

Total Non-CSBG Funds

Volunteerism is one of the major segments of any non-profit operation. DHCDs

analysis showed a significant growth in volunteer activities during fiscal year 2000 through2001 period. During fiscal year 2001, CAAs reported a total of 545,978 in donated volunteer

hours, which represents 307 full-time jobs15

. There has been a steady growth in this area for

the last four years. CAA reported 140,061 more in volunteer hours in fiscal year 2001 thanthey reported in fiscal year 2000.

The following chart illustrates the donation of volunteer hours for the last four years:

Chart 6: Trends in Volunteer Hour Reporting

Donation of Volunteer Hours

545,978

405,917

403,555431,000

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 Fiscal Year

15Based on average weekly hours in private, non-agricultural industries, in December 2001, Economic Report of thePresident, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C, 2002.


19/58


19

Another important area of private sector resource development is raising funds fromfoundation, corporations, the United Way and other non-profits. There has been a steadygrowth in CAA funding from this sector. During 1998 and 2001, funding from foundations,

corporation and non-profits increased by approximately $10 million. The average annualgrowth rate in funding from these sources for the last four years has been 38%. Fundraisingfrom the private sector experienced the most growth during the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000.

Between 2000 and 2001, funding from foundations, corporations and non-profits increased by5%.

CAAs often charge a small co-payment or fees for services to child care, day care andtransportation clients. For many programs, these fees are often determined on a sliding scalebasis. During 2001, CAAs reported $9.3 million in client fees. During the last three years, thetotal amount of dollars reported through client fees have increased mainly due to an increasein client volume.

Overall, the state of resource development from non-federal sources remained strong

among Massachusetts CAAs. Recently released data 15 from the National Association for StateCommunity Services Program (NASCSP) for fiscal year 2000 showed that the network of CSBGfunded agencies exceeded goals set by the Office of Community Services for leveraging non-federal resources for low income communities. For each CSBG dollar invested, the CAAnetwork in Massachusetts leveraged $14.90 from non-federal sources. This ratio is significantas it is more than three times of the nationwide average of $3.72 dollars. In fiscal year 2000,only two other states, Colorado and Minnesota exceeded Massachusetts ratio. This ratio is

also significantly higher compared to many large CSBG states16

. During fiscal year 2001, for

each CSBG dollar invested, the CAA network leveraged $14.80 from non-federal sources.

USE OF CSBG FUNDS BY ELIGIBLE ENTITIES

The CSBG Information System Survey and DHCDs contracting process track detaileduse of CSBG funds in 11 different service categories. Each of the service categories has beendesigned in a way that can produce detailed information about programs that were offered to

low-income people and the service area in general. These service categories are:Employment, Education, Income Management, Housing, Emergency Services, Nutrition,Linkages and Coordination, Self-Sufficiency, Health, Youth, and Senior Programs.

The top five areas of CSBG expenditure in Massachusetts were:

Linkages and Coordination of Services 19.43%

Education and Literacy 18.22%

Emergency Services 14.05%

Housing 12.70%

Employment 8.24%

15Meg Power, FY 2000 Non-Federal Funding in the CSBG Network And the CSBG Performance Goals, The NationalAssociation for State Community Services Program, Center for Community Action, April 2002.

16The states of New York, California, and Illinois.


20/58


20

A significant portion of remaining CSBG funds were spent on Income Management,Nutrition, Self-Sufficiency, and Youth related activities. Due to a change in the way CSBG

funds are reported at the national level, for the first time, DHCD tracked the use of CSBG fundsfor two demographic categories: Youth and Seniors. During fiscal year 2001, a total of$454,583 and $202,512 were spent for these two demographic groups respectively. It is

important to mention that both Youth and Senior Citizens get benefits from other CAAprograms. Therefore, the actual delivery of services for these two demographic categories ismuch larger than what is reflected here.

CAA budget data from fiscal year 2001 shows that on-average CAAs spent 26.16% oftheir CSBG allocation for administrative purposes and the range of administrative expendituresacross the board remained justifiably low in spite of increases in CSBG allocations. The medianadministrative budget for a CAA was only $112,326.


21/58


21

Table 2: CSBG Allocation Vs. Actual Expenditure

Table 3: Actual Expenditure of CSBG Funds by Service Categories (Eligible Entities)

SERVICE CATEGORY TOTAL CSBG OTHER FEDERAL STATE LOCAL PRIVATE TOTAL

EMPLOYMENT $1,109,324 $ 3,418,623 $ 2,589,842 $ 900,624 $ 472,244 $ 8,490,657

EDUCATION $2,451,062 $ 91,049,430 $ 98,633,109 $ 7,610,855 $ 8,325,524 $208,069,980

INCOME MANAGEMENT $533,031 $ 5,333,351 $ 1,144,051 $ 305,910 $ 8,015,702 $ 15,332,045

HOUSING $1,706,331 $ 20,276,154 $ 7,019,009 $ 874,040 $ 4,545,282 $ 34,420,816

EMERGENCY SERVICES $1,889,608 $ 89,113,697 $ 6,607,914 $ 555,143 $ 9,270,380 $107,436,742

NUTRITION $1,137,104 $ 7,933,550 $ 1,310,428 $ 83,961 $ 508,887 $ 10,973,930

LINKAGES $ 2,613,937 $ 5,302,396 $ 2,152,616 $ 2,098,825 $ 3,422,323 $ 15,590,097

SELF-SUFFICIENCY $ 560,345 $ 595,016 $ 3,687,123 $ 168,148 $ 4,450,287 $ 9,460,919

HEALTH $ 513,631 $ 3,946,008 $ 8,884,746 $ 301,220 $ 16,185,097 $ 29,830,702OTHER $ 275,198 $ 320,706 $ 448,100 $ 20,090 $ 29,977 $ 1,094,071

YOUTH $ 454,583 $ 817,888 $ 1,987,031 $ 815,119 $ 260,045 $ 4,334,666

SENIOR PROGRAM $ 202,512 $ 1,739,448 $ 971,394 $ 33,987 $ 403,088 $ 3,350,429

TOTAL18

$ 13,446,666 $229,846,267 $135,435,363 $ 13,767,922 $ 55,888,836 $448,385,054

17CSBG discretionary actual allocation included carry-over funds from FY00.

18Some CAAs are reporting their prior years carry-over funds.

ALLOCATION CATEGORIES PLANNED ACTUAL TOTAL Carried Over to FY02

Eligible Entities $13,379,300.00 $13,379,300.00 $0.00

State Administrative Cost $743,295.00 $485,837.00 $ 284,458.00

Discretionary Projects17

$743,294.00 $867,607.00 $0.00

FY 01 TOTAL $14,865,889.00 $14,705,744.00 $284,458.00


22/58


23/58


24/58


24

SELECTED PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS CSBG DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

CSBG SCHOLARSHIPS PROGRAM

This pilot scholarship program was developed by DHCD in fiscal year 2000 to

provide CAA clients with funds (maximum of $1,000 per client) so that they could pursueformal higher education. This includes general education, e.g., literacy skills, short termtraining in occupational skills, or general post-secondary education. During fiscal year2001, DHCD allocated a total of $100,000 in Scholarship Program funds to renew thefollowing seven grantees fiscal year 2000 grants. Each CAA received a $10,000Scholarships grant during fiscal year 2001:

Action for Boston Community Development, Inc. (Boston, MA);

Action, Inc. (Gloucester, MA);

Community Action Agency of Somerville, Inc. (Somerville, MA);

Franklin Community Action Corporation (Greenfield, MA);

Quincy Community Action Programs, Inc. (Quincy, MA);

Southern Middlesex Opportunity Council, Inc. (Framingham, MA); and

Tri-City Community Action Programs, Inc. (Malden, MA).

The remaining $30,000 in Scholarship Program funds will be distributed to threeadditional CAAs selected through an application process.

CSBG SCALES AND LADDERS PILOT PROJECT PHASE II

In cooperation with the CSBG Scales and Ladders Committee, DHCD hasdeveloped a Scales and Ladders tool for use throughout the CAA network. To date, the

committee has developed the Massachusetts Family Self-Sufficiency Scales and LaddersAssessment Matrix encompassing 11 scales and five ladders. During fiscal year 2000, six(6) CAAs were awarded grants to operate a pilot program utilizing the 11 scales. During

fiscal year 2001, DHCD continued its support by awarding additional $120,000 to eightCAAs through a state-wide competitive grant process three of these CAAs also receiveda similar grant in fiscal year 2000. This brought the total number of CAAs that areimplementing the Scales and Ladders Pilot project to 11. The following CAAs received aScales and Ladders Pilot grant in fiscal year 2001 and 2000:

Action for Boston Community Development, Inc. (Boston, MA)

Fiscal Year 2001 - Asian American Civic Center - $18,000Fiscal Year 2000 - Jamaica Plain Area Planning Action Council - $28,898

Citizens for Citizens, Inc. (Fall River, MA) - $10,500

Community Action Inc. (Haverhill, MA)

Fiscal Year 2001 - $7,500Fiscal Year 2000 - $30,000

Community Action Committee of Cape Cod and Islands (Hyannis, MA) - $15,000


25/58


25

Community Teamwork, Inc. (Lowell, MA)

Fiscal Year 2001 - $18,000

Fiscal Year 2000 - $30,000

Community Action Programs Inter-City (Chelsea, MA) - $18,000

Greater Lawrence Community Action Programs, Inc. (Lawrence, MA) - $15,000

Montachusett Opportunity Council, Inc. (MOC, MA) - $27,287

Self-Help, Inc. (Avon, MA) - $18,000

Valley Opportunity Council, Inc. (Holyoke, MA) - $11,050

Worcester Community Action Council, Inc. (WCAC, MA) - $3,200

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACCESS CENTERS

In order to bridge barriers that exist for low-income people gaining access toinformation technology (IT), the Massachusetts Community Action Program Directors

Association (MASSCAP) in collaboration with several CAAs, has developed pilot programsacross the state to provide CAA clients with computer access and training so that theycan acquire the comfort level and skills necessary to succeed in the new information ageeconomy. Each pilot program addresses its own unique local need. In addition totraining clients, CAA staff (when necessary) are also trained in computer usage in orderfor all staff to meet a basic level of computer proficiency. A total of $100,000 wasawarded to MASSCAP in fiscal year 2000 and a contract extension was granted in fiscal

year 2001 using $75,000 in CSBG discretionary funds.

MASSCAP continued the development of the IT access centers in fiscal year 2001

by expanding the project to an additional three CAAs i.e., Greater Lawrence CommunityAction Council, Inc. (Lawrence, MA), Hampshire Community Action Commission(Northampton, MA), and the North Shore Community Action Program (Peabody, MA).The increase resulted in expanded geographical coverage and increased customer serviceopportunities for 10 CAAs. The Greater Lawrence Community Action Council established a

Computer Clubroom with the goal of bringing computer access/literacy to teens inorder for them to advance their academic and vocational skills. The HampshireCommunity Action Council developed a rural IT access project based in two small existingmulti-service sites in rural Hampshire County. The goal of this project is to increase jobskills and access to job opportunities. The North Shore Community Action Council(NSCAP) enhanced its existing Transition to Work program. Working with seven family

shelters serving families on the North Shore, NSCAP used a system of floating sites(Action, Inc., a sister agency and the Peabody public library) to bring training oncomputers and the Internet to over 200 people.

The following agencies are part of MASSCAPs IT Access Center initiative:

Action for Boston Community Development, Inc. (Boston, MA)


26/58


26

Community Action, Inc. (Haverhill, MA)

Franklin Community Action Corporation (Greenfield, MA)

Greater Lawrence Community Action Council, Inc. (Lawrence, MA)

Hampshire Community Action Council, Inc. (Northampton, MA)Montachusett Opportunity Council, Inc. (Fitchburg, MA)

North Shore Community Action Program, Inc. (Peabody, MA)

Tri-City Community Action Program, Inc. (Malden, MA)

Valley Opportunity Council, Inc. (Holyoke, MA)

Worcester Community Action Council, Inc. (Worcester, MA)

In addition, MASSCAP is working with the Center for Social Policy at theMcCormack Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Boston to assess and evaluatethe program. The assessment design for the program included site visits, interviews,various reporting mechanisms and group presentations.

In cooperation with the Asset Development Institute, Center on Hunger andPoverty, MASSCAP recently, held a Digital Age conference at Brandeis University. DHCD

organized two workshops highlighting its involvement in the Commonwealths E-Government initiative explaining how the state government will become more accessibleto the public via the Web, and what role Community Based Organizations (CBO) can playto make this initiative a success. The second workshop presented a more specificdescription on DHCDs on-going E-Government CSBG data collection initiative. DHCDunderwrote part of the cost of this conference using fiscal year 2001 CSBG discretionaryfunds.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

Mattapan Family Service Center (Boston, MA)

The Mattapan Family Service Center received a $25,000 CSBG discretionary grantin fiscal year 2000. During fiscal year 2001, the agency received an additional $50,000 tocontinue its development of the Mattapan Business Assistance Center that provides aplace for existing area business owners so that they can maintain and expand theirbusinesses. The new grant supported the expansion and continued development of thecenter. The center conducts monthly workshops, as well as daily in-depth or tailoredassistance to clients, in: business plan development, licensing, product marketing,advertising, signage, zoning, accounting, taxes, workforce development, businesstechnology and the internet, legal issues, customer relations, bid preparation and project

estimating, records keeping, business management, loan packaging, insurance and riskmanagement, networking, and conflict resolution.

Working Capital Network/Peer to Peer Partnerships (Worcester, MA)

To support the development and start-up of a Peer-to-Peer small businessdevelopment program that aims at assisting low-income entrepreneurs in the Worcesterarea, DHCD awarded a $25,000 CSBG discretionary grant to the Working Capital Networkin fiscal year 2001. The program assists those individuals who fall under 80% of theareas median family income, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD) standards, are self-employed or would-be self-employed, who are


27/58


27

not able to access credit from mainstream financial resources. In other words, theorganization helps people who are un-bankable. The Working Capital Network hassimilar programs operating in the Greater Boston, Lawrence, Springfield, Gloucester,

Brockton, New Bedford, and Palmer areas. The goal of the program was to recruitbetween 75 and 100 members to the organization and to administer 25-35 loans rangingfrom $500 through $25,000. The organization offered a business education and training

program, which included topics such as, how to write a business plan, how to produce acash flow statement, and how to develop a marketing strategy.

FAMILY ENRICHMENT PROGRAM

Springfield Partners for Community Action, Inc. (Springfield, MA)

The Springfield Partners for Community Action, Inc.s (SPCA) FamilyEnrichment/Education Program operates in conjunction with the Massachusetts Societyfor the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Preschool Enrichment Team. Both of

these affiliated agencies provide parenting programs and teacher education on the issuesof family literacy and family stabilization. The program offers a monthly family literacynewsletter; take home reading materials for children to share with their family members;and family style meals on a bi-monthly basis to SPCAs day care program participants.The meals are followed by a short program featuring family literacy activities, parentingworkshops (on family issues, life skills and/or health and nutrition issues), and familysupport groups. SPCA received a $20,000 grant in fiscal year 2000 and an additional$20,000 to continue this initiative throughout fiscal year 2001.

NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PILOT PROGRAM

CAAs and other community-based organizations on a day-to-day basis confront avariety of environmental and development issues that adversely affect the neighborhoodsin which families live. In order to address this, DHCD developed a program aimed atoffering pilot grants for consultant assistance to organizations in identifying strategies toaddress specific conditions that threaten the environment of a neighborhood. The twopurposes of this initiative were: (1) to provide resources to organizations for studies thatothers (e.g., municipal governments) are unable to provide and (2) to serve as a way ofincreasing the visibility, currency and viability of organizations as a source of planning forneighborhoods (which may in turn increase the attractiveness of serving in theseorganizations and strengthen some boards/organizations). Through a statewidecompetitive grant application process, DHCD awarded grants to the following Community

Development Corporations (CDC) to carry out this one-year pilot initiative:

Greater Holyoke CDC (Holyoke, MA) - $10,000

Lawrence Community Works (Lawrence, MA) - $25,000Main South CDC (Worcester, MA) - $25,000

Weir Corporation (Taunton, MA) - $25,000

COMMUNITY FOOD AND NUTRITION PROGRAM (CFNP)

During fiscal year 2001, DHCD was awarded $63,212 from the U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services to administer the Community Food and Nutrition Program


28/58


28

(CFNP) in Massachusetts. Due to this limited amount of resource for CFNP purposes, theDirector of DHCD approved the use of a total of $25,000 in Community Services BlockGrant (CSBG) discretionary funds to supplement the program. The combined allocation

brought the Community Food and Nutritional Program to a total of $88,212. Eight CAAswere selected as CFNP grantees through a statewide competitive application process.Fiscal year 2001 CFNP was designed to encourage community action agencies (CAAs) to

link CFNP to an established program that lacked a nutrition education component. Inaddition, applicants were asked to demonstrate how the existing program, with theinclusion of CFNP, would be marketed to residents in the designated service area. Thepurpose of the Community Food and Nutrition Program in fiscal year 2001 was:

To coordinate existing private and public food assistance resources to better

serve low-income communities.

To assist low income communities to identify potential sponsors of child nutrition

programs and initiate new programs in underserved and unserved areas, and

To develop innovative approaches at the State and local levels to meet the

nutritional needs of low income people.

The following is a brief description of grants and respective outcomes that wereadopted for the CFNP initiative in Massachusetts:

Action for Boston Community Development, Inc. (Boston, MA) received a$12,202 grant to translate nutrition education materials making them more accessible tonon-English speaking or bilingual area residents. The project also involved completion ofnutritional related training and providing resources to 22 social service/mental health

supervisory staff and 6 neighborhood case managers.

Action, Inc. (Gloucester, MA) received an $8,000 grant to assist 15 area youthsin obtaining five credits towards their high school graduation through completion of a for-credit nutritional course.

Community Action, Inc. (Haverhill, MA) received $12,202 to assist a total of1,000 individuals increase their access to nutritious food and/or nutritional education,increase the purchase and consumption of healthy foods by low-income residents,increase the level of participation in the agencys Women, Infant, and Children (WIC)nutritional program by 10%, and to increase the overall public knowledge of the

nutritional program.

Community Action Programs Inter-City Inc.s (Chelsea, MA) $12,000 grant was

designed to integrate the CFNP into its existing scales and ladders program. The goal ofthe program was to assist 25 participants in demonstrating movement up one or moresteps on a scale and to help 5 out of 35 participants complete career training program asa result of case management services.

Franklin County Community Action Corporation (Greenfield, MA) designed theprogram to assist 295 households increase their access to nutritious food and/or nutritioninformation and education. An additional 60 families per month were to increase their


29/58


29

access to nutritious food and nutrition education through the West County Food Bank.According to the goal set up by the CAA, 10% of Food Pantry clientele who are Hispanicshould report that the Food Pantry stocks food and offers culturally appropriate

nutritional education. Twenty-five (25) families in Even Start were targeted to participatein high quality nutrition education and consume nutritious food during parentingeducation activities. FCAC received $12,202 in CFNP grant in fiscal year 2001.

Self-Help, Inc. (Avon, MA) received a $12,202 grant to assist 150 individualsincrease their access to ethnically and culturally appropriate food and information. Theagency also helped clients understand how this can be incorporated into a well-balanceddiet. SHI is also helping five area food pantries to increase their supplies of ethnic andculturally appropriate food.

Springfield Partners for Community Action, Inc. (Springfield, MA) received a$12,202 grant to help 30 families complete nutritional workshops and receive a freeSERVE food package. The goal of the program is to increase awareness of good

nutritional practices and how those practices impact health issues. These workshopswere designed to address meal-planning ideas, given the fact that many low-incomefamilies often have to cut down on their food budget.

CFNP has been a valuable, but limited nutrition-specific resource for CAAs.DHCD makes an effort to maximize the resource either by supplementing the CFNP withan additional allocation from the CSBG discret ionary funds or by taking a variety ofpriority approaches for the state. For example, during fiscal year 2001, DHCDencouraged CAAs to coordinate services with the Massachusetts Department of PublicHealth to augment their Food Stamp Outreach effort.

Due to full integration of the Results Oriented Management and Accountability(ROMA) system, agencies were required to complete a workplan of activities, whichincluded identification of the CSBG National Goals and Outcome Measures as well asmeasurable CFNP goals and outcomes. By utilizing this system, CAAs were able to trackand report on the number of individuals whose lives were benefited and improvedthrough the utilization of CFNP related services.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL GOALS AND OUTCOME MEASURES20

In 1996, in response to the Government Performance and Reform Act, the Officeof Community Services (OCS), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recruitedrepresentatives from local community action agencies, state associations, state offices,and national associations to provide direct input on ROMA implementation process at the

national level and formed the Monitoring and Assessment Task Force (MATF). The MATFdeveloped six National Goals and Outcome Measures to measure outcomes of the CSBGprogram at individual, community, and agency levels. Each National Goal has severaloutcome measures from which state administering agencies and CAAs choose

appropriate outcomes to measure the impact of their CSBG program.

20It was likely to have more than one Outcome Measure as well as National Goal assigned to an individual and/

or family. Therefore, numbers reported in this section are not 100% unduplicated.


30/58


30

DHCD has adopted all six National Goals and Outcome Measures and hasmandated CAAs to adopt at a minimum, National Goals 1, 3, and 6. These three National

Goals are: (1) Low Income People Become More Self-Sufficient; (2) Low IncomePeople Own a Stake in Their Community; and (3) Low Income People EspeciallyVulnerable Populations Achieve Their Potential by Strengthening Family and Other

Supportive Systems. CAAs in Massachusetts were also mandated to adopt at least oneNational Goal and Outcome Measure for each CAA workplan activity. In spite of thecomprehensive nature, these six National Goals and resulting outcome measures cannotcapture the essence of every single CSBG funded programs. Therefore, DHCD developedsome additional outcome measures for most common CAA programs in 1998 and revisedthose outcomes in 2001. These additional outcome measures are:

CHILD CARE/DAY CARE

Number of parents able to train for, seek, obtain and/or maintain

employment as a result of services.

HEAD START

Number of children who experience healthy growth and developmentand whose families are strengthened through participation in Head Start.

FUEL ASSISTANCE

Number of low-income households who have increased their disposableincome through receipt of Fuel Assistance.

Number of households in crisis whose emergency needs are ameliorated.

WEATHERIZATION

Number of households who reduce their annual energy costs throughenergy conservation measures.

FOOD AND NUTRITION PROGRAM

Number of households who have increased access to nutritious foodand/or nutrition information and education.

Number of households in crisis whose emergency needs are

ameliorated

21

.

Number of at risk mothers who improve their pre-natal health and/or

health of new born and young children through participation in the WICprogram.

21can also be used for emergency Food Pantry and emergency food distribution programs.


31/58


32/58


32

One thousand one hundred fifty-seven (1,157) participating families

moved from substandard housing into stable standard housing.

Nine hundred four (904) people progressed toward literacy and/or GED.

One thousand four hundred two (1,402) people made progress toward

post-secondary degree or vocational training.

Agencies helped 18,232 people become self-sufficient as verified by otheroutcome measure(s). Some of these outcomes were:

Made educational opportunities available for 13,048 people including

parents who were able to train for, seek, obtain, and/or maintainemployment as a result of childcare services.

Assisted 2,597 people move into or maintain better housing;

Assisted 1,333 people address their immediate needs through

emergency services.

RESULTS FROM CLIENT SURVEYS

Eleven thousand five hundred fifty one (11,551) clients considered

themselves more self-sufficient since participating in services or activitiesof the agency.

Twenty-one (21) clients reported an increase in income since

participating in the services of the agency.

GOAL 2: THE CONDITIONS IN WHICH LOW INCOME PEOPLE LIVE ARE IMPROVED

ACTUAL OUTCOMES (COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION)

One hundred (120) accessible, living wage jobs were created and/or

retained.

The assessed value of eight homes increased as a result of rehabilitation

projects.

Six thousand four hundred and seventy (6,470) low-income people

experienced an increase in access to community services and resources.This included:

access to health care for 905 individuals;access to nutritional resources for 587 households;access to self-sufficiency type resources for 820 households; and

access to better housing related resources for 2,077 households.


33/58


33

CAAs increased availability and affordability of essential services. This

included:

access to medical care for 1,802 families;access to better housing for 798 families; andaccess to services made available by non-CAA providers for 1,813individuals.

In addition to this, CAAs made 4,250 childcare slots available for low-income

people. At one agency, low-income clients completed 520 transportation trips.

Forty three thousand six hundred fifty one (43,651) individuals andfamilies reported positive outcomes specific to the work done by

individual agencies. This included:

increased access to nutritious food and/or nutrition information andeducation for 33,133 households;increased access to 19,606 nutritionally appropriate school lunches;increased access to health services for 1,206 households; andincreased access to better housing for 1,390 individuals and families.

Furthermore, 2,937 individuals mitigated their emergency situations due toagency services.

RESULT FROM CLIENT SURVEYS

Three thousand eight hundred and thirteen (3,813) households believed

that the agency helped improve the conditions in which they lived.

GOAL 3: LOWINCOMEPEOPLEOWNASTAKEINTHEIRCOMMUNITY

ACTUAL OUTCOMES (COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION)

Seven hundred eighty six (786) households owned or actively

participated in the management of their housing.

One hundred ninety six (196) people completed advocacy and

intervention type activities regarding funding levels, distribution policies,oversight, and distribution procedures for programs and funding streamstargeted for the low-income community.

Two thousand three hundred and forty (2,340) households participated

or volunteered in one or more groups, which included 844 households inhousing and 1,444 in linkages and coordination related programs.


34/58


34

RESULT FROM CLIENT SURVEYS

Three hundred and eleven (311) households felt that they are part of thecommunity.

GOAL 4: PARTNERSHIPS AMONG SUPPORTERS AND PROVIDERS OF SERVICESTO LOW INCOME PEOPLE ARE ACHIEVED

ACTUAL OUTCOMES

Five hundred sixty eight (568) partnerships were established and/or

maintained with other public and private entities to mobilize andleverage resources to provide services to low-income people. In addition

to this, CAAs invested 22 staff hours. A total of 500 communityresidents helped achieve this outcome.

Five hundred ninety (590) partnerships were established and/or

maintained with other public and private entities to complete thecontinuum of care for low-income people.

Sixty-one (61) partnerships established and/or maintained with other

public and private entities, which ensure ethnic, cultural, and otherspecial needs considerations are appropriately included in the deliveryservice system.

Other outcome measure(s) specific to partnerships created by local

agencies included:

Development of 15 new agreements regarding coordinating services with

other providers;

Development of 360 partnerships regarding linkages and coordination of

services;

Creation of 25 new childcare slots;

Investment of 100 staff hours in creating and maintaining partnerships;

and

Development of partnerships around nutritional issues by four agencies.

RESULTS FROM CLIENT SURVEYS

Twenty eight (28) principal partners were satisfied with the partnership.

Ninety nine (99) partners rated CAAs as being responsive.


35/58


35

GOAL 5: AGENCIES INCREASE THEIR CAPACITY TO ACHIEVE RESULTS

ACTUAL OUTCOMES (AGENCY CAPACITY)

Agencies mobilized a total of $125,000.

A total of $15,601,000 dollars mobilized by two agencies as compared

with CSBG dollars ($5,067,228).

Three agencies (3) agencies increased their funding from eight funding

sources thus increasing the total value of resources available for servicesto low-income people.

A total of 5,089 people with special needs showed improvement as a

result of programs aimed at that population.

Other outcomes specific to agency capacity building included:

improving efficiency in 28 programs;improving program efficiency instituted by 587 staff members;making 2,805 child care slots available;making three new funding sources available; andpublishing four new newspaper articles.

GOAL 6: LOW INCOME PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY VULNERABLE POPULATIONS,ACHIEVE THEIR POTENTIAL BY STRENGTHENING FAMILY AND OTHERSUPPORTIVE SYSTEMS

ACTUAL OUTCOMES (FAMILY STABILITY)

Two thousand two hundred and fifty (2,250) elderly households

maintained an independent living situation.

Three hundred (351) disabled or medically challenged persons

maintained an independent living situation.

Emergency needs of 88,480 households were ameliorated. In addition

to that, 12,193 individuals were able to ameliorate their emergencyneeds mainly through health and nutritional programs. Furthermore,

1,387 instances of Information and Referral needs of low income peoplewere met.

Seven hundred twenty nine (729) participating families moved from

homeless or transitional housing into stable standard housing - 7,500families maintained subsidized housing.


36/58


36

One thousand five hundred eighty three (1,583) households reported an

increase in childrens involvement in extracurricular activities.

Seventy three thousand eight hundred three (73,803) high consumptionhouseholds realized a reduction in energy burden.

30 households moved from cultural isolation to involvement with their

cultural community.

Other outcomes specific to the work done by CAAs included:

Five thousand three hundred and forty nine (5,349) children22

experienced healthy growth and development and their families werestrengthened through participation in the Head Start program.

Four thousand seven hundred eighteen (4,718) individuals and familieswere able to attend and complete Adult Education programs.

Twenty thousand nine hundred ninety three (20,993) requests forassistance resulted in increased access to resources.

Seven thousand six hundred twenty eight (7,628) individuals addressedhealth related issues.

Four thousand five hundred nineteen (4,519) households indicatedimproved family functioning since participating in the services oractivities of the agency.

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF CLIENTS ACHIEVING SELF-SUFFICIENCY AND ADDRESSINGCONDITIONS OF POVERTY

Poverty remains an obvious problem for many CAA clients. Poverty is anumbrella term to capture abject conditions in which many people live. For example,unemployment, homelessness, lack of proper health care and nutrition, unaffordablechild care, and transportation are a few examples of the effects of poverty.

The CAA network is full of success stories, which demonstrate that the CSBG andother CAA programs are working to combat poverty and address the conditions of

poverty at the local levels. There is strong evidence to demonstrate that the CSBGnetwork in Massachusetts is not only addressing the day to day poverty related issuesbut also is at the forefront of responding to the ever changing needs of clients includingcustomizing their service delivery strategies when needed making them one of themost important service providers of their local communities. Therefore, CSBG must relynot only on statistical analysis but also on every-day anecdotal evidence of the fact thatthere are many low-income families who move out of poverty and become self-sufficient.

22This does not necessarily include all Head Start children in Massachusetts. This aggregate number is from

Head Start programs where the Bureau of Neighborhoods Head Start measure was applied.


37/58


37

The following segment of this report summarizes the best practices as well as anecdotalevidence of the CSBG Program at Work in Massachusetts.

COMMUNITY ACTION COMMITTEE OF CAPE COD & ISLA NDS, INC.(HYANNIS, MA)

A married couple with three children, one of which is handicapped, that had aprevious eviction for rent non-payment called Community Action Committee of Cape Codand Islands, Inc. (CACCCI) due to their eviction situation, with an understanding that theagency would help the family. Their landlord refused to renew the lease and the familyrequested services from the Housing Assistance Program, a homeless preventionprogram funded by the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance.

The landlord who had been renting to the family had begun the process of acourt eviction. The landlord planned to move into the residence himself, and therefore

had refused to renew the lease. There was a court date scheduled, but the family hadno legal representation, and was unsure what should be done.

During the initial client intake, CACCCIs housing advocate was able to provideappropriate information regarding tenants rights' during the eviction process. Theadvocate immediately explained the various steps involved, and an information packetwas sent to the family with specific details. They were also referred to Legal Services sothat they could obtain legal representation.

The family was able to gain legal representation and was protected from beingunfairly evicted. For several weeks, CACCCI provided ongoing housing search support byproviding rental listings, as well as guidance and tips on increasing the odds of findingpermanent housing.

Finally, the clients located a rental unit and the landlord was requesting first andlast months rent and a security deposit, totaling $2,550. CACCCI continued to work withthe family by providing additional financial resources to help with the up front cost. Theyreceived assistance from various agency contributions, and were able to move into theunit within a month and the eviction process was discontinued.

COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAMS INTER-CITY, INC. (CHELSEA, MA)

A few years ago, Luis and Maria came to the United States under political asylumfrom Cuba with hopes of seeking better opportunity in the United States. They were welleducated the wife was a Registered Nurse and the husband was a radiologist in Cuba.

Upon arrival to the U.S., they were faced with many limitations due to a language barrierand their inability to continue working in this new environment. Shortly after, theyreceived assistance from the International Rescue Committee in Boston. The agencyworked with the couple to find temporary housing, and build a foundation for their newlife in the U.S. The couple rented a room in Chelsea with other families who were also

striving to find permanent housing.

Once in Chelsea, the couple utilized resources that would help them achievetheir goals of self-sufficiency. They both attended English-as-a-Second Language classes


38/58


39/58


39

and a screened balcony but the problem was that Alicia only earned $24,000 a year. Thecondo cost $115,000. Alicia had only $550 in the bank and her income did not satisfythe strict debt-income ratios required by the typical mortgage lenders.

CAI staff first assisted Alicia with her application to the Coastal First Time HomeBuyer mortgage program, which offered a seven-year fixed-mortgage rate at 5 percent

with reduced closing costs and no points. The loan lowered the income limit needed toqualify for the mortgage. Next Alicia secured a $10,000 second mortgage grant from theFederal Home Loan Bank as a down payment and was finally able to buy the condo. Hermortgage, taxes and condo fee payment is $950 per month, $300 less than her rentpayment. Her housing costs are now stable and she is building equity with everypayment. Alicia and her children have realized a dream they never thought was possible.

FRANKLIN COMMUNITY ACTION CORPORATION (GREENFIELD, MA)

Maria did not speak English when she first contacted the WIC office for services.

She was pregnant and had two children with her when she moved to Turners Falls fromCentral America to be with her migrant worker husband. FCACs Spanish-speaking staff,had to call a taxi for her and explain to the driver where to pick her up and drop her offso she could get to the WIC clinic. When she left the WIC appointment, she took a notewith her destination to show to the bus driver so she would get on the right bus home.Throughout her pregnancy, Maria came to rely on the information and help that FCACstaff offered.

When sh

csbg performance measure report - 2001.pdf

Documents