Findings from Evaluation of CSBG ARRA Implementation Presented by: Margaret C. Simms Institute Fellow Urban Institute at

The Urban InstituteTeamCarol DeVitaMargaret SimmsErwin de LeonSaunji FyffeElaine MorleyCarolyn O’BrienMonica RohacekMolly ScottSarah TingAdvisorsElizabeth BorisSteven R. SmithSubcontract withNASCSP Findings from Evaluation of CSBG ARRA Implementation Presented by: Margaret C. Simms Institute Fellow Urban Institute at The NASCSP Mid-Winter Conference March 1, 2012

Three Major Products • Administrative Expense Report • Federal Program Matrix • Implementation Report

Implementation Study • Conducted over 18 months • Data from ARRA 1512 Reports and CSBG IS Surveys • Telephone and in-person interviews • Focus Groups

Thanks for Your Input and Cooperation • Federal Employees • National Partners • State Offices • State Associations • Local Eligible Entities

Accomplishments and Challenges • What the Network Accomplished • Speed of Spending • Monitoring and Reporting • Implications for CSBG Continuous Improvement Process

What the Network Accomplished • Served additional eligible families through existing programs. • Introduced new programs and improved existing ones. • Reached out to new populations.

What the Network Accomplished • Created over 18,000 jobs. • Improved their infrastructure through technological improvements. • Increased their potential leveraging capacity by initiating new services and building new partnerships.

Speed of Spending • Compressed timetable to 18 months from program announcement to liquidation. • Increase in funding to most entities, on top of regular CSBG. • Lack of administrative funding for States to support guidance and monitoring. • Rapid wind down.

Monitoring and Reporting • The more frequent, quick turnaround reporting schedule was initially challenging. • Most entities added or updated software to accomplish task.

Monitoring and Reporting • Most found the new reporting requirements useful for sharing accomplishments with audiences. • Reports provided near “real time” look at what was going on in the field. • Federal and State agencies found it useful for monitoring performance.

Ability of Government and Grantees to Innovate • States demonstrated ability to coach and support entities in efforts to develop new programs and overhaul existing ones. • State associations and other partners facilitated change. • Local entities demonstrated their ability to innovate and adapt to new circumstances.

Strength and Value of Teams and Technology • Team members in the Network made it possible to get information out quickly. • Technical assistance efforts were valuable. • Use of technology—webinars, website postings, etc.—made it easier to push out new information and respond to questions from the field.

Value of Reporting and Monitoring • Local entities and States were able to comply with new and more stringent reporting requirements under ARRA. • Problems could be identified more quickly and assistance could be targeted appropriately. • States and local entities should assess the experience for future use.

Complexity of Change • Implementing a major change in a Federal program is complicated. • All grantees are not likely to be affected or able to respond in the same way. • The size of local entities and populations they serve are important factors in the likely impact of change and innovation.

Dissemination Plans • The full report (and executive summary) will be posted on the UI website. • UI will work with NASCSP and others in the Network to notify states and CAAs of the report’s release. • UI team will identify opportunities to make presentations, both at UI sponsored events and in other venues.

Findings from Evaluation of CSBG ARRA Implementation Presented by: Margaret C. Simms Institute Fellow Urban Institute at