OCS visited nine states in  fiscal years 2003 through 2005. We also found that OCS did not systematically use or collect available  information that would allow it to assess states’ CSBG management risks. In addition,  OCS has not issued reports to Congress annually, as required by law. The  state programs that we visited had different views on what they must do to  meet federal requirements to monitor local agencies at least once during  each 3-year period, and OCS had not issued guidance clarifying the time  frames states should use when conducting on-site visits. Specifically,  officials in two states conducted the on-site visits at least once between  2003 and 2005, but officials in the other three states visited their local  agencies less frequently. While states varied in their frequency of  monitoring visits, all five states offices visited local agencies with  identified problems more often. States Made Efforts to Provide Additional Oversight of Local Agencies

The states that we visited provided oversight in addition to on-site  monitoring through such activities as reviewing reports, coordinating with  other federal and state programs, and providing formal training and  technical assistance. OCS Designated $1 Million or Less of Its Annual Training and Technical Assistance Funding to Assist Local Agencies with Problems but Does Not Know if These Funds Addressed the Greatest Needs

In fiscal years 2002 through 2005, OCS designated $1 million or less of its  annual $10 million training and technical assistance funds to assist local  agencies with problems, but it had no way to determine whether this  money was allocated in a way that addressed the greatest needs of state  and local agencies. Limited Data on the Results of the Assistance Showed That Some Local Agencies Had Improved

Information on the results of OCS grant programs that targeted local  agencies with problems was limited. Establish policies and procedures to help ensure that its on-site  monitoring is focused on states with highest risk. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To gain a better understanding of oversight efforts undertaken by state  and federal program offices to monitor the Community Services Block  Grant (CSBG) program and ensure the accountability of funds, we  examined (1) the extent to which the Department of Health and Human  (HHS) oversight of states efforts to monitor local agencies complied with  federal laws and standards, (2) the efforts selected states have made to  monitor local agencies’ compliance with fiscal requirements and  performance standards, and (3) the extent to which HHS targeted federal  CSBG training and technical assistance funds to efforts to assist local  agencies with financial or management problems and what is known about  the results of the assistance. GAO-06-373R.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) provided over $600 million to states in fiscal year 2005 to support over 1,000 local antipoverty agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services's (HHS) Office of Community Services (OCS) is primarily responsible for overseeing this grant; states have oversight responsibility for local agencies. At the request of Congress, GAO is providing information on (1) HHS's compliance with federal laws and standards in overseeing states, (2) five states' efforts to monitor local agencies, and (3) federal CSBG training and technical assistance funds targeted to local agencies with problems and the results of the assistance. States were selected based on varying numbers of local agencies and grant amounts and recommendations from associations, among other criteria.

What GAO Found

In a February 2006 letter (GAO-06-373R), GAO notified OCS that it lacked effective policies, procedures, and controls to help ensure that it fully met legal requirements for monitoring states and internal control standards. At that time, GAO also offered recommendations for improvements. OCS has responded that it intends to take actions to address each of those recommendations. In addition, GAO found that OCS did not routinely collect key information, such as results of state monitoring reports, or systematically use available information, such as state performance data, to assess the states' CSBG management risks and target monitoring efforts to states with the highest risk. All five states we visited conducted on-site monitoring of local agencies with varying frequency and performed additional oversight efforts. Two state offices visited each local agency at least once between 2003 and 2005, while the other three states visited local agencies less frequently. State officials we visited had different views on what they must do to meet the statutory requirement to visit local agencies at least once during each 3-year period, and OCS has not issued guidance interpreting this requirement. Officials in all five states also provided oversight in addition to monitoring through such activities as reviewing reports and coordinating with other federal and state programs. OCS targeted some training and technical assistance funds to local grantees with financial or management problems, but information on the results of this assistance is limited. In fiscal years 2002 through 2005, OCS designated between $666,000 and $1 million of its annual $10 million training and technical assistance funds to local agencies with problems, but had no process for strategically allocating these funds to areas of greatest need. In addition, the final reports on awarded grants indicated that some local agencies had improved, but the reports provided no information on the outcomes of assistance for nearly half of the 46 local agencies that GAO identified as being served.