The cost of administering human service programs has been a long-standing concern among policy makers interested in ensuring that federal programs are run in a cost-efficient manner so that federal funds go directly to helping vulnerable people. Little is known about how administrative costs compare among programs, or about opportunities to better manage these costs. GAO looked at (1) how administrative costs are defined and what rules govern federal and state participation in funding these costs; (2) what is known about the amounts of administrative spending and how they have changed over time; and (3) what opportunities exist at the federal level to help states balance cost savings with program effectiveness and integrity. GAO's review included seven programs: Adoption Assistance, Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), Child Support Enforcement (CSE), food stamps, Foster Care, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Unemployment Insurance (UI). To address the questions, GAO reviewed laws, analyzed spending data, and visited five states.
Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
The Homeless Emerg. Assist. and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH Act) required this study of the appropriate admin. costs of HUD¿s Emerg. Shelter Grants Program (ESG) -- a formula-based program that supports services to homeless persons. This report discusses: (1) the types of admin. activities performed and admin. costs incurred under the ESG program, and the extent to which grant proceeds cover these admin. costs; (2) how the ESG program's allowance for admin. costs compares with admin. cost allowances for selected other targeted fed. homeless grant programs; and (3) how the nature or amount of admin. costs might be different under changes Congress made to the ESG program in the HEARTH Act. Tables and graphs.
Nonprofits are key partners in delivering federal services yet reportedly often struggle to cover their indirect costs (costs not readily identifiable with particular programs or projects). This raises concerns about fiscal strain on the sector. To provide information on nonprofits' indirect cost reimbursement, especially when funding flows through entities such as state and local governments, this report reviewed, for selected grants and nonprofits: (1) how indirect cost terminology and classification vary; (2) how indirect costs are reimbursed; and (3) if gaps occur between indirect costs incurred and reimbursed, steps taken to bridge gaps. The report reviewed policies and documents governing indirect costs and interviewed relevant officials. Illus.
The fed. gov¿t. must seek to deliver results more efficiently. The prior Administration sought to improve efficiency under the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) by requiring programs to have at least one efficiency measure and procedures for improving efficiency, and show annual efficiency gains. This report examined: (1) the types of PART efficiency measures and the extent to which they included typical elements of an efficiency measure; (2) the extent to which selected programs showed gains and how they used efficiency measures for decision making; (3) the challenges selected programs faced in developing and using efficiency measures; and (4) other strategies that can be used to improve efficiency. Illustrations.
The federal-state unemployment insurance (UI) program relies on state trust funds to hold enough reserves to meet benefit needs during economic downturns. The sufficiency of such "forward funding" has been a policy concern for decades, particularly during the recent recession, which has caused very high unemploy. rates. While the economy added jobs in Mar. 2010, unemploy. remains very high and has continued to rise in most states, suggesting that state UI programs will continue to face serious financial challenges for at least the near future. This report: (1) describes the current condition of state UI trust funds; (2) highlights policies or practices that have contributed to their conditions; and (3) identifies options for improving UI forward funding in the future.
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.