Monitoring Standards & State Self-Assessment Tool - NASCSP

Monitoring Standards and State
Self Assessment Tool
2010 NASCSP State CSBG Monitor‟s
Training
November 16, 2010
Sacramento, California

BACKGROUND
During the last months of 2004, the House and Senate
both passed bills to reauthorize CSBG. However, the two
bills included provisions which were not resolved via
conference committee.
While the 2004 House and the Senate bills contained
substantial differences, the bills also included some
important similarities:
– States need to provide better monitoring of Community Action
Agencies (CAA).
– Monitoring should not to be limited to specific CSBG-funded
programs, but instead it should assess the overall health of the
entire agency.

NASCSP Monitoring Workgroup
Therefore, in December 2004, the NASCSP Monitoring
Workgroup was formed.
NASCSP Monitoring Workgroup members included:
•Jeannie Chaffin (MO)*
•Doug Lee (UT)
•Kathy McLaughlin (OK)**
•Lucia Smead (CO)
•Karen Parde (NE)
•Regina Surber (TN)
•Frank Pattinson (MI)
•Dennis Darling
•Connie Greer (MN)
•Maureen Tucker (DE)
•Lawrence Wilson (NC)
•Daniel Deane (VA)
•Melanie Taylor (WV)
•Cassandra Norfleet (CT)
•Chris Reis (OH)
•Pamela Harrison (CA)

CSBG Monitoring Standards
Recognizing that…
A response to the 2004 Congressional consensus was needed;
The CSBG Act of 1998 requires that CSBG eligible entities be
monitored at least once during a three year period by the State CSBG
office;
Monitoring is a good business practice to assist CSBG eligible entities
to continually improve outcomes as they strive to adopt high impact
strategies to end poverty;
Monitoring helps to build capacity at the local level, and to provide
training and technical assistance to CSBG eligible entities so that they
can excel in working to eliminate poverty; and
That monitoring is only one of many tools available to strengthen
agency capacities and outcomes…
The Workgroup created the “CSBG Monitoring Standards.”

About the CSBG Monitoring
Standards
STANDARDS
PRACTICES
REVIEW TOPIC AREAS
SUCCESS FACTORS

Monitoring STANDARDS
–Mutual Respect
–Open Communication
–Joint Problem Solving

Monitoring PRACTICES
– Monitors should look at more than compliance
with program rules and regulations
– Monitors should assess the effectiveness of the
Board of Directors
– Monitors should assess the administrative and
leadership capacity of the agency‟s
management as it relates to meeting the Board
of Director‟s goals

Monitoring PRACTICES
Cont.
– Monitoring CAAs is a part of a process to
strengthen CAAs and the entire Community
Action Network
– The State CSBG office should have a system in
place to document and inform the agency of
findings and/or deficiencies
– The State CSBG office should have a system in
place to provide training and technical
assistance when necessary

Review Topic Areas
Governance
Planning
Evaluation
Partnerships
Administrative systems and
procedures
Fiscal procedures

NASCSP‟s
Standard Monitoring Principles and
Practices for CSBG
“State monitors should conduct an
agency-wide financial assessment…”
“State monitors should review monitoring
reports from other funding sources.”

NASCSP‟s
Standard Monitoring Principles and
Practices for CSBG
“…State monitors should look at more
than compliance with program rules and
regulations.”
“…State monitors need to take a
SYSTEMS view of each CAA…”

Success Factors
Meet with the Board as a whole, if
possible;
Attend staff meetings and/or management
meetings;
Take a tour of the office;
CSBG offices are encouraged to monitor
grantees annually;
The CSBG office should conduct an
annual risk analysis to prioritize monitoring
visits;

Success Factors cont.
Review audit, 990‟s balance sheet, and
other financial papers and corporate
documents as desk monitoring, prior to the
visit;
Review last year‟s report and other
available monitoring reports (Head Start,
WX, LIHEAP);
When possible coordinate with other State
offices and Federal offices to review
agency systems;

Success Factors cont.
Monitors should avail themselves of fiscal
training on a regular basis;
Monitoring tools should be updated as
needed;
Findings should not be added to the
monitoring report if they were not
discussed at the exit interview;
Have systems in place to effectively inform
agency of status and provide T&TA;

Success Factors cont.
Understand the complexity of managing
dozens of programs, each with its own
guidelines and budgets; and
Understand the many management
systems required to operate an agency, as
well as the ways those systems must be
applied to multiple programs and activities.

IM 49
“…whether ROMA should involve programs
beyond the CSBG. After careful examination of
the CSBG authorizing legislation, …OCS has
concluded that it is both necessary and
appropriate to apply ROMA concepts to the work
of community action, not CSBG alone.”
“Recognizing that CSBG does not succeed as
an individual program. The (ROMA) goals
presume that community action is most
successful when activities supported by a
number of funding sources are organized
around client and community outcomes…”

IM 49, cont.
In IM 49 OCS committed to strategies to
promote core competencies across the
network including:
– Strengthening community action program
administration, with emphasis on fiscal
management and accountability.

IM 82
“State CSBG officials should meet
routinely with Boards as part of their
overall monitoring of local agencies to
determine the extent to which the
Boards are aware of, and are carrying
out, their responsibilities”

IM 94
“… is an understanding that community action is
one agency with one mission - to reduce poverty
among low-income people and improve
opportunities for their success in their
communities. To be effective, all staff, all
programs, all Board Members, and all
community partners need to work in unison
toward this common mission and goal.”

IM 94
“State CSBG Lead Agencies …should … ensure
…that agency Head Start programs have
ongoing systems of oversight and monitoring.”
“It is important to stress that quick fixes to
identified problems typically result in a
reoccurrence of the problems. Most areas
needing improvement are often linked to major
systems that often require thoughtful planning
and time to implement needed changes.”

IM 94, cont.
“…the Community Services Network must
continue to focus its efforts on
strengthening overall agency governance
and administration, fiscal control, program
effectiveness, and accountability to assure
capacity to comply with all program
requirements of the various programs
administered by the agency.”

Systems Thinking:
“Systems thinking is a conceptual
framework, a body of knowledge and
tools…to make the full patterns clearer,
and to help us see how to change them
effectively.”
Peter M. Senge, „The Fifth Discipline‟

Assessing Your State‟s Monitoring
Protocols:
1. Does your monitoring tool look at the WHOLE
agency, or just „CSBG programs‟?
2. Do you have collaborative relationships with other
CAA funders (Head Start, HUD, Dept. of Energy,
others?)
3. Does your monitoring tool look at Governance;
Planning; Evaluation; Partnerships; Administrative
Systems and Procedures; Fiscal Procedures?
4. What activities, information, interviews are used
to examine these areas?
5. How are staff trained to take a systems approach
to monitoring?

State Self Assessment Tool
o
o
Part 1 is a checklist covering regulations
and management.
Part 2 takes a somewhat broader viewpoint
and is intended to provide the user with an
assessment of his/her office‟s capacity to
implement a high quality CSBG
The tool covers resources, policies and
practices that have proven to contribute to
the implementation of a sound,
performance oriented program.

QUESTIONS?
Credits: Sue Buckley and
David Tucker
Brown Buckley Tucker
Organizational Consultants