CSBG Performance Measure Report - 2001 PDF

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 16-19
Use 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

50-51
Appendices 52-56

Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development
CSBG 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 federal
operating, capital and trust funds, DHCDs numerous programs address the
Commonwealths need for affordable housing, as well as community and neighborhood
development. The mission of DHCD is to strengthen cities, towns, and neighborhoods
and enhance the quality of life of Massachusettss residents. To accomplish this mission,
DHCD provides leadership, professional assistance, and financial resources to promote
safe, decent affordable housing opportunities, economic vitality of communities and
sound municipal management. DHCD forges partnerships with regional and local
governments, public agencies, community-based organizations, and the business
community to achieve common goals and objectives. In all of these efforts, DHCD
recognizes 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 of
residents 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 neighborhoods
and enhancing the quality of life of Massachusettss residents through the Office of the
Director, the Office of Administration and Finance and four programmatic divisions: the
Division of Neighborhood Services, Division of Municipal Development, Divisi on of Public
Housing and Rental Assistance, and the Division of Private Housing. The Director of
DHCD is a cabinet-level official appointed by the Governor of the Commonwealth to
administer and maintain executive authority over all phases of departmental activities
and coordinate policy with the Governor and Administration. The Office of the Director
includes the Deputy Director, Chief of Staff, Chief Counsel, Deputy Director for Policy
Development, Deputy Director for Administration and Finance, and the Director of
Communication.

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

3
commissions and quasi-public agencies affiliated with DHCD such as, the Housing
Appeals Committee, Commission on Indian Affairs, Manufactured Housing Commission,
Community Development Finance Corporation, Community Economic Development
Assistance Corporation, Massachusetts Housing, and the Massachusetts Housing
Partnership 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, the
Governor of the Commonwealth has designated the Department of Housing and
Community Development (DHCD) as the lead agency for administering the Community
Services 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 as
community action agencies (CAA) in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Private,
nonprofit CAAs must have tri-partite boards of directors, consisting of one-third public
officials, at least one-third representatives of the poor, and the remainder of the board
seats 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. DHCD
distributes CSBG funds to the Commonwealths network of 25 CAAs based on a historical
funding formula. CSBG funds support CAA core operations and many anti-poverty
services.

4

CAAs are mandated to develop, implement, coordinate, and evaluate the
effectiveness of a variety of anti-poverty programs, and to assist low income families and
individuals 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 mitigate
conditions of poverty that prevent people from becoming self-sufficient. Lack of
sufficient income and affordable housing, homelessness, nutritional risk, or a lack of
affordable transportation are just a few of the barriers that affect people from moving
from poverty to self-sufficiency. The mission of the CSBG program: to provide a range
of services and activities having a measurable and potentially major impact on causes of
poverty in the community or those areas of the community where poverty is a
particularly acute problem
1
, calls for a comprehensive service delivery system to address
these issues.

There are seven (7) broad anti-poverty goals outlined in the CSBG
Reauthorization 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 improving
literacy skills of the low-income families in the communities involved which may
include 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 meet
immediate 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 with
local law enforcement agencies, local housing authorities, private foundations,
and other public and private partners.

To ensure compliance with the CSBG Assurances and other related administrative
and 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;

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

5
community needs and internal assessment that will identify strengths and
weaknesses 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 monitor
and evaluate the CAAs success in promoting self-sufficiency, family stability,
and community revitalization;

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

a description of how CSBG funding will be coordinated with other
public/private resources to maximize the efficiency of programs and activities
and a description of how the CAA will use the funds to support innovative
community and neighborhood-based initiatives, which may include
fatherhood initiatives and other initiatives with the goal of strengthening
families and encouraging effective parenting; and

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

With the 1993 passage of the Government Performance Reform Act (GPRA) and
the CSBG Reauthorization Act in 1998, Community Action Agencies (CAAs) and state
agencies are now required to implement performance measurement systems at every
aspect of the CSBG program including Community Action Planning. The Result Oriented
Management and Accountability (ROMA) as described in the CSBG Reauthorization Act of
1998 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 reauthorization
in 2003. The CSBG Information System, multi-year strategic planning and program
outcome report will become more and more important in demonstrating that CSBG has
been 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 of
Housing and Community Development (DHCD) began presenting CSBG data in a more
coherent and meaningful fashion. Last years CSBG Performance Measure Report was an
important turning point in this endeavor. The goal of this years report is to measure the
efficacy of the CSBG program at three levels: individual client/family self-sufficiency,
agency capacity, and community revitalization. In other words, presented information
should not only highlight the pervasiveness of poverty in the state, but also measure the
impact and benefit of this very important public investment.


6
DESCRIPTION OF CSBG DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS

For the purpose of this report, DHCD reviewed information from a variety of
sources. In addition to the 2000 Census, one of the key sources of information was data
from the annual CSBG Information System (IS) Survey. The IS Survey, for the most
part, uses forms developed by the National Association for State Community Services
Program (NASCSP), except for in two instances where DHCD developed forms to capture
additional local level information
2
. Even though it is not required by the NASCSP, each
year DHCD asks CAAs to provide client counts from each city and/or town represented by
the CAA network.

The CSBG Information System Survey in Massachusetts collects a comprehensive
set of data in three major categories:

(1) Use of CSBG funds in relation to other federal, state, local public and
private resources;

(2) Individual and family-level demographic characteristics
3
of CAA clients;
and,

(3) Program outcome data using the National Goals and Outcome Measures
and other outcome measures developed by the Department of Housing
and Community Development (DHCD).

DHCD also collects and reports to the National Association for State Community
Services Program (NASCSP) and the Office of Community Services, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services fiscal and program administrative data on the use of the
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) funds at the state-level, including a complete
accounting of CSBG discretionary funds. Two of the most important pieces of
information that DHCD highlights in its final report are the anecdotal evidence of clients
achieving self-sufficiency and examples of innovative programs operated by CAAs.

For the purpose of analyzing the CSBG demographic and fiscal data, where
applicable, DHCD compared data for the last three fiscal years. Information from the
2000 Census was also taken into consideration in analyzing individual and family
demographic characteristics. Since, the Census Bureau has yet to release poverty data,
this report will not analyze poverty and poverty-related issues in Massachusetts from the
Census standpoint. However, DHCD will continue this approach of analyzing Census data
with data from the CSBG IS Survey, as more poverty and income related data is made
available by the U.S. Census Bureau. The correlation between Census information and
the CSBG data was not explored as it was outside the scope of this report.

2
Number of individuals served by cities and towns, information on CSBG carry-over funds, and a brief summary
of individual/family level client outcomes.
3
Gender, Age, Ethnicity/Race, Education Level, Health Insurance, Disability, Family Type, Family Size, Source
of Family Income, Level of Family Income, and Housing Characteristics.

7
DHCD compared information provided during the last two fiscal years to identify
and correct any major anomalies. Any major change in data outside the normal range
was verified directly with CAAs. All CSBG carry over funds and CSBG discretionary grants
were 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 the
total individual or families served. The average demographic data reporting rates for
individual 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, there
were variations within individual and family demographic characteristics. This variation in
data collection rate can be largely attributed to a number of factors ranging from
incomplete intake to the very nature of a CAA program where it is often very difficult to
obtain all the necessary information that makes up the CAA demographic report. During
fiscal year 2001, DHCD noticed a large increase in the total number of individuals served
through the CAA network in Massachusetts due to inclusion of all Fuel Assistance
household members in the demographic report for the first time in Massachusetts. This
change 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 CAA
clients is not solely due to the change in Fuel Assistance reporting.

For program outcome data, DHCD relied on the six (6) CSBG National Goals and
Outcome 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 programs
4
were also
measured and reported. DHCD first developed these outcome measures in 1998 and
revised them during 2001 to capture consistent program specific outcomes across the
state. Outcome data from CAAs were grouped by each of the six (6) National Goals and
then sorted by outcome measures and then by CSBG service categories and units of
measurement
5
. These units of measurement were used consistently throughout all 25
CAAs so that an accurate outcome report can be prepared for the state.

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

8
The CSBG Information System (IS) Survey collects a comprehensive set of
valuable client demographic, fiscal, and program outcome data. This data, in
combination with narratives provided by CAAs as anecdotal evidence of effectiveness of
CSBG program, became the foundation of this Massachusetts CSBG Annual Performance
Measure Report.

RESULTS ORIENTED MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY (ROMA) IN
MASSACHUSETTS

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

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 and
community action planning.

As part of DHCDs on-going ROMA implementation process, representatives from
DHCD and the Massachusetts Community Action Program Directors Association
(MASSCAP) met with representatives from the Office of Community Services (OCS),
Administration for Children and Families to discuss the status of ROMA implementation in
Massachusetts. Although it was recognized that Massachusetts is implementing ROMA
successfully, a general concern for OCS was that only 28 percent of the Board of
Directors of the 25 Community Action Agencies have participated in formal ROMA
training. The need for further ROMA training was agreed upon and became part of
Massachusetts ROMA implementation plan. In response to this finding, DHCD applied
for 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 board
training project focusing on the Board of Directors function and capacity building for all
25 Community Action Agency boards. The training will be reinforced by an interactive
forum on the MASSCAP website that will provide on-going ROMA support and training to
the 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 board
training.

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


9
session for CAA planners and planning department staff. Held at the College of the Holy
Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts, the workshop was attended by 24 out of the 25 CAAs
in Massachusetts. Consultants from Rensselaerville Institute and DHCD staff jointly
conducted the session that included topics such as: outcome overview and mindset
shifts, preparing fiscal year 2002 CSBG Annual Application, and further integration of
outcome thinking. The workshop ended with a brief CAA self-assessment on outcome
thinking and management. The session was attended by 53 people representing DHCD
and CAAs staff members, including six executive directors. Later that year, DHCD hosted
four and half day long regional CORE ROMA training sessions. Over 200 staff members,
including several executive directors attended these sessions. One of the CAAs from
each region hosted these regional sessions in Boston, Hadley, Carver, and Lowell,
Massachusetts. Following the Core ROMA training, all 25 agencies prepared performance
target outlines for selected programs and presented the outlines to DHCD. The outlines
were reviewed by DHCD staff and consultants from the Rensselaerville Institute. During
the months of March through May 2002, individual agency training and technical
assistance 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 ROMA
implementation plan. Since 1998, DHCD has been allocating CSBG discretionary funds to
CAAs to develop their information technology capacity so that a better service delivery
and reporting system can be developed. Last year, the Director of DHCD authorized the
use 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 by
the end of 2002, is designed to achieve at least three major performance targets: (1) all
25 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 able
to compile, analyze, and transfer CSBG data to DHCD with limited supervision and
technical assistance; and (3) DHCD will have access, without compromising strict client
confidentiality standards, to a statewide CSBG database from which further analyses and
snapshot reports may be generated for policy and decision making purposes. At present,
DHCD is working with a software company to develop a customized web-based
application that will facilitate this new data collection and data analysis environment for
CSBG 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 Pilot
grants, 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 Ladders
tool. This intense matrix-based case system allows case managers at local CAAs to
develop an intervention strategy for low-income clients using a tool that initially assesses
and 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 measure
movement or progress along this continuum or range from a beginning point, for
example 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
scales ranging from Employment to Community Participation. Within each Scale there
are several indicators that are used for determining a clients assessment step. For
example, according to the Employment scale, an unemployed client with no or a bad
work history that is not looking for a job will be assessed as being In Crisis. On the
other 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 with
health related needs. On the Housing Scale, a homeless person with no mailing address
will automatically fall under In Crisis category. Even though each scale to some extent
provides 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 client
from poverty to self-sufficiency the best approach is to apply a number of scales on
each family or individual client during the initial intake and then develop a comprehensive
service 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, Child
Care, 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 of
whom are refugees and immigrants, have children in the Head Start and subsidized child
care programs. Some families are living in homeless shelters and some are in individual
shelters. A small number of clients are from family self-sufficiency type programs.

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

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

SCALES INDICATORS
Employment Employment Type, Wages, Benefits, Skills/Work History
Education and Literacy
Child Education
Attendance, Parent Involvement, Academic Performance, and
Development
Adult Education Learning/Credential, Planning, Literacy, Skills, and Values
Health Health Coverage, Affordability, Family Health,
Substance/Alcohol Abuse, and Mental/Behavioral Health
Youth and Family Development
Childcare
Choice, Availability, and Overall Quality
Family Development Safety, Family/Social Network, Goal Setting, Support and
Household Composit ion.
Housing Affordability, Options, Threat, In-Transition, and Quality of
Housing
Income Management Basic Needs, Debt, Budgeting, Savings, and Credit
Transportation Access, Affordability, and Vehicle Safety
Resident Participation Participation/Involvement, Community Support, Perception of
Safety, and Voting
Nutrition Emergency/Supplemental Food, Access, and Nutritional
Practice

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

11
comprehensive Community Action Plan every three years. The last plan developed in
2000, expires in 2002 and CAAs are currently going through their fiscal year 2003-2005
Community Action Planning process. The overall goal of the planning process is to
identify local needs and develop appropriate service delivery strategies including
strategies for measuring program results. DHCDs Community Action Planning process,
which predates the ROMA Act, requires each CAA to submit their planning documents in
three batches: (1) Action Planning or an outline of the proposed planning process; (2)
Needs Assessment Rationale including tools for collecting internal and external needs
assessment 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 review
until late this year. During the last planning process, an overwhelming number of CAAs
identified lack of affordable housing, lack of good paying jobs, and transportation as the
major 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 conditions
of poverty remain problems in Massachusetts. Statistical reports and anecdotal evidence
indicate that the definition of poverty is taking a new turn. More and more working class
people are experiencing conditions of poverty as the cost of living, especially housing
costs both in terms of property price and rents, has increased disproportionately in
Massachusetts. According to an estimate, between 1994 and 2005 approximately 25%
of the jobs with most projected growth pay poverty wages
6
. The high cost of food and
health care, especially for seniors, is also becoming a determining factor in moving
people out of poverty.

A white paper
7
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. The
paper indicated that local zoning restrictions and resistance to housing construction is a
major reason for such high housing prices in Massachusetts. It is true that often
restrictive local zoning laws make it difficult for a developer to build multi-family housing
or convert an existing single family home into multi-family units.

Furthermore, demographic shifts in many cities and towns in Massachusetts will
now require review and redesign of service delivery strategies. A Massachusetts Institute
for Social and Economic Research (MISER) analysis
8
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 the
Asian/Pacific Islanders. That group showed a 67.8% increase since 1990. Hispanics

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

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 a
decline of 0.7% since 1990. DHCD observed an increase among White CSBG clients by
2.53%, compared to fiscal year 2000. Clients in all other ethnic/racial categories
increased 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
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

C
h
a
n
g
e
d
BLACK
WHITE
HISPANIC
N.AMERICAN
ASIAN
OTHER

A comparative analysis of 1990 and 2000 Census information shows that
Massachusetts ranked 28
th
in the nation in terms of population increase. Massachusetts
reported 332,672 more people in 2000 Census than in the 1990 Census demonstrating
that 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 gained
population at the rate of 11.4% and 8.2% respectively. However, further analysis of
Massachusetts Census information shows some significant demographic variations in the
states population growth. For example, the Cape and Islands region experienced the
highest 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 growth
rate of approximately 35.4%, which is significantly above the states average population
growth rate of 5.5%. The population growth rates for these three counties were as
follows: 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 Berkshire
County has the highest elderly population in the state approximately 23% and 18% of
the 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 old
age group. Twenty-two percent of all clients served by CAAs were from the 55 years or
older age group.

13

More analysis of Census and primary data collected during CAA needs
assessment and intake process will be conducted. It is important to understand that
resources can no longer be allocated in a traditional manner given the fact that public
funding for human service industry is shrinking due to economic slowdown and financial
crisis looming from the tragic events of September 11. More and more collaboration
among public, private, and the non-profit sector is necessary in maximizing existing
resources and overcoming the effects of budget cuts.

The CAAs on-going community action planning process must stress the
importance of linking and coordinating services within a CAAs service area. In simplistic
terms, the CAA planning process should be redefined as a continued process for
identifying and prioritizing needs. Strategies must be developed to meet existing and
unmet 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 when
the 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, for
services 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 the
State levels offer some interesting and intriguing trends.
During fiscal year 2001, a total of 382,225 unduplicated numbers of individuals
from 227,774 families received services from CAAs in Massachusetts. There has been a
33% 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 attributed
largely 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 analysis
9
of family level data indicated that 37,595 families reported no
income at all. Another 31,193 families reported income derived from the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Even though 42,527 families reported that they
derived income from employment only, an additional 58,229 families reported income
from employment and some other sources. It can be inferred that more than half of all
CAA clients were employed and yet were eligible for CAA services. A review of the
family income levels of these clients may validate this observation. A li ttle over 21% of
all 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 fiscal
year 2001 was $22,625, which was significantly below the Massachusetts Self-Sufficiency

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

14
Standards
10
for that year. Furthermore, growing trends of income inequality makes it
more difficult for families to strive in this environment. A recent report
11
from the
Economic Policy Institute/Center on Budget Policy Priorities indicates that between the
late 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 the
richest five percent of families increased by almost 18%. The richest five percent families
made $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 25.03
22.06
16.57 16.14
12.51
9.53
16.07
10.53
10.2
10.53
6.73
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1999 2000 2001
FISCAL YEAR
%

O
F

F
A
M
I
L
I
E
S
Up to 75%
76-100%
101-125%
126-150%
151% and
above

The majority of individual CAA clients were women. One third or 33% of families
were 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, two
parents, or no children households.

Children continue to be a major client group for CAAs in Massachusetts. During
fiscal year 2001, CAAs served a total of 108,932 children under the age of 18, which is
almost one third (32%) of all clients served by CAAs. The client population for this age
group 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 years
increased 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

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

15

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
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 estimate
12
from 1997 showed that 17.0% of
Massachusettss children were below poverty level, which was three percentage points
lower than the nationwide average of 19.9% for that year. Poverty among children
continues to be a problem. In fact a report
13
published recently showed that the United
States, with more than one in five children living in poverty, has the highest rate of
childhood poverty among many industrialized western nations. Even though the average
rate of poverty among young children (0-6) in Massachusetts was 15.6% for a three year
period between 1994 and 1998, still it was significantly lower than the national average
of 23.1%. The poverty rate among children will even be significantly higher, if poverty
among the under 18-age group is considered. There are reports indicating that the
overall poverty rate in the United States is declining even though the existing poverty
rate 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 and
more clients for the under 18-age group when the total number of clients for other age
groups
14
remained largely unchanged.

DHCDs CSBG information system survey further revealed that:

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

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

13
Paul Scherrer, US has highest childhood poverty rate of industrial countries, WBS,
<http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/march 2001/pov-m14.shtml>.

14
18-23 years, 24-44 years, 45-55 years.

16
single parent/female head of households and an increase in single
parent/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 unchanged
from fiscal year 2000, there were additional 4,030 client families who
had 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 overall
increase in CSBG client families. At the same time, there has been a
1.22% 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 $448
million from non-CSBG federal, state, local public and private sources this is a $74
million or 19.85% increase from the previous fiscal year. On average, for each CSBG
dollar spent, CAAs leveraged thirty-four dollars. The largest increase in federal funds to
CAAs 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 the
largest federal funding source.


17
Funding for State housing and homeless, early childhood education, and senior
programs all increased during fiscal year 2001. Overall, funding from state sources
increased 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 funding
from local government sources remained largely unchanged due to a drop in in-kind
resources.

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

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 through
2001 period. During fiscal year 2001, CAAs reported a total of 545,978 in donated volunteer
hours, which represents 307 full-time jobs
15
. 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 than
they 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
403,555
431,000
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
1998 1999 2000 2001 Fiscal Year

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


19
Another important area of private sector resource development is raising funds from
foundation, corporations, the United Way and other non-profits. There has been a steady
growth in CAA funding from this sector. During 1998 and 2001, funding from foundations,
corporation and non-profits increased by approximately $10 million. The average annual
growth rate in funding from these sources for the last four years has been 38%. Fundraising
from 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 by
5%.

CAAs often charge a small co-payment or fees for services to child care, day care and
transportation clients. For many programs, these fees are often determined on a sliding scale
basis. During 2001, CAAs reported $9.3 million in client fees. During the last three years, the
total amount of dollars reported through client fees have increased mainly due to an increase
in 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 State
Community Services Program (NASCSP) for fiscal year 2000 showed that the network of CSBG
funded 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 CAA
network in Massachusetts leveraged $14.90 from non-federal sources. This ratio is significant
as 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 states
16
. 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 detailed
use of CSBG funds in 11 different service categories. Each of the service categories has been
designed 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%

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

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

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 funds
for 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 CAA
programs. Therefore, the actual delivery of services for these two demographic categories is
much larger than what is reflected here.

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

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 $ 29,830,702
OTHER $ 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
TOTAL
18
$ 13,446,666 $229,846,267 $135,435,363 $ 13,767,922 $ 55,888,836 $448,385,054

17
CSBG discretionary actual allocation included carry-over funds from FY00.
18
Some 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 Projects
17
$743,294.00 $867,607.00 $0.00
FY 01 TOTAL $14,865,889.00 $14,705,744.00 $284,458.00

22

MANAGEMENT OF CSBG ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISCRETIONARY FUNDS

The Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Statute mandates DHCD to spend a
maximum of 5% of the total state allocation for administrative purposes. Therefore,
DHCD retained a total of $743,295 or five percent (5%) of the total allocation to support
salaries and fringe benefits of 10 program and management staff members. Due to
several staff vacancies vis--vis hiring freeze of state employees, $458,837 was
expended on 7.05 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions. The remaining $284,458 was
carried over to fiscal year 2002 and should be depleted by the end of the current fiscal
year.
DHCD is also mandated to spend five percent (5%) of the total allocation on
projects and programs at the local levels at the discretion of the Director of DHCD.
Utilizing fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2000 carry-over CSBG discretionary funds, DHCD
allocated a total of $867,607 in grants, primarily to community action agencies. This is
approximately $103,462 more than the previous fiscal year. Funds were allocated for the
following purposes:

Information Technology Access Centers, CAA staff training and
Mentoring project Massachusetts Community Action Program Directors
Association - $ 75,0000

Scales and Ladders Pilot Demonstration Grants (Phase II) - Eight
Community Action Agencies - $120,000

Result Oriented Management and Accountability (ROMA) Training
Rensselaerville Institute - $100,000

CAA-DHCD Electronic Government Network Project - Community
Networks Corporation - $100,000

CAA Scholarships Program - Seven Community Action Agencies -
$70,000

Community Food and Nutrition Program (CFNP) supplemental grants -
Eight Community Action Agencies - $27,607

Homeless and Crisis Prevention Program Massachusetts Department of
Transitional Assistance - $90,000

Neighborhood Planning and Environmental Justice Grants Four
Community Development Corporations - $85,000
19

Grants to CAAs, Community Development Corporations and other non-
profits - $210,000

19
FY02 CSBG discretionary account paid for $10,000 of these grants.

23
- Brightwood Development Corporation (Springfield) Organizational
Development
- Community Teamwork, Inc. (Lowell) Focus Groups
- Hungry Hill Community Development Corporation (Springfield)
Organizational Development
- Mattapan Family Service Center (Boston) Small Business Development
- Montachusett Opportunity Council (Fitchburg) Youth Tutoring Program
- North County Community Development Corporation (North Adams)
Organizational Development
- Springfield Neighborhood Housing Services (Springfield) Organizational
Development
- Working Capital Network/Peer to Peer Program (Worcester) Small business
development

The following chart further demonstrates the use of CSBG discretionary grants in
Massachusetts:

Chart 7: Allocation of CSBG Discretionary Grants

ALLOCATION OF CSBG DISCREATIONARY GRANTS
20%
18%
14%
12%
10%
9%
8%
6%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
io
n

&

T
e
c
h
n
o
lo
g
y
E
c
o
n
o
m
ic

D
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
t
R
O
M
A

I
m
p
le
m
e
n
t
a
t
io
n
R
O
M
A

T
r
a
in
in
g
F
u
e
l
A
s
s
is
t
a
n
c
e
E
n
v
ir
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
P
la
n
n
in
g
S
c
h
o
la
r
s
h
ip
s

P
r
o
g
r
a
m O
t
h
e
r
N
u
t
r
it
io
n

The top five service categories for the CSBG discretionary allocation were:

Income Management (ROMA and Information Technology project) 33%
Linkages and Coordination (small business development and Neighborhood
Planning and Environmental Justice projects) 19.50%
Other (CDC and CAA capacity building) 15.62%
Self-Sufficiency (including Scales and Ladders Pilot projects) 14.20%
Education and Literacy and Emergency Assistance (CAA scholarship programs
and supplemental support for LIHEAP clients) 10.65%

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 pursue
formal higher education. This includes general education, e.g., literacy skills, short term
training in occupational skills, or general post-secondary education. During fiscal year
2001, DHCD allocated a total of $100,000 in Scholarship Program funds to renew the
following seven grantees fiscal year 2000 grants. Each CAA received a $10,000
Scholarships 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 three
additional CAAs selected through an application process.

CSBG SCALES AND LADDERS PILOT PROJECT PHASE II

In cooperation with the CSBG Scales and Ladders Committee, DHCD has
developed a Scales and Ladders tool for use throughout the CAA network. To date, the
committee has developed the Massachusetts Family Self-Sufficiency Scales and Ladders
Assessment 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 eight
CAAs through a state-wide competitive grant process three of these CAAs also received
a similar grant in fiscal year 2000. This brought the total number of CAAs that are
implementing the Scales and Ladders Pilot project to 11. The following CAAs received a
Scales 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 - $18,000
Fiscal 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 - $7,500
Fiscal Year 2000 - $30,000

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

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 to
information technology (IT), the Massachusetts Community Action Program Directors
Association (MASSCAP) in collaboration with several CAAs, has developed pilot programs
across the state to provide CAA clients with computer access and training so that they
can acquire the comfort level and skills necessary to succeed in the new information age
economy. Each pilot program addresses its own unique local need. In addition to
training clients, CAA staff (when necessary) are also trained in computer usage in order
for all staff to meet a basic level of computer proficiency. A total of $100,000 was
awarded 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 Community
Action 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 service
opportunities for 10 CAAs. The Greater Lawrence Community Action Council established a
Computer Clubroom with the goal of bringing computer access/literacy to teens in
order for them to advance their academic and vocational skills. The Hampshire
Community Action Council developed a rural IT access project based in two small existing
multi-service sites in rural Hampshire County. The goal of this project is to increase job
skills 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 on
computers 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
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 the
McCormack Institute at the University of Massachusetts, Boston to assess and evaluate
the 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 and
Poverty, 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 accessible
to the public via the Web, and what role Community Based Organizations (CBO) can play
to make this initiative a success. The second workshop presented a more specific
description on DHCDs on-going E-Government CSBG data collection initiative. DHCD
underwrote part of the cost of this conference using fiscal year 2001 CSBG discretionary
funds.

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

Mattapan Family Service Center (Boston, MA)

The Mattapan Family Service Center received a $25,000 CSBG discretionary grant
in fiscal year 2000. During fiscal year 2001, the agency received an additional $50,000 to
continue its development of the Mattapan Business Assistance Center that provides a
place for existing area business owners so that they can maintain and expand their
businesses. The new grant supported the expansion and continued development of the
center. The center conducts monthly workshops, as well as daily in-depth or tailored
assistance to clients, in: business plan development, licensing, product marketing,
advertising, signage, zoning, accounting, taxes, workforce development, business
technology and the internet, legal issues, customer relations, bid preparation and project
estimating, records keeping, business management, loan packaging, insurance and risk
management, 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 business
development program that aims at assisting low-income entrepreneurs in the Worcester
area, DHCD awarded a $25,000 CSBG discretionary grant to the Working Capital Network
in fiscal year 2001. The program assists those individuals who fall under 80% of the
areas median family income, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) standards, are self-employed or would-be self-employed, who are

27
not able to access credit from mainstream financial resources. In other words, the
organization helps people who are un-bankable. The Working Capital Network has
similar programs operating in the Greater Boston, Lawrence, Springfield, Gloucester,
Brockton, New Bedford, and Palmer areas. The goal of the program was to recruit
between 75 and 100 members to the organization and to administer 25-35 loans ranging
from $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 a
cash 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) Family
Enrichment/Education Program operates in conjunction with the Massachusetts Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Preschool Enrichment Team. Both of
these affiliated agencies provide parenting programs and teacher education on the issues
of family literacy and family stabilization. The program offers a monthly family literacy
newsletter; 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, parenting
workshops (on family issues, life skills and/or health and nutrition issues), and family
support 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 a
variety of environmental and development issues that adversely affect the neighborhoods
in which families live. In order to address this, DHCD developed a program aimed at
offering pilot grants for consultant assistance to organizations in identifying strategies to
address specific conditions that threaten the environment of a neighborhood. The two
purposes of this initiative were: (1) to provide resources to organizations for studies that
others (e.g., municipal governments) are unable to provide and (2) to serve as a way of
increasing the visibility, currency and viability of organizations as a source of planning for
neighborhoods (which may in turn increase the attractiveness of serving in these
organizations and strengthen some boards/organizations). Through a statewide
competitive 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) - $25,000
Main 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. Department
of Health and Human Services to administer the Community Food and Nutrition Program

28
(CFNP) in Massachusetts. Due to this limited amount of resource for CFNP purposes, the
Director of DHCD approved the use of a total of $25,000 in Community Services Block
Grant (CSBG) discretionary funds to supplement the program. The combined allocation
brought the Community Food and Nutritional Program to a total of $88,212. Eight CAAs
were 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. In
addition, applicants were asked to demonstrate how the existing program, with the
inclusion of CFNP, would be marketed to residents in the designated service area. The
purpose 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 were
adopted 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 to
non-English speaking or bilingual area residents. The project also involved completion of
nutritional 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 youths
in 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 of
1,000 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 of
the program was to assist 25 participants in demonstrating movement up one or more
steps on a scale and to help 5 out of 35 participants complete career training program as
a result of case management services.

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

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 Hispanic
should report that the Food Pantry stocks food and offers culturally appropriate
nutritional education. Twenty-five (25) families in Even Start were targeted to participate
in high quality nutrition education and consume nutritious food during parenting
education 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 individuals
increase their access to ethnically and culturally appropriate food and information. The
agency also helped clients understand how this can be incorporated into a well-balanced
diet. SHI is also helping five area food pantries to increase their supplies of ethnic and
culturally 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 free
SERVE food package. The goal of the program is to increase awareness of good
nutritional practices and how those practices impact health issues. These workshops
were designed to address meal-planning ideas, given the fact that many low-income
families 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 with
an additional allocation from the CSBG discretionary funds or by taking a variety of
priority approaches for the state. For example, during fiscal year 2001, DHCD
encouraged CAAs to coordinate services with the Massachusetts Department of Public
Health 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, which
included identification of the CSBG National Goals and Outcome Measures as well as
measurable CFNP goals and outcomes. By utilizing this system, CAAs were able to track
and report on the number of individuals whose lives were benefited and improved
through the utilization of CFNP related services.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL GOALS AND OUTCOME MEASURES
20

In 1996, in response to the Government Performance and Reform Act, the Office
of Community Services (OCS), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recruited
representatives 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 MATF
developed six National Goals and Outcome Measures to measure outcomes of the CSBG
program at individual, community, and agency levels. Each National Goal has several
outcome measures from which state administering agencies and CAAs choose
appropriate outcomes to measure the impact of their CSBG program.

20
It 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

DHCD has adopted all six National Goals and Outcome Measures and has
mandated 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 Income
People Own a Stake in Their Community; and (3) Low Income People Especially
Vulnerable Populations Achieve Their Potential by Strengthening Family and Other
Supportive Systems. CAAs in Massachusetts were also mandated to adopt at least one
National Goal and Outcome Measure for each CAA workplan activity. In spite of the
comprehensive nature, these six National Goals and resulting outcome measures cannot
capture the essence of every single CSBG funded programs. Therefore, DHCD developed
some additional outcome measures for most common CAA programs in 1998 and revised
those 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 development
and whose families are strengthened through participation in Head Start.

FUEL ASSISTANCE

Number of low-income households who have increased their disposable
income 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 through
energy conservation measures.

FOOD AND NUTRITION PROGRAM

Number of households who have increased access to nutritious food
and/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 WIC
program.

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


31

INFORMATION REFERRAL

Number of requests for assistance that result in increased access to
resources.

HOUSING

Number of participating families moving from substandard housing into
stable standard housing, as compared with the total number of
participating families.

Number of participating families who are near homeless or at-risk of
homelessness who maintain their tenancy as a result of program
intervention.

Number of families placed in safe, permanent housing who maintain this
status for at least six (6) months.

Number of participants better able to negotiate a first time home
purchase through successful completion of a 1st time homebuyers
program.

VOLUNTEER PROGRAM

Number of individuals who actively participate in their community
through volunteer services.

The following section provides a snapshot of actual measured performance of
client, community, and agency outcomes as reported by CAAs during fiscal year 2001:

GOAL 1: LOW INCOME PEOPLE BECOME MORE SELF-SUFFICIENT

ACTUAL OUTCOMES (SELF SUFFICIENCY)

Four thousand seven hundred twenty-three (4,723) participants obtained
employment.

Thirteen hundred (1,300) participants maintained employment for a full
twelve months.

Adult members obtained and maintained employment for at least ninety
days in 83 households.

Seventeen (17) households experienced an increase in their annual
income as a result of earnings.


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 other
outcome 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 maintain
employment 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 activities
of 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
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; and
access to services made available by non-CAA providers for 1,813
individuals.

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 and
families reported positive outcomes specific to the work done by
individual agencies. This included:

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

Furthermore, 2,937 individuals mitigated their emergency situations due to
agency 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: LOW INCOMEPEOPLEOWNA STAKE INTHEIR COMMUNITY

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 streams
targeted 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 in
housing and 1,444 in linkages and coordination related programs.


34

RESULT FROM CLIENT SURVEYS

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

GOAL 4: PARTNERSHIPS AMONG SUPPORTERS AND PROVIDERS OF SERVICES
TO 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 and
leverage resources to provide services to low-income people. In addition
to this, CAAs invested 22 staff hours. A total of 500 community
residents helped achieve this outcome.

Five hundred ninety (590) partnerships were established and/or
maintained with other public and private entities to complete the
continuum 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 other
special needs considerations are appropriately included in the delivery
service 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

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 services
to 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; and
publishing four new newspaper articles.

GOAL 6: LOW INCOME PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY VULNERABLE POPULATIONS,
ACHIEVE THEIR POTENTIAL BY STRENGTHENING FAMILY AND OTHER
SUPPORTIVE 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 emergency
needs mainly through health and nutritional programs. Furthermore,
1,387 instances of Information and Referral needs of low income people
were met.

Seven hundred twenty nine (729) participating families moved from
homeless or transitional housing into stable standard housing - 7,500
families maintained subsidized housing.


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 consumption
households 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) children
22

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

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

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

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

Four thousand five hundred nineteen (4,519) households indicated
improved family functioning since participating in the services or
activities of the agency.

ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF CLIENTS ACHIEVING SELF-SUFFICIENCY AND ADDRESSING
CONDITIONS OF POVERTY

Poverty remains an obvious problem for many CAA clients. Poverty is an
umbrella term to capture abject conditions in which many people live. For example,
unemployment, homelessness, lack of proper health care and nutrition, unaffordable
child 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 and
other 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 CSBG
network in Massachusetts is not only addressing the day to day poverty related issues
but also is at the forefront of responding to the ever changing needs of clients including
customizing their service delivery strategies when needed making them one of the
most important service providers of their local communities. Therefore, CSBG must rely
not only on statistical analysis but also on every-day anecdotal evidence of the fact that
there are many low-income families who move out of poverty and become self-sufficient.

22
This 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
The following segment of this report summarizes the best practices as well as anecdotal
evidence 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 a
previous eviction for rent non-payment called Community Action Committee of Cape Cod
and Islands, Inc. (CACCCI) due to their eviction situation, with an understanding that the
agency would help the family. Their landlord refused to renew the lease and the family
requested services from the Housing Assistance Program, a homeless prevention
program funded by the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance.

The landlord who had been renting to the family had begun the process of a
court 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 had
no legal representation, and was unsure what should be done.

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

The family was able to gain legal representation and was protected from being
unfairly evicted. For several weeks, CACCCI provided ongoing housing search support by
providing rental listings, as well as guidance and tips on increasing the odds of finding
permanent housing.

Finally, the clients located a rental unit and the landlord was requesting first and
last months rent and a security deposit, totaling $2,550. CACCCI continued to work with
the family by providing additional financial resources to help with the up front cost. They
received assistance from various agency contributions, and were able to move into the
unit 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 asylum
from Cuba with hopes of seeking better opportunity in the United States. They were well
educated 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 barrier
and their inability to continue working in this new environment. Shortly after, they
received assistance from the International Rescue Committee in Boston. The agency
worked with the couple to find temporary housing, and build a foundation for their new
life 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 achieve
their goals of self-sufficiency. They both attended English-as-a-Second Language classes

38
for refugees in Chelsea. They felt this would benefit them when searching for stable
employment. The couple was committed to becoming self-sufficient and knew a stable
job was the key to their goal.

Luis eventually received a temporary job at Boston University. With this new
achievement the couple was ready to continue their search for a better living situation.
In February 1998, the International Rescue Committee referred the couple to the
Housing Assistance Program at Community Action Programs Inter-City, Inc. Soon after,
CAPICs housing advocate worked closely with the couple and placed them in permanent
housing. The couple moved into a comfortable apartment, and continued to receive
advocacy support from CAPIC. During the Housing Assistance Programs stabilization
period, the CAPIC staff guided them to attain permanent employment. Both Maria and
Luis found secure jobs and worked long hours to continue their dream for self-
sufficiency. In December of 2000, they were both recognized for their hard work and
received Employee of the Year awards from their employers.

Less than three years after moving to the United States, the couple became new
property owners in Chelsea. Throughout the years, CAPIC has maintained contact and
established a trusting relationship with the couple. They are both extremely grateful for
CAPICs on-going assistance. As a way to show their gratitude and to give back to the
organization that helped achieve their dreams, the couple currently rents three units in
their home to CAPIC families who seek permanent housing.

Luis and Maria are a great source of pride for CAPIC and its employees. The
couple agreed to share their story because they believed so strongly in the American
Dream and saw that this country truly did give them the opportunity, through hard work
and commitment, to fully realize their dreams. They came to the U.S. a little over four
years ago with nothing and are now proud property owners, giving back not only to their
community but also to the people who helped them along the way. They are not only
self-sufficient but are now a resource for CAPIC.

CSBG funds have been a necessary source of support for CAPICs housing
program, offering continued administrative support to the program allowing for
structured program operations that help many homeless and at-risk families.

COMMUNITY ACTION, INC. (HAVERHILL, MA)

Alicia is a divorced mother of two children, 8 and 11 years old. Alicia grew up in
subsidized housing in Somerville and moved to Haverhill after her marriage broke up.
Her child support payment has been limited due to her former husbands disability. Alicia
is employed, but recently her housing costs began to escalate beyond her limited
income. Rent prices that were barely affordable at $850 per month increased over a two-
year period to $1,250.

Last July, Alicia enrolled in the Community Action, Inc.s Coastal First-Time
Homebuyer Program funded by CSBG. Alicia attended all four classes, was a model
student and successfully completed the program. Alicia contacted a realtor who found a
three-bedroom condominium in Amesbury for her. Alicia and her children wanted to
purchase the condo with large bedrooms, new kitchen cabinets, central air conditioning

39
and a screened balcony but the problem was that Alicia only earned $24,000 a year. The
condo cost $115,000. Alicia had only $550 in the bank and her income did not satisfy
the strict debt-income ratios required by the typical mortgage lenders.

CAI staff first assisted Alicia with her application to the Coastal First Time Home
Buyer 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 to
qualify for the mortgage. Next Alicia secured a $10,000 second mortgage grant from the
Federal Home Loan Bank as a down payment and was finally able to buy the condo. Her
mortgage, taxes and condo fee payment is $950 per month, $300 less than her rent
payment. Her housing costs are now stable and she is building equity with every
payment. 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 from
Central 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 off
so she could get to the WIC clinic. When she left the WIC appointment, she took a note
with 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 FCAC
staff offered.

When she went into labor, Maria called FCACs WIC office because she had no
ride to the hospital. She was home alone with no money and had no insurance to pay
for an ambulance. The FCAC staff member left work to drive her to the hospital and
stayed with her during labor and delivery. Maria was bewildered and frightened in the
hospital where no one spoke her language and the child delivery customs were so
different from her native Central America.

After delivery, Maria felt even more comfortable with the FCAC staff and asked
for help with a variety of problems over the next several weeks. FCAC was called when
the heat went out in the apartment, when the family lost electricity, when Maria had
questions about breastfeeding, and when they needed warm clothes for the children.
Ultimately, Maria and her family were referred to a Spanish-speaking caseworker at First
Call for Help, who was able to provide additional services to the family. He discovered
that the family had no beds or blankets at their apartment and arranged for bunk beds
and blankets to be delivered. He helped with paperwork for MassHealth, birth
certificates, and school immunizations for the older children and even got them on a list
for housing.

This familys experience illustrates how sometimes the food and nutrition
information that WIC provides is only a small part of the benefits available from WIC.
The referrals provided to other services are often critical to the health and well being of
the entire family.

40

HAMPSHIRE COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION, INC. (NORTHAMPTON, MA)

Helen is a 38-year-old single mother of an eight year old child. She has an
Associate degree but does not work because of multiple disabilities. She is a low-income
person and has been living in subsidized housing at Meadow Brook since her child was
born. She is very concerned about losing her subsidized housing. She says, Living at
Meadow Brook means I can pay my rent, my bills and buy food to feed my family. If I
had to move, I couldnt meet all these obligations. Helen does not own a car and relies
on buses and taxis for transportation needs.

The lack of affordable housing in Northampton is a major issue for the low-
income population. Over the last few years, the amount of affordable housing stock has
declined.

When it became clear that Meadow Brook Apartments would be sold, with 252
units, 80% reserved for low and moderate income tenants, HCAC knew it had a role to
play in preserving the affordability of those units. In partnership with the City of
Northampton and others, HCAC worked at a variety of levels to see that the new owners
did not reduce the number of affordable units.

Using CSBG funds, HCACs Organizing Program helped the Meadow Brook
tenants create a tenants organization and learn the skills necessary to advocate for their
own needs. After working with the Mayor of Northampton and the tenants for several
months, HCAC organizers taught the tenants how to become proactive in addressing
their concerns with an incoming management company. Through staff support and
technical assistance, HCAC helped the tenants elect officers, take positions and conduct
community actions. As a result of these and other actions, including negotiations
between the new owners, HCAC expects that these units will become 100% affordable
for thirty years. The tenants have new skills and an organization to help them look out
for their own interests and HCAC is helping to eliminate a significant condition of poverty
in the area.

MONTACHUSETT OPPORTUNITY COUNCIL, INC. (FITCHBURG, MA)

Mrs. T is an elderly resident of Fitchburg, lives alone on a fixed income of
approximately 100% of the poverty level for a single-person household, and suffers from
Spinal Stenosis, an orthopedic condition, which affects her mobility. She owns a
mortgage-free home, but has not been able to maintain it properly for some time, largely
because her prescription drug costs have continually increased.

MOC's Elder Home Repair Program is funded with a $25,000 grant from Central
Massachusetts Agency on Aging. It provides essential repairs to improve the safety,
accessibility and energy efficiency of the homes of elders, making it easier and less
expensive for them to carry out daily activities. Such repairs include the installation of
hand rails and grab bars; screen, window or door repairs; hot water tank replacement
and roof repairs and have included projects which range from the inexpensive
replacement of a storm door to more expensive roof repairs required to prevent major

41
damage to the rest of the house. To date, 46 elderly people have participated in the
program.

Mrs. T's circumstances are typical of the clients MOC serves. She participates in
MOC's Division of Elder Services Home Delivered Meals Program. MOC staff helped her
apply for assistance and was made aware of the Division's Elder Home Repair Program.
She needed to replace decayed gutters and broken drain spouts, leaks from which had
damaged the house's foundation, caused minor flooding in the cellar and threatened the
operation of the furnace. In addition, several broken and malfunctioning windows were
replaced with energy efficient windows that are considerably easier to open, close, and
clean. The total cost of repairs was approximately $1,250, of which Mrs. T contributed
20%. As a result, she expects to be able to remain in her home rather than selling it and
should see a savings in her winter heating bill, which she can apply to her health care
costs.

The program helped to maintain the client's independence, eliminated a
significant threat to her self-sufficiency and stabilized a drain on her existing assets that
would have eventually resulted in her descent into increasing poverty.

WORCESTER COMMUNITY ACTION COUNCIL, INC. (WORCESTER, MA)

Lana is a twenty-five-year-old single mother who is in her second year of
Worcester Community Action Councils Americorps (CityWorks) program. Lana is a long
time resident of the Great Brook Valley public housing complex and has been on her own
since her mother died of AIDS when she was sixteen. She recently became the guardian
of her younger sister. While Lana attempted to go to college right after high school, she
did not have the parental support and finances necessary. Before entering Cityworks,
Lana had been on transitional assistance for several years. As a teachers aide in a local
public elementary school, she assists first year members who are placed at her school,
acts as their advocate, and helps Cityworks staff with the development of member
training programs. She has started night classes at the community college and it is
expected that she will finish her Associates Degree in Criminal Justice by the time she
leaves the CityWorks program. Lanas long-term goal is to become a correctional officer
and she has already passed the Civil Service examination. As a Cityworks member, by
working with children who come from high risk backgrounds, she is gaining a better
understanding of many family and social issues.

Another Worcester Community Action Council (WCAC) client, Alice, is a sixteen-
year old high school drop out low-income, single mother of African American descent.
About three years ago, Alice started school in WCACs United Way funded pre-GED and
GED program entitled, Project Excel. Her reading level was acceptable, but had difficultly
with writing and math skills. At first, her attendance was good and she made some
progress in the pre-GED program. Then her attendance started to deteriorate. Her
mother was having problems at home and Alice was expected to help her even at the
expense of her education. About four months after she started Project Excel, she had to
move to Florida with her family.

Alice returned to Massachusetts last year with her new baby and re-enrolled into
Project Excel. Although her writing skills improved, she still needed more remedial work

42
in Math and Social Studies. She was not satisfied with just going to school and taking
care of her baby. She joined WCACs Americorps National Service program Cityworks.
With a struggle, she was able to attend Project Excel, take care of her child, and be a
teachers aide in a local public school. Alice finally obtained her GED. Her Cityworks
educational award will give her financial assistance to continue her education at a local
community college.

DESCRIPTION OF INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS

Work Pathways Project - Action for Boston Community Development, Inc.
(Boston, MA)

ABCDs Work Pathways project provides services predominantly to women
between the ages 18-30, but the program is not exclusive to women. All program
participants are either custodial or non-custodial parents, who are receiving and/or have
children receiving TAFDC. Participants usually face barriers such as low self-esteem,
poor educational skills, alcohol/ substance abuse, and mental health issues.

The Work Pathways Project began in 1999 with a $2.8 million grant from the
U.S. Department of Labor to provide welfare recipients with comprehensive support that
enables them to find and keep jobs. This program provides valuable services to CSBG
funded program clients. The majority of the outreach and referrals come from the
Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA). Through case
management, there are cross referrals made to other programs within ABCD.

The program components consist of job readiness training, transportation, pre-
placement support and case management. Work Pathways collaborates and maintains
relationships with many prospective employers offering a variety of opportunities for their
constituents. The key to obtaining the goal of self-sufficiency is job retention. This
program provides participants with a 12-month post employment follow-up, which
facilitates positive maintenance rates. Case managers conduct job site visits and provide
ongoing support to their participants.

Eighty percent (80%) of the clients in fiscal year 2001 either had a high school
diploma or GED. However, not all with the aforementioned credentials were fully literate
or possessed the necessary skills needed to obtain jobs that would propel them out of
poverty. Therefore, one key benchmark for success in this program is obtaining a job.
During fiscal year 2001, 80 participants obtained employment. Four of the 80 clients not
only obtained employment, but also obtained their GED, housing, and were promoted to
higher positions at their workplace. The Work Pathways project stabilizes the family unit,
eliminates poverty, and produces self-sufficiency for Boston residents.

Compass Youth Program Action, Inc. (Gloucester, MA)

Jane dropped out in the middle of her senior year of high school. She had no
place to live and was staying in her grandparents basement or in her friends houses.
She spent two years surviving. Two years later she became pregnant and her whole
attitude changed. A friend referred her to the Compass Youth Program of Action, Inc.,
an education, training and employment program for at-risk youth.

43

It was a hard point in my personal life, she said. But then I thought about my
baby. I knew he was going to need me. I wanted to get my life going again. In the
spring of 2001, Jane turned to the Compass program. She had no hope or vision about
her future. Coming to Compass gave her a place to go and an advocate to help her get
what she needed. Before Compass, she had very little outside help and was trapped in
an unhealthy relationship.

Before the program, I had such a bad attitude, said Jane, who is now 20. But
through Compass, I learned to control that and to take everything in before I make a
decision. Through Compass, Jane completed a Life Skills/Job Readiness course and a
computer program, acquiring credits towards her high school diploma.

Being a single mother without a high school education created many problems
for Jane. When she first came to Compass, she did not know what to do next and for a
while she remained unemployed. Less than a year after she entered the Compass
program, Jane obtained a job as a teller at a local bank and is preparing to take the high
school equivalency exams to get her GED.

Soon after she got the job, she ran into the problem of not having daycare for
her son. She was at-risk of losing her job because of this. Childcare providers
repeatedly told her she was no longer eligible for childcare vouchers because she was
earning too much to qualify. She would come into Compass on her lunch break and
work with the staff to fight for a voucher and then to find a local agency that would
accept the vouchers for her sons care. Finally, this campaign was successful in obtaining
childcare and she was able to maintain her employment at the bank.

After getting her GED, Jane is planning to continue her education and study early
childhood education. I never thought that Id have this many hopes and goals, she
said. But I do, and I plan to meet them all. Coming to Compass gave Jane the
services and advocacy to live a decent life.

CSBG grant leveraged the funding for this program under the Workforce
Investment Act. CSBG funds also leverage private funds for this program to support
needy youth who are low-income, but over the federal poverty guidelines.

Advocacy Program Community Action Agency of Somerville, Inc. (Somerville,
MA)

Paul was a 46 year-old single man. He was disabled and renting a subsidized
apartment. His income from SSDI was between 76% and 100% of poverty.

During this program year, the CAAS Advocacy Program began the fifth year of its
innovative homeless prevention project called the Eviction Prevention Project. Through
an arrangement with the local district court, the Advocacy Program obtains names of
tenants who must appear in court for an eviction hearing and sends letter to each
tenant, in four languages, offering assistance. CAAS screen and refer clients to a legal
services organization, a private attorney, or are assisted by a CAAS advocate. Advocates

44
assist the tenant in filing the necessary paperwork with the court, negotiating with the
landlord and maneuvering through the court system. Many tenants come to settlements
with their landlords that allow them time to move or to make payment arrangements that
allow them to remain in their homes. In some cases, an advocate will assist the tenant
in raising money for rent arrearages through local charities or other programs. Many
tenants at imminent risk of eviction are provided services at the last moment through
this project.

In the case of Paul, he contacted the Advocacy Program after receiving an
outreach letter. Paul, who is blind, relies on SSDI as his sole source of income. He fell
behind in his rent after his live-in companion, with whom he shared the rent and utility
bills, died. Paul, who had been a tenant in the subsidized buildi ng for 14 years and had
never been late with the rent, was quickly moved by the management company to a
smaller unit. In order to pay the unexpected moving expenses, Paul used his rent
money. He was served with an eviction notice and then a summons to appear in court.
After responding to the outreach letter from CAAS, an advocate met with him
immediately to ensure that all the required court paperwork was completed. Paul was
assisted in applying for a loan from the citys Renter Revolving Loan Program to pay for
the rental arrearage. The advocate also referred Paul to grief counseling services, food
pantries, and local social groups. On the trial date, the advocate was able to negotiate
an agreement with the management company that Paul could remain housed, pending
approval of the loan. The loan was approved and Paul was able to stay in his apartment
and pay $10.00 toward the loan.

Without the services of the Eviction Prevention Project, Paul would likely have
become homeless and at risk due to the lack of appropriate shelters available to him.
Many of the unfortunate results of homelessness were avoided and Paul has become a
part of the community by visiting a drop-in center for physically challenged adults. He
has not needed additional services from CAAS and considers himself stable.

45

The New Entry Farmers Project Community Teamwork, Inc. (Lowell, MA)

The New Entry Farmers Project is a partnership between Community Teamwork,
Inc. (CTI), Tufts University, and several other organizations to provide Southeast Asians
with agricultural backgrounds or interest to grow fruits and vegetables that appeal to
Cambodians and other Asians, but are not generally available. The farmers are given
access to land in the suburbs and provided with the tools, equipment, training and
technical assistance they need to successfully grow food. The food is then made
available to the Asian residents of Lowell through CTIs own Farmers Market on Fridays
and at a new market established at the Cambodian American League of Lowell, Inc., a
local Community Development Corporation, and other means. John Ogonowski of Dracut
was one of the suburban landowners who made land available to these new farmers, but
he went much further. He ploughed the land, set up an irrigation system and built a
greenhouse.

Mr. Ogonowski was better known to the world as the pilot of the first plane that
was hijacked from Boston Logan Airport and crashed into the first tower one of the World
Trade Center on September 11, 2001. He became involved with the New Entry
Sustainable Farming project at its very inception over three years ago when the local
Farm Service Agency in Westford contacted him looking for land to make available for
Southeast Asian families living in nearby Lowell. Mr. Ogonowski immediately recognized
this as an opportunity to help a worthy group of beginning growers to practice another
kind of agriculture. He not only made farmland behind his home available to them, but
his White Gate Farm became the first all-commercial "mentor farm" - a training site for
these beginning growers. In practice, Mr. Ogonowski was involved in every activity on
the project involving his farm. He ordered and set up a greenhouse so the growers could
raise seedlings and do extended season production. He provided advice to them on
managing production, pest control, harvesting, and other production practices and
participated in project steering committee meetings.

Mr. Ogonowski did all this while he was a full time pilot for American Airlines. He
raised his own crops on an additional 200 acres spread throughout Dracut. He was
active in other farming committees and was a founder and active member of the Dracut
Land Trust that has helped to save a substantial amount of local farmland in the town
from development. This year, the trust negotiated the purchase of about 50 acres of
land about a mile from his house. With much of Mr. Ogonowski's own land out of
commission due to a major gas pipeline installation, he made this land available to the
project; as a result a dozen Cambodian households got a new start farming this year.

CTI dedicated its Local Heroes Award ceremony to Mr. Orgonowski. Mrs.
Ogonowski, family members, and several New Entry Farmers attended the Local Heroes
dinner. The New Entry Farmers Project was funded by a number of sources. The
largest was $270,000 from the U.S. Department of Agricultures Community Food Project.


46
Access to Technology Greater Lawrence Community Action Council, Inc.
(Lawrence, MA)

The Greater Lawrence Community Action Council, Inc., through funding from the
Community Service Block Grant (CSBG), has established a technology center in
Lawrence, Massachusetts to address the needs of low-income residents many of whom
(almost 70%) are Latinos. The center is equipped with 14 computer stations that are
being used for computer training and Internet access for GLCAC employees, clients, and
the general public. The following description highlights two GLCAC program that use the
Technology Center:

GLCAC recently conducted a survey of Head Start parents that indicated many
parents have an interest in taking computer classes. The results also indicated that only
10% of the Head Start households had computers at home and very few had Internet
access. This confirmed GLCACs assertion that low-income households are feeling the
affects of Digital Divide and the widening gap of access to computers and the Internet
between low- and high-income households. In response to this survey, GLCAC
developed a pilot project with 20 Head Start parents with introduction to computer
classes. Parents received 14 hours of computer training in Microsoft Windows 98, Word
97 and Internet Explorer. The opportunity to take computer classes was met with great
interest and enthusiasm by most Head Start parents. A waiting list had to be developed
due to the high demand. Most of the parents who signed up for the classes were
beginner computer users with little or no experience in information technology.

Students who successfully completed the 14-hour workshop series were eligible
to continue on to a 4-week session of higher-level computer training offered during the
summer. Six months after this pilot project, early feedback from a follow-up survey of
participants indicated many positive outcomes. Two parents reported that they have
been able to use their newly acquired computer skills in the workplace. One parent
commented that participation in the course gave her the incentive to acquire a home
computer in order to continue and improve her computer skills. Another parent proudly
reported that she has been able to assume responsibility for the Newsletter at her church
as a result of her new computer skills. Outreach continues to the other participants to
obtain additional feedback on the outcomes of this project. Plans are underway to
expand training opportunities to other GLCAC, program clients such as WIC, Child Care,
Family Support, Spanish Program and Community Partnership for Children.

GLCAC has also established a Teen Tech Center to provide teens between the
ages of 12 and 18 with access to 14 Internet-ready computers, computer literacy classes,
assistance with homework, and exploration of computer related professions. This
innovative new computer lab is also located in Lawrence. The Teen Tech Center is
centrally located and within walking distance from several area schools including the High
School. The Tech center currently offers three training modules:

Teen Coalition/Peer Leaders Web Site Development: the goal of the Teen
Coalition is to develop computer skills needed for developing and maintaining
a program web site for the Coalition.


47
Classroom Training: this component will teach and train students in Microsoft
Office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint).

Open Access: this third and final component will allow students to access the
Tech Center between the hours of 3:00 p.m to 6:00 p.m Monday through
Thursday. The Center will be staffed and offer technical assistance to teens
with either no access to computers or act as an extension to their current
programming.

The Teen Tech Center has become a community-wide resource. Through this
effort, collaborations with several area youth groups have been created. These groups
utilize the center as an extension of their current programming to develop special
projects which otherwise would not be possible without the center.

Better Access to Organizations Network Hampshire Community Action
Commission, Inc. (Northampton, MA)

Kathy is a low income, single parent with three children. While she was applying
to the Department of Transitional Assistance (DTA) for benefits and food stamps, she
was also trying to find $200 to move her belongings out of a storage facility so that she
could settle in a newly found apartment. She contacted the local United Way office,
HCACs First Call For Help and DTA to secure these funds. Unknown to each other, each
of these organizations dedicated staff time in finding the necessary resources to assist
Kathy and her family. With a single point of entry for referrals, Kathy would have
received these funds more rapidly and without the duplication of effort. Better Access to
Organizations Network (BATON) addresses the need for a one stop shopping for clients
like Kathy.

BATON is a three-year pilot project designed to increase access to health and
human services for people with multiple needs. The project is intended to serve those
who often fall through the cracks and get lost in the system. Finding help can
become impossible when illness, trauma and poverty control ones life. Through this
innovative project, BATON hopes to develop a model that can be replicated for improving
access to needed services, thereby reducing a condition of poverty.

The BATON project is part of the states e-government initiative funded by the
Mass Cares office of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services through a grant
from the U.S. Commerce Departments Technology Opportunities Program. BATON
operates through HCACs First Call For Help program. First Call also operates with CSBG
support.

Using Internet technology, newly developed software to identify resources and
check for eligibility, inter-agency collaboration and case coordination, BATON staff is
prototyping new service delivery systems. In a prototype conducted with the
Department of Transitional Assistance, HCAC BATON case coordinator has been able to
provide customers with a safe gateway to DTA services, improve eligibility screening,
streamline the appointment scheduling process and overcome barriers to services. The
case coordination prototype was determined to be a success by outside evaluators from

48
the Donahue Institute of the University of Massachusetts and the model is being
replicated with other providers.

If the three-year BATON project continues to be successful, it will be replicated
in other western Massachusetts counties and eventually in the entire state. There will be
streamlined access to state and other services for some of the most needy families, those
with a need to use the services of a variety of agencies.

Food and Nutritional Programs South Shore Community Action Council, Inc.
(Plymouth, MA)

During 2001, SSCACs Board of Directors initiated an Ad Hoc Board Committee to
coordinate the efforts of a consultant hired to work on the issue of hunger and local food
resources for low-income clients. This was prompted by client responses to SSCACs
1999 Needs Assessment in which two-thirds of client respondents reported having
trouble affording food for their families, as well as from anecdotal accounts about a lack
of awareness of existing local food resources. The Consultant began by investigating
existing food resources in the towns of Plymouth and Carver. SSCACs Ad Hoc Board
Committee on Hunger, in conjunction with the consultant, determined that there was a
need to develop and produce Food Resource Information and Referral cards for the
Towns of Plymouth, Carver, and Plympton. These separate, town-specific cards list
telephone numbers for food pantries, meals, vouchers and other food programs. The
backs of the cards list Emergency 800 numbers, as well as other low-income resource
telephone numbers. Plymouth South High School volunteered to print 7,000 cards for the
Committee for reimbursement of expenses only. Another component of the program was
to determine the appropriate method of distribution of the cards for maximum outreach.
Two thousand Plymouth Food Resources cards were initially distributed to members of
the Greater Plymouth Council of Human Service Providers, SSCACS Fuel Assistance
Program, Head Start and Day Care Programs, and an additional 1,500 cards were
distributed to Plymouth town departments and school nurses. One thousand Carver
cards were also printed and distributed. Feedback from local legislators and town
officials has been very positive. The goal for 2002 is to develop, produce, disseminate
and track these Information and Referral cards for the Towns of Kingston, Duxbury,
Halifax, Pembroke, and Marshfield. This initiative was funded by CSBG.

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

The Tri-City Work Force Development Task Force had as its precursor the Tri-
City Skills Assessment Task Force, a community and public agency partnership that
assessed the existing low-income work force preparedness to assume jobs in a planned
Telecommunications Park development. The Tri-City Skills Assessment Task Force,
utilizing some CSBG Special Projects funding and $40,000 of private foundation and
industry funding, issued a report in September 1999 entitled Bridging the Gap: Industry
Needs and Employment Opportunities for Tri-City Residents in TeleCom City. The Mystic
Valley Development Commission (MVDC), the public entity charged with the development
of TeleCom City, unenthusiastically received the report. Some Task Force members
engaged in an eight-month planning process to develop a plan to implement some of the
recommendations issued by the Report. This group is now known as the Tri-City Work
Force Development Task Force.

49

To date, the Work Force Development Task Force has two principal
accomplishments the development and promulgation of a set of principles to expand
adult education and training programs in the tri-city area, and secondly, the initiation of
training and educational opportunities for local low-income residents. CSBG funds have
allowed Tri-CAP to continue its coordination and leadership role for the Task Force. A
$20,000 private foundation grant allowed for a lengthy and exhaustive planning process
for community residents, labor representatives and local non-profits. A $10,000 grant
from the City of Medford provided local training opportunities for 20 Medford residents in
English as a Second Language and an introduction to electronics. The courses were held
at the local high school. Instructors were hired through a contract with the local
community college. Later, CSBG Special Projects funds were utilized to send 30 residents
from the tri-city area to the local community college with course scholarships. The
funded courses focused on increasing the English-communication skills of many who face
a significant language barrier in the labor market. The barrier affects both employability
and advancement opportunities. Several course scholarships advanced individuals
knowledge of computers and/or electronics. CSBG special projects funds will continue
sustain this effort in fiscal year 2003.

With a $10,000 CSBG Special Projects grant, $10,000 of agency CSBG funds, and
$20,000 of private funds, a coalition composed of the local access cable TV program
(MATV); a technology program of high school students (Youth Tech Entrepreneurs); the
areas volunteer group for senior citizens (AARP); a one-stop career center (Career
Place); a state representative; a private individual and the local community action agency
(Tri-City Community Action Program, Inc., (Tri-CAP) the coalition launched the
communities first free cyber caf. The Coalition pledged resources to pay for rent and
utilities for three years. The community action agency oversaw and paid for the
necessary improvements to the rented space. The one stop career center donated
computers for the stations and the server. The local access TV station provided the
painting and a new computer. The high school youth refurbished the computers, pulled
cables to network the computers and developed necessary software for the Caf. The
private businessperson designed a web site and secured the domain name. The State
Representative assisted with funding. The senior volunteers provide morning coverage
and assistance.

There is something different about this caf. It is the work of a coalition whose
only interest is to make sure that low-income residents affected by the digital-divide
are afforded access to the information highway via the Internet and e-mail. Located
between a McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts, it is truly a downtown operation. Users are
allowed to establish e-mail accounts and to store information on diskettes. There are
links established to the job bank of Career Place. A small conference room allows for e-
mail training, resume writing, and interview preparation. Uses have included
prescription drug ordering by members of Massachusetts Senior Action Council; e-mail to
family members living abroad for the areas increasingly immigrant community members;
finding the best fishing hole for a retired person, and a place to reduce isolation for many
of the areas homeless clients. All of the personnel support, to date, has been provided
by volunteers! The caf features only twelve computer stations. Yet, more than 1,000
unduplicated community residents have availed themselves of this community service
since May 16, 2001!

50

The Cyber Caf has helped reduce isolation among the homeless, immigrants
and the elderly. It has been of assistance to many in their job search. The low tech
atmosphere has created an environment where the elderly and those intimidated by
technology have come to explore the Internet and learn skills preparing them for life in
the 21
st
century.

FUTURE DIRECTION

During fiscal year 2001, DHCD worked closely with CAAs and the state trade
association; MASSCAP on a number of initiatives such as ROMA training, workforce
investment, CAA scholarships programs, and the Information Technology Access Centers.
DHCD also invested a significant amount of CSBG discretionary funds in Information
Technology capacity building, Scales and Ladders, and ROMA training and technical
assistance projects. Several of these projects will continue throughout fiscal year 2002.

DHCD will continue to improve the quality of data presented in its Performance
Measure Report and the CSBG Information System Survey by working toward the goal of
full automation of the CSBG data collection and reporting process. By December 2002,
all 25 CAAs will be able to access a web-based secure application, that is currently being
developed, to send CSBG data electronically to DHCD. This secure network will give
DHCD access to a statewide CSBG demographic, fiscal and outcome database without
breaching the confidentiality of an individual CAA client. The database will be maintained
by a DHCD vendor who will also create the ability for DHCD to review electronic data
from individual CAAs and develop statewide trends and snapshot reports.

The data analysis methodology of comparing data from the CSBG Information
System Survey and the Census 2000 shows prospect. As more and more data becomes
available from the U.S. Census Bureau, DHCD will continue this approach of analyzing
Census data in combination with data made available by CAAs thought the Community
Action Planning and the CSBG Information System Survey process.

The ROMA training will continue as well during fiscal year 2002. DHCD is
currently negotiating with the Rensselaerville Institute to train CAA board members on
their Roles and Responsibilities, using a ROMA framework. On-site training will be
offered at a number of pre-selected CAA locations. The remaining CAAs will be offered a
train the trainer training opportunities. As a part of the recently concluded ROMA staff
training, board members from three CAAs have already been trained. In order to
further integrate ROMA in CSBG grant application and reporting process, DHCD is
currently reviewing the outcomes of the recently concluded ROMA staff training process.
Changes will be made to the CSBG grant application and reporting process to reflect the
lesson learned from the ROMA staff training process.

As noted elsewhere in the report, Community Action Agencies in Massachusetts
are completing their 2003-2005 Community Action Plans. DHCD has begun
implementing a new process of linking and fully integrating the planning process with the
overall CSBG grant management activities including the federally mandated monitoring of
Community Action Agencies. The Community Action Plan will be the basis for CSBG
Annual Application development, outcome reporting, and performance review and

51
monitoring process. DHCD will integrate priorities and intervention strategies identified
during the community action planning process with workplan activities, semi-annual and
annual program progress reports, and with the monitoring of community action agencies.

The CSBG program in Massachusetts shows many strengths, as evidenced by a
strong resource development and service delivery CAA network, a sound partnership
between the state and the CAA network, consistent needs assessment and planning at
the local levels and the states ability to steer changes in a positive direction during this
fiscally difficult time. The CSBG program needs to be closely reviewed, given the current
environment of state and federal budget cuts. DHCD is committed to continue its efforts
in administering an effective CSBG program in Massachusetts. DHCD views its existing
partnership with and continued support from the Massachusetts CAAs, MASSCAP, the
National Association for State Community Services Program, and U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services as the critical success factors in administering yet another
year of successful CSBG program in Massachusetts. DHCD welcomes comments and
suggestions regarding the implementation of its mission of strengthening cities, towns,
and neighborhoods and enhancing the quality of life of Massachusetts residents.

52

Appendices

Table 1: Total Federal Resources Leveraged and Administered

Table 2: Total State Resources Leveraged and Administered

Table 3: Total Local Public and Private Resources Leveraged and Administered

Table 4: Fiscal Year 2001 CAA Characteristics

Table 5: Distribution of CSBG Administrative Funds (eligible entities)

53
Table 1: Total Federal Resources Leveraged and Administered

Programs/Sources Amount Received

Community Services Block Grants (CSBG) $ 13,379,300.00
Weatherization $ 5,406,567.00
LIHEAP - Fuel Assistance $ 91,161,571.00
LIHEAP - Weatherization $ 3,823,546.00
Head Start and Early Head Start $ 62,376,431.00
Older American Act $ 544,110.00
Social Services Block Grant $ 283,691.00
Medicare/Medicaid $ 844,095.00
Community Food and Nutrition Program $ 54,133.00
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families $ 870,270.00
Child Care Development Block Grant $ 34,352,197.00
Other Resources from U.S. HHS $ 11,337,606.00
Women Infant and Children (WIC) $ 7,065,506.00
Non-Food Programs - USDA $ 1,779,009.00
Food Programs - USDA $ 2,712,661.00
Community Development Block Grant $ 459,679.00
Section - 8 Housi ng Program $ 17,978,580.00
All Other Housing and Homelessness Prevention Programs $ 2,858,113.00
Employment and Training Programs $ 2,374,376.00
Other U.S. Dept. of Labor Programs $ 536,357.00
Corporation for National Services Programs $ 1,892,176.00
Federal Emergency and Management Agency Programs $ 445,292.00
Transportation Programs $ 14,271.00
All Other Federal Programs $ 1,300,924.00

TOTAL FEDERAL RESOURCES $263,850,461.00

54
Table 2: Total State Resources Leveraged and Administered


Housing and Homeless Prevention Programs $ 13,898,499.00
Nutrition Programs $ 2,207,318.00
Day Care and Early Childhood Education Programs $ 99,258,624.00
Energy Programs $ 596,076.00
Health Programs $ 9,782,337.00
Youth Development Programs $ 2,694,519.00
Employment and Training Programs $ 2,137,253.00
Head Start Program $ 7,337,221.00
Programs for Senior Citizens $ 2,089,465.00
Transportation Programs $ -
Education Programs $ 1,590,179.00
Community and Economic Development Programs $ 20,000.00
Other State Resources $ 3,919,572.00

SUBTOTAL $145,531,063.00

Table 3: Total Local Public and Private Resources Leveraged and Administered


Unrestricted Funds From Local Government $ 1,608,870.00
Value of Contract Services $ 10,298,924.00
Value of In-Kind Goods/Services Received $ 1,274,634.00

SUBTOTAL - LOCAL PUBLIC SECTOR $ 13,182,428.00

Foundations, Corporations, United Ways & Other Non-
Profits $ 16,837,998.00
Other Donated Funds $ 1,369,705.00
Value of Other Donated Items, e.g., food, clothing,
furniture $ 1,572,921.00
Value of In-Kind Resources Received from Businesses $ 2,361,692.00
Fees Paid By Clients for Services $ 9,392,810.00
Payments By Private Entities $ 8,757,165.00
SUBTOTAL - PRIVATE SECTOR $ 40,292,291.00

55
Table 4: CAA Characteristics
CAA Location
Client Served
23

Fiscal Year 2001
CSBG Budget
Non-CSBG
Budget
24

TOTAL BUDGET
Action for Boston Community Development, Inc. BOSTON 74,097 $ 5,184,479 $ 103,057,603 $ 108,242,082
Action, Inc. GLOUCESTER 5,253 $ 248,855 $ 11,871,000 $ 12,119,855
Berkshire Community Action Council, Inc. PITTSFIELD 6,002 $ 341,172 $ 5,599,590 $ 5,940,762
Community Action Agency of Somerville, Inc. SOMERVILLE 957 $ 318,427 $ 2,787,770 $ 3,106,197
Community Action Committee of Cape Cod & Islands, Inc. HYANNIS 2,059 $ 310,400 $ 6,697,704 $ 7,008,104
Community Action, Inc. HAVERHILL 9,029 $ 258,220 $ 8,434,074 $ 8,692,294
Community Action Programs, Inter-City, Inc. CHELSEA 4,982 $ 272,938 $ 7,499,845 $ 7,772,783
Cambridge Economic Opportunity Council, Inc. CAMBRIDGE 18,637 $ 378,634 $ 1,888,566 $ 2,267,200
Citizens for Citizens, Inc. FALL RIVER 28,151 $ 474,965 $ 20,477,682 $ 20,952,647
Community Teamwork, Inc. LOWELL 19,134 $ 446,869 $ 38,943,798 $ 39,390,667
Franklin Community Action Corporation GREENFIELD 12,668 $ 246,179 $ 11,578,474 $ 11,824,653
Greater Lawrence Community Action Council, Inc. LAWRENCE 16,930 $ 301,034 $ 21,026,245 $ 21,327,279
Hampshire Community Action Commission NORTHAMPTON 2,486 $ 310,400 $ 9,470,775 $ 9,781,175
Lynn Economic Opportunity, Inc. LYNN 10,332 $ 388,000 $ 7,261,467 $ 7,649,467
Montachusett Opportunity Council, Inc. FITCHBURG 25,773 $ 343,848 $ 14,377,453 $ 14,721,301
North Shore Community Action Council, Inc. PEABODY 9,538 $ 295,683 $ 4,247,670 $ 4,543,353
People Acting in Community Endeavors, Inc. NEW BEDFORD 23,701 $ 420,110 $ 39,540,610 $ 39,960,720
Quincy Community Action Programs, Inc. QUINCY 9,700 $ 246,179 $ 20,141,406 $ 20,387,585
Self-Help, Inc. AVON 10,881 $ 400,041 $ 21,263,922 $ 21,663,963
South Middlesex Opportunity Council, Inc. FRAMINGHAM 25,400 $ 271,600 $ 43,280,002 $ 43,551,602
Springfield Partners for Community Action, Inc. SPRINGFIELD 1,105 $ 454,896 $ 1,687,571 $ 2,142,467
South Shore Community Action Council, Inc. PLYMOUTH 20,298 $ 246,179 $ 11,581,245 $ 11,827,424
Tri-City Community Action Program, Inc. MALDEN 9,989 $ 362,579 $ 6,371,962 $ 6,734,541
Valley Opportunity Council, Inc. HOLYOKE 11,919 $ 305,048 $ 16,227,684 $ 16,532,732
Worcester Community Action Council, Inc. WORCESTER 23,204 $ 552,565 $ 13,169,902 $ 13,722,467
TOTAL 382,225 $ 13,379,300 $ 448,484,020 $ 461,863,320

23
Unduplicated number of individual clients reported in fiscal year 2001 CSBG IS Survey.
24
Source: As reported by CAAs in their fiscal year 2001 CSBG IS Survey.

56
Table 5: Distribution of CSBG Administrative Funds (Eligible Entities)

CAA
Program
Budget
%
OF TOTAL

Administrative
Budget
% OF
TOTAL
FY'01
CSBG
Expenditure
Action for Boston Community Development, Inc. $4,811,873 92.81% $372,606 7.19% $5,184,479
Action, Inc. $101,240 40.68% $147,615 59.32% $248,855
Berkshire Community Action Council, Inc. $273,923 80.29% $67,249 19.71% $341,172
Community Action Agency of Somerville, Inc. $226,746 71.21% $91,681 28.79% $318,427

Community Action Committee of Cape Cod & Islands,
Inc. $129,681 41.78% $180,719 58.22% $310,400
Community Action, Inc. $258,220 100.00% $0 0.00% $258,220
Community Action Programs, Inter-City, Inc. $272,938 100.00% $0 0.00% $272,938
Cambridge Economic Opportunity Council, Inc. $198,375 52.39% $180,259 47.61% $378,634
Citizens for Citizens, Inc. $289,711 61.00% $185,254 39.00% $474,965
Community Teamwork, Inc. $446,869 100.00% $0 0.00% $446,869
Franklin Community Action Corporation $168,308 68.37% $77,871 31.63% $246,179
Greater Lawrence Community Action Council, Inc. $244,991 81.38% $56,043 18.62% $301,034
Hampshire Community Action Commission $158,010 50.91% $152,390 49.09% $310,400
Lynn Economic Opportunity, Inc. $165,489 42.65% $222,511 57.35% $388,000
Montachusett Opportunity Council, Inc. $343,848 100.00% $0 0.00% $343,848
North Shore Community Action Council, Inc. $183,357 62.01% $112,326 37.99% $295,683
People Acting in Community Endeavors, Inc. $389,021 92.60% $31,089 7.40% $420,110
Quincy Community Action Programs, Inc. $0 0.00% $246,179 100.00% $246,179
Springfield Partners for Community Action, Inc. $105,482 23.19% $349,414 76.81% $454,896
Selp-Help, Inc. $400,041 100.00% $0 0.00% $400,041
South Middlesex Opportunity Council, Inc. $110,780 40.79% $160,820 59.21% $271,600
South Shore Community Action Council, Inc. $0 0.00% $246,179 100.00% $246,179
Tri-City Community Action Program, Inc. $258,707 71.35% $103,872 28.65% $362,579
Valley Opportunity Council, Inc. $219,942 72.10% $85,106 27.90% $305,048
Worcester Community Action Council, Inc. $122,284 22.13% $430,281 77.87% $552,565
TOTAL $9,879,836 73.84% $3,499,464 26.16% $13,379,300

57

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Jane Swift, Governor

Department of Housing and Community Development

Jane Wallis Gumble, Director

Fred Habib Phillip Hailer Sarah Young
Deputy Director Chief of Staff Deputy Director for Policy Development

Division of Neighborhood Services

Sandra L. Hawes
Acting Associate Director, Division of Neighborhood Services
&
Director, Bureau of Neighborhoods

Debra L. Michaud, Administrative Assistant

Bureau of Neighborhoods

Akm M. Rahman
Information and Contracts Coordinator

Juanita Zerda
Field Monitoring Coordinator

Program Representatives

Phillip DeMartino; Carlos Luna; Judith McConnell; and Emily McLaughlin

One Congress Street, 10
th
Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
(617) 727-7004
(617) 727-4259 (fax)

http://www.mass.gov/dhcd
A copy of this report is available on-line
Fiscal Year 2000 Massachusetts CSBG Performance Measures Report

Department of Housing and Community Development
Division of Neighborhood Services, Bureau of Neighborhoods

58

CSBG Performance Measure Report - 2001 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CSBG Performance Measure Report - 2001 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contents

From the Desk of Jane Wallis Gumble 1

You might also like