Detailed Information on the
Assets for Independence Assessment

Supporting efforts to reauthorize the program with legislative proposals for program improvement.

Developing grantee-supported performance outcome measures with targets and performance indicators that will be useful for improving efficiencies or cost effectiveness.

Identifying cost-neutral ways, through legislation, regulation and administrative action, to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the program.

Developing grantee-supported performance outcome measures with targets and performance indicators that will be useful for improving efficiencies or cost effectiveness. Milestone: Provide orientation to all grantees and finalize the indicators.

Identifying cost-neutral ways, through legislation, regulation and administrative action, to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the program. Milestone: Develop New On-Line Program Management Tool for Grantees (AFI2) - Third phase developed and shared with grantee advisory group.

Measure: Increase in the annual amount of AFI IDA savings (earned income only) participants use for the three asset purchase goals.

Explanation:

Measure: Increase in the number of participants who withdraw funds for the three asset purchase goals.

Explanation:

Measure: Maintain the ratio of total earned income saved in IDAs per grant dollar spent on programmatic and administrative activities at the end of year one of the five- year AFI project.

Explanation:

Measure: Maintain the amount of total earned income saved in IDAs per grant dollar spent on programmatic and administrative activities at the end of the five-year AFI project.

Explanation:

Measure: Degree to which participants improve their economic situation, measured by income, net worth and/or asset retention at two and five years after asset purchase. Data collection for initial cohort to begin in FY 2009, at which time targets will be established.

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program's purpose is clear: to determine the extent to which the federal asset based policy influences participant's overall well-being, particularly their economic status; the extent to which the policy promotes savings; and the extent to which the policy stabilizes participant families. The AFI Program is supporting more than 250 projects across the country that are demonstrating the federal asset-based policy of encouraging low-income families to save earnings in Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) in order to acquire any of three specific tangible assets. The program is also supporting a national impact evaluation to determine whether the policy helps families become economically self-sufficient.

Evidence: Assets for Independence Act, Title IV, Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act of 1998, Public Law 105-285, 42 U.S.C. 604

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: Asset poverty is a prevalent problem in the U.S., with detrimental effects on low- and moderate income families across the country. A 2000 assessment found that one-quarter to nearly one-half of all U.S. households or individuals were asset poor, meaning they had insufficient net worth to subsist for three months at the poverty level. Using that definition, research showed the asset poverty rate in the U.S. (25.5%) was two times the income poverty rate (12.7%). Other research shows that minority populations are heavily affected with asset poverty: a 2002 study found that more than 60 percent of African American households and 54 percent of Hispanic households had zero or negative net financial assets compared with only one-third of all households. Research shows that asset-ownership is positively associated with household stability; is positively associated with educational attainment; decreases the likelihood of intergenerational poverty transmission; and provides financial and psychological benefits that income, by itself, cannot provide.

Evidence: Boshara, Ray (2001) Building Assets, A Report on the Asset Development and IDA Field, Washington, D.C.: Corporation for Enterprise Development. Haverman and Wolf (2000) Who are the Asset Poor: Levels, Trends and Composition, 1983- 1998, Paper presented at the Inclusion in Asset Building: Research and Policy Symposium, Center for Social Development, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. Sherraden, Michael, (1991) Assets and the Poor: A New American Welfare Policy, Armouk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: This is the only large-scale demonstration and evaluation of the federal asset-based policy for reducing poverty by enabling at-risk families to acquire economic assets. The HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement currently administers a similar program, and there are several asset building and IDA projects supported by State government agencies and private sector organizations. The AFI Program is distinguishable from each of these because of its size and design. The AFI Program is the single largest source of support for IDA programs in the nation, and it is the only program with a significant evaluation component at its core. A significant portion of all State and private sector IDA programs are also receiving funding through the AFI Program.

Evidence: AFI Impact / Process Evaluation Design (for information about the evaluation component of the AFI program).Schreiner, Mark; Clancy, Margaret; Sherraden, Michael. (2002) Final Report: Savings Performance in the American Dream Demonstration, The Center for Social Development, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. Center for Social Development webpage gwbweb.wustl.edu/csd/statepolicy/StateIDAtable.pdf; HHS TANF Expenditures Report (2002) www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/tanf_2002.htmlIDA Network webpageidanetwork.cfed.org/2003idasurvey/CFEDIDADirectoryMailer.pdfOffice of Refugee Resettlement IDA Program webpage www2.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/programs/individual.htmGeneral Explanations of the Administration's Fiscal Year 2005 Revenue Proposals, Department of the Treasury, February 2004 -- (see page 18)www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/bluebk04.pdf

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The legislation provides a clear framework and reasonable guidelines concerning project design and the overall evaluation. We are aware of no empirical or science-based evidence that another approach or administrative structure is more effective or efficient for enabling very low-income people to acquire assets as a means for becoming economically self-sufficient for the long-term.

Evidence: Assets for Independence Act, Title IV, Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act of 1998, Public Law 105-285, 42 U.S.C. 604 Corporation for Enterprise Development, Survey Summary: Reauthorization of Assets for Independence Act, March 2003. http://idanetwork.cfed.org/index.php?section=initiative&page=afisurvey.php

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: The program design is effectively targeted on two levels: First, it is designed to produce knowledge about the effects of the federal asset-based policy on low-income families and communities. Second, the program is designed to provide benefits for very low-income families. The program targets families who are either eligible for assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program or whose gross annual household income is less than twice the Federal poverty amount. Recent data indicate that the program is reaching the intended beneficiaries, as more than 30% of participants are living below poverty when they enroll, approximately 40% report household incomes of between 100% and 150% of poverty, and about 30% report incomes of between 150% and 200% of poverty. The program does not support activities that would be supported by other funders. The authorizing law requires AFI Program grantees to deposit at least 85% of the combined amount of federal grant funds and required non-federal cost share funds into participants' Individual Development Accounts. Up to 2% of the federal and non-federal funds must be available to support data collection and other activities related to the national program evaluation. Only 13% of each grantee's federal and non-federal funds is available for managing and administering a demonstration project.

Evidence: Assets for Independence Act, Title IV, Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act of 1998, Public Law 105-285, 42 U.S.C. 604 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Interim Report to Congress: Assets for Independence Demonstration Program: Status at the Conclusion of the Third and Fourth Years (Pre-Clearance report for OMB.)

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The AFI Program is developing a revised long-term outcome measure that fully reflects the program purposes. Section 1 measures the degree to which the program participants improve their economic situation. AFI plans to use annual reported household income as an indicator of participants' social and economic well-being. AFI proposes to use the 200% of federal poverty benchmark because it is an eligibility criteria for participating in an AFI program. All participants who enter the program have annual incomes of less than that amount. Section 2 measures the degree to which the program participants actually save earned income during the IDA savings period. It takes into account the possibility that participants may withdrawal funds for eligible purposes during the savings period. Section 3 measures the degree to which the program participants' become economically stable. The purchase of a long-term asset is used as an indicator of economic and family stability.

Evidence: Administration for Children and Families Final FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan, Final Revised FY 2004 Performance Plan, and FY 2003 Annual Performance Report for the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: ACF is developing a new long-term outcome measure and corresponding annual performance measures including an efficiency measure for this program. It is also developing baselines and targets for those measures. ACF expects to finalize these measures concurrent with the PART process.

Evidence: Administration for Children and Families Final FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan, Final Revised FY 2004 Performance Plan, and FY 2003 Annual Performance Report for the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: ACF is developing several new performance measures including an efficiency measure for this program. It is also developing baselines and targets for those measures. The first measure indicates progress in recruiting, enrolling and training project participants. The financial literacy training is a major milestone in project participant experience in an AFI Project. The percentage of individuals who enroll in the program and stay actively involved throughout the financial literacy training phase is a good indicator of the quality of the overall project. The second measure is linked directly to the sub-component B of the proposed long-term outcome measure. All project participants develop and agree to abide by a multi-year savings plan agreement. The agreement includes a number of requirements and tangible goals for the participants such as attending financial literacy courses; making regular deposits in their IDA; and limiting IDA withdrawals except for allowed purposes. This measure is an indicator of the degree to which project participants are 'on course' for achieving their long term goals. The third measure, an efficiency measure, would track the amount of federal grant funds expended for each dollar participants save in an IDA. This proposed measure is designed to keep ACF staff and others focused on the degree to which the federal investment is achieving the program's ultimate purpose: to enable participants to save and accumulate earned income.

Evidence: Administration for Children and Families Final FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan, Final Revised FY 2004 Performance Plan, and FY 2003 Annual Performance Report for the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: ACF is developing a new long-term performance measure and corresponding annual performance measures including an efficiency measure for this program. It is also developing baselines and targets for those measures. ACF expects to finalize the measures concurrent with the PART process.

Evidence: Administration for Children and Families Final FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan, Final Revised FY 2004 Performance Plan, and FY 2003 Annual Performance Report for the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All organizations that apply for AFI Project funding must provide goals and objectives statements and performance measures for monitoring progress. For example, the FY 2004 program announcement requires applicants to create goal / objective statements and to incorporate them into their planning for the overall five-year project. ACF plans to require organizations that receive new awards in FY 2004 as well as organizations that are implementing on-going projects funded in prior years to collect data in keeping with the long term outcome measures and the annual output measures.

Evidence: FY 2004 AFI Program Announcement

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The authorizing legislation explicitly requires ACF to allocate up to $500,000 per year for a national evaluation of the program. The law also requires each grantee organization to make available up to 2% of their grant amount for data collection and other activities related to the national evaluation. ACF has contracted with Abt Associates, Inc., a national social science research firm, to implement the required multi-year, multi-site program evaluation. The evaluation includes a process and impact study components. The process study is designed to explain why and how the AFI Project activities have an impact on their clients. It includes information collected from two-day visits to six AFI Project demonstration sites annually. The impact study design is centered on information gathered through an on-going three-year longitudinal survey of 600 clients of AFI Projects nationwide that opened IDAs in calendar year 2001. They survey subjects are asked about a range of information about their economic situation and related matters via periodic phone interviews and other data collections.

Evidence: Scope of Work for the evaluation contract Mills, Gregory. (2004) Assets for Independence Act Evaluation: Third Annual Site Visit Report (DRAFT), Cambridge: Abt Associates, Inc. Mills, Gregory. (2002) Assets for Independence Act Evaluation: Second Annual Site Visit Report, Cambridge: Abt Associates, Inc. Mills, Gregory. (2002) Assets for Independence Act Evaluation: First Annual Site Visit Report, Cambridge: Abt Associates, Inc. Mills, Gregory. (2003) Assets for Independence Act Evaluation: Impact Study Update, Cambridge: Abt Associates, Inc. Mills, Gregory. (2001) Assets for Independence Act Evaluation: Phase 1 Implementation Final Report, Cambridge: Abt Associates, Inc.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: This program is established in statute as a demonstration, therefore it has received constant funding for a set amount of years.

Evidence: Draft HHS FY2006 budget request. HHS FY2006 budget guidance.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: ACF is improving its strategic planning by developing a new long term outcome measure that is better suited for program purposes. It is also working to develop a limited number of annual output measures that the program staff office will use in administering the program on a day-to-day basis.

Evidence: Administration for Children and Families Final FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan, Final Revised FY 2004 Performance Plan, and FY 2003 Annual Performance Report for the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: ACF collects several types of information from grantee organizations including: ' Annual fiscal reports ' Annual narrative program progress reports ' Annual statistical data reports ' Requests for draw-down of funds ACF uses these data to manage the program. For example, the annual reports (fiscal, narrative and statistical data reports) are analyzed to determine grantee progress and to identify needs for technical assistance and other interventions. Similarly, ACF monitors trends in grantees requests for draw-downs of grant funds as an indicator of progress or needs for technical assistance or other interventions.

Evidence: Assets for Independence Act, Title IV, Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act of 1998, Public Law 105-285, 42 U.S.C. 604, Section 412. AFI Program Annual Data Collection Form U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Assets for Independence Demonstration Program. Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1999. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Second Interim Report to Congress Covering Activities of Grantees Selected in FY 1999 and FY 2000. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Interim Report to Congress: Assets for Independence Demonstration Program: Status at the Conclusion of the Third and Fourth Years (Pre-Clearance Draft for OMB)

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The Director of OCS and other ACF managers are held accountable for their performance through their Employee Performance contract for cost, schedule, and performance results, as required by GPRA. The AFI Program manager and staff are accountable for their performance through their Employee Evaluation Plans. Those plans include an emphasis on performance results for the program. The Grants Officer is responsible for the grant's business aspects and is authorized to obligate ACF at the expenditure of funds and permit changes to approved grants. OCS staff (principally the AFI Program Manager and the OCS Budget Officer) are jointly responsible for working with an organization that is under contract to serve as the Contracting Office. The AFI Program Manager serves as the Project Officer for all contracts related to this program and the Contract Officer is empowered to execute or modify a contract.

Evidence: OCS Director's performance plan. HHS Grants Administration Manual.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: In accordance with agency practice, all Federal grant funds are awarded and obligated in a timely manner. AFI Program grantees may draw down the Federal funds throughout the 5-year project period, as needed and in keeping with approved plans. In order to draw down the Federal grant funds, grantees must present ACF with a statement from a qualified financial institution proving that the grantee has on deposit in a special account created for the AFI Project the required non-Federal cash cost-share amount. The ACF Office of Grants Management (OGM) scrutinizes the draw-down requests and required documentation from the financial institutions before authorizing the release of AFI Program grant funds. ACF staff monitors annual fiscal and narrative program progress reports and on-going draw down records as indicators of need for technical assistance and training and other actions.

Evidence: AFI Program Grant Terms and Conditions ACF Office of Grants Management guidance on process for requesting AFI Program grant funds

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: ACF is working to address particular challenges in program administration. A major challenge for many AFI Project organizations is the strict limitation on the portion of the federal grant funds allowed for all activities other than matching participant savings. The authorizing legislation limits projects from using more than 13% of the total grant amount over the five year project period for all vital administrative activities such as: participant outreach and enrollment, participant financial literacy training, participant training concerning their asset purchase, case management and support services for participants, managing participant IDA savings and withdrawals, project staffing, overhead and other vital administrative activities. The limitation is quite severe. For example, an organization that receives a $200,000 AFI Project grant is allowed to use only $26,000 in federal grant funds over the five year project period ($5,200 per year) for all of these vital costs. ACF is developing an on-line data management system with the goal of reducing administrative burdens and expenses at both the grantee and federal levels. At the grantee level, the system will help grantee organizations determine client eligibility, track client progress through the required financial literacy and other training, monitor client's IDA deposits and so forth. The system will also enhance efficiency at the federal level by enabling ACF to quickly access current information about the status of each AFI demonstration project. The system is in the beta test process now and will be made available to all grantees in the fall of 2004.

Evidence: Description of the Management Information System.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program is designed so the federal investment in the AFI demonstration projects and the overall evaluation will complement, not duplicate, other asset-based initiatives. It is structured to have significant involvement by State, local and private sector partners. For example, at least 50% of the overall budget for each AFI Project must come from non-Federal sources. Numerous States and local governments provide cash and other supports for AFI Projects because of the availability of the Federal grant funds. Several National, Regional and community foundations provide financial support for AFI Projects, and many enhance the reach of these Federally-funded projects by providing additional resources for targeting families who do not meet Federal eligibility criteria. ACF works to coordinate and collaborate with many related government agencies and private sector organizations. A few examples of these collaborations are as follows. ' ACF has developed a close working relationship with other programs administered by the Office of Community Services, in particular the Community Services Block Grant program and the Compassion Capital Fund program. A significant number of AFI Projects are administered by community-based and faith-based organizations that also receive funding ' either directly or indirectly ' through these two programs. ' ACF works closely with the Internal Revenue Service's Earned Income Tax Credit program in developing joint outreach efforts and encouraging AFI Project organizations to include EITC as an integral component of their programs. ' ACF works closely with the Corporation for National Service to help AFI Projects gain access to trained VISTA volunteers for staffing and other needs. ' ACF coordinates with the National Credit Union Administration to identify low-income credit unions that could implement an AFI Project or partner with another organization to implement one. ' ACF works closely with and supports the United Way of America in its project to expand the number of local United Way affiliates are supporting asset-building efforts, and to develop knowledge about employer-based IDA projects. ' ACF is working closely with major non-profit organizations and philanthropic foundations that support asset-based initiatives, projects and concepts.

Evidence: Descriptions of collaborative work with the Corporation for National Service, Internal Revenue Services, National Credit Union Administration.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: ACF has received a clean audit opinion from 1999 to 2002 (the last stand alone audit conducted), identifying no material internal control weaknesses.

Evidence: ACF audit documents.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: ACF has made staff adjustments in the AFI Program with the goal of enhancing overall management, strengthening relations with partners and grantees, and improving program performance. The new staff are taking aggressive action to implement new and more efficient procedures including developing a new Internet-based management information system, launching an enhanced strategy for providing training and technical assistance to AFI Project organizations, forming new and creative partnerships with related federal programs and private sector organizations, and implementing a thorough grant monitoring process.

Evidence: FY 2004 AFI Program work plan.

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: The majority of grant funds are awarded annually based on a clear competitive process. ACF issues a call for applications and allows interested organizations to have at least 30 days to submit proposals. The proposals undergo a two-tier review: First, for basic eligibility, to ensure that the applicant organization meets eligibility criteria in the authorizing legislation. Second, for substance, to ensure that the demonstration projects will meet program requirements. Each proposal is reviewed by a panel of non-Federal reviewers. The reviewers score the applications on a set of published objective criteria including a number of factors explicitly required by the authorizing legislation.

Evidence: Assets for Independence Act, Title IV, Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act of 1998, Public Law 105-285, 42 U.S.C. 604. FY 2004 AFI Program Announcement (DRAFT) ACF Office of Grants Administration documents concerning grant-making policies and procedures.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: ACF staff use four oversight strategies: 1) review of annual reports submitted by grantees; 2) periodic review of draw-down patterns and audit findings; 3) review of information produced through the national program evaluation activities including case studies from site visits; and 4) direct interactions with AFI Projects and partner organizations. All AFI Program grantees are required to submit standard narrative program progress reports that list achievements and challenges; financial status reports (SF-269) that indicate uses of all project funds (Federal grant funds and non-federal cost share funds); and annual data reports that reflect program performance. ACF staff monitor requests for draw-down, draw down patterns, audit findings and so forth.

Evidence: AFI Program Grant Terms and Conditions (for reporting requirements) Required Standard Financial Reporting Forms (SF-269) AFI Program Annual Data Collection Form Mills, Gregory. (2004) Assets for Independence Act Evaluation: Third Annual Site Visit Report (DRAFT), Cambridge: Abt Associates, Inc. Mills, Gregory. (2003) Assets for Independence Act Evaluation: Second Annual Site Visit Report, Cambridge: Abt Associates, Inc. Mills, Gregory. (2002) Assets for Independence Act Evaluation: First Annual Site Visit Report, Cambridge: Abt Associates, Inc.

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: ACF collects performance data annually from all grantees, as required by the authorizing legislation. The reports feature program and participant-level information including seven data elements required by the authorizing legislation. ACF compiles the annual reports into periodic reports to Congress. These reports are posted on the ACF website. AFI Projects are also required to submit copies of the annual reports to their State Treasurer or equivalent official, if their State or local or Tribal government agency has contributed funds for the project.

Evidence: AFI Program Annual Data Collection Form AFI Program webpagewww.acf.hhs.gov/assetbuildingU.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Assets for Independence Demonstration Program. Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1999. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Second Interim Report to Congress Covering Activities of Grantees Selected in FY 1999 and FY 2000. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Interim Report to Congress: Assets for Independence Demonstration Program: Status at the Conclusion of the Third and Fourth Years (Pre-Clearance draft for OMB.)

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: ACF is developing a new long-term outcome measure for tracking progress in achieving program purposes. The measures are not complete, and data is not currently available. ACF is also developing several new annual performance measures. These include three output measures and one efficiency measure.

Evidence: Administration for Children and Families Final FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan, Final Revised FY 2004 Performance Plan, and FY 2003 Annual Performance Report for the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: ACF is developing a new long-term outcome measures for tracking progress in achieving program purposes. The measures are not complete, and data is not currently available. ACF is also developing several new annual performance measures. These include three output measures and one efficiency measure.

Evidence: Administration for Children and Families Final FY 2005 Annual Performance Plan, Final Revised FY 2004 Performance Plan, and FY 2003 Annual Performance Report for the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: ACF is developing a new efficiency measure for tracking progress in achieving program goals. The measures are not complete, and data is not currently available.

Evidence: Draft efficiency performance measure and related documentation.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: This is the only large-scale demonstration and evaluation of the federal policy of reducing long-term poverty by helping at-risk families acquire economic assets as a means for moving from poverty to self-sufficiency. There are no other similar asset building programs that publish information about results achieved. As indicated above, the evaluation of the foundation-supported American Dream Demonstration program is not complete. We have information that a number of States are supporting IDA programs -- and a very few are using TANF funds to support this work -- but we have no information about whether any States have evaluated these efforts. The HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement manages an IDA program specifically for refugee families, but that program has not been evaluated either. Finally, the Treasury Department has proposed a tax-based strategy for making IDAs available to many low-income families, but that strategy has not been implemented or tested.

Evidence:  

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: ACF is supporting a major independent evaluation of the impact of the federal asset-building policy, as required by the authorizing legislation. The evaluation design includes a non-experimental impact component and a process study. The four-year evaluation is now in its third year. ACF has not supported other independent evaluations of this program. Experience to date and anecdotal evidence indicate the program is effective and is achieving its intended results. The initial wave of AFI Projects will complete their five-year demonstration period at the end of this fiscal year. The national evaluation is underway. However, it is too early to assess overall program effectiveness.

Evidence: Scope of Work for the evaluation contract