Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS)

The CCAMPIS program provides funding to colleges for childcare services for low-income parents. In 2004 CCAMPIS received a “results not demonstrated” rating. In 2007 it was “re-PARTed” and received an “adequate” rating.

Let’s examine how CCAMPIS fared on each section of the PART assessment:

Program Purpose and Design – CCAMPIS Score: 2004 – 80%, 2007 – 80%

CCAMPIS received full credit for four of the five questions on both the 2004 and 2007 assessments. However, both PART reviews deemed the program’s design flawed, limiting its effectiveness. At the time, the statute stated that only schools that received $350,000 or more in Pell Grant money were eligible for CCAMPIS funding and limited the size of the CCAMPIS award based on that amount. Additionally, the statute dictated that the program only report data every 18-36 months as opposed to annually. (Both of these limitations were changed in the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.)

Strategic Planning – CCAMPIS Score: 2004 – 62%, 2007 – 75%

CCAMPIS received full credit for five of the eight questions in this section on the 2004 PART review. In 2007, it received full credit for six of eight questions. Because CCAMPIS had recently set annual and long-term goals in 2004, it could not demonstrate progress towards them on the PART conducted that year. In 2007, it did receive credit for progress it subsequently achieved. Both the 2004 and 2007 PART assessments found that the CCAMPIS program did not conduct evaluations on a regular basis (though they mention that a study is underway) and that budget requests were not specifically tied to accomplishment of performance goals.

Program Management – CCAMPIS Score: 2004 – 70%, 2007 – 90%

CCAMPIS made significant progress in this section. On the 2004 assessment, the program received credit for seven of the 10 questions. The assessment found that the program didn’t hold the partners accountable for results, did not have procedures to measure efficiency, and did not display performance information in a transparent and public way. In contrast, the 2007 assessment found that CCAMPIS held managers accountable for results and made performance data publicly available. However, CCAMPIS still did not have adequate procedures to measure efficiency by 2007.

Program Results/Accountability – CCAMPIS Score: 2004 – 16%, 2007 – 25%

In 2004 and 2007, CCAMPIS received points for two of five questions. But the 2007 PART found that the program met its annual performance goals by a “large extent” instead of a “small extent.” After annual measures were established in 2004, CCAMPIS was able to demonstrate progress by 2007. While the program did not have any high quality evaluations in 2007, the PART mentions a forthcoming study on the need and availability of child care services at institutions of higher education.

The PART Score and Improvement Plans

Scores from the four categories are weighted to come up with a final score. (Program Purpose 20%, Strategic Planning 10%, Program Management 20%, and Program Results 50%). In 2004, the CCAMPIS was rated “Results Not Demonstrated” most likely because it lacked baseline information or performance data. In 2007 it received an “Adequate” rating. The program increased its score in three out of four sections and demonstrated progress on annual performance measures established in 2004.

CCAMPIS’ improvement plan includes working with Congress to require the program to collect data annually and improving technical assistance and data reliability. As mentioned above, HEA reauthorization included many of these programmatic changes.

What did we learn from the CCAMPIS PART Assessment?

• Programs can improve their PART scores over time. When CCAMPIS was re-PARTed in 2007, it improved in three out of the four sections and received a better rating overall. Most programs at the Department of Education have only gone through the PART process once.
• Some programs do not have the information necessary to answer PART questions. During its initial review, CCAMPIS was not fully prepared or designed to answer the questions developed for PART. Like many other education programs, CCAMPIS did not initially have “specific” and “meaningful” performance measures, ambitious targets and baseline data, independent evaluations, or efficiency measures. As a result, CCAMPIS, and other programs, are unable to receive PART credit in many cases.
• Programs are assessed on their ability to demonstrate results from “independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality” even though many programs don’t have such evidence. CCAMPIS did not receive credit for the two questions related to research demonstrating program effectiveness. CCAMPIS, like many education programs, never participated in such a study and therefore was never given an opportunity to demonstrate results, one way or another. It seems unfair to penalize a program without an evaluation when the Department of Education has not initiated or funded one.
• High quality studies take time and money. CCAMPIS’ 2004 review says that a study would be completed in fall of 2005. However, no such study in currently available. If programs are to demonstrate effectiveness as a component of PART, they need the time, funding, and support to develop and implement a high quality study.

Up next in the Ed Money Watch PART Series: What Works in the PART Assessment