OCS webinar guides states through FY27 CSBG State Plan sections 8–15, stressing monitoring, tripartite boards, eligibility thresholds

Renee Brots, a CSBG program specialist with the Office of Community Services (OCS) at the Administration for Children and Families, opened the webinar and said the session would provide an in‑depth review of sections 8 through 15 of the FY27 CSBG State Plan.

OCS presenters framed the state plan as both the formal application for CSBG funds and a roadmap for how states will administer those funds to meet national program priorities: addressing causes and consequences of poverty, empowering low‑income households, and revitalizing communities. They reminded participants that FY27 plans are due September 1, 2026, and may be submitted as either a one‑year or two‑year plan covering FY27 or FY27–28.

On training and technical assistance (section 8), Renika Carr, CSBG program specialist, said states should describe the kinds of TA they will provide, the budget for TA, and procedures for supporting eligible entities with unmet organizational standards—including whether a technical assistance plan (TAP) is in place. She listed OCS‑funded partners that states can leverage (Regional Performance and Innovation Consortia, National Community Action Partnership, NASCSP, CAPLAW) and encouraged states to ground TA in data such as annual reports and eligible‑entity feedback.

Section 9 guidance focused on linkages and communication. Carr advised states to identify partner agencies and local organizations (workforce systems, Head Start, Office of Family Assistance, health and child‑care providers, faith‑based groups, education) and to describe how those partnerships support referrals and service delivery. She clarified how CSBG may interact with the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act: CSBG is a required one‑stop partner when funds support employment and training activities, and it is a combined state plan partner only when formally included in the WIOA combined state plan.

On monitoring and fiscal controls (section 10), OCS emphasized stewardship and a standardized review protocol. Carr summarized FY25 monitoring trends—use of CSBG for targeted initiatives, scorecards to track performance, and integrated fiscal/programmatic oversight—and reiterated statutory monitoring requirements: a full on‑site monitoring review of each eligible entity at least once every three years and an on‑site review of newly designated entities after their first year of receiving funds.

When a poll asked whether states should delete an entity from the monitoring list to correct errors, Carr said the correct answer was false and warned, “States should never, and I cannot stress this, never delete eligible entities.” She added that deleting entities from item 10.1 is effectively irreversible without deleting the state plan and starting a new one, and urged states to update their master eligible‑entity list before beginning a new plan.

Section 11 covered tripartite board requirements. Presenters reiterated that eligible entities must operate through tripartite boards that include at least one‑third elected public officials or their representatives, at least one‑third low‑income community members, and remaining members from business, labor, education and other community interests. OCS said states should verify compliance through board minutes reviews, interviews with board members, and other monitoring procedures and pointed participants to IM‑82 for additional guidance.

Brots then reviewed sections 12 and 13: states must set an income eligibility threshold for CSBG services (the statute directs a limit of up to 125% of the federal poverty line), though appropriations language in Public Law 119‑75 for FY26 permitted grantees to apply an up to 200% threshold for services provided with FY26 funds. She advised states to use the current HHS poverty guidelines and to include flexible language in plans if they expect to use higher thresholds where authorized.

On performance management (section 13), presenters explained that states and eligible entities must participate in ROMA or an equivalent performance measurement system that meets statutory requirements, submit community action plans and needs assessments, and align needs assessment priorities with measurable goals and indicators.

Sections 14 and 15 require programmatic assurances and federal certifications. OCS instructed states to explain how they will ensure CSBG funds are used in accordance with statutory activities (local and targeted services, youth services, discretionary and emergency nutrition support, partnership and linkages) and to certify compliance with federal restrictions (lobbying, debarment, drug‑free workplace, etc.). The authorized official must complete certification checkboxes in the plan.

Before closing, Brots provided operational contacts for technical assistance and data support: OLDC/Policy, Data & Evaluation (csbgdata@acf.hhs.gov), fiscal and OCS monitoring questions (OCSFOAU@acf.hhs.gov), and the grant solutions help desk, and she reminded attendees to copy assigned program specialists and PDE specialists on requests for assistance.

The webinar combined prescriptive reminders (deadlines, statutory monitoring frequency, tripartite composition) with practical administration guidance (use of TAPs and regional partners, careful maintenance of the master eligible‑entity list) to help states complete sections 8–15 of their FY27 CSBG State Plans.