Brief: Older adult services

Prepared from Grant Precedent, 2026-10-23; data as of precedent 2026-10-21, measures 2026-10-22.

Measures funders require

What you can collect, and how

Tier 1 is collected today from your own records. Tier 2 needs one free instrument. Tier 3 needs a partner under a data agreement. A measure that matches no rule has no tier.

What grantees achieved

1 grantee of Caregiver Support Services reported 1 result against targets over 1 period; the median result was 81% of target (middle half 81% to 81%), and 0% met or exceeded the target. Source: Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas County, program monitoring reports, https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/VII-C-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf.

• The Children's Home Network (FY2024): Participants served (target vs actual); promised 394, actual 321 (81% of target); unit: count. Source: https://www.jwbpinellas.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/VII.D.-Program-and-Financial-Monitoring-Information.pdf

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Elder Rights reported 264 results against targets over 10 periods; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 85% to 101%), and 51% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

• Department on Aging (FY2013): Total LTCOP consultations; promised 22,000, actual 18,407 (84% of target). Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=402&FiscalYear=2013&ProgramAreaGroupID=1&ProgramID=2&UniqueProgramID=4022

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Elder Abuse and Neglect Program reported 222 results against targets over 10 periods; the median result was 100% of target (middle half 97% to 101%), and 57% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

• Department on Aging (FY2011): Total expenditures - all sources (in thousands); promised $ 9,937.8, actual $ 9,937.8 (100% of target); unit: $. Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=402&FiscalYear=2011&ProgramAreaGroupID=1&ProgramID=2&UniqueProgramID=4022

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Senior HelpLine reported 49 results against targets over 4 periods; the median result was 92% of target (middle half 66% to 103%), and 29% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

• Department on Aging (FY2025): Total expenditures - state appropriated funds (in thousands); promised $ 8,144.3, actual $ 4,629.3 (57% of target); unit: $. Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=402&FiscalYear=2025&ProgramAreaGroupID=1&ProgramID=23&UniqueProgramID=40223

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Nutrition Services reported 39 results against targets over 4 periods; the median result was 82% of target (middle half 70% to 100%), and 36% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

• Department on Aging (FY2025): Total expenditures - state appropriated funds (in thousands); promised $ 141,536.4, actual $ 100,956.5 (71% of target); unit: $. Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=402&FiscalYear=2025&ProgramAreaGroupID=1&ProgramID=21&UniqueProgramID=40221

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Senior Health Assistance Program reported 28 results against targets over 4 periods; the median result was 99% of target (middle half 95% to 99%), and 18% met or exceeded the target. Source: Illinois Comptroller Public Accountability Reports, https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=601&FiscalYear=2022&ProgramAreaGroupID=3&ProgramID=1&UniqueProgramID=6011.

• Department on Aging (FY2025): Total expenditures - state appropriated funds (in thousands); promised $ 2,800.0, actual $ 2,673.5 (95% of target); unit: $. Source: https://par.illinoiscomptroller.gov/index.cfm?AgencyNo=402&FiscalYear=2025&ProgramAreaGroupID=1&ProgramID=22&UniqueProgramID=40222

Program-level figures, not individual grantees: Administration on Aging reported 7 results against targets over 5 periods; the median result was 120% of target (middle half 112% to 147%), and 100% met or exceeded the target. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

• Administration on Aging (2006): Maintain high percentage of home-delivered meal, transportation and family caregiver services clients rating quality of services good to excellent.; promised 90%, actual 95.2 (106% of target); unit: %. Source: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10000304.2007.html

Housing for the Elderly: the source lists 19 rows for this program but none carries both a target and a result, so no attainment is computed. Source: OMB PART assessments (ExpectMore.gov archive), https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/expectmore/detail/10002335.2004.html.

Target-setting language with precedent

Each item comes from one funder, one program or one department; none is a government-wide rule.

Showing clauses from HHS.

• CDC DP-23-0002 applicant FAQ (2023): Quote: “you may enter a '0' and then TBD for targets in the work plan” — https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/healthyschools/nofo/nofo.htm
• SAMHSA CMHS Infrastructure, Prevention and Promotion Overview Guide, v2.0, p. 9 (2022): Quote: “grantees can revise annual goals in consultation with their GPO during the first quarter of each fiscal year” — https://spars.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-01/OE%20SPARS%20CMHS%20IPP%20Overview%20Guide.pdf
• HRSA-26-057 ECCS SEED applicant FAQs, p. 6 (2026): Paraphrase: Baseline estimates are confirmed or updated within six months of award. — https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/45e009d7-46ed-482f-8aa7-02812f207f71/attachments/54ad1b19-2651-43c7-8ade-76203c7770d7/HRSA-26-057_ECCS_SEED_Applicant_FAQs.pdf
• NIH PAR-25-383, Section VI (2025): Paraphrase: Future-year milestones may be renegotiated based on prior-year data. — https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-25-383.html
• Arizona Rural Health Transformation, approved program narrative, pp. 20-22 (2026): Paraphrase: A baseline assessment is done after award, and targets are set from it. — https://www.azahcccs.gov/AHCCCS/Downloads/Initiatives/RHTP/Arizona%27sApprovedProgramNarrative.pdf
• HRSA Health Center Program (H80) patient targets, Primary Health Care Digest (2022): Quote: “confirm or request adjustment to their patient target by the deadline in their email” — https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USHHSHRSA/bulletins/3120df3

What reviewers penalize

These ten weaknesses recur in 17 published reviewer critiques, mostly U.S. Department of Education and NIH. The count is the number of critiques that name it, not a rate, and a reviewer comment is a judgment.

• Attrition or missing-data handling left unresolved (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “the applicant did not address how missing data will be handled” U.S. Department of Education, Education Innovation and Research (EIR) Mid-Phase, WestEd, S411B220027, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 25, 29. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220027_WestEd_TRF.pdf#page=29
• Comparisons vulnerable to selection, contamination, baseline differences or incompatible data (named in 7 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “may require additional interpretation” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, K01 AI131895 (Rebeiro, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 5-6. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/k01-rebeiro-summary-statement.pdf#page=6
• Feasibility assumptions or fallback arrangements unsupported (named in 6 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no alternative analysis plan is provided” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017174 (Heinemann and Cherney), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 3, 5-6. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/sanitized-heinemann-cherney-summary-statement-redacted.pdf#page=5
• Implementation fidelity, thresholds or mediators inadequately specified (named in 5 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “Mediators are not described.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Education Development Center, U411C190275, 2019, Technical Review Form, p. 4. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2019/11/U411C190275-Education-Development-Center-Inc.-TRF-Tier-2.pdf#page=4
• Measurement tools insufficiently identified, supported or protected against reporting bias (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “no detail is provided” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, Niswonger Foundation, U411B170038, 2017, Technical Review Form, pp. 4-5. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2016/12/U411B170038_TRF.pdf#page=4
• Targets or success criteria missing, inconsistent or disconnected from the project (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “lacks a specific number” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Mid-Phase, ASSISTments Foundation, S411B220024, 2022, Technical Review Form, p. 14. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411B220024_ASSISTments-Foundation-Inc_TRF.pdf#page=14
• Analysis procedures insufficiently specified for the stated questions or model (named in 4 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “methods of data analysis are not adequately described” National Institutes of Health, NIAID, R01 AI098472 renewal (Gandhi, UCSF), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 4-5. https://beta.nih.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_media/2026-09/2-R01-AI098472-06_Ganhdi_Summary.pdf#page=4
• Data protection, management or cross-site coordination incomplete (named in 3 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The data management plan stops midsentence on page 125” National Institutes of Health, NIDCD, R01 DC017683 (Gifford and Camarata, Vanderbilt), applicant-authorized summary statement; a research application, pp. 9-10. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/sanitized-giffordcamarataapplicationsummary-dc017683-01a1.pdf#page=10
• Feedback collection lacks a specified route into program decisions (named in 2 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The applicant does not discuss how often the team will review data or implement changes.” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Orange County Superintendent of Schools, S411C200130, 2020, Technical Review Form, pp. 16, 19. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2020/12/S411C200130-Orange-County-Superintendent-of-Schools-TRF.pdf#page=19
• Evaluator independence insufficiently explained (named in 1 of 17 critiques). Reviewers wrote: “The level of independence is not made clear” U.S. Department of Education, EIR Early-Phase, Research Triangle Institute, S411C220065, 2022, Technical Review Form, pp. 24-25. https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/2022/12/S411C220065_Research-Triangle-Institute-_TRF.pdf#page=24

Protocol skeleton

Draft text, edit before use

Measures: NSIP Qualified Meal – Home Delivered; NSIP Qualified Meal – Congregate; NSIP Expenditures; Number of Open Cases; Number of Closed Cases; Level of Service: Advice; Level of Service: Limited Representation; Level of Service: Representation; Case Type: Income; Case Type: Health Care; Case Type: Long-Term Care; Case Type: Nutrition; and 6 more listed above. Baseline: ____ months from award, using OAAPS Title III Data Elements & Definitions: Nutrition Services Incentive Program (NSIP); Legal Assistance State Performance Report (SPR), submitted through OAAPS. Targets: set from the observed baseline at month ____, or committed now as a change of ____ percentage points from baseline.

Missing-data plan (how dropout and missing observations will be handled): ____

Comparison group or baseline (what you compare against and how the groups started): ____

Fallback if recruitment, data access or the first analysis falls short: ____

Fidelity threshold (what counts as full implementation, and how it is measured): ____

Instrument named, with its validity evidence and its rights (license) status: ____

Numeric target for each measure (a number, not a direction): ____

Analysis for each outcome (method, comparison, adjustment): ____

Data protection and data management (who holds identifiable data, where, for how long): ____

Feedback schedule (who reviews the data, how often, and what changes as a result): ____

Evaluator role and independence (who evaluates and how they are separate from delivery): ____

The text is copied or summarized from public documents. It is not legal advice.