Why external reviews are essential for managing funding complexity
State and Local government agencies are managing more federally funded health and human services (HHS) programs than they have in years. Now, more federal grants come with conditions attached. Programs like the Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP), and grants from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), are federal grants. They’re funded and administered through federal agencies with federal reporting requirements.
Opioid settlement dollars are different. They are not federal grants at all; they come from litigation settlements between states and opioid manufacturers or distributors. They carry their own set of conditions, set by settlement terms rather than federal grant rules.
Both funding types share two things in common: they come with lots of strings attached, and they carry real audit risk. States are the initial recipients of RHTP and SAMHSA grants, and states are also the primary recipients of opioid settlement funds under most state settlement agreements. States then sub-grant or otherwise pass a share of that funding down to counties and local agencies. This means both levels of government end up holding some version of the same question: Can anyone (outside the agency running them) confirm if they are working as intended? This is the vital role of independent assessment of federal grant programs, and it deserves more attention than it typically receives.
Self-reported performance is not enough
Most agencies, state and local alike, report on their own programs. Program specialists track outcomes, and program managers submit compliance reports. Finance teams reconcile grant spending against budgets. This internal reporting is necessary, but it is not sufficient on its own.
Internal reporting tends to measure what an agency already tracks well, and it can miss the gaps that matter most. One such gap can be inconsistent case practice across offices, or documentation that meets the letter of a requirement but not its intent. Another oversight might be spending patterns that technically comply, but do not reflect the outcomes a grant was meant to produce.
There is also a more basic problem. Many state and local agencies simply do not have the necessary staffing or technology to assess their own programs. It’s a challenge for them to do so with any accuracy, even when leadership wants that visibility. Program specialists and program managers are stretched thin across their core duties, with little time for quality review. State grant offices face a version of the same constraint, since a small monitoring unit is often responsible for overseeing every county receiving a given funding stream. Compounding this is the reality that data systems built for eligibility or case tracking were not designed to answer performance questions. Pulling a reliable answer out of them can take more staff time than an agency has available.
In these agencies, the issue is not a lack of will to self-assess; it is a lack of capacity to do so. As grant portfolios expand faster than the staff and systems supporting them, that discrepancy tends to grow. An independent assessment of federal grant programs brings the perspective of an outside set of eyes, with no stake in the existing narrative. It also brings dedicated capacity that the agency itself may not have. Independent assessment asks, "Did we spend the money?" and "Did the spending do what it was supposed to?" For programs funded by time-sensitive or conditional federal dollars, this is a dire distinction with real consequences.
RHTP, SAMHSA, and opioid settlement programs
The RHTP, SAMHSA grants, and opioid settlement-funded initiatives are not all the same kind of money, but they share a common challenge. Each is under public and legal scrutiny, and the funding behind each is finite.
Rural healthcare grants
This is a program for federal grants. It is meant to strengthen access to and the quality of health care in rural communities. This is often done through investments that touch multiple providers, facilities, or service lines at once. It follows federal grant rules on reporting, allowable use, and monitoring. The pressure to deploy funds on a set federal timeline can lead agencies to prioritize the disbursement over the documentation of impact.
What does SAMHSA do?
These are also federal grants, but they follow their own distinct set of program requirements. These are typically tied to behavioral health, substance use treatment, or prevention outcomes. Many local agencies hold several SAMHSA grants at once, each with their own performance measures and reporting cycle. This can make it difficult for a single program manager to track compliance across the full portfolio (especially without dedicated review capacity).
Opioid settlement
These funds carry a different kind of scrutiny, and it comes from a different source. These dollars are the product of litigation settlements, distributed to states and localities (according to settlement agreements rather than federal grant regulations). They are closely watched by state settlement administrators, courts, and advocacy groups. The terms governing their use vary by settlement and by state. Misuse or the appearance of misuse carries reputational risk well beyond the program itself, in part because these funds exist as a direct result of public harm.
For all 3 funding types, an independent assessment provides perspective that an internal review is missing. The value of an outside determination that funds are being used in accordance with grant conditions or settlement terms is huge. Even more valuable is having this documented so it’s irrefutable if a federal auditor, state settlement administrator, legislator, or journalist asks the same questions later.
Two levels of government, one shared set of obligations
State government sits in the middle of nearly every funding stream discussed here. This means it carries independent assessment obligations of its own, separate from and in addition to whatever its counties are doing. When a state receives an RHTP or SAMHSA grant, it takes on federal compliance responsibility for that money, even after it sub-grants a portion to counties. Federal regulations (governing grant management) require the state to monitor its sub-receptions, not simply distribute funds and wait for a report.
Opioid settlement agreements work similarly. Most states have adopted a formula that splits settlement dollars between the state and its counties or regions. Many agreements require the state to track how local governments spend their share, not just how the state spends its own.
The mechanism a state uses to pass funding down matters, and it varies by program. Some funding moves through a formula. This might look like a set allocation (often based on population, prevalence data, or a statutory split) that a county receives once eligibility is confirmed. SAMHSA block grants and opioid settlement funds are frequently distributed this way.
Other funding moves through a competitive process. Counties submit applications, the state scores them against defined criteria, and awards go to the highest-scoring proposals (rather than to every eligible county). RHTP funding and many SAMHSA discretionary grants work this way. This distinction changes what oversight looks like in practice. Formula funding requires the state to verify that money reaching every eligible county is being used correctly, since access was never contingent on demonstrated capacity. Competitive funding requires the state to verify that the specific commitments a county made in its application are actually being carried out, since the award was based on a proposal, rather than a guaranteed entitlement.
Why independent assessment helps state and local governments
The complexity of this funding arrangement creates a relationship that is easy to describe and hard to execute well. Counties are accountable to the state for how they use the funds. The state is accountable to the federal government, or to settlement administrators, for how the money moves once it leaves the state's hands. This includes what its counties do with it. Neither party can fully outsource its obligation to the other. A county cannot assume that state pass-through requirements have already covered federal compliance. A state cannot assume that a county's self-reported spending data satisfies its own monitoring duty.
In practice, this often plays out unevenly. States frequently lack the staff to conduct meaningful monitoring, especially across dozens of counties. These counties receive the same grant or settlement funds, so monitoring can default to a paperwork exercise, reviewed for completeness rather than accuracy. Counties, in turn, might receive conflicting guidance from the state on documentation standards. They might duplicate reporting requests from multiple state divisions administering different pieces of the same funding source. Both problems reflect a structure where capacity has not kept pace with the volume and complexity of the funding flowing through it.
Independent assessment of federal grant programs has a role at both the state and local levels. A state can commission an independent review of its own sub-recipient monitoring program. This can test whether its oversight of counties truly meets federal or settlement requirements, rather than just assuming it does.
A state can also commission a consistent, independent assessment across its full portfolio of counties, which produces comparable findings that self-reporting county-by-county cannot. A county that undergoes independent review is often better positioned when the state or a federal agency comes asking questions, because the documentation and findings already exist.
What makes an assessment of federal grant programs truly independent
Not every external review delivers independence in practice. There are a few characteristics that separate a genuinely independent assessment from an outsourced compliance exercise:
- The reviewer should have no financial or operational relationship to the program being assessed, beyond the assessment itself
- The methodology should be transparent enough that agency leadership, oversight bodies, and the public can see how conclusions were reached, not just what the conclusions were
- The findings should be delivered in a form that supports action; specific enough to change practice, and honest enough to name problems that internal reporting has not surfaced
The cost of waiting on independent assessment of federal grant programs
State and local governments often turn to independent assessment of federal grant programs only after something has gone wrong. Some common scenarios include if there’s an audit, a federal monitoring visit, or a settlement administrator inquiry that surfaces documentation gaps. This could even occur from a public records request that revealed a problem neither the county nor the state knew it had. By then, the cost of the finding is much higher than the cost of an assessment. It can even implicate both levels of government at once, since a finding against a county often raises questions about the state's oversight of that county.
Leaders at the state or local level who commission independent review gain a clear picture of where their programs stand, ahead of the moment when someone else forces that picture into view. Both federal grant funding and settlement funding for HHS programs continue to grow in scope and complexity. As more of it flows through the layered relationship between states and the counties they fund, the clarity independent assessment provides is becoming a basic requirement of responsible stewardship.
To learn more about how CAI helps HHS programs, fill out the form below.
