PROPOSAL-COMMON ELECTRONIC DATA BASE

1. PROPOSAL-COMMON ELECTRONIC DATA BASE REPORT TO DSFG 2013-09-13

2. CHALLENGES TO REPORTING 1MISSISSAUGA CL • Organization has diverse funding sources including OPS ministries, municipality, funding agency (Canadian Mental Health Assoc.) and federal government • Funders use different fiscal years, which makes tracking and reporting complex • Technology tools can be great, but they have to be easily accessible – sometimes, access/password issues that give rise to timed out connections can be extremely frustrating; other times technology actually gets in the way – e.g. where recipient and funder are using different versions of Excel • No alignment between amount of funding and related reporting expectations – there can be more paperwork attached to a $30,000 contract than one in which millions of dollars are flowed • Not always clear to the recipient that data required for reporting serves a useful purpose – e.g.: days a committed bed is vacant due to vacation • Even within one ministry you can be asked to use many different reporting tools – e.g.: AIMS tracks individuals/days of service; CMS tracks SSAH and other services • Generally there is one contract per ministry with multiple detail codes per contract • Recipient organizations often have to sub-divide funding provided by a program to different cost centres within their organization, and they have to set this up in a manner that enables reporting to roll up to established ministry detail codes – ministries may not be aware that there is a significant administrative impact when they change detail codes as organizations have to change internal processes to align with the ministry mandated change

3. CHALLENGES TO REPORTING 2MISSISSAUGA CL • Sometimes administrative processes create the need for informal work-arounds with the support of the Program Supervisor – e.g. funding committed for children, but children grown up and still in need of care • Not always clear what criteria recipients are trying to respond to when funding becomes available – e.g. infrastructure surveys used to deal with year-end capital spend – not clear how the interface between federal and provincial priorities affects selection/approval of projects • Not always clear what happens to information once it is submitted – sometimes new information is not reflected in updated documents; sometimes information is changed in updated documents and the recipient doesn’t know where the changed information came from • Administrative processes sometimes used that fit one line of business better than another – e.g.: using a PL number that attaches to a particular address works well for residential care, not so well in the context of supported community living where an individual may change addresses more frequently (and there is no interim reporting process, so that by the time you have to report, you may have to work back through 2 or 3 address changes) • Generally cash flow process works well for standard contracts that roll-over; not so well for special projects – sometimes there are payment delays and it’s not always clear what triggered the delay • Cash flow reports show quite clearly what program the money is coming from and the related contract, but it is sometimes hard to get this report and there seems to be no automatic trigger to share it – sometimes, especially on capital projects where time window is narrow, gap between spend and reimbursement can be problematic for recipient

4. CHALLENGES TO REPORTING 3MISSISSAUGA CL • Changes to contracts can be negotiated at various times during the year, but updating to the actual contract document happens infrequently – as a result, both parties have to manually keep track of agreed upon changes – trust relationship is important, but still possible for lists kept by two parties to be a bit different which can be a big problem if the updated contract arrives late in the year or even after the end of the fiscal year to which it applies • Likely that recipients will want/need to continue to support their business with their own technology solutions – unlikely that government will be able to provide technology tools that do everything an agency requires; simplifying technology interfaces should be a priority, and fewer technology solutions is better than more – e.g.: United Way has a Smart/Simply System, which is not all that simple, but is more user friendly because it is one master system rather than several that don’t talk to each other; The Kidney Foundation mandates the use of one financial system for all funding recipients so that it is as easy as possible to roll up reporting • Most accounting programs can export data into Excel which facilitates information transfer; statistics and related reporting requirements is a much more complicated story – sometimes technical issues get in the way of timely reporting – e.g.: serious occurrence reports can’t be received by email, they must be faxed, and the will sometimes be returned to a recipient if there is missing data • Introduction of more oversight processes over the years has generally been a good thing, in particular, the new risk assessment process seen as high value/very positive development – however, formalizing processes has come at the cost of some loss of local/regional autonomy to make adjustments that make sense in particular circumstances – processes should help, and it is important to keep common sense handy/within reach • The role of the Program Supervisor has changed over time - they no longer have the capacity to know the agencies with which they work as well as they used to – little capacity to verify information provided – sometimes continuity issues when personnel change

5. SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS • Set it up so that recipients provide information once, and the receiving funder makes sure that the information provided gets appropriately distributed • Make it easier to transfer information – direct access that allows you to enter data into one system would be great • More alignment of information requested • Create a one-stop place to go to check agreed upon contract changes that will be incorporated in revised contract document • Automatically send a cash flow report whenever a payment is made to a recipient • Align accounting processes for year-end cut-offs with expectations/requirements set by CICA

6. BACKGROUND • Background (Needs Assessment): • Ministry needs information that is consistent, timely and accurate that it can use to conduct system level and sector level analysis for making decisions or setting policy. • Currently it depends on surveys completed by agencies for such information which is time consuming and resource intensive for the ministry and agencies • Currently information is in different Excel formats and there are no standardized output requirements

7. OBJECTIVE A solution which addresses these needs will meet the following objectives: • Minimize risks • Currently information is in different formats and has no uniform output standards. Creating uniform output standards will reduce time, effort as well as the staffing resources required by both ministry and agencies to collect, and process information. This reduction in time will lead to better utilization of scarce resources during this environment of austerity • Improve data quality/data integrity/data security (information is currently transferred by email and is not secure) • Improve reporting capability and response times • Reduce duplication of effort • Support accountability for data collection • Provide ability to analyze data from a systems and sector perspective for evidence-based decision making or evidence-based policy setting • Will especially benefit smaller agencies by not having to create their own individual solutions and infrastructure to send in the information

8. CONCEPT • Project Description: • Will work with ministry to develop output information files for –Budget, Q reports, SOR, infrastructure survey, Risk management reports, and quality reports • Using the attached chart output information will be collected from agencies and saved in a secure agency folder that is accessible only to that agency • All agency folders and information will be stored on a dedicated server housed at a volunteering agency and backed up regularly • Output information is then transmitted to ministry • Attached chart illustrates the concept for communication structure and data translation

9. SCOPE Will cover the following reports to ministry, starting with infrastructure survey and proceeding to other reporting: • Budget • Q reports • SOR • Infrastructure survey • Risk management reports • Quality reports

10. DELIVERABLES Project Deliverables: • Output file requirements to the ministry which the ministry can access from individual agency folders • Agency specific Secure folders to house information on a server with a volunteer agency which backs up the data • Timely transmission of information to ministry by either the holder of the server or by individual agencies • Sector agencies will develop a sustainable plan to operationalize

11. PROJECT STEPS

12. SUCCESS CRITERIA Success Criteria: • Support from ministry • Requirement/ strong encouragement from ministry that agencies participate • Participation of agencies Project Risks: • Participation from all stakeholders • Project cost and availability of funds Project Budget: • Don’t know • If the proof of concept is accepted, a detailed budget would be developed

13. RESPONSIBILITY Responsibility & Authority: • Project Manager is responsible to achieve all project deliverables up to and including securing approval for the recommended course of action. Project Manager and the Project Management Team have the authority to secure full participation of sector staff, and, with prior approval of the Project Sponsor, to engage outside resources.

14. MINISTRY FEEDBACK TO DRAFT here are some initial thoughts. • I think you need to put more in about a business case, agency AND ministry staff required will be reduced. • You need to address how small agencies will benefit.  I think for CL Toronto, and Christian Horizons rolling this out would be easy, but you need to mention or point on how this would help small agencies as part of the strategy.  • Add discussion on the security of the data, and how excel files being transmitted over email is not secure. • Leave out the estimated pricing for now.  You are asking for work to be done to see if the concept will fly, which should only cost $25K or less with a consultant to help you.

15. FEEDBACK • Sector Feedback • ?