New Haven/Fairfield Counties EMA

1. New Haven/Fairfield Counties EMA 2010 Assessment of the Administrative Mechanism-- Results Friday, September 9th, 2010 Burroughs Community Center

2. What is the Assessment of the Administrative Mechanism and why do we do it? 5) d. Administrative Assessment The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program mandates that the EMA/TGA Planning Councils must assess the efficiency of the administrative mechanism to rapidly allocate funds to the areas of greatest need within the EMA/TGA. • Provide a narrative that describes the results of the Planning Council’s assessment of the administrative mechanism in terms of: • Activities such as timely payments to contractors or data collection; and • Corrective action or suggested methods of improvement that were recommended. • If any deficiencies were noted, what were the deficiencies, what was the grantee’s response to those deficiencies, and what is the current status of the grantee’s response?

3. Assessment Questions • Part A funds were expended in a timely manner (Net 30?). • Part A contracts with service providers were signed in a timely manner • During FY 2010, the EMA had less than 3%(?) carryover in Part A funds. • Part A resources were reallocated in a timely manner to ensure the needs of the community are met. • Part A Programs funded in FY 2010 matched the service categories and percentages identified during the Council’s Priority Setting and Resource Allocation process • Planning Council Directives were reflected in Part A programs funded in FY 2010 • Net 30 means that buyer will pay seller in full on or before the 30th calendar day (including weekends and holidays) of when the Goods were dispatched by the Seller or the Services were fully provided

4. Q 1: Part A funds were expended in a timely manner (Net 30?)

5. Q3: During FY 2010, the EMA had less than 3%(?) carryover in Part A funds. • Total carryover request of $116,933.79 • Total FY 2010 Part A award: $7,227,221 • 1.6% carryover requested in FY 2010

6. Q4: Part A resources were reallocated in a timely manner to ensure the needs of the community are met.

7. Q5: Part A Programs funded in FY 2009 matched the service categories and percentages identified during the Council’s Priority Setting and Resource Allocation process

8. Q6: Planning Council Directives were reflected in Part A programs funded in FY 2010. • DIRECTIVE 1.1 - TO FACILITATE GEOGRAPHIC FUNDING DISTRIBUTION- TRUE • DIRECTIVE 1.2 - TO FACILITATE COST EFFECTIVENESS AND FULL EXPENDITURE OF FUNDING ACROSS ALL SERVICE CATEGORIES-TRUE • DIRECTIVE 1.3 – TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM WITHIN EACH OF THE PLANNING COUNCIL’S FIVE REGIONS-TRUE • DIRECTIVE 2.1 – TO PROMOTE COLLABORATIVE PLANNING AND POLICY-MAKING WITHIN EACH OF THE PLANNING COUNCIL’S FIVE REGIONS—TRUE • DIRECTIVE 2.2 – TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT OF AND ADHERENCE TO THE EMA’s STANDARDS OF CARE—TRUE • DIRECTIVE 2.3 – TO FACILITATE SERVICE UTILIZATION DATA-TRUE

9. New Haven/Fairfield Counties EMA 2009 Assessment of the Administrative Mechanism