1 / 62

Grants Administration Process Overview Jim Pearsol May 17,2010

Grants Administration Process Overview Jim Pearsol May 17,2010. Purpose. To protect and improve the Public’s health The customer is the public Create a robust business partnership across the entire enterprise Standardize and simply processes wherever and whenever possible

hollie
Download Presentation

Grants Administration Process Overview Jim Pearsol May 17,2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Grants Administration Process OverviewJim PearsolMay 17,2010

  2. Purpose To protect and improve the Public’s health The customer is the public Create a robust business partnership across the entire enterprise Standardize and simply processes wherever and whenever possible Consider: Who? What? When? Where? Why? and How? Potential benefits: reduce waste, eliminate duplication, save time, improve performance, better documentation of success and improved health outcomes, and an opportunity to celebrate

  3. Topics Common components of a grants administration process Key control points Examples of incentives Examples of tactical options New developments on the horizon State examples (OH, MI and IA)

  4. Common components of GAP Federal Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) Federal application process: federal forms, state clearinghouse forms, assurances, program and fiscal approvals and signatures, budget and personnel review and approvals, final sign-off and submission Receipt of federal NOA: special conditions, loading into state systems (budget and acct’g), federal grant modifications (approvals and spending plans)

  5. Con’d Subgrantee RFP*: creation of RFP – program and fiscal elements, subgrantee eligibility requirements (notice to subgrantees?), final sign-offs, release of RFP, standardized elements? Subgrantee Application*: Receipt of RFP, preparation of narrative and fiscal elements, review and sign-off steps, submission of application, notice of receipt of application * Can these run concurrently with any prior steps?

  6. Con’d Internal grants management process (from receipt of subgrantee application to approval and NOA): review of applications – narrative and budget special conditions* non-selected and selected applicant reviews, approvals, and signoffs preparation of purchase requisition and cover letter, filing of entire package into a project folder (master file?) *including any outstanding audit issues?

  7. Con’d Purchase order process: Purchase order prepared and cross-checked with approved application Send NOA and package to subgrantee Prepare payment transmittal form Accounting assures cash is available Disburse initial funds (how is this done in CO?)

  8. Con’d Subgrantee responsibilities: Compliance with any special conditions Implementation of PH program Submission of required fiscal and program documentation (procedures? time frames?) Local oversight and/or fiscal procedures Annual reconciliation reports Audits required by law

  9. Con’d Federal/state health agency program and fiscal monitoring responsibilities: Implementation of PH program Site visits and reports Desk reviews and reports Failure to comply (consequences) Budget modification processes* - fiscal limits and how often in a grant period, “no cost” extensions, changes in scope or amount of award, etc. * a “hidden,” complicating element of a GAP

  10. Con’d Completion of required reports and closeouts: Interim FSR Close-out procedures Return of unused funds Final FSR Failure to comply (consequences)

  11. Examples of key control points Documentation of certifications (SHA to federal and subgrantee to SHA) Director’s approvals Award matches request Elimination of fiscal exceptions (management overrides and straight debits for payments to subgrantees) Documentation of compliance with deadlines (applications/NOAs/budget revisions/etc) Documentation of compliance with special conditions Documentation of compliance with final closeout

  12. Examples of incentives One-time submission of certifications Standard RFP format Standard project reporting elements Earned budget flexibility after meeting defined compliance criteria

  13. Examples of tactical options Create flowchart, with documentation, of GAP Create a GAP policies and procedures manual for both internal and external audiences Create a standardized master file for all subgrant project folders (electronic preferred) Implement a comprehensive, ongoing internal and external GAP training program Establish a minimum dollar threshold for subgrants Establish a robust subgrantee audit program

  14. New developments on horizon ASTHO/CDC joint project on improving grant processes (BSIP) ARRA grant requirements Fiscal intermediaries Health reform funding PHAB fiscal standards and measures

  15. BSIP – CDC business processes Consistent and more flexible carry-over policy Standardize no cost extensions and budget modifications Reduce the degree of detail in budget submission requirements Standardize data and reporting element requirements Eliminate IT “stand alones”

  16. Con’d Standardize, or at least simplify, project period/budget period start dates Transparent performance tracking process Standardize minimum lead time for preparing applications in response to grant guidance Specify Business Process Metrics and Key Sign-offs Timely issuance of grant/cooperative agreement guidance including ample time for application preparation and submission

  17. Con’d Don’t combine (or mask) budget cuts with integration Reduce variation and differences in “rule interpretations” by PGO, programs and states Create standard applications, invoicing and reporting Clarify and standardize maintenance of effort and match requirements real-time transparent process for tracking status of requests

  18. Con’d Confirm agency assurances once annually Create a means for tracking expenditures – more refined than timing of state “drawdowns.” Track performance on outcomes rather than on processes Keep track of categorical funds but allocate to states in a blended fashion when appropriate Initiate an appeals process

  19. Con’d Link any expansion of program requirements (mid grant) with an associated increase in funding Conduct proactive needs assessments from state and local partners Workloads and expectations should be more commensurate with funding levels Explore the possibility of multi-year grants Simplify the continuation process Expand the allowable spending period beyond the prescribed 12 month budget period

  20. PHAB standards and measures Provide Financial Management Systems Standard A2 B: Establish effective financial management systems. • A2.1 B: Comply with requirements for externally funded programs • Audited financial statements • Program reports • A2.2 B: Maintain written agreements with entities providing processes, programs and/or interventions delegated or purchased by the public health agency • Two examples of current written contracts/MOUs, MOAs for processes, programs and/or interventions

  21. Con’d • A2.3 B: Maintain financial management systems • Examples of Documentation • Annual agency budget approved by governing entity • Two examples of financial reports (at least quarterly) • Audited financial statements • Other Examples of Documentation • Documentation that audit has been reviewed by the governing entity and/or key agency staff • Documentation that financial reports reviewed by the governing entity and/or key agency staff

  22. Con’d • A2.4 B: Seek resources to support agency infrastructure and processes, programs and interventions • Examples of documentation • Annual budget submission • Budget revisions • Additional funding requests • Grant applications and fundraising • Newspaper articles/letters to the editor on the need for improvement in public health (can be issues specific) • Public Health meeting discussing public health funding

  23. PHAB For more information: http://www.phaboard.org/assets/documents/PHABStateJuly2009-finaleditforbeta.pdf

  24. Questions? Thank you! jpearsol@astho.org

  25. Ohio GAP Comprehensive GAP policy and procedures manual http://www.odh.ohio.gov/pdf/GAPManual/GAPMANUAL.PDF “A-Z” list of recommended changes Kaizen Blitz to streamline process

  26. Michigan’s ContractApproach (CPBC)May 2010

  27. Michigan’s Public Health SystemState Level • Department of Community Health (State Health Agency) • Department of Environmental Health (Water, Sewage, Campgrounds, and Swimming Pool Programs) • Department of Agriculture (Food Service Safety Programs)

  28. Michigan’s Public Health SystemState Level • By state statute the State Health Agency is responsible for the provision of health services to Michigan Citizens • Statute provides the State Health Agency the option to grant local health departments authority to act on its behalf for primary responsibility and delivery of public health services to Michigan Citizens • The State Health Agency has exercised this option

  29. Michigan’s Public Health SystemLocal Health Department Level • State Statute requires each county to provide for a county health department • The legal local governing entity in Michigan is defined as a county

  30. Michigan’s Local Public Health System • 45 local health departments serving Michigan’s 83 counties and the city of Detroit: • 30 are single county departments • 14 are multiple county district Health departments • 1 city health department • 37 of the 45 local health departments are classified as rural health departments

  31. Michigan’s Local Public Health System • Boards of Health are optional except where there is a district health department • District boards of health are comprised of two elected officials (commissioners) from each county in the district

  32. Contractual Requirements • CPBC is a contractual agreement between the State Health Agency and each of the 45 local health departments • The contract is the administrative and legal mechanism through which categorical grants and other funds are disbursed or allocated to fund required services • The contract contains the majority of State Health Agency funded programs including those administered by the Departments of Environmental Quality and Agriculture

  33. CPBC TotalsFY05/06 • The 45 CPBC agreements collectively contained 62 local health service programs and funding of $101,623.860

  34. CPBC Main elements • Contains Six Components • 1) Boilerplate Parts I • 2) Boilerplate Parts II • 3) Budget-includes instructions, standard budget forms, amendment process • 4) Output Reporting – H-977-contains output measures for specific programs as established by program staff

  35. (Continued) • 5) Special Requirements-includes Minimum Program Requirements (MPRs), check off list, special requirements that do not have MPRs • 6) Allocation Schedule-contains allocations, defines programs as staff, fixed unit rate, performance, and includes performance measures

  36. CPBC is Standardization NotContract Consolidation • Each program has a budget, performance indicators, and reporting requirements • Standard forms are used for all programs and are itemized by program then rolled up to a combined budget • When possible reporting requirements are redefined as Minimum Reporting Requirements (MPRs) • Special reporting requirements are contained in a Special Reporting Section of the agreement

  37. Federal Reporting • The very extensive reporting requirements continue to be a barrier to moving from standardization to true contract consolidation

  38. CPBC Cycle • February-Previous agreements sent to MDCH Programs for review by MDCH Grants and Purchasing Division • March-Revised agreements returned to Grants and Purchasing Division • April-Final revised agreements returned to Programs for approval • April-Approved agreements returned to Grants and Purchasing Division

  39. CPBC Cycle Cont. • May-New agreements for all programs mailed out to local health department • June-August-Local health department obtains County or BOH approval • September-Signed agreements returned to Grants and Contracts Division • October – start new fiscal year

  40. CPBC Reimbursement • Local health departments are reimbursed monthly at 1/12 of planned/approved budget amount • Local health departments submit quarterly financial status reports (FSRs) detailing funds expended

  41. CPBC Adjustments • Local health departments submit an estimated FSR for the last quarter (July,Aug,Sept.) • Submit final adjusted actual FSR report by January 31. • Local health department may request advance operating funds through a formal process

  42. CPBC Resource Package* • All forms (FSR, Budget, Medicaid Cost-based reimbursement forms in spreadsheet format) • Best practice guidelines • Instructions for completing forms • Instructions for completing local maintenance of effort reports • Calendar of due dates • Contact directory * a procedures manual

  43. Key Partners • Grants and Contracts Division, MDCH-Serves as a connector between programs and local health departments, ensure schedules are kept, performs financial reviews, generates payments • Office of Local Health Services, MDCH-Serves as the single point of contact for local health departments to reach any part of MDCH. Staffs the annual standards review and funding formula local/state committees • Program Divisions-Performs program reviews, approves/doesn’t process payments

  44. Critical Success Factors • Top Leadership Commitment-Three state department directors meet quarterly with local health department leadership to deal with policy and financial issues • Principles of Collaboration Agreement-signed by three state department directors and the leadership of local public health pledging to work together in a collaborative manner on all issues relating to the provision of public health services to Michigan citizens

  45. Critical Success Factors • Information Technology-Active sharing of hardware, software, networking, and technical resources by and between local health departments, especially important to smaller local health departments • Local Resource Sharing-Local health departments not big fans of formal consolidation of local health departments but do utilize an associated contractual arrangement where local health departments share resources, people, technology.

  46. Critical Success Factors • The associated contractual relationship allows resource sharing but each county retains its own governing entity, budget, and organization.

  47. Closing the Loop • MI state accreditation provides the final piece of the Standardized contractual relationship between the state and local health departments. • MI accreditation uses the same MPRs • Site visits once every 3 years replaces annual individual program reviews including the WIC management evaluation • Affords an opportunity for program staff and local health department staff to interact on a regular basis in a positive collaborative way.

  48. Questions? Thank you!

  49. Iowa Department of Public HealthService ContractingKaizen EventReport Out “Contract Transformers” November 2-6, 2009

  50. The “Contract Transformers” TeamJody Insert team picture here Cheryl Christie-DPH, Bruce Brown-DPH, Kathi Nelson Hancock, John McMullen-DPH,Sherry Frizell-DPH,Sheri Stursma-DPH,Stacey Hewitt-DPH, Dawn MouwDPH, Mindy Uhle-DPH,Doreen Christensen-Cerro Gordo, Mark Vander Linden-DPH, Erin Barkema-DPH, Tim Wickam-DPH,Diana Von Stein-DPH, Jody Lane-Molnari-DHS, Chris Everson, MN Marcia Tope-DHS, Mike Rohlf-DM, 50

More Related