1. Grant Administration using Technology Kevin McNeal, Program Manager Ryan White Part A, Phoenix EMA Maricopa County, Arizona

2. Objectives • Advantages to utilizing technology in Grant Administration • Challenges • Evolution of a technology-based system of care • Results

3. Advantages • Reporting and Analysis • Real time reporting • Aggregate data • Monitoring/Oversight • Provider level • Service category level • Streamlining the system • Reduced manual work • Standardized data • Consistent across the continuum

4. Challenges • Buy – In • Providers • Planning Council • Consumers • HRSA • Implementation • Not overnight – it’s a process • Integrity of Data • Critical to maintain data integrity • Work Flow • Adapting to change • Process development

5. Evolution • Identify Stakeholders • What do they want/need • Planning Council, HRSA, Consumers, etc. • Identify Program Needs • What do we want/need to tell them • Identify system/technology needs • Infrastructure – Grantee and Providers • What is utilized • What is needed

6. Evolution • Plan • Timeline – How long will it take? • Standardization (across the system – everyone reporting the same way) • Expectations • Provider • IT • AA Infrastructure • Conversion • How to actually implement the changes • Protect Data Integrity • Testing • Phoenix EMA staggered*** • Review/refine • PDSA • Glitches – expect them

7. Results • Reporting/Analysis • Data integrity- • Data is from consistent source – The Grantee • Providers report in standardized methodology • Same expectations across the continuum • Multiple providers can be aggregated. • Relational data • Data can be cross referenced across services, providers • Standard Reporting • Information is standardized and reported across continuum • Audience – across all levels • Client level data can report trends and utilization from clients across different service categories. • (Example – graph of PA CM to other services)

8. BEFORE

9. Utilization Reports

10. Utilization Reports - Cont

11. Data Analysis • Data Analysis/Mining • Central database – Grantee can access the data • Ad hoc reporting • Query reports as questions arise • Relational data • Data is reported across the continuum • Aggregate data reporting

12. Adhoc Reporting

13. OUTCOMES • Monitoring/Oversight • Exception reporting – without having to review everything every month. • Trends • Anomalies • Identification of potential issues\ • Client unmet need/service gaps • Cost variances/allowability

14. Site Visits • Key Factors • Grantee has demographic data • Reviews conducted at random, not from Providers • Real time reporting to Providers • Goal to reduce administrative time spent compiling data • Process • Site Visits are performed annually • Monitoring tool is automated • Data Collection is done on site • Reporting can be finalized within 5 days

15. Site Visit Tool

16. Site Visit Tool - Cont

17. Site Visit Tool - Reporting

18. Grant Management • Key Factors • Core 75% and Supportive 25% Tracking Formula/Supplemental Tracking • Tracking of Sub Contractors • Balancing to Internal Government Finance System • Timely Reporting of Grant Performance and Expenditures • Goal to Reduce Administrative time to compile data • Process • All data is stored in system • Financial and Programmatic monitoring workflow • Site Visits and CQM Site Visits data is compiled • Grant Performance and Expenditure Reporting can be completed timely

19. Grant Management Database

20. OUTCOMES • Streamlining the system • Data Driven decision process • Timely client level reporting • Identify unmet need/service gaps • Relational Data • Client Level Data - Demographics • Service Category • Anecdotal information accounted for • Technical Assistance • Real time TA • TA needs can be addressed at Provider and service level • Goto meeting • Travel Time • Can help them directly at their computer • Can watch them do data entry – real time

21. Benefits • Reduced Administrative Costs • Grantee • Integrated tools reduce manual data entry and compilation of data • Site visit/ Grant Management database • Adhoc and custom reporting • Queries can be run quickly without having to collect data from multiple providers • Standardized data can compile and aggregate data easily and quickly • Providers • Data connectors (reduce double data entry) • Importer transactions – 6500 transactions / month = 55 hours • Adhoc reporting • Less administrative burden by compiling and reporting data manually to the AA • Variance check points • Providers can quickly check grant compliance/monitor their own activity

22. Requirements • Understanding what is needed • Developing processes and standards • Technology should be used to reduce time on mundane tasks • Data Entry • Data Compilation – Standard Requirements • Adhoc tools available to answer questions • Validation tests to ensure data is accurate • Technical Assistance for staff and providers

23. Lessons Learned • Without Buy-In systems will fail • Implementation timelines must be realistic • Include a PDSA cycle • Develop a plan with flexibility • Technical Assistance is critical

24. Contact Information • Kevin McNeal Maricopa County 301 W Jefferson, Suite 3200 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 602-506-6181 kevinmcneal@mail.maricopa.gov • Julie Young TriYoung Business Solutions, Inc 8024 N 24th Ave, Suite 302 Phoenix, Az 85021 602-424-1700 jyoung@azbizsolutions.com