The Center for IDEA
Early Childhood Data Systems
Use of Fiscal Data in
Program Management
Jamie Kilpatrick, DaSy
Catherine Hancock, VA Part C
Christy Scott, CO Part C
New Orleans, LA
August 15-17, 2016
Intended Outcomes
Understand the importance of accurate/verified
finance data that supports budget management.
Know where to find information about :
– fiscal data elements needed for budget development and
management
– The data analysis needed for budget management.
State examples of using fiscal data to analyze and
manage Part C budget
2
Importance of Budget Management
address state and
federal accountability
requirements
answer programmatic
questions
generate programmatic
and political support
3
Budget Management
Fiscal data elements needed to maintain on-going
budget management
–
–
–
–
–
Number of Children Referred
Number of Children Evaluated
Number of Children Served
Service Utilization (planned and delivered)
Revenue Received
Routine fiscal reports
Essential Fiscal Data
Data Category
Data Elements
Location of Data





Child Name
Diagnosis (ICD9/10)
Program Eligibilities
Family income and size
Primary home language
 Child Record

 IFSP (Individualized Family

Frequency/intensity of each service
authorized
Frequency/intensity of each service
delivered
Types of services
Program Data


Charges by service billed
Revenue received, by source of funding
 Local provider agency fiscal
Lead Agency Data


Staff Administrative costs
Infrastructure obligations and
payments
 state lead agency fiscal records
Local Provider Data



Revenue received, by fund source
Staff administrative costs
Infrastructure obligations and
payments
 Local program fiscal records
Child and Family
Demographics
Service Data

Service Plan)
records
6
State Scenarios
Virginia will tell the story of using fiscal data to
examine their allocation formula and to discover
fund utilization variations at the provider agency
level.
Colorado will demonstrate the types of fiscal reports
that are used to manage finances at the provider
level and how they can monitor utilization
The Virginia Experience
Catherine Hancock, Part C Coordinator
8
State Structure
Virginia Goals
Participated in the ITCA and DaSy Fiscal Technical
Assistance Initiative
Goals:
– To develop the fiscal management skills of local system
managers;
– To evaluate the formula by which we allocate funds to local
systems to be sure it is as effective and equitable as
possible
These activities are part of our SSIP
10
Fiscal Challenges
No requirement for local fiscal commitment
Variety of local system fiscal structures
Local system manager fiscal experience varies
Reimbursement rate for EI TCM does not fully cover
cost
Data system does not include fiscal data
Need to improve financial stability
Allocation Formula
$50,000
base
Child Count
Share
NonMedicaid
Count Share
Local Allocation
Information Available
Local budget
Revenue and expenditure reporting form
Monthly report from state Medicaid agency with all
EI services reimbursed by Medicaid
13
Total Monthly Billing by Local System
14
Total Monthly Billing by Procedure
15
Possible Contributing Factors
Poverty level of the community served
Structure of local system – directly provides services
or contracts for service provision
Type of local system – local behavioral health center
vs. school, local government, or university
Rural versus Urban
Local contribution of funds to the local system
Frequency and type of services provided
Size of local system
16
Review of Allocation Formula
Compiled a file with all funding to each system
17
Systems that Frequently Request Funding
Frequent
Requesters
% Medicaid
Child Count 1-Year/3-Year Child
Count Increase
G
75%
3
1-year: 19%
3-year: 46%
H
77%
2
I
78%
2
J
79%
2
K
80%
3
L
81%
2
M
84%
2
N
84%
1
1-year: 6.7%
3-year: -4.4%
1-year: 18%
3-year: -4.1%
1-year: 1.5%
3-year: 36%
1-year: 4.0%
3-year: 3.0%
1-year: -21%
3-year: -30%
1-year: -30%
3-year: -40%
1-year: -3.3%
3-year: 25%
18
Actual Local
Funds, Fee
transfers
$12,966
(Budgeted
$52,000)
$0
System Ops as
% of Total
Expenditures
15.18%
26.66%
$700
20.26%
$0
16.72%
$0
15.18%
$105
45.08%
$19,200
44.01%
$2,300
11.95%
Systems that Didn’t Request Funding
Never
Requested
% Medicaid
Child Count
1-Year/3-Year Child
Count Increase
1
37%
2
1-year: -2.4%
3-year: -8.0%
$315,800
33.56%
2
40%
4
1-year: -1.8%
3-year: 9.0%
$758,700
5.18%
3
44%
5
1-year: 1.6%
3-year: 24%
$852,000
(other)
5.16%
4
47%
1
1-year: 0%
3-year: -31%
$105,800
25.91%
5
56%
3
1-year: -7.6%
3-year: 17%
$0
13.49%
6
68%
2
1-year: -11%
3-year: 23%
$0
8.23%
7
78%
4
1-year: 4.4%
3-year: 11%
$105,200
20.46%
8
84%
2
1-year: 0%
3-year: 4.9%
$245,00
28.83%
19
Actual Local
Funds, Fee
transfers
System Ops as % of
Total Expenditures
What Did We Learn?
We have more questions
– What are the service delivery patterns?
– Why do some systems have higher
operating costs?
– Are salaries different across systems?
– Can the difficulty with the allocation
formula be attributed to insufficient
funding?
20
What are We Doing?
Providing guidance on how to report
expenditures and revenues
Considering limiting System Operations costs
to 15 to 20%
Delaying changes to the Allocation Formula
until we develop a new data system
Continue to work individually with system
managers to maximize revenue
21
The Colorado Experience
Christy Scott, Part C Coordinator
22
Colorado Fiscal Data
Use reports to inform program decisions at both
state and local level
Allocation formulas are calculated and spreadsheets
are distributed
Utilization reports are distributed each month to
compare projected utilization of resources to actuals
23
Allocation Calculations
Average monthly enrolled (AME) for
allocation calculation
CCB Name
FY 14-15 YTD
Actual Actual
Average FY 14-15 EI Actual AME
AME AME
Actual AME FY 11-12 - Allocated 3/1/14 FY11-12 FY12-13 FY 13-14 13-14
Enrollments 2/28/15
FY 15-16
Average % Projected
Change
AME on
Since FY 11- Average % of
12
Change
AME Base
(Higher Actual
Avg FY 11-12 13-14
FY 15-16
Projecte % of Total
d AME Adjusted
Adjusted AME
CCB1
47
51
57
52
60
54
54
3.72%
56
56
1.35%
CCB2
129
149
162
147
172
177
177
9.30%
193
196
4.73%
CCB3
68
65
56
63
68
59
63
-3.31%
57
68
1.64%
CCB4
109
84
68
87
98
66
87
-9.86%
59
94
2.27%
CCB5
519
478
518
505
536
539
539
0.96%
544
571
13.77%
CCB6
535
530
580
548
600
637
637
4.77%
667
689
16.61%
CCB7
64
71
68
68
72
67
68
1.17%
68
68
1.64%
CCB8
1,385
1,446
1,626
1,486
1,746
1,742
1,742
6.44%
1,854
1,907
45.97%
CCB9
113
99
100
104
108
105
105
-1.77%
103
113
2.72%
CCB10
277
277
342
299
363
359
359
7.40%
386
386
9.31%
3,246
3,250
3,577
3,359
3,823
3,805
3,831
3,987
4,148
9.01%
TOTAL
25
AME Medicaid for allocation calculation
CCB
CCB1
CCB2
CCB3
CCB4
CCB5
CCB6
CCB7
CCB8
CCB9
CCB10
TOTAL
26
% Actual Average Monthly Trust
Actual Average Monthly Trust Paid Paid to FY 14-15 Projected AME
11/1/13 - 10/31/14
Adjusted
4
7.14%
16
8.16%
3
11
80
151
5
220
1
39
530
FY 14-15 Projected
Trust AME
4
16
4.41%
11.70%
14.01%
21.92%
7.35%
11.54%
0.88%
10.10%
3
11
78
146
5
213
1
38
514
AME Insurance Trust for allocation
calculation
27
CCB
Actual Medicaid
AME 11/1/13 10/31/14
% Actual Medicaid AME to FY
State Percentage
14-15 Projected AME
Projected Min
of Medicaid Actual
Adjusted
TCM Paid
CCB1
46
2%
82.14%
44
CCB2
124
7%
63.27%
118
CCB3
42
2%
61.76%
40
CCB4
43
2%
45.74%
41
CCB5
256
14%
44.83%
243
CCB6
264
14%
38.32%
251
CCB7
52
3%
76.47%
49
CCB8
778
42%
40.80%
739
CCB9
55
3%
48.67%
52
CCB10
TOTAL
199
1,859
11%
51.55%
189
1,766
Allocation service coordination
CCB
Projected AME
Less Projected
TCM Paid & Trust
Paid
% Projected AME
Less Projected TCM
and Trust Paid
Projected State
Adjusted to Total General Fund
AME
AME
Projected
Federal Part
Federal Part C
C Funds
State General Fund Funds
AME
Allocation
Allocation
Total Revised Service
Coordination Allocation
CCB1
15
0.80%
24
2
$31,449.60
$2,620.80
$34,070.40
CCB2
62
3.32%
101
9
$132,350.40
$11,793.60
$144,144.00
CCB3
30
1.60%
49
4
$64,209.60
$5,241.60
$69,451.20
CCB4
42
2.25%
70
6
$91,728.00
$7,862.40
$99,590.40
CCB5
250
13.32%
405
34
$530,712.00
$44,553.60
$575,265.60
CCB6
292
15.51%
470
39
$615,888.00
$51,105.60
$666,993.60
CCB7
14
0.75%
29
2
$38,001.60
$2,620.80
$40,622.40
CCB8
955
50.79%
1,547
132
CCB9
60
3.19%
97
8
$127,108.80
$10,483.20
$137,592.00
CCB10
159
8.46%
258
21
$338,083.20
$27,518.40
$365,601.60
TOTAL
1,880
100%
3,050
257
28
$2,026,759.30 $172,972.80
$3,996,290.50 $336,772.80
$2,199,732.10
$4,333,063.30
Allocation direct services
FY 14-15
Actual
Projected Min
Medicaid
Avg Monthly
AME 11/1/13 Medicaid
- 10/31/14 Service Paid
Projected
Min Avg
Monthly
Trust Paid
FY 14-15
% Projected
Projected
State General
AME Less
Fund and
Medicaid and Federal Part C
Trust Fund Funds Direct
Paid
Service AME
State General
Fund
Projected
AME
Federal
Part C
Funds
Projected State General Fund Federal Part C
AME
Allocation
Funds Allocation
Total State
General Fund and
Federal Part C
Funds DS
Allocation
46
24
4
28
0.53%
26
0
$113,230.00
$0.00
$113,230.00
124
64
16
116
2.19%
105
1
$457,275.00
$4,937.00
$462,212.00
42
22
3
43
0.81%
39
0
$169,845.00
$0.00
$169,845.00
43
22
11
61
1.15%
56
1
$243,880.00
$4,355.00
$248,235.00
256
133
80
358
6.75%
328
4
$1,428,440.00
$20,333.00
$1,448,773.00
264
137
151
401
7.56%
365
2
$1,589,575.00
$15,117.00
$1,604,692.00
52
27
5
36
0.68%
33
0
$143,715.00
$0.00
$143,715.00
778
405
220
1,282
24.17%
1172
15
$5,104,060.00
$90,955.00
$5,195,015.00
55
29
1
83
1.56%
77
1
$335,335.00
$4,355.00
$339,690.00
199
103
39
244
4.60%
224
2
$975,520.00
$9,292.00
$984,812.00
1,859
29
966
530
2,652
50.00%
2,425
26
$10,560,875.00 $149,344.00 $10,710,219.00
Utilization Reports
AME comparison – Total program
CCB
31
State/Part C Projected State/Part C Actual
AME
AME
Difference Actual to
Projected
% Monthly
Enrolled
CCB1
60
66
6
110.0%
CCB2
172
171
-1
99.5%
CCB3
68
70
2
102.9%
CCB4
98
66
-32
66.9%
CCB5
536
592
56
110.4%
CCB6
600
764
164
127.3%
CCB7
72
71
-1
98.9%
CCB8
1,746
1,869
123
107.1%
CCB9
108
102
-6
94.8%
CCB10
STATE
TOTAL
363
363
0
99.9%
3,823
4,134
311
108.1%
AME comparison – State Insurance Trust
CCB
Trust Projected AME
Trust Actual AME
Difference Actual to
Projected
CCB1
2
4
1
175%
CCB2
13
14
1
111%
CCB3
3
3
0
111%
CCB4
14
11
-3
77%
CCB5
77
91
13
118%
CCB6
122
162
40
132%
CCB7
1
5
4
492%
CCB8
172
234
62
136%
CCB9
1
1
0
100%
CCB10
STATE
TOTAL
38
40
2
105%
443
564
120
105.5%
32
% Monthly
Enrolled
AME comparison - Medicaid
33
CCB
Medicaid
Projected
AME
% Difference Actual % Difference Actual
Medicaid Actual Medicaid Actual
Paid to Actual
Enrolled to Projected
Enrolled AME
TCM Paid
Enrolled TCM
TCM
CCB1
43
45
43
95%
105%
CCB2
114
121
76
63%
106%
CCB3
35
32
33
104%
91%
CCB4
43
33
33
99%
77%
CCB5
243
181
186
103%
74%
CCB6
237
268
187
70%
113%
CCB7
53
41
38
92%
77%
CCB8
689
676
554
82%
98%
CCB9
52
44
44
100%
85%
CCB10
STATE
TOTAL
166
168
167
99%
101%
1675
1609
1360
85%
81%
AME comparison – Direct services
CCB
Payments for Direct Service
%
Balance of State and Part C
State/Part C Allocated Funds
Claims
Expended
Funds
CCB1
$184,031.52
$153,723
83.53%
$30,308
CCB2
$521,031.00
$402,946
77.34%
$118,085
CCB3
$197,769.00
$149,082
75.38%
$48,687
CCB4
$219,389.00
$119,914
54.66%
$99,475
CCB5
$1,562,576.00
$1,221,155
78.15%
$341,421
CCB6
$1,766,708.00
$1,444,257
81.75%
$322,451
CCB7
$175,001.00
$113,616
64.92%
$61,385
CCB8
$5,672,263.00
$4,556,940
80.34%
$1,115,323
CCB9
$360,538.00
$186,493
51.73%
$174,045
CCB10
STATE
TOTAL
$1,103,546.00
$619,778
56.16%
$483,768
76.24%
$2,794,948
34
$ 11,762,852.52
$8,967,904.54
Contact information
Early Intervention Colorado:
www.eicolorado.org
Christy Scott, Director
[email protected]
303-866-2664
35
Final presentation slide
Visit the DaSy website at:
http://dasycenter.org/
Like us on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/dasycenter
Follow us on Twitter:
@DaSyCenter
36
The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the
U.S. Department of Education, # H373Z120002. However, those contents do
not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education,
and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
Project Officers, Meredith Miceli and Richelle Davis.
37