1. 2011 Assessment of the Administrative Mechanism-- Results Friday, August 10 th, 2012 1

2. 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? 2

3. 1. Part A funds were expended in a timely manner (Net 30?). 2. Part A contracts with service providers were signed in a timely manner 3. During FY 2011, the EMA had less than 3%(?) carryover in Part A funds. 4. Part A resources were reallocated in a timely manner to ensure the needs of the community are met. 5. Part A Programs funded in FY 2011 matched the service categories and percentages identified during the Council’s Priority Setting and Resource Allocation process 6. Planning Council Directives were reflected in Part A programs funded in FY 2011 7. The Planning Council also asked about length of time for payments to reach sub-grantees from the regional lead  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 3

4. MarAprMayJunJulyAugSepOctNovDecJanFebAvg 18221737172434212021191122 4

5.  Due to multiple Notice of Grant Awards, this question is not applicable for FY 2011 5

6.  Total carryover request of $16,978.48  Total FY 2011 Part A award: $7,253,400 .2% carryover requested in FY 2011  99.8% spent during FY 2011 6

7. Q4: Part A resources were reallocated in a timely manner to ensure the needs of the community are met. Q4: Part A resources were reallocated in a timely manner to ensure the needs of the community are met. 7

8. Q5: Part A Programs funded in FY 2011 matched the service categories and percentages identified during the Council’s Priority Setting and Resource Allocation process 8

9.  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

10.  Region 1-They do not wait to send their drawdown on the 20th of each month. What happens is the Subs will send their drawdowns on the 10th of each month and Region 1 will prepare and send them the disbursement by the 1st of the following month. They send their drawdown to Ryan White on the 20th of each month.  Region 2- My contact is sending me an analyses sometime by the end of the day. I will get back to you.  Region 3- The turnaround is 3 days, once they receive the check from Ryan White.  Region 4-The turnaround is 7 to 10 days after they receive the check from Ryan White.  Region 5- The turnaround is 7 days after they receive the check from Ryan White. 10

11. 2011 Assessment of the Administrative Mechanism 11