1. JANAURY 22-24, 2014 JANAURY 22-24, 2014 1

2. Why monitor Sub-Recipients? 2 1.The organization continues to be eligible for funding 2.All sub-recipient agreements are being adhered to 3.Ensure that the services compensated are being provided effectively and efficiently 4.All rules and regulations governing the use of CDBG funds are obeyed 5.You are required to do this by regulation

3. Selecting Subrecipients to Monitor There should be a methodology or a process for determining which agency to monitor in a particular year 100% monitoring of all agencies annually depending on number of agencies and/or the staffing availability Monitor a certain number of agencies based a selection criteria. There should be a methodology or a process for determining which agency to monitor in a particular year 100% monitoring of all agencies annually depending on number of agencies and/or the staffing availability Monitor a certain number of agencies based a selection criteria. 3

4. Process for selecting Agencies to Monitor Annually  The process of selecting an agency should be documented. - Monitoring Policies and Procedures Manual  Selection of the sub-recipient must not be random (You should be able to justify your selections)  Risk-based selection criteria is typically used in this industry.  The process of selecting an agency should be documented. - Monitoring Policies and Procedures Manual  Selection of the sub-recipient must not be random (You should be able to justify your selections)  Risk-based selection criteria is typically used in this industry. 4

5. Risk Based Selection Criteria  A risk-based selection criteria assigns various scores to certain risk factors and selects the riskiest agencies for monitoring  Example of factors determining risk: New Subrecipient; Subrecipients with corrective actions from past monitoring Subrecipients with new or expanding activities Subrecipients with large contracts  A risk-based selection criteria assigns various scores to certain risk factors and selects the riskiest agencies for monitoring  Example of factors determining risk: New Subrecipient; Subrecipients with corrective actions from past monitoring Subrecipients with new or expanding activities Subrecipients with large contracts 5

6. Risk Factors used in Miami  High Risk (6 points each instance) Subrecipient is new to the CDBG program or experiencing turnover of key staff positions Compliance with Fiscal and Administrative policies Lack of Progress in contracted activity Subrecipients with 4 or less funding cycles undertaking activities not previously funded for ______________________________  High Risk (6 points each instance) Subrecipient is new to the CDBG program or experiencing turnover of key staff positions Compliance with Fiscal and Administrative policies Lack of Progress in contracted activity Subrecipients with 4 or less funding cycles undertaking activities not previously funded for ______________________________ 6

7. Risk Factors used in Miami II  Medium-Risk Level (3 points for each instance) Subrecipients with 5 or more funding cycles undertaking activities not previously funded Subrecipients with findings resulting from previous monitoring visits Compliance with Fiscal and Administrative policies _______________________  Medium-Risk Level (3 points for each instance) Subrecipients with 5 or more funding cycles undertaking activities not previously funded Subrecipients with findings resulting from previous monitoring visits Compliance with Fiscal and Administrative policies _______________________ 7

8. Risk Factors used in Miami III  Low-Risk Level (1 point each instant) Subrecipients undertaking activities previously funded for Subrecipients with cumulative federal grant Award totaling more than $500,000 Subrecipients with areas of concerns from previous monitoring visits _____________________  Low-Risk Level (1 point each instant) Subrecipients undertaking activities previously funded for Subrecipients with cumulative federal grant Award totaling more than $500,000 Subrecipients with areas of concerns from previous monitoring visits _____________________ 8

9. Levels of Monitoring  On-going Review  Regular On-Site Monitoring Review  Comprehensive On-Site Monitoring Review  On-going Review  Regular On-Site Monitoring Review  Comprehensive On-Site Monitoring Review 9

10. Preparing for A Monitoring Visit 10

11. Monitoring Checklist 11

12. Why use a Checklist?  Book : The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right - Atul Gawande  checklists ensures that complicated projects can be brought to fruition  It can improve the effectiveness of teams and individuals performing complex tasks  Human memory is very unreliable  Documentation  Book : The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right - Atul Gawande  checklists ensures that complicated projects can be brought to fruition  It can improve the effectiveness of teams and individuals performing complex tasks  Human memory is very unreliable  Documentation 12

13. Effective Checklist  An effective checklist must not contain more than 7 items  Use sub-groups to subdivide checklist into manageable items  Should be used, evaluated and perfected  Use revision dates to ensure that everyone is using the current version  An effective checklist must not contain more than 7 items  Use sub-groups to subdivide checklist into manageable items  Should be used, evaluated and perfected  Use revision dates to ensure that everyone is using the current version 13

14. City of Miami checklist (Example) Subgroups  National Objective and Eligibility  Management Systems  Conformance with Subrecipient agreements  Record Keeping systems  Financial Management systems Subgroups  National Objective and Eligibility  Management Systems  Conformance with Subrecipient agreements  Record Keeping systems  Financial Management systems 14

15. Post Monitoring 15

16. Monitoring Report  Summarizes the monitoring in broad categories with support documentation  Identifies findings and areas of concern  If there are findings, it provides dates when a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) needs to be submitted.  Reviewed by a supervisor and approved/ or an additional documentation may be required/or more questions can be generated  Summarizes the monitoring in broad categories with support documentation  Identifies findings and areas of concern  If there are findings, it provides dates when a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) needs to be submitted.  Reviewed by a supervisor and approved/ or an additional documentation may be required/or more questions can be generated 16

17. Reports with Findings  Great attention is centered on reports with findings  Reports with certain findings are escalated to other parts of the department  Reimbursements might be suspended based on the findings  Corrective Action Plans are reviewed and approved or disapproved  CAPS are monitored to ensure the subrecipient meets all the deadlines established  Great attention is centered on reports with findings  Reports with certain findings are escalated to other parts of the department  Reimbursements might be suspended based on the findings  Corrective Action Plans are reviewed and approved or disapproved  CAPS are monitored to ensure the subrecipient meets all the deadlines established 17

18. Subrecipients with Findings  Scores higher in the risk scores and are more likely to be monitored the following year  Technical assistance is normally provided to such agencies that includes: Directing them to training opportunities Providing direct training to staff of the subrecipient Asking other non-profits to provide direct assistance to the subrecipient  End relationship with subrecipient  Scores higher in the risk scores and are more likely to be monitored the following year  Technical assistance is normally provided to such agencies that includes: Directing them to training opportunities Providing direct training to staff of the subrecipient Asking other non-profits to provide direct assistance to the subrecipient  End relationship with subrecipient 18

19. QUESTIONS 19