Category served 62 percent of clients and 58 percent of unit goals. (These refer to pre-EIS adjustment figures.)
Program:
Category is over-performing. (This refers to pre-EIS adjustment figures.)
Fiscal:
Category expended 37 percent of funds.
2
Fiscal:
Delayed reporting from 4 of 10 contracts.
Program:
Category expended 72 percent of projected clients and 75 percent of projected units.
Program:
Category's over performance suggests need for increased funds.
Fiscal:
Category expended 97.7 percent of funds.
3
Fiscal:
Category performed on target.
Program:
Category served 67 percent of client goals and 116 percent of unit goals.
Program:
Unable to plan. Client projections changed each period (from 2666 clients in period 1 to 600 at year's end).
*
This is the difference between the current expenditures and where the current expenditures should be at this point in the year based upon
the total allocation (plus carryover) and the assumption that expenditures are spread evenly over the year.
Client and unit projections changed each period, PC unable to plan.
Compared to Last Year:
FY 2007 was a transition year for the new legislation and administrative entity. Last year this was a strategy within EIS that ws broken out as a stand alone category in the middle of the year.
Unmet Need:
Unable to determine at this point.
Questions:
How can PC plan when numbers of contracts and clients change so drastically from report to report, yet the funding remained the same?
To report a problem with the mechanics of the web site, please click here.
All content-related comments should be referred directly to the planning council support office
at +1 (410) 662-7253.