Greater Baltimore HIV Health Services Planning Council © 2008-2012, InterGroup Services, Inc.
Anne Arundel County Baltimore City Baltimore County Carroll County Harford County Howard County Queen Anne's County
Information Portal
Housing Services Scorecard Archive
Housing Services — EMA Period 2 Scorecard © 2008-2012, InterGroup Services, Inc.
FY Ranking EMA Award Initial Allocation Reprogramming Total Allocation % of Award Carryover Total Alloc.
2009 S1 $17,433,707 $789,895 $0 $789,895 4.53% $0 $789,895
Current Performance
Reporting Period Period 1 Period 2 YTD FY09
Dates in Period 8/9-0/9 1/9-2/9 8/9-2/9
Months in Period 5 2 7
Expenditures Period 1 Period 2 YTD FY09
Projected Dollars $329,123 $131,649 $460,772
Percent 41.67% 16.67% 58.33%
Actual Dollars $352,481 $192,078 $544,559
Percent 44.62% 24.32% 68.94%
Variance Dollars $23,358 $60,429 $83,787
Percent 2.96% 7.65% 10.61%
Clients Period 1 Period 2 YTD FY09   Units Period 1 Period 2 YTD FY09
Projected Clients 179 71 250 Projected Units 7,971 3,188 11,159
Percent 41.67% 16.67% 58.33% Percent 41.67% 16.67% 58.33%
Actual Clients 137 36 173 Actual Units 6,578 3,908 10,486
Percent 31.97% 8.40% 40.37% Percent 34.39% 20.43% 54.82%
Variance Clients -42 -35 -77 Variance Units -1,393 720 -673
Percent -9.70% -8.27% -17.97% Percent -7.28% 3.76% -3.52%
About Current Performance
  Grantee Comments Period   Questions to Consider
Fiscal: The category over-expended by 6.28 percent. Two contracts for $100,000 were awarded in June 2009, which impacted this category's 5-month expenditure variance. 1 Fiscal: With additional contracts awarded in June, this service category should expend more funds in the remaining 7-month period.
Program: Increase in clients accessing housing services attributed to collaboration and linkages with hospitals, nursing homes and organizations that target the formerly incarcerated population. Other funding streams were used. Program: Why are units served across all housing activities so low? Will projections be adjusted?
Fiscal: No comment. 2 Fiscal: Category expending on target at seven-month point. Historically, utilization of this category increases in the fall and winter.
Program: There has been a substantial increase in demand for transitional housing but there is no waiting list. Program: Client and unit actuals are on target. Can existing category absorb the expected increase in clients during the current fall season and upcoming winter?
* 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.
** This is the difference between last year's actual expenditures at this point in the year and where the expenditures should have been based upon the final expenditure and the assumption that expenditures would be spread evenly over the year. (If the current-year bar is similar to the prior-year bar, then the current year is following the prior year's pattern and is on track to meet the current projection [should it continue to follow the prior year's pattern]). Note: This bar should always be at zero variance for the final period of the year (as the actual expenditure is exactly equal to where expenditures should be at that time of year given the final expenditure.


- page 2 -

Historical Performance © 2008-2012  InterGroup Services, Inc.    (ph) 410.662.7253
Funding/Fiscal
FY EMA Award Allocat. to Category Allocat. + Reprogram. % of Award Amount Spent $ Unspent
(No Carry.)
2009 $17,433,707   $789,895 $789,895 4.53% $544,559 $245,336
2008   $15,625,276 $859,697 $943,326 6.04% $942,045 $1,281
2007   $16,308,921 $737,008 $747,616 4.58% $926,974 $-179,358
2006   $18,975,908 $764,729 $732,086 3.86% $783,439 $-51,353
2005   $17,144,692 $675,501 $675,501 3.94% $726,377 $-50,876
2004   $17,811,946 $701,791 $775,791 4.36% $872,708 $-96,917
Clients
FY Project. Actual Vari. Cost Per
Client
Af.-Am.
Percent
WICY
Percent
2009 428 173 -255 $3,147 92.0% 52.0%
2008 509 530 21 $1,777 96.0% 51.0%
2007 458 557 99 $1,664 97.0% 45.8%
2006 510 518 8 $1,512 100.0% 47.0%
2005 615 572 -43 $1,269 88.1% 38.6%
2004 1,081 558 -523 $1,563 95.0% 56.8%
Planning
Unmet Need
As of the last (2010) consumer survey 53 percent of the 268 respondents reporting a need for Housing Services said they could not get it.
Clients survey year (FY 2009): 220
Est. percent of need met: 47%
Est. clients needing service: 468
Clients served (2009): 173
Est. clients not served (2009): 295
Cost per client (2009): $3,147
Cost to meet need:    $928,365 
Other Funding Streams
RW Part A EMA $789,895
City of Baltimore, HOPWA. $6,336,671
Baltimore County, HOPWA. $911,994
Health Care for the Homeless, Inc., Connect HOPWA. $427,978
Housing Commission of Anne Arundel County, HOPWA. $313,592
Anne Arundel, HOPWA. $271,586
Health Care for the Homeless, Inc., Capital HOPWA. $250,000
Howard County HOPWA. $96,443
Harford County, HOPWA. $92,060
Harford County, HOPWA $87,842
Howard County HOPWA. $83,961
Health Care for the Homeless, Inc., HOPWA. $25,000



RW Part A EMA
Other Funding
Final Analysis
Unspent (including carryover/adjust.): $245,336
FY 2010 Info Rank: S2 EMA Award: $16,870,407

Browse Scorecards By Year
Home
Greater Baltimore
HIV Health Services
Planning Council
Primary Web Site
Quick Links
Browse Categories
Browse Scorecards
By Period
By Category
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.