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
Food Bank/Home-delivered Meals Scorecard Archive
Food Bank/Home-delivered Meals — Counties Period 2 Scorecard © 2008-2012, InterGroup Services, Inc.
FY Ranking County Set Aside Initial Allocation Reprogramming Total Allocation % of Set Aside Carryover Total Alloc.
2010 S4 $2,355,903 $175,788 $0 $175,788 7.46% $0 $175,788
Current Performance
Reporting Period Period 1 Period 2 YTD FY10
Dates in Period 8/10-0/10 1/10-2/10 8/10-2/10
Months in Period 5 2 7
Expenditures Period 1 Period 2 YTD FY10
Projected Dollars $73,245 $29,298 $102,543
Percent 41.67% 16.67% 58.33%
Actual Dollars $66,775 $40,302 $107,077
Percent 37.99% 22.93% 60.91%
Variance Dollars $-6,470 $11,004 $4,534
Percent -3.68% 6.26% 2.58%
Clients Period 1 Period 2 YTD FY10 [There are no unit-level data for this category.]
Projected Clients 102 41 143
Percent 41.67% 16.67% 58.33%
Actual Clients 0 208 208
Percent 0.00% 84.85% 84.85%
Variance Clients -102 167 65
Percent -41.67% 68.18% 26.52%
About Current Performance
  Grantee Comments Period   Questions to Consider
Fiscal: This category performed within tolerance levels 1 Fiscal: Within tolerance
Program: Program: The number of actuals for liquid supplements for this category are quite high. Why are the numbers so high for this service?
Fiscal: Funding for this category had expenditures equaling less than half (43%) of the total dollars expended in FY09. 2 Fiscal: This category is performing at or above projected levels. Spending is over the projected rate.
Program: One program states client goals have been exceeded while another program reports fully expending the additional funding received to address client needs. Program: Two programs have exceeded goals. One received extra funds and fully utilized them. Does this mean that the provider expects a drop-off of clients to the original level?
* 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 County Set Aside Allocat. to Category Allocat. + Reprogram. % of Set Aside Amount Spent $ Unspent
(No Carry.)
2010 $2,355,903   $175,788 $175,788 7.46% $107,077 $68,711
2009   $2,334,014 $190,788 $190,788 8.17% $190,752 $36
2008   $2,411,806 $168,727 $169,727 7.04% $169,126 $601
2007   $2,470,676 $164,598 $164,598 6.66% $164,598 $0
2006   $2,489,638 $162,324 $162,324 6.52% $187,624 $-25,300
2005   $2,259,670 $182,581 $182,581 8.08% $182,581 $0
Clients
FY Project. Actual Vari. Cost Per
Client
Af.-Am.
Percent
WICY
Percent
2010 245 208 -37 $514 68.0% 48.0%
2009 497 487 -10 $391 67.0% 37.0%
2008 517 597 80 $283 72.0% 50.0%
2007 272 367 95 $448 67.0% 46.0%
2006 160 151 -9 $1,242 70.0% 46.0%
2005 209 250 41 $730 73.2% 33.2%
Planning
Unmet Need
As of the last (2010) consumer survey 43 percent of the 113 respondents reporting a need for Food Bank/Home-delivered Meals said they could not get it.
Clients survey year (FY 2009): 487
Est. percent of need met: 57%
Est. clients needing service: 854
Clients served (2010): 208
Est. clients not served (2010): 646
Cost per client (2010): $514
Cost to meet need:    $332,044 
Other Funding Streams
RW Part A Counties $175,788
(RW Part A EMA) $238,172
MAI (EMA and Counties) $58,047



RW Part A Counties
Other Funding
Final Analysis
Unspent (including carryover/adjust.): $68,711
FY 2011 Info County Set Aside: $2,253,517

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.