Transcript State Technology Systems

State Agency
Workshop
(a.k.a. State Technology Systems)
USDA/State Agency Workshop
December 10, 2014 • Crystal City, VA
Welcome
O Technology Funding Sources
O State Sharing
O Future Technology Support from FNS
O Questions/Open Discussion
Panel Members
O Viv Lees, Acting Division Director, SNP
O USDA, FNS, Western Regional Office
O Jo Dawson, CNP Manager
O Alaska Department of Education & Early
Development
O June Barrett, CNP Coordinator
O Alabama State Department of Education
O Loren LaCorte, Program Analyst
O USDA, FNS, CNP, Operational Support Branch
Technology Funding Sources
O SAE Allocation and Reallocation Funding
O Administrative Review and Training (ART)
Grants
O Direct Certification (DC) Improvement Grants
ART Grants Focus:
O Oversight and training of local agency
administrative personnel in the school meal
operations.
O Modifications needed to update processes and
systems to comply with the Administrative
Review.
O Technology improvements to address
administrative error through the use of targeted
monitoring and increased training in error-prone
local agencies.
5
ART Grants
Planning
Need to research
most effective way
to decrease errors
Purpose
& improve integrity
Available Funding Subject to Change
per Grant $75,000
Grant Period
Up to 1 year
Implementation
Know what needs
to be done to
decrease errors &
improve integrity
but lack resources
to implement
$1,500,000
1 to 3 years
DC Grants
O State activities for planning and
implementing DC improvement projects to
reach DC benchmarks (95%)
O Funds may be used for:
O Making technology improvements
O Providing technical assistance to LEA
O Implementing new or revised State or LEA
direct certification systems
DC Improvement Grants
Tier 1
Limited scope for
planning and
Purpose
implementation
projects
Subject to Change
Available Funding Planning: $75,000
per Grant Implementation:
$150,000
Grant Period
Up to 1 year
Tier 2
Full scope for
implementation
projects
$1,000,000
1 to 3 years
Technical Assistance Provided
O Both ART and DC Improvement Grantees
O On-site technical assistance visits
O Off-site technical assistance conference
calls
O Provide evaluation and guidance on project
activities and outputs
Request for Applications
O DC Improvement Grants estimate January
2015
O ART Grant estimated for Spring of 2015
O Announced via www.grants.gov, PartnerWeb
and FNS website
http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/grants
Helpful Summaries and
Webinars
O ART and DC Improvement Grant Summaries
from previous years on FNS Website
http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/child-nutritionprograms
O ART Grantee Training Meeting Webinars Resoucres
via PartnerWeb
See: “CN Technology Resources” folder of the
Child Nutrition Program resources tab
O DC Resources in Child Nutrition Program resources
tab
Jo Dawson
Child Nutrition Programs Manager
Alaska Department of Education &
Early Development
Administrative Review and
Training (ART) Grant
Objectives
O Project Overview
O Needs and Purpose
O Challenges and Successes
O Lessons Learned
O Advice to Other States
Quick Geography Lesson
Much Larger Than You Might
Think
Travel by Road
Travel by Alaska Airlines
Project Overview
Solution
Eligibility
Nutrition
Monitoring
Project Overview
Component 1-A
Description
O Reduce Application
Processing Errors
O Reduce SA application
review time
Solution
O On-line F/RP applications
Benefits
O Improved timeliness &
accuracy processing
applications
O SFA off-site review
O Reduced corrective action
for SFA
Project Overview
Component 1-B
Description
O Reduce BID errors
Benefits
O Improved BID
O BID w/ site level data
O Streamline DC
Solution
O On-line Benefit Issuance Document
Project Overview
Component 2-A
Description
O Reduce Menu
Compliance Issues
O Reduce SA on-site
review
Benefits
O Districts will have USDA
approved software to
ensure nutritional standards
are met
O Improve 6-cent certification
process for SFAs
Solution
O On-line menuing with nutritional analysis
Project Overview
Component 2-B
Description
O Reduce production
record errors
Benefits
O Improve compliance with
production record
requirements
O SA can review off-site
O SFA district can monitor SFA
sites
Solution
O On-line production records
Project Overview
Component 3
Description
O Reduce field time for
administrative reviews
Benefits
O On-line forms w/ off-line
capabilities
O Automatically compute
reports
Solution
O On-line Administrative Review
O Autogenerated FNS-640 Report
Sample Statewide Eligibility
Report
Sample Verification Report
Sample BID
Student Information
Student Eligiblity
Recipe List
$0.06 Certification
Production Records
Challenges
O Significant delays & accelerated timeline
O Testing is time intensive
O SFA acceptance
O Data exchange to/from student information
systems
O DC upload issues
O CRE – AR changes mid-contract
O Continued SFA training needs
Successes
O 40% SFAs have used the student record
management system
O 29%* SFAs have processed on-line
applications
O 11%* SFAs used verification reporting
O 34% SFAs have/are using menuing/nutrition
module
* Does not include district-wide CEP or Prov 3 SFAs
Lessons Learned
O Prior planning could have streamlined many
O
O
O
O
factors that caused delays
Hold vendor accountable
Must have a Project Manager
Staffing costs exceeded estimates
Acceleration is not necessarily a good thing
Advice
O Apply for planning grant
O Research other state systems
O Gain IT support from day 1
O Talk w/ USDA and peers as issues arise
June Barrett
Child Nutrition Programs Coordinator
Alabama State Department of
Education
Alabama Art Grant
O Project Description and Benefits
O
O
O
O
O
O
Expected/Realized
Key Stakeholders
Project Team Composition
Challenges during implementations
Overcoming challenges
Lessons Learned
Advice/changes for administering future
grants
Project Description and Benefits
Expected/ Realized – Focus Area 1
Description
Develop online
modules to aid in the
training of SFA
personnel. The training
topics will include
application
certification,
verification, meal
counting and meal
claiming
O
O
O
O
O
Benefits
Better meal counting and
claiming
Increased understanding on
what constitutes a
reimbursable meal
Increased understanding of
cash holding procedures
Better verification of meal
applications
Increased understanding of
the Direct Certification
process
Project Description and Benefits
Expected/ Realized – Focus Area 2
Description
Develop a
comprehensive
computerized system
for the identification
and monitoring of
error-prone school
districts.
Benefits
O Audit Module – Expand the
department's online application
system to include the automated
selection of sponsors for review
by taking the Audit process from a
stand alone module to one that
uses information collected in the
online application.
O Verification Module – Provide
secure online entry of verification
information that will allow for
automated reporting of sponsors
who have completed the
verification process and produce
data to be used in the Audit
module by identifying SFAs with
high non response rates.
Key Stakeholders
O School Food Authorities
O CNP Directors
O Cafeteria Managers/Cashiers
O Alabama Department of Education (ALSDE)
O Administrators
O Audit Staff
O US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Project Team Composition
ALSDE CNP Director
NSLP Administrator
Audit Manager
IS Management
Team
Contract Developer
CNP Development
Team
DBAs and Network
Admins
Challenges while implementing
the grant project
O State Agency staff turnover
O Project manager change
O Changes which delayed the following:
O Contractor selection for training module
O USDA meal pattern changes
O Design and data collection of FNS 742 for
verification
Overcoming Challenges
O NSLP Administrator assumed project
manager duties
O Meal pattern published and contract
completed for online training
O Worked with USDA to obtain access to 742
prototype
O Developed verification module to collect
data at a granular level to meet USDA
requirements
Lessons Learned
What worked well?
O Communication with the
O
O
O
O
SFAs on the proposed
changes
Early and constant
communication with Point
of Sale Systems (POS)
Partnering with the state’s
Student Management
System
SFA Verification Training
Reporting of Verification
data to USDA
If we were to do it
again, what would we
change?
O More communication with
USDA in regards to
regulation changes
O Charge IT staff time to the
grant
O With the size and diversity
of the grant, dedicate part
time project manager to
oversee the project
Advice to future applicants
O Hire a Project Manager to manage the day-to-day activities for
O
O
O
O
O
project duration
Ensure that RFP language provides protection for nonperformance situations
Develop detailed project plan with timelines to monitor project
milestones
Manage relationships(i.e. internal, vendor) to ensure that
expectations and milestones are being met
Communicate with and engage all project stakeholders during
grant application, immediately following award, development
and testing
Establish collaborative relationships with other states who
have completed similar grants become familiar with challenges
and experiences which they encountered
Future Technology Support
Technology System Priorities
O Model Functional Requirements Documents
O Data System Study to establish technology
baseline
O National Technology Training Meeting
Model Functional
Requirements
O Purpose: Develop a list of minimum standards
State and Local systems must be able to do in
order to meet federal regulations for operational
and reporting requirements.
O Final Deliverable: 2 documents
O State Model Functional Requirements
O LEA Model Functional Requirements
O Both to include minimum functional technology
requirements and best practice functionalities
O Timeline: Estimate of 2016 (living document)
Data Systems Study
O Purpose: Determine a baseline of how States
and local agencies are using automation now.
O Final Deliverable:
O Report identifying the baseline of how automation
is used at State and local agencies, when system
was developed, how often updated, basic costs,
sources of funding, type of functionality,
contracted vs. internal development, platforms,
software used, data collected and how the system
is used for decision making, etc.
O Timeline: Estimate Fall of 2016
National Technology Training
Meeting
O Focus: State Technology Systems
O Intention: collaborations seeking solutions
O Who Should Attend:
O State representatives
O Program staff
O Information Technology staff
O State Technology System vendors
O Timeline: Slated for 2015
Questions/
Open Discussion