1. Wherever "Lead Agency's Board" was used, it should be replaced by "Consortium's Board" (e.g., Procedure of Quarterly Financial Reports - Details).

2. Wherever procedures indicate a site coordinator's approval of a document is required, it should be changed to indicate the Consortium Board's approval is required.

3. Procedure 3 of Quarterly Reporting Requirements should include a reference to budget changes and carryover expenditures.

4. Policies and procedures for quarterly reporting should indicate that Consortia Boards have the authority to move budget line amounts and that changes in the quarterly report budget column will be recognized as notification of the Board's change.

Doak, Cuppett & Poling also presented a "recommended" budget (funding) allocation methodology. The following comments and suggestions were made:

1. Noted that the recommended methodology based on student weeks was outcome based and not performance based as indicated in the headings.

2. Noted that the recommended methodology based on student weeks was a capitation approach and that this approach may have inherent flaws.

3. Questioned whether student-weeks numbers were correct. [Margaret, attached are the student week numbers for FY 99 and 00 that we used; can you confirm whether these are correct as you have them?]

4. Noted that sites that rely on RHEP funds as a component of a health care provider's salary are the sites most negatively affected by allocation methodologies that use outcomes as a base. NOTE: a general discussion concerning the appropriateness of RHEP fund usage as a component of a health care provider's salary ensued. It does not appear this was an intent of the program.

5. Recommended that a pay rate for field faculty by discipline be developed and implemented as a standard for all consortia.

6. Recommended that other scenarios be explored for budget (funding) allocation, perhaps something related to HPSA and/or MUA data.

Submitted by Jim Harding