1. Performance Accountability Review Risk-Based Management Kathryn Hornsby Technical College System of Georgia NACTEI May 14, 2009

2. Purpose To provide increased monitoring, and increased assistance to grantees of federal Perkins Grant funds

3. Performance Accountability Reviews  PARs are conducted onsite at the technical colleges on a 6-year cycle.  PAR teams are each comprised of a college president plus 5-7 members from other technical colleges.  PARs are the capstone of the Performance Accountability System (PAS).  PARs validate the institution’s annual self-evaluation required to complete the PAS 6 year cycle.  PARs verify compliance with federal regulations.  PARs are conducted onsite at the technical colleges on a 6-year cycle.  PAR teams are each comprised of a college president plus 5-7 members from other technical colleges.  PARs are the capstone of the Performance Accountability System (PAS).  PARs validate the institution’s annual self-evaluation required to complete the PAS 6 year cycle.  PARs verify compliance with federal regulations.

4. Collective Accountability  Federal Emphasis on Risk- Based Monitoring To Best Utilize Our Resources in Monitoring Federal Funds  Shared Responsibility on State and Local Level  Possible Sanctions for Negligent Use of Perkins Monies State of Georgia/ DTAE College United States Government

5. What Is Our Role? EDGAR 80.40(a) “Grantees must monitor grant and sub-grant supported activities to assure compliance with … federal requirements and that performance goals are … achieved.”

6. What Is Risk? OMB expects pass-through entities to consider various risk factors in developing sub-recipient monitoring procedures

7. Timeline for the Project April 2007 – Initial discussion of topic June 2007 – Federal Grant Management Training for TCSG System Office July 2007 – Concept shared with Presidents’ Academic Improvement Committee September 2007 – Presented to Perkins Taskforce September 2007 – Presented to Presidents’ Academic Improvement Committee November 2007 – Presented to IE Peer Group

8. Timeline Continued February 2008 – Presidents approved revised Risk-Based monitoring process/check sheet February 2008 – Risk-Based scores disseminated March – April 2008 – Developed PAR schedule for FY 2009

9. Timeline Continued June 2008 – Scheduled pilot sites July – August 2008 – Developed remaining handouts for Risk-Based PAR October 2008 – Conference call with initial pilot site January 2009 – First Risk-Based PAR

10. What Happens Next? The PAR process now includes a six-year review that consists of:  A Standard Review (This will essentially mirror the content and structure of current PAR process.)  Perkins Review (Each College will receive a Risk- Based Assessment score to determine when/if it will be scheduled for a Perkins Review.)

11. What Determines My Risk-Based Assessment Score?  Amount of Perkins Grant (1 point per $250,000)  Audit Score (Each college will receive a score equal to double the official audit score– with the exception of colleges who received a ‘1’, indicating a perfect audit.) (cont.)

12. Determining Your Score, cont.  Perkins Performance (1 point per measure missed by the ‘Total College Population’)  Perkins PAR Findings (0 to 6 points, based upon the severity of the findings)

13. Tell Me How This Works… Each college WILL have a PAR!!!!!!! Each college will have at least one Standard Review PAR every 6- year cycle

14. How This Works, cont.  Risk-Based Assessment Scores will be generated once per fiscal year, taking into account the most recent data and Audit information available for each college  In addition to approximately 6 ‘Standard Review’ PARs per fiscal year, we will also conduct Perkins reviews at select colleges, as per the Risk-Based Score.

15. So, My Score Can Change? A college’s Risk-Based Assessment Score might change each year, as Perkins data, allocations, and Audit Findings Change.

16. Important Notes  A college’s position on the Risk-Based schedule is affected by that college’s data, as well as the score of other colleges in the system. The score is relative!

17. Questions?