HLTH 6473 Module 6 Program Financial Plan Example

Three Years, Five Funders, One Station: A Financial Plan for a County Child Passenger Safety Program

Student Name

American College of Education

HLTH6473: Finance and Fiscal Management in Public Health

Module 6 Assignment

Instructor Name

September 7, 2026

Purpose

This plan sets out how a composite central Indiana county health department will finance its child passenger safety program over the next three years. The earlier modules found that the program rests on a narrow and uncertain funding base, built a justified budget of $95,784, developed a strategy to add hospital, health plan, foundation and community support, secured its county share in a structured allocation and showed that it costs about $143 per child leaving correctly restrained. The plan turns those findings into projections, scenarios and rules for managing the money year to year. It is written for the health officer, the finance director and the board of health.

Expense Projections

Expenses are projected from the Module 2 budget with two adjustments each year: personnel costs rise 3% for cost-of-living increases, and seat costs rise 5% based on recent price increases from the program's distributor. Other direct costs are held flat at $9,150, since supplies, outreach, travel, certification and evaluation have been stable. With the department's 15% indirect rate, total expenses are $95,784 in year one, $98,841 in year two and $102,016 in year three. Service targets remain 700 checks and 390 seats a year, so the projected cost per check rises from $136.83 to about $146 by year three unless the program fills unused appointments, which Module 5 identified as the cheapest way to hold unit costs down.

Revenue Plan

Year one uses the funding already committed: the state highway safety grant, $36,000; the federal injury prevention allocation, $32,000; a hospital foundation gift, $9,000; and the county general fund, $18,784. The state has signaled that the federal injury grant will shift toward other injury areas, so its allocation to the program is planned to fall to $16,000 in year two and end in year three. In year two, revenue comes from the highway safety grant, $36,000; the federal allocation, $16,000; one hospital's community benefit commitment, $12,000; health plan coverage of 120 seats, $7,440; the community foundation's first-year support for the bilingual aide, $10,000; sponsor-a-seat gifts, $4,000; and the county, $13,401. In year three, the sources are the highway safety grant, $36,000; both hospitals, $24,000; health plans, $7,440; the insurer foundation, $15,000; sponsor-a-seat gifts, $6,000; and the county, $13,576.

How the Mix Changes

By year three, the highway safety grant provides about 35% of revenue, hospitals about 24%, health plans and foundations about 22%, community gifts about 6% and the county about 13%, close to the targets set in Module 3. The county's share falls from nearly 20% to about 13% even as total costs rise, and no single source other than the highway safety grant provides more than a quarter of the budget. The plan deliberately keeps the number of sources to about five, consistent with research suggesting that a few well-maintained sources can support financial capacity better than many small ones (Chikoto & Neely, 2014).

Scenarios

The base case assumes that every planned source arrives on schedule, which is unlikely. In the low scenario, the highway safety grant is cut by a third in year two, a loss of $12,000, and only one hospital commits. The program would then adopt the reduced version prepared in Module 2: keep both staff positions, cut seats to about 250, reserving them for families with no usable seat, postpone new technician certification and draw on the $20,000 reserve set aside in Module 4 for no more than one year while replacement funding is sought. A plan that works only if every funder says yes is a hope, not a plan. In the high scenario, both hospitals and the insurer foundation commit in year two; the program would then pilot a second monthly station in the county's eastern township, where travel distance keeps families from the current site, rather than reduce the county share further.

Cash Flow

Timing matters as much as totals. The highway safety grant runs on the federal fiscal year beginning October 1 and pays on reimbursement, quarterly in arrears, and the county's budget year starts in January. The program therefore spends money for several months before the grant reimburses it, and in October it does not yet know its seat budget for the year. The plan asks the finance director to allow the program to spend up to $9,000 a quarter against expected reimbursement, backed by the department's general reserve, and schedules the largest seat purchase for November, after the grant award is known. Hospital and foundation gifts, usually paid in advance, will be deposited in a restricted program account and drawn on as needed.

Reserves

The program holds no reserve of its own; it relies on the $20,000 set aside by the department. The plan proposes building a program reserve equal to about three months of seat and supply costs, roughly $6,500, by the end of year three, funded from sponsor-a-seat gifts in any year when they exceed the budgeted amount. A small reserve allows the station to keep distributing seats during a funding gap without drawing on the department's general reserve.

Monitoring and Decision Rules

The coordinator and a finance analyst will review a monthly report comparing budget to actual spending and revenue by source, with any line more than 10% off explained in writing. Each quarter, the report will add unit costs from Module 5, cost per check and cost per child leaving correctly restrained, and the share of appointments filled. Three decision rules apply. If any funder confirms a reduction, the program moves to the low scenario within 30 days. If unit costs rise more than 10% above projection, the coordinator must present a plan to fill capacity or reduce fixed costs. If the six-month recheck shows that fewer than 70% of seats remain correctly installed, the education component will be revised before seat purchases increase.

Reporting the Plan

A financial plan is useful only if the people who fund and oversee the program see it. The board of health will receive the full plan at adoption and a one-page update each quarter showing revenue received against plan, spending, unit costs and any scenario triggered. Each funder will receive a version tailored to its interest: the highway safety office will see checks and seats against targets, hospitals will see how many children from their service areas were served, health plans will see seats provided to their members and foundations will see how their start-up support is being replaced by longer-term sources. Reporting in these terms keeps funders informed before renewal decisions, rather than only when an application is due, and it builds the record of results that the next funding cycle will require.

Why the Investment Is Worth Protecting

The program's case rests on strong evidence that seat distribution with education increases correct use (Zaza et al., 2001), on its annual cost equaling roughly three to four child crash hospitalizations and on research linking local public health spending to lower preventable mortality (Mays & Smith, 2011). A stable financial base allows the department to spend staff time serving families rather than chasing the next small grant.

Conclusion

The plan projects rising but modest costs, replaces a disappearing federal allocation with hospital, health plan, foundation and community support, reduces the county share to about 13%, prepares for bad and good news and sets rules for monitoring and acting on results. It follows the financial management practice of projecting, testing and monitoring rather than budgeting one year at a time (Finkler et al., 2019), and it gives a small program with strong evidence a realistic path to stability.

References

Chikoto, G. L., & Neely, D. G. (2014). Building nonprofit financial capacity: The impact of revenue concentration and overhead costs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(3), 570-588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012474120

Finkler, S. A., Smith, D. L., & Calabrese, T. D. (2019). Financial management for public, health, and not-for-profit organizations (6th ed.). CQ Press.

Mays, G. P., & Smith, S. A. (2011). Evidence links increases in public health spending to declines in preventable deaths. Health Affairs, 30(8), 1585-1593. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0196

Zaza, S., Sleet, D. A., Thompson, R. S., Sosin, D. M., & Bolen, J. C. (2001). Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to increase use of child safety seats. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 21(4 Suppl.), 31-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(01)00377-4