Transcript Document
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 Title I Part A and IDEA 7/18/2015 1 South Dakota Department of Education Grants Management 7/18/2015 2 Guiding Principles Spend Quickly to Save and Create Jobs Ensure Transparency and Accountability Thoughtfully Invest One-time Funds Advance Effective Reforms 7/18/2015 3 Balance Speed and Effectiveness Balance speed and stimulus with careful planning and effective reforms LEAs should use funds expeditiously but sensibly 7/18/2015 4 Short-term Investments that Produce Lasting Results Maximize short-term investments with lasting results. Minimize unsustainable ongoing commitments Avoid the funding Cliff 7/18/2015 5 Accountability and Transparency All ARRA funds must be tracked separately Quarterly reports on both financial information and how funds are being used Beginning July 1, 2009 Estimated number of jobs created or saved US ED will issue specific guidance for preparing and submitting this recordkeeping and reporting information governing ARRA funds 7/18/2015 6 Reporting ARRA Fund Use The ARRA contains very stringent reporting requirements and requires that detailed information on the uses of funds by available publicly 7/18/2015 7 Reporting ARRA Fund Use Separately from regular program New CFDA Numbers for each program Maintain accurate documentation of all ARRA expenditures and ensure Accurate Complete Reliable 7/18/2015 8 Fund distribution Reimbursement basis as expenditures are reported to the State Plan to use eGrant reimbursement system for both Title I and IDEA ARRA funds 7/18/2015 9 Potential Uses of ARRA Funds Will the proposed use of ARRA funds: Drive results for students? Increase capacity? Accelerate reform? Avoid the “cliff” and improve productivity? Track results? 7/18/2015 10 Availability of ARRA Funds Title I, Part A: in absence of a waiver, 85% until Sept 30, 2010; any remaining by Sept 30, 2011 IDEA, Part B: by September 30, 2011 7/18/2015 11 Funding Periods & Dates ARRA Allocations are considered part of the SY 2009-10 Allocation But, costs are allowable beginning February 17, 2009 Regular Grant Period July 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010 Carryover Period October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011 7/18/2015 12 Title I Part A Amounts Regular Allocation ARRA Allocation $43,747,031 $34,650,000 Total SY 09-10 $78,397,031 7/18/2015 13 IDEA Part B 611 Regular Allocation ARRA Allocation $32,664,950 $31,630,863 Total SY 09-10 $64,295,813 7/18/2015 14 IDEA Part B 619 Preschool Regular Allocation ARRA Allocation $1,442,067 $1,520,277 Total SY 09-10 $2,962,344 7/18/2015 15 Accepting Federal Grants Funds The LEA accepts the legal responsibility for fulfilling all the program requirements. The LEA is accountable for all federal program funds. 7/18/2015 16 Program requirements of ARRA funds All provisions that currently apply to IDEA funds apply to the IDEA ARRA funds. All applicable requirements that currently apply to the use of Title I, Part A apply to the Title I ARRA funds 7/18/2015 17 Fiscal Requirements Supplement, Not Supplant Comparability Title I Title I Maintenance of Effort Requirements – Different Methods for Each Program Title I IDEA 7/18/2015 18 Supplement Not Supplant – Title I Cannot use federal funds to pay for services, staff, programs, or materials that would otherwise be paid with state or local funds Designed to ensure federal funds pay for something “extra” 7/18/2015 19 Supplanting Presumptions Presume supplanting in 3 situations: 1. Used federal funds to provide services the district is required to make available under other federal, state or local laws 7/18/2015 20 Presumptions (cont.) 2. Used federal funds to provide services the district provided with state or local funds in the prior year 7/18/2015 21 Presumptions (cont.) 3. Used Title I, Part A funds to provide the same services to Title I students that the LEA or SEA provides with state or local funds to nonparticipating students 7/18/2015 22 Rebutting the Presumption Presumption may be rebutted: If SEA or LEA demonstrates it would not have provided the services with state or local funds if the federal funds were not available 7/18/2015 23 Rebutting the Presumption To rebut presumption show: Fiscal and programmatic documentation to confirm that, in the absence of federal funds, would have eliminated staff/services in question School Board action Budget histories and information Planning documents 7/18/2015 24 Title I Exception to Supplement not Supplant The LEA used State or Local funds to conduct supplemental Title I like activities. 7/18/2015 25 Title I Exception to Supplement not Supplant The activity previously paid with State or Local funds was allowable under Title I, Part A Consistent with all Title I fiscal and programmatic requirements. Meets the academic needs of Title I students 7/18/2015 26 Example LEA’s allocation was less than Title I teacher’s salary & benefits The LEA contributed the difference Teacher’s activities were all allowable under Title I Part A The LEA could use Title I ARRA funds to replace the State & Local contribution to the teacher’s salary & benefits. 7/18/2015 27 Supplanting in Title I Schoolwide Programs Presumptions do not necessarily apply to schoolwide programs; however, The LEA must provide the school with the same amount of state and local funds as it would have received had it not received Title I funds. Do not shift State & Local funds away from Title I schoolwide program to another school 7/18/2015 28 Comparability – Title I Ensures that services provided with state and local funds in Title I schools are comparable to those provided in non-Title I Schools In LEAs with all Title I schools – ensures that services are substantially comparable between all schools Annual Requirement for affected LEAs 7/18/2015 29 Comparability – Title I Compare schools with similar grade spans Required if more than one school per grade span Excludes schools with less than 100 students enrolled State supplies forms & guidance to affected LEAs. 7/18/2015 30 ARRA NEW REQUIREMENT Each LEA that receives Title I ARRA funds must file with the SEA a school by school listing of its per-pupil educational expenditures from State and Local sources during the 2008-09 school year no later than December 1, 2009. 7/18/2015 31 School by School Expenditures Typical LEA has at least 3 schools Elementary school Middle school High school Waiting for more guidance from US ED 7/18/2015 32 Maintenance of Effort - Title I Requires that an LEA’s expenditures from state and local funding remain relatively constant from year to year. (at least 90%). Either on an aggregate or per pupil basis State must reduce a district’s allocations in proportion to the % they failed to meet the MOE threshold. 7/18/2015 33 Title I Set asides 1 % for parental involvement if Title I allocation over $500,000 An amount up to 20% of the District’s allocation if any of its schools are in improvement supplemental educational services public school choice. 7/18/2015 34 Districts must sub-allocate Title I funds to Title I schools Budget and Track Title I sub-allocations & expenditures by participating school Must follow the allocation procedures set out in the Consolidated Application Ensure actual per low income student amounts are in compliance with rank order of schools. 7/18/2015 35 Equitable Services for Private School Students and Teachers Districts must offer equitable services to private school students and teachers from ARRA funding The District must control funds and show the equitable amounts or services were provided 7/18/2015 36 IDEA Maintenance of Effort (MOE) Requirement 7/18/2015 37 IDEA & Supplement not Supplant If the LEA meets its MOE requirements, it is considered to have met the supplement, not supplant requirement. Individual activities are not looked at. 7/18/2015 38 LEA MOE requirement With certain exceptions, Part B funds must not be used by an LEA to reduce the level of expenditures for the education of children with disabilities made by the LEA from local funds below the level of those expenditures for the preceding year 7/18/2015 39 LEA MOE (cont) LEA application standard: With certain exceptions, an LEA budgets for the education of children with disabilities, at least the same total or per capita amount of either: local funds only; or State and local funds as it spent from those same sources in the most recent prior year for which the information is available 7/18/2015 40 LEA MOE (cont) Audit standard: Compliance with the MOE requirement, after a fiscal year has ended, is based on the actual local or state and local expenditures for special education and related services in the audited year and the prior year 7/18/2015 41 LEA MOE (cont) Don’t include as state or local funds any federal funds for which the SEA or an LEA is required to account to the federal government 7/18/2015 42 LEA MOE: Example #1 In fiscal year (FY) 2009, the LEA spent a total of $100,000 local funds and $900,000 state and local funds on the education of children with disabilities For FY 2010, the LEA must spend at least $100,000 of local funds OR $900,000 of combined state and local funds for the education of children with disabilities 7/18/2015 43 LEA MOE: Example #1(cont) If the LEA spent $97,000 of local funds and $905,000 of state and local funds on the education of children with disabilities, it would meet its MOE level If the LEA’s calculation of $905,000 of state and local funds, included $64,000 of ESEA Title 1 funds that it used for services to children with disabilities, it would not have met its MOE level 7/18/2015 44 LEA MOE: Example #2 In FY 2009, Harrison LEA spent a total of $100,000 local funds and $900,000 state and local funds on the education of children with disabilities In FY 2009, Harrison LEA had 150 children with disabilities $100,000/150 = $667 $900,000/150 = $6,000 7/18/2015 45 LEA MOE: Example #2 (cont) FY 2010 the number of children with disabilities drops to 130 For FY 2010, Harrison LEA must spend at least the following amounts on the education of children with disabilities– $667 per child local funds ($86,710) OR $6000 per child state and local funds ($780,000) 7/18/2015 46 LEA MOE:Example #2 (cont) If in FY 2010 Harrison LEA spent $80,000 in local funds and $800,000 in state and local funds on the education of children with disabilities, it would meet it MOE level based on a per capita amount 7/18/2015 47 LEA MOE: Exceptions An LEA may reduce the level of its expenditures below the comparison year if the reduction is the result of: Voluntary departure, or departure for just cause, of special education or related services personnel Decrease in enrollment of children with disabilities 7/18/2015 48 LEA MOE: Exceptions (cont) Termination of an exceptionally costly obligation of the agency to a particular child with a disability because the child: Has left the jurisdiction of the LEA Has reached the age at which the obligation to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child is terminated, or No longer needs special education 7/18/2015 49 LEA MOE: Exceptions (cont) Termination of costly expenditures for long-term purchases, such as acquisition of equipment or construction of school facilities 7/18/2015 50 LEA MOE: Common Problem The LEA does not fully spend the amount of local, or state and local, funds it was required to budget in its application at the beginning of the year to demonstrate to the State that the LEA would meet the MOE requirements. 7/18/2015 51 Possible Optional MOE Flexibility – 50% rule Available under the IDEA, but, Currently not allowed by State law. State plans to a introduce bill in the legislature in January 2010 to revise State law. Emergency provision to implement upon the governor’s signature. 7/18/2015 52 LEA MOE: Optional Adjustment 50% Rule For any fiscal year that an LEA’s allocation exceeds the amount of its prior year’s allocation, the LEA may reduce its expenditure of local, or state and local funds by not more than 50% of the increase in federal funds The LEA must use an amount of local funds equal to the reduction for activities that could be supported with funds under the ESEA 7/18/2015 53 Optional MOE 50% Rule Continued The LEA must use the freed up local or State funds to carry out activities that could be supported with ESEA funds. The LEA must track and report to the SEA on the use of the freed up funds. Must use during current fiscal year Does not carryover into next fiscal year. This will reduce the MOE for next year. 7/18/2015 54 Optional MOE 50% Rule Continued The LEA must spend the freed up local funding by June 30, 2010 or it will not make MOE in SY 2009-10 This flexibility must be taken in the fiscal year the excess IDEA allocation became available. 7/18/2015 55 LEA MOE: 50 % Rule Exceptions The LEA is prohibited from reducing the level of expenditures for that fiscal year if an SEA determines that: an LEA is unable to establish and maintain FAPE the SEA has identified the LEA for state enforcement through local determinations. 7/18/2015 56 LEA MOE: Adjustment Example In year 1, Taft LEA’s allocation is $900,000. For year 2, Taft’s allocation is $1,100,000 Increase = $200,000 Maximum Amount of MOE reduction = $100,000 for use in ESEA activities 7/18/2015 57 Early Intervening Services (EIS) An LEA may use up to 15% of its annual allocation, less any amount by which it has reduced its MOE level, to develop and implement coordinated, EIS for children in K -12 who are not currently identified as needing special education but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment 7/18/2015 58 EIS & the 50% Rule on MOE Adjustments The amount of funds expended by an LEA for early intervening services counts toward the maximum amount of expenditures by which the LEA may reduce local effort 7/18/2015 59 EIS & the 50% Rule on MOE Adjustments - Continued LEAs use of Part B funds for early intervening services “zeros out” the ability for the LEA to take an MOE reduction. Basically the LEA’s early intervening service amount equals or exceeds the amount of the 50% MOE reduction 7/18/2015 60 EIS/MOE: Example 1 Prior Year’s Allocation -- $ 900,000 Current Year’s Allocation -- 1,000,000 Increase 100,000 Maximum MOE Reduction -50,000 Maximum for EIS -150,000 7/18/2015 61 EIS/MOE: Example 2 Prior Year’s Allocation $1,000,000 Current Year’s Allocation 2,000,000 Increase 1,000,000 Maximum MOE Reduction 500,000 Maximum for EIS 300,000 7/18/2015 62 EIS/MOE: Example 2 Continued If MOE Reduction is 500,000 Then max EIS is 0 If the EIS is 300,000 Then MOE reduction max is 200,000 7/18/2015 63 EIS/MOE: Example 3 Prior Year’s Allocation $1,000,000 Current Year’s Allocation 1,000,000 Increase 0 Maximum MOE Reduction 0 Maximum for EIS 150,000 7/18/2015 64 Planning & Budgeting Fiscal staff need to work with program coordinators in preparing budgets. Ensure Fiscal Requirements are met Ensure required program set asides are included in budgets. Ensure equitable share budgeted for private schools 7/18/2015 65 Planning & Budgeting (continued) Ensure costs are appropriately categorized Guard against exceeding amount available or under utilizing the full amount Ensure costs are allowable 7/18/2015 66 Follow Approved Budgets Districts expenditure should follow the approved budgets. Just budgeting required set asides doesn’t fulfill responsibility Actual expenditures will be looked at to ensure compliance. 7/18/2015 67 Determining Allowable Costs for Federal Programs Analyze costs to determine if they are allowable Develop a formal process to ensure costs are allowable 7/18/2015 68 Allowable Costs Questions Consistent with federal cost principles? Allowable under the grant program? Consistent with the approved application? Consistent with program specific fiscal rules? Consistent with the needs of the program 7/18/2015 69 Basic A-87 Guidelines All Costs Must Be: Necessary Reasonable Allocable Authorized or not prohibited under state and local law 7/18/2015 70 Reasonable Costs A-87 Definition - A cost is reasonable if it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision is made to incur the cost. 7/18/2015 71 Questions - Reasonable Is the expense targeted to a legitimate program activity? Do we have the capacity to use what we are purchasing? Can we prove that we paid a fair rate? Would I be comfortable defending this purchase? 7/18/2015 72 Necessary Must be necessary for the performance or administration of the grant Questioning “necessary” Do we really need this? Do we already have existing resources sufficient for this purpose? 7/18/2015 73 Allocable Can only charge in proportion to the value received by the program Example: The district purchases a computer to use 50% in the Title I program and 50% in a state program – can only charge half the cost to Title I 7/18/2015 74 Questions - Allocable Can I prove the program benefited? Can I prove other programs are not the primarily beneficiary? Ensure only authorized use Incidental benefit is okay 7/18/2015 75 Other Basic Guidelines Legal under state and local law If not legal under state law, cannot pay with federal funds Conform with federal law & grant terms 7/18/2015 76 Adequate Documentation Lack of Documentation is #1 Audit Finding Document the following Amount of funds under grant How the funds are used Total cost of the project Share of costs provided by other sources 7/18/2015 77 Adequate Documentation Records that show compliance Records that show performance Other records to facilitate an effective audit Keep at least 3 years after the final project completion report is submitted 7/18/2015 Longer if unresolved audit issues 78 Program Implementation Monitor Expenditures to Budget Ensure Set-aside activities are completed Submit Timely reimbursement requests Submit Timely budget revisions or amendments 7/18/2015 79 Completion Submit Project Completion Report Due within 90 days after grant period Ensure all required set asides were met. Maintain Program Records 7/18/2015 80 Federal Cost Principles OMB Circular A-87 Cost Principles for State, Local & Indian Tribal Governments Applies to School Districts Available at OMB website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/circulars/in dex.html 7/18/2015 81