1
L E I G H M . M A N A S E V I T , E S Q .L M A N A S E V I T @ B R U M A N . C O MB R U S T E I N & M A N A S E V I T , P L L C
W W W . B R U M A N . C O MS P R I N G F O R U M 2 0 1 3
WHAT LAWS APPLY TO FEDERAL GRANTS: A
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
1
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 2
• 1960s: Congress began recognizing unmet educational needs• Children in Poverty• Students with Disabilities• Vocational Training• Limited English Proficient Students• Homeless Students
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 3
• Federal education programs • Designed to address specific unmet needs
2
LIMITED FEDERAL CAPACITY
• State administered programs created
4Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
• Education responsibility generally given to the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW)
• United States Office of Education • Divided into program bureaus with specific
responsibility• Elementary and Secondary Education• Vocational Education• Special Education, etc.
5Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
OFFICE OF EDUCATION
• Bureaus: Responsibility for individual program• Individual programs contained separate
administrative rules• Not always consistent• Burdensome due to differing requirements
6Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
3
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (ED) IN 1980
• Education responsibility transferred• HEW becomes ED and Health & Human Services
(HHS)
7Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
ED
• Separation of program function is preserved• Funds allocated to States for program
administration• Funds allocated to States for distribution to school
districts – local education agencies (LEAs)
8Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
STATE EDUCATION AGENCIES (SEAs)
• SEAs expanded• Significant function: Administer federal programs• Divided into program offices
• Generally reflect federal organization• Examples
• Elementary and Secondary• Students with Disabilities• Career Education
9Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
4
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC 10
• Federal Government recognizes inefficiency!• Programs with separate
administrative requirements• Duplication of efforts• Inconsistent requirements• Changes need to be program by
program• Leads to administrative
standardization
ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDIZATION
• General Education Provisions Act (GEPA)• Education Department General Administrative
Regulations (EDGAR)• Single Audit Act• Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars
11Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
GEPA
• Part of the organic law establishing ED’s structure • Cross-cutting provisions
12Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
5
EDGAR
• Department of Education administrative rules covering all ED programs
13Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
SINGLE AUDIT ACT OMB CIRCULAR A-133
• Standardized audit requirements for all entities expending > $500,000 federal $ annually
14Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
OMB CIRCULARS
• Government-wide principles for determining what costs are allowable
15Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
6
EXAMPLE: APPLICATION OF FEDERAL LAWS/AUTHORITIES
• Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Title I)
• Authorized by No Child Left Behind in 2002• Analysis of applicability of federal laws/authorities to
Title I
16Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
EXAMPLE: TITLE IHOW MUCH MONEY WILL WE RECEIVE?
• Congress appropriates a total amount for the Nation
• Title I formula allocates to • Local Education Agencies (LEA)• Funds flow SEA LEA
• All based on formula in the law
17Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
HOW CAN WE SPEND THESE FUNDS?
• Always begin with program statute…• Ask:
a) What can we do?b) Who can we serve?c) Any specific restrictions?
18Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
7
TITLE I, PART A –TARGETED ASSISTANCE
• Congress mandates Title I is for:a) Educational Supports
• What qualifies as an educational support?b) Educationally Disadvantaged Student
• Who are the educationally disadvantaged students?
c) Supplemental Services• What are the additional fiscal rules?
• Non supplant• Maintenance of Effort• Comparability
19Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
TITLE I, PART A –TARGETED ASSISTANCE (CONT.)
d) Services to students in private schools• How do I determine amount of
funding? What are the uses?e) Schools served on basis of poverty rates
• Which schools can be served with Title I funds?
20Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
TITLE I, PART A
• Law contains basic requirements• Further explanations:
• Regulations• Guidance• Letters
21Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
8
WHAT CONTROLS THE STATE – LEA RELATIONSHIP
REGARDING THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS?
• Part 76 – 34 CFR Part 76 (Code of Federal Regulations)
• LEA applies to the State for funding• State notifies LEA
–Amount–Timing–Federal requirements applicable
• SEA assures intended uses are within the law• LEA commits to follow the plan it submits to SEA
22Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
GENERAL EDUCATION PROVISIONS ACT (GEPA)
• GEPA: Is the program subject to the cross-cutting authority of ED on State Administered Programs?
• “Applicable program”• Program for which the Secretary of
Education has administrative responsibility• No Child Left Behind Act• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act• Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act23Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
GEPA – EDGAR
• EDGAR applies and expands GEPA requirements
• Application Process• State applies to ED• Local Education Agency (LEA) applies to
State (SEA)
24Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
9
GEPA – EDGAR
• Funds flow ED SEA LEA • States are responsible for, and must
monitor, LEA compliance• SEAs are responsible to ED to properly
administer federal grant funds
25Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
GEPA – EDGAR
• Privacy rights of students protected
26Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
GEPA – EDGAR
• Funds flow to SEA after ED approves application
• Funds flow to LEA after SEA approves local application
• Available for 27 months for obligation• Obligation is not expenditure• 90 days additional for liquidation
• Obligation defined
27Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
10
GEPA - EDGAR
• Record requirements and retention rules
• Services to private school students• See also program statute rules on
private school student participation
28Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
EDGAR
• Uniform Grant Rules• Pre/post award requirements• Program income• Property management• Procurement process• Subgrants
• In most major education programs, LEAs are allocated funds based on a formula enacted by Congress
• May not subgrant unless authorized by law29Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
SINGLE AUDIT ACT – OMB CIRCULAR A-133
• Historically:– Audit requirements historically separate and within
program statutes– Requirements inconsistent
• Single Audit Act (A-133)– Requires audit by independent auditor of federal
programs whenever recipient expends over $500,000 federal funds – all services
– Creates uniform standards of • Independence• Selection of items to be audited• Auditing standards
– Contains program guides for auditor use• Compliance supplements
30Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
11
SINGLE AUDIT ACT – OMB CIRCULAR A-133
• Compliance Supplement• Each major program• Guide developed by ED/OMB• Important resource
• ED view of important elements• Auditor responsibility
31Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
OMB CIRCULARS
• Government-wide• Contain general principles for
determining allowable costs• http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/circ
ulars/
32Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
OMB CIRCULAR A-87
• Covers state-local governments• Applicable to SEAs, LEAs
33Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
12
OMB CIRCULAR A-87 – TITLE I, PART A
Example –• Can I use Title I to buy a computer to
provide educational support?• Necessary• Reasonable• Allocable
34Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
EDGAR
• What procurement process do I use?• What property management
(inventory) do I need?
35Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
OMB CIRCULAR A-87 –43 ITEMS OF COST
• Can I pay for attendance at a professional development meeting for a Title I teacher?
• What documentation do I need to support salary payments?
36Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
13
POSSIBLE MASSIVE CHANGES TO CIRCULARS
• NPRM – 2/1/13• Close of comment period: Extended 06/02/13
• Analysis of public comment• Final regulation – not likely before 1/1/14
• EDGAR revisions – within one year of final regulation?
• No splitting FY37Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
WHY “SUPERCIRCULAR”???
1. Greater simplicity2. Greater consistency3. Obama Executive Order on
Regulatory Review – 2011 • Increase efficiency • Strengthen oversight
38Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
SINGLE AUDITS
• Single Audit Threshold is raised from $500,000 in federal annual expenditures to $750,000
39Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
14
COOPERATIVE AUDIT RESOLUTION
• Improve communication, foster collaboration, promote trust, develop understanding between auditor and auditee
40Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
COOPERATIVE AUDIT RESOLUTION
• This approach is based upon “Federal Agencies offering appropriate amnesty for past noncompliance when audits show prompt corrective action”
41Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
REFORMS TO A-21, A-87, A-122
• Consolidating to one Circular• Significant changes to Time and Effort!!
42Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
15
WHAT IS COVERED?
1. Administrative Requirements (A-102, A-110)
2. Cost Principles (A-87, A-21, A-122)
3. Audit Requirements (A-133)
43Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
GEPA
• And finally…• What happens if I don’t follow the rules?• Enforcement procedures
• Recovery of funds• Termination of program• High Risk States• Compliance Agreement
44Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
45
QUESTIONS?
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
16
46
This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not
constitute legal advice. Attendance at the presentation or later review of these printed materials does not create an attorney-client
relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your
particular circumstances.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Disclaimer