kansas title iv-e training costs audit 1997

8/14/2019 Kansas Title IV-E Training Costs Audit 1997

1/45

,a . 0,


2/45

Page 2 - Olivia A. Goldeneliminate inappropriate training costs which should be allocated to the State program.Regional ACF officials agreed with our findings. State officials, while disaall our findings and recommendations, have indicated changes would be matitle IV-E program.In response to the States conclusions concerning our findings and recommenbelieve present Federal laws, regulations, policies and Departmental Appealdecisions clearly support our position. Consequently, our findings and recobased on laws related to the period audited remain unchanged.AttachmentFor further information, contact:

Barbara A. BennettRegional Inspector Generalfor Audit Services, Region VII(816) 426-3591


3/45

Department of Health and Human SerOFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

TRAINING COSTS CLAIMED BY KANSAS UNDER THE TITLE IV-E FOSTER CARE PROGR


4/45


5/45

Page 2 - Ms. Rochelle ChronisterState officials disagreed with all the findings and recommendations except for threcommendation related to the transposition error. In disagreeing, the State off(1) our audit recommendations appeared to be inconsistent with the intent of autlegislation, and (2) that regulations, policy announcements, information memoraDepartment of Health and Human Services (HHS) Departmental Appeals Board decisions were contradictory and ambiguous. The State officials indicated that introduced Federal legislation, that would allow training costs under title IV-E rthe distribution of children receiving maintenance or adoption assistance, was anclarify the intent of the original legislation. The State officials also indicated thclosely with HHS officials in designing their training program. Even though thedisagreed, they indicated changes would be made to the title IV-E program in recurrent interpretations of existing regulations.In response to the States conclusions concerning our findings and recommendatibelieve present Federal laws, regulations, policies and DAB decisions clearly suposition. Also, the recently introduced legislation appears to be a change in legas opposed to an attempt to clarify the original legislation. Consequently, our frecommendations related to the period audited remain valid. In regard to the inHHS officials on the design of the Kansas training program, HHS officials are bFederal laws, regulations and guidelines for administering programs.The States response is included in its entirety as Appendix E. Following the refor each of our findings, we have summarized the States response and added ou-t . ,BACKGROUNDThe Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (Act), Public Law 96-2title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Title IV-E is a grant-in-aid program in whState and local governments share the cost of cash assistance provided to certaindependent children.The Act authorized Federal financial participation (FFP) for the necessa-& trainilocal staff administering the title IV-E foster care plan. Foster parents and staff institutions are also eligible for training. All training activities funded under titlincluded in the State training plan. Reimbursement of costs is subject to the reqOffice of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, 45 Code of Federal R


6/45

Page 3 - Ms. Rochelle ChronisterStates claim reimbursement for training costs by submitting quarterly expendituthe ACF. For the period of our audit, the State claimed training costs of $14,82resulted in a Federal claim of $11,118,240. Of the $14,824,320 claimed, $13,0(Federal share $9,810,157) represented training costs which were charged soleltitle IV-E. The remaining $1,744,111 represented allocations of State operatingbased on the results of random moment time studies which indicated State staff in title IV-E training at the time of the studies.

OBJECTIVE, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGYWe conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted government audThe objectives of the audit did not require an evaluation of internal controls. Tlimited to determining the allowability of training costs claimed for FFP under Specifically, we reviewed:

training cost claims and supporting schedules for the 4 years ended SepteWe verified costs claimed during the 3 years ended September 30, 1996 accounting and cost allocation records. Accounting records were only av3 years.

State contracts for training in which one or more payments were made tocontractors during either Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 or 1996. We reviewed identify the titles and subjects of training conducted under the contracts.

c standard position descriptions for the-general types of staff who normallytraining for which related costs were charged to title IV-E. In addition, specific job descriptions for certain State staff who attended training that

identified as related to title IV-E functions. State foster care payment records for certain residential care facilities whattended training identified by the State as IV-E training to determine if t

cared exclusively for title IV-E eligible foster children. expenditure reports for selected training contracts to evaluate whether cowas sufficient to cover the 25 percent State share of title IV-E training co


7/45

Page 4 - Ms. Rochelle ChronisterOur audit was generally limited to review of costs directly charged to title IV-Ewas performed from December 1996 through February 1997 at the State office Kansas and at the HHS Regional Office in Kansas City, Missouri.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONSALLOCATING TRAINING COSTSTO BENEFITTING PROGRAMSDuring the 4 years ended September 30, 1996, the State charged training costs million directly to the title IV-E Foster Care program, even though other prograState-only Foster Care program also benefitted from the training. Maintenancethe State-only Foster Care program ranged from 49.72 to 58.53 percent of totalmaintenance payments. Accordingly, the State should have allocated about $6.8(Federal share $5.1 million) of the training costs to the State-only Foster Care pThe Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87 states that (1) costo particular cost objectives only to the extent of the benefits received by such o(2) only allocable costs are allowable, and (3) costs must be reasonable and necproper administration of the program. Directive ACYF-IM-91-15 states that traall training, including long-term educational training (degree programs), must bamong all benefitting programs and may not be direct-charged to title IV-E, unlthe only benefitting program. In addition, HHS policy directives (ACYF-PA-87ACYF-PA-90-01) state that allocations may-be determined by case count of titlechildren in relation to all children in foster care under the responsibility of the title IV-E/IV-B agency, or on some other equitable basis.Employees and foster parents (including residential care providers) who attendeprovided services to both title IV-E eligible and non-IV-E children. Job descripvarious staff positions showed that State employees did not occupy positions dethe title IV-E foster care function. A more specific review of job descriptions fwho attended training showed that these staff performed functions related to prothan title IV-E. In addition, a review of foster care maintenance payments to reproviders (whose staff attended training) showed that non-IV-E children residedat the time the residential care employees attended training. Likewise, foster pattended training did not always care for title IV-E children.


8/45

Page 5 - Ms. Rochelle Chronisteraforementioned HHS policy statements). Appendix B provides a listing of trainfor training under title IV-E during the year ended September 30, 1996.The State did not maintain census statistics regarding the number of title IV-E cnon-title IV-E children who were under their care. Therefore, we could not reacosts based on the distribution of children as indicated by HHS policies. Howevmaintenance payment data for the title IV-E and the State only Foster Care progavailable. This data showed that the maintenance payments for the State only fprogram ranged from a low of,49.72 percent of total foster care maintenance payear 1996 to a high of 58.53 percent in FY 1993. In the absence of foster childthe distribution of title IV-E to other foster care maintenance payments was the allocation base that the State maintained.Redistribution of the $13.1 million training costs based on the distribution. of fomaintenance payments shows that the title IV-E program was overcharged abou($5.1 million Federal share) during the 4 years ended September 30, 1996. Apsummarizes the States claim for direct title IV-E training costs and the results oyear.RECOMMENDATIONSWe recommend that the State:

0 refund $5.1 million to the Department for the excess charges to title. IV-Eaudit period,0 adjust subsequent Federal claims for title IV-E training costs for excess a0 establish acceptable procedures for allocating training costs to benefitting 0 amend its cost allocation plan to provide for allocating the costs of trainin

benefitting programs.State Agency ResponseState officials did not believe that they made excess charges to the title IV-E pro


9/45

Page 6 - Ms. Rochelle ChronisterA worker with Title IV-E cases must participate in the entire training programto eflectively serve their Title IV-E caseload. A worker with a 50% caseloadIV-E children does not require only 50% of the training of a worker with a 100% Title IV-E children.

The State officials also said:This interpretation is clearly not consistent with the intent of P.L. 96-272 toservices to children and families by improving training. Every child welfarerequires a full set of skills. If costs are necessary to achieve a training objeall the costs should be reimbursed at the prescribed statutory rate. I fthe tranecessary to the proper and efticient administration of the Title IV-E State P[42 U.S. C. Section 674 (a)(3)], then the State is entitled to reimbursement othese necessary training costs, regardless of whether those costs might also another program.Under this interpretation and its emphasis on benefits, a State could not recthe costs it must incur to train its staff to serve the Title IV-E population, whclearly in contradiction to the Congressional intent which established this en

funding. P.L. 96-272 and its implementing regulations make no mention of atraining costs to benefitting programs. In fact, Section 1356.60(b) of the regdescribes the training costs and enhanced federal participation with no mentallocation. The very next section [1356.60(c)] relating to administrative costspecifically requires such cast allocation, -The clear assumption is that-this owith regard to training was intended.Clearly Congress intended to provide an incentive for child welfare training;of cost allocation is clearly contradictory to this intent and to the goals and P.L. 96-272. In making this recommendation, the auditors relied heavily upDepartmental Appeals Board decision. We believe that decisions must be baclearly written regulations, rather than on conflicting policy announcements,information memorandums and Departmental Appeals Board decisions. Withconflicting interpretations, it should also be noted that this audit covers the fperiod ending September 30, 1996 during which there have been numerous cpolicy and conflicting interpretations made by the Department of Health andServices and in Departmental Appeals Board decisions.


10/45

Page 7 - Ms. Rochelle ChronisterIn regard to OMB Circular A-87, the State officials made the following stateme

Much emphasis is made in the audit report regarding Once and ManagemeBudget (OMB) Circular A-87 and its statements regarding allowable costs.Department of Health and Human Services has also relied upon this circuladirectives it has issued around cost allocation. It is important to stress that Circular A-87 is a comprehensive set of rules to be followed by federal admagencies to ensure appropriate, untform grant administration. This circularnot require that costs be allocated, but rather that they be identified and accfor the purpose of cost determination. The intent of the Circular is not to deshare of state, federal or local participation in the financing of a specific prThe Circular itself gives federal agencies considerable latitude in determininwhen costs are to be allocated, including the option of charging all costs whsubstantially benefit one program to that program, even tf other programs aTo this date, the regulations regarding training include no indication or reqcost allocation.

The officials said many of their contacts with Federal representatives related to and their cost allocation plan was submitted annually and clearly included an entitle IV-E training at the 75/25 percent match rate.In its final summary, the State said it would begin allocating training costs basetitle IV-E/non-title IV-E caseload in recognition of current interpretation of exisregulations, but indicated it should not be penalized for periods covered by the OIG CommentsWe do not dispute the States entitlement to 75 percent FFP for training costs nadministration of the title IV-E program. We also agree that every child welfarincluding the workers providing services to non-title IV-E programs, must possnecessary skills. Accordingly, the cost of training that provides the full set of sof non-title IV-E programs should be allocated to those programs.We also do not believe that the worker with a 50 percent title IV-E caseload req50 percent of the training of a worker with a 100 percent caseload. Our report


11/45

Page 8 - Ms. Rochelle ChronisterIV-E program. Our interpretation was based on ACF policy memorandums an

opinions that were issued on the subject as early as 1987 with no variances. Th96-272 should not be misconstrued to mean that title IV-E fund training for all programs.Under grant administration regulations at 45 CFR Section 74.27, States are requby the cost principles as contained in OMB Circular A-87. Among these princirequirement to allocate cost to programs only to the extent of benefits received programs.Contrary to the States comments, OMB Circular A-87 paragraph C.3. states thchargeable or assignable to programs in accordance with benefits received. Pardefines indirect costs as costs that are incurred for common purposes benefittingprogram which are not readily assignable to the benefitting programs. The trainwhich the State charged directly to title IV-E benefitted more than one program elected to or could not separately identify costs chargeable to each. Consequentcosts were essentially indirect costs which were required to be allocated to eachprogram.Also, contrary to the States assertion, Federal agencies do not have considerabldetermining how and when costs are to be allocated. While the cost allocation submitted annually and clearly shows the 75 percent rate of FFP, such plan is ndetail to show that total training costs for the State are funded by title IV-E. Apcost allocation plans assumes that the State abides by applicable rules and -progrincluding OMB Circular A-87 and ACF policy memorandums which both requicosts to be allocated to benefitting programs.In regard to the State being penalized retroactively for an approved Title IV-E tallocation methodology, the initial ACF policy requiring allocation of training cbenefitting programs was issued October 22, 1987 and again on July 24, 1991.policies was rescinded or replaced. Both of these policy statements clearly stateof training had to be allocated to all benefitting programs and could not be chargtitle IV-E unless title IV-E was the only benefitting program.ALLOWABLE TRAINING ACTIVITIES


12/45

Page 9 - Ms. Rochelle Chronisterindividual training activities. For future charges, we are recommending that theimplement procedures to separately identify the costs that include both allowableunallowable training elements, allocating only the allowable amount to title IV-EIn Decision No. 1530 the HHS/DAB said we see no basis for permitting States title IV-E the cost of training related to activities which are not themselves allowactivities. The DAB 1530 went on to say that there is a compelling basis for retraining be related to the allowable administrative activities listed in 45 CFR 13(2). Section 1356.60(c)(l) and (2) list the following as activities which are neceproper and .efficient administration of the title IV-E program:

(1) The determination and redetermination of eligibility, fair hearings and asetting and other costs directly related only to the administration of the fosterprogram under this part are deemed allowable administrative costs under thparagraph. They may not be claimed under any other section or Federal pro(2) The following are examples of allowable administrative costs necessary foadministration of the foster care program: (I) Referral to services; (ii) Prepaand participation in judicial determinations; (iii) Placement of the child; (iv)Development of the case plan; (v) Case reviews; (vi) Case management super(vii) Recruitment and licensing of foster homes and institutions; (viii) Rate se(ix) A proportionate share of related agency overhead.

Section 1356(c)(3) states whatadministrative.activities are not allowable for reimunder title IV-E: It states:(3) Allowable administrative costs do not include the costs of social services child, the childs family or foster family which provide counseling or treatmeameliorate or remedy personal problems, behaviors or home conditions.

In general, the description for most training provided by the State was written interms that we were unable to determine if the content included or did noi includewas related to the activities listed in section 1356.60(c) (1) or (2). However, wedetermine that some training activities included topics that, at least in part, wereunder section 1356.60(c)(3). For example, training for masters and bachelors dwork may include, to a lesser extent, training elements related to allowable title


13/45

Page 10 - Ms. Rochelle ChronisterSocial Services Block Grants provide funding to States for a broad array of servsocial support services, child protective services, foster care services for childreprevention and intervention services. The training costs that were unallowable more appropriately funded by the Social Services Block Grant.Appendix B lists the training task orders for the State FY 1996. The listing inclStates description of training and audit comments concerning the applicability oto title IV-E. Training which included allowable and unallowable title IV-E actprovided by outside entities (primarily State universities) under multi-task ordersone training subject or task). The cost of training was not broken down by subjamounts applicable to allowable or unallowable title IV-E activities. Consequenunable to determine how much of the related costs were allowable or unallowabltitle IV-E program.The State needs to identify and exclude the training costs that are not allowable costs, before allocating remaining costs to benefitting programs.

ii RECOIWMENDATIONii We recommend that the State:

0 establish procedures to separate the allowable and unallowable costs of tractivities to recognize the principles set forth in DAB 1530 and section 1(2) and (3). -+ . _

0 charge only allowable training activities to title IV-E.

State Agency ResponseThe State responded that the audit made very restrictive and narrow interpretatioP.L. 96-272. State officials said that it was unfair to penalize States acting withintent of the law. OIG Comments


14/45

Page 11 - Ms. Rochelle ChronisterMONITORING COST SHAREThe State did not monitor donated university cost sharing to ensure that the req25 percent match was met. Instead, the State relied on universities to maintain required by their contract budgets. The State reported its share of title IV-E trabased on mathematical calculations that used the direct training costs reported bUniversities as the base. Cost reports from two universities, who provided traiabout 96 percent of 1996 training costs, showed that contributed cost sharing wthan the required 25 percent State share at the time periodic cost reports were sreports from the remaining universities did not include information on contributsharing.As a part of the contracts, the State required universities and other training con25 percent of the cost of providing the training. To obtain reimbursement trainwere required to submit periodic cost reports to the State in the form of partial vouchers. The cost reports from most training contractors included only the cothe Federal title IV-E share and accordingly contained no indication that the Stamet.Cost reports from the University of Kansas and Kansas State University did incFederal title IV-E share and State share of training contract costs. (The State sby direct and indirect costs contributed by the universities). However, the Statreported, did not always meet the 25 percent requirement as follows:

-.- - .Uuiversi~ offKansas: Analysis of expenditure reports supporting 5 paymen$962,227 to University of Kansas showed that the 25 percent State share waany of the payments. The State share deficits at the end of each reporting pfrom $10,619 to $18,818. Although the quarterly cost reports to the Federaagency showed the State share of the costs were met for each of two quarterperiods involved, such cost share was never met according to the expenditurUniversity of Kansas. Appendix C summarizes the results of our revjew ofof Kansas cost reports.Kans~ Skate University: Analysis of cost reports supporting 13 payments to$848,953 to Kansas State University (for one training contract) showed thatcost sharing was not met at the end of 4 of 6 Federal quarterly reporting per


15/45

Page 12 - Ms. Rochelle ChronisterThe FFP in title IV-E training costs is limited to 75 percent. Consequently, theState share of every dollar spent on title IV-E training must be paid by the Stateby the training contractors at the time expenditures are incurred.RECOMMENDATIONWe recommend that the State:

0 establish procedures to monitor contributed cost share for training contrais sufficient to cover the States share of title IV-E costs on a current andbasis.State Agency ResponseThe State responded that the contractors were not required to provide an even mthroughout the contract period. Rather, the contractors were required to provid25 percent match for the entire 12-month period. The State said it would (1) reeffect of requiring contractors to report their match efforts on each billing statemat the conclusion of the contract, and (2) that all statements received by contractreviewed prior to payment to ensure compliance with contractual requirements.OIG CommentsThe State is required to document that the match was met when the cost is-claimreimbursement.TRANSPOSITION ERRORThe State made a transposition error when preparing its report of title IV-E traithe quarter ended September 1994. The State reported costs of $496,146 for trprogram number 64350. However, the costs recorded in supporting accountingprogram were $27,000 less or $469,146.RECOMMENDATIONWe recommend that the State:


16/45

Page 13 - Ms. Rochelle ChronisterINSTRUCTIONS FOR AUDITEE RESPONSE

Final determination as to actions to be taken on all matters reported will be madaction official identified below. We request that you respond to each of the recin this report within 30 days from the date of this report to the HHS action offiany comments or additional information that you believe may have a bearing ondetermination.

*****

In accordance with the principles of the Freedom of Information Act (Pnblic LaOAS reports issued to the Departments grantees and contractors are made avairequested, to members of the press and general public to the extent information therein is not subject to exemption in the Act which the Department chooses to (See 45 CFR Part 5.)To facilitate identification, please refer to the above Common Identification NumA-07-97-01028 in all correspondence

-t

EnclosuresHHS Action Official:Linda Lewis Regional Administrator, Region VII

relating to this report.Sincerely yours,

r&,v&LJ?.tiBarbara A. Bennett. _ Regional Inspector Generalfor Audit Services

Administration for Children and Families601 East 12th Street Room 276Kansas City, Missouri 64106


17/45

SCHEDULE OF DIRECT CHARGED TITLE IV-E TRAINING COSTSCLAIMED AND RESULTS OF AUDIT

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND REHABILITATION SERVICESFOR THE PERIOD

OCTOBER 1,1992 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30,1996

FISCAL TRAINING COSTS CHARGED DIRECT TO IV-EYEAR

ENDED TOTAL FE DERAL SHARE09/30/93 $1,091,542 $ 818,65709/30/94 3,651,045 2.738,28409/30/95 3,975,451 2,981,58809/30/96 4.362.171 3271.628TOTALS $13.080.209 $9.810.157

RESULTS OF AUDITPERCENT OF

IV-E TO TOTAL TRAINING EXCEFOSTER CARE COSTS ALLOCA

MAINTENANCE ALLOCABLE TOPAYMENTS TO IV-E IV-E

41.47% $ 452,662 $ 638,47.38% 1,729,865 1921,147.58% 1.891.520 2.083.50.28% 2.193.300 2.168.

$6.267.347 $6.812.

4


18/45

AnxB

P1o

SC

OTTVETKO

A

ATCMME

K

ADAMEOSOAARHLTOSEC

FOST

FSCY

E

JU31

ATCMME

A

A

CLTTTT

TkOd

Dpo

IVE

Doa

TsakodsoashSaSvcTannDomCmeTDnhdom

Dpooannso

TCme

amemaooacmevcmebannsyemoyhsvcAve

gaodyacyo

BCcuminu1Cndomohcmeban@syem2Mnancenho

aoweeVEave

foVESa

cdwaeccaacmebann3Aesnannccaadonw

ccaocmeehannpoamwhnYhSvc4Eueannacao

cmeewhnhannsyem5Doaposyemonvdnams

domonvdzpasuvsoysuocmedomaamoh

jo6neaehwkohPoamAysUoacmeaanmdcoo

tannnaeson

nhcmeannsyem7Doamoeuea

e

haeoenn

AcaDuTannpodoyhsvcwksamanenkweohdmcoaco

Tcncenuoeae

Tann

adonsksowknwhameohppokncdeseahmoen

pmyosoasvc

cdeosehmAvenu1PodhdynaRpnoFmewh

avewcaenaowe

SaAPoemannoaosa2C

accumdomceewhfoTeVEemm

thkaoomcdwaeasuaadspn3Doccumoep

eevyoaeswhsuaapoem4Doccumaanwkoep

tohnocdeomamewhsuaapoem

VdPoo

TVdLsusaohannakodnhpo

nuovdobunTeInuoneucosn

U

IVEannFvvdpa

nuKAoPnhpoCNRuconon

aoweoemmu

CmeBTannWknwhAcAcFmePnpeoFmyCee

TeVERmnnoc

PacEaLeSyePam

Tawdnhyasoeoehuoceaoincenuoeae

dvnannaweoeanesnvdaednoao

pmyosoasvc

avewcaenaowe

foTeVEemm

B 4


19/45

Anx

P2o

SC

OTTIVETKO

AATCMME

K

ADAMEOSOAARHLTOSEC

FOST

FSCY

E

JU31

O

TpoewbdohAcAccuaycmeccumpeoydoa

Tca

oeaemeo

Reaooteebamshnhoown1DvhAcAccuaycmeannn

dvyoSaSvcho

MnyCdecaaowhhnagsdenseeSRAeOc2E

ccumo

avepmeu

aFmen

inuspasuohAcAcueoe3Doosaocmbmh

16c1a2

SRCoa

fodynsawhaehSRcdwaecmeencncuacme4

Pam

CaaewhhvoSRanneosoneaehcuacmeenoaanneos

aaoae

i

KAoTannTsakodseashopomenedspnycaaooaeheoeeos

Tannopeoohm

meopenoohmpamecoapm

Avenu1Ahdpamaecoaen

asaewdnedspnyceeomemneoeeoswhaooue

aoweaveo

oe

2Podecasaaannoocmeceoucadscso

remmu

eVE

ashmndonsaeeomemheoeeosme3Hwsm

inaooykaoceeopoysuaenTeVEegbecdeademnb

thCmso

Ocm

TsakodsopodannaecasaoSRsaapvepodwsv

Dpooannsn

Muem

TeVEegbecdenodoeashaauceocmnomonaoo

suceodyhanns

Tann

ccponcoOcmncowbdooseepcosvccas

foaoweaveonn

agasTcasaaannwbpodovoCmsosaosyeme

so16ca2

ocmmueue

Wrao

Tspoewcndonannsu

ocmyeneaobasncmenDpooannso

SvcTann

donheocnyokaskcdenhhmcmeoaeecvgaodyacyo

eomsTsypoewe

hwaaoannccumonuacmy

aoweeVEave

reocdomcm

Tsnuhwoc

a

ynoyoasnnna

donancncmyc

anoyokasaeocnacmyabd

cmypnhpoanvdabsTpoewcnoboecasao

lowkaocohmemaoohwaaoeo

XoC

4soawksuuwboeaKwVeCenW

eCyopodoowu

Tanneaeodvoom

tam

:ammoamewcmohaeoohuenaaamceodv

foecepamsna

3cum

:hdeompamTannccumwbdoomhgoubunhee

aoweavyoeVE

leom

fomuedvopoesohey1msuowknwhyhwhse

fun

zmodsubaheeohsuu

B 4


20/45

-Anx

P3o

SC

OTTIVETKO

AATCMME

K

ADAMEOSOAARHLTOSEC

FOST

FSCY

E

JU31

SanTm

TsakodwpodsuoYhaASvcCmsonhdomoann

Dpooannso

TannS

measgaebhSanTmSnuhpeaoohsonvsuad

gaodyacyo

aohanneaemeasTohuocmeeohsakodwasSR

aoweeVEave

SaDomndonamnannasyemosaedannaveacme

aanmOhavenupodnasaopeeannohuocmea

mnannacmeanna

KRaCdTspoesnh4ha5ypoeodoadsdeammacmeb

ann

Dpooannso

WeaePoe

seocdwaepacTannocewhspccmeeweseeomagaodyacyo

saewdnamTcnu1CdDom2PoeoDom3SeaoweeVEave

Mm4SaWokahLw5FmyTemSaee6Fmyu7A

Mocaoeaeme

aNe8PacSs9PacSs1AesTakodasonvh

todvyoSaSvch

pcapamon

ycmeammaepmnSRannseah

toavepmeu

posooecasaasu

16c1a2

CuaunTsakodwnvhdomoannmeasapodnannoaeho

Inuoeaeopeoo

OoHm

reeaoomnenhcdwaesyemTannwoaeoohpeoopamasoasvcae

Pamo

pamawagspcedocopodannTannmeaswbdoo

naoweeVEave

MnyCdeaecuaysvsusuasoomcagspcnnaeoom

pamsmeaoaeOncuaopoesawbpodoSRsadoma

thccumsmemednhy

SRMao

TspoewdoadvannacuaodgoeeSRsksndspe

Tcncenuoeae

Tanna

reouooe

hgeuonoansaaoneaedspeeouoamaopmyosoasvc

Ccum

sksuoynohbo

aaoamyayhsvcAvenu1As

avewcaenaowe

Dom

domannpodnannbo1ccumnpmydspeeouomao

foTeVEemm

sks2Poda

sksannoSRsawcmeehpmyannodoan

hnwkoahdpe3Podccuao4Euehuoann5

Rm

ooadspeeouosyemamouzoodspeeouopacn

poemc

Maa

TsakodwaehgbwomSRannnamysyemamaaamyTcncenuoeae

FmyTa

thaMaaupacoaSRsoawkAmonpoamnhSnAeoc

pmyosoasvc

SvcoSR

wwkwhnvdsoawkahpomhdeToohsakodsom

avewcaenaowe

FedOc

admaesksaeqoMPosohakodwnuamonm

foTeVEemm

aaeanhuoMeqahenaSRoc

i

-

-

B 4


21/45

Anx

P4o

SC

OTTIVETKO

AATCMME

KADAMEOSOAARHLTOSEC

FOST

FSCY

E

JU31

SRTanno

TspoepodannopveedapodoSRTppohsannso

Tcncenuoeae

PveRdafuhepedapodowkncuowhhmemaoohFmyA

o

pmyosoasvc

Pod

SRToowncmswbceo1MnanFmyC

oanneamy

avewcaenaowe

syememoamemcuaadomsubomm2SvnafoTeVEemm

CuasespasuSRamybamoeohpod3Cennw

poamnbpodnecasaaannodoamyceesvc

JueS

Anevemannccumwbdgnc&uowhheusomhy

Dpooannso

Oe

ohspoeTccumwoohemacmmnoyha

o

gaodyacyo

Ccum

soewaenvwhhSRsyemAannmwbdoaaeuo

aoweeVEave

ponaennhccumTannoanaogncuaowbpod

En

TspoewsusvcennagmsosoawksusnhCenSspoamDpooannso

Ngh

inWicaSwcCyaohnghbaeTsuswdpodsvcogaodyacyo

BSvcofameacdeaskooohmpamsAannccumwdbdoo

aoweeVEave

Fme

sussoawkpao

aohpaoaoaewhcmyaeT

ccumwdnupeaonsehbamcmmacmy

ogzoawdemznamcdeamecegvssaoh

nghsunwk

SHpGo

KSHpNwkwpodaannpoamoyhsvcsaho

hsaeahDpooannso

Dom

looceoaaehdomoshpgoTeesoannwbaae

gaodyacyo

Tann

whae1wkhbnpodnae6oh1SRaeTannwbcomzoaoweeVEave

aehnoeoeTnooywkhwdpodauano

caescoshpgo

wshpgocoeeevoshpgohwo

gnaoesngohwoaaehdomonwceushpgoah

lkyoeoshpgonhhceawaeeomFowucuaoaec

asawbaaeahmohannsowdba

hoaveyo

euomh

Fmya

TsakodsopodannaecasaohcncsaohCUncn

Dpooannso

4eGo

famyhaaaegohaTyhocamoeocwbpoddngaodyacyo

Iha

thec

vdFowusowbpodaomhasxmhoownh

aoweeVEave

tannPaoecuaowasobpod

i

C V 9 7 6 8 1


22/45

Anx

SUMMA

OE

T

AC

SH

NOMAOFM

A

SOE

V

SUMIT

BUV

TOK

A

U

TNNC

92E

MB

A

K

ADAMEOSOAAR

LTOS

C

FOC

POE

JU31

RO

S

SH

D

RO

S

SH

F

SH

RO

T

C

R

RS

SH

E

DCT

FMT

PAD

C

CMU

V

C

CMU

V

C

CMU

V

C

CMU

V

C

CMU

009

139

0

$2

$2

$4

.$4

$6

$6

$1

$1

($9

($

009

039

019

31

13

88

~52

19

66

29

11

1

(1

009

0

0

69

23

11

74

20

97

67

29

21

(1

009

039

009

38

21

12

86

10

107

40

29

(81

(1

009

039

0

40

21

15

92

16

123

44

33

26

(1

DV 8 4 1 3 4 3 4 6 2 0 3 0


23/45

Anx

SUMMA

OE

T

AC

SH

NOMAO

OE

V

SUMIT

BK

AS

UV

T

U

TNNC

91

KADAMEOSOAAR

LTOS

C

FOC

POE

JU31

RO

S

SH

D

-

RO

S

SH

F

SH

RO

T

C

R

RS

SH

E

DCT

FMT

PAD

C

CMU

V

C

CMU

V

C

CMUV

C

CMU

V

C

CMU

009

039

0

$6

$6

$4

.$4

$1

$1

$5

$5

($8

($

009

0

109

53

80

36

40

39

51

89

15

(36

(5

009

039

lo2

97

18

52

12

60

11

15

30

(67

(1

1o19139

12

14

32

58

11

63

14

15

46

(21

(1

109

139

1

94

47

54

25

69

23

19

65

(64

WW

1

1

0

9

52

40

30

25

32

25

88

73

(35

(2

009

039

0

45

55

29

24

34

30

76

70

(30

(2

009

029

009

74

10

37

22

12

42

23

13

41

1

0

039

0

51

11

42

35

53

46

15

19

(74

1

0

9039

019

72

113

51

46

64

50

13

12

(91

3

009

0

9

0

WVW

14

29

66

10

70

45

17

(64

(6

009

039

0

40

15

17

73

17

88

24

22

(23

w6

00

0

119

15

20

16

89

32

110

78

20

17

1

BILL GR AVES, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF KANSAS


24/45

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF SOCIALAND REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 SW HARRISON STREET, TOPEKA, KANSAS 666

ROCHELLE CHRONISTER, SECRETARY

June 19, 1997Office of the Secretary Docking State Office Building915 Harrison, Room 603 NorTopeka, KS 66612

Ms. Barbara BennettRegional Inspector General601 East 12th StreetKansas City, Missouri 64106RE: CIN: A-07-97-01 028Dear Ms. Bennett:We have reviewed the Training Costs Claimed Under Title IV-E of the SAct audit report dated April 23, 1997. The Department of Social and Services (SRS) takes exception with all of the audit report recommendatiin the report, except for the finding that identified a transposition error.We would like to make a number of general comments about the- audit findings. As. noted, the Department of SRS strongly disagrees with threcommendations. The audit recommendations appear to be inconsistintent behind funding and authorization for Title IV-E training. Clearbehind P.L. 96-272 was to enhance the services that are made availaband families through improved training opportunities. Congress made


25/45

Ms. Barbara BennettCIN: A-07-97-01 028Page 2

The Childrens Bureau in the Administration on Children, Youth and Fampublic comment just last August through a notice in the Federal Registe1996). The announcement indicated the intent of the Childrens Bguidance clarifying current policy and regulations regarding Title IV-Eacknowledged that numerous concerns and issues had been identifiedprogram. No action has yet been taken by the Childrens Bureau toclarification even though numerous responses were received. (The pucan be found in Attachment A.)The United States Congress is considering legislative language to claround these training issues, including a clear delineation that training regardless of the proportion of children eligible for Title IV-E foster careor adoption assistance payments. The language being considered in SCong., First Sess., 143 Cong. Rec. S2646 (1997) would also clearlybroad scope of training envisioned in keeping with the intent of P.L. 96Finally, as a general comment, the State of Kansas worked very cloinception of the IV-E training program with its partners at the Region VIAdministration for Children and Families. In fact, the program was desigwith Region VII. Representatives of SRS and the University of Kansas times with individuals from-that office in designing the training prograof cost allocation, and in designing the states Title IV-E stipend progwork students. Training plans and task orders with universities were alattachments to the states Child Welfare Plan. Attachment B summawhich took place from 1989 -1997 related to Title IV-E Short and Long In the paragraphs that follow, we provide a response to each issue raise

A/locating Training Costs to Benefitting Programs. Audit report recoincluded 1) refund $5.1 million to the Department for the excess chargeduring the audit period; 2) adjust subsequent federal claims for Title IV-Efor excess allocations; 3) establish acceptable procedures for allocating


26/45

Ms. Barbara BennettCIN: A-07-97-01 028Page 3cost of training is clearly a fallacious argument. A worker with Title IVparticipate in the entire training program in order to effectively serve tcaseload. A worker with a 50% caseload of Title IV-E children does no50% of the training of a worker with a caseload of 100% Title IV-E interpretation is clearly not consistent with the intent of P.L. 96-272services to children and families by improving training. Every child wrequires a full set of skills. If costs are necessary to achieve a training oall the costs should be reimbursed at the prescribed statutory rate. If necessary to the proper and efficient administration of the Title IV-E SU.S.C. Section 674 (a)(3)], then the State is entitled to reimbursementhese necessary training costs, regardless of whether those costs mighanother program.Under this interpretatio-n and its emphasis on benefits, a State could notof the costs it must incur to train its staff to serve the Title IV-E populaclearly in contradiction to the Congressional intent which established funding. P.L. 96-272 and its implementing regulations make no mentiontraining costs to benefitting programs. In fact, Section 1356.6(b) of thdescribes the training costs and enhanced federal participation with no mallocation. The very next section [1356.6(c)] relating to adminisspecifically requires such cost allocation. The clear assumption is that with regard to training was-intended.- -* _..Clearly Congress intended to provide an incentive for child welfare trainiof cost allocation is clearly contradictory to this intent and to the goalsof P.L. 96-272. In making this recommendation, the auditors relied hDepartmental Appeals Board decision. We believe that decisions must bclearly written regulations, rather than on conflicting policy anninformation memorandums and Departmental Appeals Board decjsibns.to conflicting interpretations, it should also be noted that this audit coyear period ending September 30, 1996 during which there have bechanges of policy and conflicting interpretations made by the Departmand Human Services and in Departmental Appeals Board decisions.


27/45

----

Ms. Barbara BennettCIN: A-07-97-01 028Page 4The Circular itself gives federal agencies considerable latitude in determinwhen costs are to be allocated, including the option of charging all substantially benefit one program to that program, even if other programsTo this date, the regulations regarding training include no indication or recost allocation.Many of the contacts with federal Region VII representatives as Attachment B related to cost allocation. In addition, the agencys cost alis submitted annually to the federal government and clearly has included FFP Title IV-E training at the 75%/25% match rate.

Al/o wable Training Activities. Audit report recommendations included procedures to separate the allowable and unallowable costs of training recognize the principles set forth in DAB 1530 and 01356.60(c)(l), (2)charge only allowable training activities to Title IV-E.Response: P.L. 96-272 clearly supports a holistic approach to child welfwhich is family-focused and preventive. P.L. 96-272 provisions reasonable efforts clause were clearly aimed at preventing the removafrom their homes wherever possible. The interpretation to support focused on foster care and adoption services services that begin AFTERremoved from the home are inconsistent with this intent.In the law, Congress appears to recognize that child welfare servicecontinuum of activities that include protection as well as case managementof the child welfare system are: placement prevention, permanency pfamily reunification. All subjects which enhance the capacity of those in services should be allowable. Title IV-E training should support B holfocused, preventive approach to the delivery of child welfare services.Decisions regarding allowable training show a narrow interpretation by The regulation states allowable training includes certain topics but does the items listed there are the only allowable training activities. F


28/45

Ms. Barbara BennettCIN: A-07-97-01 028Page 5Monitoring Cost Share. Audit report recommended that the Staprocedures to monitor contributed cost share for training contracts tosufficient to cover the States share of Title IV-E costs on a current anbasis.Response: The contractors are not required to provide an even match thcontract period. The Department requires a 25% match for the entiperiod. Many contractors provide the match in the final reporting perioThe Department will research the effect of requiring contractors to reporefforts on each billing statement instead of at the conclusion of the statements received by contractors will be reviewed prior to paymecompliance with contractual requirements.University offices of Research Support and Grants Administration rigordetails of proposed budgets prior to endorsing any projects with theofficial signature. This includes a review of any cost share proposal. noted that there were some short-term documentation issues with thpayroll system which have been resolved. The Department will ensure this sufficient to ensure that the state share of Title IV-E costs is ccumulative basis.

Transposition Error. The audit report recommended making an adjustmenquarterly report Title IV-E claim to reduce the claim by $27,000 totransposition error.Response: We concur with the transposition error and will be revis-quarterly report to reflect the correction.

SummaryAs you know, Kansas has taken tremendous strides in being innovative ain the delivery of services. As Kansas breaks new ground with privatizat


29/45

Ms. Barbara BennettCIN: A-07-97-01 028Page 6Department. The skills required for good child welfare practice aregardless of whether the case worker is serving a Title IV-E or non-TitlAlso, a child who is not a Title IV-E child today, may be a Title IV-E chdate; and a Title IV-E child today may lose that eligibility at a future daWith regard to the findings related to the allocation of training costs programs and allowable training activities, the audit report takes a nainterpretation. Even though we disagree with this finding, we believe no choice but to make changes in our Title IV-E training program in rcurrent interpretations of existing regulations. Kansas has formed a research how .we can effectively capture the data requested in this audimaintaining a level of quality service and efficient operations. Training on an allocation of costs based on a Title IV-E/non Title IV-E split, areimbursement .will only be claimed for the narrow range of activities ideTitle IV-E administrative regulations. The agencys cost allocation plathese modifications.Because of the lack of clarity regarding allocating costs to benefiting progallowable scope of training activities, at the very least, we believe that Knot be penalized retroactively for an approved Title IV-E training comethodology. The Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Servcompliance with the program regulations. The state acted in.good partnership with our federal representatives in establishing a program to purposes and intent of P.L. 96-272. If you have questions, please Barnard, Audit Director, at 913-296-2041.

Sincerely,

Rochelle ChronisterSecretary

AAL cuL*ullc111. *NEW YORK STATEDEPAMMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES


30/45

40NORTHPEARL !X'REET,ALBANY,NEWYORKlU4UXX)I

SRS CHlLDRElv &FAMILY SERVICES

Dear Respondent to Title IV-E Training Notice for Comment: The August 21, 1996 Federal Resister contained's notice o

public comment concerning the implementation and management of Training under the Title TV-'Eof the Social. Security Act. Throof Information Law request, copies of the.117 sets of comments&t to the Children's Bureau in the Administration on ChildreFamilies (ACYF) have been provided for our review.

The purpose of this letter is -to provide respondents. to Resister notice with an overview of the comments submitted by County Child Welfare Agencies, colleges and universities,groups, students and other concerned individuals.

Respondents generally agreed that the existing set ofpolicy announcements, information memorandums and Departmental (DAB) decisions is at best confusing.. zany stated that a grodfELE.S, State and Local Governments, and social work educatioshould be assembled to prepare one act of clear regulations iwith the intent and spirit of Public Law 96-272, The Adoptionand Child Welfare Act of-1980. * -' .

The comments most frequently expressed were: 1. The N-E enhanced training funding rate -shouldc

related to child welfare, family preservation &ad suppofoster care and adoption assistance.

2. Reimbursement for training expenditures benefiting-the program should not be reduced based on an allocation and Non IV-E eligible .cases.

3. The 75% PFP rate should apply to all real costs of traiand indirect, includig the costs of administering program.

-2-


31/45

.

. Several Commentators expressed concern that interpretRegional Office staff, auditors, and even the holding of thebe more related to limiting Federal reimbursement than to intent and goal of the Title IV-E program. Inuring a diSCUSSistaff, I was told that when the concerns are addressed "cost wfactor" in any changes that may be made to the regulations.

The implementing regulations for the reimbursement expenditures under Title IV-E provide for federal matching futhe costs of training personnel employed or preparing for emplState or local agency austering the plan (45 CFR1356These regulations add that "short and long term training institutions and in-service training may (emphasis added) accordance with the provisions of 5235.63 through 235.66(a)" Title TV-A regulations. However, consistent with the legislaCongress, there is no provision in Part 1356.60 that defitraining expenditure or tbat distinguishes a direct trainifrom an indirect training expenditure.

The ACF's'interpretation of the Title TV-E and 45 CFR 513wholly dependent upon an application of 45 cm 5235August 22, 1996 Congress repealed Title IV-A and enacted blTemporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) as part of Responsibility and. Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act opub. L 104-193, August 22, 1996) rrpon approval of a newTitle IV-A and the federal regulations promulgated to ilegislation would no longer apply in that State. To the45 CFR fi235.65 could have ever been a basis for holding in fav._ policy interpretation, the above-referenced federal legislatiocited regulation, and ACFls accompany&g interpretation obsoletmade no provisions for, old T&tle IV-A regulations to suapplicable to the Title IV-E training program. The' abTitle IV-E reform in the 1996 TANF legislation repudiates the being challenged by respondents to this notice for comment.

Based on our review of the comments, we believe that . immediately focus attention to the problems repeatedly adrespondents. New regulations, unsmbiguous and true to the inteof PL 96-272, developed through a collaboration with Suniversity, and Child Welfare professionals should be prou&tlyissued in draft through the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking procthe recommendations prepared by the Council on Social Work Eduresult of their analysis of comments received,. (see Attachmentincorporated in the revised regulations.

Fiscal considerations of BHS should not override CongressiWe should not allow any interpretation of PL 96-272 that

-3-


32/45

. "Many of the recent "interpretations" which have come outrelation to Title IV-E training appear to have as their pthe restriction of the reimbursement owed to States. Insto maximize the cost savings to the Federal government froProgram, DBES should be making its policy decisions and rgoals and intent of the program in mind. In evaluating intent of Title IV-E training, DBHS should consider nTitle IV-E program, but also the Title IV-B program training originated and with which it continues to be linksubmission of the State plan." I hope tbat this information is useful to you and encourage

for a prompt NPRM that incorporates the recommendations cited aIf .you have any questions, please call me at (518) 473-8215

Sincerely,

Jerry Townley Office of Financial Manag

.


33/45

Al-TA- A CON- #l-

The IV-E enhanced funding rate should cover training relWelfare, family preservation and support, not just fostadoption assistance.

. . . PL 96-272 was passed in an effort to prevent clanguishing in foster care. Provisions such a the "reasonclause were clearly aimed at preventing the removal of their homes wherever possible. The requirement of the PIQonly that training which is focused on foster care and adopwhich occur after the child has been removed from thinconsistent with this intent. In the law, Congrerecognize tbat child welfare services include a continuum othat iklude protection as well as case management. To prefunction as child welfare caseworkers requires training on of competencies as well as specific case management skills."The goal of the Adoption Assistance and Child welfare Act children with their families, secure a permanent adoptive hfor independent living, and secure a least restrictivsetting. Thus, training and instruction should incorporaprevention, permanency planning, family reunification, famindependent living, and case management. Clarity is needed to what constitutes "allowable" training topics for thospreparing for employment with Title IV-E eligible children".

-* "There also is a need for clarification of which c&r&s (ocourses) are eligible for Title IV-E reimbursement in undergraduate progrsms. Should these determinations be made by accounting officers in the federal regional offices or smade by the state agency in collaboration with the facrespective universities taking into account our emerging knocompetency-based child welfare practice? Ideally, thepartnerships will benefit from the findings of the intetraining grants funded by the Administration on Children,Families as well as from other ongoing research and traiincreasing the relevance of social work practice to families." "This law was designed to reduce the number of childrensubstitute care through reasonable efforts, to ensure ongoiall children in care through the requirement for ca

-2-.


34/45

...The most narrow interpretation of the scope Of tie law to be reflected in recent DAB decisions. The broadest iwould seem to be reflected in the positions taken by sochild welfare professional organizations who appear to argand all training activities and expenditures be charged 1IV-E. We believe the Secretary, under Section 470, has theexercise her discretion to determine what constitutesnecessary to carry out the provisions of the law.encourage the Children's Bureau to propose and the Secrethe most expansive position possible with respect to the accoursework that are allowable IV-E training expendi.tures.nn...training on all subjects related to any requirement iact must be allowable for funding under the Act. [Our Staconcern that the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA) often tinto issues surrounding allowability of an activity insteadits review to the equitable allocation of the activifinancing streams. [Our 'State] believes that mattersallowability and allocability are severable. We bdieVe thas exclusive jurisdiction over allocability methodolodetermination of the allowability of activities which willis reserved to.ACF as part of its review of the trainin. incorporated into a state's IV-B plan per 45 CFR 1356.60 (b"This distortion of congressional in tent has placeconsiderations of budget savings ahead of the long-term troubled children and families and ahead of promoting the of child welfare programs in every state. We have noresearch would indicate a significant increase in long-tesocial costs stemming from failures in the child welfareprotect children andd.reunite families." -.. "The intent of PL 96-272 was for the states to provide a bservices from prevention to reunification to permanency. Wintent was also that the role of the federal government fair share of Title IV-E training activities included.in thIV-B training plan, and not just those when "the subject ofis related to performing administrative services regarding placements". This was the wording given to [us] ainterpretation..." "In the Department's view, training topics that benefit tpromoting placement prevention, pursuing foster care appropriate instances, and developing comprehensive caseserve the best interests of children placed in foster care of preventive services, benefit Title IV-E and are allowatopics. The list of activities specified at 45 CFR 51356-6

-3-Title IV-E program was being implemented, DEIH.5offered


35/45

..

training costs under Title IV-E. ACYF-PIQ-82-17 (1982). Ia question related to the scope of Title IV-E training prstated that within certain restrictions (unrelated to cour*training may cover the full range of activities necessaryStates maintenance and service requirement of title IV-E".question 6. .This statement was clearly in keeping withTitle IV-E as perceived by the Agency at that time,currently perceived by the Department. Yet, over time,have shifted away from its original sense of the scope of tTitle IV-E.In the absence of recent regulation or comprehensive polirather than DEIESprogram staff has become the policymakerthis issue. Now, DHEISregional offices have initiated orreviews of states' training programs, with DAB Dec. No.subjective guide. In DAB Dec. No. 1530, the Division of Co(DCA) made legal arguments in favor of a narrow inte,rallowable training topics and, in large measure, the BDCA's views over those of the State of Illinois. Under Dec.training child welfare workers to be well acquainted withand availability.of community preventive services would not a Title .IV-E training topic. See DAB Dec. No. 1530, at p-25directed to develop and enhance caseworkers' skills to make decisions to remove children from their homes, would noT aallowable. Dec. No. 1530, at p. 25. Thus, states programs that successfully reduce foster care placements, awith less federal support for training that clearly benefiIV-E program. Such an outcome is antithetical to the iof the express mandates of Title IV-E and to the intent of Ctraining policy based upon DAB Dec. NO. 1530 will act as a to states' efforts- to develop innovative training to ktogether, and to pursue effective placement prevention~measu

CONCERN #2 Reimbursement for training expenditures benefiting the program should not be reduced based on an allocation betwNon IV-E eligible cases.

w- comldxNTs : "Clearly, the intent.of PL 96-272 was to improve services and families by improving training. to child welfare Enhanced FFP was proposed as a means of encouraging states new training initiatives for these staffs. If DHHS interprrequire that all costs for Title IV-Z training be cost allocthe state and federal child Welfare programs (example: accoras a p

-4-


36/45

of whether those costs might also benefit some other programIf costs are necessary to achieve a training objective,those costs should be reimbursed at the prescribed statutoryif it is arguable that some program other than IV-E could defrom those training expenditures. DHEIS' misplaced emphasisreceived in practice means that the State can never recovecosts it must incur to train its staff to seNe even its IV-properly under the State Plan. This obviously is inconsisteCongress intended. Congress made the decisions a to how training should be allocated: 75t federal reimbursement amatch. ...Even if DBB.5'interpretation of OMB A-87 were correct,among all benefittig programs would not necessarily be manintent of Congress and Public Law 96-272 is to lessen the foster care placement and to encourage greater efforts to fihomes for children and the Department has made funds availaprogram; therefore, cost allocation should not be reqCircular A-87 requires costs to be identified and accumulatedoes not necessarily mean that costs must be allocDepartment's policy on the Title IV-E program takes precCircular' A-87. The cost principles are for the purdetermination and are not intended to identify the circudictate the extent of Federal, State or local participfinancing of a particular grant. This view has been beenDHEIS's own Departmental Appeals Board in DAB number 963 determined that costs do not necessarily have to be allocabenefiting programs proportionately. Degree programs in child care automation systems are two examples of DHHS allowbe charged to Title IV-E without allocation." -.- . -J --"Neither PL96-272 nor the implementing regulations mentiotraining costs according to benefiting programs. Section 1the regulations describes training costs without calliallocation, while the following section, 1356.6(c), whicadministrative costs, specifically requires cost allocaregulations require states to be in compliance with OMB ciwhich gives federal agencies considerable latitude in detcosts are to be allocated, including the option of +arging WbiCh substantially benefit one program to that program, eprograms also benefit. The requirement to cost allocateincentive to improve training by reducing the FFP." "Regulation 1356.60(b) describes only the 75 percent rrate. Narrative in 45 CFR 235.63 through 235.66(a) repercent reimbursement under Title I, X, XIV,or XVI:and 50 p

-5-skills are directly related to Title IV-E (such a


37/45

determinations), and some represent good child welfare pracimpractical... to segregate Title IV-E children from othertrain only those workers involved with Title IV-E caddition, separating Title IV-E children iS contrary tgovernment's commitment tbat all Children, regardless Ofeligibility, have access to the same services and programs."Title N-E &es not authorize the Secretary to imposadditional costs on states where states' laws do not matraining for "state-only" child welfare programs, and statehave not elected to appropriate additional state funtraining. Title IV-E does not expressly authorize the Secretary tfactors on training projects designed to benefit theprogr-- The discretion to impose such additional cost ithe compact between the federal government and the participunder Title IV-E. Further, OMB Circular A-87 is a comprehrules to be followed by federal administrative agencieappropriate, uniform grants administration practices.relied on an an independent basis for imposing additional mon state legislatures. The ambiguity in this area has beby the General Accounting Office (GAO) in GAO/HP-D-94-7 (19the public accounting firm of KPMG Peat, Marwick, LLP in cfederally required 1994-95 Single State Audit of [our] stRef. No. CIN A-02-96-42836, pp. 64-65 (1996). .If Congimpose an unfunded mandate under the guise of Title N-E, so unambiguously by amending Title IV-E. Should DHHS choospolicy of imposing PNP factors on states' Title IV-E trainithe states would expect that DHHS will comply with the federal Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4affording the AdviZory Commis&.on on Intergovernmental Relan opportunity to review the existing mandate and reviscontemplated by DHHS. This 1995 legislation is applicableE. At the very least, it should be DEEIS' position, in thpartnership, that no state should be penalized retr

. approved Title IV-E training cost allocation methodologies for the allocation of all Title IV-E training project cIV-E."

CON- f3: The 75% FFP rate should apply to all real costs of trainingindirect, incuding the costs of administering the training

-6-. and regional DHRS office to work together to develop an ~U


38/45

plan for use of IV-E funds. It also allows each individudecide how N-E funds are best used to meet the UniqUe traithat state." "Any assertion tbat only the costs and activities specificathe title IV-E regulations are allowable training costplace limitations on the states which are not required undWe would hope that we could join in discussion with the Dassure accountability in the use of IV-E funds. This wouleach individual state to decide how IV-E funds are best useunique training needs of that state. The state.. .has fconcept in the past three years with DHHS AdmLnistration and Families, Region X staff." ~I.n.DHHS's view, the federal Title N-A Training regulation5235.63-66(a), made applicable to Title IV-E unde51356.60 (b), can be interpreted to exclude as allowable Ttraining costs, those state and local costs and/or indirecttbat include costs that are not expressly identified as trunder the Title IV-A regulations. Accordingly, while it to claim these unidentified training costs as allowable acosts under Title IV-E at 50% FTP, these costs are notreimbursement at the enhanced 75% FFR rate. This view has accepted by the Board in DAB Dec. No. 1422. In the Department's view, State and local Title IV-E agcosts.or DCA-approved indirect cost rates, and administrincurred to support training activities constitute allowacosts in that they are necessary and beneficial to entraining programs and projects are successfully conducted.provision in Title--IV-E or Title N-E regulations thaexcludes these costs from being-considered allowable t&king these indirect costs are incurred for' the benefit of thallocating these costs to a training cost pool, and to thTraining cost pool is fundamental to and required by OMB [email protected], C.3.a., and F-3.. The DHHS's policy, again, as derived from DAB Dec. No.discretionary one. It is not bound by express language in It is not clear under 45 CFR 51356.60(b) (1) that-thelimitation on what constitutes the reasonable and necessarytraining personnel employed or preparing for employment by local agency". Further, it is unclear that 45 CFR 91356applies to all training. To the extent tbat it does, it waswith the permissive word %ayn rather than "must". This ciis an insufficient basis for excluding the indirect costs

-7-Concarn t4:


39/45

States should be allowed to we in-kind contributions training contractors as matching funds under Title IV-E. r r mr r n r n t a

"In DHELS' view, states are prohibited from using pricontributions to satisfy state match requirements undeSince 1973, DHHS has relied on a policy that prohibits statprivate in-kind contributions as state match absent complCFR 1235.66 (b). As Title IV-A was written then (and as Titwritten now), the use of third party in-kind contributions contractors as state match was and is not prohibited by lawthe Department of Health, Education and Welfare (BEobtained from OMB a waiver from the application of OMB CirSubpart F, to Title IV-A. Subpart F generally authorizthird party in-kind contributions for state match purposesCircular A-102 also allowed federal agencies to seek waiapplication of certain Circular A-102 provisions. Tadvantage of this waiver option. The former subpart G of 474, whi.ch also expressly allowed for third party in-kind cWaS excepted -from application to Title IV-A pursuant201.5(e). In the-Department's view, states should be able to use thikind contributions from private training contractors aunder Title IV-E. Allowing for such contributions as benefits the purposes and goals of Title IV-E. As has beenneither Title IV-E nor its related regulations expressly puse. Further, DHHS' policy and waiver have continued without OMB ever revysiting the'1973 waiver. Since 1973, Tbeen enacted; part 74 of 45 CFR, and OMB Circular A-102, wreissued in 1981, were superseded by the new Part 74 is1994. See new 45 CFR 74.3, and 74.23. Further, the regulpromulgated in 1982 to implement Title IV-E, in 551355.40(b), and 1356.60(b) (3), do not except Subpart G ofPart 74, from being applicable to Title IV-E, or refere5235.66(b) as being applicable to Title IV-E. In fact,expressly acknowledged this regulatory change and the-issuan82-17, p. 3, question 5 (1982). These regulations hunchanged despite the reissuance of Part 74. Yet, DBHS hfrom 82-17, in its reliance on the 1973 waiver as a current position on this issue. The significance of between Title IV-E regulations and current DHBS policy is hthe Board's commentary that, "to the extent that (a) PIQ iswith the regulations, it appears that the regulations

-a45 CFR 574.4. Further, 'the fairness of this POliCyconsidered inasmuch as it restricts competition, discourages


40/45

.

the participation of minority-based training contractorspublic. training contractors an advantage over private cothat states can continue to use contributions from public and colleges as state match. IKLthe effort of developing cannUa1 Title N-E training programs, this factor placimportance on funding streams at the expense of securincreative and effective trainin g curricula and training prese"We understand the 45 CPR 1356.60 (b)(3) tilows public fundfor State match for training under title IV-E, as long as thstated at 45 CFR 235.66(a) are met. We also understand235.66(b) which permits donated primate funds as match for texcluded from the title N-E program (45 CPR 1356-60(b) (3))Beginking at this point our understanding differs frombelieve that the federally established indirect rate at school can be used, in this case, as part of the state matchAs a state agency, we are required to follow the cost princCircular A-07. As you know, when governmental units incur publicly-financed educational institution, the cost principsubject to OMB Circular A-21 (OMB Curcular A-87 Attachment 3) -We are also aware that the applicable OMB Circulars do notconditions referred.to in the earlier policy interpretationWe, and the DEIHS/ACP regional office, have concluded that tan exception to the circulars. We have requested to be givthe exception, but the regional office has not been able to one." -.- . : "We do not believe the distinction between public and privatthe match has any policy validity. More important requirement that the public agency participate in financisignificant level. The goal is to create a financialbetween the state agency and the educational community forof improving the quality and quAntity of professionals workchildren." "Due to the prohibition against the use of printe dollars atraining provided by the professional schools at private uniall the more costly, thereby consuming more of the limiavailable for training. Although [our state1 does contracting with printe colleges or universities based solefiscal impact, it is one factor which is taken into considdeveloping our training options.

-9-educational programs in these areas, and iS currently usingdollars as match. This sets up an inequitable situation


41/45

agency dollars are spent on private schools than on Public.last indefinitely and we stand the real risk of losing critical importance to the people of our state. The Schomeet the standards of our consortium, and are closely scrutstate ag=cy- There are sufficient checks and balances binfluenced process to guard against any inappropriainfluence. It makes good business sense, the Controls arthe cbi.ld.renand families of these regions will not be sethe federal participation and the priwte match." "Ancillary benefits of primte funding partnerships thaachieved include: 1.

2.

3.

Higher level of printe sector vestment in program desigof components, and eventual outcomes of training project Improved access to'additional skilled service providersprivate agency who enters into financial partnership witsector. More. grassroots community involvement which enhances thof other support systems to recognize the relevance of pneeds to their individual area of endeavor (such as thebarriers faced by adoptive families and difficuconsistent, effective mental health service)."

"Enforcing the disallowance of private university matcpublic-private partnerships which have been encouraged by thBureau, as well as the Administration and Congress. The usmatch should be governed by 45 CFR Part 74, Subpart G."_c . .. -

ATTACHMENT B?


42/45

.

.

ATTACFziPtiTa .d C

CneoE the respondents provided the following analysis of the actuthat is provided af ter the "new interpretations" are applied. Se


43/45

states have already received disallowances based on this methodolo

Effects of Intemretations If the above interpretations are enforced throughout the country, have a dramatic effect on child welfare. This can be seen easily thrfollowing example, A training event is conducted by the child welfare agency for childworkers with the following attributes: 70% of the costs are directly related to delivering the training,

costs are indirect or administration of the contract.0 the states foster care case count is 74% Title TV-E eligible0 the staff being trained spend 60% of their time on foster care m

activities and 40% on child protection activities 80% of the topics discussed fall under the activities listed at 45

1356.606)Under prior interpretations, 75% (federal fmancial participation) ocost of the training event would have been reimbursed through TitUnder the new interpretations, only 24% o f the costs would be reifollows:

Attachment B

SRS Children & FamilyTITLE IV-E SHORT AND LONG TERM TRAINING


44/45

From a review of our records, it appears that there was considerable contaVII, Health an Human Services related to the usage of IV-E Dollars for Trainalso several references which leads one to conclude that the University several contacts with Linda Lewis of the regional office.Title IV-B State PlanThe Title IV-B State Plan documents the child welfare services the state is a comprehensive document which delineates all activities of the commissiLong Term Title IV-E Training is addressed in the IV-B Plan.Child Welfare Work GroupThe Regional Office and the four states in Region VII met on a regular bchild welfare issues and concerns. Use of IV-E Training Dollars appeared agendas. Federal representatives included Steve Nash, Robert Reed aThese meetings or conference calls were held on the following dates:

January 11 & 12, 1990November 13 1991July 16, 1993November 19, 1993December 13, 1993 (Discusses IV-A in addition to IV-E)March 31 -April 1, 1994June 23 -24, 1994

Correspondence: See attached list.

m w

L

81C

9

8W

9

1V4

9

12J

9

'6W

2

4

1z

&

1

'6

16z6w

1

6a

1

P4 I

0

L

0

@

01sd

019w

61L4

6

'Lw


45/45

._.__.

nm

soGu

IAjoaaus

p

0a

lezo

vw

0w

uoG

~A4aus

p

0a

usuw

a

oOW0JU

~AJ

pea0aq6as0uQ

J4ueau

u

a

wJWa

S

aUleba0u~w

p

pw

u

a

0JU

S

u

ssuaqms

yaAaupUw

auwup

aw

s IHAs

s

Su50peaa

lebqum

sgu

uQ

Woww

r

VM

we3Bue~A4u

d

M

pA0JU

uaeH

1u6wr0n0a

uwHw

JU

sMey4Au

lu

nwoww

S

s

e

ApsnsJ

y

e0uww

Ggw

fm

JUu

BuepudueyIS6Wp

sp

aAw

J

s

aesw

fuwa

(JNpopn

*Syv

WOpaJNeupd

s

D

4w0oww

ud~Aama0

S

y

uaosw

Jdew6p&osJO

4hsAuapSum)uw

1A

yp

0JU

nuJOD

aesuw

-uaWaeHUwHsHS&e

0usw

G

~A4A

s

nm

Au@asMe7#Mpao

Wnes~A

sdw

aeMuWoww

IA6

4ewe

pS

adM

8M

~~A4a:a

sw

JJe

wA

0a

u

kMe

wJR

A6JS

amdw

ua0p

s

Z91doLu31MA

a#4sBp

yywwJ

kansas title iv-e training costs audit 1997

Documents