Presentation on theme: "YOUTH & FAMILIES AGRICULTUREHEALTHECONOMYENVIRONMENTENERGY COMMUNITIES 2010 NATIONAL EXTENSION AND RESEARCH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS’ CONFERENCE Session."— Presentation transcript:
YOUTH & FAMILIES AGRICULTUREHEALTHECONOMYENVIRONMENTENERGY COMMUNITIES 2010 NATIONAL EXTENSION AND RESEARCH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS’ CONFERENCE Session #29, May 18, 2010, 1:30-2:45 pm Madison, Wisconsin UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION OF FORMULA GRANTS By Mary Hoffman, Associate Director of Budget and Business Operations, WSU Extension and CAHNRS and Becky Priebe, Program Administrative Manager in Budget and Business Operations, WSU Extension and CAHNRS
OBJECTIVES Give newcomer a basic understanding of the: 1.Eligibility for Formula Grants 2.Types of Formula Grants 3.Difference in administrative processes between formula grants and “standard” federal grants. 4.Timelines/brief process overview
FORMULA GRANT ELIGIBILITY
DEFINITION – LAND GRANT INSTITUTION Designated by the Morrill Act in 1862 and 1890 to receive benefits. Granted federally controlled land to the states to develop or sell so they may establish and endow land grant colleges. Land grants mission – Ag, Science and Engineering
FORMULA FUND ELIGIBILITY Mission of land grant expanded by the Hatch act – provided funds to states to establish research stations and then expanded this the Smith Lever Act to include cooperative education. Send agents into rural areas to bring results of ag research to end users.
FORMULA GRANTS ELIGIBILITY NIFA provides support for education, research and extension activities at land-grant institutions through grants to the states on the basis of statutory formulas. Eligibility is limited to the cooperating institutions, most of which are 1862, 1890, and 1994 land-grant institutions.
FORUMULA GRANTS - TYPES Research: Includes Animal Health, Evans-Allen, Hatch Act and McIntire- Stennis. Education: The Tribal College Endowment Interest Program Extension: Extension for 1890 Institutions, Renewable Resources Act, and the Smith-Lever Act.
CSRS AND FERS FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES
CSRS AND FERS Former Federal Employees Schedule A 2,007 Civil Service Retirement 847 Federal Employees Retirement 48 Offset 2,902 Total 48 States and 1 Territory
Schedule A Authority The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has the authority and responsibility for issuing rules and regulations covering Schedule A appointments and resulting benefits. OPM has delegated to the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) the responsibility for overseeing and managing Cooperative Extension Schedule A appointments and the accompanying Federal benefits, e.g., retirement and insurance plans.
Schedule A Effective January 31, 2003, the authority to grant Schedule A Excepted Appointments to Cooperative Extension Service (CES) employees was terminated. Public Law 107-171, Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, dated May 13, 2002, Section 7220, terminated the Schedule A appointing authority used by USDA to grant a companion Federal appointment and Federal benefits to state/university employees of the Cooperative Extension Service Section 7220
Criteria The CES Director/Administrator must assure that all former Federal appointees continue to meet the criteria necessary to remain eligible to participate in their Federal benefits. –must have the adequate qualifications to perform the work –must continue to spend at least 50% of their time on CES functions in order to continue to participate in the Federal benefit programs. –must work 12 months a year, be paid over a 12 month period and make full-time (2080/2087 hours) annual contributions to the Federal retirement fund.
Schedule A - Benefits The law allowed the CES Federal appointees that were employed on the day before the date of the enactment of the Act, i.e., May 12, 2002, to: continue to accrue Federal creditable service for retirement participate in the following benefits as long as the employees continued their employment with the Cooperative Extension Service:
Schedule A - Benefits Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB) Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Program (FEGLI) Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP).
Workers Compensation The Federal Office of Workers Compensation Program (OWCP) is the only Federal program that will not continue as it is not a program that the dual appointee was vested in. Claims already on file with the Department of Labor (DOL) Office of Workers Compensation Office will continue to be processed by the DOL.
Workers Compensation The termination of the Federal appointments and the fact that they no longer are covered by the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) has impacted the FECA coverage provided to the Expanded Food and Nutrition Program (EFNEP) Aides. EFNEP employees do not meet the criteria for FECA coverage because they will not be performing services similar to those performed by Federal employees, and they are not working under the control of Federal employees. Therefore, these employees are no longer eligible for FECA coverage either.
Retirement RETIREMENT REPORTING Report deductions and contributions by pay period to OPM and send corresponding funds Yearly reconciliation of retirement deductions
ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION OF “STATE APPROPRIATED FEDERAL GRANTS” aka: FORMULA GRANTS
ADMINISTRATION From NIFA standpoint – not all that different from non-formula awards. More similar than different. From Institution standpoint – treated different but the same as non-formula awards; treated different but the same as state appropriations.
NIFA PROCESS: SIMILARITIES/DIFFERENCES Oversight Offices and NIFA Organization Submission Process – through GRANTS.GOV 2 submissions – initial and final Initials – goal is August; use previous fiscal year’s budget for cost sharing Final – after president signs budget, often 4-6 months into the fiscal year Purpose: obtain data, ASAP payments, certify cost share, obtain contact information and assurances – not to evaluate for acceptance/denial.
NIFA PROCESS: SIMILARITIES/DIFFERENCES Hatch and Smith-Lever 3(b) and (c): No proposal or budget involved. All other programs may ask for budget and justification – but not a proposal as much as a review to insure that your program is appropriately using funds.
NIFA PROCESS: SIMILARITIES/DIFFERENCES Formula Grants require an annually updated plan of work and report of accomplishments. Reviewed by NIFA and can be fully accepted, conditionally approved or rejected. Different time frames; not due with proposal
Post-award: Formula grants are subject to the same OMB circulars as non-formula grants. Major Program Designation – allows direct charging of costs not normally permitted on grants. Administrative guidance coming soon. NIFA PROCESS: SIMILARITIES/DIFFERENCES
INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES Hybrid – appropriation and grant Organization: Formula grants traditionally administered via central budget offices and general accounting; not pre-award and post award offices. –Budget office knows appropriations; pre- and post award offices know grants. So personnel in Ag and Ext units have primary role and responsibility for administration; and possess the most knowledge and understanding.
INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES Formula funds as appropriation –Distinct coding – not categorized as a grant. Federal appropriation. –Annualized and provided as state budget on state fiscal year. (We tell budget office how much and make adjustments) –May realize benefits of state funds State funded salary increases, benefits, other
INSTITUTIONAL PROCESS Federal funds as a grant –Segregated from other appropriated funds so that we can accumulate expenses and report on federal fiscal year basis. –Monitoring and awareness of applicable rules which may differ from state rules regarding use of funds.