2E. Program: Head Start Update

2E. Program: Head Start Update

CAPLAW 2015 National Training Conference

Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:30 am – 11:45 am

Portland Marriott Downtown Waterfront

Handouts:

PowerPoint Slides

Ann Linehan Deputy Director Federal Office of Head Start [email protected] 202.205.8579

Brian Tipton, Esq. Managing Director The Private Client Law Group [email protected] 404.389.4864

Yasmina Vinci Executive Director National Head Start Association [email protected] 703.739.0875

1

OFFICE OF HEAD STARTAdministration for Children and Families

Department of Health and Human Services

Head Startand

Community Action Agencies

Across all CAP grantees,

June 2015

2

Overview

• Program Statistics on CAP Head Start Grantees

• Designation Renewal System (DRS)

• Early Head Start Child Care Partnerships (EHS‐CC Partnership)

2

3

Head Start Snapshot: 2013-2014

Source: 2014 Program Information Report (PIR)

• 1,076,000 children from birth to age 5 including pregnant women received Head Start services.

• In addition to education services, Head Start programs provide children and their families with health, nutrition, social‐emotional, and family services.

• 2,000 grantees nationwide including the territories.• 43,000 pre‐school teachers and 45,000 pre‐school classes. Head Start also offers family child care, and home visiting programs.

4

Head Start Snapshot: Age of Children Receiving Services

<1 year old, 4%

1 year old, 5%

2 years old, 7%

3 years old, 35%

4 years old, 46%

>=5 years old, 1%

Pregnant women, 1%

Source: PIR 2014

3

5

Head Start Snapshot: Entity Types

Source: PIR 2014

CAP, 30%

Government Agency, 6%

Private/Public For‐Profit, 0.4%

Private/Public Non‐Profit, 41%

School System, 15%

Tribal , 7%

CAP grantees provide HS & EHS services to approximately 312,000 children and pregnant women. This accounts for 34% all Head Start funded enrollment.

6

Preschool Teacher Qualifications

Source: 2014 PIR

No Related Cred/ Deg., 1%

CDA, 3% CDA, 3%

Associate, 27% Associate, 25%

BA, 58% BA, 58%

Advanced, 10% Advanced, 13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CAP NationalNo Related Cred/ Deg., 1%

4

7

CLASS™

National Grantee‐

Level Scores by

Domain

2013 2014

CAP National CAP National

Number of Reviews 135 359 159 404

Emotional Support 6.04 5.99 6.07 6.10

Classroom

Organization5.63 5.63 5.80 5.83

Instructional

Support2.86 2.72 2.89 2.90

8

Designation Renewal System (DRS)

1. One Deficiency in meeting program performance standards identified through monitoring

2. CLASS Scores below a minimum threshold or in the lowest 10% in Emotional Support, Classroom Organization, or Instructional Support

3. Failure to establish, utilize and analyze children’s progress on agency established School Readiness Goals

4. Revocation of License to operate

5. Suspension by OHS

6. Debarment by another Federal or State agency or disqualification from CACFP

7. Determination from Audit of being at risk for failing to continue as “Going Concern”

5

9

DRS

• Since 2011, 449 grantees met a DRS criteria and were notified that they were required to compete.

▫ Of these 45% (204) were CAP grantees.

Cohort # of CAP Grantees

1 63

2 57

3 49

4 35

Total 204

• Since 2012, 62 grantees met the CLASS domain score below the minimum threshold DRS criteria. All grantees in this group met the criteria because of an Instruction Support score below the minimum threshold of 2.

▫ Of these 32% (20) were CAP grantees.

10

DRS: Competition Outcomes

• Cohort one and two have completed the competition process.

▫ Of the 120 incumbent CAP grantees in cohort 1 and 2, 91 grantees won part or all of their original service area.

Cohort # of CAP Grantees

1 63

2 57

3 49

4 35

Total 204

Note: Cohort 3 outcomes will be announced July 2015.

6

CAP EHS-CC Partnership Grants

• Approximately $108 million per year awarded over a 54 month project period.

• 28% (77) of the 275 EHC‐CCP Grants are Community Action Programs.

• 7,001 Funded Enrollment Slots▫ 89% (6,205) are Partnership slots▫ 11% (796) are Expansion slots

11

President’s FY 2016 Budget RequestThe FY16 request for the Head Start is $10.1 billion, an increase of $1.5 billion, including:

▫ $1.1 billion to support a full school day and a full school year for all children, which research shows promotes better outcomes for young children.

▫ $284 million cost of living adjustment to allow programs to keep pace with inflation without diminishing quality or decreasing slots .

▫ An additional $150 million to continue expanding access to high‐quality care for infants and toddlers through Early

Head Start‐Child Care Partnerships.

12

7

Thanks for all you do for children and families.

13

1

Uniform Guidance for Navigating the New Fiscal Landscape

Belinda Rinker, JD

Senior Policy Analyst

Office of Head Start

Fiscal Regulations

OMB Uniform Guidance - Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards◦ 2 CFR 200

Department of Health and Human Services Implementing Regulations◦ 45 CFR Part 75

NPRM for Head Start Performance Standards◦ Coming Soon!


2

Objectives of the Uniform Guidance

Focusing on Performance over Compliance for Accountability

Limiting Allowable Costs to Make Best Use of Federal Resources

Strengthening Oversight Targeting Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Eliminating Duplicative and

Conflicting Guidance


Eliminates Duplicative and Conflicting Regulations

2 CFR 200 Replaces 45 CFR Part 75 Replaces Audit Circulars for:◦ Awards received A-102 & A-89

A-87

A-133 & A-50

◦ Subawards to universities A-110

A-21

◦ Subawards to nonprofits A-110

A-21

Cost Principles◦ 2 CFR 215

◦ 2 CFR 220

◦ 2 CFR 225

◦ 2 CFR 230

HHS Grants Administration Requirements◦ 45 CFR Part 74

◦ 45 CFR Part 92

3

Guidance to assist grantees in planning for implementation. Click here to access the IM on ECLKC.

ACF-IM-HS-14-07Issued December 17, 2014

Presenters:Ann Linehan, OHSTerry Ramsey, HHSBelinda Rinker, OHSJim Belanger, Danya

Click here to access Webinar and Q & A on ECLKC.

Originally presented on February 10, 2015

4

Additional Resources Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles,

and Audit Requirements

◦ 2 CFR Part 200

Frequently Asked Questions for New Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200 (COFAR/OMB)

Council on Financial Assistance Reform (COFAR) website

Link to the HHS implementing regulations

◦ 45 CFR Part 75 (full explanation) and regulations only

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) Government Accounting Quality Center (GACQ) website

A thorough understanding of the reasons for change is critical for thoughtful implementation.


Planning for Change

No Change

Working well for the organization and no efficiency gained or high cost associated with making changes.

May Change

Working for the organization, but change is likely to increase efficiency or effectiveness or both.

Must Change

Is not compliant with the Uniform Guidance and Part 75.


Current Fiscal Policies and Procedures

5

Look Closely At: Definitions Cost Allocation◦ Compensation (personal services & fringe benefits)

Indirect Costs◦ Negotiated indirect cost rate◦ De minimis rate of 10%◦ In the cost allocation plan

Procurement◦ Less than $3,000 (micro-purchases)◦ $3,000 - $149,999 (small purchases)◦ $150,000 or more

Individual items of cost Contract provisions


1

2015 Monitoring Update

Ann Linehan Deputy Director


2

Welcome!

• Introductions

• Aligning the monitoring system with the 5-year grant cycle

• Connecting the monitoring system with five year oversight plan

2

3

Learning Objectives

• Understanding 2015 monitoring data related to Environmental Health and Safety and Fiscal Reviews.

• Exploring the success and challenges of the Aligned Monitoring systems

• Preview of 2016 Monitoring Season

Overview of FY 2015 Monitoring Season

By May 6, we observed 6,713 classrooms at 2,229 centers in all completed EnvHS reviews.

78.2% were HS classrooms

17.3% were EHS classrooms

4.5% were Migrant and Seasonal Head Start classrooms

CLASS™ Reviewers observed 4468 classrooms at 2004 HS centers.

Review Completion

Fiscal/ ERSEA:

190 completed reviews

25 scheduled or on site

As of May 6:

Environmental Health and Safety (EnvHS): 230 completed* reviews

25 scheduled or on site

Environmental Health &

Safety Setting Visits

*For the purposes of this presentation, “completed”means that the review was conducted and the grantee received its review report from OHS 4

3

Complete FY 2015 Reviews By Region

Region EnvHS Reviews Fiscal/ERSEA Reviews Total

1 14 8 22

2 23 22 45

3 27 30 57

4 28 28 56

5 44 38 82

6 24 21 45

7 9 8 17

8 10 11 21

9 20 15 35

10 10 7 17

11 19 2 21

12 2 0 2Total 230 190 420

5

FY 2015 Review Outcomes by Review Type

79%

54%

21%

40%

0%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FIS/ERSEA (n=190) EnvHS (n=230)

Compliant Noncompliant Deficient6

4

Fiscal/ ERSEA Summary

As of May 6, 190 Fiscal/ERSEA reviews have been completed. Of the reports that have been issued, 79% were compliant, 21% were noncompliant, and 0% were deficient.

Rank Issue

Fiscal/ERSEA Citations

Times Cited% of total

citations

1 Allowable and Allocable Costs 19 28.4%

2 Financial Management Systems 13 19.4%

3 Recruitment and Enrollment of Children with Disabilities 5 7.5%

Review Status

*Total number of Fiscal/ERSEA findings= 61

FY 2015 Fiscal/ ERSEA Most Frequently Cited Findings

7

Environmental Health and Safety Summary

As of May 6, 230 Environmental Health and Safety review reports have been issued. Of these reviews with issued reports, 54% were compliant, 40% were noncompliant, and 7% were deficient.

Rank IssueEnvHS Citations

Times Cited% of total citations

1Physical Arrangements Consistent with the Health, Safety and Developmental Needs of Children

133 42.4%

2 Criminal Record Checks 42 13.4%

2Maintenance, Repair, Safety, and Security of all Facilities, Materials and Equipment

29 9.2%

3 Medication Administration 28 8.9%

4 Code of Conduct 25 8.0%

*Total number of EnvHS findings= 192

Review Status

FY 2015 Environmental Health and Safety

Most Frequently Cited Findings

8

5

HSKI-C Summary

The HSKI-C tool was designed to identify high-performing grantees. Based on FY 2014 monitoring data, we projected 78% of reviewed grantees to have a successful HSKI-C review.

As of 5/6/2015, 37 HSKI-C reviews have been completed. Of the reports that have been issued, 79% of grantees had successful HSKI-C reviews and 21% had unsuccessful reviews.

Review Status

9

Life Safety Codes Summary

Of 230 grantees with completed reviews, 219(53%) had at least one life safety code issue.

Rank Area of Improvement

Life Safety Code Issues

# of LSC Issues% of Total LSC

Issues*

1The classroom does not have an exit that leads directly to the outside or a window for emergency rescue or ventilation.

540 54.9%

2The fire‐alarm system does not include all of the required components.

211 21.5%

3 All doors are not between 32 and 48 inches wide. 62 6.3%

4 Exit doors have more than one locking or latching device. 54 5.5%

5 Classroom doors are not all within 100 feet of the nearest exit. 28 2.8%

Review Status

*Total number of LSC issues= 807

FY 2015 Most Common Life Safety Code Issues

10

6

Facility Summary

Of 2,218 centers and 80 FCC setting observed on completed reviews, 2,148 (97%) centers and 76 FCC facilities (95%) were observed to be overall safe environments.

11

Center Facility Summary FCC Facility Summary

Overall Safety Evaluation # of Centers % of Total Centers

Safe 2148 96.8%

Some safety issues 70 3.2%

Total* 2218 100%

Overall Safety Evaluation # of FCC Facilities % of Total FCC Facilities

Safe 76 95.0%

Some safety issues 4 5.0%

Total 80 100%

Areas of Improvement for Centers and Classrooms

Area for Improvement # of Concerns % of Total Concerns

Fire & EmergencyPreparedness

774 59.3%

Injury Prevention 286 21.9%

Means of Egress 103 7.9%

Clean Environment 52 4.0%

Sanitary Practices 52 4.0%

Inspections & Permits 32 2.5%

Supervision 6 0.5%

Total 1305 100%

Area for Improvement # of Concerns % of Total Concerns

Fire & EmergencyPreparedness

1923 63.8%

Injury Prevention 506 16.8%

Clean Environment 201 6.7%

Sanitary Practices 141 4.7%

Secure Medication 125 4.1%

Means of Egress 92 3.1%

Infant/toddler specific 17 0.6%

Supervision 8 0.3%Inspections & Permits 1 0.0%

Total 3014 100%

Areas of Improvement for Centers

Areas of Improvement for Classrooms

Based on completed reviews of 2,218 centers

Based on completed reviews of 6,713 classrooms

12

7

13

Appendix Tables

Breakdown of grantee’s centers and classrooms with specific concerns

Level of each concern is color coated with timeframe for correction

New Appendix Tables

14

Monitoring and Oversight

Helpful tool for grantees to identify problem areas

Helpful tool for regional offices to understand the grantee’s big picture and offer T/TA where needed

New Appendix Tables

8

15

Virtual Expo

EHS-CCPData

5,242 Registered

4,925 Logged In

54,147 Hits on Documents

7,977 Documents “Added to individual Grantee Briefcase”

16

Lessons Learned

System gives holistic view of grantees

Give reviewers flexibility to engage in dialogue with grantees

Ongoing monitoring: Proactive v. Reactive

Current

Future

Observation

9

17

What’s Coming Next?

Developing a new structure for:

Management Systems and Program Governance

Comprehensive Services and School Readiness

Leveraging what we learned from EnvHS the new protocols will help grantees better understand how we measure quality VS performance

What’s Coming Next?

Expanded focus on quality indicators to support grantees with continuous improvement

Increased collaboration with Technical Assistance and National Centers to develop quality indicators

Modified protocols to increase user-friendliness for all grantees

Emphasized importance of grantee leadership and family engagement

18

10

19

Assessment Questions

• What were the areas needing improvement in EnvHS?

• What was most successful in Aligned Monitoring?

• What were the largest challenges?

• What are the protocol topics for 2016?

20

Grantee Testimonials

(to the MEC)

“Thank you for making us comfortable with the Review

process. Your personality helps to make a stressful timeless stressful. You are

appreciated.”

“When I first heard about the new process, I knew I wasn’t going to like it. But then I had my conversation

with the MEC. Then the RFL called to visit. Now the reviewer is here and the

process has been the least intrusive review I have ever experienced. I like the idea

of doing one area at a time.”

“We look forward to a productive partnership with you during our 5-

year grant cycle.”

“The new Aligned Monitoring System is a much better tool and the viral expo was so very helpful. All of the resources available were helpful in preparing for the

review and I found them to be comprehensive and easy to follow. We were ready thanks to you guidance.

I could not have asked for a better team to take me through this process and I look forward to our continued

relationship in working to serve the children and families of Head Start.”

“We are very impressed with this new monitoring approach. It seems quite focused on enhanced quality

which is what we are all striving for.”

HEAD START UPDATE CAPLAW 2015 ANNUAL CONFERENCE

R. BRIAN TIPTON, ESQ. 1

CAPLAW2015 ANNUAL CONFERENCE

HEAD START UPDATE 2015

R. BRIAN TIPTON, ESQ.THE PRIVATE CLIENT LAW GROUP75 FOURTEENTH STREET, SUITE 2200ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309TELEPHONE: (404) 974-3484FACSIMILE: (404) 974-3486E-MAIL: [email protected]

ABOUT THE PRESENTERR. Brian Tipton, Esq., is a practicing attorney with more than a decade's experience working with nonprofits and grant-funded organizations across the United States. Currently, Brian is Managing Director with The Private Client Law Group in Atlanta, where he heads the firm's tax-exempt organizations practice. Brian is a summa cum laude graduate of the Louisiana State University and the Cumberland School of Law of Samford University. He regularly advises and represents Head Start and Community Action Agencies in the areas of regulatory compliance, audits, funding source disputes, administrative appeals, and litigation. Brian also consults with organizations on governance, human resources, programmatic, and corporate matters, and develops and presents training programs for nonprofits and grant-funded entities.

HEAD START UPDATE 1R. BRIAN TIPTON, ESQ.



AGENDA• FIVE-YEAR GRANTS• ALIGNED MONITORING

• OVERVIEW

• COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING

• HSKI-C

• NEW ELIGIBILITY REGULATIONS• TRANSITION TO THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE ("SUPER

CIRCULAR")• QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD


FIVE YEAR GRANTS AND ALIGNED MONITORINGHEAD START UPDATE

HEAD START UPDATE R. BRIAN TIPTON, ESQ. 3



FIVE YEAR GRANTS• Why are programs so concerned about the transition to

five-year grants and the new aligned monitoring system?• Because part of the move to "designation renewal"

(recompetition)• "Designation renewal" and recompetition under 2007

Head Start Act• Agencies "delivering a high-quality and comprehensive Head Start

program" entitled to redesignation ("designation renewal") as head start agencies for 5 years [42 U.S.C. § 9836(c)]

• Other agencies subject to open recompetition [42 U.S.C. § 9836(d)]


FIVE YEAR GRANTS• In monitoring, Office of Head Start takes "systems" based

approach• Look for relationship to a "system," such as fiscal

management• Fiscal management issue may also be cited as deficiency

related to other "system," such as monitoring or reporting• Problem (error) in financial reports

• Reporting and monitoring: theory that issue not have existed if monitoring system functioning properly

• Evidence of Catch 22 – if grantee's monitoring finds issue first




FIVE YEAR GRANTS

11

37

15 9 9 4

19

51

1010 12

7

42

24

58 3

20

20

40

60

80

100

120

PDM SAF MON GOV HEAN ERSEA FIS

DEFICIENCIES BY AREA

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012



FIVE-YEAR GRANTS• New requirements as part of transition to five-year grant cycles

(revised ACF-IM-HS-13-02)• GOVERNANCE

• "The grantee governing body must conduct a governance and leadership capacity screening within 60 calendar days of the start of the project period."

• "The governing body must certify that the . . . screening was conducted and a training plan was developed. The certification must be submitted to OHS in the Head Start Enterprise System (HSES) within 75 calendar days of the start of the project period.“

• Also see Information Memorandum ACF-IM-HS-14-02 (MARCH 19, 2014)• Discusses federal oversight of 5 year grants• Key area: effective governance and leadership

7




FIVE-YEAR GRANTS• NEW REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF TRANSITION TO FIVE-

YEAR GRANT CYCLES (REVISED ACF-IM-HS-13-02)

• HEALTH AND SAFETY• "Each grantee must complete a screening of the health and safety

environment of each center and/or family child care home where services are provided within 45 calendar days of the start of the program/school year, or within 45 calendar days of the start of the five year project period when the five year project period begins during the program/school year."

• "The grantee governing body must submit to OHS the signed certification of compliance . . . within 75 calendar days of the start of the program or school year, or within 75 calendar days of the start of the five year project period when the five year project period begins during the program or school year."

8


FIVE-YEAR GRANTS• NEW REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF TRANSITION TO FIVE-YEAR GRANT CYCLES

• SCHOOL READINESS• "Grantee must participate in individual school readiness

progress meetings with the OHS regional office."• AUDIT WEBINAR

• "Grantee must participate in an OHS-sponsored single audit webinar within six months of the start of the project period."

• See revised Information Memorandum ACF-IM-HS-13-02 (JULY 1, 2013)

9



ALIGNED MONITORING• Monitoring has been evolving for years

• OSPRI• I-99• PRISM• Protocols• New "aligned monitoring system"

• Have we reached point of what was old is new again?


ALIGNED MONITORING• Fiscal Year 2012 saw start of significant changes to monitoring

approach & monitoring tool itself• Systems based

• Using many of the same elements already used

• But more integration of data elements

• Not just monitoring protocol

• Was to incorporate other information and processes (e.g., risk management process)

• Additional focus on child outcomes and school readiness

• Monitoring tool more focused

• Fiscal Year 2015 is break with old monitoring regime, or is it?




ALIGNED MONITORING• Aligned monitoring introduced for fiscal year 2015 as part of

transition to five-year grant cycles• Triennial monitoring is no more• Monitoring events spread over course of grant cycle with

different levels based on risk (prior performance)• Differential (limited) monitoring

• Previous monitoring• Fiscal findings over last two cycles• Audits• Recompetition criteria (including CLASS)• Program changes• Regional office input

• Comprehensive monitoring


ALIGNED MONITORING• WHAT IS COVERED?• SIX AREAS

• HEAD START KEY INDICATOR-COMPLIANT (HSKI-C)*• MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS/GOVERNANCE• COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES & SCHOOL

READINESS• ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & SAFETY*• FISCAL*/ERSEA*• CLASS




ALIGNED MONITORING• WHAT IS THE SAME?

• Will still use multiple key indicators• Each key indicator further broken into compliance measures• Accompanied by targeted questions

• Targeted questions have multiple purposes• Compliance (must tie to head start act, performance standard, or other

requirement)

• Best practices / quality

• Data collection

• Includes observations and interviews as well as document review


ALIGNED MONITORING• HEAD START KEY INDICATOR-COMPLIANT (HSKI-C) used for differential monitoring

• Looks at several areas• Fiscal Integrity• Governance• Management Systems• Comprehensive Services & School Readiness




NEW ELIGIBILITY REGULATIONSHEAD START UPDATE


NEW ELIGIBILITY RULES• Revised eligibility rules recently issued

• Published February 10, 2015 (80 Fed. Reg. 7368)• Effective March 12, 2015• Revised 45 C.F.R. §§ 1305.2 and 1305.4

• Background• Codify requirements from 2007 Head Start Act• Reflect recommendations from and reactions to GAO

report




ELIGIBILITY BASICS• PRIMARILY ELIGIBLE (AT LEAST 55% OF ENROLLMENT)

• INCOME ELIGIBLE• Income is equal to or below the poverty line• Family is eligible or, in the absence of child care, would be potentially

eligible for public assistance• CATEGORICALLY ELIGIBLE

• Homeless under McKinney-Vento definition• Children in foster care

• "ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES" (UP TO 35% OF ENROLLMENT)• Between 100% & 130% of poverty line• Priority to primarily eligible children

• TRADITIONAL OVER INCOME (UP TO 10% OF ENROLLMENT)


NEW ELIGIBILITY RULES• SEVERAL NEW DEFINITIONS ADDED TO 1305.2:

• accepted• enrolled• foster care• homeless children• Migrant or Seasonal Head Start Program• participant• relevant time period• verify

• OTHER DEFINITIONS REVISED IN 1305.2:• enrollment• family• Head Start eligible




NEW ELIGIBILITY RULES• SECTION 1305.2 ADDS NEW DEFINITION FOR

"HOMELESS CHILDREN":• Homeless children means the same as homeless children

and youths in section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act at 42 U.S.C. 11434a(2).

• The definition in this regulation also applies to Migrant or Seasonal Head Start programs.


NEW ELIGIBILITY RULES• SECTION 1305.2 CONTAINS TWO DEFINITIONS OF

"FAMILY":• Family, for a child, means all persons living in the same household

who are:• (1) Supported by the child’s parent(s)’ or guardian(s)’ income; and

• (2) Related to the child’s parent(s) or guardian(s) by blood, marriage, or adoption; or

• (3) The child’s authorized caregiver or legally responsible party.

• Family, for a pregnant woman, means all persons who financially support the pregnant woman.




NEW ELIGIBILITY RULES• Revised section 1305.4 clarifies process for determining

and documenting eligibility• KEY REQUIREMENTS

• Requires in-person interview in most cases (telephone if in-person not possible)

• Must verify age and income or categorical eligibility• May consult third parties if family consents• No income declarations and describe verification efforts• If homeless and cannot provide documentation, accept family declaration

and give explanation• Retain supporting documentation and statement about verification efforts• Need policies and procedures for violations of eligibility determination

regulations• Provide training to staff who determine eligibility and management, policy

council and governing body


TRANSITION TO THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE OR "SUPER CIRCULAR"HEAD START UPDATE




OMB SUPER CIRCULAR

INTERIM FINAL REGULATIONS

DECEMBER 19, 2014 79 FED. REG. 75867

FINAL UNIFORM GUIDANCE

DECEMBER 26, 2013 78 FED. REG. 78589

PROPOSED GUIDANCE

FEBRUARY 1, 2013 78 FED. REG. 7282SUMMARY IN FEDERAL

REGISTER FULL PROPOSAL ON

OMB WEBSITE

ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED GUIDANCE

FEBRUARY 28, 2012 77 FED. REG. 1178SOUNDING BOARD/"WARNING

SHOT"


OMB SUPER CIRCULAR• WITH INTERIM FINAL REGULATIONS, SUPER CIRCULAR

IN EFFECT FOR AWARDING AGENCIES & NONFEDERAL ENTITIES




OMB SUPER CIRCULAR• COFAR periodically has released answers to Frequently Asked Questions

• Most recently updated in November 2014: https://cfo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-11-26-Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf

• COFAR FAQ Serve as informal guidance for the Super Circular and its implementation


OMB SUPER CIRCULAR• Codified at 2 C.F.R. pt. 200 & 45 C.F.R. pt. 75• Not necessarily uniform• HHS has adopted guidance with additional material specific to HHS & with modified structure (& numbering scheme) in 45 C.F.R. pt. 75• Additional definitions• Inserts additional language to "clarify" numerous

provisions




OMB SUPER CIRCULAR• Two important definitions to keep in mind

• Must = mandatory (required)

• Should = not mandatory but a recommended best practice

• Remember "should" versus "must" distinction• Should and must are used throughout Super Circular but not actually defined

• Clarified in COFAR Frequently Asked Questions


OMB SUPER CIRCULAR

• Administrative requirements adopted in final interim rules in subparts B through D

• Replace existing Circulars A-102 & A-110• Not necessarily new requirements• Draw on requirements from prior circulars• Generally follow language in Circular A-110




OMB SUPER CIRCULAR• Major exception to following A-122: Procurement requirements draw on Common Rule (A-102)• Procurement standards in 45 C.F.R. §§ 75.326-335• Note frequent use of "must" rather than "should"

• Grace period for procurement standards• Super Circular provides for 1 year grace period for

procurement standards• However, HHS version (45 C.F.R. § 75.110) provides

for grace period only for non-Federal entities formerly subject to A-110


OMB SUPER CIRCULAR




OMB SUPER CIRCULAR• Other items of interest under administrative standards• HHS Part 75 (§§ 75.371-375) addresses remedies for noncompliance & expressly allows imposing additional "specific conditions" (from §75.207)

• Closeout provisions of Super Circular provide additional guidance and specify 1 year timeframe for completing closeout but HHSversion allows180 days


OMB SUPER CIRCULAR• Super Circular locates cost principles in Subpart E [the 400's (including specific items of cost)] and Appendices III - IX

• Major goals for cost principles were:• Ensure more consistent treatment of costs• Limit differences based on entity

• Can see problem with previous four sets of cost principles• Items covered• Specific treatment of common items

OMB SUPER CIRCULAR



OMB SUPER CIRCULAR• Several changes affect indirect costs • Indirect costs

• Acceptance of negotiated indirect cost rate by other agencies

• New de minimis indirect cost rate (10% of MTDC)• One time extension of negotiated rates (up to 4 years)

• New provisions for adjustments of negotiated indirect cost rates (not renegotiation)


OMB SUPER CIRCULAR• Changes to specific items of cost

• Time and effort documentation• System of internal controls (reasonable assurance accurate,

allowable & properly allocated charges)

• Incorporated into entity's official records

• Reasonably reflects total activity for which employee compensated

• Includes federally assisted and non-federally compensated activities

• Complies with entity's established accounting policies

• Supports distribution of employee's activities or cost objectives

• Budget estimates if reasonable approximation & after-the-fact reconciliation & adjustment

• End of Personnel Activity Reports?




OMB SUPER CIRCULAR• Other changes to specific items of cost

• No more "use allowance" or "employee moral"• Proposal costs

• Successful and unsuccessful proposals• Treated as indirect costs

• Fundraising costs• For meeting program objective, allowable with prior approval

• No approvals given yet


QUESTION & ANSWER PERIOD• WHAT ARE YOUR QUESTIONS?




HEAD START UPDATE 38

CONTACT INFORMATIONR. BRIAN TIPTON, ESQ.MANAGING DIRECTORTHE PRIVATE CLIENT LAW GROUP75 FOURTEENTH STREET, SUITE 2200ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30309TELEPHONE: (404) 974-3484FACSIMILE: (404) 974-3486E-MAIL: [email protected]

38R. BRIAN TIPTON, ESQ.

1

CAPLAW TRAINING CONFERENCEJune 11, 2015Yasmina Vinci

NHSA Executive Directorwww.nhsa.org

Because we believe that

• all children should reach their full potential,

• every child can succeed,

• we can impact the success of “at risk” children and

• quality early education fundamentally transforms children and families

2

2

Our Vision is …

• To lead. To be the untiring voice that will not be quiet until every vulnerable child is served with the Head Start model of support for the whole child, the family and the community.

• To advocate. To work diligently for policy and institutional changes that ensure all vulnerable children and families have what they need to succeed.

This slide is meant for discussion purposes only.

Our Mission is…

to coalesce, inspire and support the Head Start field as a leader in early childhood development and education.

We are compelled to fulfill this mission by the promise of all the possible outcomes:

• one powerful, united Head Start voice;

• a collegial, collaborative Head Start field, one that is a valuable and valued partner and resource to early childhood development and education;

• nonpartisan support of increased Federal commitment to Head Start; and, ultimately

• healthier, empowered children and families and stronger, more vibrant communities.


3

Main focus areas in the last 90 days

• Anniversary Celebration

• Appropriations

• Chairman Kline’s Request for Information

• Reauthorization Preparations

• Investing in Impact Workgroup

• Continued Two-Generation Work

4

BRAD Virginia Atkinson Child Development Center in Corning, Arkansas

5

Spring Valley Head Start in Illinois

6

Alumni Op-Eds

May 18 Celebration Metrics

• #HeadStart50 reached more than 8 million people on Twitter

• 136 Members of Congress participated in the celebrations on social media

• NHSA’s activities on Facebook reached just over 240,000 people on May 18th alone

• 8 Alumni Op-Eds placed

• More than 50 News Articles about May 18th

7

Head Start Funding FY 2008 – FY 2014

6,000,000

6,500,000

7,000,000

7,500,000

8,000,000

8,500,000

9,000,000

FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014

Fu

nd

ing

Lev

el (

tho

usa

nd

$’s

)

Federal Fiscal Year


The “miracle” of an engaged community

• 140,859 emails, calls and signatures to Congress via www.supportheadstart.org

• 8-week relationship building campaign

• Stroll-ins

• Hands-ins

• Read-ins

• Local press

14

8

Resulting in… media exposure…op-eds, LTEs, stories, surrogates

From January to June 2011 over 10,000 mentions of cuts to Head Start in the media. Most notably:

- 32 Times in the New York Times; 9 times in the International Herald Tribune

- 32 in the Washington Post

- 25 on CNN.com and 344 in CNN transcripts – Harvard GSE Dean McCartney’s opinion alone had 6 million hits

- 17 on Forbes.com and 6 times in the Wall Street Journal

- 67 on Huffington Post

- 69 on local CBS stations

- 10 times in USAToday and 9 times on MSNBC

- 300 researchers’ letter

15

Head Start and Sequestration

• March 2013 – 5.27% cut

• In January 2014 Head Start funding restored to pre-sequester levels (only one in HHS!)

• Plus increase for COLA

• Plus additional $500 million for Early Head Start –Child Care Partnerships

16

9

Another Head Start funding miracle – how did we do it again?

• Great sequester action by the Head Start community

• Head Start became one of the most mentioned items in the media/our PR team working with the media and the community was stellar

• NHSA Government Relations team visited almost every one of the 29 budget conference offices, starting with co-chairs, and stayed in touch with staff

• Renewed and strengthened relationships with key appropriators

• Stayed alert and aware of the many different players in the Administration

• Maintained the relationships with the other national groups lobbying to end the sequester as well as those that were strongly lobbying to fund pre-K

17

Great work, Head Start!

18

10

What are we watching now?

• 2016 appropriations

• Preventing return of sequestration

• State battles for a proper role for Head Start as a locally-driven, birth to five, two-generation, comprehensive intervention model

19

• Head Start/Early Head Start ‐ $10.1 billion ($1.5 billion increase)

– $1.078 billion to pay for full day (6 hours), full school year (170 days) programming

– $650 million for EHS and EHS‐CC Partnerships ($150 million increase)

– $284 million for Cost Of Living Adjustment in line with inflation

– $25 million for DRS Transitions (same as FY 2015)

• Child Care and Development Fund – $82 billion over 10 years

– Mandatory in FY16: $6.582 billion (increase of $4.665 billion)

– Discretionary in FY16: $2.805 billion (increase of $370 million)

• $266 million targeted to help states implement new provisions of reauth

• $100 million to test innovative strategies for addressing unmet CC need

• Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit (CDCTC) – Increase to a maximum $3,000 for a family with one child under 5 and to $6,000

for families with two or more children under 5

20

FY ‘16 – President’s Budget Proposal

**This slide is meant for discussion purposes only. Its contents are not intended to be viewed as NHSA’s position on reauthorization or the future of Head Start.

11

FY ‘16 – President’s Budget Proposal

• Maternal Infant & Early Childhood Home‐Visiting (MIECHV)

– Extend and increase funding to $500 million in FY 16 (roughly $100 million increase)

• Community Services Block Grant

– $674 million in total funding (flat funding) *Obama always proposed cuts here*

• Race To The Top – Pre‐K

– $750 million for Development and Expansion grants ($500 million increase)

• Preschool for All (aka Strong Start)

– $1.3 billion in FY 2016 for State partnership Pre‐K ($1.3 billion increase)

– $75 billion over ten years paid by a tobacco tax

• IDEA Part B (3‐5 year olds)

– $403 million in total funding (increase of $50 million)

• IDEA Part C (Infants and Families)

– $504 million in total funding (increase of $65 million)

21**This slide is meant for discussion purposes only. Its contents are not intended to be viewed as NHSA’s position on reauthorization or the future of Head Start.

President’s Budget Request

What the budget IS…

1. The first step in the FY 2016 appropriations process

2. A marker for negotiations

3. A list of Presidential priorities

4. A status report for the federal government

5. A 2016 campaign platform?

22

What the budget is NOT…

1. A law or an executive order

2. A finished product or finalized amount of funds

3. Bipartisan


12

Budget Process

Appropriations

Final Deal

23

FY ‘16 – Key Dates


Jan – April1. POTUS Budget

2. House/Senate Budgets

3. Budget Conference

May – August1. 302(a) and 302 (b) coming soon

2. Subcommittee Mark in June/July

3. Full Committee Mark following

4. Floor Votes possibly?

Reality = Sometime in the Fall

• Advocacy is effective and it starts with education.

• Data + Stories = Winning Combination.

• Every program should know its Member of Congress and every Member of Congress should know his/her Head Start program


Putting Advocacy to Work!

13

Current Threats Facing Head Start

Perception HS is not effective or varying effectiveness

HS is an old Federal program

Not scientific/evidence‐based

Misunderstanding Head Start and our Concerns Head Start is seen as “school readiness” only program

DRS issues = HS should be block granted

First doesn’t mean best Need to constantly innovate and change

Example of Uber

Partisanship on both sides


What is a Reauthorization?

Reauthorization: the process by which Congress/the Administration prescribes changes, additions, and deletions to the Head Start Act. Through this process, legislation is developed that adjusts the current program to meet changing needs and the latest research.

Last reauthorization was 2007

Supposed to happen every 5 years


14

NHSA Reauthorization Position

NHSA recommends that the U.S. Congress and

President Obama:

Continue working with NHSA on planning for and drafting the next Head Start reauthorization, but not move forward with a reauthorization until new Performance Standards are implemented.


Vision for Reauthorization

Unique, evidence‐based intervention model

Community focused and driven

Types of services:

Comprehensive services (physical health, mental health, dental health, nutrition etc.)

Family centered/focused approach

Cognitive development/academic services

Who we are serving:

Nation’s most vulnerable children and families

Children and families Pre‐natal to age 5


15

Reauthorization – Initial Thoughts

• Concerns that must be Addressed– Staff Development, credentialing and salaries

– B‐5 Grants – local flexibility on ages

– Facilities – improvements, maintenance, and construction

– Definition of Poverty and Eligibility

– Designation Renewal System

• Components of Head Start to Strengthen– Community Centered Systems – designed based on community need

– 2‐gen Model of family support, stability, and engagement

– Types of services we provide that support and strengthen school readiness (health ‐ physical, dental, mental, etc.)

– School readiness that includes social‐emotional learning, executive function, and cognitive development (EQ & IQ)


Areas Where More Conversation is Needed

30

1. Head Start’s Role in State Systems

Goal: Ensure Head Start is a pillar of every state early learning system with the most vulnerable children in that state being served by Head Start.

Role/structure for Collaboration Office

Early Learning Advisory Council

Role in monitoring (licensing, etc.)

T/TA, workforce development linkages

Intake role/system

Coordination with SEA’s, LEA’s

Coordination with health systems

Quality Rating and Improvement Systems


16


31

2. Eligibility

Goal: Serve each community’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged children and families. Expanded income guidelines

% of the federal poverty guidelines

State Median Income

Clear system of recruitment/outreach

Categorical Eligibilities

Disabilities – 10 % flexibility or changes

Homeless/Foster children

Domestic violence, abuse/neglect, trauma, etc. (ACES)

Migrant/Seasonal and AI/AN

Child care subsidy



32

3. Workforce: Requirements & Salaries

Goal: Create an effective, respected, and professional workforce with professional development opportunities and fair salaries/benefits.

Compensation/Benefits

Degree requirements for teachers

Degree/Credential for EHS teachers (IOM Report)

Degree/Credential for directors

Degree/Credential requirements for home visitors, family service workers

Increased professional development opportunities

Additional funding is likely needed


17

NHSA’s Investing in Impact Working Group:

1. Think critically about the role for Head Start in various early learning proposals,

2. Explore means of measuring and demonstrating Head Start's impact, and

3. Discuss how the program might evolve and grow while remaining true to its core mission and values.

Co-Chairs:

Gayle Kelly, Executive Director, MN Head Start Association

Robin Britt, Executive Director, Guilford Child Development

NHSA Staff: Yasmina Vinci, Emmalie Dropkin, Lisa Stewart & Tommy Sheridan

Vanessa Rich Blanca EnriquezAaron

LiebermanBruce Liggett Char Schank

Charlotte Brantley

Cleo Rodriguez, Jr.

Damon Carson Dana Lundy Darin Preis

Duane Yoder Erick Vaughn Tonya Williams Jo Pepper Joan Christnot

Joel Ryan Jose Villarreal Kathy Cruse Khari Garvin Lori Pittman

Luz Flores Mancole Fedder Monica Ortiz Pam Kuechler Robin Bozek

Sonja Lennox Biz Steinberg Erin Trenbeath-Murray

18

Process to Date

• September/October 2014 – Conversation with policy makers and authorizing staff

• December – Focus on common language, first draft of Logic Model

• January 2015 – Second draft of logic model• March – Narrower focus on outcomes and potential

approaches• May – Selection of most critical outcomes to focus on for

potential measurement, development of rationale• May – Sharing progress and gathering input from Head Start

field• Summer – Use of rationale and other documents so far to

inform policy conversations

Defining Terms

From Breakthroughs in Shared Measurement and Social Impact

Inputs – the components that go into operating a strong program (facilities, partnerships, funding, etc.)

Outputs – the actions taken or services accessed (children enrolled, home visits completed – most of PIR is composed of outputs)

Outcomes – measures of behavior change as a result of a program (child cognitive development over a year or changes in parents’ discipline)

Impacts – long-term outcomes due to the program (third grade test scores, high school graduation rates)

19

Focus on Outcomes

Why outcomes?• Confirm that “Head Start Works”• Used for accountability and Continuous

Quality Improvement• Congress wants them• Can be measured by programs over the

course of a year

What about inputs, outputs, and impacts?• Of course these are also important to

measure, but are outside the scope of this project

• Impacts, some of which are of high interest, are outside the scope of what programs could universally collect

To focus the group’s work, they had to narrow the list. That doesn’t mean eliminating the outcomes, just selecting a subset of priorities that we are able to measure.

Outcomes and Indicators

• Child outcomes across domains• Classroom interactions• Attendance• Parental Engagement

Children's Learning and Development

• Developmental screening• Change in immunization rates• Medical screening rates and needs

Children's Health

• Special education referrals and services• Reduced effects of adverse childhood experiences• Parental Access to Mental Health Supports

Interventions

• Progress toward high school or college degrees• Job retention• Increased Family Income• Growth in family support networks

Family Growth and Stability

• Dollars leveraged in a community• Establishment of a prenatal through school

continuum• Retraining of parents for community workforce

Community Development

These outcomes and indicators are still a work in progress! We’d love to hear your thoughts!

20

NHSA Membership

• A strong, engaged membership enables Head Start to speak with a strong voice

• A large community of members carries impact on Capitol Hill and in Statehouses

• Our member learning communities provide resources, support and professional development

• Membership dues enable us to do what needs to be done to position Head Start regardless of whether there is designated funding


NHSA Membership Benefits

• ADVOCACY

• Learning Networks

• Early Head Start / Child Care Partnerships Initiative

• Teachstone CLASS Training

• Media/PR Technical Assistance

• NHSA’s Quality Initiative

• Publications, Multiple Weekly and Monthly Newsletters

• Book donations from FirstBook

• Volunteer Toolkits

• Abriendo Puertas parent advocacy trainings


• PBS‐produced apps

• Nutritional education mini grants

• Dental hygiene donations

• Classroom supplies donations

• Scholarships and Awards

• NHSA’s Disaster Relief Fund

• Vision Screening resources and training

• And more!

21

• Manager and Director AcademyJune 29 ‐ July 2, 2015 (San Antonio, TX)


Upcoming Events

Contact

Yasmina Vinci

[email protected]

703-649-4222

@yasminaNHSA