List of acronyms

• 
  May an LEA move an Instructional Facilitator salary from local to Title I? No, an LEA paid for an instructional facilitator in a Title I school in the previous year from State and local resources but decides to use Title I funds to pay for that position in the current year. This would be a presumption of supplanting because the LEA is replacing State and local resources with Title I resources to pay for the same position.
  

• 
  May an LEA use Title I funds to pay for extended-day kindergarten costs for Title I eligible students, while parent contributions pay for non-Title I students? Yes, Title I funds could be used to pay for extended-day kindergarten for Title I-eligible students while parents of non-Title I students pay to participate in the same program, provided that the program the non-Title I students are paying for is the same program that is being provided to Title I students with Title I funds at no cost to the Title I students. This assumes that there are no State or local legal prohibitions to charging parents tuition or a fee for education provided by a public school
  

• 
  An LEA has hired a Director of Literacy as a K-12 administrative position. All the Title I schools in the LEA are K-5 targeted assistance schools. Thirty percent of the students in the LEA receive Title I services. May Title I pay for 30 percent of the Literacy Director’s salary? No. This is a K-12 position and this employee is responsible for literacy services for all children in the LEA, not just at-risk children in Title I schools. No supplemental services are being provided by the Literacy Director to Title I students. In other words, Title I students are receiving the same services that non-Title I students are receiving, and nothing more. This would be supplanting. In looking at this situation, it is also helpful to ask what the LEA would do in the absence of Title I funds. Since 70 percent of the students are non-Title I students, it is likely the Literacy Director1. Definition. Under the Federal “supplement, not supplant” requirement, sub-grantees may use Federal funds only to supplement and, to the extent practical, increase the level of funds that would, in the absence of the Federal funds, be made available from non-Federal sources for the education of participating students. In no case may sub-grantees use Federal program funds to supplant (take place of) funds from non-Federal sources.
  

• 
  The information below came from the US Dept. of Ed., Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Office of State Support in response to the question submitted from the Arkansas Federal Programs Title I Office.
  
  • 
    Question submitted: “Can federal funds be used to pay for district (LEA) required professional development?  In previous years, Arkansas law required districts to give teachers a 190 day contract.  Ten days of that, or 60 hours, were mandated to receive professional development.  We have allowed districts in the past to pay for PD above those 60 hours.  Now, Arkansas law has changed and only requires 36 hours of PD.  Teachers still have a 190 day contract, but now only 6 of those previous 10 days are required by law for PD.  Districts are now looking for activities for teachers for the remaining 4 days.  The question has already come to this office: Can federal funds be used to pay for PD activities during those 4 days if the district mandates it?”
    

• 
  Response received: “Generally, States and LEAs may not use federal funds to pay for professional development that is required by either the State or district, assuming the federal funding stream in question has a “supplement, not supplant” provision. Generally, the ESEA “supplement, not supplant” provisions covers both State and local requirements/funds. In certain instances, an SEA or LEA may be able to overcome the presumption that supplanting will result if Federal funds are used for a State- or LEA-mandated program or activity. In order to make such a case, the SEA or LEA should have available written documentation (e.g., budget information, planning documents, or other materials) demonstrating that it would not be able to meet State or local mandates without the use of the Federal funds. An agency must be able to reasonably document that the activities funded under the Federal program are, in fact, supplemental, even though some of them are mandated by the State or the LEA. This is not easy to do, and I would advise that LEAs not try this unless they are sure that their documentation will full satisfy their auditor. 
  
  • 
    So, generally speaking, if the State requires six days of PD and the LEA requires an additional four days, then Federal funds may not be used until day 11.  If the LEA does not mandate the additional 4 days, Federal funds could kick in on day 7.”
    

Maintenance of effort requires local educational agencies to maintain their state and local expenditures at a specified level from one fiscal year to the next.   The maintenance of effort requirement under the Elementary & Secondary Education Act of 1965 specifies that grantees maintain at least 90% of state and local expenditures from the previous fiscal year.

(a) IN GENERAL — A local educational agency may receive funds under a covered program for any fiscal year only if the state educational agency finds that either the combined fiscal effort per student or the aggregate expenditures of the agency and the state with respect to the provision of free public education by the agency for the preceding fiscal year was not less than 90 percent of the combined fiscal effort or aggregate expenditures for the second preceding fiscal year.

(b) REDUCTION IN CASE OF FAILURE TO MEET —

(1) IN GENERAL — The state educational agency shall reduce the amount of the allocation of funds under a covered program in any fiscal year in the exact proportion by which a local educational agency fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) of this section by falling below 90 percent of both the combined fiscal effort per student and aggregate expenditures (using the measure most favorable to the local agency).

(2) SPECIAL RULE — No such lesser amount shall be used for computing the effort required under subsection (a) of this section for subsequent years.

(c) WAIVER — The Secretary may waive the requirements of this section if the Secretary determines that a waiver would be equitable due to—

(1) exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, such as a natural disaster; or

(2) a precipitous decline in the financial resources of the local educational agency.

The second prior year data is pulled from the working spreadsheet for each category that is used to determine MOE for each district.

The spreadsheet should have the two prior years of data to start the calculations for Maintenance of Effort.

Federal Grants Management Unit will request a Commissioners Memo number from the Assistant Commissioner for Fiscal and Administrative Services and post a Commissioners Memo with the MOE data determined for all LEAs.

If not granted, the calculations sent to USDE would be used to determine the amount that the district did not meet MOE the LEA’s ESEA cover program entitlements are reduced proportionally by the percentage of the lesser percentage of the aggregate expenditure basis in either (1) the prior year allotment balance if available or (2) the current year allocation.

Third year out – fiscal reduction
Comparability for Districts

Section 1120A(c) of Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 states that local educational agencies may receive Title I funds only if state and local funds will be used in schools served under Title I Part A to provide services that, taken as a whole are at least comparable to services in schools that are not receiving funds under Title I Part A.

• 
  Form 1 – is the general information form and it is checked to determine if the Grade Spans and Number of schools are being counted correctly based on Title I, Non-Title I, Smaller, Larger, Schools with More than 100 Pupils, and Schools with Less than 100 Pupils also Grade Span Grouping using ACSIP Title I Targeted Page. This form is certified by signature of an appointed representative of the LEA reporting.
  
• 
  Form 2A and 2B – are used to compare Non-Title I Schools to Title I Schools by Grade Span, Number of Pupils Enrolled in each school, FTE of Staff and Average Number of Pupils per FTE.  (i.e.  All K-5 are compared together, then all 6-8 are compared together, and then all 9-12 are compared together) depending on the structure of that particular LEA.
  
• 
  Form 2C – is used if all schools in a particular grade level (K-5, 6-8, 9-12) have more than one school per grade level and all are Title I schools. These schools are compared based on Schools with the highest low-income percent to the Schools with the lowest-income percent.
  

The district is not required to submit Forms 2a, b or c if any of the following pertains to the district:

• 
  one campus per grade span grouping
  
• 
  buildings were at least twice the size causing an unfair comparison
  

If a LEA is out of compliance in any of these areas by less than 1% a letter of caution would be sent to the LEA and notified that because this is such a small variation, no changes are required for the current school year and that the LEA needs to be aware of this variation when planning for the next school year.

Guidance: http://www.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/fiscalguid.doc

Micro-purchase means a purchase of supplies or services using simplified acquisition procedures which are established by the local district, the aggregate amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold of equal to less than $3,000.

Property purchased with federal or Perkins funds must conform to federal guidelines, state law and district procedures and guidelines.

An inventory of all equipment and non-consumable supplies purchased in whole or in part with federal funds including Perkins fund must be conducted on a yearly basis by both recipients and the program coordinator.

All items that may be lost or stolen must be reported to program coordinator and the Business or Finance Manager. While only potentially stolen property must be reported to the police as stolen, the Business or Finance Manager may files a police report for all stolen and lost items.

A copy of this report will be retained with inventory records, with any resolution or action taken on the recovery of the stolen or lost items. If there is evidence that the item was in fact stolen, the item may be removed from the inventory. If the item is lost, that fact should be noted in the inventory and the item must stay on the inventory for a minimum of 3 years.
If an equipment item has been lost or destroyed by fire, the responsible employee shall write up their account of the lost or destroyed equipment, have that explanation approved by their supervisor and forward the justification to their Assistant Commissioner for approval to request DFA to remove the equipment item from inventory.  If destroyed by fire, a copy of the fire report or a newspaper article on the fire identifying the employee should be attached.
If an equipment item has been stolen, the employee responsible for the item should immediately notify their supervisor, who shall contact the ADE Purchasing Agent/Equipment Control Manager (ECM).  The ECM or supervisor will then contact the enforcement agency with jurisdiction and obtain a copy of the police report of the incident.  A copy of the police report and all other supporting documentation must be forwarded to the employee’s Assistant Commissioner for review and approval.
Assistant Commissioners will forward all documentation for removal of any lost or stolen equipment to the ECM.  The ECM will then prepare a summary list of items to be removed and send it to the ADE Finance Director at month-end.  The ADE Finance Director will then contact DFA within 30 days and request approval to remove any lost or stolen items from inventory.
Disposal Procedure

When it is determined that equipment or a non-consumable supply purchased with federal or Perkins funds is no longer needed for the intent for which it was originally purchased, and the property is in proper working order and can still be used, the district will determine if any another recipient in the program can use the equipment.  If approved the Finance and Business Manager the property will be transferred to the recipient and added to the inventory list.

District employees who spend 100% of their time on administration activities or 100% of their time on one cost objective are required to complete a semi-annual certification. Employees who work on two or more cost objectives (i.e. administration and leadership) are required to complete a monthly time and effort report.  Time and effort reports must reflect after-the-fact distribution of the actual activity of the employee, must account for the total activity for which the employee is compensated, must be prepared at least monthly, and must be signed by the employee and supervisor.  For ease of auditing completed forms should be maintained in a central location.  

Any issues of noncompliance noted in the District’s annual audit must have a written corrective action plan to address the noncompliance.  

A non-Federal entity that expends $750,000 or more during the non-Federal entity’s fiscal year in Federal awards must have a single or program-specific audit conducted for that year in accordance with provisions of this part.