URBS
4/553—Grants Administration
Post-Award
Grants Management
Performance Management
Because of the high cost of detailed financial reviews,
agency administrators have an incentive to shift some or all of the evaluation costs
to the grantees (Doolittle, 1981). This
is accomplished by demanding detailed post-award reporting.
Pre-Award planning
- Negotiations
with funder
- Renegotiate
start date (grant funds will probably come later than you had anticipated
in proposal)
- Adjust
budgets for salary increases or fringe benefit rates that have changed
since proposal was written (cannot adjust total award—will have to
decrease elsewhere)
- Get
acquainted with OMB Circulars (US Office of Management & Budget):
- A-110
(Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements with
Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit
Organizations) or A-102 (Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State
& Local Governments)
- A-122
(Cost Principals for Nonprofit Organizations) or A-21 (Cost Principals
for Educational Institutions) or A-87 (Cost Principles for State, Local,
and Indian Tribal Governments)
- A-133
(Audits of State, Local
Governments, and Nonprofit Organizations)
- Record
Retention Plan: OMB Circular A-110
sets a standard for retaining records of 3 years after program is
completed (longer if there is a dispute).
Create a plan for organizing, storing, and eventually expunging
records (note that changes in computer hardware may make some storage
systems obsolete before their expiration date).
- “Go
slow to go fast” (Gosmire,
2006)—take time before you start to get your ducks in a row.
·
New relationships to form
·
Identify and publicly recognize
“true” external players
·
Assemble work team focused on goals and
long-range efforts as well as day-to-day operations
Documenting Progress:
- Performance
reporting
- “To
maintain accountability standards, grant recipients are expected to
implement systems to monitor grant activities and progress. To manage the project effectively, it
is necessary to institute performance management systems that ensure that
necessary data are collected on a timely basis.” (Hall, 2009)
- Personnel:
- Document
time, either by hours or by “percent of effort”
- Personnel
policies based on merit
- Procurement
and Purchasing systems
- Paper
trail, from purchase order to encumbrance to receipt to payment
- Policies
for competitive bidding for larger (more than $25,000) projects. See American Bar Association’s
“Model
Procurement Code”
- Property
Management system
- Record
essential information about minor ($500-$4,999) and major ($5,000 or
greater) capital goods
- Plan
to dispose of property (worth more than $5,000 at end of grant)
- Accounting
systems (ensure that funds are not commingled)
- Risk
management
- Security
bonding for key managers who handle receipts and payments
- Insurance
for expensive equipment
- Liability
insurance
- Ethics
policies (“Don’t do anything you wouldn’t want to see
on the front page of the newspaper.”)
- Conflict
of interests policies
- Written
policies precluding employees and contractors from personal gain from
grant funding
- Research
integrity (if appropriate)
- IRB
(Human Subjects review)
- IACUC
(Animal care review)
- Procurement
controls
- Favoritism
in awarding contracts
- Unfair
solicitation
- Kickbacks
- Exclusionary
practices to limit competition
- Fair
share controls for minority contractors
- Extend
controls outside boundaries of organizations if subcontractors are
involved
- Recording
of matching and in-kind contributions (especially if recognized in grant
proposal)
- Accountability
reporting (see notes on financial reporting)
- Reporting
to stakeholders—dissemination of project results (to both internal
and external stakeholders)
Reporting
- May be
required quarterly, semiannually, or annually
- Commonly
two reports (Hall, 2009):
- Financial
(OMB Standard Forms SF-269
[Financial Status Report] and SF-272 [Cash
Transactions Report])
- Technical—narrative
description of activities that have taken place and their timeliness (on
time or not)
- The
two forms should be consistent—it should be apparent form the
technical report why money was drawn down and in what amount. If funds are being used more slowly or
more quickly than anticipated, the technical report should make the
reason apparent.
- If
reports are not consistent, it indicates management problems at best (and
fraud, at worst)
- Be
very careful to submit reports on
time
- Grant
Closing/Final Report—summary of the entire project at the end
Miscellaneous Issues:
- Federal
forms must be filed requesting reimbursements and fund advancements (in
other words, once the grant is awarded the money doesn’t “just
come,” you have to file paperwork asking for it).
- Amendments: Grant contracts may be amended—but
make sure it is documented in writing before acting on it.
- Changes
in scope of work
- Budget amendments (transfer from one category
to another)
- Some
grants require annual meetings of project directors (which will incur
travel expenses)
- Some
grants require site visits from program officers
- Some
grants (total over $500,000) will require an annual audit
- “No
cost extension”—Can request an
extension of the time period for performance, provided there is no
additional cost incurred by the grantor.
One year extensions are not unusual, but you have to get it in
writing.
- Continuing
funding from multi-year grants may not occur because of
·
(lack of) performance results
·
Nonallocation of
resources from agency budgets
- Overhead
(administrative) costs are usually not funded, which complicates ability
of organization to plan for program development, staff development, and
organizational capacity (Gronbjerg, 1991).
Financial Management
Agency reviews of grant funding reports are frequently delayed. An audit may result in rejection of an
expense under review—in effect, a retroactive disapproval of an
expense. (Doolittle, 1981)
Budget and spending plan
- Identification
of all costs
- No
activities or costs can be incurred before official start date of project
- Costs
must be
- Allowable
by funder
- Included in proposal budget
- Reasonable
- Necessary
to the project
- Not
excluded by terms or grant award/agreement letter or by law, executive
order, or agency regulations
- Capable
of being allocated (not comingled with other funds)
- Treated
consistently when charged
- Identification
of in-kind and/or matching funding
- Identification
of program income (fees)
- Subcontractor
performance & accountability
- Process
& procedures for prior approval
Mistakes sometimes happen.
When they do, immediately correct the mistake through appropriate
journal entries and correction memos (Flood, 2001)
Audit findings
- Non-material—while
not out of compliance, does not follow best practices
- Material—affects
financial or compliance integrity of grant awards
Delayed payment system (common in government grants) can
result in major cash flow problems and place a premium on access to endowments
or reserve funds (Gronbjerg, 1991).
- Personnel
costs are fairly stable over time
- Cash
receipts can fluctuate widely
- Personnel
turnover can be used to create a cash reserve (but is costly in terms of
recruiting and training)
Strict limitations on line-item expenditures, program
requirements about staff qualifications or eligible clients restricts
management flexibility
- Access
to own-source founds (reserves, membership fees, etc.) can be used to
supplement efforts otherwise restricted by funders
Bibliography
Doolittle, F. 2009. Auditing disputes in Federal grant
programs: The case of AFDC, Public Administration Review 41(4),
430-436.
Flood, H.
2001. “Essentials of grants
management: A guide for the
perplexed,” The Grantsmanship Center
Magazine. http://www.tgci.com/magazine/Essentials%20of%20Grants%20Management.pdf
(accessed 7/1/09)
Gosmire,
D. 2006. The art (not science) of grants management, Journal of Women in Educational Leadership 4(3),
159-163.
Gronbjerg, K.
1991. Managing grants and
contracts: The case of four nonprofit
social service organizations, Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 20(1), 5-24.
Hall, J. 2009. Grant
Management: Funding for Public and
Nonprofit Programs. Boston: Jones & Bartlett Pubs.,
2009.
© 2009 A.J.Filipovitch
Revised 5 September 2009