1 / 10

Rural Development ARRA Recipient Reporting Best Practices discussion for reporting Loan/Grant combinations

Rural Development ARRA Recipient Reporting Best Practices discussion for reporting Loan/Grant combinations. Webinar January 26, 2011. Introduction. Speakers Rachel Beattie, Team lead, Recipient Reporting, Rural Development, USDA

gizi
Download Presentation

Rural Development ARRA Recipient Reporting Best Practices discussion for reporting Loan/Grant combinations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Rural DevelopmentARRA Recipient Reporting Best Practices discussion for reporting Loan/Grant combinations Webinar January 26, 2011

  2. Introduction • Speakers • Rachel Beattie, Team lead, Recipient Reporting, Rural Development, USDA • Tyson Whitney and Fransi Dunagan, Transparency and Accountability Reporting Division, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, USDA • Format for Webinar • 20 minutes of presentation • Remaining 40 minutes for questions

  3. Agenda • Review RD memo dated 1/12/2011 regarding ARRA Recipient Reporting Loan and/or Grant Reporting Policy • Best practices • Summary • Questions & Answers

  4. Highlights of loan/grant reporting memo • The memo was prompted by calls to formalize RD’s unique ARRA loan/grant combination reporting • Reduces reporting burden to both the recipient and to the States/Programs • Formalizes Agency policy • Highlights of memo: • Loan portion of award may be submitted as “Final report” once the award meets certain conditions • Narrative field for loan award must reference Grant award (include award ID) and indicate that the project is continuing under the other award (and possibly other funding) • Grant portion may continue to be reported on in FR.gov • Narrative field should reference loan award (and possibly other funding) • The key is to provide transparency to both OMB and to the public • (via Recovery.gov) on the status of the project

  5. Best practices for reporting on loan/grant combination awards • Concern: Loan award portion of project award has been fully expended, but Grant award portion is still active and may have no funds invoiced or expended • Recipient is unsure how to report project status for both awards and does not want the continued burden to report on the loan award • Best practice: Report Loan award portion as final report and Grant award portion according to overall project status • Loan award portion should be reported as final report, with reference in the narrative of the associated Grant award ID for the project • Grant award portion should indicate the full project status, regardless of ARRA funds expensed, etc. • Indicate in the remaining Grant award narrative description (quarterly activities narrative) the activities performed in the quarter by the prime and sub recipients, referencing other ARRA award IDs which are part of the particular project. If applicable, mention other funding • Ensure report reflects project status on award for entire project, regardless of ARRA funds expended on award • The Office of the Chief Financial Officer for USDA (OCFO) has told us that recipients should use the narrative spaces to explain any reporting that may show a flag to OMB, but which can be fully explained. • Prose tool may continue to show a “flag” in the Status column, which the State can ignore after performing the due diligence review • The key is to maintain transparency on the entire project, referring to the award as a part of the overall project • The recipient should feel free to rely on the narrative areas (when there are status flags, use the quarterly description of activities area) to explain any potential areas where OMB or the public may cause question.

  6. Best practices for reporting on loan/grant combination awards (con’t) • Concern: Prose tool flags award for “Status” and Agency user has verified that report is correct • Status flags are based on a formula looking at award value, funds expended, and project status reported; flags when something falls out of the suggested OMB guideline • Best practice: Ensure report reflects project status on award for entire project, regardless of ARRA funds expended on award • If Loan award portion is final report, project status should be “Fully complete” with reference in the narrative of the associated Grant award ID for the project • Grant award portion should indicate the full project status, regardless of ARRA funds expensed, etc. • Indicate in the remaining Grant award narrative description (quarterly activities narrative) the activities performed in the quarter by the prime and sub recipients, referencing other ARRA award IDs which are part of the particular project. If applicable, mention other funding • The Office of the Chief Financial Officer for USDA (OCFO) has told us that recipients should use the narrative spaces to explain any reporting that may show a flag to OMB, but which can be fully explained • Prose tool may continue to show a “flag” in the Status column, which the State may ignore after performing the due diligence review of the report • The key is to maintain transparency on the entire project, referring to the award as a part of the overall project • The recipient should feel free to rely on the narrative areas (when there are status flags, use the quarterly description of activities area) to explain any potential areas where OMB or the public may cause question.

  7. Summary • Continue to review the reports for loan/grant combination project awards • We’re starting to see these situations arise more and more as ARRA recipients are progressing towards over 50% or more of project completion • Use the Prose tool as a “guide” to highlight potential issues with reported data • After due diligence review from the Agency user and ensuring that the recipient complies with narrative requirements for full transparency, you can ignore the flag in that column • Don’t feel the need to “clear” the flag from the Prose tool. Flags are “cleared” only with material changes to the recipient report (award value, funds expended, project status) and there may not be a need to change any of those on a report • Reach out to our Recipient Reporting team should you have additional questions

  8. Recipient Reporting points of contact • Recipient Reporting Team, USDA Rural Development • Rachel Beattie, Booz Allen Hamilton, rachel.beattie@wdc.usda.gov • Will Davis, Booz Allen Hamilton, william.davis3@wdc.usda.gov • Scott Siler, Booz Allen Hamilton, siler_scott@bah.com • For Broadband program, Joseph Sorresso in Broadband National office

  9. Questions and Answers

  10. Recipient Reporting Schedule and significant milestones • January Reporting timeline: • January 16-29: Agency Review Period • January 30 (Sunday): Data is published on Recovery.gov • February 2: Continuous Quality Assurance (QA) Begins • Continuous QA timeline: • February 2 – February 21: Continuous QA – Period 1 • February 22: OMB Review • February 23: Data from Period 1 published on Recovery.gov • February 22 – March 7: Continuous QA – Period 2 • March 8: OMB Review • March 9: Data from Period 2 published on Recovery.gov • March 8 – March 21: Continuous QA – Period 3 (ends at 11:59 PM ET) • March 22: OMB Review • March 23: Data from Period 3 published on Recovery.gov *From FederalReporting.gov homepage

More Related