AVA/OVW Conference Call Summary – July 2015

Summary of

Conference Call Meeting between AVA & OVW

Date: Monday, July 27, 2015

Time: 11:00 AM Eastern Standard Time



OVW Staff: Associate Directors Michelle Brickley and Amy Loder and Program Managers Kim Galvan and Paule Tessier


AVA Board Members: Bill Schaefer, Julia Fuller-Wilson, Diana Fleming


AVA Coordinator: Dorene Whitworth





PREA “Bonus” or “Redistribution” funds


AVA asked how the PREA bonus or redistribution funds will be reflected on the state/territory’s award and if there will be any specific documentation or reporting required relating to these monies.  And, since these are coming from FY 2014, are states to modify the amount shown as their FY 2014 award amount in their fiscal reporting?


Michelle Brickley discussed that one territory and six states relinquished the penalty funds in FY 2014. OVW will redistribute the FY 2014 monies to the other states and territories that submitted, in FY 2014, either a certification indicating they were in compliance or an assurance indicating they would use 4.75% of their STOP funds to come into PREA compliance. Therefore, the total award amount for FY 2015 awards for those states/territories will be their FY 2015 allocation plus the 2014 redistribution amount.


By May 15, 2015, states/territories were again required to submit a PREA certification or an assurance regarding the status of their compliance. If they submitted an assurance for FY 2015, 4.75% of their STOP award would be held until the PREA worksheet is submitted outlining how the funds would be used. Once the PREA worksheet is submitted, reviewed and approved by the OVW Program Manager, a GAN would be generated to release the hold on these funds. The 4.75% hold would only be applied against the FY 2015 allocation amount of the total award, not the FY 2014 PREA redistribution amount.


If a state or territory submitted a certification of compliance for FY 2015 they will receive their total award amount without any PREA withholdings.


For those states/territories that didn’t submit either a PREA certification or an assurance for FY 2015 they will receive a reduction of 4.75% against their FY 2015 allocation amount. The monies from the states/territories taking the PREA penalty in FY 2015 will be distributed in FY 2016 to the other states and territories that submitted either a certification or an assurance in FY 2015.


The PREA worksheet has been revised to take into consideration the redistribution amounts and will be distributed to administrators after some testing is completed.



Implementation Plan Template


AVA acknowledged how beneficial the ALSO calls were in regard to the implementation plan template and supporting documentation. The template was designed to help states in reporting everything required under the statutory mandates within their Implementation Plan. AVA confirmed that the use of this template is not mandatory; however, using this format will help OVW program managers more quickly review and confirm that all required information is included which could potentially speed up the approval process.


Indirect Costs


AVA discussed prior email conversations with staff from OVW’s Grants Financial Management Division (GFMD) regarding the new guidelines around indirect costs. From those conversations, AVA learned that State agencies can no longer restrict the use of federally-approved Indirect Cost Rate Agreements.  The federally approved rate, whether above or below the 10% de minimis rate, is the rate the recipient or subrecipient should use if the organization is applying for indirect cost.  An organization cannot elect to use the 10% de minimis rate if they have a federally-approved rate.  Organizations that do not have a federally-approve rate may apply the 10% de minimis rate using Modified Total Direct Cost as the base. Units of local governments often have a “central service cost” allocation plan which they are allowed to use.


AVA asked for clarification in regard to the effective date for these new requirements. Donna Simmons from OVW GFMD joined the call and explained that these requirements apply to federal awards made after December 26, 2014. Therefore, it will apply to FY 2015 STOP awards. If a state has not yet subgranted its FY 2014 or earlier funds, those will fall under the previous regulations since the state/territory received those funds prior to December 26, 2014. It is, however, recommended that discussions occur with all your funding sources for their implementation of the new Federal requirements.


AVA then inquired into the expectation of the STOP administrator to ensure that indirect costs are applied only to allowable expenses. The concern previously voiced was that if the de minimis rate is not itemized, how will the administrator know what those funds are being used for. Donna explained that a federally-approved indirect cost agreement provides a “base” that is used for the application of the indirect cost rate. The use of the 10% de minimis rate also requires a “base” method, Modified Total Direct Cost, to be used when applying the rate. This means the rate would be applied to “direct salaries and wages, fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel and up to the first $25,000 of each subaward, and excludes equipment, capital expenditures, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, and participant support costs”.  The state’s responsibility is to ensure that the rate is being applied correctly to “direct cost” using the Modified Total Direct Cost method.


2 CFR 200.414




Next Conference Call:   October 5th @ 11:00 EST