Capacity Grants Management at Michigan State University How We Use Central Warehouse Data and Technology to Manage our USDA NIFA Capacity Grant Funding
Topic Summary What are Capacity Grants? MSU CANR Organization Chart The MSU CANR Annual Budgeting Process Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU Fringe Benefit Redirects Our Process for Completing SF-425 Financial Reports How we Generate our REEport Financial Report Questions CANR = MSU College of Agriculture & Natural Resources
What are Capacity Grants? Source: nifa.usda.gov/program/capacity-grants
Capacity Grant Types Currently Received by MSU AES: CES: Hatch Hatch Multi-State McIntire-Stennis Animal Health Smith-Lever 3(b)(c) EFNEP RREA AES = Agricultural Experiment Station CES = Cooperative Extension Service
Management of Capacity Grants vs. Competitive Grants at MSU Both Capacity and Competitive Grants fall under the Uniform Guidance (UG), 2 CFR Part 200 UNIFORM, ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS Competitive NIFA funding is managed by MSU s Office of Sponsored Programs (OSP) and Contract & Grant Administration (CGA) Capacity Grants are managed by MSU s College of Agriculture & Natural Resources Budget & Finance Office (BFO) BFO teams with OSP (pre-award) and CGA (post-award) to administer Capacity Grant funding OSP assists in the Grants.gov Capacity Grant RFA submission process CGA draws Capacity Grant funding independently based on expenditures and communicates draw activity to BFO BFO manages Capacity Grant cost sharing commitments using MSU s central Effort Reporting System BFO prepares SF-425 financial reports and provides audit information when requested, in partnership with CGA
The MSU CANR/CES/AES ORG CHART
The MSU CANR Annual Budget Process (Beginning Budget) MSU s Fiscal Year is July 1 through June 30 Our university Office of Planning and Budgets does not provide a centralized process for NIFA Capacity Grants or State and County funding that comes to CES and AES We had to develop a process of our own Budget process overview: Appropriation Reconciliations Federal funding must be estimated State funding is determined by annual appropriation legislation amounts County budget is determined by CES Funding allocations to units are determined by AES and CES Directors Web application Budget entry into central financial system
The AES Budget Allocation Determination Process MSU AES Budgeted Funds = $47.1 million $3.3 m $6.8 m 14% 7% $3 m 6% **75% of funding is expended on salary and fringe benefits ($35.3 m) 73% $34 m University General State Funding Project GREEEN Federal Capacity
AES Federal Capacity Funds $300,000 $100,000 $1.2 m 18% 4% 1% 77% $5.2 m Hatch Hatch Multistate McIntire-Stennis Animal Health
AES Funding Across MSU Funding in Seven Colleges and CES Institutes College of Agriculture and Natural Resources College of Natural Science College of Veterinary Medicine College of Engineering Communication Arts & Sciences College College of Arts & Letters CES Institutes Agribusiness Greening Michigan
AES Funds in Units Recurring Funds State Funding $25 million ($21 million in CANR) Non-Recurring Funds General Fund, State, Hatch, Hatch Multistate, McIntire-Stennis, Animal Health $11 million Fringe Benefits covered centrally State and Federal Capacity Funds $8.6 million
AES Allocation of Capacity Funds Hatch, Hatch Multistate, McIntire-Stennis and Animal Health allocated nonrecurring to support: Faculty salaries Project support Travel to Multistate Meetings
MSU Extension across the state 14 districts 275+ educators and specialists 240+ paraprofessionals ~150 professional support 200+ temporary, on-call and students
CES Budgeted Funds = $48.5 million **90% of funding is expended on salary and fringe benefits ($43.8 m)
CES Federal Capacity Funds
CES Funding Across MSU Funding in 3 Colleges College of Agriculture and Natural Resources College Social Science College of Veterinary Medicine 4 Extension Institutes Ag and Agribusiness Institute Children and Youth Institute 4H Greening Michigan Institute Health and Nutrition Institute EFNEP SNAP-ED County Funding is distributed among the 4 Extension Institute Provides access to the CES network of Educators, faculty and specialist as well as Statewide programs
CES Funding In Units Recurring Funds State Funding Academic Units $10 million ($9.6 million in CANR) Non-Recurring Funds Academic and Extension Institutes State, Smith-Lever, County Fringe Benefits (covered centrally in Extension) State and Federal Capacity $10 million
Web Budget System for AES/CES Funding MSU s central budget system only accommodates General Fund Our college web system handles AES/CES Capacity Grant, Appropriated State, and CES County funding We fund as many as 70 campus units. There are many joint appointments for faculty in other colleges. Our goal in designing this system was to make it as easy to use as possible
Web Budget System for AES/CES Funding
Drop-Down List allows Fiscal Officers assigned to multiple units access all of their budgets TOP of Web Page BOTTOM of Web Page Business rules are built in EDIT buttons appear only by accounts where amounts can be changed Project account funding amounts are fixed and cannot be changed Plus and Minus symbols show where changes have been made A budget cannot be submitted until changes within funding types and funding sources balance
Budget Entry into MSU Central Accounting System After all units have made changes via the web application, an entry is submitted electronically into MSU s central accounting system MSU uses the Kuali Financial System (KFS)
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU Cost sharing is the portion of costs incurred on State or other non-federal funding to support Capacity Grant programs for the period October 1 through September 30 each year USDA NIFA requires dollar for dollar cost sharing for most Capacity Grant Programs (if $9.263M in federal funding is received, an additional $9.263M in State/non-federal funding will need to be provided and expended)
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU We re faced with a number of questions as we plan to meet this Capacity Grant cost sharing requirement: Who will be cost sharing effort in the up to 70 Units (over 5 Colleges) with AES/CES State faculty appointments? Can we get this information from the Units each year on a timely basis? Isn t there an easier way we can do this??? BFO developed a web-based system to determine annual Capacity Grant cost sharing commitments (i.e. the Committed Effort Tracking System, CETS) Uses central data to determine current AES/CES State appointments initiated for expected Plan of Work duties Uses central data that provides current AES/CES faculty cost sharing commitments for other projects CETS commitments are then determined based on remaining, uncommitted State appointments Used to help Units begin with a reasonable starting point for developing a list of individuals who will have Capacity Grant cost sharing commitments
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU CETS uses MSU s central, UG compliant, after-the-fact effort reporting system that is certified twice per year Period-1: 1/1 through 6/30 Period-2: 7/1 through 12/31 CETS provides solid internal controls for Capacity Grant cost sharing: Avoids over-commitment of effort Allows an up-front review of planned Capacity Grant cost sharing for each Federal Fiscal Year (10/1 through 9/30) CETS commitments are monitored by central CGA staff to ensure accuracy MSU effort reports are certified by individuals committing effort twice per year Effort report certifications are part of MSU s audit records in accordance with UG requirements
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU How CETS data is determined each year: The goal is to ensure that our actual cost sharing total is AT LEAST the Capacity Grant required amount for the 10/1 through 9/30 period We plan on amounts higher than required to avoid possible cost sharing shortages due to: Unexpected Capacity Grant award changes Unanticipated grant awards with additional cost sharing requirements Unexpected changes in appointments (e.g. retirements, funding changes )
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU How CETS data is determined each year (10/1 through 9/30): The planned aggregate cost sharing total is based on the total maximum available value of all faculty paid on State funded AES or CES accounts -- less any existing cost sharing commitments for other grant projects (i.e. the uncommitted portion) We then use only the percentage of the aggregate cost sharing total that we need to meet NIFA requirements Each Unit is assigned a portion of the aggregate total Capacity Grant cost sharing amount, based on the number of individuals paid with AES or CES State funds in that Unit We plan to expend our total State cost sharing during the first year of the Capacity Grant award
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU Planned Aggregate Cost Sharing Total Calculation Example: Smith-Lever total required cost sharing: $9,263,126 Total planned amount needed (includes 7.8% additional): $9,982,737 Total value of uncommitted CES State salaries: $14,899,607 (excludes any existing cost sharing commitments for other grants) $9,982,737 / $14,899,607 = 67% Total Planned Need for Smith-Lever Cost Sharing All of the uncommitted State CES appointments are provided with an expectation that individuals are working on general CES duties, but we only want to commit what we need so some flexibility remains for future grant cost sharing commitments.
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU Individual Calculation of Planned Cost Share Example: Professor Smith, a faculty member in Unit A: Paid 50% on State Extension Funding Has a 10% existing cost sharing commitment on a grant 50% - 10% = 40% Maximum available for Capacity Grant cost sharing (i.e. uncommitted) If Planned amount is 67% of maximum available: 40% * 67% = 27% Planned Cost Share
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU CETS handles calculations for all applicable individuals within a unit including those with both AES and CES appointments that are cost sharing for multiple Capacity Grant programs, or those with joint appointments For example: A Forestry Unit faculty member who is contributing cost shared effort for both the McIntire-Stennis and Smith-Lever Capacity Grant programs The above example, where the individual is paid in both Forestry and Entomology Units (i.e. joint appointments )
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU The Committed Effort Tracking System (CETS) web interface
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU The Committed Effort Tracking System (CETS) web interface
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU CETS Screen Elements
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU CETS Screen Elements
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU Example 1 The Unit Fiscal Officer knows that Professor A will be receiving a new grant and will need to change her cost shared effort for the Hatch Multi-State program from 20% down to 10%.
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU Example 1 The Unit Fiscal Officer knows that Professor A will be receiving a new grant and will need to change her cost shared effort for the Hatch Multi-State program from 20% down to 10%.
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU Example 2 The Unit Fiscal Officer has clicked update for the Example 1 Professor A change, and now wants to make an change for Professor B to reduce his cost shared effort for the Hatch Regular Research program from 33% down to 15% because of a known future appointment change.
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU Example 3 The Unit Fiscal Officer has clicked update for the Example 2 Professor B change, and now wants to make one final change for Professor C to reduce her cost shared effort for the Smith-Lever program from 17% down to 5% because of an expected additional grant cost sharing commitment.
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU The Unit Fiscal Office has now made all of the needed changes to the CETS cost sharing list and now wants to recalculate and see the results of the changes. CETS will automatically recalculate others within a particular program to compensate for any reductions that are made so the unit total will remain the same.
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU These are the results after recalculating the Example 1,2, and 3 changes. Individuals highlighted in yellow reached their max cost sharing percentage during the recalculation process. CETS automatically detects this condition and will highlight this in yellow.
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU This is the Unit s final submission confirmation page
After all units have updated their CETS lists, the system is closed and we have college-level pages for BFO use to show unit totals for each AES and CES: AES CES
We can also view a CETS program summary to see if we have shortage in an overall program AES CES Since the system did recalculation processes as shown in the examples, we do not have any cost sharing shortages
Capacity Grant Cost Sharing/Matching at MSU The next step in our process is to send the CETS dataset electronically to CGA (our central, post-award office) for import into MSU s central Effort Reporting System CGA double checks our data and reviews based on any additional cost sharing commitments/appointment changes not reflected As Effort Reports are generated and distributed for periods 1 and 2, individuals certifying their effort have another chance to review and make necessary changes
Fringe Benefit Redirects for Capacity Grant Retirement Component No more than 5% of salaries can be charged as the retirement fringe benefit component on Capacity Grants NIFA Capacity Award Terms and Conditions (December 2017, Article 3, Employer Contributions to Retirement Systems : Employer contributions to land-grant college retirement systems from using funds under this award are limited to 5 percent of that portion of the salaries paid, under this award MSU uses SAP that has been specifically programmed to redirect 5.1% of the retirement fringe component to a State pooled fringe account (one for each AES and CES). 4.9% remains on the applicable Capacity Grant funding MSU has a specific Expenditure Object Code for retirement fringe benefits Payroll and fringe benefit charges are periodically checked to ensure charges are correctly posted to Capacity Grant accounts
Fringe Benefit Redirects for Capacity Grant Retirement Component Yellow Outline = Federal Pay Accounts Red Outline = Fringe Split Accounts
Our Process for Generating SF-425 Financial Reports Expenditure data is extracted from our central accounting system (KFS), for the period 10/1-9/30, for the applicable federal fiscal year Two types of SF-425 reports are submitted Annual: Reports where there is an unexpended, carryforward balance Final: Reports where all funds are expended We focus on timeliness and accuracy Review of expenditures made on federal funds (KFS workflow etc ) Our university provides training and Federal/State cost policies to ensure proper expenditure of our Capacity Grant funds Interim-year exception reports (e.g. checking for equipment purchases that do not have necessary prior approval ) Balances are reconciled with appropriation budgets established based on actual Capacity Grant award amounts
Our Process for Generating SF-425 Financial Reports We plan on expending the full required cost sharing amount, using State funds, during the first year of each award. Data is available from MSU s central effort reporting system:
Our Process for Generating SF-425 Financial Reports Information is entered into the ezfedgrants system and reports are submitted
How we Generate our REEport Financial We developed a web application that uses data from MSU s accounting and payroll systems to help make the REEport Financial submission process easier Prior to system availability, generating the report was a lengthy, arduous manual process! Key to our system is the link between REEport projects and related accounts. Since this account-project link is not available in our central accounting system we needed to develop our own system to handle this As new accounts are established in MSU s Chart of Accounts, a REEport project number is assigned and entered into a crosswalk table A project may be linked to one or many accounts The system also handles administrative proration of expenditures and FTEs
How we Generate our REEport Financial To ensure strong internal controls, we assign system management responsibility as follows: Technical Monitor: Responsible for system development, enhancement, and maintenance REEport Monitor: Responsible for maintaining our project database and adding new account records to the system crosswalk table (i.e. linking accounts with projects) Administrative Monitor: Responsible for regulation knowledge and generates/submits the REEport Financial to USDA NIFA
How we Generate our REEport Financial The new accounts interface (used by the REEport Monitor): Click the account link to view details
How we Generate our REEport Financial The new accounts interface (used by the REEport Monitor): TOP of Web Page Improving natural sweetener production and awareness in the United States Professor A Professor B Professor C Professor D
How we Generate our REEport Financial The new accounts interface (used by the REEport Monitor): BOTTOM of Web Page Click Select to assign a Project Number to the Account Click the Move to Xwalk button to create a new record in the Cross Walk Database
How we Generate our REEport Financial Example Business Rule Error Message: The new accounts interface (used by the REEport Monitor): After a project number is selected for an account, the system processes through a set of business rules If a business rule error occurs, all three Monitors will be notified via email A Hatch project cannot be assigned to a McIntire-Stennis funded account
How we Generate our REEport Financial REEport Financial expenditure and FTE categories (see REEport Financial Report Manual) We refer to these codes as either a Project Fed Code when associated with REEport project, or an Account Fed Code when associated with an account
How we Generate our REEport Financial In December each year, after the federal fiscal year has ended (i.e. after 9/30), applicable new account-project links have been established, and all accounting/payroll data is available, we begin the report generation process The Administrative Monitor is responsible for generating the report The system uses a step-through interface to help simplify the report generation process.
How we Generate our REEport Financial Systems Operations interface:
How we Generate our REEport Financial Systems Operations interface, Step-1:
How we Generate our REEport Financial Systems Operations interface, Step-1: Amounts reflect recently reported total expenditure amounts from SF-425 Financial Reports Click the Continue button to move on to the next step
How we Generate our REEport Financial Systems Operations interface, Step-2:
How we Generate our REEport Financial Systems Operations interface, Step-3:
How we Generate our REEport Financial Systems Operations interface, Step-4:
How we Generate our REEport Financial Systems Operations interface, Step-4: The term spreads refers to administrative and support cost proration (see page 14 of the REEport Financial Report Manual, dated 1/24/18)
How we Generate our REEport Financial Systems Operations interface, Step-5:
How we Generate our REEport Financial Systems Operations interface, Step-6:
How we Generate our REEport Financial
How we Generate our REEport Financial
Questions
REMINDER: Please complete your session survey. Paper surveys are available near the room exit. You can also complete your survey online using the conference App. Thank you for attending our session!