CHILD ELIGIBILITY Q. Please provide clarification on the following two fishing work scenarios in terms of MEP eligibility: 1. During the first week of May, a father and his three sons (ages 12, 14, and 16) leave Florida on a Friday afternoon and travel by shrimp boat to Alabama. The trip to reach their destination is five hours by way of the Intracoastal Waterway. The father and his three sons shrimp Friday night, Saturday, and Sunday. The boys help their father shrimp, sort the shrimp, and pack the shrimp on ice to prepare to sell to the seafood packing house. Early Monday morning the family returns to Pensacola. The boys then return to school. This is repeated several times during the month. Do these moves constitute a change in residence? 2. A shrimper and his wife are divorcing. He must pay his wife child support for his two daughters, ages 9 and 13. The mother and the two daughters travel from Florida to Alabama to be present when the shrimp boat docks in order for the mother to collect the money for child support. The mother helps sort the seafood when the boat docks. Are the children eligible for the MEP? A. In Scenario #1, the question is whether the weekend moves constitute a change in residence, which as you know, is part of the Migrant Education Program s (MEP s) regulatory definition of a qualifying move [see 34 CFR section 200.81(g)]. OME does not establish a minimum duration for qualifying moves because there are some short duration moves that qualify and others that do not. Instead, we define the term residence in the MEP Guidance as a place where one lives and not just visits and say that generally, a person who goes to a new place to seek or obtain work, or because the person cannot afford to stay in his or her current location, is leaving the place where he or she currently lives and is going to a new place to live and thus, has changed from one residence to another residence (or changed residence) With respect to moves of such short duration (e.g., less than a week) that an independent reviewer might question whether the worker changed residence, we encourage SEAs to establish a policy for determining and documenting when and why these moves qualify for the MEP. This approach sets a uniform policy statewide in accordance with the needs of your state s migratory population, and avoids the need to make individual determinations of what constitutes a change in residence. In developing this policy, please visit the MEP Guidance, Chapter II, Section D, Q&As D3-D7 and D23-D25. In Scenario #2, based on the information provided, OME would not qualify these children for the MEP. According to program regulations [see 34 CFR 200.81(c)], one of the qualifying factors for our program is that one of the purposes of the move is to seek or obtain qualifying work. According to the regulations a worker who moves with any type of work in mind would qualify as long as the qualifying work was obtained soon after the move. However, in the scenario Page 1 of 6
described above, it does not appear as though employment was even one purpose of the move. Rather, the mother traveled to Alabama to collect child support. While some might ask whether the father could be considered the qualifying worker, we do not believe this is possible, because it does not appear as though the children moved to join their father. Q. A young man (14 years old) from Guatemala travels to Yakima, WA with the intent to seek or obtain qualifying work. Before he is able to reach WA, the youth is detained in Arizona by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and is sent to a detainment center. The youth is given the option to be either deported back to Guatemala or relocated with a relative in the U.S. He chooses the second option and is relocated to Florida to live with an uncle and as a condition he must enroll in school. Is this a qualifying move for which the child may be considered eligible for the MEP? A. To determine whether the youth in question might qualify for the MEP, recruiters must determine whether a qualifying move occurred. Per the MEP regulations, a move qualifies if it is a change from one residence to another residence due to economic necessity and if one of the purposes of the move is to seek or obtain qualifying work [see 34 CFR sections 200.81(c) and (g)]. In the scenario you described, the youth moved from one residence in Guatemala to another residence in Florida. Although the youth intended to move from Guatemala to Washington to do qualifying work, he did not complete the qualifying move, and therefore, we cannot say that a move to a residence in Washington occurred. The fact that one might question whether the detention center could be a residence would not change our analysis of the situation because he still did not complete the intended move. In order for the move from Guatemala to Florida to be considered qualifying for the purposes of the MEP, one of the reasons for the move must have been to seek or obtain qualifying work [see 34 CFR 200.81(c)]. Based on the information presented, we do not believe that one of the purposes of the youth s move from Guatemala to Florida was to seek or obtain qualifying work; rather, he was ordered there by officials of the U.S. Government. Therefore, we do not believe that the youth in the scenario would qualify for the MEP. IDENTIFICATION & RECRUITMENT (ID & R) Q. How many COEs should be sampled for independent re-interviews? What population should the sample be drawn from: children to be included in the Category I Child Count (ages 3-21) or all children currently eligible for the program (ages birth 21)? Is there a more cost-effective way to conduct re-interviews when our population is widely spread across the State? Page 2 of 6
A. In response to the first question regarding the number of COEs to include in the independent re-interviews, we clarify that re-interviews are based on a random sample of identified migratory children, not COEs. While the regulations do not specify a sample size, States must ensure that a sufficient number of eligibility determinations in the current year are tested on a statewide basis or within categories associated with identified risk factors [see 34 CFR 200.89(b)(2)(ii)]. We recommend that States conduct, on average, 50 re-interviews (i.e., smaller States might conduct fewer than 50 re-interviews, whereas larger States should conduct more than 50 re-interviews), and that re-interviews be conducted on a rolling basis, shortly after the original eligibility determination was made; this is an effort to reduce non-response, and help ensure that the state meets their target number of re-interviews. States should look at their sample size and response rates from prior years in order to determine the best number to include in the sample. See Section III, of the Technical Assistance Guide on Re-interviewing for additional technical assistance regarding prospective re-interviewing. Page 20 addresses non-response specifically. In response to your second question regarding the pool of migratory children from which your sample should be selected, you should limit your focus to those children ages 3-21 who were found eligible in the current year. Therefore, if the State conducts its independent prospective re-interviewing during the 2013-2014 performance reporting period, it would sample children ages 3-21 who were recruited (i.e., the date the SEA reviewer signed the COE) between September 1, 2013 and August 30, 2014. We emphasize using the recruited date as opposed to the Qualifying Arrival Date (aka the Last Qualifying Move or LQM) because for children who are not identified and recruited soon after their QAD, their QAD and recruitment dates might occur in different performance periods. Please keep in mind that although face-to-face re-interviews are the preferred method and must be conducted unless circumstances make them impractical (e.g., excessive travel costs to interview one or two families who live a significant distance from the areas where the majority of re-interviews will be concentrated), States can adopt an alternative method such as telephone interviewing, if necessary. PROVISION OF SERVICES Q. Is it an allowable use of MEP funds to purchase laptop computers, ipads, and other electronic devices for migrant students to keep indefinitely (including after the child s MEP eligibility ends)? A. OME considers such purchases to be an unallowable use of MEP funds because the MEP would not be able to assure that the devices are used solely for authorized purposes, nor would the MEP be able to maintain effective control over the devices once the students MEP eligibility ends. In accordance with the cost principles that guide Title I, Part C grants to SEAs, in order to be considered allowable, costs must be allocable or chargeable to the MEP, relative to the benefit received [see OMB Circular A-87, now located in 2 CFR, Part 225, Appendix A, section C(3)]. In addition, 80.20(b)(3) of EDGAR, requires grantees and subgrantees to have financial Page 3 of 6
management systems that maintain effective control and accountability for all grant and subgrant cash, real and personal property, and other assets. This same provision requires grantees and subgrantees to adequately safeguard all such property and must assure that it is used solely for authorized purposes. If the MEP were to purchase electronic devices (e.g. laptop computers, ipads) for students to keep, it would be extremely difficult to determine the purposes for which they were being used. Moreover, the SEA would have no control over the electronic devices when the students MEP eligibility ends. If the MEP wishes to purchase electronic devices for migrant children to use (rather than to keep ) while they are receiving services from the Program, it might consider the following options: 1. The MEP may purchase computers or mobile computer devices (e.g., laptops or ipads) that it can use year after year to provide instruction/training to migratory students. In this situation, the MEP retains ownership and oversight of the computers and devices while also being able to use the devices for multiple years. 2. The MEP may share the cost of computer and mobile computer device purchases with another program, assuming that each program utilizes the devices for a period of time relative to each program s share of the cost. In this situation, the MEP may opt to share costs with another program because during particular times of the year migrant children may not reside in the state and the MEP could cut costs by allowing another program to use the devices during these times. 3. A loan system may be implemented for MEP-owned computers and mobile computer devices (e.g., laptops or ipads), which would allow students to check out the technology to use at home. The MEP should establish basic procedures for checking in with students about their uses of the devices (e.g., require students to sign a good-faith agreement to use the equipment for specific, academically-related purposes, limit access to certain software or websites which are not academically-related) and for returning the devices at the end of the project or term. The aforementioned options might allow the resources to benefit more students, while still maintaining ownership and oversight by the MEP. You can find more information about the use of MEP funds at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/mep/mepguidance2010.doc. Chapter X discusses MEP fiscal requirements. PERFORMANCE REPORTING Q. How should a migrant child be counted when they reside in one state, and receive Migrant Education Program (MEP) services in a bordering state? The child receives services in the bordering state, where he travels for the day, but does not establish residency. There is no MEP project in the area of the state in which the child lives. Page 4 of 6
A: The Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) requires States to report to the Department (via the EDFacts reporting system) the number of eligible migrant children ages 3 through 21 in their State and various data on migrant children who participated in MEP-funded services during the previous performance period. Most relevant to your question are the counts of eligible migrant children (also known as Child Counts I and II) found in section 2.3.1, and the participation data found in sections 2.3.3 2.3.5 of the CSPR. States may only include a child in Child Counts I and II (CSPR section 2.3.1), if the child resided in the State for one or more days during the performance period (see section 1303(a)(2)(B) of the statute and Chapter IX, Section B of the MEP Guidance). In regard to the MEP participation data reported in sections 2.3.3 2.3.5 of the CSPR, States may report eligible migrant children [as well as formerly eligible migrant children being served under the Continuation of Services (COS) authority] who participated in the State s MEP-funded services during the regular school year, summer/intersession, and performance period. Participating migrant children, according to section 4.4.2 of the EDFacts Workbook for SY 2012-13 are children who participate in Migrant Education Programs (MEP) under Title I, Part C, including those served under [the] continuation of services authority. Note that this definition does not include a requirement for migrant children to reside in the State where they receive services; therefore, the State that served the child may count the child under the MEP participation items, even if the child did not reside in the state. All States must ensure that any children they serve with MEP funds meet the definition of migratory child as defined by the statute. For this reason, if a State wishes to serve eligible migrant children who reside in another State, they should first make an independent determination that the children are MEP eligible. To help make this determination they could obtain the COEs for these children from the neighboring State or look for the children s information in MSIX, but the MEP should still conduct their own independent interview with the family. We recommend that MEP staff coordinate with their counterparts in the neighboring State to exchange pertinent information to identify the needs of the migratory children to be served. We also encourage the two State MEPs to collaborate in the provision of services for example, the State in which the child resides might be willing to help pay for an allocable portion of service costs or provide an allocable number of staff members for another State s MEP projects that provide services to their own State s eligible migratory children. If both State MEPs provide services to these children in whole or in part with MEP funds, both States can count these children in the MEP participation date reported in sections 2.3.3 2.3.5 of the CSPR. FISCAL REQUIREMENTS Page 5 of 6
Q. A MEP subgrantee wants to charge the cost of a workers compensation claim to the MEP, a cost of over $8,000. The LOA is self-funded with regards to workers compensation every worker is covered for workers compensation. Instead of paying monthly premiums, as a self-funded agency, the district pays actual expenses on an employee s injury. A. Like funds available to a school district under any Federal grant program, MEP funds may be charged for a portion of workers compensation claims. However, as explained below, these costs must be charged in ways permitted by applicable cost principles established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Those principles do not permit a school district to charge Federal grant funds for the full amount of the claim, nor do they permit it to pay for actual losses that could have been covered by permissible insurance (see the limited exception to this statement in the last substantive paragraph of this response). In the paragraph below, we describe further when and how the MEP may pay for a portion of workers compensation claims. In cases where a district decides to insure its employees (including through an available workers compensation program), the MEP is charged its proper share of insurance costs on an ongoing basis. Where, however, a district elects to pay the workers compensation claims when an employee becomes entitled to those payments, the actual claims paid to or on behalf of employees are allowable in the year of the payment. However, for the employee who worked full time for the MEP, a district may not now simply charge the full amount of these costs to MEP funds because the MEP should have already paid its portion of these costs. The district would have either charged these costs on an ongoing basis as direct costs of the Federal program presumably through the district s formula for calculating fringe benefits, or as indirect costs that reflect the district s general administrative expenses approved in the district s indirect cost rate agreement. Please keep in mind that when the charges are taken as direct costs, the district must have a policy of applying them uniformly to all of its employees (for this reason, we doubt that any grantee agency would charge these costs as direct costs.) See OMB Circular A-87 now codified in 2 CFR Part 225, Appendix B, paragraphs 8 d(5) and 22 e, respectively. So that you can properly advise districts on this issue, we note that some payment of workers compensation could have been charged to MEP funds if a district had self-insured and the selfinsurance reserve did not have enough money to cover the claim. Self-insurance reserves are generally included in indirect costs because these are costs of doing business that apply to all activities of the grantee, regardless of whether a particular activity is funded by the Federal government. See 2 CFR Part 225, Appendix B, paragraphs 22 c and d(3). Page 6 of 6