黑料专区

Advisory Opinion 2019-004

QUESTION PRESENTED

Are 黑料专区 funds 鈥渘on-federal funds鈥 for purposes of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (鈥淗HS鈥) requirement that non-federal funds be used to match HHS payments in the Federal Foster Care Program?

BRIEF ANSWER

Yes, 黑料专区 funds are non-federal funds once 黑料专区 receives them and remain non-federal funds when provided by 黑料专区 to grantees. Thus, they are 鈥渘on-federal funds鈥 for matching purposes in the HHS Federal Foster Care Program. If a state partners with an 黑料专区 grantee to represent children in qualifying child welfare proceedings, the state may count any 黑料专区 funds expended by the grantee toward the representation as part of its non-federal match. All uses of 黑料专区 funds must comply with 黑料专区 grant terms and conditions. Therefore, regardless of matching, the 黑料专区 grantee must ensure all 黑料专区 funded work in these cases meets those requirements.[1]

BACKGROUND

In December 2018, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (鈥淗HS鈥) updated its Child Welfare Policy Manual regarding child welfare programs operated by the HHS Children鈥檚 Bureau. One such program, the Federal Foster Care Program, is authorized by title IV-E of the Social Security Act.

The policy manual update addressed whether a state agency administering a title IV-E program may receive reimbursement from HHS for administrative costs for attorneys to provide legal representation for (1) the title IV-E agency; (2) a candidate for title IV-E foster care; or (3) a title IV-E eligible child in foster care, as well as the child's parents. HHS answered in the affirmative, citing regulations authorizing federal financial participation at the rate of a 50% cost match for administrative expenditures necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the state鈥檚 title IV-E plan. See (implementing ); . HHS stated that the change in policy would 鈥渆nsure that, among other things [] reasonable efforts are made to prevent removal and finalize the permanency plan; and parents and youth are engaged in and complying with case plans.鈥 See .

As a result of this policy change, states can now seek reimbursement from the federal government for half the cost of attorneys for children who are eligible for title IV-E foster care benefits as well as half the cost of attorneys for their parents. These funds are available at all stages of foster care legal proceedings. Costs must be paid through the state title IV-E agency and title IV-E grants must be matched by non-federal funds. It should also be noted that the federal government will pay only for legal representation based on a state鈥檚 proportion of income-eligible foster children and their parents, not for all foster children and their parents.[2]

States may partner with legal aid entities to provide these attorneys. In these situations, the state pays the legal aid entity for half of the costs with funds from HHS. To meet the matching requirement, the legal aid entity (or the state) must use non-federal funds to pay the remaining half of the total costs. The National Association of Counsel for Children (鈥淣ACC鈥) has been working with 黑料专区 grantees interested in partnering with state foster care agencies to provide representation to eligible children. Several grantees have asked NACC whether 黑料专区 funds can be used to satisfy a state鈥檚 requirement to match federal grants with non-federal funds. NACC relayed this question to 黑料专区鈥檚 Office of Legal Affairs, requesting an opinion.

ANALYSIS

鈥淲hen the federal government decides to provide financial assistance to an organization carrying out an activity, it may choose to fund the entire cost, but it is not required to do so.鈥 See . Thus, the GAO explains, 鈥渁 program statute may provide for full-funding, or it may provide for 鈥榗ost-sharing,鈥 that is, financing by a mix of federal and nonfederal funds.鈥 Here, a state agency administering a title IV-E program may claim a 50% federal administrative cost match for attorneys to provide legal representation during foster care legal proceedings so long as those federal funds are matched by non-federal funds.

The question presented here is whether 黑料专区 funds constitute non-federal funds. For the following reasons, we conclude that 黑料专区 funds are non-federal funds.

黑料专区 is not a government agency. (creating 黑料专区 as a D.C. nonprofit corporation). Congress, in establishing 黑料专区 as a nonprofit chartered in the District of Columbia, made clear that 黑料专区 鈥渟hall not be considered a department, agency, or instrumentality, of the Federal Government.鈥 . In light of this plain statutory language, the federal courts have consistently ruled that 黑料专区 is not an agency except when Congress specifically states otherwise. See, e.g.,,186 F.3d 457 (4th 1999) (黑料专区 is not an agency under the Administrative Procedure Act).[3] Where Congress has applied an agency requirement to 黑料专区 by statute, it has explicitly done so, such as the provision of the 黑料专区 Act that subjects 黑料专区 to the Freedom of Information Act. (黑料专区 鈥渟hall be subject to the provisions of section 552 of title 5鈥 (relating to freedom of information)). The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has confirmed this conclusion and has issued several reports reaffirming 黑料专区鈥檚 status as a non-agency for all statutory purposes, unless specifically provided to the contrary. See, e.g., (discussing the structure of 黑料专区 and that it is not a federal agency or a U.S. government corporation).

GAO and several other federal agencies have reached a similar conclusion with respect to 黑料专区 funds, concluding that 黑料专区 funds are not 鈥渇ederal funds鈥 for matching purposes. See . The Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, and the GAO have released opinions stating that 黑料专区 funds are not 鈥渇ederal funds鈥 subject to federal grant policy. See, e.g.Department of Treasury Memorandum GLS-107648 (Mar. 26, 2011) (stating that 鈥満诹献ㄇ funds provided through grants are not federal funds for purposes of federal grant matching restrictions鈥); U.S. Government Accountability Office, 黑料专区: Governance and Accountability Practices Need to Be Modernized and Strengthened (2007). In a 1977 determination, the Comptroller of the Currency, an independent bureau within the Department of the Treasury, stated that 黑料专区 funds are not public because they lack several common indicia of public money. First, the Comptroller explained, neither 黑料专区 nor its equipment and property are owned by the government. Second, under its chartering statute, 黑料专区 specifically is not to be considered a government department, agency, or instrumentality. Third, there is no direct governmental control or regulation of the funds after payment to 黑料专区. Therefore, upon receipt by 黑料专区, the appropriated funds become private money. . Similarly, in a recent letter to 黑料专区, the Department of Justice stated that 黑料专区 is not a federal agency for federal matching purposes and that 黑料专区 funds can be used to meet the match requirement for the Victims of Crime Act Victim Assistance Program. .

Although 黑料专区 funds have long been considered non-federal funds for purposes of federal grant matching restrictions,[4] 黑料专区鈥檚 regulations 鈥 until recently 鈥 confused the issue. In 2017, 黑料专区 amended Part 1630 to eliminate a requirement that agencies whose funds are being matched make a written determination that 黑料专区 funds may be used for federal matching purposes. ; . Recipients may now use 黑料专区 funds to satisfy cost-sharing or matching requirements of federal awards without having to receive written approval. It is unclear from the regulatory history why 黑料专区 believed, when it instituted this previous requirement in 1986, that it was appropriate for a different agency to determine what 黑料专区 funds could be used for. The preamble to the 1986 version of Part 1630 describes this requirement as 鈥渁 standard federal provision to ensure that [matching funds for federal grants] must be raised from a source other than the federal treasury and taxpayer.鈥 51 Fed. Reg. 29076, 29077, Aug. 13, 1986. While the 1986 preamble was correct that federal funds cannot be used to satisfy the matching requirement of another federal grant unless specifically authorized by law, 黑料专区 funds are not federal funds once 黑料专区 receives them.

CONCLUSION

黑料专区 is not a government agency and its funds are not 鈥渇ederal funds鈥 for matching purposes. Reflecting these facts, 黑料专区 has eliminated its prior requirement that grantees obtain a written determination from the agency whose grant 黑料专区 funds are intended to match. State child welfare agencies may partner with 黑料专区 grantees and count 黑料专区 grant funds used to represent children in eligible child welfare proceedings toward the cost-sharing requirements of the title IV-E program. 黑料专区 grantees must continue to use any 黑料专区 funds counted toward the cost-sharing requirement consistent with all 黑料专区 grant terms and conditions.

RONALD S. FLAGG
Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel

STEFANIE K. DAVIS
Assistant General Counsel

BRADLEY S. O鈥橬EIL
Graduate Law Fellow


[1] See  (鈥淲here any funds are used as non-federal matching funds for another grant, such use must be consistent with the grant under which they were originally awarded as well as the grant they are intended to implement.鈥).

[2] Mark Hardin, Claiming Title IV-E Funds to Pay for Parents鈥 and Children鈥檚 Attorneys: A Brief Technical Overview, ABA (Feb. 25, 2019),

[3] Some courts have treated 黑料专区 as a federal agency for constitutional purposes. See, e.g., , 531 U.S. 533 (2001) (noting that the 鈥満诹献ㄇ Act funds constitutionally protected expression,鈥 and holding that 鈥渞estriction[s] on the use of funds granted by [黑料专区] to engage in activities involving welfare reform . . . were invalid under [the] First Amendment.鈥); , 961 F. Supp. 1402 (D. Haw. 1997) (holding that restrictions on non-黑料专区 funds 鈥渞epresents an unconstitutional condition in violation of Plaintiffs' right under the First Amendment.鈥).

[4] See (referencing Comptroller of the Currency opinion dated September 2, 1977 and stating that 黑料专区 funds do not constitute public money and are not federal funds for purposes of the federal matching requirement of the Older American Act); (referencing Comptroller of the Currency opinion dated September 2, 1977 and explaining that 黑料专区 funds lack 鈥渟everal indicia of public federal funds鈥 and advising that 黑料专区 funds may be used to match a Department of Agriculture Food Stamp OutReach grant); 黑料专区 Opinion Letter to Central Pennsylvania Legal Services, dated March 14, 1997 (referencing 黑料专区 opinion letter dated June 15, 1995 and advising that 黑料专区 funds may be used to match a Department of Commerce Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Assistance Program grant); 黑料专区 Opinion Letter to Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, dated October 22, 1997 (referencing 黑料专区 opinion letter dated June 15, 1995 and advising that 黑料专区 funds may be used to match a Victims of Crime Act grant); 黑料专区 Opinion Letter to 黑料专区 of Virginia, dated March 13, 2000 (advising that 黑料专区 funds are non-federal funds and may be used for matching Department of Commerce Technology Assistance Program grants); 黑料专区 Opinion Letter to Legal Services of North Carolina, dated July 20, 2000 (referencing 黑料专区 opinion letter dated October 22, 1997 and advising that 黑料专区 funds may be used to match Victims of Crime Assistance Act grants).