Stories from NCIL Members about their ARRA Experience with RSA

Iowa

This is the Iowa response to the RSA request for recommendations on the distribution of BOTH regular Part B and Part C allocations AND the ARRA Part B and Part C allocations, as well as answers to the four points they requested.  Feel free to share this with others and/or post on the website.

This HAS been approved by RSA.  The only condition they have is that we have to get signed consent forms from all of the Centers saying they are in agreement with NOT doing a grant competition for the $13,954 in Part B ARRA funds that are over and above bringing all of our current CILs up to a Minimum Operational Level of Funding, and stating in this consent that they are in agreement with allowing those funds to go to the CIL in Sioux City to provide outreach to two unserved counties.  if we do this we will NOT have to do an amendment to our SPIL.

Please note that we proposed distributing the Part C ARRA funds FIRST to bring all Centers up to the Minimum Operational Level of Funding, and then the Part B ARRA funds next to complete everyone.  That meant there was $13,954 left over in the Part B ARRA funds which were then applied to the next priority in our SPIL of expanding into unserved counties.  In this way we did NOT have to go through RSA to do a competition, which we would have had to do if it was the Part C ARRA funds left over.  RSA was aware that was why we were doing this and did allow it.

Here is the specific info on our recommendation from David Esquith:

Read the entire Iowa Response.

Georgia

How did we prepare?

Shortly after stimulus package passed and we knew IL was in it, we started having conference calls with the CILs to just get the idea juices flowing.  I started trying to find out the amount coming to GA by calling elected officals - both fed and state.  But it wasn't until just before the June 4 teleconference that we got any specific information about money from RSA. On that call, we did get clear that starting new CILs would be a real challenge since it would mean that current Part C would be "re-distributed" to CILs started with ARRA.  We also learned that "there will be a conference call with your state" but it was difficult to prepare since RSA did not send out an agenda for that call.  What they did send out was an excel spreadsheet showing current "regular" Part C funds by CIL, total expended by CIL in 08, amount of COLAs per CIL, amount available above COLA and amount available under "ARRA" Part C.  The chart was incorrect in the column on with 08 CIL expenditures.  I corrected it and sent it back to them.  But with the information from the spread sheet, we had conference calls with the CILs, SILC executive committee and DSU rep.  We proposed 3 formulas for distribution of $2.6 million in ARRA funds.  After discussion among ourselves, we settled on a formula (# of consumers served and population): $2 million to the existing CILs and the remainder a little over $600,000 to a new CIL, the next priority as per SPIL.

But there was a glitch along the way in that process.  In the spreadsheet, RSA had a column "amount of Part C over COLA - available for competition". Then, when we got on the call, Sue R-W said that wouldn't be the case because there isn't time for competition.  So the chart they sent out was incorrect and misleading.  So - we went back to the drawing board on that. I did that step via email with CILs and SILC bd and DSU.  So - we decided to distribute the regular Part C over COLA (around $66,000) to the 3 smallest CILs.

It took a long time to get the conference call scheduled because of the DSU director's schedule.  She finally let the "B team" do the call so it was me and a DSU rep.  Sue R-W asked why a SILC board member was not on the call and went on to ask "have you been authorized to respresent the SILC?"  I said "yes" with no further explanation.

My biggest concern at this stage is that RSA doesn't really understand ARRA and that the reporting requirements on the RSA web site may not mesh with the real intent of ARRA.  Some of our CILs are sitting in on the conference calls about ARRA reporting - the calls arranged by OMB, I think? Much of what ARRA is about is getting or keeping jobs.  Does NCIL know if the measures proposed by RSA are acceptable measures to the larger ARRA purpose? Who eats it if RSA is just flat wrong about the proposed measures?  Who is responsible for "vetting" the proposed measures from the Departments to whoever the ARRA guru is? 

I am Sleepless in Atlanta!

Patricia Puckett, Executive Director, Statewide Independent Living Council of GA, Inc.

Virginia

The 16 Virginia Centers for Independent Living came together to develop a plan to distribute ARRA funds to all CILs across the state even though 10 of our 16 CILs do not get federal funds.  We presented our plan to the DSU.  The DSU countered with a different idea.  VACIL discussed the DSU's plan and decided to wholeheartedly support it.  We firmly believe that this plan is in line with our SPIL.

The DSU and SILC Chair presented the Virginia plan to RSA.  RSA came back with a different plan which suggested that we form new CILs.  The DSU, with the support of the SILC and VACIL, submitted the same plan explaining how this plan would protect the integrity of IL services.  The second letter to RSA was also sent to our U.S. Senators.  We are waiting for RSA's response.

The following related correspondence is attached:

1. July 9 letter from Virginia DSU to RSA
2. July 10 letter from RSA to Virginia
3. July 16 letter from Virginia DSU to RSA
4. Attachment to July DSU letter (attachment sent to Virginia Senators Warner and Webb)

The Virginia CILs, SILC and DSU have worked together throughout this process and are in agreement that the Virginia plan submitted to RSA meets ARRA requirements and is appropriate.

Maureen Hollowell
Virginia Association of Centers for Independent Living

More stories coming soon! Send your story to jason@ncil.org.