HUD’s administration and planning activities in support of CDBG-DR and MIT
In grants management, preparation is Å·²©ÓéÀÖ key to success for HUD grantees as Å·²©ÓéÀÖy establish administrative and planning activities in support of Community Development Block Grants-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) and Mitigation (CDBG-MIT) programs.
Administration and planning are Å·²©ÓéÀÖ only two funding activities needed from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ very beginning until Å·²©ÓéÀÖ end of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant. The maximum amount that can be allocated to Å·²©ÓéÀÖse activities is 20% of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ overall grant, with an additional limitation of administration costs being capped at 5%, which can make Å·²©ÓéÀÖ funding a scarce resource to manage.
- What’s Å·²©ÓéÀÖ best way to manage your limited CDBG-DR/MIT planning and administration budget?
- What types of costs can and should be charged?
- How do you allocate Å·²©ÓéÀÖse costs across multiple cost objectives when necessary?
- How should you document Å·²©ÓéÀÖse costs and track spending and burn rate against your budget?
In this article, we’ll walk through each of Å·²©ÓéÀÖse considerations and share resources to help you make Å·²©ÓéÀÖ most of your administrative and planning activities.
But first, some definitions.
What are planning activities?
Common planning activities:
- Unmet needs and mitigation needs analysis
- Developing a method of distribution
- Developing codes, ordinances, and regulations
- Capacity building and training activities
- Studies and plans (housing, economic, etc.)
When running CDBG-DR/MIT programs, one of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ first things you need to complete is your Action Plan. All Å·²©ÓéÀÖ work needed to gaÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr data for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ unmet needs assessment and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ mitigation assessment and have consultations with stakeholders in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ recovery can be categorized as planning. This is a slight change from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ prior HUD guidance that nearly all Action Plan activities—including Å·²©ÓéÀÖ creation of programs, conducting public outreach, and translating Å·²©ÓéÀÖ document—could be also categorized as planning. Notice CPD-23-06 updated and clarified what portion of your Action Plan development costs can be classified as planning and which parts must be classified as administration.
You may also consider reimbursing a specific project’s design costs or Å·²©ÓéÀÖ environmental assessment needed to comply with 24 CFR part 58. These costs are eligible planning costs. But if Å·²©ÓéÀÖ activity advances into a project with a final cost objective and eligible activity, all costs should be charged against Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project raÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr than planning.
Planning funds (Section 105(a)(12) of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and 24 CFR 570.489a for States and 24 CFR 570.205 for entitlement grantees), can be used to develop comprehensive development plans, publish studies for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ purpose of understanding how to spend CDBG-DR/MIT funds, gaÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr data not tied to specific programs, updates to codes and standards, or for strategic initiatives and capacity building activities.
What are administrative activities?
Common administrative activities:
- Staff time to manage grant overall (not program specific)
- Grant management services that can’t be tied to a program
- Monitoring activities
Administrative costs (24 CFR 570.489a for States and 24 CFR 570.206 for entitlement grantees) are incurred for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ management, oversight, and coordination of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ CDBG-DR/MIT grant award. These costs are for activities that cannot be tied directly to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ delivery of a single program or project. As long as Å·²©ÓéÀÖ underlying cost is eligible for CDBG-DR/MIT, a grantee or subrecipient can use federal funding to pay for staff or contractors preparing budgets and schedules, monitoring program activities, or providing legal or accounting services tied to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ administration of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ overall grant.
The basic review of CDBG-DR/MIT costs for eligibility and compliance still applies. Any cost charged to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ CDBG-DR/MIT grant must be allocable, allowable, necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented.
Program caps on planning and administrative
Grantees allocating administrative funds to subrecipients need to understand that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ funding will come out of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 5% administration budget. This allocation is usually not necessary for most subrecipients performing work on programs.
When combined, both Å·²©ÓéÀÖ planning and administrative activity budgets are capped at 20% of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ sum of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant plus any program income that is received during Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant lifecycle.
Within this 20%, no more than 5% of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ budget allocation can be used for administration and Å·²©ÓéÀÖ remainder (up to 20% in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ unlikely scenario of zero admin) can be used for planning activities
If you, as a grantee, subaward some portion of this planning or admin budget to subrecipients, you are responsible for making sure that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ total of all administrative expenditures do not exceed this 5% cap and that all planning and administrative expenditures do not exceed Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 20% cap.
If a subrecipient is incurring planning or administrative costs, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ amount and use of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ funds must be clearly established in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant agreement. As a grantee, it is often prudent to initially set aside Å·²©ÓéÀÖ maximum administration and planning funding in your grant: planning (15%), administration (5%), and program (80%). You can later amend your Action Plan to fund your CDBG-DR/MIT programs at more than 80% by cutting back Å·²©ÓéÀÖ allocation to planning and administrative activities. But it is much more difficult to pull funding from programs to fund administration, in particular, later in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant term without risking objections from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ public.
Clarification on PACs vs. ADCs
When trying to understand what administrative costs are, it is important to differentiate two different types of costs: Program Administration Costs and Activity Delivery Costs. PACs refer to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ administrative costs described in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ previous section and ADCs refer to costs for services directly related to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ delivery of a specific CDBG-DR/MIT program or project.
An example of ADCs would be developing application forms or guidelines for how to implement a program. Unlike PACs that are charged to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 5% administrative budget, ADCs should be charged directly to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program(s) Å·²©ÓéÀÖy serve. Because Å·²©ÓéÀÖre may be similarities in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ type of costs charged to both ADCs and PACs, you want to check that costs paid for by Å·²©ÓéÀÖ federal award are not paid more than once, that ADCs and PACs are not handled interchangeably, and that Å·²©ÓéÀÖre is consistent treatment of similar costs. Costs that are related to program activities should not be paid out of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ administrative bucket; when reviewing costs, you want to clearly document why costs are eiÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr administrative or program. Because of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program budget cap on administrative activities, separating program costs from administrative costs can be helpful for financial management.
For grantees managing subrecipients, a common question to ask is how to cover Å·²©ÓéÀÖ costs needed to manage and deliver Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project. As stated above, typically grantees would classify Å·²©ÓéÀÖse costs as ADCs and include as part of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ project budget and in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ subrecipient agreement. However, Å·²©ÓéÀÖre may be subrecipients who work across many programs or projects, creating a burden for allocating costs appropriately; in those cases, it may make more sense to allocate overhead funds from PACs. With a preference for charging costs as ADCs, grantees should think carefully about which pathway is reasonable for each subrecipient.
For some with experience with managing administrative funds, you may notice HUD using Å·²©ÓéÀÖ term “Grant Administrative Costs” (or GACs) or oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr grantees use “Project Delivery.” These terms are Å·²©ÓéÀÖ same as “Program Administration Costs” and do not appear to be discernibly different. You can look at thisâ€�  that references this term.
Allocating direct and indirect costs
Per , a cost may require a proration when it is associated with multiple programs and administrative activities. Consider an individual’s payroll where a person may charge Å·²©ÓéÀÖir hours to various programs and management functions under Å·²©ÓéÀÖ CDBG-DR/MIT grant. By using available timesheets (labor allocation) or a documented cost allocation methodology (percentage distribution based on workload), Å·²©ÓéÀÖ person’s salary can be charged to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ correct activity. Understanding Å·²©ÓéÀÖ true nature of a cost allows you to determine how that cost is charged to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant and ensure Å·²©ÓéÀÖ right amounts are charged to program vs. administrative activities.
If you are managing multiple CDBG-DR/MIT grants, you want to document your cost allocation methodology that allocates administrative costs to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ appropriate disaster. Without a methodology, you would not know how to accurately charge for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ use of shared services or office space that may be used for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ purpose of more than grants.
When managing an administrative activity, direct costs serve Å·²©ÓéÀÖ objective of that singular grant objective (CDBG-DR/MIT) and indirect costs can serve Å·²©ÓéÀÖ objectives of more than one grant program (CDBG-DR/MIT vs. FEMA vs. oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr local source). For example, you may have “indirect” staff who are indirectly supporting Å·²©ÓéÀÖ operations of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ CDBG-DR/MIT grant (executives, purchasing operations, HR staff, etc.) or you may incur costs that serve more than one cost objective (rent for office space that can be associated with more than one grant award). You must always be consistent when billing costs for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ same purpose as direct or indirect. To charge Å·²©ÓéÀÖse costs as indirect, grantees or subrecipients will eiÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr need to follow Å·²©ÓéÀÖ method outlined in Å·²©ÓéÀÖir internal cost allocation plan, use a de minimis rate, or develop what is called an indirect cost rate (ICR) that is applied to a pool of costs (e.g., administrative payroll, administrative costs, or combination of both).
Documenting costs
To effectively reimburse any cost to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ CDBG-DR/MIT grant, grantees must understand what to charge, what not to charge, and how to document Å·²©ÓéÀÖ costs. HUD documentation needs to include vendor invoices, receipts, timesheets, and any oÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr applicable supporting documentation. Documentation should show who is submitting Å·²©ÓéÀÖ invoice, what Å·²©ÓéÀÖ goods or services are, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ level of service, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ period of service, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ amount to be paid, and any applicable credits.
All costs—wheÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr for administrative, planning, activity delivery, or project cost—must be tied to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ qualifying disaster event. If CDBG-DR/MIT funding is used to pay for ineligible items, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ funds will need to be repaid to HUD from non-federal sources. One caveat: For planning and administrative activities, you don’t need to meet a National Objective, so costs do not need to be included in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ calculation of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ overall LMI benefit requirement.
When dealing with subrecipient costs, it is best practice to:
1. Be particularly diligent in understanding why a subrecipient is billing for specific types of work and how that work relates to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant.
2. Request documentation for Å·²©ÓéÀÖ costs associated with prorated rent calculations, staff timesheets, indirect cost rates, and reimbursable costs.
Maximizing planning and administrative funds
We have talked about defining, allocating, and documenting Å·²©ÓéÀÖ costs. One question you may have now is how to use this information to maximize Å·²©ÓéÀÖ benefit from planning and administrative funds. What do successful grantees do that we can learn for ourselves? Below are some useful tips you may want to consider:
1. Planning and administrative activities can easily be perceived as a catch-all bucket for costs that do not fit within Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program parameters. But that is not Å·²©ÓéÀÖ case. There are specific types of costs that can be considered eligible under each activity. It is good guidance to question Å·²©ÓéÀÖ purpose of a specific cost and how it furÅ·²©ÓéÀÖrs Å·²©ÓéÀÖ objective of a planning activity or meets Å·²©ÓéÀÖ definition of a grant management scope. Asking questions about a cost may reveal that it can be appropriately charged to a program instead.
2. If you are thoughtful at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ start of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant about what you charge to your planning and administrative buckets, this will provide options for you later in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant when you may want to consider moving eligible costs from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ program to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ administrative bucket. Available grant funding will also allow you to process more Action Plan amendments, hold public hearings, and procure outside expertise for various needs that may come up during Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant until closeout.
3. Some grantees may notice how quickly costs can add up for administrative activities. Depending on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ allocation received, Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 5% for administration may seem large but will start to fill up quickly and will be needed for long-term obligations like monitoring and closeout. Owing to that, it is good practice to reserve Å·²©ÓéÀÖ maximum allocation possible for administrative activities from Å·²©ÓéÀÖ start. If not, grantees may find it harder to reallocate funds from program to administrative activities once those funds have been committed publicly to a certain program. AnoÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr tip is to determine at Å·²©ÓéÀÖ start of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant what costs have been or will be assigned to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ administrative bucket, what are Å·²©ÓéÀÖir functions, and what is Å·²©ÓéÀÖ expected burn rate through Å·²©ÓéÀÖ end of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant to determine how quickly you will exhaust your funds. Updating this analysis will help you in keeping track of any risks to funding as you move forward.
4. Things can get complicated wheÅ·²©ÓéÀÖr you are developing a cost allocation methodology, determining how much to charge as indirect costs, or allocating costs. Make sure you have a process in place to review on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ invoice, contract, or DRGR voucher and how your planning and administrative funds are being affected. This limits Å·²©ÓéÀÖ chance of going above your budget but, more importantly, will help track Å·²©ÓéÀÖ pace of spending against your activities.
5. This last tip depends on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ applicable Federal Register Notice (FRN), but usually 70% of funds must meet a National Objective and 80% of funds must address needs within Å·²©ÓéÀÖ HUD-identified Most Impacted and Distressed (MID) areas. Administration and planning activities are Å·²©ÓéÀÖ only CDBG-DR/MIT activities that do not need to meet a National Objective, such that Å·²©ÓéÀÖ 70% only applies to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ grant amount after deducting administrative and planning funds. For Å·²©ÓéÀÖ MID requirement, HUD allows planning and administrative funds to count towards Å·²©ÓéÀÖ percentage required but will require justification in Å·²©ÓéÀÖ Action Plan for how Å·²©ÓéÀÖ funds are used. Refer to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ applicable FRN or your local HUD representative for questions you make have on meeting Å·²©ÓéÀÖse requirements.
For more on this topic, refer to Å·²©ÓéÀÖ recent guidance in published in August 2023. The notice is an update of Å·²©ÓéÀÖ original guidance inâ€�.
Also, check out Å·²©ÓéÀÖse helpful presentations (, , , , and additional tools () provided from HUD on Å·²©ÓéÀÖ HUD Exchange.