. . .
, .. ' :. -;... ,::. ';', .!..' . ' " "- ' , _ . .':. ' .
.r": ';' "_  " d  C. ' 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE

LEGALIZATION IMPACT ASSISTANCE

GRANTS UNDER THE 
IMMIGRATION

REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986

WASHINGTON 
STA TE  OF 
1\VICt$. 
'0 
lt"cf3a 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OFFICE OF ANALYSIS AND INSPECTIONS 
DECEMBER 1989  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The mission of the Offce of Inspetor Genera (OIG) is to promote the effciency, effective
progrs 
ness, and integrty of  in the United States Deparent of Health and Human Ser
vices (HS). It does this by developing method to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and 
abuse. Create by statute in 1976. the Inspector General keeps both the Secreta and the Con
gress fully and curently infonned about programs or management problems and recommends 
corrtive action. The OIG perform its mission by conductig audits, investigations, and in
sta 
spections with approximately 1,300  strategically located around the countr. 
OFFICE OF ANALYSIS AND INSPECTIONS 
This report is produced by the Offce of Analysis and Inspections (OAI), one of the thee 
major offces within the OIG. The other two are the Offce of Audit and the Offce of Inves
tigations. Inspections ar conducted in accordace with professional stadads developed by 
OAI. These inspections ar tyicaly short-tenn studies designed to determe program effec
tiveness, effciency, and vulnerabilty to frud or abuse. 
Th 
study was conducted to determne the effectiveness of Washington s implementation of 
State Legalzation Impact Assistace Grats funds awared under the Immgration Refonn 
and Control Act of 1986.

prepar 
The report was  under the diction ofDon McLaughlin, the Regional Inspector 
General of Region VIT, Offce of Analysis and Inspections. Parcipatig in this project were 
the following people: 
Kansas City  San Francisco 
Project Leader  Apryl Willams 
Hugh Owens, 
Raymond Balandron 
James Wolf 
Alicia Smith 
Headquarters  New York 
Albert J. Nace  Lucile M. Cop 
Debra Robinson  l ,.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE

LEGALIZATION IMPACT ASSISTANCE

GRANTS UNDER 
THE IMMIGRATION

REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986

WASHINGTON 
STATE  OF 
Richard P. Kusserow 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OAI-07 -800450  DECEMBER 1989  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
PURPOSE 
The purose of this inspection was to determe how effectively Washington implemented the 
State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG) program, to identify potential problems 
early in the process, and to identiy goo practices which all States could share. 
BACKGROUND 
The SLIAG program was established under the Immgration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) 
of 1986 to reduce the fmancial burden of providig public assistance, public health assis tance, 
and educational services to eligible legalized aliens. In Fiscal Year (FY) 1988, $928.5 milion 
progr 
in  funds were allocated to States, and funds wil contiue to be alocated through 
FY 1991. These funds also cover admnistrative costs for implementing SLIAG at the State 
and local levels. Payments ar made for public assistance activities generaly available to all 
needy individuals and public health assistance services offered under the States 
' public health 
programs. The payments also cover educational services designed to assist eligible legalized 
aliens to attain a satisfactory level of performance in school and to achieve English language 
proficiency and citizenship skils necessar to become permanent residents. The Famly 
Support Admnistration (FSA) is responsible for admnistering the program. 
Because SLIAG was a new progr, FSA realzed that problems would surface early in its 
implementation. In addition to the normal dificulties encountered in creating new processes 
and procedures, FSA recognized that SLIAG would have unique problems. Some of these 
issues include the diversity of programs which SLIAG encompasses, cultural and language 
barers associated with the service population, maintaning confidentiality of information, and 
the extremely short time fraes for the grt award process. 
METHODOLOGY 
In response to the anticipated dificulties with implementing SLIAG, FSA requested that the 
Offce of Inspector General (OIG) conduct reviews in 10 States to determne the progress of 
States ' implementing this progr. The FSA selected nine States and the Distrct of Columbia 
because of the varety of programs they offered, the number of eligible legalized aliens in the 
population, or the amount of the grant award. The nine States ar Arzona, California, 
Colorado, Florida, Ilinois, Massachusetts, New York, Texas, and Washington. 
Interviews based on strctured discussion guides for each major program ara, as well as 
documentation furnished by FSA and State and local offcials, built the base of information for 
this report. This report represents the review conducted in the State of Washington and reports 
progr 
on its implementing the SLIAG  as of August 1988.  Both FSA and Washington were commtte to identiying problems and developing 
innovative and effective solutions for them. Immedately following our on-site visits, FSA 
was given an outline of the State concerns identied in this report. 
FINDING: Since 1987, FSA has held natonal conferences and issued information to 
States on implementing the SUAG program. 
The FSA held several national conferences beginning in 1987 to share 
information with States on SLIAG legislation, the implications for States, the 
application process, and the documentation of costs. 
The FSA also provided States with "Question and Answer" issuances and 
demographic data from the Imgration and Natulization Service (IS). 
FINDING: Washington took immediate steps to plan for and implement SLIAG. 
Viraly al progrm staf indicated that the task force established by the 
Secretar of the Deparent of Social and Health Services and chaied by the 
single point of contact was instrmental in planning for and implementing 
SLIAG. Ths task force brought all parcipating State components together to 
initiate action to get SLIAG underway. 
fr 
The State has established a bilingual toll- hotline for aliens to lear about 
SLIAG. This has helped the State to identi aras of concern that the alien 
population has about SLIAG. 
FINDING: The State has instituted a separate form in the normal enrollment process to 
meet program requirements concerning identifying school-age eligible legalized aliens. 
This form  confidentiity. 
wil help protect 
Neverteless, there are some funds contrl vulnerabilties. 
FINDING: The FSA' s definition of public assistance includs some public health assis
tance activites which created administrative and servce delivery problems for Washington 
public health agencies.

FINDING: The FSA applicaton reviw process created a number of signifcant problems 
for Washington. Also, the FSA's applicatn reviw process interfered with the State 
ability to plan for serves.  Delay in FSA issuing the implementing regulation resulted in the State 
inabilty to properly plan for SLIAG. 
Numerous policy misinterpretations and disagreements resulted because FSA 
did not provide definitive wrtten instrctions to assist Washington in 
understanding SLIAG application requirements. 
The time frames were too short for submitting the initial SLIAG application 
review and comment, and revisions of the application. 
No formal appeals process exists if progrms or costs ar denied in the fIrst level 
review. 
FINDING: Conflicting interpretatons of the term "public charge" has caused uncertain
tiesfor the alen populatin as to what services they are entitled to receive withoutfear of 
deportation. 
FINDING: At the time of the OIG review, several programs in the public assistance and 
public health assistance areas had not implemented effective methods to idntify eligible 
legalized aliens and document the costs for services rendered. 
FINDING: The providers which were rendering servces under contract with the Division 
of Public Health and the Offce of Superintendent of Public 
Instrction were not adequate
ly and consistently obtaining informaton to verify the stas of eligible legalized aliens. 
As mentioned earlier, FSA and Washington have aleady initiated action on some of the 
recommendations in ths report. Steps have been taen by FSA to provide States with more 
progr 
specifIc, formal guidelines for identifying and documenting actual 
and admnistrative 
costs. However, FSA and Washington need to tae addtional actions in other aras as covered 
by the fidings in this report. 
RECOMMENDATION: The FSA should reconsider its position to classify certain public 
health servces as public assistance and make approprie adjustments to this position. 
RECOMMENDATION: The FSA should make its 
applicaton and grant award process 
more orderly. Specifcally, FSA should 
provide definitive wrtten instrctions on the SLIAG application requirements 
and inform Washington of SLIAG policy, compliance, and reportng issues to 
occur 
minimize the confusion that  in the initial application process;  ensure that sufficient time is allotted to the application process including 
Washington s initial application, FSA' s review and formal comment, 
Washington s consideration of FSA comments and negotiation of disputes, and 
its submission of the revised application for FSA approval; and 
develop an appeals process to use if programs or costs associated with providing 
services are denied in the initial application process. 
RECOMMENDATION: The FSA and the INS should further clarify what is meant by 
public charge" and widely disseminate this information to the alien population who are 
concerned about their resident status. 
RECOMMENDATION: The State should develop procedures in public assistance and 
public health assistance to identify eligible legalized aliens and document the costs for 
services rendered. 
RECOMMENDATION: The State should ensure that its Division of Public Health and 
Office of Superintendent of Public Instrction are working with providers of services to 
obtain adequate and consistent documentation to verify the status of eligible legalized aliens. 
COMMENTS 
The FSA and the State of Washington both commented on the draft report and generally 
agreed with our fmdings and recommendations. Both indicated that steps have been taen to 
improve implementation of SLIAG. Their comments are included verbatim as Appendices B 
and C, respectively.  ..  .... .......... . .......... ... .............. ... ...... ......... .... ...... .... . ......... .... ...  ....... .... ...........  .........  ......  ....... ... 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
NTRODUCTIO N ..... ............ ........... ......... ....... 
II  II II.. II 1

PURPOSE 
.......... II"" II II".." II.. II".." II.."" 110............ II".. II".." IIII""".."".. II II.. II II.." II........ II""""" 111I1I ..11..11.. II" II II"" g II II 1

BACKG ROU N D ....."8 liD.... ......11...............11.. 
II  ....... ..IIDIII 
 111111 
METHODO LOG Y ....... ......... ..... 1111..  .......... ........ 11..1.1.....  
.... 2

WASHINGTON' S ORGANIZATIONAL STUCTURE 
................................... 3

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................

PU B LIC ASSISTANCE..........IIII...11.........."II" 
...11 ...8......11...111111..11.. ..1111111111811111111.11111111.011II.. ...
.. 
PUBLIC HEALTH ASSISTANCE ................................................................

EDUCA TIO N  .....11...11....... .... ..0...................... .....................11.1111 ......11.  .......... 1 0

CROSSCUTTI NG ISSU ES ......................................................................... 12

APPEN DIX A...,.... ...11....... ...... .e.... ...... .....11..11. II .... .... .....,..11....... ..... .... ... .11.. .... ........... .... A

APPENDIX B . ...11...11..11...11..11.11...1;.. .11... .... ............... .11........ .1;.. .... .110.. ...11....... ....11............ B

APP EN DI XC..... ....... ..... ..............11......................................... ..... ............ ....... ....... C
 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 
The Famy Support Admistrtion (FSA) reueste that the Ofce of Inspetor General 
nie 
(OIG) conduct an inspetion in  States and the Distrct of Columbia to determe how 
effectively the States implemente the State Legalzation Impact Assistace Grts (SLIAG) 
progr awarde under the Imgration Reform and Control Act (lCA) of 1986. The 
inspetion included reviewig mehanisms in plac to identi these funds and determnig 
whether present or projected policies and proures adere to FSA guidelies. The FSA also 
identig 
was interested in  potential problems early in the process and goo pratices which 
al States could shar. Ths report presents the results of the inspetion pertng to the State 
of Washigton. 
BACKGROUND 
Under IRCA, eligible legalze alens may apply for permanent residency within a I-year 
fit 
period afer they are  eligible (i.e., by the 31st month after they receive temporar resident 
status). 
Ths new population wil incrase the demand for State public assistace and public health 
assistace servces signcantly. It wi also incras the demad for State educational 
obta 
servces as these new residents  English language and civic skills neeed to become 
S. citizens. 
To help States defray may of the costs of providing public 
assistace, public health 
assistace, and educational servces to eligible legalize alens, IRCA authorize 
$1 billon 
(F 
each year from Fiscal Year  1988 thugh 1991 for SLIAG grts, less an amount 
identied as the "Federa offset." With few exceptions, eligible legalze alens ar ineligible 
progr 
for fedraly funded public assistace  such as Aid to Fames with Dependent 
Childrn (AFC), foo staps, and Medcaid The "Fedral offset" is the estimated cost to 
the Fedral Government of providig these servces or benefits to those few legaliz aliens 
who ar eligible for them. In FY 1988, the law alocate $928.  mion to States. 
To reeive SLIAG funds, States must apply to the FSA Division of State Legalization 
Assistace, which is responsible for approving applications and adnistering the program. 
The application must be approved in tota for a State to reeive any SLIAG funds. The FSA 
also provides States with tehnical assistace on policy issues and on the method used 
veri 
determne costs and  actual costs.  The basic reuirment for States to claim reimburement is that costs must be alowable, 
reasonable, and alocable. State public assistace and public health assistace program must 
be the same ones avaiable to the general public. States canot crate new program in these 
areas speifcaly for eligible legalze alens. However, States may create new or adtional 
education progrs for eligible legalze alens. States may also clai reimbursement for 
adstrative 
progr adstrtive and SLIAG  costs. 
lite 
Reimburement for public assistace and public health assistace is  only to the amount 
maum 
of State and local funds expende for SLIAG-relate costs. The  SLIAG 
reimbursement for educational servces is an average of $500 per year per eligible legalze 
alien. Determnig progr adnistrtive costs is ma in accordce with the fmal 
regulation at 45 CP 402.22. 
The FSA is responsible for adnistering the program Because SLIAG was a new program, 
real 
FSA  that problems would surace early in its implementation. In adtion to the 
norm diculties encountered in creatig new processes and proedurs, FSA recogn 
that SLIG would have unique problems. Some of these issues include the diversity of 
progrs 
which SLIAG encompasses, cultual and language baners associated with the 
mantag  tie
service population  confidentiality of inormation, and the extrmely short 
fres 
for the grant award process. 
METHODOLOGY 
nie 
The FSA selected  States and the Distrct of Columbia for the inspection beause of the 
varety of program offered the number of eligible legalze aliens in the population, or the 
amount of the grt. The nie States are Arna, Caorna, Colorado, Florida, llinois, 
Masachusetts, New York, Texas, and Washigton. Ths report reviews Washington 
progr 
implementation of the SLIAG  as of August 1988. 
strctu 
Pror to conducting the inspetion, the OIG develope  discussion gudes for each 
major program activity at the State and local levels. In conductig this review, intervews 
progr 
were held with the Washingtn single  managers and SLIAG 
point of contat, and the 
coordiators at each individual program level. Because public health assistace, public 
ar adistere 
assistace, and educational servces  at the State level, there were no county 
adstrtors  progrs  tie 
SLIAG  to interview. Many of the  were not implemented at the 
of our review; therefore, we were not able to intervew providers for public assistace or 
education.  WASHINGTON' S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The Deparent of Social and Health Servces is the designate agency responsible for 
operating the SLIAG progr for Washigtn. The ditor of the Imgration Assistace 
Prgram, with the Division of Income Assistace, has ben appointe the single point of 
contat for the SLIAG progr. He wi be assiste by a fiancial maager from 
within the 
Ofce of Accountig  ben  adnister 
Systems. Both managers have  appointed ful-tie to 
progr  wi reta 
the SLIAG  but  their former position titles. Both the Income Assistace
Prgr 
and the Ofce of Accountig Systems ar in the Deparnt of Social and Health 
Servces. 
The followig offces in the deparent make up the public assistace function for SLIAG: 
Division of Income Assistace, Division of Menta Health, Division of Medcal Assistace, 
and the Burau of Alcohol and Substace Abuse. 
The Deparent of Community Development, separte frm the Deparent of Social and 
Health Servces, provides weatherization, energy assistace, emergency foo and shelter 
progrs ar 
servces to the State s genera population. These  include in the public 
progr. 
assistace porton of the SLIAG 
The Division of Public Health and the Burau of Parnt and Chid 
Health provide public 
health assistace servces to the State s genera population. The Burau of Parnt and Child 
Health is separte from the Division of Public Health. Neverteless, by SLIAG defmition, its 
progr. 
services are included in the public health porton of the SLIAG 
The Ofce of Superitendent of Public Instrction has overal responsibilty for 
the State 
progr. 
SLIAG education  Within tghart O ffce ar the responsibilties for coordiating adult 
kidergarn thugh  progrs. 
education and  12  FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Both FSA and Washigton were commtted to identiying problems and developing 
innovative and effective solutions for them. Imediately following our on-site visits, FSA 
was given an outlne of the State concerns identied in this report. 
FSA has held lUonal conferences and issued information to 
FINDING: Since  1987, 
States on implementing the SUAG program. 
The FSA held several national conferences beginning in 1987 to share 
inormation with States on SLIAG legislation, the implications for States, the 
application process, and the documentation of costs. 
The FSA also provided States with "Question and Answer" issuances and 
demographic data from the Imgration and Natulization Service (IS). 
FINDING: Washington took immediate steps to plan for and implement SLIAG. 
Virally all progrm sta indicated that the task force established by the 
Secreta of the Deparent of Social and Health Services and chaied by the 
single point of contact was instrmental in planning for and implementing 
SLIAG. This task force brought al parcipating State components together to 
initiate action to get SLIAG underway. 
The State has established a bilingual toll-free hotlne for aliens to lear about 
SLIAG. This has helped the State to identify aras of concern that the alien 
population has about SLIAG. 
FINDING: The State has instituted a separate form in the normal enrollment process to 
meet program requirements concerning idntifying school-age eligible legalized aliens. 
This form will help protect confidentiity. 
Neverteless, there are some funds contrl vulnerabilties. Findings and recommendations 
concerning these vulnerabilties follow under major topic areas.  PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 
Assistance or Service Activities 
The services provided under public assistace ar:

Supplemental Securty Income - State supplement payment 
Emergency Assistance (cash) 
Foo 
Stamp Program 
General Assistance for the Unemployable 
General Assistance for Pregnant Women 
Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation Program 
supplemental food vouchers for Women, Infants, and Children 
XI 
Medical Assistance (non Title  medical services) 
Weatherization Services 
energy assistance payments 
emergency shelter and emergency foo baskets 
Mental Health Services 
progrs 
The State has not created any new  for SLIAG. As a result, the State 
wil incur 
increased administrative costs and wil have to institute new methods to identify eligible 
legalized aliens because the program definitions for public 
assistace and public health 
assistace ar unique to SLIAG. For example, within the Women, Infants, and Childrn 
progr, FSA defmes the food vouchers as a public assistance service, while it defmes the 
intae process, education. and counseling services as public health assistance services. The 
program wil have to add mechanisms to identify and separte work activities, thus increasing 
administrative costs. 
Documentation of Eligible Legalized Alien Status 
Programs under public assistance require that the Temporar Resident Card (also known as 
the 1-688 card) be used to verify that a client is an eligible legalzed alien. A copy of the 1-688 
card is maintained in the client s case me. The same intake process for the general public wil 
be used to process eligible legalized aliens and special agrcultural workers who apply for 
public assistance. Specifc codes wil be assigned for these aliens durg intae for 
identication and audit puroses. 
The Division of Income Assistance and the Division of Medical 
Assistace have issued 
instrctions to identify eligible legalized aliens. Program managers are concerned about the  ' . . .. ,- '.'-
lack of diection from FSA and INS about what categories constitute being a public charge as 
defmed by the INS. Because the State has not received clear guidance it is unable to ease the 
fear of eligible legalzed aliens regarding which services wil jeopardize their resident status. 
Therefore, the State indicated that eligible legalized aliens are not applying for services they 
need and for which they are eligible. Most of the cals on the SLIAG hotline ar about the 
public charge issue. 
Program Costs 
For public assistance program, program costs wil be charged to SLIAG based on the actual 
count of eligible legaliz alens served. The Division of Income Assistace and the Division 
of Medical Assistace have proedures to captue program costs when an eligible legalized 
alien applies for assistace. Coded data identifying the eligible legalized aliens are put into 
progr 
the computer system and ar used to determne the  costs applicable to ths population. 
Program costs within the Deparent of Community Development and the Bureau of Alcohol 
and Substace Abuse wi be incurd by contractors of services for the deparent. Progrm 
costs that ar alowable are specified in the contracts with the providers. A monthy 
expenditure report detais the expenditus by specifc categories. Policies and procedures are 
referenced in the contract and an annual audit is conducted to verify the appropriateness of 
expenditus. 
Program costs is one ara where many respondents said that FSA guidelines were too 
changeable. The State feels that FSA is holdig the State to arficial defmitions of what 
servces are to be claimed under public assistace versus public health assistance. The FSA 
provided guidance June 17, 1988, as to why some public health assistance programs are 
divided between public health assistace and public assistance. 
Administrative Costs

Durg 
implementation, al of the time spent by the single point of contact and fmancial 
manager wil be charged to SLIAG. The cost allocation plans and the indiect cost rates have 
not been revised for the program. New rates and plans wil be devised when programs are 
progr 
fully implemented. No  has received notice as to when the single state audit wil be 
conducted since it is too early for this to occur. 
To document SLIAG staf costs, the Division of Income Assistace, the Division of Medical 
Assistace, the Deparment of Community Development, and the Burau of Parnt and Child 
tie 
Health use  studies to calculate the amount of time spent by staf on all of the programs. 
The Division of Mental Health has awarded its contracts forthe year. The division is 
anticipating having to proess approximately 100 contrct amendments to implement changes 
for SLIAG. This wil cause additional admistrative costs due to the lateness of SLIAG 
fundig and the may changes in FSA instrctions. The State may be wiling to forego  claiming SLIAG costs associated with processing eligible legalzed alens alady in the 
progr 
system and the  sta-up costs aleady incurd. 
Drawdown of Funds and Cash Balances 
The fiscal analyst within the Offce of Accounting Services wil drawdown SLIAG funds for 
the 
all  programs. The State s accounting system for SLIAG funds will not change. The 
Deparent of Social and Health Services uses a 32-digit account code which 
capturs each 
function within a program. The SLIAG activities wil be given their own account code. 
Programs wil claim SLIAG funds by two methods. For example, the Division of Income 
Assistace within the Deparent of Social and Health Servces progrs, wil fist submit an 
estimate of monthly expenditus to the Offce of Accountig Services. Each program wil 
input progr charges thugh the computer system using SLIAG codes. The financial 
manager withn the Imgration Assistance Unit wil review the summzed cost data for 
each program. Using ths and other inormtion, the fiscal analyst 
wil submit the amount of 
actual expenses to a fiscal management analyst withn the Offce of Accounting Services. The 
actual monthly expense data wil be compard to the expenses that were estimated for each 
progr 
area and adjusted. The adjusted figur wil then be drawn into each program 
account. 
The second billng method is by a monthly invoice for services rendered. This method is used 
by outside agencies or contractors providing services to the Deparent of Social and Health 
Services, for example, the Deparent of Community Development and the Offce of the 
Superintendent of Public Instrction. The invoices are reviewed and approved based on the 
contrctual agreement The State also has a budget and accounting system that requires 
contrctors to specify expenditues in each category of expenses and each source of income. 
Accordig to respondents, cash advances are generally not allowed in public assistance 
progrs. However, the Burau of Alcohol and Substance Abuse and the Deparent of 
Community Development wi permt advances for sta-up costs. Program receiving cash 
advances wil have to submit a plan specifying sta-up activities and their costs. Expenditures 
wil be verified and cash balances adjusted though the monthly reportng system and through 
progrs 
an annual contrctor audit Each public assistance program audits its  annually. 
PUBLIC HEALTH ASSISTANCE 
Assistance or Service Activities 
The Division of Health and the Bureau of Parnt and Child Services provide the following 
services under public health assistance:  immunizations 
AIDS testig, tratment, and education 
tuberculosis - preventive therapy and treatment 
screning, education, and referr for sexually trsmitted diseases, tuberculosis, 
adult dental disease, and diabetes 
Women, Infants, and Children - counseling, assessment, education, and referral 
servces 
Perinata Car Services 
Adolescent Pregnancy Planning Services 
These are ongoing services; no new servces have been implemented for SLIAG puroses. 
Documentation of Eligible Legalized Alien Status 
Public health assistance program may serve individuals who have applied for amesty as well 
as those who have achieved temporar or permanent resident status. 
The reviewers visited a cliic and a county health deparent. The representatives at the 
health deparent were having problems in obtaning documentation to veriy eligible 
legaled alen status. Patients often do not have the 1-688 card with them. Because patients 
retu 
are requested to  688 card, follow-up has become a problem. Another 
with the 1-
problem is language. Many of the eligible legalzed alens speak Spanish and very little 
English, and the health deparent does not have a Spanish interpreter. 
At the second provider site, the diector leared durng our visit that the health center had 
eligible legalized aliens as par of its patient population. The center had stared to implement 
procedurs to captu eligible legalized alien statistics and found none of their patients to be 
aliens. Later, recognizig that may of their patients speak Spanish and little English, they 
hird a Spanish-speakng outrach worker. The outreach worker found eligible legalized 
progr. 
alens that were using the Women, Infants, and Childrn 
agrcultu 
In the State of Washington, special  workers with only a temporar work permit 
receive services and then leave the area. The provider is left without proof of eligible 
legalized alien status on which to substatiate a clai. The single point of contact has told 
providers to keep a list of the clients without 1-688 cards. He hopes to obtan the approval rate 
for special agrcultu workers who have applied for temporar resident status within 
Washington, and apply that rate to the number of special agrcultur workers served. 
The Division of Parnt and Child Health and the Division of Health expressed concern about 
veriying eligible legalized alien status. Historically clients have been able to receive services 
without declarng their citizenship status. Prgram managers are concerned that requirng  clients to declare their citizenship status, whether they are legal or not, wil deter people who 
need the health services. 
Program Costs 
Under SLIAG, fundig for public health assistace is available for services that ar par of the 
State or local public health programs. Washington plans to use a population ratio formula to 
calculate specific State and local SLIAG-related costs. 
FINDING: The FSA's definiton o/public assistance includs some public health assis
tance activities which created administratve and servce delivery problems for Washington 
public health agencies. 
As noted above, FSA' s definition of public assistance encompasses some public 
health assistace activities, which created admnistrative and programatic 
dificulties for these agencies.

As a result of the FSA policy, to obtai reimburement for service costs, certain 
public health assistace programs wil have to identify individuals as eligible 
legalzed alens. The State staff feel this procedur may cause some individuals 
to forego avaiable servces. 
RECOMMENDATION: The FSA should reconsider its position to 
classif certain public 
health servces as public assistance and make any appropriate adjustments to this position. 
Administrative Costs 
progr
The State is retractively identifying program admnistrative costs for 
implementation. Clerical and data processing support costs accred durg the star-up period 
wil be charged diectly to SLIAG. 
Cost allocation plans and indict cost rates wil be used for al program once the SLIAG 
progr 
is fully implemented. As with the public assistance progrs, no public health 
assistace program has received notice of the date for their single state audit since the 
programs ar not fully implemented. 
Drawdown of Funds and Cash Balances 
The procedurs for the drwdown of SLIAG funds are the same for public health assistance 
progrs 
as for public assistace.  Most of the progrs with the Burau of Parnt and Child Health and the Division of Health 
deliver servces though contractors. The contrctors submit their invoices to the State 
progrs 
using the second billng method previously described. 
Cash advances ar not alowed in either program. Expenditues are verified, and cash 
thugh 
balances ar adjusted  the monthly reportg system and though ongoing contract 
monitoring and review. 
progr, 
Each public health  with the exception of the Parent and Child Health Services within 
the Burau of Parent and Child Health, is audite annually. The Parent and Child Health 
Services program is audited every 2 to 3 year depending on the staf availabilty. In addition 
progr, 
to the audits conducted by each  the single point of contact plans to conduct its own 
fiscal reviews of the contrctor s billngs. 
EDUCATION 
Assistance or Serve Activities 
The services provided under the kidergaren though grade 12 program are bilingual 
education, English as a Second Laguage, and Technical Assistance for Bilnguals. The actual 
determned. 
number of school distrcts eligible for SLIAG fundig of these services had not been
Education servces provided under the adult education program are English as a Second 
Language, civics, literacy, citizenship preparation, adult basic education, child care, and 
trsporttion. The SLIAG services for adults wil be provided by community colleges, 
vocational technical institutes, community-
rbause d organzations, and qualifed designated 
entities. Most of the contrctors will be in  areas. At the time of review the Offce 
Superintendent of Public Instrction had not issued the request for parcipation to potential 
providers of services for adult education classes pending the receipt of SLIAG funding. Due 
to delays in SLIAG funding, the State was unable to provide the needed English as a Second 
Language classes in the cities of Wenatchee, Seattle, Yakma, and Tacoma. There is a 
two-year waiting list for adult English as a Second Language classes in Seattle. 
The State questions what ancilar services, other than child car and trsportation. are 
covered by SLIAG. The State wants outrach activities covered. 
Documentation of Eligible Legalized Alien Status 
The SLIAG program regulations will require the State to change its practice of biennually 
notifying schools not to ask students about their legal status. They wil now have to obtain 
this information from the students. However, to safeguard confidentiality, they wil use a 
separate form to document the status of eligible legalzed alens.  Both adult education and kindergaren though grade 12 program plan for their enrollment 
procedurs to provide an unduplicated count of eligible legalzed alens. The schools wil 
keep a copy of the 1-688 card (Tempora Resident Car) in the student s fIe for eligible 
thugh  progrs. 
legalized aliens in kindergaren  Adult education had not 
grade 12 
developed specifc procedurs at the tie of the review. 
Program Costs 
For kidergaren thugh grde 12 and adult education programs, the grantee number wil be 
assigned a SLIAG charge code to document program expenditues claimed. The contractor 
progr costs wil be the number of qualed students times the cost per hour ties the hours 
of attendace. The Offce of Superitendent of Public Instrction allows the contrctor to 
defme the methodology of monitorig attndace hour. 
Administrative Costs

The methodology for accounting admnistrtive costs for SLIAG program wil be the same as 
for al other State education progrs. A separte charge code for SLIAG wil be assigned to 
the contractor s grantee number for claimig costs. Both adult education and the kidergaren 
progrs  tie 
though grde 12  use  studies to alocate tie and resoures to the proper 
fundig source. 
The Offce of Superintendent of Public Instrction has dicted its contrctors to claim only 
dict admstrtive personnel costs up to a maximum of eight percent of total instrctional 
costs. Revision to the indiect charge rate wil occur once the program has been implemented. 
The SLIAG funds may not be used to cover State admnistrtive costs for education in excess 
of 1.5 percent of program costs. The actig SLIAG coordiator for the Office of 
Superintendent of Public Instrction states that the 1.5 percent cap wil not cover 
admnistrative expenses, once trvel for trning and program monitorig is added. The State 
Refugee Progr, Even Sta, adult basic education, and vocational trning progrs have 
covered SLIAG sta-up costs up to now. These costs include salares, equipment, travel 
outrach, and supplies. It wil cost the Offce of 
Superintendent of Public Instrction too 
much to go back and document what has been expended, especialy with the 1.5 percent cap 
on admnistrtive costs. However, he does not plan to request reimbursement for these costs. 
Drawdown of Funds and Cash Balances 
The Offce of Superintendent of Public Instrction wil follow the second biling method 
described under public assistace for the drwdown of SLIAG funds. The accounting system 
wil not be changed for SLIAG, although expenditurs related to eligible legalized aliens wil 
be assigned a separate allocation code for documenting costs.  The Offce of Superitendent of Public Instrction does not allow contractors cash advances. 
Contractors ar reimbured on a services rendere basis. 
CROSSCUTTING ISSUES 
FINDING: The FSA applicaton reviw process creatd a number of signifcant problems 
for Washington. Also, the FSA's applicatn reviw process interfered with the State 
serves. 
abilit to plan for 
SLIAG. 
Delay in FSA issuing the implementing regulation resulted in the State 
inabilty to properly plan for 
Numerous policy misinterpretations and disagreements resulted because FSA 
did not provide defmitive wrtten instrctions to assist Washington in 
understandig SLIAG application requirements. 
The time frames were too short for submittng the initial SLIAG application 
review and comment, and revisions of the application. 
No formal appeals process exists if progrms or costs ar denied in the fIrst level 
review. 
The State s SLIAG application was approved in a trsmittal letter of July 12, 1988 from the 
Deparent of Health and Human Servces. Subsequently, the State received its notice of 
grant award on August 16, 1988. 
The delay of SLIAG funding, along with the lack of clear instrctions about which services 
are covered by SLIAG funding, has delayed providing services to needy eligible legalized 
progr 
alens. Accordig to severa  managers in public assistance, public health assistance 
and education, if State expenditues for eligible legalized aliens were reimbursed by SLIAG, 
the reimbursements could then have been used to provide services to other clients, some of 
whom are aleady citizens. 
Likewise, the delay of SLIAG fundig and operatig instrctions from FSA has resulted in 
higher admistrative costs to SLIAG. The Division of Menta Health, for example, has 
alady implemented its contracts for the new fiscal year. Once advised of the SLIAG 
program requirments the division wil have to amend over 100 contrcts. In addition, 
because of the delay in SLIAG funding, State funds have been used to implement SLIAG and 
hir 
staff in public assistance, public health assistace, and education. Many programs did not  identiy work dedicated to SLIAG compliance, and these progrs wil now have difficulty
identiyig the costs attbutable to SLIAG and requesting reimbursement. 
RECOMMENDATION: The FSA should make its 
applicaton and grant award process

more orderly. Specifally, FSA should

provide definitive wrtten instrctions on the SLIAG application requirements 
and inform Washigton of SLIAG policy, compliance, and reportng issues to
mimie 
the confsion that occured in the initial application process; 
tie 
ensur that sufficient  is alotted to the application process including 
Washington s initial application, FSA' s review and formal comment, 
Washington s consideration ofFSA comments and negotiation of disputes, and 
its submission of the revised application for FSA approval; and 
develop an appeals process to use if programs or costs associated with providing 
servces are denied in the initial application proess. 
FINDING: Conflicting interpretatons of the term "public charge" has caused uncertain
ties for the alien populatn as to what servces they are entitled to receive without fear of
deportaton. 
Eligibilty workers in the public assistace programs and the public health 
assistace programs often cannot answer prospective clients ' questions about the 
effect of receiving assistance on their residency status. As a result, eligible 
legalized aliens are not applying for servces they need and for which they are 
jeoparzig 
eligible for fear of  their citizenship status. 
Program managers are concerned about the lack of guidance from FSA and INS 
about what assistance categories constitute being a public charge as defined by 
the INS. Most of the telephone cals on the State s SLIAG hotline are about the 
public charge issue. 
RECOMMENDATION: The FSA and the INS shouldfurther clarify what is meant by 
public charge" and widely disseminate this informaton to the alen population who are 
concerned about their resident status. 
FINDING: At the time of the OIG review, several programs in the public assistance and 
public health assistance areas had not implemented effective methods to identify eligible 
legalized aliens and document costs 
for servces rendered. 
Many public assistance program were waitig to receive their SLIAG funding before 
implementing their parcular SLIAG programs. While fundig caused delays, the following  progrms had not yet formulated procedurs to identify eligible legalized aliens and document 
client-related costs: Bureau of Alcohol and Substance Abuse, Mental Health Program-
Community and Institutional Services, and Deparment of Community Development. 
The Bureau of Parent and Child Health had not implemented the SLIAG progrm pending 
receipt of SLIAG funds. Therefore, no systems for identifying eligible legalized aliens or 
SLIAG costs have been implemented. The program managers for Women, Infants, and 
Childrn know that eligible legalzed alens ar a large par of the service population, even 
though procedures have not been set up to formly identify them. 
RECOMMENDATION: The State should develop procedures in public assistance and 
public health assistance to identify eligible legalized aliens and document the costs for 
services rendered. 
FINDING: The providers which were rendering services under contract with the Division 
of Public Health and the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction were not 
adequately and consistently obtaining information to verify the status of eligible legalized 
aliens. 
The Division of Public Health uses the designations listed on the 1-688 card (Tempora 
Resident Card) to distinguish between eligible legalized aliens and special agrcultural 
workers durng the intae process. Instrctions had been issued to State staf and to health

providers by memorada and manual issuances, as well as conducting on-site trning sessions 
with many of the providers. Public health assistance providers were photocopying the 
medical examnation form or the I-688A card (Employment Authorization Card) to document 
that the patients were potential eligible legalized aliens. 
The Offce of the Superintendent of Public Instrction was, at the time of this inspection 
drafting the questions for its adult education grtees to use to identify an eligible legalized 
alien. The request for paricipation informs providers that SLIAG funds can be used to meet 
the educational needs of eligible legalized aliens. The providers ar instrcted to verify 
eligible legalized alien status by copying the 1-688 card, I-688A card, or 1-689 (Fee Receipt). 
However, the 1-688 card is the only card that establishes a student as an eligible legalized 
alien. 
RECOMMENDATION: The State should ensure that its Division of Public Health and 
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction are working with providers of services to 
obtain adequate and consistent documentation to verify the status of eligible legalized aliens.  OIG RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 
The FSA and the State of Washington both commented on the 
draf report. 
The FSA 
agr 
The FSA has generally  with the OIG report findigs and recommendations. The FSA 
has taen a number of steps to improve implementation of the SLIAG progr including 
claryig program policies and proedures. The FSA has also clared severa subject areas 
drt 
and the State s organizational strcture descrbed in the  report. 
The FSA questioned the statement that the new population would significantly increase public 
assistace and public health assistace services. Early estiates indicated that large numbers 
of alens would qualy to access the SLIAG program. The report recognized that information 
obtaed durg 
the review determned that substatial incrases in workloads and 
expenditus could occur in these aras as well as in education. However, we understad from 
recent discussions with States' offcials that demand for services is falling behind earlier 
projections. 
The FSA raised a question about the State s concern that increased adnistrtive costs would 
result because definitions of public assistace and public health assistace ar unique to the 
progr. 
SLIAG  This State concern is viewed as par of the same issue regarding 
classification of some public health assistace activities as public assistance, which is 
addressed elsewhere in our response to FSA's comments. 
Progr 
The FSA Refugee Resettlement  funds may have been used inappropriately. 
Apparently these funds were advanced to cover SLIAG sta-up costs but the State is not 
seeking reimbursement from SLIAG. This situation will be referred to the Offce of Audit, 
furer 
OIG, for  review. 
The FSA questioned the allowabilty of costs for the bilngual hotlne established by the State 
for alens to lear more about the SLIAG progr. The FSA stated these costs could not be 
considered allowable program costs because the hotlne was not generaly available to the 
State s population. A recent contact with a State offcial indicated that the hotlne was 
established to respond to alien questions and concerns about al aspects of the SLIAG 
progr. The State considers these costs as SLIAG administrtive costs. These claimed costs 
as well as al of the State s claimed costs would, of coure, be subject to FSA's review. 
The FSA's definition of public assistace included some public health activities which created 
admnistrative and service delivery problems for Washington s public health agencies. The 
OIG recommended that FSA reconsider this position.  priary 
The FSA replied that they see this  as an issue of cost identication and that they wil 
work with the States to develop methods of documentig costs which are consistent with 
FSA' s responsibilties as stewars of public funds. We believe that FSA' s actions to identify 
alternative methods is responsive to our concerns. 
We continue to believe that a strct interpretation which permts public health costs to be 
claimed only for specific eligible legalzed alens is burdensome to the States and, in many 
cases, would require considerable revisions to the States' system or statutory requirements. 
However, we do agre that FSA's use of alternative systems, such as the Cost Documentation 
System and a revised population ratio method system which reflects usage, would be a 
positive effort to enhance cost effectiveness without requirg States to develop new systems 
or make considerable revisions to present systems. The population ratio method could be 
revised to consider not only eligible legalized aliens in the service population, but use of those 
services by the eligible legalized alien population based on information aleady obtaned from 
progr 
experience. Where appropriate, other alternatives might be used which would 
produce a more efficient system for the States and address congressional intent that the States 
would not be required to establish new or elaborate systems. 
The FSA questioned the report s statement that Washington had alady received an initial 
award letter and appropriations for the fIrst half of 1988 before its FY 1988 application had 
been approved. Upon contact with the State, we found that the SLIAG application had been 
approved fIrst before funds were given to the State. Modfications have been made in the 
report to reflect this information. 
We reported that no formal appeals process exists if program costs ar denied in the first level 
review. We agree with FSA' s statement that the Grant Appeals Board does have jurisidiction 
over matters for withholding and repayment of SLIAG funds. However, itwas the States 
concern that an effective appeals mechanism be in place for issues involving programs or 
costs at the fIrst level of FSA' s review in the application process. 
The FSA made numerous comments to  fact, policy, or procedure. 
clarfy certain matters of 
We have included these comments verbatim in Appendix B. 
The State of Washington 
The State has generally agreed with the OIG report findings and recommendations. Their 
comments ar included verbatim in Appendix C. The State s comments also clarfied several 
processes described in the draft report. We have made some modfications in the report based 
on the comments received from the State. Since the time of the on-site review, the State has 
progr 
taken significant steps to effectively implement the SLIAG  through procedural and 
system changes.  APPENDIX A

GOOD PRACTICES
 A number of practices have been identified that other States could shar. 
progr sta 
VIrually all  indicate that the task force established by the Secretar of the 
chai 
Deparent of Social and Health Services and  by the single point of contact was 
instrmental in the planning for and implementing SLIAG. This task force brought all 
parcipatig State components together to initiate action to get SLIAG underway. 
The State has established a bilingual toll-free hotline for aliens to lear about SLIAG. 
Ths has helped the State to identify aras of concern that the alien population has about 
SLIAG. 
The State has instituted a separte form in the normal enrollment process to meet pro
gram reuirements concernng identifying school-age eligible legalized aliens. This form
wi 
help protect confidentiality.  APPENDIX B

FAMIL Y SUPPORT ADMINISTRATION'S COMMENTS
 ::/	
: /.. ..// ''.  "./ ., './ //.  .-  '-  / "  ."",.,.- :_-
..,.W1Us 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &. HUMAN SER	 FamilfSupport Administration 
MemorarRu", 
Date:	 September 22, 1989 
From:  Acting Assistant Secretary 
for Family Support 
Subject:	 OIG Draf t Report: Implementation of the State Legalization 
Impact Assistance Grants Under the Immigration Reform and 
Control Act of 1986 - State of Washington (OAI-07-88-004SO) 
To: 
Richard P. Kusserow

Inspector General

Attached are the Family Support Administration comments on 
coments are technical in 
the above report. Many of our 
nature due to the complexity  and the
of the  legislation 
fact that the SLIAG program was very new at the time of the

review. 
We appreciate the assistance and cooperation we have

response to our request to conduct this
rrecoeiuvedn frdom  yoou f	  rev  in 
iews of the SLIAG program.  reports we 
received are very useful to  understanding how States 
us  in 
are implementing the program. 
9 .. 
?-(-t--L
--sr.., 
Catherine Bertini

At tachmen t  OIG DRA 
REPORT: 
Implementation of the state Legalization Impact Assistance

Grants 
Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 

state of Washington

The Family Support Administration I 
s comments are divided into
three sections: 
Comments on background information and other 
narrative materirael tchaot dmoes nmot reelnated diaretctiloy tno tshe. d raft
report I s findings, comments on the findings, and responses to the 
I s 
draft report 
Narrative: 
Page i (Executive Summary) -- The draft report says that SLIAG

funds may be used for "educational services designed to assist

eligible legalized aliens to attain a satisfactory level of

performance in school and to achieve English language proficiency

and citizenship skills necessary to become permanent residents.

The final report should make clear that, by regulation, SLIAG

funds may be used to provide adults any educational service

authorized by the Adult Education Act.

Page 1 (Background) -- The draft report says, "This new 
population will increase the demand for state public assistance 
and public health assistance services significantly.  The draft
report isn  t clear whose conclusion this 7is or upon what data and 
analysis the conclusion is based. The final report should 
clarify these points. 
In the course of implementing SLIAG, we have discovered that

nei ther State and local pub  ic health programs nor, wi th few 
exceptions, public assistance programs, inquire about legal
status. 
This suggests that at least some aliens were using 
these services before legalization and that newly legalized 
aliens do not represent a "new population" for public assistance 
services. 
and public health assistance  Preliminary cost data 
from States suggests that newly legalized aliens are accessing 
public assistance services at rates far lower than the general
population. 
There are indications that a backlog of public 
heal th needs existed and was identified during the medical 
examinations required of all applicants for legalizations. 
However, there is no data to suggest that, other than this 
temporary bulge in demand for public health services, newly 
legalized aliens will generate a significant increase in demand 
for public health assistance or public assistance services. 
Page 2 (Background) -- The draft report says that reimbursement

for public assistance and public health assistance "is limited

only to the amount of State and local funds expended for SLIAG-

related cost.  SLIAG funds may be used to pay any SLIAG-related

cost, which is defined in regulation at 45 CFR 402.2 as the

expendi ture of funds (whether State, local, or SLIAG) for any 
purpose for which SLIAG reimbursement would be allowable. The  final report should make clear that state and local governments

are not required to spend their own funds before drawing down

SLIAG funds. 
Page 3 (Washington' s organizational structure) -- The draft 
report lists a number of services that the Department of 
Community Development, the Department of Public Health, and the 
Bureau of Parent and Child Health provide "to eligible legalized
aliens. 
The final report should make clear that, by law  SLIAG 
funds for only those public assistance and public health 
, i.
assistance programs that are generally available e., in which 
being an eligible legalized alien does not impact on eligibility. 
Page 5 (Pulic Assistance) -- The draft report says, "The state 
has not created any new programs for SLIAG.  As noted above, 
public assistance programs or activities must be generally 
funds. 
available in order to receive SLIAG  Thus, the creation of 
The final 
new programs for SLIAG" was not an option to States. 
report should clarify this point. 
The draft report further says, "As a result, the state will

incur increased administrative costs and will have to institute 
new methods to identify eligible legalized aliens because the 
program definitions for public assistanc! and public health 
assistance are unique to SLIAG.  We do not understand this 
sentence. 
Program administrative costs, i.e., the cost of 
administering an ongoing program, will not change as a result of
SLIAG.  costs, i. e., 
SLIAG administrative  costs incurred as a 
result of SLIAG, may be paid with SLIAG funds. The final report 
should clarify this point. 
Page 6 (Pulic Assistance Program Costs) -- The draft report

says, "The FSA had no written explanation as to why some public 
health assistance programs are divided between public health
assistance and public assistance. 
In guidance issued June 17, 
1988, we explained in detail the statutory and regulatory
cri teria 
for the two categories of services and gave detailed
guidance as to what kinds of acti vi ties met the criteria for
each. 
point. 
The final report should make this 
Page 6 (Pulic Assistance Administrative Costs) -- The draft 
report says processing mental health contract amendments "to 
additional 
implement changes for SLIAG" will cause "
administrative costs due to the lateness of SLIAG funding and the 
many changes in FSA instructions.  It is not clear how costs 
will increase if there is no increase in staff. Nor is it clear 
why contracts would be amended as a result of SLIAG. The final 
report should address these questions. 
Page 8 (Public Health Assistance Documentation of Eligible

Legalized Alien status) -- The draft report says that "special
agricultural workers with only a temporary work permit" receive

services, but the provider does not know whether they were

granted status. The draft report says the provider "hopes to
 obtain the approval rate for special agricultural workers who 
have applied for temporary resident status" and apply that rate 
to "the number of special agricultural workers served.  The 
point of this paragraph is not clear. The cost of public health
assistance services (but not 
public assistance or educational 
services) provided to applicants is allowable, so providers would 
need only documentation that an individual had applied for
status. 
For public assistance and educational services, we have 
made available to states methods for determining by a 
statistical adjustment the proportion of applicants who were 
granted status. The final report should make these points. 
Also on page 8, the draft report says that health providers are 
concerned "that requiring clients to declare their citizenship 
status, whether they are legal or not, will deter people who need 
the health services.  Costs for programs or activities that meet 
the statutory and regulatory criteria for public health 
assistance can be established by' using a population ratio method. 
We have made available to States other methods to establish costs 
for public assistance and public health assistance programs that

do not involve checking the status of any program participant.

Among these is the Cost Documentation System, developed by FSA

with the cooperation of the Social Security Administration, the

Immigration and Naturalization Service, apd the General Services

osts to be established by matching
Atdhminiestr astioon, wchiciha alllo wss 
ecurity numers of 
program participants with the 
aliens. -
social security numbers of newly legalized  The final 
report should make these points. 
Page 9 (Public 
Health Assistance Administrative Costs) -- The 
paragraphs under this heading appear to refer to SLIAG 
administrative costs rather than program administrativ  costs. 
The distinction is important because SLIAG administrative costs 
may be charged in full to the State's grant, while only a pro 
rata share of program administrative costs may be charged to the
grant. 
The final report should make clear which kind of 
administrative cost is being addressed. 
Page 19 (Education Assistance or Service Activities) -- The

draft report says no new services have been added. But the

previous paragraph, apparently quoting State officials, says

that full services were not provided pending the flow of SLIAG

funds. The final report should make clear whether the State 
planned to fund services directed specifically to' eligible
legalized aliens. Additionally, the draft report says, "The

State questions what ancillary services, other than child care
and transportation, are covered by SLIAG. 
The State wants 
outreach activities covered.  The regulation and written

guidance from FSA make clear that SLIAG funds may be used for any

activity authorized by the Adult Education Act, including

outreach. The final report should make these points.
 . , - .._- _ ' --- .
Page 10 (Education 
Documentation of Eligible Legalized Alien 
Status) -- The draft report says that schools will have to ask 
students about their legal status in order to document the number 
not true. 
of eligible legalized aliens attending school. This is 
It is possible for school districts to ask whether students are 
eligible legalized aliens, as defined by IRCA, without asking 
illegal. 
whether their status is legal or  Those who are not 
eligible legalized aliens would include other aliens residing 
here legally and  The 
citizens, as well as undocumented aliens 
final report should make that point.

Page 11 (Education Administrative 
Costs) -- The draft report 
notes that SLIAG start-up costs were covered in part by the 
"state Refugee Program, " and that the state educational agency 
does not plan to seek reimbursement from SLIAG for those costs. 
The final report should note whether Federal refugee assistance 
funds were used for this purpose and that, if so, this was an
funds. 
improper use of those' 
(Eligible legalized aliens, by 
definition, are not refugees.

Findinas: 
Finding: 
Since 1987, FSA has held national conferences and 
issued information to states on implemen\ing the SLIAG program. 
Comment: Since the OIG' 
s ons-ite visits. in August 1988, we have 
continued to provide assistance to states. We have conducted 
several more workshops and meetings to assist states in
implementation. In 
October 1988, we issued a compendium 
incorporating the extensive formal guidance previously provided 
to states on methods of cost documentation. We also have 
provided assistance to individual states in the form of 
correspondence, telephone consultation, and onsite technical 
assistance. We have conducted initial program reviews of the 
maj or States and are in the process of planning further 
monitoring visits. We request that the final report reflect this
continuing dialogue with States. 
Finding: 
Washington took immediate steps to plan for and 
implement SLIAG. 
Comment: Under this finding, on page 4, the draft report says, 
"The State has established a bilingual toll-free hotline for

aliens to learn about SLIAG. This has helped the State to

identify areas of concern that the alien population has about 
is not clear what kind of hotline this would be. 
SLIAG. II It 
noted above, only those public assistance and public health

assistance activities that are generally available to the 
population may be funded with SLIAG. (This requirement does not
apply to educational services.  Thus, SLIAG funding has no 
direct relationship to the availability of public assistance and 
public health assistance services to eligible legalized aliens.  Moreover, the cost outreach for public assistance or public 
heal th assistance programs directed specifically to eligible 
legalized aliens would not be allowable because it would not 
generally available" requirement. 
meet the " A later reference to 
the hotline, on page 5, states that most of the calls to the 
hotline relate to the circumstances in which acceptance of public 
assistance would lead INS to find that an individual was likely 
to become. a "public charge, " thereby becoming ineligible for 
permanent resident status. This reference would suggest that the 
hotline activity provides a service specifically for eligible 
legalized aliens. If so, costs associated with the hotline would 
not be allowable under the public assistance or public health 
assistance categories. Nor would the cost of an activity 
relating to the delivery of services to an individual be 
allowable as a SLIAG administrative costs. The final report 
should further describe this activity, whether its cost is an 
allowable use of SLIAG funds, and, if so, how it meets 
regulatory and statutory criteria. Also, in light of these 
questions, the OIG should consider whether to retain this

program on the list of "good practices" in the appendix.

Finding: The FSA's definition of public assistance includes 
saomge pueblinc hcealithe acsti.vi ties. This created' administrative and 
service delivery problems for washington s public health
Comment: We question how the definitions of public. health and 
public assistance create service delivery problems for state
public health agencies. 
By statute and regulation, all programs
or acti vi 
ties under both categories must be generally available. 
In practice, this means that SLIAG funds are available only to 
reimburse costs in ongoing, generally available programs. 
most programs, immigration status is not a condition of
eligibility. 
(The draft report notes that undocumented aliens
access public health assistance services. 
If the alien is 
eligible for services, he or she would receive those services
regardless of whether they were reimbursed under SLIAG. 
The 
final report should clarify this point. The final report also
should explain .
that the regulatory definitions of public 
assistance and public health assistance are based directly on 
section 204 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 
(IRCA), which created SLIAG.

Programs of public assistance are defined as programs that

provide for cash, medical or other assistance..  desianed to 
meet the basic subsistence or health needs of individuals 
(section 204 (j) (2) (A) emphasis added). Consistent with IRCA' 
explicit inclusion of medical assistance under the public

assistance category, State or locally funded programs that

provide medical treatment to needy individuals are considered by

FSA to be public assistance.
 IRCA defines programs of public health assistance as programs
which "provide public health services, including immunizations 
for immunizable diseases, testing and treatment for tuberculosis 
and sexually-transmitted diseases, and family planning services"
(section 204(j) (3) (A)). 
These statutory definitions and the 
legislative history indicate that Congress intended to allow 
certain traditional public health functions under the public 
heal th assistance category and medical assistance to the needy 
category. In 
under the public assistance  implementing SLIAG, we 
have followed that statutory framework. We have defined public 
health assistance as, among other things, programs or activities
that "
are provided for the primary purpose 2o)f .p rotecting the 
health of the general public" (45 CFR 402. The scope of 
programs included in that regulatory definition of public health 
assistance goes far beyond the specific activities listed in the 
IRCA . 
The public assistance/public health assistance categorization 
issue is primarily one of cost documentation requirements, not 
the allowability of costs associated with any particular health
program. without the distinction 
between categories, Washington 
would likely use trhue  population ratio method to establish costs 
by the their health departments. 
for all programs  Implici t 
in this method is the assumption that el gible legalized aliens 
will access programs in the same frequency and at the same cost
as the general population. 
We do not believe this assumption to 
be appropriate for medical assistance programs that provide 
treatment to needy individuals, i.e., what the tatute defines as
a public assistance program. 
To the contrary, the information 
that we have to date indicates that allowing use of the 
population ratio method for these programs generally would 
cases. 
overstate costs, dramatically in some  However, we would 
be willing to allow use of the population ratio method for any 
emDirical basis to indicate that

program for which there is an  costs. 
doing so would not overstate 
FSA realizes that many public assistance and public health 
programs do not routinely collect information on immigration 
status but has found many do collect social security numers. 
That is why we funded and devoted substantial resources to 
developing a system that will match the social security numers 
of program participants with those of newly legalized aliens. 
numer of 
This system gives states information on the  newly 
legalized aliens participating in a program and the cost of
services to them. 
It is now available and allows states to 
establish costs for FY 1988 as well as current and future years.
In May, we sent state SLIAG Single Points of Contact suggestions 
for other possible methods for establishing costs. None of these 
alternative methods requires setting up new administrative 
mechanisms or checking status of all program participants.  We will continue to work closely with states to develop

methodologies to document costs for all programs in its approved

applications. 
Finding: The FSA application review process created a number of 
application 
significant problems for Washington. Also, the FSA' s 
review process interfered with the State's ability to plan for
services. 
Comment: The draft report says that the time period for 
submission, review, revision and approval of the initial 
application was too short. We agree that it would have been
preferable -to have had a longer period of time between the 
publication of the final regulation and the deadline for 
submission and approval of FY 1988 and FY 1989 applications. 
However, the final report should note that, because of the way 
IRCA set up the allocation formula, one major reason for the 
compressed timeframe was that we could not award funds to any 
State until all States' applications had been approved. In order 
for us to run the allocation formula, which .IRCA requires to 
include estimates of costs, we must have approved estimates for 
States' allocations. 
all States before we can calculate 
The draft report says no formal appeals process exists if 
programs or costs are denied. The SLIAG ':regulation provides 
that the Grant Appeals Board has jurisdiction over issues
related to the witholding 
and repayment of funds.  For other 
matters, States may follow normal procedures for disagreeing with
an agency finding. 
The draft report says that Washington was notified n in September

1988 that its FY 1988 application could not be approved because

it required revisions, even though Washington had already

received an initial award letter.... This caused a further delay

in the release of SLIAG funds.  This statement is incorrect. 
State received FY 1988 grant funds until its FY 1988 application 
was approved. Applications under review during September 1988
were for FY 1989.  uld correct this error. 
The final report sh 
Recommendations: 
Recommendation: The FSA should reconsider its position to

classify certain public health services as public assistance and

make appropriate adjustments to this position.

Response: As discussed above, the primary issue relating to the

definitions of public assistance and pUblic health assistance is

one of cost documentation. states would like to use the

population ratio method for all programs run by their health

departments. The final report should clarify whether the OIG is

recommending that we allow use of the population ratio in
 programs where, as discussed above, its use would likely

overstate actual costs. 
We believe that using the population method for all programs run 
by state health departments would be inconsistent with our 
responsibility to exercise fiscal responsibility in 
funds. 
administering SLIAG  However, we recognize that some 
costs, 
states may encounter difficulties in establishing actual 
especially where ELAs are a small percentage of a State' 
will 
population or for programs that few ELAs access. We 
continue to work with states to ensure that a method is

available to allow them to establish actual costs for each 
program in their approved applications, consistent with our 
funds. 
responsibilities as stewards of public 
Recommendation: The FSA grant process should be made more
orderly. 
Response: This 
recommendation applies to the submission and 
processing of SLIAG grants only and should not be confused with 
the overall FSA grants management process. We have already made
a numer of significant 
changes in the SLIAG application and 
grant award process. As the draft report indicates, the 
timeframes for the FY 1988 and FY 1989 application processes were 
necessarily short. In effect, the states and FSA had to complete 
two application processes in less than a year. We do not expect 
similar problems for the FY 1990 and FY 1991 application 
processes. 
To ensure that states have adequate time to prepare their FY

1990 applications based on empiric1al.  data, we have extended the 
deadline from July 15 to October  Additionally, we have 
encouraged states to submit as early as possible any new

programs, questions, or issues, and have advised them that they

may submit all or portions of their applications at any time. 

now provide in writing all our comments on states' submissions.

We issued extensive written guidance on the FY 1990 application

process and the standards we will apply in reviewing

applications. 
The draft report also recommends that we develop an appeals

process to use if programs or costs associated with providing

services are denied in the initial application process. The 
Department' s Grant Appeals Board already has jurisdiction over 
cases involving the repayment or withholding of funds. Normal 
channels within the Department are open to states that disagree

wi th decisions made during the course of application review.

Recommendation: The FSA and the INS should further clarify what

is meant by "public charge" and widely disseminate this

information to the aliens who have raised concerns about their

resident status.  Response: 
Under IRCA and the Immigration and Nationality Act, 
the INS alone is responsible for determining whether individuals

aare lgikelye to nbecomce puibliec chsarge.s.  FSA cannot establish policy

on this issue. Nor can FSA disseminate information directly to

the alien population. INS is precluded by IRCA from providing

names and addresses of eligible legalized aliens to outside

However, we agree that it is important that all concerned know 
INS policy on the public charge issiuses.u Wee.  note that the INS 
Phase II regulation clarifies this  Additionally, INS 
representatives have made presentations at virtually all of our

workshops and conferences. At these meetings, States have been

able to ask questions and receive direct information from the

INS. We have communicated to States all information provided to

us by INS on this and other pertinent issues, and will continue

our policy of disseminating any relevant informatioen .th at we

receive . 
The Department also has indicated its support for a legislative

change to allow States to use a small portion of their SLIAG

grants to inform temporary residents of the requirements for

adjustment to lawful permanent resident status and of the rights

residents. 
and responsibilities of lawlul temporary  tSuch use is 
law. 
not permitted under current  r.
APPENDIX C 
WASHINGTON' S COMMENTS  ' .
,()(. ! .'  ..'- .;  ,.  .".... /'" "-j.'

Ttsm 
Richrd J. 
"t.. " ':Jf\ 
I: . 
. . .111 1 r 'l J , 
\'.1) 
P \ :  i \:1' '. I  I !!  \j !! I  ", 1"\ !( 
Iii " :. " J., L \ ,  ;;;1 1'''' ' 
September 20, 1989

Mr. Richard Kusserow 
Inspector General 
General 
Office of the Inspector
Washington, D. C. 20201 
Dear Mr. Kusserow:

The attached document is the state of Washington' s review and 
State 
comment of the inspection report "Implementation of the 
Legalization Impact Assistance Grants under the Immigration Reform 
and Control Act of 1986 - State of Washington" . I have suggested 
a number of changes for clarification and accuracy. 
While the state agrees with the bulk of the findings reported, and 
offered, the time lag of over 
recommendations 
appreciates the 
year between the inspection and the publication of the draft report 
mthakees r eitp oofr tl hitatvlee  real use. The majorityw oift hi sosuuets  oidfe nfutinfciteiodn ianl 
already been dealt 
necessity. 
Sincerely yours,

.4.,  1'/' 1 "
-1/ 
,/ Ja es " Kai  ber, Director 
Immigration Assistance Program
OB 31-A 
olympia, WA 98501 
Enclosure  . "
Washington state

Comment on OIG Draft Inspection Report

OVERVIEW 
t s 
The stated purpose of the Office of the Inspector General  (OIG) 
inspection of the implementation of the State Legalization Impact
Assistance Grant  . (a) 
(SLIAG) was to:  Determine the effectiveness 
t s 
of Washington  implementation of SLIAG, (b) identify problems 
early in the process and (c) to identify "good practices" 'to be 
shared with other states. 
Tlhies ttsex t of the report does identify problems in the process and

three "good practices"  however, no 
qualitative or
quantitative analysis is made regarding the effectiveness of 
the 
Washington t s implementation of  program. We feel that, 
considering the limitations placed on the state due to Federal 
doefla ys and the lack of definitive policy and procedure at the time
the review  Washington state responded effectively and 
process. 
efficiently to the entire SLIAG 
In  the 
addition to  omission of significant comment regarding 
several 
Washington t s effectiveness in implementation" there are 
areas of the report that are confusing or inaccurate. The following 
suggestions and comments are made on a page by page basis with the 
intent of helping the OIG to make the final document more useful 
ved. 
to the state and Federal agencies invol 
Executive Summary

The findings and recommendations in the executive summary are not 
paired. It would be easier to understand the recommendation as it 
immediately followed the 
relates to a finding if the recommendation 
finding. Additionally, numbering the findings and recommendations 
would help in referring to them. 
The duplication of the detail in the findings and recommendations 
in both the text of the report and in the summary seems to be 
redundant. We suggest that the findings and recommendations be 
combined and generalized in the executive summary. 
Tohne  cpoamgmeen t foollfo wtihnge  trhee ptohirrt)d  "ftihndeirneg  aonr ep asgoe miie  f(ualnsdo sr ecpoenattreodl 
vague statement that seems to indicate 
vulnerabilities" is a 

that the state must have difficulty in the control of the way it 
utilizes or accounts for the use of funds. There are, however, no 
specific findings reported that address this alleged deficiency.
We have no idea what vulnerabilities the report refers to and have
no  the states fiscal policies and 
evidence that  accounting 
mechanisms have any lack of control or have vulnerabilities. This 
comment should be removed from the report and the preceding finding
left as is.  Washington state

Comment on OIG Draft Inspection Report

The fourth finding reported on page iii is not correct. Both the 
Division of Public Health and the Office of the Superintendent of 
Public Instruction verify ELA status of clients by making a copy 
file. 
of the INS documentation for the client 
The last sentence in the comment following the fourth finding on 
additional 
page iii states that FSA and Washington need to take "
action in other areas" . Please be more specific as to what action 
in what areas, refer to a specific recommendation or remove the 
comment. 
Introduction 
In the fourth paragraph on page 1 you mention food stamps as being

among the programs for which Eligible Legalized Aliens (ELAs) are

ineligible. In fact ELAs who "Special Agricultural Workers" are

eligible for food stamps.

nd mixes unrelated 
The second paragraph on page two is confusing 

statements about three subj ects in a single paragraph. Also, the 
last sentence in this patrhager aph is inaccur te. States do have to
request  determning 
approval of  methodology in  SLIAG
Administration costs.

S Oraanizational Structure

Washinaton I 
The first paragraph on page three is inaccurate in regard to
positions and organizational structure. Please consider the 
following as a replacement:

"The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) is the agency

designated by the Governor to operate the SLIAG program in the

State of Washington. THe Division of Income Assistance within DSHS

houses the Immigration Assistance Program (IAP) which is directly

responsible for SLIAG activities. The director of the IAP is the

single point of contact for the SLIAG program. He is assisted by

a fiscal manager and program managers who are full-time staff.

Findinas and Recommendations

The comments under the third finding on page. 4 mention "funding
control vulnerabilities" 
. Reference is made to further comment 
concerning these funding control vulnerabilities being contained 
under the maj or topic areas. However, after careful study of those 
findings and recommendations no detail or specifics can be found 
that concern fiscal or funding control or areas of vulnerabil i ty. 
This statement should be removed.  . '"
Washington state

Comment on OIG Draft Inspection Report

The 
first paragraph on page 6 references an "
annual audit" 
reality, contracted programs are monitored on an ongoing basis.  bIyn 
oIAPn p rogpraam mganeage rs6. M enotiofn  
 the Single Audit is  also made  in  the third paragraph
Act. Please consider including the
following statement as an accurate description of how the Single

Audi t Act effects SLIAG:

The 
independent Office of State Auditor 
has a permanently
assigned audit staff which conducts the annu

l audit required by

the Single Audit Act. 
This staff audits all large federal programs

a single year grant of seven million dollars or more. 
wi th 
audit 
encompasses all  This
(DSHS) programs and isD eap artment of Social and Health Service
accounting/budgeting systemsasm. pling of activity drawn from 
DSHS
Accordingly, it will be a potential
sampling of SLIAG activities but not a 
comprehensive look at
financial/program activities.

The third paragraph on page 6 should be corrected to indicate that

the costs of IAP staff will be charged to SLIAG for the full period

of the grant, not just during the implementation phase.

The last paragraph on page 6 mentions the financial manager. This

anal vst 
should be the fiscal 
The 
first three paragraphs on page 7 
have inaccuracies. Please 
consider using the following 
language: 
"Programs will claim SLIAG funds by two methods. In 
each program will input program charges through the compmuettehro ds yosnteem 
using unique SLIAG account codes. 
The SLIAG financial manager with

the Immigration Assistance Program will review the summarized cost

data for each program and submit the 

actual monthly expenditures

to a fiscal analyst in the central Office of Accounting Services.

The actual monthly expenditure data will be 

year-to-date expenditure total and compared tion cSlLuIdAeGd  girna nat  gfurnadnst

already drawn. 
The necessary 
revenue draw is 
prepared, and drawn from SLIAG  then adjusted
funds. 
The second billing method is by a monthly invoice for contracted
services rendered. 
This method is used by 
contractors providing services to the 
 outside agencies or
Health Services  the Department of Social and
for example 
Department of 
Development and the  the  Community
Office of 
Instruction. The  Superintendent of Public
staff and approveidn vfoiocre sp aayrmee nretv iiefw eidn b y Immigration Ptrhog ram

contractual agreement.
 accordance wi  the
According to respondents, cash advances are generally not allowed

in public assistance programs. However

, the Bureau of Alcohol and

C..
 , ,
I '

Washington state

Comment on OIG Draft Inspection Report

Substance Abuse and the Departmentc oofs tcsom. munity Development (DCD) 
will permit advances for start-up  Programs receiving cash 
advances will have to submit a plan specifying start-up activities 
and their costs. Expenditures will be verified by DCD/BASA staff 
and reviewed by Immigration Program staff before payment is made. 
Immigration Program staff and other program/contractor staff will 
conduct field monitoring visits of these activities during the 
performance. 
contracted period of  Some of these activities will 
be sampled and audited during the annual Single State Audit. 
The next to last paragraph on page 9 refers to annual contractor 
audit. This should be replaced with "ongoing contract monitoring
and review" 
Documentation of Status

The second paragraph on page 8 is incorrect. Public Health programs

may serve individuals who have only applied for amnesty as well as

those who have achieved temporary or permanent resident status.

Education 
The second paragraph on page 10 indicates that  11 of 293 school
districts are 
eligible for SLIAG funding. The  actuat number of 
determined. 
eligible districts has not yet been 
The third paragraph on page 10 mentions that SLIAG services will 
be provided by correctional facilities. This is in error as no 
services. 
correctional facilities are contracted to provide SLIAG 
The fourth paragraph on page 10 states that "no new services have 
been added" . This is in error. English language training and Civics 
allowable under the 
training for ELAs is a new service and is 
provisions of SLIAG. 
The third paragraph on page 11 is confusing in regard to the 8% 
administrative cost of a contractor' s total funding. Instead you 
costs. 
should refer to the 8% of total instructional 
Crosscuttina Issues

This heading, found on page 12, has no explanation about how and 
crosscut" 
where these issues " Many of the findings are duplicative 
report. 
of those reported elsewhere in the 
The last finding on page 13 indicates that some programs have not
yet 
implemented methods to identify ELAs and, in the following 
comment, states the reason for the delay is that Federal funds to
pay for .
the development of those methods and procedures had not  . ':
Washington state

Comment on OIG Draft Inspection Report

yet been received. However, the recommendation associated with that
finding (page 
14) states that the programs should go ahead and 
deve.lop the procedures and makes no mention of the delay in Federal 
funding. We feel the recommendation should be that FSA immediately 
begin. 
fund the state so that development may 
The fifth paragraph on page 14 is incorrect as it refers to Public 
Health program eligibility. SAWs are not treated differently from
other 
applicants. All that is needed to be eligible for Public 
Health services is that an individual be an applicant under IRCA. 
The sixth paragraph on page 14 is also incorrect. Contrary to what 
is stated, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction 
request for participation specifies that to be eligible a student 
the 
must be an ELA, ie. must have been ad,justed to  status of 
alien. 
temporary resident