, . .

" . ". - :. .. . , ' ,. ,-,n. ' 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE

LEGALIZATION IMPACT ASSISTANCE

GRANTS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION

REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986

MASSACHUSETTS
COMMONWEAL TH  OF 
t.RVICESO 
ll.r 
'0 
1t"":fQ 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OFFICE OF ANALYSIS AND INSPECTIONS 
DECEMBER 1989  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The mission of the Offce of Inspector 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 methods to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and 
abuse. Created 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 
corrctive action. The OIG perform its mission by conductig audits, investigations, and in
spections with approximately 1,300 staf 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 three 
major offces within the OIG. The other two are the Offce of Audit and the Office of Inves
tigations. Inspections ar conducted in accordance with professional standards developed by 
OAI. These inspections ar tyically short-tenn studies designed to determe program effec
tiveness, effciency, and vulnerabilty to fraud or abuse. 
This study was conducted to determne the effectiveness of the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts' implementation of State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants funds awarded 
Imgrtion 
under the  Refonn and Control Act of 1986. 
The report was prepard under the diction of Don McLaughlin, the Regional Inspector 
General of Region VII Office of Analysis and Inspections. Parcipating in this project were 
the following people: 
Kansas City  San Francisco 
Project Leader  Apryl Wiliams 
Hugh Owens, 
Raymond Balandron 
James Wolf 
Headquarters  New York 
Albert J. Nace  Lucile M. Cop 
Debra Robinson 
Alicia Smith  . I 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATE

LEGALIZATION IMPACT ASSISTANCE

GRANTS UNDER THE IMMIGRATION

REFORM AND CONTROL ACT OF 1986

MASSACHUSETTS
COMMONWEALTH  OF 
Richard P. Kusserow 
INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OAI-07-88-00447  DECEMBER 1989  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
PURPOSE 
The purose of this inspection was to determe how effectively the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts implemented the State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG) 
progr, 
to identiy potential problems early in the process, and to identify good practices 
which all States could shar  The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is referred to as "State" in 
this report. 
BACKGROUND 
The SLIAG program was established under the Immgration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) 
of 1986 to reduce the fmancial burden of providing public assistance, public health assistance, 
and educational services to eligible legalized aliens. In Fiscal Year (FY) 1988, $928.5 milion 
in program funds were allocated to States, and funds wil continue to be alocated through 
FY 1991. These funds also cover administrative costs for implementing SLIAG at the State 
and local levels. Payments are made for public assistance activities generally 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 
necessar to become pennanent residents. The Family 
proficiency and citizenship skils 
Support Administration (FSA) is responsible for administerig the program. 
Because SLIAG was a new program, FSA realized that problems would surface early in its 
implementation. In addition to the normal difficulties 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, cultura and language 
barers associated with the service population, maintaning confidentiality of information, and 
the extremely short time frames for the grt award process. 
METHODOLOGY 
In response to the anticipated diffculties with implementing SLIAG, FSA requested that the 
Office of Inspector General (OIG) conduct reviews in 10 States to determine the progress of 
States ' implementing this progrm. The FSA selected nine States and the Distrct of Co1 umbia 
of programs they offered, the number of eligible legalized aliens in the 
because of the varety 
population, or the amount of the grant award. The nine States ar Arizona, California, 
Colorado, Florida, llinois, Massachusetts, New York, Texas, and Washington.  Interviews based on strcturd discussion guides for each major program ara, as well as 
FSA and State and local offcials, built the base of information for 
documentation furished by 
this report. This report represents the review conducted in Massachusetts and reports on its 
progr 
implementation of the SLIAG  as of August 1988. 
Both FSA and Massachusetts were commtted to identiying problems and developing 
innovative and effective solutions for them. Immediately following our on-site visits, FSA 
was given an outline of the State concerns identified in this report. 
1987 FSA has held national conferences and issued information to 
FINDING: Since 

States on implementing the SLIAG program. 
The FSA held several national conferences beginning in 1987 to share 
infonnation 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 Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). 
FINDING: Massachusetts established a structure to identify organizational and program 
needs, and to adapt existing resources for SLIAG purposes. 
The heads of each deparment involved in implementing SLIAG programs held 
meetings with the Office for Refugees and Immigrants, and have designated 
specific persons for SLIAG implementation and admnistration. There was a 
good working relationship among all paricipating agencies. 
The State s Executive Order Number 257 prevents agencies from requesting and 
disseminating information on citizenship status unless required by Federal 
statute. Questions on citizenship status have been removed from all applications 
for services and benefits. The State is moving to implement the SLIAG program 
with these restrctions.

FINDING: Massachusetts also took steps to document expenditures and control 
disbursements. 
Massachusetts has recently implemented the Management Account Reporting 
System. This system provides for a unifonn reporting capabilty and wil be 
used by the Deparent of Education to document costs identifiable to specific 
eligible legalized aliens. As par of this system, the Office for Refugees and 
Immigrants can access the Deparent of Education s SLIAG account to 
monitor distrbution of funds and identify any excess funds that may have 
accumulated.  Neverteless, there were some fuds contrl vuerabilties. 
agencies. 
FINDING: The FSA'  definin of publi assistle includs some public health assis
whih creatd adinitratve an serve delivery problems for 
tance activies 
Massachusetts publi healh 
FINDING: Conflicting interpretans oftl term "publi clue" and "permanently 
residng under color of law  hi caused unertntis for alns as to wht serves they are 
deportn. 
of 
entiled to receive without fear 
FINDING: The FSA appliatn reviw process creatd a number of signifant problems 
for Massachusett. Also, the FSA'  appliatn reviw process interfered with the Stat' 
serves. 
abilit to plan for 
Delay in FSA issuing the implementig regulation resulted in the State 
SLIAG. 
inabilty to properly plan for 
Numerous policy misinterpretations and disagrments resulted beause FSA 
did not provide definitive wrttn instrctions to assist Massachusett in 
understading SLIAG application reuiements. 
The tie frames were too short for submittg the intial SLIAG application 
review and comment, and revisions of the application. 
progr 
The implementation of SLIAG-funde  was delayed because of a 
grt 
signcant delay in notiyig Massachusett of the  award. 
No formal appeals process exists ifprogrs or costs ar denied in the first level 
review. 
Iu 
th 
FINDING: At the tie of  inspection, Massachusett  not received formal guidlines 
claing SUAG adinistratve costs, and Massachusetts 
from FSA on determining and 
determining and documenting these costs. 
had not developed methods for 
FINDING: The Stat Deparents of Publi Welfare and Public Health and the Bureau of 
Adult Educaton had not estalished methods to document costs 
for servces and benefits 
provided to indvidual eligible legalized aliens. 
alady 
As mentioned earlier, FSA and Massachusett have  initiated action on some of the

recommendations mad in ths report. Steps have ben taen by FSA to provide States with

identig 
and documentig actual program and

more speifc, formal guidelines for  adstrative costs. However, adtional actions ar necessar in other aras on the par of 
FSA and Massachusett. 
RECOMMENDATION: The FSA should reconsir its positn to classify certain public 
nu 
health servces as publk assistace an  appropri adjustments to this positon. 
Several programs admnistere by the Deparent of Public Health 
considere as public assistace for SUAG purses. This crates a burden on 
reui 
public health agencies who, for the fit tie, ar  to identify individual 
eligible legalze alens. 
clafy whl is 
RECOMMENDATION: The FSA and th INS should further  meant by 
public chae" and ''prnuuumtly residng umkr color of law," and widly disseminate 
stas. 
this informaton to alens who have raied concerns abut their residnt 
RECOMMENDATION: The FSA should mak its applkaton and grant award process 
more orderly. Specifally, FSA should 
wrttn  SLIAG application reuiments 
provide defiitive  instrctions on the 
mi 
and establish a dialogue with Masachusett on SLIAG policy, compliance, and 
occur 
reportg issues to  the confsion that  in the intial application 
process; 
ensur that sufficient tie is allott to the applicationf pororc ess includig 
Massachusetts' intial application, FSA' s review and  commnt, 
Massachusett' consideration of FSA comments and negotiation of disputes, and 
its submission of the revise application for FSA approval; 
progrs 
develop an appeals proess to use if  or costs associated with providing 
servces  the initial application process; and 
ar denied in 
revise the grant award proess for approved applications so that the notice of 
awar reaches Massachusett prior to the begiing of the fiscal year. 
grant 
RECOMMENDATION: The FSA should issue writtn guilines for determining and 
claiming administratve costs. Also, Massachusetts shoul develop methods for determining 
and documenting these costs. 
RECOMMENDATION: The Sta Deparents of Publk Welfare and Public Healh and 
the Bureau of AduU Educatn should develop a process or methodology to identify and 
document costs for servces and benefits to indiviua eligible legalized alens.  COMMENTS 
drt 
The FSA and Massachurseett bsotph cotmimvenete loyn th.e   report The comments ar included 
in Appendices B and C. 
agr 
The FSA generaly  with our fidigs and reommendations. The Startee. hpoowe ver, took 
exception to many of the statements mad in the report Neverteless, both  having 
taen a number of steps to improve implementation of SUAG. Where appropriate, we have 
moded the report bas on their comments.  ............................................................. .......... ......... 
.......................................... ....... ........  ............ .... ........... ....................... 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

I NTR 0 D UCTIO N  II........ II........ 1

PU RPOSE  .... ......... ....... 1

BACKG ROU ND ..................... ................... ......... ............ ......... .... ...... ....... ... 1

M ETHO DOLOG Y ................ ..... .... .... ........ ... 
...................118...... II.................... 

MASSACHUSETTS' ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE............. .................. 3

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................. 4

PU B LIC ASSISTANCE . ........ ... ....... ....11................... ...lIlIa...e...... ...... II.......... ... 5

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSISTANCE................................................ 6

ED U CA TI 0 No.. II II.. II II.. II".. II II.. II II.. II II III I III I.. II II.. II... II II.. II II.. II II.. II II.. II II.. II 11..8..... II... ".. tI"8................. 9

CROSSCUTTING ISSUES ...............""..8..............11...........",,11....... a."I1.......... 1 0

APPEN DIX A. ...........1111........  ...................... a. ....... ".8. .1111............. .... A -1

APPEN DIX B ............................... ................................ .........  ... ... ..... .... B

..11. ..11. 
APPENDIX C................ ................................ .....  .... ........... ..... .... C -1

...........11....... ..... .11.. INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE 
The Famy Support Admstrtion (FSA) reueste that the Ofce of Inspetor General 
nie States and the Distrct of Columbia to determe how 
(OIG) conduct an inspetion in 
effectivenly the States implemente the State Legalzation Impact Assistace Grats (SLIAG) 
progr awarde under the Imgrtion Reform and Control Act (ICA) of 1986. The 
identi  determg 
inspection included reviewing mehansms in place to  these funds and 
whether present or projecte policies and proedurs ader to FSA guidelies. The FSA also 
was interested in identig potential problems early in tie process and any goo practices 
which al States could shar. 
Ths report presents the results of the inspetion perting to the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts, referred to as "State 
BACKGROUND 
Under IRCA, eligible legalze alens may apply for pennanent residency with a I-year 
period after they are fIrt eligible (i.e., by the 31st month afr they receive temporar resident 
status). 
wi 
Ths new population  incrase the demad for State public assistace and public health 
wi  incras 
It  also  the demand for State educational 
assistace servces signcantly.  nee 
services as these new residents obta English language and civic skis  to become 
S. citizens. 
To help States defray many of the costs of providig public assistace, public health 
assistace, and educational servces to eligible legalize alens, IRCA authorize $1 bilion 
each year from Fiscal Year (F) 1988 thugh 1991 for SLIAG grts, less an amount 
identied as the "Federa offset." With few exceptions, eligible legalize aliens are ineligible 
for federaly funded public assistace progrs such as Aid to Famies with Dependent 
Childrn (AFC), foo staps, and Medcaid. The "Fedra offset" is the estiated cost 
legal 
the Fedral Government of providig these servces or benefits to those few  aliens 
mion 
who ar eligible for them. In FY 1988, the law alocate $928.  to States. 
Legaltion 
To reeive SLIAG funds, States must apply to the FSA Division of State 
adisterig 
Assistace, which is responsible for approving applications and  the program. 
The application must be approved in tota for a State to reeive any SLIG funds. The FSA  also provides States with tehnical assistace on policy issues and on the method used to 
veri 
determe costs and  actual costs. 
The basic reuiment for States to clai reimburement is that costs must be alowable, 
progr 
reasonable, and alocable. State public assistace and public health assistace  must 
be the same ones avaiable to the gener public. States canot crate new program in these 
areas speifcaly for eligible legalze alens. However, States may crate new or adtional 
education progrs for eligible legalze alens. States may also clai reimbursement for 
adstrtive 
progr adstrtive and SLIAG  costs. 
Reimburement for public assistace and public health assistace is limite only to the amount 
maum 
of State and local funds expende for SLIAG-relate costs. The  SLIAG 
legalze 
reimbursement for educational servces is an average of $500 per year per eligible 
alen. Detennng progr adstrtive costs is mad in accordce with the fmal 
regulation at 45 CP 402.22. 
adsterig 
The FSA is responsible for  the program Because SLIAG was a new program, 
real 
FSA  that problems would surace early in its implementation. In adtion to the 
reogn 
norm diculties encountere in cratig new processes and proedurs, FSA 
that SLIAG would have unque problems. Some of these issues include the diversity of 
progrs which SLIAG encompasses, cultu and language barers assoiate with the 
maitag 
servce population,  confdentialty of inormation, and the extrmely short time 
fres 
for the grant award process. 
METHODOLOGY 
The FSA selecte nie States and the Distrct of Columbia for the inspetion beause of the 
varety of program offere the number of eligible legalize aliens in the population, or the 
amount of the  States ar Arna, Caorna, Colorado, Florida lllinois, 
grt. The nie 
Massachusetts, New York, Texas, and Washigton. Ths report reviews Massachusetts 
progr 
implementation of the SLIAG  as of August 1988. 
strctu 
Pror to conductig the inspection, the OIG develope  discussion gudes for each 
major program activity at the State and local levels. We held on-site discussions with 
representatives frm the Offce for Refugees and Imgrts; Deparnt of Public Health; 
Offce of Communities and Development; Deparnt of Education, including potential 
providers; and Deparent of Public Welfar. 
Imgrts. 
The visits were coordinate by sta frm the Ofce for Refugees and  Pror to 
the visit, materials supplied by the Ofce for Refugees and Immgrts wer reviewed as well 
as the application that was approved by FSA. Materials supplied by respondents were also 
reviewed.  . ,, ;
MASSACHUSETTS' ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Imgrts 
The Offce for Refugees and  has ben designate as the single point of contact. 
Imgrts 
Organzationaly, the Offce for Refugees and  is in the Executive Ofce of Human 
Imgrts  cert 
eSxerevcucetisv.e  aTnhed  fOiscfcael s ftoar  Rsaelfaurgeese tso  aSnLd IAG adsttatiloocna,t ei n relatiopne troc ethneta tgiees  osfp ietsn t on 
prgr  grt. 
SLIAG. Direct SLIAG  sta ar fuly chared to the 
Hum 
The Deparent of Public Health is alo with the Executive Ofce of  Servces. 
Loal health servces ar adstere by local boar of heath, with the overa 
responsibilty resting with the State. In the State, there ar few muncipal health deparents 
and no county health deparnts. The Deparent of Public Health has regional and distrct 
maita a 
health offcers who  liaison role with individual boards of health. 
The Deparent of Public Welfar is also locate in the Executive Offce of Human Services. 
There  offces arund the State. Overa responsibilty rests with the commssioner. 
ar 63 local 
fude 
educational 
The Bureau of Adult Education is the responsible entity for SLIAG-
progr. It is locate in the Deparnt of Education which has ful jursdction for 
education at the local level. 
The Division of Housing is par of the Executive Ofce of Communities and Development. 
progrs 
This Division is responsible for  to assist individuals and famies which requir 
housing and energy assistace.
 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Both FSA and Massachusetts were commtted to identiying problems and developing 
innovative and effective solutions for them. Immediately following our on-site visits, FSA was 
given an outline of the State concerns identified in this report. 
1987 FSA has held national conferences and issued information to 
FINDING: Since 

States on implementing the SLIAG program. 
The FSA held several national conferences beginning in 1987 to share 
infonnation 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 Immgration and Naturalization Service (INS). 
FINDING: Massachusetts established a structure to identify organizational and program 
needs, and to adapt existing resources for SLIAG purposes. 
The heads of each deparent involved in implementing SLIAG programs have 
held many meetings with the Office for Refugees and Immigrants, and have 
designated specific persons responsible for SLIAG implementation and 
goo working relationship among all parcipa ting 
admistration. There was a 
agencies. 
The State s Executive Order Number 257 prevents agencies from requesting and 
disseminating information on citizenship status unless required by Federal 
statute. Questions on citizenship status have been removed from all applications 
for services and benefits. The State has diected resources to obtain the 
necessary progrm information and is moving to implement the SLIAG program 
despite these restrctions.

FINDING: Massachusetts also took steps to document expenditures and control 
disbursements. 
Massachusetts has recently implemented the Management Account Reporting 
System. This system provides for a unifonn reportng capabilty and wil be 
used by the Deparent of Education to document costs identifiable to specific 
eligible legalized aliens. As par of this system, the Office for Refugees and 
Immigrants can access the Deparment of Education s SLIAG account to 
monitor distrbution of funds and identify any excess funds that may have 
accumulated.  Neverteless, there were some fuds contrl vuerabilties. Findigs and reommndations 
aras. 
concerning these vulnerabilties follow under major topic 
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE 
Assistance or Serve Activis 
The Deparent of Public Welfar sought SUAG reimburment only for General Relief and 
retring 
Medcaid. Contrtors/providers may supply employment and  servces, day care 
unsur 
servces, and medcal car for the  eligible legalze alens. There were no new 
progrs 
established beause of SLIAG. 
Housing and related progr adstere by the Executive Offce for Communties and 
legal 
Development ar include in the servces avaiable to eligible  alens. The Fuel 
Assistace Prgram curntly supplements Fedra appropritions. To be eligible, the alens 
income must not excee 175 percent of the povert level. The Executive Ofce for 
Communties and Development was experiencing diculty in determnig benefits, 
espeialy in the low income home energy assistace progr. The usual proedure would be 
to review the enti household, but if one or more individuals but not the tota famy unit falls 
into the eligible legalze alen category, benefits for the individuals wi be diffcult to 
determe. 
The Gateway Cities Municipal Grats progr is also with the purew of ths offce. It 
was a new program in FY 1987 and was fully operational in FY 1988. The tagets are all 
immgrants and newcomers regardless of alen status. 
The Executive Offce for Communities and Development has not fully implemented the 
progr 
SLIAG porton of its  beause of insufcient gudace frm FSA. 
Stas 
Documentaton of Eligible Legalized Alien 
wi 
Public assistace program  use the same application proess for eligible legalze alens 
as ar used for al individuals reuesting servces. Ths includes the usual social work 
intervention and verication process. For General Relief, citizenship status is not requested, 
State residency is perfonn In the Medcaid progr, a retractive match 
but verication of 
citin 
search occurs before clai ar mad for eligible legalze alens; but there is not a "
field, which is par of the computer fIe. 
The Deparent of Public Welfar has not established a fonnal system to identify individual 
discation 
eligible legalize aliens due, in par, to the Executive Order s prohibition of 
based on alen status.  ' ", c' "  :j.;-- .."..." "
Program Costs 
The eligible legalize alens wi abide by the sam progr gu  lines as other reipients. 
Eligibilty for program servces wi be veried every six months. Vouchers for 
legal 
reimburment of servces for eligible  alens wi come into the State centry and 
thugh  scns, 
pass  normal edts and  with utization review a par of ths process. 
Administratve Costs

indit 
The Deparent of Public Welfar has its own  cost rate established by the U. 
estiate 
Deparent of Health and Human Servces (HS). For budget purses, the State 
adnistrative costs and the number of eligible legalze alens who would access servces. 
Ths estiate was done beause there was no history on the population or a qualty control 
curnt 
sample frm which costs could be projecte As a benchmark, the  legal resident 
alens' use rate was determed and a cost alocation formula use bas upon a percentage of 
the case load. It was felt that the smal estited case load of eligible legalze alens did not 
mod 
make it cost effcient to  the present accountig system. 
Drawdown of Funds and Cash Balanees 
Imgrts wi 
The Offce for Refugees and  drw SLIAG Fedra funds for public assistace 
each quarer, with reimbursement being procsse thugh the State treasurer s offce and 
deposit ditly to the State s genera fud. In effect, drwdown wi replace those State funds 
alady expende for SLIAG-relate servces. 
PUBLIC HEALTH ASSISTANCE 
Assistanee or Serve Activities 
wi 
The Deparent of Public Health  provide the followig public health assistace services: 
emergency medcal servces coodiation

uncompensate car,

community health centers, 
car, 
preventive denta 
famy health progrs, 
envionmenta health, 
health care qualty, 
alcohol and drg abuse prevention, 
AIS 
screenig and tratment,  immunizations,

Healthy Star Program,

handicapped childrn

lead poisoning prevention, 
tuberculosis screening and tratment, 
sexually transmitted diseases screening and 
treatment, and 
Gateway Cities Municipal Grants. 
The State had not established any new programs because of SLIAG funding. The Healthy 
Star Program is the newest program and has existed since FY 1986. Although listed in the 
public assistace porton of the State s SLIAG application, the program is within the 
operations of the Deparent of Health. 
All of the chronic care hospitals are State-owned and State-operated, and under the 
Deparent of Public Health's supervision. The intake workers in the Healthy Star and the 
handicapped childrens programs are State employees. The deparment contracts with the 
Women, Infants, and Childrens Program; community health centers (private organizations); 
drg 
alcohol and.  programs; and family health centers to provide public health assistance 
services. With regard to AIDS, the State provides outrach services and case management, 
and contracts for residence and hospice car. 
Documentation of Eligible Legalized Alien Status 
The Deparent of Public Health has not established a formal system to identify individual 
eligible legalized aliens because of the Executive Order that prohibits discrination because 
of alien status. The deparment feels they need more guidace in establishing a mechanism to 
retroactively identify the eligible legalized aliens. 
Program Costs 
Both State agencies and contractors/vendors are reimbursed after costs have been incurred, 
without any advance funds being paid. Most contractors ar expected to report expenses on a 
biweekly or monthly basis. Invoices ar submitted indicatig claied costs and ar reviewed 
by audit deparment staff located at the executive level. 
The Offce for Refugees and Immigrants wil drw SLIAG funds each quarer to the State 
treasurer s offce. For SLIAG reimbursable services, deposits ar made directly to the State 
general fund, since the services have been funded under the State s Appropriation Act. For 
contracts with private vendors, requests for proposals wil be wrtten and wil be treated as a  .. .
' .. ' .  . -, '
-u 
s cost of such programs is reimbursed from SLIAG. 
local grant. A portion of the State 
However, there are no service contracts or grants diectly attached to SLIAG funds. 
FINDING: The FSA's definition of public assistance includes some public health 
assistance activities which created administrative and service delivery problems for 
Massachusetts' public health agencies. 
progr 
or service is considered public health, the population ratio method for 
If a 
progr 
establishing costs can be used. However, where the public health  is considered 
public assistace, a new burden is imposed upon the public health agencies which must 
develop and implement new procedures for identifying individual eligible legalized alens to 
document costs. Severa progrms administered by the Deparent of Public Health and 
progrs 
Division of Housing ar considered public assistance  for SLIAG reimbursement 
satisfy the needs of the SLIAG application, programs within public health were 
puroses. To 
split between public health assistance and public assistance. Although this breakout is based 
arcial 
on Federal guidelines, the deparment feels that it is an  definition. Agency staff 
concerned that asking individuals about legal status wil seriously afect their 
offcials are also 
accessing public health available services. 
RECOMMENDATION: The FSA should reconsider its position to classify certain public 
health services as public assistance and make appropriate adjustments to this position. 
Administrative Costs

The Deparent of Public Health has its own indiect cost rate established by the HHS. 
Administrative costs for FY 1989 are expected to be 1.5 percent of tota expenses. 
Reimbursement for public health administration wil be distrbuted in proporton to program 
costs. Since there was no history on this population or a sampling conducted, the State 
estimated the number of people who wil access the services as well as the administrative 
costs. 
Drawdown of Funds and Cash Balances 
Quarerly, the Offce for Refugees and Imigrants wil draw SLIAG funds to the State 
trasurer s office. For SLIAG public health services, reimbursement wil be deposited directly 
to the State s general fund.  . '- :_' ~- ,,,
EDUCATION 
Assistance or Service Activities 
Educational activities wil center around adult education and fall under the jursdiction of the 
Deparent of Education s Bureau of Adult Education. English as a Second Language classes 
and citizenship classes wil be offered to eligible legalized aliens. No new programs have 
been established, but there are plans to expand the existig programs and to negotiate 
contrcts with new providers. 
The majority of curnt services ar provided by contrctors. These include basic adult 
education and kidergarn though grde 12 equivalent coures, coures in secondar 
education leading to a Genera Equivalency Diploma, native language courses considered a 
precuror to classes in English as a Second Language, and grants given to local school boards. 
In addition, the deparent provides services and tutorig programs in correctional facilities, 
but neither of these wil be claimed as par of the SLIAG progrm. 
Documentation of Eligible Legalized Alien Status 
The actual system to identify eligible legalized aliens had not been implemented as of the 
review period because the Deparent of Education had not yet issued its request for 
proposals for SLIAG-funded classes. The bureau indicated that it is waiting to receive 
guidance  what system wil be acceptable. Adaptation of the currnt enrollment system 
as' to 
wil be made by checking alien card numbers and adding pertnent questions at intake. 
In the absence of an overal list of eligible legalized aliens, contrcts wil be made with 
vendors on "good faith" using application projections from a statewide data base. Moreover, 
the currnt refugee policy is bound by the Executive Order covering aricles on 
nondiscrination which prevents agencies from requesting and disseminating information on 
citizenship status unless required by Federal statute. All applications in use have these 
have not established a formal system to 
questions deleted. Therefore, education agencies also 
identify individual eligible legalized aliens. The Deparment of Education, however, feels that 
it wil be able to document outcomes through its performnce-based contracts. The overall 
accounting system to monitor the accounts for all the programs has not been finalized. 
Massachusetts has relied almost entirely on service population estimates provided by the 
Immgration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Deparent of Health and Human Services, 
qualified designated entities, and unserved number estimates. As a resident of Massachusetts, 
the seasonal agrcultural worker wil be eligible for all services. 
Program Costs 
The Deparent of Education had not established guidelines for identifying eligible legalized 
aliens and determining program costs.  . . - .- .. " .
Administrative Costs 
The Deparent of Education s indiect cost rate is 10 percent and was established by the 
Deparent of Education. The guidelines for determning actual admnistrative and program 
costs have not been fmalized. It is anticipated that the bureau wil use a performance-based 
formula in contracting with providers. 
The Deparent of Education had stated that its actual admistrative costs for the education 
progrs wil far exceed the 1.5 percent ceilng permtted under SLIAG. 
Drawdown of Funds and Cash Balances 
Based on previous experience with education contractors, cash advances ar an uncommon 
practice. Community-based organizations might request an advance, but it would be a 
minimal advance payment In discussions, potential vendors revealed that advanced funds 
would be needed for publicity. 
The accounting system wil not have to be moded. The curent Massachusetts Management 
Account Reportng System is an effcient and unifonn reportng system. The decision as to 
whether the Office of Refugees and Immigrants or the Deparent of Education wil draw 
s office has not been made. The funds 
education-related SLIAG funds into the State trasurr 
wil subsequently be transferred into an account in the Deparent of Education. Since 
educational programs do not have 
State-appropriated funds, SLIAG funding must be available up front to allow the Bureau to 
progr 
spend on  activities. 
The automated account in the comptroller s offce allows the Offce for Refugees and 
Immgrnts to monitor balances by accessing the account with the Office of Human Services 
special code. Allocations which are not spent for educational programs would raise questions 
about the need of the service or its low enrollment. 
CROSSCUTTING ISSUES 
FINDING: Conflicting interpretations of the terms "public charge  and "permanently 
residing under color of law" have caused uncertainties for aliens as to what services they 
are entitled to receive without 
fear of deportation. 
The single point of contact agency indicated that varous interpretations and a great deal of 
confusion had centered around the meaning of "public charge." Not having a clear 
understanding of "public charge" places the single point of contact agency or the local 
staff-level person at a disadvantage and may jeopardize the individual' s status as an eligible 
legalized alien.  Also, the definition of "permanently residing under color of law" was confusing to the 
agencies. This category is open to interpretation and is also confusing to eligibilty workers, 
because varous programs may treat this definition differently. 
RECOMMENDATION: The FSA and the INS should further clarify what is meant 
public charge" and "permanently residing under color of law," and widely disseminate 
this information to aliens who have raised concerns about their resident status. 
FINDING: The FSA application review process created a number of signifcant problems 
for Massachusetts. Also, the FSA's application review process interfered with the State 
ability to plan 
for services. 
Delay in FSA issuing the implementing regulation resulted in the State 
SLIAG. 
inabilty to properly plan for 
Numerous policy misinterpretations and disagreements resulted because FSA 
did not provide definitive wrtten instrctions to assist Massachusetts 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. 
Implementing SLIAG-funded programs was delayed because of a significant 
delay in notifying Massachusetts of the 
grnt award. 
No formal appeals process exists if progrms or costs ar denied in the first level 
review. 
Accordig to final regulations published Marh 10, 1988, States had to submit the FY 1988 
application no later than May 16, 1988. Revisions to the application had to be submitted by 
, 1988, and the FY 1989 application had to be submitted no later than July 15, 1988. 
July 1
Massachusetts submitted its first application on May 12, 1988, and a revised application on 
June 14, 1988, which was approved on June 23, 1988. At the time of the review in August 
1988, the grant funding had not been awarded. This delay parcularly impacted educational 
progrs 
since Massachusetts had not allocated State funds for these programs up front.  .. ' ' , . " ,:,. :"'. "'-
RECOMMENDATION: The FSA should make its application and grant award process 
more orderly. Specifcally, FSA should 
provide definitive wrtten instrctions on the SLIAG application requirments 
and establish a dialogue with Massachusetts on SLIAG policy, compliance, and 
reportng issues to minimize the confusion that occured in the initial application 
process; 
ensur that sufficient time is allotted to the application process including 
Massachusetts ' initial application, FSA' s review and formal comment, 
Massachusetts ' consideration of FSA comments and negotiation of disputes, and 
its submission of the revised application for FSA approval; 
develop an appeals process to use if programs or costs associated with providing 
services are denied in the initial application process; and 
revise the grant award process for approved applications so that the notice of 
grant award reaches Massachusetts prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. 
FINDING: At the time of the inspection, Massachusetts had not received formal guidelines 
from FSA on determining and claiming SUAG administrative costs, and Massachusetts 
and documenting these costs. 
had not developed methods for determining 
The State Deparments of Public Welfare and Public Health, as well as the Bureau of Adult 
Education, recognize the need for capturng admnistrtive costs. However, as of the time of 
the review, they had not developed methodologies to do this. 
The agencies indicated that there is a need for fonnal guidelines dealing with acceptable 
methods of documenting admnistrative costs. The agencies felt that adequate guidelines did 
not exist for them to determne alowable SLIAG admnistrative activities. 
However, Massachusetts agencies must recognize that there are limits on the diections that 
FSA can provide. Guidelines must be flexible enough to accommodate varations in State 
systems and internal processes. Ultimately, Massachusetts, as the grantee, is responsible for 
developing and implementing SLIAG program activities, and for documenting administrative 
costs and expenditures. 
RECOMMENDATION: The FSA should issue written guidelines for determining and 
claiming administrative costs. Also, Massachusetts should develop methodsfor determining 
and documenting these costs.  FINDING: The State Departments of Public Welfare and Public Health and the Bureau of 
Adult Education had not established methods to document costs 
for services and benefits to 
individual eligible legalized aliens. 
Although each agency realzes the importance of determning eligible legalized alen status at 
intake, the curent philosophy of Massachusetts is to serve al those who qualfy for the 
services requested. This philosophy is reinforced by the curent Executive Order which 
prohibits discrimiation against State residents because of alien status. Because of this 
progrs 
Executive Order and some  being shifted to other agencies for SLIAG purposes, the 
agencies had not developed a system to document costs for services and benefits to individual 
eligible legalized aliens. However, the Executive Order s arcle on nondiscrimination does 
contain a provision allowing citizenship information to be requested for Federal purposes. 
RECOMMENDATION: The State Departments of Public Welfare and Public Health and 
the Bureau of Adult Education should develop a process or methodology to identify and 
document costs for services and benefits to individual eligible legalized aliens.  . '' . - ..."
OIG RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 
drt 
The FSA and the Commonwealth of Masachusett both commente on the  report. 
The FSA 
agr 
The FSA has generaly  with the OIG report fidigs and reommendations. The FSA 
progr 
has taen a number of steps to improve implementation of the SLIAG  includig 
prours, 
claryig program policies and  as well as gudace on establishig and 
documentig admstrative and progr costs. 
The FSA questioned the statement that the new population would signifcantly increas public 
assistace and public health assistace servces. Early estiates indicate that large numbers 
reogn 
I of alens would qualy to access the SLIAG progr. The report  that inonnation 
obtaned durg the review determned that substatial incrases in workload and 
expenditus could occur in these aras as well as in education. However, we understad from 
' offcials that demand for services nationaly is falg behid 
reent discussions with States
earlier projections. 
The FSA's defition of public assistace include some public health activities which crated 
adstrative and servce delivery problems for Masachusett' public health agencies. The 
OIG recommended that FSA reonsider ths position. The FSA replied that they se ths 
priary 
as an issue of cost identication and that they wi work with the States to develop 
method of documentig costs which ar consistent with FSA's responsibilties as stewards of 
public funds. We believe that FSA's actions to identiy alternative method is responsive to 
our concerns. 
We contiue to believe that a strct interpretation which permts public health costs to be
clai 
only for specifc eligible legalze alens is burdensome to the States and, in many 
cass, would reuir considerable revisions to the States' system or statutory requirments. 
agr 
However, we do  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 reuirg States to develop new systems 
or make considerable revisions to present systems. The population ratio method could be 
revised to consider not only eligible legalize aliens in the servce population, but use of those 
services by the eligible legalze alien population bas on infonntion alady obtaned from 
progr 
experience. Where appropriate, other alteatives might be use which would 
adss 
produce a more effcient system for the States and  congrssional intent that the States 
would not be required to establish new or elaborate systems. 
We reognze FSA's effort in cooperation with the INS to assist the States in learing more 
about the INS policy on public charge issues.  . . :. ,
for 
progr 
We report that no  appeals proess exists if  costs ar denied in the fIrst level 
review. We agree with FSA' s statement that the Grat Appeals Board dos have jursidiction 
over matters for witholdig and repayment of SLIG fuds. However, it was the States 
progr 
concern that an effective appeals mechansm be in plac for issues involvig 
pross. 
costs at the fIrst level of FSA' s review in the application 
clar cert 
The FSA mad numrous comments to  mattrs of fact, policy, or procedur. 
We have include these commnts verbati in Appendi 
The Commonwealh of Massaehusett 
ma 
The State took exception to may of the statements  in thet iG IG report Their comments 
are include verbati in Appendi C. Neverteless, since the  of the on-site review, the 
State has taen signcant steps to effectively implement the SLIAG progr thugh 
procedur and system changes. Masachusett, along with other States, has worked with INS 
and HHS and made signcant effort to clary the "public chare" issue, which has been a 
deterrent to eligible legalze alens in accessing servces. 
The State also clared severa policy and proedur aras as well as its organational 
strctue descrbe in the drt report We have mad some modcations in the report based 
on their comments.  . '
. ..' ., '
APPENDIX A

GOOD PRACTICES
 A number of practices have been identified that other States could share. 
progrs. 
Massachusetts has implemented a new unifonn reportng system for education 
Ths system appear effcient and wil provide the basis from which costs can be captured 
for eligible legalizd aliens, and reports submitted timely. 
The Offce for Refugees and Immgrts has developed a methodology of monitoring 
funds allottd to the Deparent of Education. An automated account in the comp
Imgrts 
trller s offce permts the Offce for Refugees and  to access the Deparent 
of Education s SLIAG account with an Offce of Human Services ' special code. This 
process permts the Offce for Refugees and Immgrants to determne if SLIAG funds are 
being disbursed as planned or if excesses may have accumulated. 
Immgrts 
The Offce for Refugees and  took the initiatve to hold numerous meetings 
with heads of involved State deparents. This faciltated effective communications and 
The 
education toward implementation and dissemination of program provisions. 
deparents' assignment of designated staf to work with the Deparent for Refugees 
and Imgrants also was an important step.  APPENDIX B

FAMIL Y SUPPORT ADMINISTRATION'S COMMENTS
 -. 
~..~ ,~

-.-.
, -' ;' .' '.  .
.. ..w.., 
mily Support Administration 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES	
Memorandum 
September 22 t 1989	
Dilte:  Acting Assistant Secretary 
for Family Support 
From: 
OIG Draft Report: Implementation of the State Legalization 
Impact Assistance Grants Unde  the Immigration Reform and 
(OAI-07-88
Subject:  Control Act of 1986 - State of Massachusetts 
00447) 
To:	 Richard P. Kusserow 
Inspector General 
Attached are the Family Support Administration comments on

the above report. 
Many of our comments are technical 

nature due to the complexity of the legislation and the

fact that the SLIAG program was very new at the time of the

review. 
we have 
We appreciate the assistance and cooperation 
received from you in response to our request to conduct this 
program.I   ,

round of reviews of the SLIAG  The reports we 
received are very useful to us in understanding how States
are impl emen Eing the program.  ' L-.

.v. 
t. 
'0f(/ l  ' A 
Cal  erine Bertini 
Attachment  - .
.. ..
DRA 
OIG  REPORT: 
Implementation of the state Legalization Impact Assistance

Grants 
Under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986:

MASACHSE'S 
The Family Support Administration' s comments are divided 
into three sections: 
Comments on background information and 
other narrative material that does not relate directly to -the 
draft report's findings, co  ents on the findings, and responses 
to the draft report's recommendations. 
Narrative 
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 is .or upon what data and

analysis the conclusion is based. The final report should

clarify these points.

scovered 
In the course of implementing SLIAG, we have di
that neither state and local public health programs nor, with 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 and public 
health assistance services. 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 t at a backlog of public

heal th needs existed and were identified during the medical

examinations required of all applicants for legalization.

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.
 . .
(Background) -- The draft report says, ns't:::' 
:::r;...  Page 2  '; lt'1st

develop a method acceptable to FSA for determining 
administrative costs. 
The final report should note that 
several methods for determining the share of administrative 
costs in ongoing programs that are allocable to SLIAG and which 
a Driori are specified in the regulation at 45 CFR
are acceptable 
402. 22 (b). The process of determining SLIAG administrative costs 
(those costs incurred in administering the SLIAG grant itself), 
like all costs associated with administering HHS grants, is 
governed by 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92 and relevant OMB circulars. 
Findinas 
Finding:	 Since 1987, FSA has held national 'conferences and 
issued information to States on im lementing the SLIAG 
program. 
' in 
Comments: Since the OIG's onsite visits August 1988, we have 
continued to provide assistance to States. . We have 
conducted several more workshops and meetinqs 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 are in the process of conducting 
initial program reviews of the major States, and intend 
to visit selected other States as well. 
We request 
dialoge 
that the final report reflect this continuing 
states. 
wi th 
Finding:	
The FSA's definition of public assistance includes some 
public health activities which creates administrative 
and service delivery problems for Massachusetts.  '" .
i.. r; 
u . 
'= question how the definitions of public health and
public assistance create service delivery problems for

Massachusetts' public health agencies. By law and

regulation, all programs or activities 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. In 
most programs, immigration status is not 
a condition of eligibility. 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.

' is. no quarrel with 
The draft report notes that "there
the logic of FSA's definition of p  lic assistance

versus public health, 
" but does not explain why the OIG 
recommends that FSA reverse its logic. The final-
report should .
explain that the regulatory definitions 
of public assistance and public health assistance are

based directly on IRCA.

Programs of public assistance are defined as programs

that "
provide for cash, medical or other 
assistance.. . 
9ned to meet the basic subsistence or 
health needs of individuals" (section 204 (j) (2) (A)

emphasis added). Consistent with IRCA' s explicit

inclusion of medical assistance under the public

assistance category, FSA considers state or locally

funded programs that provide medical treatment to needy

program. 
individuals 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-

B-4
 .:;, 
,. .
. !,. r. . 
c diseases, and family planning services" 
(section 204 (j) (3) (A) J. These statutory definitions 
and the legislative history indicate that Congress 
intended to allow certain traditional public health 
functions under the public health assistance category 
and medical assistance to the needy under the public 
assistance category. In 
implementing SLIAG, we have 
defined 
followed that statutory framework. We have 
public health assistance as, among other things, 
programs or activities that Rare provided for the 
primary purpose of protecting the health of the 
general public" (45 CFR 402.2 J . The scope of programs

included in that regulatory definition of public health

assistance goes far beyond the specific activities

listed in 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. 
Under our regulation, states are allowed to use a 
numer of 
single ratio of the  ELAs in the service 
population to the total service population to 
establish actual costs for public health assistance 
SLIAG. Implicit 
programs, as defined for  in this 
method is the assumption that eligible 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. To the contrary, the information that we

have to date indicates that allowing use of the

population ratio method for these programs generally

would overstate costs, dramatically in some cases.

However, we would be willing to allow use of the
 ;\::'. 
popul3.'  1 ;  0- " :d:hod for any program for which there 
emDirical basis to indicate that doing so would

is an 

not overstate costs. 
FSA realizes that many public assistance and public 
heal th assistance programs do not routinely collect 
information on immigration status but has found that 
numers. 
these programs do collect social security 
That is why we funded and devoted substantial staff 
resources to developing a system that will match the 
numers of 
social security  program participants with 
those of newly legalized aliens. This system gives 
numer of 
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. Recently, we sent state 
SLIAG Single Points of Contact suggestions for other 
possible methods for establishing costs. None of these 
al ternati ve methods requires setting up new 
administrative mechanisms or checking the status of all 
program participants. 
We will continue to work closely with Massachusetts to 
develop methodologies to document costs for all 
applications . 
programs in its approved 
FL,ding:  The FSA application review process created a numer of 
significant problems for Massachusetts. 
Also, the 
FSA' s application review process interfered with the 
state' 
s ability to plan for services. 
Comments:  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
 -' ::'.  ::.:,?  " '
. .. 
have been '  .., 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 ' maj or reason for the 
compressed timeframe was that we could not award funds 
to any State until all states I 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 all states 
before we can calculate state I s allocations. 
The draft report says that '"
numerous policy 
misinterpretations and disagreements resulted because 
FSA did not provide definitive written instructions or 
requirements. "  more time, we would have 
Had there been 
' in writing. 
. communicated more extensively Our current 
practice is to communicate in writing on all 
substantive issues regarding state applications, 
year reports. 
amendments, and end-of-
The report says that no formal appeals process exists 
if programs or costs are denied. The Grant Appeals 
Board has jurisdiction over issues related to the 
wi tholding and repayment of funds. For other matters, 
the State may follow normal procedures for disagreeing 
findinq. 
with an aqency 
indinq:	
At the time of the inspection, the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts had only informal guidelines from FSA on 
determininq and claiminq SLIAG administrative costs, 
and Massachusetts had not developed methods for 
determining and documenting these costs.  .. 
C"D'r.  ':s:	 Several metb,("  for detE-,:'" '  lC' :- ' ..hare 
administrative costs in ongoing programs that are

a Driori

allocable to SLIAG and which are acceptable 	
are specified in the regulation at 45 CFR 402.22 (b) . 
Addi tional guidance is offered in the manual 
"Establishing and Documenting Actual Costs, " October 
1988, Modules 8 and 9. The process of determining 
SLIAG administrative costs, like all costs associated

with administering HHS qrants, is qoverned by 45 CFR

Parts 74 and 92 and relevant OMB circulars.

We would like to note that this comment applies to the 
draft report's discussion under public assistance 
administrative costs and public health assistance 
administrative costs. We aqree wi  the draft report' 
assertion that 
" (UJ 1 timately Massachusetts, as the 
for... fiscal docuentation of 
qrantee, is responsible 
costs and expenditures. 
Recommendations 
Recommendation:  The FSA should reconsider its position to 
classify certain public health services as public assistance and

make appropri  adjustments to this position.

Response:	 As discussed above, the primary issue relatinq to the 
definitions of public assistance and public health 
assistance is one of cost docuentation . States would 
like to use the population ratio method for all 
departents. 
proqrams run by their health  The final 
report should clarify whether the OIG is recommendinq 
that we allow use of the population ratio in proqrams 
where, as discussed above, its use would likely 
overstate actual costs.  ';g 
:' .. 
nr all 
We .. .  ;tieve that using . ,  populat?f.. i": ,?-t-hod 
programs run by state health departments would be

inconsistent with our responsibility to exercise fiscal

responsibilities in establishing actual costs,

especially where ELAs are a small percentage of a 
State' 
s population or for programs that few ELAs 
access. We will 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 responsibilities as 
funds. 
stewards of public 
Recommendation: The FSA and the Immigration and Naturalization

Service  ' meant by "public 
(INS) should further clarify what is
charge" and "permanently residing under colo  of law" : and widely 
disseminate this information to the alien population who have

raised concerns about its resident status.

Response:	 Under IRCA and the Immigration and Nationality Act, the 
INS alone is responsible for determining whether 
individuals are likely to become public charges. 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 agencies.

However, we agree that it is important that all 
issue. 
concerned know INS policy on the public charge 
INS representatives have made presentations at 
virtually all of our workshops and conferences. 
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
 . ) 

tiI?!  t'l. icy of dissem:i , ,.'t. ing any :t'  !1t 
f--.  , 0;
; t 
receive. 
information that we 
Recommendation:  The FSA grant process should be made more 
orderly. 
Response:	 The draft report's recommendation refers to the FSA 
grant process, but the specifics indicate that it is 
referring to the SLIAG application and grant award 
process. The language of the recommendation should be 
more specific. 
We agree that the application process should be

conducted in a more orderly fashio  than was the case

for the initial submissions. As the draft report

indicates, the timeframes for the FY 1988 and FY 1989

application processes were necessarily short. 

effect, the states and we 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 empirical 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.

In order to reduce the possibility of

misunderstanding, we have advised states that we will

communicate all substantive questions and concerns on

their FY 1990 applications in writing, as was done for

B..10  .. -
, -
States'  xt.ensive 
era\..  "".'1'  ::.:. We issued 
written guidance on the FY 1990 application process and

the standards we will apply. The draft report also

recommends that we develop an appeals process to use if 
programs or costs associated with providing services 
process. 
are denied in the initial application  . We 
not believe such a process is necessary. The 
Department' s Grant Appeals Board has jurisdiction over 
funds. 
cases involving the repayment or withholding of 
Normal channels wi thin the Department are open to 
States that disagree with decisions made during the 
review. 
course of application 
PUlic 
Recommendation: The State Departents of  Welfare and 
Pulic 
Health and the Bureau of Adult Educat on should develop a 
process or methodology to identify and do ument costs for

services and benefits to individual eligfble legalized aliens.

Response:  HHS has made a variety of options for tracking costs 
available to states. If it is not possible or cost

effective for States to base their SLIAG related costs

on an actual count of eligible legalized aliens

accessing services, states may opt to use the Cost 
(for 
Documentation System, the population ratio method 
public health assistance), or statistical sampling, or 
the State may suggest alternative methods to HHS.  APPENDIX C

MASSACHUSETTS' COMMENTS
 ..,

, . 
The CommonwE.alth of Massachusetts

Hum?;; Services

Executivs OffIce of 
l.'i; 
Office For ReftJgses an:; Immi5'rcn:s

Two Boyl  ton Street, 8oston  lassacr, usetts 02116 
, r'
MICHAE.L. 5. DUKA: 
GOV5:RNOR 
PHILIP W. JOHNSTON  AREA CODE: (6 t 7) 
5E:CRETARV  727-7883 
DANIEL M. LAM 
CIRE:C'rOR  September 21, 1989 
Mr. Richard P. Kusserow 
Inspector Genera 
Office of the Inspector Genera
Deparent of Health and Human Servces 
Washington, D.C. 20201 
Dear Mr. Kusserow: 
Enclosed is our response to the draft inspection report entitled "Implementation of the State 
Imgrtion 
Legalization Impact Assistace Grats under the  Refonn and Control Act of 
1986: Commonwealth of Massachusetts" issued by the Offce of the Inspector Genera (OIG) 
in June, 1989. This report presented findings from the OIG's visit to Massachusetts in July, 
. 1988. The inspection was intended to be broad in scope; its  to identify potential 
purose was 
problems with SLIAG programs and to offer states general assistace at the beginning stages 
of SLIG' implementation. 
Unfortunately, the OIG review is of limited usefu1nes$ because it occured before the 
Deparment of Health and Human Servces issued offcial policy guidace regarding the 
claing of costs from SLIAG. Many o  the ala fmdings result directly from this absence' of 
claing 
a clearly defined federal policy or directive regarding the implementation of cost 
methods. Since the tiIrc or the review, H:S poiicy gddace has been issued, Massachusetts 
has received official HHS approval for prog:'a-specific methods to identify SLIAG-related 
costs, and actual costs have been reported fer:he majority of these programs for Federal 
Fiscal Year 1987 and 1988. 
Further, t.'1e OrG drt report includes a number of specific findings and other statements 
contaning errors of fact. We appreciate the opportnity to identify these errors, and to present 
infonnation to clary the issues. We hope that you will incorprate this infonnation into :,'our 
final report, 
Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any qU
Jstions. (\ 
v Sincerely

I I 
' I

2)L

1\\ 
'-a."1iel M. 
uirec;:)r 
Enclosure 
C..  COl\1MENTS 
IASSACHUSETTS 
TO DTIAFT OIG REPORT ON 
SLIAG IMPLEMENT A TION 
September. 1989 
OIG Statement: Backeround (Executive Summary. "Oaee i)

. The /SUAGj payments also cover educational services designed to assist eligible

legalized aliens to attain a satisfactory level of performnce in school and to achieve

English language proficiency and citizenship skils necessary to become permnent

residents.

Massachusetts Comment 
. Uncer the Imgration Refonn and Control Act and SLIAG reguations, allow ble 
educational servces are much broader than this. States may pay for serces descrbed in 
(E) 
the Adult Education Act delivered to eligible legalze alen  adults not enrlled in 
school, up to a specifed average dollar amount. For Federal Fiscal Years 1989 and 1990 
Massachusett has  ts SLIAG funds to provide English as a 
chosen to prioritize the use of 
Second Laguage (ESL) and Civics classes designed to help ELA's become permanent 
resident. 
(7). 3) 
Descrimion 
. The Offce for Refugees and Immigrants has allocated 30% of select staf positions to the 
SUAG program. 
Comment 
. After lengty discussions with Region I FSA staf, the Office for Refugees and 
lffjgrants alocated certain percentages of central OR! executive and fiscal staff salares 
tie 
to SLIAG adnistration. in relation to the  spent on SLIAG. Direct SLIAG program 
grt. 
staf are fully charged to the 
Findir!  also Exec. Summarv 
(7). 3.  TJ. 
. The FSA held several national conferences to share informtion with states on the

documentation of costs. The FSA also provided states with "Question and Answer

issuances and demographic datafrom the INS.

Comment 
. OffIcial HHS policy regarding cost documentation methods was not furnished to States

until October, 1988, long after the OIG visit. The Question and Answer issuance

infon 
provided  guidance only, and focussed on grant application procedures rather

than cost claiming methodologies. 
c-z  . ) 

Finding  12. 
(T?p.  13.  also
. The State s Executive Order  prevents agencies from requesting information
Numer  257 
on citizenship status zmless required by Federal statute, Questions on citizenship statu 
have been removedfrom all applicationsfor services and benets. 
Comment 
. The Governor's Executive Order Number 257 prohibits employees or agents of the 
progr  imgrtion 
Commonwealth from asking  applicants about their citienship or 
status unless reuired by federa straetuqteu, irgeg ulation, or cour dcecesriotn . It dopesr onogt r. 
supersede State statutes explicitly  such inquires for  State 
The policy is designed to prevent the creation of reguatory or procedura barers to 
progrs 
access for  which do not have a legal eligibilty requiement based on citizenship 
or immgrtion statUs, and which would tend to discrminate agaist non-citizens in a 
varty of immgrtion statuses, as well as citizens who migh t appear or sound "foreign
Progr 
which do not have legal authorty to condition eligiblity for benefits on the 
imgrtion 
grounds of citienship or  status have removed such questions from their 
applications. 
The Goveror s Legal Counsel has made a detemration that the Executive Order permts 
agencies to obtain immigrtion statUs informtion for cenan programs, as it is required 
Imgrtion 
by the  Refonn and Control Act cratig SLIAG, and the SLIAG regulations, 
in order to chum federal reimbursement. 
Massachusetts has worked closely with FSA to establish cost-claimig methods for 
progr 
which minimize the need to inquie into applicants' immgration 
statUs, as this 
tends to discourage eligible applicants from using services which they need. Chief 
among these methods is the computerized Cost Doumentation System, operated under 
contrct by Manin Maretta Corporation, which counts the number ofELA' s using a 
program through matching Social Securty numbers. 
Finding (p.  4.  also iii 
. There arefund control vulnerabilties. 
Comment 
. Massachusetts strongly objects to this asserton. No specifc fund control vulnerabilties 
are identified anywhere in the report It is our belief that al funds administered by this 
office and other SLIAG parcipating agencies are meticulously controlled, 
Finding 
(D. 
. The Department of Public Welfare wil offer Ge1Ura! Relief Medicaid under specifc

circumstances, homeless services, refugee reserrleT7nt, Supplemental Security income

(551;, and employment and retraining services 
for ELAs.

Comm!'nt 
. ELAs are not eligible for refugee resettlement progrs. Of the other progrms cited, 
Massachusetts has sought SLlAG reimbursement only for General Relief and Medicaid,  I) 
Descrimion (T). 5) 
. The Division of Housing is responsible for programs to assist individuals and familes 
that require energy and housing assistance. The Gateway Cities Municipal Grants 
program is also within the puriew of the Housing Division. 
Comment 
. The Executive Offce for Communties and Development (EOC) is responsible for these 
program. Housing and renta assistace program ar within EOCD's Division of 
Housing Development Fuel Assistance is administered by the Division of 
Neighborhood and Economic Opportunity. The Gateway Cities Program is within the
Division of Municipal Development 
Findine (T). 5) 
statu.  aforrl 
. The Departmnt of Public Welfare ha not established  system to identify
individual ELAs due to the Executive Order s prohibition of discrimination based on alien
Com'Tent 
. At the tie of the O G review, the Deparent of Public Welfare had not developed a fInal 
cost claimig methodology for Genera Relief or Medcaid. The Deparent was waiting 
for FSA to issue guidelines for the CDS system. 
claig 
The Executive Order was not the obstacle to establishing a  system. For 
irrgrtion 
example, documentation of a non-citizen applicant  status is presented as 
pan of the Medcaid application process. However, the applicant s alen registration 
number does not appear as a field in the Deparent s client trackig system. The 
Deparent did not be :eve that revising its computer system to include such a field would 
be cost-effective in order to clai a very small amount of SLIAG reimbursement, when a 
system based on matChing Social Securty numbers (aleady in the computer  ) was 
being made available by HHS. At present, Massachusetts is utiizing CDS in order to 
determne costs of Medcaid ar.. Genera Relief assoiated with ELAs. 
Findin  also iW 
(T).  7. 
. T  FSA's defnition of public assistance includes some public health assistance activities 
an 
which created administrative  service delivery problems for Massachusetts' public 
health agencies. 
Comment 
. For public assistance programs, SLIAG is solely a funding mechanism to reimburse 
progrs. 
states for servces provided to BLA's in qualifying existing  Consequently, the 
implementation of SLIAG in no way affected the actual delivery of servces 
to clients. 
FSA' s broad definition of public assistace, which included several programs 
traditionaly regarded as public health and delivere though the public health system, 
placed a heavy administrti-' e burden upon the State, and wil undoubtedy result in 
unreimbured SLIAG-related costs. A similar cae can be made for the impact on mental 
health services. We support the OIG recommendation on p. 8 that FSA reconsider its 
posi tion.

C.;4  1 ' 

-4

10)  Descrimion (rY. 7) 
. For f Departmnt of Public Health SUAG-reimbv;rsable activities) contracts with private 
vendrs, req  sts for proposals wil be written and treated as a local grant. 
Comment 
. As stated in the drt repons previous sentence, DPH services ar funded though the 
State s appropriation act The Deparment establishes service contrcts for some 
programs, paid by the State s appropriated funds. A ponion of the State s cost of such 
progrs 
(including any contracts) is reimbured from SLlAG; however, there are no 
servce contrcts or grants diectly attached to SLlAG funds. 
11)  Findine (p. 9) 
ha 
. The Departmnt of Education  not implemented a system to identify ELAs as of the 
review period. Adaptation of the current enrollment wil be made by checking alien card 
numbers at intake. Current refugee policy is bound by the Executive Order covering 
articles on nondscrimination which prevents agencies from req  sting and disseminating 
informtion on citizenship status.

Comment 
. The Deparent had not implemented a client trckig system because it had not yet 
issued its request for proposals for SLIAG-funded classes. As these classes were 
designed explicitly for BLs, the Deparent was prepared to (and did) requie all 
SLIG-funded program to record enrllees' alen registrtion numbe. rs at intake. Agai, 
as noted earlier, the Executive Order did not bar collecting such information, as it is 
requir by federa regulation. 
12)  Descrimion (D. 9)

. It is anticipated thot since admnistrative costs for the education programs are low, the

program wil be fully  of the grantfor administra!ive costs.

funded with  15% 
Comment 
. To the contrar, from the begining the Deparment has stated that its actual admnistrative 
costs for the education programs wil far exceed the 1.5% ceiling. Massachusetts has 
joined may other states in seekig a chang in SLIAG to pennt a higher ceiling to reflect 
actual costs. 
13)  Findine (D. 10. also un 
. Conflicting interpretations of the term "public charge" and "permanently residing under 
the color of law" ha caused confusion an.ong immigrants as to what services the are 
eligible to receive. 
Comment 
. The confusion stems directly from the absence of clear INS policy diectives regarding 
these issues. This lack of clarty served as a deterrent to ELA' s in accessing services. 
Along with many other States. Massachusetts has made significant effons to obtain 
clarfication from INS and HHS on these terms and their application.  ';' 

14)  Findiml  (1)7), 12. 13.  also ii. iv) 
. The State Departnts of Public Welfare, Public Health and Education had not 
established methods to documnt costs for services and benefts provided to individual
ELAs. Massachusetts should deelop methods for determining and docwnenting these 
costs. 
Comment 
. At the tie of the 01G visit in June 1988, no deparent had yet implemented specifc 
SLIAG cost claimig methodologies due to the lack of FSA policy directives noted 
above. However, the Depanent of Public Health had identied appropriate "public 
health" program for which to use the population ratio methodology, which does not
requie trckig servce costs to individual BL' 
Both the Deparent of Public Heath and the Deparent of Public Welfare were 
awaiting release of fmal proedures for the Cost Documentation System (CDS) for their 
public assistace" program, which do require such individual trcking, CDS was not 
ready for use unti July, 1989. The Deparent of Education did not begin its SLIAG-
funded progrs unti Jan. 1, n89. From their inception, those program implemented 
an individual ELA trckig system as specifed in the Deparent of Education s Request 
for Proposal for SLIAG-funded ESL/Civics classes. 
As of ths wrtig, Massachusetts has developed cost claiming methodologies for all 
progrs 
SLIAG-reimburable  and has worked closely with all impacted ag ncies to 
ensure both accurcy and sensitivity. 
15)  12) 
Finding ('t.

ha 
. At the time of the inspection, Massachuetts  not received forml guidelines from FSA 
ha 
on determining and claiming SllAG administrative costs, and Massachusetts  not 
developed methods for determining and docwnenting these costs. 
Comment 
. Massachus:tt has had no problems in detennning or doc:.!1enting the costs of 
adrrinisterig progr which are paraly or fully SLIAG-funded, nor in detennining or 
documentig centr grt adnistrtion costs. The Commonwealth has comprehensive 
and asppropriate systems in place. 
drwig 
Before  any SLIAG funds, Massachusetts established a separate account for 
centr 
SLIAG adistrtion, and all costs are identiable by line item and are fully 
auditable. 
The 01G report misses the point here. The problem did not lie in our abilty to identify or 
control administrtive costs. The problem was that absent FSA policy and decisions 
claig 
aboUt each progr s cost  methodology, it was not possible to detennne what 
ponion of ea:-h progr s admistrtive costs would re SLlAG-reimbursable.  i .