Funds for administration may be used only for costs directly associated with administering a state’s victim assistance program. Where allowable administrative costs are allocable to both the crime victim assistance program and another state program, the VOCA grant may be charged no more than its proportionate share of such costs. Costs directly associated with administering a state victim assistance program generally include the following:

• Salaries and benefits of SAA staff and consultants to administer and manage the program.
• Training of SAA staff, including, but not limited to, travel, registration fees, and other expenses associated with SAA staff attendance at technical assistance meetings and conferences relevant to the program.
• Monitoring compliance of VOCA subrecipients with federal and state requirements; support for victims’ rights compliance programs; provision of technical assistance; and evaluation and assessment of program activities, including, but not limited to, travel, mileage, and other associated expenses. 
• Reporting and related activities necessary to meet federal and state requirements.
• Program evaluation, including, but not limited to, surveys or studies that measure the effect or outcome of victim services.
• Program audit costs and related activities necessary to meet federal audit requirements for the VOCA grant.
• Technology-related costs, generally including grant management systems, electronic communications systems and platforms (e.g., web pages, social media), geographic information systems, victim notification systems, and other automated systems; related equipment (e.g., computers, software, fax and copying machines, TTY/TDDs); and related technology support services necessary to administer the program. 
• Memberships in crime victim organizations that support the management and administration of victim assistance programs, and publications and materials such as curricula, literature, and protocols relevant to the management and administration of the program.
• Strategic planning, including, but not limited to, the development of strategic plans, both service and financial, including conducting surveys and needs assessments.
• Coordination and collaboration efforts among relevant federal, state, and local agencies and organizations to improve victim services.
• Publications, including, but not limited to, developing, purchasing, printing, and distributing training materials, victim services directories, brochures, and other relevant publications. 
• General program improvements, such as enhancing overall SAA operations relating to the program and improving the delivery and quality of program services to crime victims throughout the state.

See 28 C.F.R. 94.109.

Yes, a SAA may use VOCA Assistance grant funds to pay for “training purposes and the administration of the State crime victim assistance program receiving the [VOCA grant],” but VOCA limits these costs to “[n]ot more than 5 percent” of the VOCA Assistance grant. See 34 U.S.C. § 20103(b)(3).

The rules for VOCA Assistance administrative costs are set out at 28 C.F.R. 94.109.

“Where allowable administrative costs are allocable to both the crime victim assistance program and another State program, the VOCA grant may be charged no more than its proportionate share of such costs.” See 28 C.F.R. 94.109(a). 

Personnel Costs

Personnel costs must be “supported by a system of internal controls which provide reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable and properly allocated” and “based on records that accurately reflect the work performed.” See 2 C.F.R. 200.430.

SAAs must have a reasonable and documented methodology for allocating work performed between the State crime victim assistance program, and other programs. For instance, where employees work on multiple activities or cost objectives, a distribution of their salaries or wages will be supported by personnel activity reports or equivalent documentation, which meets the standards. OVC presumes that the work of personnel that work exclusively on the State crime victim assistance program are allocable to that program. See 2 C.F.R. 200.405 (Allocable costs).

SAAs must maintain “records that accurately reflect the work performed . . . [which] can include timesheets, time and effort reports, or activity reports that have been certified by the employee and approved by a supervisor.” See DOJ Grants Financial Guide, section 3.9; 2 C.F.R. 200.430.

Operational Costs (e.g., equipment/supplies)

Costs that solely benefit the State crime victim assistance program may be allocated to the VOCA Assistance award in their entirety. (This is the case even if used for other purposes when no longer needed for that program. See 2 C.F.R. 200.405 (Allocable costs). “A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received.” See 2 C.F.R. 200.405(a) (Allocable costs). Costs that also benefit another program should be allocated based on the proportional benefit, if that can be determined without undue effort; otherwise, the SAA should document a reasonable basis for its allocation. See 2 C.F.R. 200.405(d) (Direct cost allocation principles). SAAs should consider the reasonableness of the cost. “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost.” See 2 C.F.R. 200.404 (Reasonable costs).

Example: The SAA procures a grants management system that predominantly benefits its victim assistance program, but also benefits some other programs (e.g., state corrections and law enforcement agencies). The SAA may allocate the costs to the VOCA Assistance award either in proportion to the system’s use for victim assistance activities (if the SAA can track that use without undue effort or cost); or based on another reasonable and documented basis (e.g., SAA cost allocation plan, full allocation to the initial predominant use, allocation based on number or amount of subawards, or equal allocation to all programs benefited). The allocation method should be reasonable and documented.

“Funds for administration may be used only for costs directly associated with administering a State’s [crime] victim assistance program.” See 28 C.F.R. 94.109(a).

OVC lists examples of allowable administrative costs in 28 C.F.R. 94.109(b).

1. Salaries and benefits of SAA staff and consultants to administer and manage the program;
2. Training of SAA staff, including, but not limited to, travel, registration fees, and other expenses associated with SAA staff attendance at technical assistance meetings and conferences relevant to the program;
3. Monitoring compliance of VOCA sub-recipients with federal and State requirements, support for victims’ rights compliance programs, provision of technical assistance, and evaluation and assessment of program activities, including, but not limited to, travel, mileage, and other associated expenses;
4. Reporting and related activities necessary to meet federal and State requirements;
5. Program evaluation, including but not limited to, surveys or studies that measure the effect or outcome of victim services;
6. Program audit costs and related activities necessary to meet federal audit requirements for the VOCA grant;
7. Technology-related costs, generally including for grant management systems, electronic communications systems and platforms (e.g., Web pages and social media), geographic information systems, victim notification systems, and other automated systems, related equipment (e.g., computers, software, fax and copying machines, and TTY/TDDs) and related technology support services necessary for administration of the program;
8. Memberships in crime victims’ organizations and organizations that support the management and administration of victim assistance programs, and publications and materials such as curricula, literature, and protocols relevant to the management and administration of the program;
9. Strategic planning, including, but not limited to, the development of strategic plans, both service and financial, including conducting surveys and needs assessments;
10. Coordination and collaboration efforts among relevant federal, State, and local agencies and organizations to improve victim services;
11. Publications, including but not limited to, developing, purchasing, printing, distributing training materials, victim services directories, brochures, and other relevant publications; and
12. General program improvements – Enhancing overall SAA operations relating to the program and improving the delivery and quality of program services to crime victims throughout the State.

Forensic interviews may be allowable direct services with the following parameters:

1. Results of the interview will be used not only for law enforcement and prosecution purposes, but also for identification of needs such as social services, personal advocacy, case management, substance abuse treatment, and mental health services.
2. Interviews are conducted in the context of a multidisciplinary investigation and diagnostic team, or in a specialized setting such as a child advocacy center.
3. The interviewer is trained to conduct forensic interviews appropriate to the developmental age and abilities of children, or the developmental, cognitive, and physical or communication disabilities presented by adults.

Effective February 24, 2020: Using VOCA Victim Assistance funds to pay for the processing of medical evidence is not allowable. As noted in our October 2019 response, OVC is providing this follow-up clarification, changing our previous response to this question. Upon further discussion and analysis, we have determined that using VOCA funds for the processing of medical evidence is NOT allowable. We set forth the revised explanation below. VOCA includes in “services to victims of crime” the “payment of all reasonable costs of a forensic medical examination of a crime victim, to the extent that such costs are otherwise not reimbursed or paid”. The VOCA rule (and preamble) specifically address only forensic medical evidence collection examinations, not the processing of medical evidence. See 94.119(g). Pursuant to 94.122(c), investigatory costs generally are unallowable. In contrast to the specific language regarding forensic medical evidence collection examinations, there is no such language addressing the processing (i.e., testing) of medical evidence in VOCA or 94.119(g). Thus, in light of the statutory and regulatory language, and past treatment of these costs, such processing is more appropriately characterized as an investigatory cost unallowable under the VOCA Victim Assistance Program.

Application: Any states that allowed VOCA funds to be used to pay for the processing of sexual assault medical evidence between November 1, 2019, and February 24, 2020, will not be penalized. During that period of time, OVC’s initial answer adopted in response to a grantee question, was that VOCA funds could be used to pay for these expenses. As of February 24, 2020, upon additional consideration, VOCA funds may no longer be used for these expenses.

VOCA Assistance funding is “for the financial support of eligible crime victim assistance programs” and such programs may expend it “only for providing services to victims of crime.” See 34 U.S.C. § 20103(a), (b)(2). 

Allowability of specific costs must be determined in the context of the project under the overarching principles set out in 2 C.F.R. part 200: Costs charged to federal awards must be reasonable, necessary for, and allocable to allowable activities, which are those related to providing services to victims of crime. See 2 C.F.R. 200.402 to .405. All costs must be authorized by the SAA, and allowable under the VOCA Assistance rule (28 C.F.R. part 94, subpart B) and the DOJ Grants Financial Guide. 

OVC has long recognized that organizations incur a variety of costs in providing services to victims, and generally has divided such costs into three cost categories: Direct services (28 C.F.R. 94.119), activities supporting direct services (94.120), and administrative costs (94.121). The VOCA Assistance rule reflects these categories (which overlap to some extent) as non-exhaustive lists of example cost objectives/activities. Certain costs are expressly unallowable (94.122). 

Construction generally is unallowable using VOCA Assistance funds, though there are some exceptions. 
Some costs that are “construction” in the plain sense of the word (e.g., hammering and nailing), are not characterized as construction for purposes of OVC grant funding. SAAs may allow subrecipients to use VOCA funds for the following construction-like activities: 

• “maintenance, repair, and replacement of items that contribute to the maintenance of a healthy or safe environment for crime victims (such as a furnace in a shelter)”; 
• “required minor building adaptations necessary to meet the Department of Justice standards implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act”; and 
• “modifications that would improve the program’s ability to provide services to victims.” 

Note that the VOCA rule in 28 C.F.R. 94.122(e) prohibits—
(e) Capital expenses—Capital improvements; property losses and expenses; real estate purchases; mortgage payments; and construction (except as specifically allowed elsewhere in this subpart [meaning the VOCA Assistance rule]). 

Costs that are “maintenance, repair, and replacement” generally are not capital expenses, and thus are not affected by this section. 

Costs that are “required minor building adaptations”, or “modifications” described in 28 C.F.R. 94.121(i) or (d), are considered to fall within the exception, and are allowable even if they (in whole or part) constitute capital expenses, provided that they are approved in advance by the SAA. (Capital expenses is synonymous with the term “capital expenditures” in 2 C.F.R. part 200.) 

SAAs have the discretion to decide whether to fund a subrecipient project, and to what extent, providing the costs are reasonable, allocated properly, meet the purpose requirements of one of the three provisions, and comply with other cross-cutting requirements applicable to construction-like activity (e.g., the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act). Note that, under DOJ Grants Financial Guide sec. 3.8, p. 68 (OJP Construction Requirements), OJP requires the recipient or subrecipient to submit the proposed activity to OJP to conduct a NEPA analysis:

Funds will not be obligated for construction until OJP has    been contacted and assisted in satisfactorily completing any applicable OJP procedures by complying with the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other related Federal environmental impact analysis requirements.

Skills training for subrecipient staff may be allowable as a part of their subaward under 28 C.F.R. § 94.121(b). “Training exclusively for developing the skills of direct service providers, including paid staff and volunteers (both VOCA-funded and not), so that they are better able to offer quality direct services, including, but not limited to, manuals, books, videoconferencing, electronic training resources, and other materials and resources relating to such training” is allowable. Travel to attend training may be allowable as well.

As SAAs review and approve these requests, OVC recommends that they ensure that the individual receiving training is someone who provides direct services to victims of crime. OVC also recommends they ensure that the training they receive is relevant and designed to develop their skills to better offer quality services to victims. As always, grantees should ensure that costs incurred by subawards are reasonable.

In general, states may allow subrecipients to use VOCA Assistance funds for the allocable costs of liability insurance for victim service personnel. See § 94.121(a). D&O insurance, however, insures directors and officers of an organization. Consequently, D&O insurance typically would be an unallowable cost under VOCA Assistance, per 28 C.F.R. 94.122(h), which limits the use of funds for salaries and expenses (including fringe benefits like insurance) of management. Exceptions may apply in some cases where management personnel also provide direct services.

(In general, D&O insurance is liability insurance payable to the directors and officers of an organization, or to the organization itself, for costs arising from certain acts in their official capacity as directors and officers.)

SAAs and subrecipients may share the following:

• Non-personally identifying data in the aggregate regarding services provided to clients, and non-personally identifying demographic information, in order to comply with reporting, evaluation, or data collection requirements.
• Court-generated information and law enforcement-generated information contained in secure governmental registries for protection order enforcement purposes.
• Law enforcement- and prosecution-generated information necessary for law enforcement and prosecution purposes.

See 28 C.F.R. 94.115.

Under 2 C.F.R. 200.431(c) and .447(d), a state administering agency (SAA) may permit a subrecipient to budget/charge to a VOCA-funded subaward the cost of health insurance as a fringe benefit compensation for VOCA-funded positions. The cost of health insurance could be the cost of purchasing it, or the cost of funding contributions to a health care self-insurance reserve. The health insurance must be a benefit provided under the subrecipient’s established written policies, the costs of health insurance benefits must be allocated appropriately, and the costs must be charged directly or indirectly according to the subrecipient’s accounting practices. Coverage may include spouses, children, etc., pursuant to the subrecipient’s established written policies.

For self-insurance programs, the amounts contributed to a reserve must be reasonable and updated at least biennially, and the costs of such contributions must be allocated in proportion to the claim levels of the activity/unit insured, not at the individual employee level. See 2 C.F.R. 200.447(d). The costs to be allocated are the contributions to the reserve fund, not the payments from the reserve fund. Differences between subrecipient activities/organizational units in health care payments from the reserve would not be addressed at the individual employee level, but rather, at the activity/unit level. Such differences are less likely in the context of health insurance than, say, severance pay, where claims and payouts presumably would be higher in highly compensated activities/units. Consequently, we presume that most organizations with self-funded health insurance reserves would allocate reserve contributions on a per employee/per time period basis, to whichever funding source pays the employee. These would either be directly charged under the subrecipient budget as a fringe benefit, or lumped into the subrecipient’s indirect cost rate, depending on the subrecipient’s accounting practices.

Discretionary decisions to apply the rule to grants awarded by the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) before the rule’s effective date must be documented, to facilitate monitoring and audit. The state should take care to ensure documentation is complete and retained in accordance with state and federal guidelines.

Example (state unobligated funding): A state wants to award unobligated funding from its FY 2015 VOCA victim assistance grant to an organization that will use it to provide services to incarcerated victims. Services to incarcerated victims are not allowable under the VOCA Victim Assistance Program Guidelines, but are allowable under the new VOCA rule. The state should note in the grant file (e.g., the Notice of Funding Opportunity, award documents, other communication to the recipient) that the funding for that award is subject to 28 C.F.R. Part 94, Subpart A—not the VOCA guidelines. If the state does not include such a statement, an auditor would not know that the state had elected to allow the newly allowable use of funds, and would audit the grant according to the standards in the guidelines.

Example (subrecipient unobligated funding): A state awarded a subrecipient funding from an FY 2015 VOCA assistance grant. The subrecipient has funding remaining on its award that it has not yet obligated, and wants to use that funding to provide services to incarcerated victims. The subrecipient may NOT unilaterally use the funding for this activity, as this would violate the terms of its subaward, which is under the VOCA guidelines. Similarly, the state typically would not be able to compel the subrecipient to serve incarcerated victims, as this could not have been part of the subaward agreement. However, if BOTH the state and the subrecipient agree to modify the subaward, services to incarcerated victims would be allowable even though the subrecipient would be using FY 2015 money. (Note: OVC does not encourage states to take this approach, as it could be administratively burdensome or complicated, but permits it under the rule.)

Explanation of indirect costs: Indirect costs are facility and administrative expenses that an organization incurs by undertaking a grant project that are not easily allocated to specific project costs and are NOT included as a direct cost in the grant budget. Costs included in an indirect cost rate can be charged directly; however, for administrative convenience, some organizations prefer to establish an indirect cost rate and charge that against a direct cost base instead. Where a rate is applied, indirect costs are not budgeted as specific cost items, but rather are bundled into the rate that is charged against certain direct costs under the grant. The specific costs included in an organization’s indirect cost rate vary, but typically include things like utility costs, organizational accounting fees, and equipment depreciation. Indirect costs may be charged to an award only if (a) the recipient has a current (unexpired), approved negotiated indirect cost rate; or (b) the recipient is eligible to use, and elects to use, the de minimis indirect cost rate described in the Part 200 Uniform Requirements, as set out at 2 C.F.R. 200.414(f).

Negotiated rate: For federal grants, indirect cost rates are negotiated between the organization and a specific agency (“cognizant agency for indirect costs”) that is designated to determine that organization’s rate. (State administering agencies may approve rates for their subrecipients.)

De minimis rate: Certain organizations that have never before negotiated an indirect cost rate may be eligible to apply a de minimis 10-percent rate that does not require a negotiated rate agreement (details below).

Applying for an indirect cost rate: If an organization does not have a current federally approved rate, the organization may request one through its cognizant federal agency, which will review all documentation and approve a rate for the applicant entity; or, if the applicant’s accounting system permits, applicants may propose to allocate costs in the direct cost categories. For assistance with identifying the appropriate cognizant federal agency for indirect costs, please contact the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) Customer Service Center at 800–458–0786 or at ask.ocfo@usdoj.gov. If DOJ is the cognizant federal agency, applicants may obtain information needed to submit an indirect cost rate proposal.

Indirect cost rates for subrecipients: State administering agencies are responsible for approving indirect cost rates for their subrecipients. See DOJ Grants Financial Guide, III.11. If a subrecipient has an established federally approved rate, the state administering agency must honor that indirect cost rate.

Additional information: Additional information about indirect costs can be found on page 100 of the DOJ Grants Financial Guide.

SAAs are expected to honor a subrecipient’s federally negotiated indirect cost rate. The FAQs for the Office of Management and Budget’s Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 C.F.R. 200 offers guidance:

.331-6 Pass-through Entities and Indirect Cost Rate Negotiation

If the subrecipient already has a negotiated F&A rate with the Federal government, the negotiated rate must be used. It also is not permissible for pass-through entities to force or entice a proposed subrecipient without a negotiated rate to accept less than the de minimis rate. The cost principles are designed to provide that the Federal awards pay their fair share of the costs recognized under these principles. See section 2 C.F.R. 200.100(c). Pass-through entities may, but are not required, to negotiate a rate with a proposed subrecipient who asks to do so.

Rent can be considered direct or indirect depending on the circumstances of the subrecipient and the nature of the programming. So it is not possible for us to say categorically whether shelter rent is an indirect cost or a direct cost. 2 C.F.R. § 200.68 defines MTDC and clearly states that rent is excluded from MTDC when calculating indirect costs. So if a subrecipient is determining the indirect costs they are entitled to, they must subtract rental costs as they determined their MTDC upon which the indirect rate is applied. So, for example, a subrecipient is eligible for and has elected to use the 10 percent de minimis. They incurred the following costs during the period they are requesting reimbursement:

• Personnel $10,000

• Fringes $2,000

• Subaward $40,000

• Rent $3,000

• Equipment $7,000

• Travel $4,000

The costs above total to $66,000. The subrecipient is allowed to recover 10 percent of the modified total direct costs, so must first remove distorting items according to §200.68. Rent and equipment are excluded, as are the portion of each subaward greater than $25,000. $66,000 - $15,000 (portion of subaward in excess of $25k) - $3,000 (rent) - $7,000 (equipment) = $41,000, the MTDC. The subrecipient may then claim indirect costs of 10 percent of the MTDC, $4,100.

Yes, VOCA subrecipients may charge costs indirectly. See VOCA Assistance rule preamble, 81 Fed. Reg. 44516 (July 8, 2016) (removing Guidelines prohibition prohibiting subrecipients from charging indirect costs); and 2 C.F.R. 200.100(c) (cost principles provide that the Federal awards pay their fair share of the costs). 

“There is no universal rule for classifying certain costs either as direct or indirect ([Facilities and Administrative]) under every accounting system. . . . each item of cost incurred for the same purpose [must] be treated consistently in like circumstances . . . .” See 2 C.F.R. 200.412. 

Indirect costs are addressed in detail in the DOJ Grants Financial Guide at sec. 3.11, and at 2 C.F.R. 200.412 - .419. Also, other VOCApedia entries (tagged with the topic “Indirect Cost Rate”) provide a basic overview of indirect costs and answers to various indirect cost questions that have arisen in the context of VOCA Assistance projects. 
 

VOCA requires subawards to be matched at 20 percent of total project costs. The match calculation depends on whether the grantee is starting with the total project cost or the VOCA share as they calculate the match. Starting with the total project cost, a $125,000 total project would be multiplied by 20 percent to determine the amount of match that is required. $125,000 * 0.20 = $25,000. The VOCA share is the total project cost minus match, $125,000 - $25,000 = $100,000. Starting with the VOCA share, the user would first determine the total project cost by dividing the VOCA amount by 100 percent minus the 20 percent required match, as shown: $100,000 / (1.0 – 0.20) = $125,000.

Then, as above, the total project cost would be multiplied by the match percentage to determine the required match. $125,000 * 0.20 = $25,000. A shortened calculation would also work by multiplying the VOCA share by 0.25 to determine the match amount. $100,000 * 0.25 = $25,000.

Example: A local program uses VOCA funds to pay for the first month’s rent as a security deposit on an apartment for a victim. The victim moves after 18 months of living in the apartment, and the landlord returns the security deposit to the victim. Is the local program responsible for collecting the security deposit from the victim?

Answer: Transitional housing expenses, including rental and security deposits, are allowable, subject to any restriction on the amount, length of time, and eligible crimes set by the state administering agency. See 28 C.F.R. 94.119(k) & (l). OVC encourages subgrantees to have an agreement in place with the landlord that the full/remaining deposit will be returned to the subgrantee and not the victim at the end of the lease. In the event that a subgrantee has not made an agreement with the landlord, the subgrantee should make a good faith effort to collect the security or rental deposit from the victim and document such efforts.

Example: A local program uses VOCA funds to pay for the first month’s rent as a security deposit on an apartment for a victim. The victim moves after 18 months of living in the apartment, and the landlord returns the security deposit to the victim. Is the local program responsible for collecting the security deposit from the victim?

Answer: Transitional housing expenses, including rental and security deposits, are allowable, subject to any restriction on the amount, length of time, and eligible crimes set by the state administering agency. See 28 C.F.R. 94.119(k) & (l). OVC encourages subgrantees to have an agreement in place with the landlord that the full/remaining deposit will be returned to the subgrantee and not the victim at the end of the lease. In the event that a subgrantee has not made an agreement with the landlord, the subgrantee should make a good faith effort to collect the security or rental deposit from the victim and document such efforts. In consultation with the SAA, any grant funding returned to the subrecipient should be used to support the funded victim service project or returned to the SAA to be processed as a return to the federal award.

No, charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed.

SAAs and subrecipients must implement a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated, is incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity, and reasonably reflects the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the non-Federal entity. See 2 CFR 200.430 (i).

Suggested documentation may include timesheets or time and effort reports which align with the organization’s pay periods and have been certified by the employee and approved by a supervisor with firsthand knowledge of the work performed. Documentation should show hours worked per day and per pay period. The employee should have the ability to record hours not to be reimbursed by the VOCA award when completing ad hoc activities not permitted under the award, such as preparation for an agency fundraiser. See the Time and Effort Best Practices for VOCA-Funded Personnel.

Generally, no. “Any costs of auditing a non-Federal entity that is exempted from having an audit conducted under the Single Audit Act … because its expenditures under Federal awards are less than $750,000 during the non-Federal entity’s fiscal year” are unallowable. See 2 C.F.R. 200.425(a)(2).

There are some limited exceptions for pass-through entities conducting “procedures engagements,” which essentially are limited scope audits for monitoring purposes; see 2 C.F.R. 200.425(c), and for certain audits required by a funding agency. The VOCA Assistance rule permits audit costs for SAAs at 28 C.F.R. 94.109(6), and for subrecipients at 94.121(g)(4), but these operate in conjunction with 2 C.F.R. 200.425.

If allowed by the SAA, subrecipients that do meet the $750,000 threshold may charge an allocable (reasonably proportionate) share of the audit costs to VOCA grant funds to support the costs of their required annual audit.

SAAs may authorize subrecipients to enter into procurement contracts (DOJ Grants Financial Guide sec. 3.14) and subawards (DOJ Grants Financial Guide sec. 3.8) using VOCA Assistance funds. 

Subrecipients must distinguish between procurement contracts and subawards. The DOJ Grants Financial Guide at sec. 3.14, and 2 C.F.R. 200.330, provide a list of factors to consider when determining how to classify these costs.  

The VOCA rule at 28 C.F.R. 94.120(d) provides that contracts for “specialized professional services” should not “exceed a reasonable market rate”.

VOCA Assistance Program funding is intended to provide direct services to assist victims of crime (and certain limited training/ administrative expenses). See 28 C.F.R. 94.103(a). Active prevention of a crime for the sole purpose of preventing victimization is an activity beyond the scope of the VOCA Assistance Program.  

SAAs may fund projects that are centered on direct victim services, and that also have prevention aspects.  

The definitions of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention can be useful to categorize services that may be allowable under VOCA Victim Assistance funding. The examples below serve to illustrate how VOCA Victim Assistance funds may be used to support prevention-related activities. The examples are by no means exhaustive. OVC encourages you to contact your grant manager with any questions.  

Primary prevention is intervention before a crime occurs. For example, primary prevention could be funding police officers to patrol streets to protect high violence areas. Primary prevention is not an allowable use of VOCA Victim Assistance funding.

Secondary prevention is intervention early in health and other impacts from violence and injury, with the objective of preventing ongoing issues and working toward healing for survivors. For example, secondary prevention could be a hospital-based intervention program that offers trauma-informed services to victims of violence to prevent ongoing violence while supporting survivors and communities in the aftermath of a crime. Secondary prevention would be an allowable use of VOCA Victim assistance funding. 

Tertiary prevention is working with people already impacted and effected by violence, and bringing in services and healing to assist survivors. For example, tertiary prevention could be the creation of a safety plan or the provision of therapy to a survivor after a crime has been committed. Tertiary prevention would be an allowable use of VOCA Victim Assistance funding.

VOCA Assistance Program funding is intended to provide direct services to assist victims of crime (and certain limited training/ administrative expenses). See 28 C.F.R. 94.103(a). Victim services should drive projects funded under the VOCA Assistance Program, though projects may have prevention aspects.  Projects focused exclusively on prevention of crime and victimization generally are beyond the scope of the Program.  

The definitions of primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention can be useful to characterize activities to determine their allowability under VOCA Victim Assistance funding. The examples below illustrate how VOCA Victim Assistance funds may be used to support certain prevention-related activities. The examples are by no means exhaustive. OVC encourages you to contact your grant manager with any questions.  

Primary prevention is intervention before a crime occurs. For example, a classic example of primary prevention would be funding police officers to patrol streets to protect high violence areas. Another example would be prevention education to prevent individuals from becoming crime victims.  Primary prevention generally is not an allowable use of VOCA Victim Assistance funding.  SAAs may, however, use VOCA Assistance funding for projects that have a primary prevention education component that complements or is integrated with victim service outreach or resources for victims, where the project has a substantial benefit to victims.

Secondary prevention is intervention early in health and other impacts from violence and injury, with the objective of preventing ongoing issues and working toward healing for survivors. For example, secondary prevention could be a hospital-based intervention program that offers trauma-informed services to victims of violence to prevent ongoing violence while supporting survivors and communities in the aftermath of a crime. Secondary prevention would be an allowable use of VOCA Victim assistance funding. 

Tertiary prevention is working with people already impacted and affected by violence and bringing in services and healing to assist survivors. For example, tertiary prevention could be the creation of a safety plan to help prevent future victimization of that victim. Tertiary prevention would be an allowable use of VOCA Victim Assistance funding.

If this award is not intended to benefit minors, the condition does not apply (even if a minor “might” happen to call this call center).

If this award IS intended to benefit minors, but not ONLY minors (for example, this is a family-centered program with an expectation that the benefits are not only for adults, but also for children), the after-hour coverage call center employees can still be exempted from the background check requirement under the following provision:

"Interaction" includes physical contact, oral and written communication, and the transmission of images and sound, and may be in person or by electronic (or similar) means. But "interaction" does not include—

(1) brief contact that is both unexpected by the recipient (or subrecipient) and unintentional on the part of the covered individual — such as might occur when a postal carrier delivers mail to an administrative office.

In this context, we are assuming that these particular contractors are not “regular” call center staff, but are simply providing after-hours coverage for unexpected calls and are only taking a brief message if someone calls outside the regular call center hours. Under those circumstances, we think the limited contact would not be considered “interaction.”