Title I WIOA Proposal Regulation Comments & Recommendations
Question
Proposed Rule (citation &
section)
1
Docket No. ETA–2015–
Lack of support for expanded definition of “public official” for sharing of
0001/Section 603.2(d)(2)–(5) wage data that is necessary for performance accountability to include
community and technical colleges and community-based organizations.
2
Docket No. ETA–2015–
0001/Section 677.115(a)(1)
3
Docket No. ETA–2015–
0001/Section
677.115(a)(1)(v)
Title I (ETA-2015-0002) - 6.8.15
Issue/problem summary
Recommendation about
what might make it work
for us?….if you know
Support the expanded
definition of “public official”
for sharing of wage data
that is necessary for
performance accountability
to include community and
technical colleges and
community-based
organizations.
Concerning Unified Plan—align standards with State ESEA standards.
Recommendation: Provide
a three year transition
Most states have adopted the National Adult Education College and Career period during which states
Readiness Standards (CCRs) and will demonstrate in the state plan how they are held accountable based
align with the challenging ESEA standards.
on the available
assessments instruments.
However, (1) there are no content standards for English Language
Acquisition and (2) there is a three year disconnect between states that are
now adopting the CCRs and the completion of assessment instruments to
assess those standards; how do we measure performance on content
standards when there are no assessment instruments?
Concerning measureable skill gains for low-skilled adults.
Recommendation: We
support the proposed
State adult education procedures seek to build comprehensive services at
language “Documented
the local level. However, there are often highly specialized applicants (e.g., progress could include such
English Language Acquisition, adult secondary programs) that the state
measures as…” Such
wishes to encourage.
language provides the state
with the flexibility it needs
to engage the highest
caliber of applicants
1
4
5
Docket No. ETA–2015–
0001/Section
677.115(a)(1)(v)(1)
Docket No. ETA–2015–
0001/Section
677.155(a)(1)(v)(3)
Concerning educational functioning level as documented progress.
This proposed regulation of “at least one EFLs” risks not capturing the full
impact of adult education instruction. In high intensity programs especially,
students may advance two or more EFLs.
Concerning secondary or postsecondary transcripts
Discussion # 1: Twelve hours per semester is full time. Six hours per
semester better reflects the capability of adults who must also work full- or
part-time to provide for their families. In addition, adults entering spring
semester would not be able to meet the full year’s requirement of hours.
Discussion #2: At the secondary level, completion of high school
equivalency (HSE) subtest is a significant measure of progress and shows a
participant is achieving the State’s academic standards. Clarify that the
measure to document secondary progress is completion of a HSE subtest.
6
Docket No. ETA–2015–
0001/Section
677.155(a)(1)(v)
Concerning should targets be indicator or documented progress measure
level.
Recommendation: Amend
this item to read “(1) the
achievement of the EFLs of a
participant….”
Recommendation #1:
Amend this item to read “(3)
a transcript or report card
for either secondary or postsecondary education who
enroll a minimum of six
hours per semester that
shows a participant is
achieving the States unit’s
policies for academic
standards.”
Recommendation #2:
Amend this item to read “(3)
a transcript or report card
for either secondary high
school equivalency
subtest(s) or post-secondary
education who enroll a
minimum of six hours per
semester that shows a
participant is achieving the
States unit’s policies for
academic standards.”
Recommendation: We
recommend indictor of skill
gains.
The NPRM sought comment regarding whether targets should be indicator
or documented progress measure level.
Title I (ETA-2015-0002) - 6.8.15
2
7
Docket No. ETA–2015–
0001/Section 677.155
Concerning quarterly wage records and performance accountability
This section strongly encourages states to use social security numbers to
match wage records “consistent with State law.” Even though the provision
requires the Secretary of Labor to make arrangements to ensure that wage
records of each State are available to any other state, at least one state
(NH) has a state law forbidding education programs from collecting SSNs.
Others ask for SSNs but do not require them because participants have the
right to refuse to give their SSNs. Still other states philosophically want to
serve all the residents in their state, some of whom may not have SSNs.
Recommendation: Include
in this section and the
section related to
computing performance the
option for not including
participants from the
denominator who do not
provide an SSN and for
whom no other matching
means are available.
Because our participants need to significantly upgrade their skills in order to
obtain jobs with family sustaining incomes, adult education has been very
successful in enabling participants obtain employment
(http://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/expectmore/summary/10000180.2006.html)
and will continue to do so.
8
Docket No. ETA–2015–
0001/Section 677.155
Because, for the reasons stated above, it is not always possible to obtain an
SSN for all students, States should not be penalized on their performance
reports. A reasonable solution that benefits the participants, the States,
and the Federal reporting is to not include students without SSNs in the
denominator for computing percentage for the performance target unless
some other process is used to match with UI data not using SSNs.
In PY 2012-2013, 502,644 of the 1,707,926 (29%) of AFLA participants were
“not in the labor force.” (http://www.ncsdae.org/BlueBook_20140624.pdf)
These adults who are “not working and not looking for work” include
parents staying home with children, senior citizens, corrections and
institutionalized adults, disabled adults in subsidized employment and
others.
All adult education benefits participants once they decide to enter the
workforce. However, it is impractical to impose the goal of employment on
adults who consider themselves not in the workforce.
Title I (ETA-2015-0002) - 6.8.15
Recommendation: Include
in this section and the
section related to
computing performance the
option for not including
participants who report that
they are not working and
are not looking for work.
3
9
Docket No. ETA–2015–
0001/Sections §678.730,
§678.735, & §678.740
Discussion #1: There are differences of interpretation on whether the 1.5
percent is calculated from the State Administration funds or from the total
adult education grant. Of course, if the calculation is of the total grant and
the funds must be taken from State administration which is limited in the
law to 5 percent of the grant, it would require 30 percent of State
Administration funds severely limiting the State offices ability to carry out
the many provisions and expectations of WIOA core partners.
Recommendation #1:
Clarify that the 1.5 percent
is calculated on State
Administration funds.
Discussion #2: At the local level, both cash and in-kind contributions to
infrastructure cost can be beneficial.
Recommendation #2:
Clarify that contributions to
infrastructure can be either
cash or in-kind.
Discussion #3: In some areas, an adult education program falls into
multiple WIB regions. It is not fiscally practical for the local adult education
program to provide 1.5% to each WIB.
Recommendation #3:
Clarify that the total a local
program needs to provide
for infrastructure cost is a
maximum of 1.5% of its
administration funds.
Support the requirement
that the representatives of
all core programs must
represent only that single
program, even on boards
that have be grandfathered
in.
Support the requirement
that the representatives of
all core programs must
represent only that single
program, even on boards
that have be grandfathered
in.
10
Docket No. ETA–2015–
0001/679.110(b)(3)(iii)(A)(1)
and
(2)
Requirement unclear about appointment to State Workforce Board of
representatives of all core programs, remaining silent about single member
representing multiple categories, even of boards that are grandfathered in.
11
Docket No. ETA–2015–
0001/Section 679.320
Requires that Local Boards include a minimum of one member with
experience providing adult education and literacy activities under title II of
WIOA and at least one member from a higher education institution, which
may include community colleges, that provide workforce training.
Title I (ETA-2015-0002) - 6.8.15
4
12
Docket No. ETA–2015–
0001/§ 679.560(b)(12)
Requires a description of how the Local Board will carry out the review of
local applications submitted under title II.
13
Docket No. ETA-2015-0002
Title I / Sec. 677.150(a)
Reportable individuals for the AEFLA program are those deemed eligible and
who have completed 12 contact hours. Title is silent about requirements to
complete a pretest to be eligible.
14
Docket No. ETA-2015-0002
Title I / Sec.677.150(c)
Proposed definition of exit is not sufficient.
15
E Part 681-Section 681.230
16
Docket No. ETA-2015-0001
Title I / Sec.680.780-680.820
We are pleased with §681.230 clarifies that participants that attend adult
education are “out of school.” We are also pleased with the provisions that
“disconnected youth age 16-24 meet eligibility requirements for both WIOA
Title I and WIOA title II adult education. Co-enrollment between these two
programs can be very beneficial to disconnected youth…” These provisions
encourage that collaboration at the local level. Our bridge and pathway
programs provide excellent opportunities for these young adults.
Concerning incumbent workers.
Discussion: Many of the current workforce, especially those with five, ten,
twenty or more seniority, were hired for “lift and put jobs” before complex
computerized system and ISO 9001 system requirements were in place. As
a result, their limited reading, math and English skills are barriers to their
qualifying for jobs that are becoming more complex and leaves them on the
first rung for layoffs.
In order to retain their employer’s competitiveness as well retain their place
in the workforce and avoid layoffs, they must upgrade their reading, math,
English skills and workplace skills.
Title I (ETA-2015-0002) - 6.8.15
Define parameters around
the review of local
applications to include
specific language that limits
the review to ensuring
alignment with local plan.
Clarify whether or not a
pretest is also required in
order for individuals to be
deemed reportable.
Support an expanded
definition that says “An
individual should be
considered as having exited
after staff-assisted service
has ended.”
Recommendation: We
whole heartedly support
these provisions.
Recommendation: To the
section on incumbent
workers (§ 680.780) add, “In
recognition of the many
long term workers who
were hired when skill level
requirements were much
lower, local programs are
encouraged to expand
training services (§134(c)(3))
through collaboration
between Title I and Title II to
include incumbent worker
5
Adult education’s career pathway system that blends academic skills
contextualized and taught concurrently with the site-specific job skills is a
perfect solution for these long term employees.
The WIOA definition of “training services” (§134(c)(3)) includes adult
education provided concurrently and in combination with other training
services.
17
18
19
Docket No. ETA-2015-0002
Title I /
Sec.677.150(c)/WIOA
Sec.116(d)(I)
Docket No. ETA-2015-0002
Title I / Sec.677.155(a)(1)(iv)
The common exit approach to defining exit would be too cumbersome to
provide clean data.
Docket No. ETA-2015-0002
Title I / Sec.677.155(a)(1)(v)
While have full support for all included measures that report interim
progress of participants, there is growing concern about how to count
students who more and more refuse to provide SSNs due to concerns about
consumer fraud, etc.
None
career pathway services
that blend contextualized
academic skills with site
specific training skills in
order to enable these long
term workers to retain
employment and avoid
layoffs while ensuring their
employers remain
competitive in the world
economy.”
Support a program exit
approach to ensure clean
data.
Fully support limiting
participants who obtain a
secondary school diploma or
its equivalent to be included
in the education or training
program leading to a
recognized post-secondary
credential with 1 year after
exit from the program.
Recommend adding a
portfolio option to
document interim
measures. This is critical to
outcomes based instruction,
credit for prior learning, and
acceleration to postsecondary completion and
employment.
Recommend allowing these
additional measures to be
used in place of NRS/EFL
Title I (ETA-2015-0002) - 6.8.15
6
level completions that have
no bearing on a student’s
competency in continuing
education or the workforce.
20
Docket No. ETA-2015-0002
Title I / Sec.677.210(d)
Because local boards will have authority to establish performance targets, it
is essential that a representative from each core program be added to the
board. This must be a person working directly (frontline) with core
programming. The grandfathering of boards does not include this as
intended.
21
Docket No. ETA-2015-0002
Title I / Sec.678.735(c)
22
Docket No. ETA-2015-0002
Title I / Sec.678.760
Confusion about the Title II 1.5 percent cap on contributions for funding
one-stops. Is It a maximum of just 1.5% of funds set aside for
administration of the grant or as 1.5% of the entire federal grant?
Confusion about whether the Title II 1.5% cap for contributions to one-stop
funding includes the joint contribution to funding the cost of career services
(e.g., intake, assessment, skill appraisals, etc.)
23
Docket No. ETA-2015-0002
Title I 677.155(a)(1)(v)
Title I (ETA-2015-0002) - 6.8.15
Concerning the measure of interim progress of participants---Measurable
Skill Gains
Recommend additional
identifier to the SSN.
Recommend a requirement
that an individual
responsible for
programming be included as
a voting member on the
local board, including
boards that are
grandfathered in. E.g., a
Title II Basic Skills director
would be added to each
local board.
Request clarification.
Support maintaining a CAP
of 1.5% for all support to
one-stops to ensure funding
is available to provide direct
AEFLA services.
Support the inclusion of the
following measures of
interim progress of
participants:
(2) attainment of a high
school diploma or its
equivalent;
(3) a transcript or report
card for either secondary or
post-secondary education
7
24
Docket No. ETA-2015-0002
Title I Sections E681-H684
Confusion about programs included in Pay for Performance
25
Docket No. ETA-2015-0001
Title I 683.110(c)(ii)(2)
Clarification needed about whether or not the requirements relate to just
title I funds or all titles and funds. There is concern with restriction on
AEFLA leadership funds and the proposed restrictions about to whom states
can give carryover funds.
26
Docket No. ETA-2015-0001
Title I 683.120(a)(2)
Within-State allocations must be made: (i) In accordance with the allocation
formula in sections 128(b) and 133(b) of WIOA and in the State Plan
Lack of clarity about if this relates to only Title I funds or all title funds.
If this relates to Title II funds, unclear if Title II programs can use the
formula described in their basic skills state plan for distribution to local
basic skills providers?
27
Docket No. ETA-2015-0001
Title I 683.125(a)
28
Docket No. ETA-2015-0002
Title I 683.2001(c)(6)
The regulations indicate that funding authorized in Sections 128(b)(2)(ii),
133(b)(ii), and 133(b)(2)(B)(iii) require that a local area must not receive an
allocation percentage for fiscal year 2016 or subsequent fiscal year that is
less than 90 percent of the average allocation percentage. It is not clear if
funding for Title II programs – adult basic education – are included.
The addition method, described in 2 CFR 200.307, must be used for all
program income earned under Title I of WIOA and Wagner-Peyser grants.
for 1 academic year (or 6
semester hours) that shows
a participant is achieving the
State unit’s policies for
academic standards;
Clarify if Title II providers are
a part of this option? If not,
recommend they are added.
Recommend that if this
effects Title II funds, this
portion of section
683.110(c)(ii) should be
removed.
Clarify which titles are
included.
Recommend regulations
continue to allow state
AEFLA agencies to allocate
funds to approved basic
skills providers by funding
methodology described in
their state ABE plans.
Clarify the inclusion of
AEAFL funds in Sections
128(b)(2)(ii), 133(b)(ii), and
133(b)(2)(B)(iii)
requirements.
Clarify the programs that
will use the methodology
described in 2 CFR 200.307
It is not clear if this methodology also applies to Title II.
If recommend the
methodology apply to other
programs with earned
income, including those
Title I (ETA-2015-0002) - 6.8.15
8
authorized in Title II.
29
Docket No. ETA-2015-0001
Title I 683.200(f)
Unclear if the Buy-American requirements stated in sec. 502 of WIOA for all
funds authorized in title I of WIOA and Wegner-Peyser stipulating that they
be expended on only American-made equipment also apply to other titles.
Clarify if Buy American
requirements apply to Title
II funds.
30
Docket No. ETA-2015-0001
Title I 683.215(c)(2)
Unclear if the stipulations Under Title I that personnel and related nonpersonnel costs of staff that perform both administrative functions in
paragraph (b) of this section and programmatic services or activities must
be allocated as administrative or program costs to the benefitting cost
objective/categories based on documented distributions of actual time
worked or other equitable cost allocation methods also relates to all other
title funds.
Recommendation
Do not require AEFLA
programs to keep time and
effort by category within a
grant. This would be heavy
time consuming and an
unfunded requirement.
Remove this portion of
Section 683.215(c)
Title I (ETA-2015-0002) - 6.8.15
9