Until such time as an area's new FY 2010 Annual Budget is approved, the area only need submit the Budget Modification Authorization Form provided in Attachment E2 if the name of the individual authorized to sign modifications to the area's current FY 2009 budget has changed since the date of approval of the FY2009 Annual Plan. If the authorized individual's name has not changed, a Modification Authorization form does not need to be submitted with the local ARRA Plan.

A new Budget Modification Authorization Form will be required as part of the submission of the area's FY 2010 Annual Plan.

The performance charts are "non adds" whereby a single customer could be entered multiple times, but the budget expects a cost to be entered in only one cell or another. The focus should be on the "types" of training, and the majority of training participation is for occupational skills. Additionally, ARRA funds can only be used for ABE./ESOL if it is part of a training program that combines, and is primarily for the purpose of acquiring specified occupational skills. For this reason any ARRA training that does include an Adult Basic Ed or ESOL component is to be entered into the budget (in total, no need to split costs) on the adult education line.

On May 12, 2009, the U.S. Department of Labor approved a waiver to allow local workforce boards to issue contracts funded by ARRA resources without an additional competition to vendors of youth services that were under contract following an earlier competitive procurement. The waiver allows local workforce boards to award ARRA 'companion contracts' to existing WIA vendors, up to an amount not to exceed 100% of the originally contracted amount. This waiver applies to vendors through August 31, 2009.

The Career Center charter covers all WIA adult and dislocated worker services, including those funded under ARRA.

The "state list" referenced in Section 6 of TEGL No. 14-08 refers to the state list comprised of training providers approved for ITA training under Section 122 of WIA and specifically described in Section 122(e)(A). Career Center customers and staff access the state list through MOSES and is comprised of those listed training providers for which a current ITA approval is designated.

Providers, other than institutions of higher learning, for which direct contracting for group training services is being sought by a local area, will have to be added to the ITA approved listing as designated in MOSES following the TrainingPro procedures if not already approved before a contract for group training can be executed.

It must also be stated that the Recovery Act allows for such direct contracting with Institutions of Higher Education, Vocational Schools and CBOs and other providers only in such circumstances when said contract does not limit customer choice.

DWD/DCS has been informed by the DOL Region I office that the MA Readiness Meetings will begin with DWD/DCS on Thursday April 30, 2009. The four areas they have selected for review are: Boston, Bristol, Central and Hampden. Maryanne Langton will conduct the review in three of the areas. Tom Dalton will conduct the review for Boston. The reviews need to be completed by May 15th. All four local reviews will be conducted between 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. The following schedule is proposed:

May 1, 2009 - Hampden

May 7, 2009 - Central

May 11, 2009 - Boston

May 13, 2009 - Bristol

The Massachusetts Recovery and Reinvestment Plan website lists approved "shovel ready" projects:

The information provided with regard to the approved projects offers a starting point for local area business representatives or other designated staff to initiate discussions with appropriate parties concerning the possible role the local workforce system (including referral of qualified job seekers and possible training services) may play in assisting the project to meet its workforce needs.

Currently, MOSES offers employers that are listing job openings related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) an opportunity to designate their openings as ARRA-related. And, JobQuest allows users to search job openings by ARRA designation.

ARRA planning guidance is scheduled to be posted on the MassWorkforce website and issued as an email notification on or about April 23, 2009. Completed plans will be due on May 22, 2009. Based upon the dialogue concerning current activities in the statewide readiness meetings and the need to adhere to ARRA mandates, we believe that this will provide local areas with sufficient time to formalize and submit required plans.

Following are some additional guidelines for completing Charts 1-5 in Attachment G for services provided with ARRA funds.

Columns (a) and (b): You may choose to leave columns (a) and (b) blank.

Line 5: Total Participants in Training Activities

Provide the single count of unique individuals who will receive training services on Line 5. Count each individual in each activity on Lines 5a - 5f that applies. For example: an individual who will receive ESOL and occupational skills training will be counted once on Line 5, once on Line 5b and once on Line 5c. An individual who will receive occupational skills training through a group contract will be counted once on Line 5, once on Line 5c and once on Line 5f.

Line 7: Support Services

Provide the number of individuals who will receive any support services on Line 7 and the number of individuals who will receive a needs-based payment on Line 7a. Charts 4 and 5 - FY2010 and FY2011 ARRA Program Summaries for Youth

Line 1 - ARRA Youth Participants

Line 1: Provide the number of youth by age group to be served with ARRA funds in FY2010 (Chart 4) and FY2011 (Chart 5).

Line 1a: Provide the number of youth that will be served year round with ARRA funds in FY2010 (Chart 4) and FY2011 (Chart 5). Include summer youth who will receive services after September 30 with these ARRA funds.

Lines 1b, 1bi, 1bii: Provide the number of youth by age category who will receive services in the summer program (May 1 to September 30) with ARRA funds for FY2010 and FY2011 on Line 1b. Enter zero (0) if applicable. Provide the number of work experience completions and work readiness attainments on Lines 1bi and 1bii.

Line 1c: Provide the number of out-of-school youth who will receive services with ARRA funds in FY2010 and FY2011.

Line 2 - Program Exiters

Lines 2 and 2a-d: Provide the number of ARRA youth who will exit ARRA youth funded services in the appropriate category 2a-d.

ARRA Summer youth who will not receive any ARRA youth services after September 30, 2009 should be counted as an exit in the appropriate category 2a-d.

ARRA Summer youth who will continue to receive ARRA funded services after September 30, but who will exit during FY2010 should be counted on Line 1b (ARRA Summer Youth Enrollment), 1a (ARRA year round participant), and in the applicable category in 2 a-d (exiters).

Youth who receive ARRA funded services in FY2011 should be captured on Chart 5.

Section 5 - Enrollments by Ten Program Elements

Lines 5 a-j: Provide the number of youth who will participate in each of the ten program elements. Check all that apply. All ARRA summer youth should be counted in 5c, in addition to any other program element that applies.

Lines 6-7: Provide the number of participating youth as indicated.

If you do not anticipate providing any youth services with ARRA Youth Funds in FY2011, please enter zero (0) on Line 1, columns B, C, D, and E.

If this waiver is approved by DOL prior to submittal of the plan, then summer youth aged 22-24 who continue past September 30, 2009 in a work experience component should be counted as summer youth on Chart 4 until March 31, 2010. If they continue to receive ARRA youth services after March 31, 2010, they should also be counted as a year round participant (line 1a). Local areas will have the option to modify their plan if waiver approval is received after the plan has been submitted.

Local areas will have until December 31, 2009 to make changes/corrections to their ARRA Program Summary Charts 1-5.

Per TEGL 13-08, the combined Massachusetts share is $8.063m ($3,023,796 for Wagner-Peyser Employment Services Operations and $5,039,660 for Re-Employment Services).

The $3,023,796 designated for Employment Service Operations was allocated on 3-17-09 by Wagner Peyser formula with 80% allotted to local areas ($2,419,036).

The $5,039,660 designated for Re-employment services was augmented with $2,960,340 of ARRA UI Administrative funds, providing a total of $8m, all of which will be allotted to local areas over a 2-year period ($4m per year) to provide enhanced services to UI claimants. EOLWD did not retain funds at the State level from the Reemployment Services allotment.

The methodology for Re-employment funds is based upon local data for permanently separated claimants (50%), long term UI claims (25%) and placement of UI claimants (25%) (MassWorkforce Issuance 09-22, April 9, 2009). A section of the ARRA plan will require an explanation for the use of Re-Employment funds as a pre-requisite to their release.

All recent DCS postings have the following statement in the External Comments section: "Please note, this position has been made available due to increased federal funding. Ongoing receipt of such federal funds will be necessary for continued employment in this position."

As an example, let's assume that the total local ARRA allocation for adult and dislocated worker funding for the area is $100,000. Of that amount the local area will budget the allowable maximum of 10% for administration costs leaving a balance of $90,000. To determine the 60% minimum threshold level that must be expended on training services, multiply the $90,000 x 60% = $54,000. This is the minimum amount of allocated ARRA adult and dislocated worker funding that must be expended on training services for the area.

To calculate the 10% maximum level of allocated ARRA funds that can be expended on support services based on the threshold level for the area, multiply the $54,000 x 10% = $5,400

However, please note that the 10% level is based on the amount actually expended. If a local area chooses to expend more than the minimum 60% level on training services, then the 10% maximum level available for support services would be based on that higher level of expenditure.

For instance if a local area chose to expend 65% (an area cannot choose to expend less than 60%) of its allocation of ARRA adult and dislocated worker funding on training services the calculations would be:

$100,000 total - 10% admin = $90,000 $90,000 x 65% = $58,500 $58,500 x 10% for support services = $5,850

Therefore, the local area could expend up to $5,850 in allocated ARRA adult and dislocated worker funds for support services if it chose to spend at a rate of 65%, instead of only 60% for training services.

Please note: the limitation on support services only applies to the training funds spent on these services. There is no limitation on the amount of funds outside of the training threshold that may be expended on support services

Pursuant to ARRA tenets and based upon feedback obtained through a number of forums, a training threshold was established in MassWorkforce Policy Issuance No. 09-23, Training Expenditure Threshold Requirement for Additional Adult and Dislocated Worker Funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) which was posted on April 9, 2009.

This policy states that a minimum of sixty (60) percent of the program (90% of allocation) portion of both Adult and Dislocated Worker ARRA funds must be expended on training services.

A maximum of 10% of this 60% training minimum may be applied to supportive service/needs-based payment uses.

This stresses the training mandate of the Act while recognizing the ARRA requirement that funds be made available for supportive services and needs-related payments. The policy does not restrict the use of remaining funds (40% balance) to provide additional support services/needs based payments.

It is the determination of the Commonwealth that the qualifying phraseology used in TEGL 14-08 cited in the question above is of an illustrative nature in support of clarifying the states' responsibility (articulated in an earlier section of the same paragraph) to "ensure that supportive services and needs-related payments....are available to support the employment and training needs of priority populations."

Title VIII (1) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act states that $500,000,000 is to be allotted to states for employment and training activities "including supportive services and needs-related payments described in 134(d)(4)(E) of the WIA." The Act language does not employ the qualifying terminology that the employment and training activities for which the funding is allotted "may include" support services and needs-related payments. On the contrary, the language specifically asserts that supportive services and needs-related payments are included in the activities for which the funds are being allotted to the states.

Additionally, the overall discussion of supportive services and needs-related payments in TEGL 14-08 emphasizes the importance of utilizing said services to assure the success of the expanded level of direct training services provided to individuals that is both anticipated and expected under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). TEGL 14-08 also specifically addresses utilization of supportive services and needs-related payments in relation to the particular concern for low income individuals and public assistance recipients that have priority under the Act and who, because of "family and income responsibilities" often are prevented from "successfully entering or completing training."

The language of TEGL 14-08 cited in the question above that "One-Stop Career Centers should take advantage of the availability of these payments so that customers can pursue their career goals, rather than their short-term income needs determining the length of their training" also indicates that Congressional intent is that such payments are to be made available to individuals in need of training. The intent is to assure that an individual's training choice is to be made on the basis of assuring that training aligns to the successful pursuit of the individual's career goals and not on the basis of limited choices based on artificially and arbitrarily shortened time frames dictated by the lack of personal monetary resources that prevents an individual from pursuing an appropriate course of study beyond the availability of short term unemployment benefits.

On this basis, MassWorkforce Policy Issuance No. 09-24 (4/30/09) included the following bulleted policy language in Section A3 - Increased Workforce System Capacity and Service Levels:

As is customary with MassWorkforce Policy Issuances, prior to posting the draft of the Policy Issuance was forwarded to the field for a one-week review on April 22, 2009 with responses due back on April 29, 2009. The field review yielded no comments or issues with regard to the language.

With the exception of the four competitive "pilot" sites, staff responsible for carrying out employment services under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended, must be state merit employees, and as such, must be hired through the Commonwealth's hiring process.

Nine percent (9%) of the RR funds made available through the ARRA will be used to support Rapid Response staff to be deployed in local areas. A plan is being developed for the remaining ninety-one percent (91%) which will be used to support dislocated worker activities throughout the State.

All required performance and follow-up requirements for Title I eligible adults and dislocated workers are the same for customers served with ARRA funds as those served with an area's regular annual allocation of WIA Title I funds.

For youth who participate in Title I services other than "summer employment opportunities", he or she will be included in the regular WIA reporting mechanism (WIASRD, annual report, quarterly report) and will be subject to the full set of WIA Youth performance and follow-up requirements.

The answer is no.

The selection of employers who are providing unsubsidized employment opportunities may be excluded from the competitive process (CRF 664.610). Subsidized employment opportunities must be competitively procured for all other providers except the grant recipient/fiscal agent. The scenario presented in the question above would result in disallowed costs. Below are some scenarios that would likely benefit the program in achieving performance outcomes and addresses the wage matching issue:

1). Sub-recipients pay first half of summer work experience and Employer pays the second portion as job placement.

2). Sub-recipient pays wages for a number of youth and Employer pays wages for a number of youth during the program period.

3). Sub-recipient pays wages for a number of youth during the full summer and Employer pays wages for a number of youth during the school year.

4). Sub-recipient pays wages for a number of youth during the full summer and Employer pays wages for a number of youth during the following summer.

Generally, to be eligible for unemployment benefits under a Massachusetts claim, individuals must have performed services in covered employment and must have been paid the higher of 30 times their weekly benefit amount (1/2 of average weekly wage) or $3,500 in salary/wages during the one year base period prior to filing a claim.

The first point of determination for unemployment eligibility (and therefore, any instance of full or partial liability for UI benefit payments on the part of the entity for which an individual performed work activity) is whether or not the activity performed by the individual is considered "covered employment" under Massachusetts unemployment law. Types of activities considered exempt from the definition of covered employment are iterated at M.G.L. Chapter 151A, Section 6. In particular, Section 6(u) describes as an exempted activity "service performed as part of an unemployment work-relief or work-training program assisted or financed in whole or in part by any federal agency or an agency of a state or political subdivision thereof or an Indian tribe, by an individual receiving such work relief or work training."

For purposes of Massachusetts unemployment law, services performed by an eligible youth in conjunction with WIA Section 129 (c)(2)(C) "summer employment opportunities that are directly linked to academic and occupational learning" and Section VIII (2) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 are not considered covered employment as those services fall within the exemption described in section 6(u). Therefore, compensation paid to the individual youth for the performance of such activity is not considered "subject wages" and cannot be used by the youth in establishing a claim for unemployment benefits. While the youth may qualify for unemployment benefits based on a previous job or second job in the base period, there would be no unemployment insurance liability for the entity providing work experience as the wages paid the youth by that entity could not be used in establishing a claim for benefits.

By itself, paying youth to go to summer school is not an allowable activity. However, combined work and learning models are an allowable expense for which wages and stipends may be provided for time attending the classroom component of the program.

Section 16 C of TEGL No.14-08 reads: "states and local areas may provide wages or stipends to youth in a classroom-based component of a summer employment opportunity. States and local areas should have a policy guiding the payment of classroom-based stipends and wages." Several acceptable program models are outlined in section 16 E of the same TEGL.

TEGL 14--08 section 16 E outlines several program design considerations for summer youth program implementation. In addition, Commonwealth Corporation is working with EOLWD to develop training that will include creating employer worksites, connections for youth and incorporating private sector employment strategies.

Procurement rules require that, if in the administration of the summer employment opportunities element of the local youth program, providers other than the grant recipient/fiscal agent, are used to provide summer youth employment opportunities, these providers must be selected by awarding a grant or contract on a competitive basis. This selection must be based on the recommendations of the youth council and on criteria contained in the state plan (CFR 664.610). Please note that employers who are providing unsubsidized employment opportunities may be excluded from the competitive selection process.

The following basic scenarios would likely benefit the program in achieving performance outcomes and support a subsidized employment model for competitively procured services provided through an employer:

1). Sub-recipients pay first half of summer work experience and Employer pays the second portion as job placement.

2). Sub-recipient pays wages for a number of youth and Employer pays wages for a number of youth during the program period.

3). Sub-recipient pays wages for a number of youth during the full summer and Employer pays wages for a number of youth during the school year.

4). Sub-recipient pays wages for a number of youth during the full summer and Employer pays wages for a number of youth during the following summer.

This questionnaire pertains to providers of ARRA funded WIA youth services.

Yes, Local areas should indicate the total ARRA funding amount contracted to ARRA youth providers. They should also indicate the current contract amount of regular (non-ARRA) WIA funds when the ARRA provider is also a regular WIA provider.

OJT is not encouraged as the predominant service strategy for youth and should be used sparingly; however it is allowed on an individual basis when it is called for in the individual service strategy. OJT is clearly indicated as a training option for participants in the adult and dislocated worker program (CFR 663.500). When a local program uses OJT for youth 18 and over being served in the youth program (ARRA and regular WIA) there must be a clear connection between the use of OJT and the individual’s objective assessment and formal service strategy. The rationale should be clearly documented. OJT should not be used to supplant the 10 youth elements (including summer jobs and paid and unpaid work experiences [WIA section 129(c )(2)] because, while similar there are some fundamental differences. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts encourages a summer work experience that is connected to a learning experience.

On the Job Training (OJT): as describe in WIA section 101(31) and section 663.595 of the regulations is intended to provide skills to adults and dislocated workers who are engaged in productive work on the job and who have prior work experience. OJT is characteristic of retraining incumbent workers and people with existing career pathways having higher skill levels for a particular occupations and who are in need of new skill acquisition. This model is short term and varies in length and type of activity. It is based on the needs of the individual relative to his or her career advancement. This model is inappropriate for youth participating in group summer jobs and work experiences. However, there may be individual instances where it is appropriate.

Summer Jobs and Paid/Un-Paid Work Experiences: as described in 664.410 are designed for youth who generally have little to no work history. It is short term, however it is intended for low skilled youth who may receive a variety of work experiences as part of an overall youth development strategy that includes career exploration and work readiness. Services are based on the individual needs of the youth as documented in the individual service strategy.

The selection of OJT providers differs from the selection process for youth service providers. Section 663.595 of the regulations describes the selection process for OJT providers and states: "these providers are not subject to the other requirements of WIA section 122 or this subpart (663). However, providers of youth service are subject to the competitive procurement requirements in section 123 of WIA."

Section 664.610 states, with respect to the selection of summer employment opportunities providers: "if in the administration of the summer employment opportunities element of the local youth program, providers other than the grant recipient/fiscal agent are used to provide summer youth employment opportunities these providers must be selected by awarding a grant or contract on a competitive basis." The section also states "[the] selection of employers who are providing unsubsidized employment opportunities may be excluded from the competitive process".

Youth may be co-enrolled in the WIA/ARRA Summer Youth Employment program. In deciding whether or not to co-enroll youth in the ARRA and regular WIA summer programs, local areas are advised of the following:

1. Participants enrolled in regular WIA are subject to the statutory performance measures as well as the ARRA work readiness measure (TEGL 14-08, section 16A).

2. Local program administrators must be diligent to ensure a process for tracking expenditures by funding source (TEGL 14-08, section 16A).

Combined work and learning models are an allowable expense for which wages and stipends may be provided for time attending the classroom component of the program. Section 16 C of TEGL No.14-08 reads: "states and local areas may provide wages or stipends to youth in a classroom-based component of a summer employment opportunity. States and local areas should have a policy guiding the payment of classroom-based stipends and wages." Several acceptable program models are outlined in section 16 E of the same TEGL. (See also Youth Question 3, above)

No. While there is a requirement that local areas monitor sub-recipients and worksites, there is no specific requirement in either the Act or the regulations that a local area conduct monitoring on weekends or each day of the individual’s work activity. The decision to actually monitor on a Saturday would depend on the local policies and practices, including the particular personnel policies of the organizations involved.

However, a good practice would be to make sure that monitoring occurs during the times that youth are in placement, so as to observe them in their actual work setting. If the activity occurs regularly on a weekend, then it is sound practice to provide some weekend oversight coverage that would allow for a full spectrum of oversight and observation.

The language of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulations relevant to income sources that are exempted from being counted toward a family's eligibility for TAFDC benefits has been changed to include the following entry:

"Summer employment income earned between May 1, 2009 and September 30, 2009, by recipients aged 14-24 is non-countable." [106 CMR 204.250 (revised 5/09)].

In addition, please note that Youthbuild or Americorps allowances, earnings or payments to individuals participating in those programs have been previously exempted from being counted as income for purposes of TAFDC eligibility and hare also included in the list of income exemptions found at 106 CMR 204.250.

See MassWorkforce Information Issuance No. 09-32

The Recovery Act FAQ located on the USDOL/ETA website provides the following response:

"Under 20 CFR 664.460(c), the purpose of work experience for youth is to provide the youth participant with opportunities for career exploration and skill development and is not to solely benefit the employer or increase company revenue. In light of this, work experience should be designed as a training activity and participants cannot be considered as the equivalent of regular employees.

Additionally, if the activity is construction-related, the wages paid to participants may need to conform to the prevailing wage requirements identified in the Davis Bacon Act, and local areas would need to determine this."

The Recovery Act FAQ located on the USDOL/ETA website provides the following response:

"Section 1604 of the Recovery Act prohibits States, local governments, or any private entity from using stimulus funds for any casino or other gambling establishment, aquarium, zoo, golf course, or swimming pool. Under this prohibition, Recovery Act funds may not be used to support these types of organizations through employment and training services such as on-the-job training (OJT), customized training, and use of funds at summer employment worksites.

This provision does not apply to regular, annual formula WIA allotments.

ETA has [also] determined that the Recovery Act restriction does not prohibit labor exchange functions, including employment at such facilities, under either Recovery Act funding or regular, formula-based funding under the Wagner-Peyser Act, as these resources do not provide direct financial support to such organizations. Jobs at these types of organizations may be listed in job banks and individuals may be provided referrals and placement assistance for such jobs.

Note that this restriction does not extend to all employers that have swimming pools, golf courses, etc. on site. For example, for youth summer employment, a young person could be placed with an organization such as a city park or a YMCA that has a swimming pool or golf course on site. However, that young person’s work experience should not include pool or golf-course responsibilities. By the same token, this restriction is not about lifeguarding generally, and does not restrict the workforce system from using Recovery Act funds at summer employment worksites such as beaches or lakes."

The Youth Provider Survey in Attachment I pertains to providers of ARRA funded WIA youth services. Any vendor that receives ARRA funding during the summer or during the year round program should be indicated on this form as a provider. That includes new providers and regular WIA providers who also receive ARRA funds. An updated list of providers must be submitted when they become approved by the local area. Local areas must submit the update using the instruction on Attachment A of the business plan instructions found in MassWorkforce Issuance 09-25.

The issue related to this question concerns the extent to which a fiscal agent can contract for supervisory staff without the need to follow a competitive procurement process.

The LWIB's fiscal agent is authorized to operate a youth jobs program without the need to follow a competitive procurement process that is otherwise required under WIA Section 123. When a fiscal agent is operating a program, it has responsibility for all aspects of the program - managing youth and employer recruitment, documenting eligibility and providing appropriate framework services, ensuring a match between individual youth and available job opportunities, assuring the presence of program staff and worksite supervision in order that each participating youth has a quality work experience, entering program data on MOSES, and documenting program performance.

Clearly, if the core functions of program operation were subcontracted to one or more local providers - whether they are youth serving organizations or municipalities - the subcontract is subject to the requirement to have a full and open competition. Most fiscal agents are municipal departments, and would need to follow the procurement requirements of M.G.L. ch. 30B.

In the question posed above, the fiscal agent/program operator retains the full responsibility of operating the summer jobs program. The fiscal agent is simply exercising a choice to contract with another municipality to obtain additional worksite supervisors, not contracting away a portion of the summer program to another entity. The fiscal agent in this situation retains overall program responsibility and accountability, and does not need to hold a competitive procurement when contracting with another municipality.

The answer would be the same, although there is an additional consideration regarding the potential conflict of interest that might exist. The U.S. Department of Labor issued TEGL No. 9-00 - Competitive and Noncompetitive Procedures for Providing Youth Activities Under Title I. That TEGL sought to articulate clear policy concerning administrative procurement procedures and about the extent to which providers of youth services, such as the program design framework component, the ten WIA youth program elements must be competitively selected. That TEGL provides:

The TEGL presented the example of a conflict of interest when the fiscal agent actually conducted a competitive bid and a closely-aligned city department subsequently submitted a proposal. In the example of the summer jobs program, a fiscal agent should be concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest if it used WIA youth program funds to pay the salaries of staff from other departments in the city to serve as worksite supervisors without considering the issue of unfair advantage. The appearance of conflict would be greatest if it appeared as though the fiscal agent was using its position to direct federal funds to fill gaps in the city's budget. Our answer does not prohibit a fiscal agent from deploying municipal staff as youth supervisors, but the fiscal agent should take additional steps to avoid the appearance of conflict - by having the LWIB approve the program arrangement, for example.

The program design framework component, i.e., 'framework services', is an essential ingredient in helping local areas develop comprehensive service strategies for youth based upon their individual needs. It consists of intake, an objective assessment, individual service strategy development, and information and referrals for youth participants. WIA Section 129(c)(1). The framework services component creates an opportunity for a central access point to both determine eligibility and make appropriate referrals for participating youth.

Local boards decide how to deliver framework services and how to integrate this component into the larger youth program. 20 CFR Section 664.405 provides that the LWIB's fiscal agent may provide framework services without being competitively selected. In the alternative, local boards may use a competitive selection process so that framework services are part of the activities of a service provider, or framework services can be centralized yet provided by a contracted organization.

On May 12, 2009, the U.S. Department of Labor approved a waiver to allow local workforce boards to issue contracts funded by ARRA resources without an additional competition to vendors of youth services that were under contract following an earlier competitive procurement. Local investment area youth programs faced an enormous challenge in attempting to quickly spend additional youth funding allotted under the ARRA during the summer of 2009. Many of the potential new providers of ARRA youth services are current, contracted service providers under WIA. The waiver allows local workforce boards to award ARRA 'companion contracts' to existing WIA vendors, up to an amount not to exceed 100% of the originally contracted amount. This waiver applies to vendors through August 31, 2009.

WIA Section 129(c) makes clear that framework services and the ten elements of a youth program represent youth activities funded using formula grant resources. Local workforce boards are authorized to "identify eligible providers of youth activities by awarding grants or contracts on a competitive basis." WIA Section 123 (emphasis added).

The combined impact of WIA Section 129(c), Section 123, and the approved waiver is that local boards may issue a companion contract to an organization who is already under contract subsequent to an earlier competitive procurement for framework services without a new or separate competition. The ARRA contract cannot exceed the value of the WIA contract for framework services, and the ARRA contract can only extend to August 31, 2009. The LWIB will have to conduct a new competition for framework services that are to be provided on or after September 1, 2009.

There is no simple definitive treatment for either of these terms. Issues concerning wages are generally resolved with reference to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Section 201), which is the employment statute of broadest scope in the nation. The FLSA covers employees of Federal, State, and local governments, as well as all establishments in the private sector that have at least two employees. There is no uniform treatment of wages in the FLSA, since there are a wide variety of exemptions when accommodating for employment that includes tips, lodging, tools and clothing, or provides for pay on the basis of piecework, and several other exceptions. The FLSA establishes a federal minimum wage. Under state law in Massachusetts, our minimum wage rate automatically increases to 10 cents above the rate set in the FLSA if the Federal minimum wage equals or becomes higher than the State minimum. Minimum wage is currently $8.00 per hour.

In general, a wage under FLSA involves:

an employment relationship between employer and an individual;

the production of goods or services; and

a reasonable compensation measured by a wage per hour of employment.

A stipend, on the other hand, is the award of nominal compensation that is not tied to a prevailing wage level or based on the value of goods produced. Stipends are often awarded in lieu of a wage, especially for an internship placement where the intern is receiving training or practical experience. An intern is clearly not a replacement for paid staff, and their presence in the workplace is part of academic studies or job training. In some cases, the stipend award is a nominal amount given to recognize the achievement of a program or internship milestone - completion of the internship, or an incentive awarded for a specific achievement (attendance, high grades or earning a diploma or certificate). The internship should be of a limited duration and there should be specific learning goals tied to such.

With regard to tax treatment, the award of wages is subject to the IRS withholding requirements while the award of a stipend is not. Both forms of payment represent income to the recipient that is subject to federal income tax.

The stipend should not be established based on the number of hours worked, or it could be interpreted as an attempt to avoid the application of minimum wage laws, or the requirement for federal and state tax withholding.

For purposes of administering a summer jobs program for youth in Massachusetts, the Commonwealth favors the strong policy in favor of paying wages to youth rather than stipends. We agree that most summer placements offer a youth work experience and workplace learning, and therefore represent the opportunity to issue a stipend. However, the stronger argument is that youth are engaged in the provision of services and should have the benefit of all federal and state wage, hour, and child labor law protections that attach to employment.

The Commonwealth strongly favors youth programs that combine work with learning - either integrating workplace learning into a work experience, or providing combinations of part-time work with literacy instruction, academics, or GED preparation. In these circumstances, the work itself, and the wages paid for part-time employment serve as incentives for participating in classroom activities. In some situations, payment for the hours spent in classroom activities represents a powerful incentive for both participation and learning.

We caution against paying youth for participating in academic classes for which a high school offers credit towards a diploma. The most common example is a summer school class in an academic subject - where a clear inequity could result if some students are paid because they are part of a larger youth program while others who are enrolled in the same class are not paid.

There are many arrangements where pay-for-learning are acceptable. Programs for youth in after-school settings, classrooms-at-the-workplace that offer literacy or numeracy instruction, or even pay for time spent in GED preparation. Our policy only applies to (a) public high school courses; (b) that are academic; and where (c) the award of academic credit is the primary objective.

The Commonwealth does not view it as a separate program with a different age parameter. A participant is an individual who is determined eligible to participate in the program and receives a service funded by the program in either a physical location or remotely through electronic technologies (TEGL 17-05, attachment B). A participant who meets all of the necessary eligibility requirements of the program at time of registration can participate in the program until the time of exit which occurs 90 days after the last date of service (TEGL 17-05, attachment B). The objective assessment along with the individual service strategy (ISS) should be used to guide a participant's mix of program element services including length of program participation in order to achieve the intended outcomes (CFR 664.405, 664.410, WIA Section 129(c )(1)).

"Eligibility is determined at the point of participation. A youth who is eligible at the time of participation may continue to be served if he/she ages out provided that there has been no break of service.

A youth participant who exits from youth services (90 days without service) at 22 (or 25 for ARRA) can return for service but cannot re-enroll as a youth. He or she must enroll into the Adult or Dislocated Worker services depending upon his/her eligibility at the time of the new enrollment."

Yes, for the purposes of the Recovery Act funds, the period of "Summer" will be from May 21 through September 30. "Summer employment" may include any set of allowable WIA Youth services that occur during the above referenced summer months as long as it includes a work experience component (TEGL 14-08, 16A).

An out of school youth is defined in WIA 101 (33) as: "an eligible youth who is a school drop out; or an eligible youth who has received a secondary school diploma or its equivalent but is basic skills deficient, unemployed, or underemployed." The definition continues to state "for reporting purposes, this term includes all youth except: (i) those who are attending any school and have not received a secondary school diploma or a recognized equivalent, or (ii) those who are attending post-secondary school and are not basic skills deficient (TEGL 17-05)".

Therefore, an out-of-school youth is an eligible youth who meets any one of the following characteristics:

1. A youth who is a school dropout. This is always an out-of-school youth.

2. A youth who is a high school graduate (attained diploma or equivalent), not attending post secondary education (college) but is basic skills deficient or unemployed or underemployed. Is the youth "basic skills" deficient, unemployed or underemployed? If the answer to any one of the three questions is yes, this is an out-of-school youth.

3. A youth who is a high school graduate (attained diploma or equivalent), attending post-secondary education and is basic skills deficient. Is the high school graduate, who is attending college basic skills deficient? If the answer is yes they are considered an out of school youth for reporting purposes.

Note that the definition of 'out-of-school' relates only to the reporting of youth participants. A youth must first be an 'eligible' youth. Eligibility is defined by the barriers listed in WIA Section 101(13)(c):

• Basic Skills Deficient,
• School Dropout,
• Homeless, Runaway, or Foster Child,
• Pregnant or Parenting,
• Offender, or

An individual (including a youth with a disability) who requires additional assistance to complete an educational program or to secure and hold employment.

It is unlikely that a youth who has successfully entered college should be deemed eligible for WIA services. WIA is targeted at the hardest to serve youth, and is intended to be utilized as the program resource of last resort.

While many employers might prefer college-aged youth to serve internships and gain work experience, the WIA youth program's focus should remain on meeting the needs of the hardest-to-serve youth. A few college students in very unique circumstances might technically meet the eligibility requirements, but as a matter of state and local priority they should not be served at the expense of the many other youth who are clearly less advantaged.

No, it is not necessary to separately establish eligibility when participants are enrolled or co-enrolled in the Title I WIA youth program. Eligibility would only have to be re-established in the case in which a participant had been previously exited. The Commonwealth cautions local areas that exiting participants where the intention is to continue them in the program beyond September 30, 2009 would necessitate re-establishing eligibility. This activity could prove an unnecessary barrier to the program. In addition, participants who are served with regular formula WIA (Non-Recovery Act WIA) at any time are subject to the statutory performance measures.

A signed copy of a federal tax return for the most recent tax period is, in the absence of information to the contrary, sufficient evidence of reasonable effort to obtain documentation of family size. Federal tax returns require a signature under penalty of perjury. This gives it similar qualities to that of an applicant statement.

There are a several factors to consider in responding to this question including date of exit, age and school status of the participant for ARRA funded services, and the operational parameters of the skill attainment goal. In general, a participant is not considered exited until 90 days have passed without any services including those provided by a partner (TEGL 17-05). All participants that were part of the summer youth employment program are subject to only the work readiness/skill attainment measure (TEGL14-08). USDOL allowed states to apply for a waiver to continue work readiness only for out-of-school participants aged 18 -24 years who are served with ARRA funds between October 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010. Massachusetts has been granted the waiver. Any participants aged 14 - 17 served past September 30, 2009 are not included in the waiver and are therefore subject to the regular statutory performance measures. The skill attainment goal set for any participant served with ARRA funds must be achieved within one year (TEGL 17-05).

Scenario 1: A participant is 18 - 24 and was enrolled during the 2009 summer youth employment program. The participant has not received a service for 90 days or more and therefore by definition is considered exited from the program. In order to participate in the program again, the former participant must meet the eligibility requirements again. Once they are re-enrolled, the participant can be subject to only the work readiness/skill attainment measure if the local area program seeks to use the waiver. A new goal must be set because they are counted as a new participant for reporting purposes.

Scenario 2: A participant is 18 - 24 and was enrolled during the 2009 summer youth employment program. The participant is not considered exited because the last date of service is not beyond 90 days. The participant can be subject to only the work readiness/skill attainment measure after September 30, 2009 if the local area seeks use of the waiver. It might not be necessary to set a new goal for data reporting purposes, if a previous work readiness/skill attainment goal was already achieved during the summer. Although setting new goals as part of an ongoing individual strategy would be an important program practice.

Scenario 3: Participant is 14 - 17 and is being served with ARRA funds after September 30, 2009. The participant is subject to the statutory performance measures that apply.

In any of the scenarios above, new goals can be set for the purpose of documenting continual progress on a participant's individual service strategy. That is separate from the goals that are set for performance reporting purposes in MOSES. It is important to continually set interim benchmark goals that relate to the individual's service strategy and to document that progress in notes or in a case plan, particularly those goals that reflect an increasing level of work readiness. Work readiness is not a one time achievement but is to be considered an ongoing activity and should be viewed as part of a life-long learning proposition. There are many dimensions of work readiness in everyday life and as the world of work is continually changing and there are many levels of readiness, the youth programs should reflect that reality.

Yes. ETA announced in Training and Guidance Letter (TEGL) No.14-08 that states could apply for a waiver that provides added program design flexibility in serving out-of-school youth ages 18-24 who participate in work experience outside the summer months by allowing states to use the work readiness indicator as the only indicator of performance for out-of-school youth 18-24 served through additional ARRA youth funds. However, as cited the waiver is only applicable for the six month period (October 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010) following the summer of 2009. Therefore, ARRA funding cannot be used for such work experience programs beyond March 31, 2010.

The Commonwealth's request for approval of this waiver was granted and was announced to the State’s One-Stop Career Center System in MassWorkforce Issuance No. 09-52 (7/27/09).

Additionally, in recognizing that many older and out-of-school youth need supportive services to enable them to participate in work experience, the waiver is also applicable to out-of-school youth ages 18-24 who receive supportive services in addition to participating in work experience.

Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 24-08 details the reporting requirements for youth served with ARRA funds. According to TEGL No. 24-08:

"If a youth served with Recovery Act funds does not participate in summer employment or is served before May 1 or beyond September 30, he/she would also be included in the regular WIA reports and be subject to the full set of WIA Youth measures or youth common measures for those states that have a waiver to report common performance measures outcomes only. For WIA Youth Recovery Act-funded services, the only exception is for youth 22-24 years old. Since these youth fall outside of the regular WIA Youth eligibility cohort because of age, they would not be included in the regular WIA Youth report.

ETA encourages states and /or local areas that serve 22-24 year old youth with Recovery Act funds beyond the summer to co-enroll them in the WIA Adult and /or Dislocated Worker program when appropriate. If such youth are co-enrolled in the WIA Adult Program, they would be reported through the WIA Adult performance measures. If such youth are co-enrolled in the WIA Dislocated Worker program they would be reported through the WIA Dislocated Worker performance measures."

Per additional guidance received from the ETA Region I Office with regard to TEGL No. 24-08 and TEGL No. 14-08, USDOL encourages states, when appropriate, to transition 22-24 year old youth through co-enrollment in either the Adult or Dislocated Worker program. It is possible to continue to serve 22-24 year old youth with ARRA Youth funding only, however the number of participants in this category would, ideally, be limited. There may be cases, based on individual assessment and service planning in which a local area determines it to be inappropriate for a 22-24 year old participant in the WIA Youth program to be served as a co-enrolled participant of either the Adult or Dislocated Worker programs. In said circumstances, the reasons for such a local decision should be documented in the case file and/or in MOSES.

Yes. For purposes of the Recovery Act funds, the period of "summer" is the period from May 1 through September 30 (TEGL 14-08).

No. The Work Readiness measure applies to all participants being served with Recovery Act funds for the summer portion only. "Summer" is defined as the period from May 1 through September 30 (TEGL 14-08). During the first year-round program of the Recovery Act a waiver was granted to Massachusetts extending work readiness as the only measure for 6 months (see MassWorkforce Issuance No. 09-52 Attachment A). The waiver applied to those out-of-school participants aged 18-24 being served between October 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010. This was approved as a one-time waiver, only and will not be granted during the second year-round program under ARRA. After September 30, 2009, participants aged 14-17 and in-school youth aged 18-21 are subject to the regular WIA youth performance measures, respective of their age groups.

First, all enrollees in the summer 2009 ARRA Summer Youth program must be exited from that program by March 31, 2010. If it is intended that a youth continue to receive services during the period between March 31 and May 1, 2010 when a regular formula-funded Summer Youth Program begins he or she must be enrolled in the program under which those services, such as "work experience" will be provided (Title I Youth). If an area intends to operate an ARRA-funded Summer Youth Program in the summer period of 2010, program enrollment and reporting would be consistent with TEGL 14-08 as applied to the 2009 Summer Youth Program.

Second, all participants served with Recovery Act funds during the summer of 2009 who received a work experience component were subject to the "work readiness" measure, only. A waiver granted to the Commonwealth, extended "work readiness" as the only measure for those out-of-school youth who continued to participate in services for the 6-month period from October 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010. However, any youth participant served after March 31, 2010 will be subject to the full suite of performance measures that are relevant to their age group or, in the case of common measures their designation as either an "in-school" or "out-of-school" youth. Those participants aged 14-17 who are served after September 30, 2009, are subject to the particular WIA measures that apply to them. In-school participants aged 18-21 served after September 30, 2009, are subject to the specific WIA measures that apply to them.

Out-of-school Recovery Act participants aged 18-24 are covered by the waiver cited above that allows the work readiness measure to be the only measure for reporting between October 1, 2009 and March 31, 2010. Of that group, those participants aged 18-21 years old are subject to their respective performance measures after March 31. Because 22-24 year old youth fall outside the normal WIA reporting requirements they are not included in the performance reporting cohort during year-round formula-funded programming after March 31, 2010 (TEGL 14-08).

The youth performance waivers the Commonwealth requested and was granted in relation to ARRA were only granted for the period October 1, 2009 through March 31, 2010. However, the use of the work readiness measure as the only performance goal for summer youth participants was not based on a waiver request.

Under the WIA Youth Program section of TEGL 14-08 the following is stated (p. 24):

"The work readiness portion of the skill attainment rate will be the only indicator used for youth that participate in "summer employment" only. The basic and occupational skills portion of the skills attainment rate and the literacy/numeracy gains measure will not be required for youth that participate in summer employment only. In addition, no other WIA or Common measure indicator will be required for youth in summer employment only. However, for reporting purposes, local areas will be required to track the number of participants enrolled in summer employment and the completion rate of those summer employment [i.e., (# youth who complete their summer employment work experience / # of youth who participate in summer employment) x 100%]."

As ARRA youth funding is available to states through June 30, 2011 a summer program funded with ARRA youth funds for the summer period of 2010 would follow the instruction cited above. There is no need for the Commonwealth to request that the "work readiness" measure be applied in summer, 2010 as it was applied in summer 2009.

TEGL 14-08 provides the time parameters for the summer program. It states: "For the purpose of the Recovery Act funds, the period of "summer" will be from May 1 through September 30. 'summer employment' may include any set of allowable WIA youth services that occur during the above referenced summer months as long as it includes a work experience component. Work experience is defined under WIA regulation at 20 CFR 66.460." This definition pertains to Recovery Act funds used during the summer of 2009 and the summer of 2010.

Yes, an injury that requires stitches is considered to be of a serious nature and a WIA/ARRA Summer Youth Incident Alert Notice Form should be completed and submitted in accordance with Policy Issuance No. 09-58, Alert Notices of Serious Incidents Involving WIA/ARRA Summer Youth (8/9/2009).