|
|
|
Budget |
|
Q |
Current WIA regulations
dictate that program accruals, expenditures and obligations must total 80%
of the program portion of the allocation after the first twelve months of
operation. Does the 80% requirement also apply to WIA 173(e) funds as
well? |
|
A |
Yes, accruals,
expenditures and obligations must total 80% of the program portion of the
allocation after the first twelve months. |
|
|
|
|
Q |
WIA Title I Dislocated
Worker grants are two-year allocations. Does this same two-year period
also apply to WIA 173(e) allocations as well? |
|
A |
Yes, the same two-year
period applies to WIA 173(e) funds. |
|
|
|
|
Q |
Can FY 2004 Wagner-Peyser
(ES) funds be carried into FY 2005? |
|
A |
No
(see revision below)
In accordance with WIA Communication 04-55 the carry-in of FY2004
ES funds is allowed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
If a move planned for
FY 2004 will not take place in’04, can the ES funds budgeted for this
move be carried into FY 2005 to pay for the move then? If the ES
budgeted funds are not expended in FY 2004 will they be lost? |
|
A |
Allocated FY 2004
funds not expended during the current fiscal year can not be carried
into FY 2005.(see revision below)
In accordance with WIA Communication 04-55 the carry-in of FY2004
ES funds is allowed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
Much of local lag is
generated from unfilled DCS positions, is anything being done to make
the DCS hiring process more efficient and timely? This is
a performance issue? |
|
A |
DCS is giving priority
status to the resolution of hiring issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
Can FY 2005 Wagner-Peyser
(ES) funds be carried into FY 2006? |
|
A |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
Will there be a limit
as to the amount of FY 2005 ES funds carried into FY 2006? |
|
A |
There will be no cap |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
Why is it necessary to
increase the portion of ES 90 percent funds retained at the state
level for FY 2005? |
|
A |
Costs associated with
the restructuring of DET into two distinct agencies with a shared
infrastructure group along with increased state overhead, fringe,
indirect and related charges and the on-going upgrade and maintenance
of MOSES require additional financial resources that continue to
challenge traditional distribution formulae. New financial
reporting tools currently being developed will improve the capacity of
State and local managers to track costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
Will the “backup”
percentages used to determine the local allocation of Wagner-Peyser
funds for FY 2005 be issued or made available to the field? |
|
A |
Yes, the methodology
followed in determining local allocations will be made available. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
Can the VETs portion
of premises costs be charged against the VETs grant? |
|
A |
Use of VETs Grant
funds to cover premises costs is not an allowable DVOP/LVER support
expenditure as delineated in Chapter 41 Title 38 U.S.C., as amended. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
Why will DCS retain
the share of premises costs for DCS/DUA owned or leased buildings that
are to be covered by DCS administered funding sources instead of
billing the local area for the full premises cost? Since WIA
Title I, Wagner-Peyser and other DCS administered funds constitute
only a “portion” of the overall funding sources used to cover local
premises costs DCS will still have to bill the local area, so why
retain the DCS administered funds….it will not eliminate DCS’s need to
bill for premises costs? |
|
A |
It makes little fiscal
sense to disburse DCS-administered fund source revenue to the field,
only to have DCS bill the field to retrieve these same funds,
particularly when DCS is permitted to retain allocated ES funds for
this same purpose. Historically, some local areas have not
provided funds as needed to meet the timing of State automatic loan
payment schedules even when billing has occurred. The continued
need to bill local areas for funding from non-major grant sources is
one, but not the only factor that must be considered when determining
the system to be followed to assure timely adherence to State
payment obligations. If the local cost allocation methodology
must be used to budget the ES share of the lease cost that the LWIB
then directs DCS to retain, then the same process should work for the
identification and DCS retention of WIA funds. Any reallocation
of funds can be addressed through a simplified re-designation process
that might affect use of ES funds as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
Will WIA Title I funds
be available to the field on July 1st? |
|
A |
Funding contracts will
be in place for July 1st. Local areas will be informed as soon
as Federal information regarding available FY 2005 cash is provided to
the State. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
How may 173(e) funds
be used? |
|
A |
They are to be used in
compliance with existing dislocated worker regulations and only
for providing services to dislocated workers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
What are the reporting
requirements for 173(e) funds? |
|
A |
TEGL 20-03 only
references financial reporting requirements. It states however,
that detailed reporting instructions will be included as part of the
Federal grant award document. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
Can the Workforce
Training Fund allocation for WIB support be contracted directly to the
WIBs? |
|
A |
Yes. It is
intended that the local area’s response to Question 1(e) in the plan
narrative will serve as the required Scope of Work for a direct
contract with a local WIB for use of the WTF funds. Therefore a
full, detailed description of how the local area intends to use its
allocation of Workforce Training Funds must be submitted in the
response to Question 1(e). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
May a competitive area
choose not to take employee “support” funds because it prefers that
the state cover those costs? |
|
A |
The employee support
package is specific to the support of DCS employees. It is not
an option that is available to support competitive area, non-DCS
employees. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
The FY ‘04 Budget form
included a line entitled “Capital Exp – FY 2005”. It has been
eliminated in the FY 2005 WIB Business Plan Budget form. If a
local area plan for FY ’04 reflected capital expenditures for FY ’05,
will the use of those planned ’04 funds in FY 2005 be allowed, despite
the announced policy of no “carry-in” for FY ‘05? |
|
A |
No…..allocated FY 2004
funds not expended during the current fiscal year are not exempt from
the ES carryout prohibition. (see revision
below)
In accordance with WIA Communication 04-55 the carry-in of FY2004
ES funds is allowed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
How should an area
account for other funding sources contributing to local workforce
development services that are not currently included in the Annual
Workforce Development Business Plan Budget form? |
|
A |
Local planners may use
additional WIB Annual Business Plan spreadsheet pages to account for
“other” program funding sources utilized by their area (such as Rapid
Response, MRC, etc.). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
Do Summer Employment
program costs have to be reported separately? |
|
A |
Yes, they must be
reported separately. CommCorp will provide additional information as
to what specifically constitutes “summer employment” costs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
How are Youth
“program” and “administration” costs differentiated? |
|
A |
CommCorp will provide additional information regarding the
differentiation between Youth “program” and “administration” costs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
How can 173(e) funds
be used? |
|
A |
The 173(e) funds are
National Emergency Grant funds. Per statute, a state must
distribute these funds based on either the federal formula methodology
for distributing Adult Title I funds [§133 (b)(i)(2)(A)] or for
distributing Dislocated Worker funds [§133 (b)(ii)(2)(B)]. For
FY 2005, the Commonwealth chose to distribute its 173(e) allotment
following the Dislocated Worker formula which was determined to
provide the most equitable statewide distribution.
Once a state chooses
the methodology to distribute the 173(e) funds, the
FY 1999 Appropriations Act on WIA §173(e) Additional Assistance,
§(4)(B) clearly states that the funds should be used “in the same
manner as the State uses other funds allocated under the appropriate
paragraph of §133(b).” Therefore, for FY 2005 the local
allocation of
173(e) funds will be used in the same manner as
Dislocated Worker funds.
Since the 173(e) funds
are from the National Emergency Reserve funds, they are not
“transferable” with Adult funds as they are not Title I funds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
Must the local
allocation of 173(e) be included in the integrated budget? |
|
A |
Yes, the 173(e) funds
need to be included in the integrated budget. It was an
oversight that a column heading for the funds was not included on the
FY 2005 Annual Workforce Investment Area Business Plan Budget form.
Local planners must either add a column or use the “Other” column for
these funds (only). The 173(e) funds must be used in the same
manner as the local allocation of Title I Dislocated Worker funds.
They are not, however, “transferable” with Title I Adult funds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
How must the use of
173(e) funds be reported? |
|
A |
According to Training
and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 20-03, the local allotment of
173(e) grant funds must be reported separately. Specific
reporting instructions were not included in the TEGL but will be
provided in the grant award document. The Commonwealth has not
yet received the grant award document. Upon receipt of the
document, local areas will be instructed as to the specific reporting
requirements. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forms & Signatures |
|
Q |
Are all the signature
entries on the “Signature Page” required? |
|
A |
All designated
signatures included on the FY 2005 Annual Workforce Development
Business Plan Signature Page are required by the Commonwealth.
To limit the potential issues of timely signature by all parties,
individual copies of the Signature Page may be forwarded to each
signatory and then collated for submission with the Business Plan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Misc |
|
Q |
If a local area’s
Labor Market conditions have not changed appreciably from last year,
may the local area submit a “No Change” response to the Part II Labor
Market Analysis section of the local plan? |
|
A |
A “No Change” response
for the FY 2005 Labor Market Analysis section of the plan, or for any
part of the local plan is not acceptable. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
What is the status of
career center “evening” hours for FY 2005? |
|
A |
For FY 2005, career
centers will no longer be required to schedule “extended” operating
hours for two evenings each week that are in addition to their
regular, full time business hours. However, to provide
flexibility and to promote greater customer access, career centers
will be required to implement, as part of their regular, full time
business hours a schedule that includes either one evening or a
Saturday morning each week. Because the FY 2005 hours of
operation schedule will not require any business hours “above and
beyond” the regular, full time schedule no additional financial
resources beyond the regular local allocation are available to support
each center’s chosen hours of operation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
Is the DCS “MOU”
included as part of the “Annual Local Workforce Development Business
Plan”? |
|
A |
Yes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
When will the plan go
to the Governor? |
|
A |
The Department of
Workforce Development is designated by the Governor to review and
approve the local plans consistent with requirements of the Workforce
Investment Act. Submission of the Local FY 2005 Annual Workforce
Development Business Plan to the Division of Career Services
constitutes submission to DWD and satisfies the requirement to submit
local plans to the Governor for review and approval. |
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
Given that completed
plans are due on June 10th, how do local areas meet the 30-day comment
period requirement? |
|
A |
Submitting a detailed
Executive Summary of the local plan for public comment will satisfy
the requirement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Narrative |
|
Q |
Can a local area
provide services to youth who are not eligible under WIA Title I? |
|
A |
Local areas may not
utilize WIA title I funds to provide services to non-WIA eligible
Title I youth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance Measures |
|
Q |
Regarding data
included in the Performance Charts, are “individuals” or
“transactions” being counted? |
|
A |
The performance data
included in the planning package charts is a count of “Individuals”.
It should be noted that in terms of reporting service activity for
individuals, if an individual has been served at two (or more)
centers, the individual is counted in both (all) centers’ statistics
for “career center” level reports, but counted only once in the
roll-up to the “area” level performance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
The March 31st data
for the number of employer customers appears incorrect and appears to
be a “cumulative” problem. Can this be checked and corrected, if
necessary? |
|
A |
The data will be
reviewed and corrected, if necessary, in the official posting of the
WIA Issuance? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
The field has
traditionally received a 3rd Qtr. report of WIA Title I customer
“characteristics” for use in annual planning, will we receive a
“characteristics” report for ’05 planning? |
|
A |
DCS will distribute
the 3rd Qtr. Title I and Title III Participant Summary report within
30 days of the end of the quarter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q |
The Employer Services
section of the March 2004 OSCCAR shows incorrect numbers for “New to
Career Center” and “Repeat” employers. What should I use for the
historical information that is needed in the “July-June FY2004” column
of Chart 1: FY2005 Labor Exchange Program and Performance Summary for
OSCCs? |
|
A |
At the April 22
Performance Management meeting in Marlboro we discussed the errors in
the counts of “New to Career Center” and “Repeat” employers in March
2004 OSCCAR reports. At that time we indicated that those two
items could be left blank in the FY2004 column, or that accurate
numbers developed at the local level could be used in the FY2004
column. Since the meeting the errors have been corrected and
accurate numbers should appear on the April 2004 OSCCAR. The
April numbers may also be used in Chart 1. To summarize, these
are the three alternatives that local planners may use to complete the
historical data in the rows “New to Career Center” and “Repeat”
employers in the FY2004 column of Chart 1: FY2005 Labor Exchange
Program and Performance Summary for OSCCs:
Leave the “New to CC” and “Repeat” cells blank or enter n/a; or
Enter the “New to CC” and “Repeat” data based on local estimates; or
Enter the “New to CC” and “Repeat” data from the April 2004 OSCCAR.
Please note that plan
approvals will not be affected by the choice of or lack of entries “New to
CC” and “Repeat” in the FY2004 column of Chart 1. |
|
|
