Q&A 04-68


[Q&A Policy Issuances] [Q&A Information Issuances]
Q & A Policy Issuance 04-68 ITA Initial and Subsequent Eligibility

Issuance 04-68 - Click for New Question

Q1	It appears that the REBs are now responsible for reviewing “Programmatic Capacity” and “Fiscal Capacity” when conducting an initial determination of ITA approval. The REB understood that since the inception of on-line applications through “TrainingPro”, an organization’s licensing through DOE, and its financial stability and capacity to administer funds, were checked as part of the DOE licensing process. Is this no longer the case?
A	The Workforce Investment Act requires training providers to submit applications for initial eligibility determination to the workforce investment board for the area in which the provider desires to offer its training program(s) [§122(b)(1)]. Nothing in the Act or the Regulations provides for initial eligibility determinations to be made by an entity other than the local workforce investment board. Nor has the Commonwealth implemented any policy or system that has indicated or inferred that an entity other than the LWIB is responsible for the review and determination of a training Provider’s initial and subsequent eligibility under the Workforce Investment Act. Neither Policy Issuance 04-56 nor the revised Policy Issuance 04-68 implements a new policy requirement that the LWIB is now responsible for reviewing the fiscal and programmatic capacity of the training provider. That has been the established policy since the issuance of Policy Issuance 00-16 (March 30, 2000). TrainingPro and MOSES, while centrally administered on-line systems, have been designed to accommodate the requirement that local boards make the initial eligibility determination (including the review of the provider’s fiscal and programmatic capacity). TrainingPro instructs training providers to enter the data/information about themselves and their programs necessary for local boards to review and complete a determination of initial eligibility. Program information and the licensure status of MA Department of Education (DOE), MA Board of Higher Education, the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) or other accrediting organizations are available to locally designated reviewers through the training provider’s record in MOSES. The information that a provider has, in fact been accredited/licensed by a recognized accrediting organization (the provider must enter the actual license number and name of the accrediting institution into TrainingPro) is to be used by the LWIB reviewer as the indicator of the vendor’s positive financial and programmatic capacity on the basis that accrediting organizations require a provider to demonstrate sound financial and programmatic capabilities as part of the accreditation process. IMPORTANT NOTE: Long established institutions of higher learning covered under the Higher Education Act (institutions such as Harvard, Boston College, Boston University, Northeastern University, the University of Massachusetts, etc.) are not required to be Licensed by the MA Board of Higher Education and will not have a License Number. Other institutions of higher learning accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges do not receive a license number. To enable such institutions to apply for and potentially receive ITA approval for any appropriate offerings, these institutions will, at the time of application through TrainingPro, be instructed to enter a pseudo License Number. Language in Policy Issuance 04-56 has been revised in Policy Issuance 04-68 to clarify the process.

Q2	If a new organization wishes to be considered for ITA approval in every region, it appears that they will now need to submit financial statements/audits to every region they indicate an interest in. Aside from the burden this places on the training organization, REBs are potentially pitted against each other. Based on the policy as we read it, even if our REB denies approval based on concerns such as programmatic or fiscal capacity, we must nonetheless refer an eligible customer to that program if at least one REB has approved the organization. If on the one hand, DCS is placing the responsibility for reviewing financial and programmatic capacity back on the local REB, it is inconsistent that local decisions to deny eligibility based on financial or licensing criteria could potentially be moot if another region approves the organization. Where will ultimate accountability for the procurement rest in this scenario?
A	Utilizing the licensure/accreditation status in MOSES as the indicator of the provider’s financial and programmatic capacity does not require training organizations to submit separate financial/program information to any LWIB unless the local board specifically requests a vendor to do so consistent with the terms of §122(b)(1). Regarding the mandated referral of an eligible customer to a training program that has been previously denied for approval by the WIB, but has been approved by a different WIB with the result being that the course appears on the statewide listing of approved ITA courses, the Act requires that “individuals eligible to receive training services under section 134(d)(4) shall have the opportunity to select any of the eligible providers, from any of the local areas in the State, that are included on the [statewide] list…” [§122(e)(4)(b)].

Q3	Reading the Policy issuance literally, reviewing financials applies only to “initial eligibility”. We reviewed audits and other relevant financials for all organizations prior to the implementation of “TrainingPro”. However, these were reviewed at initial eligibility that may have occurred 2 or 3 years ago. Based on Policy Issuance 04-56, it appears that we only have to check financials once and this is not required for “subsequent eligibility”. Recently, one of our approved vendors was denied approval for Section 30 apparently because they could not produce a recent audit and their DOE licensing was temporarily in limbo. Please clarify: a. That checking financials and programmatic capacity may be done once at initial eligibility and is not required annually, and b. How a Section 30 denial based on recent financials (or lack thereof) may impact on WIA ITA approval.
A	a. Regarding the review of the provider’s financial viability on an annual basis, Policy Issuance 04-68 (as did Policy Issuance 04-56) describes the process that will be followed for determining subsequent eligibility. In compiling the list of current ITA approved training programs it intends to update for subsequent eligibility, DCS will, in the future, include the provider’s licensure/accreditation status as a factor in identifying appropriate programs for subsequent eligibility determination. As described in Policy Issuance 04-68 (and 04-56), each local WIB will be provided a list of all previously approved ITA courses for its area, clearly identifying those courses DCS intends to update for subsequent eligibility. Course performance data will be included with the list. The list will be provided at least two weeks in advance of the date on which DCS plans to perform the subsequent eligibility update, giving each local WIB the opportunity to review the list and performance data in order to carry out its responsibilities related to subsequent eligibility determination as described in the Act [§122©]. The process as described in Policy Issuance 04-68 (and 04-56) allows each board to apply any locally developed higher performance standards to the final subsequent eligibility determination decision. The process also allows the board the opportunity to review each provider’s record in MOSES for licensure/accreditation status and, if the record does not indicate appropriate financial capacity, to change the ITA approval status of any of the provider’s courses prior to DCS performing the subsequent eligibility update. A provider’s license/accreditation status can be determined by reviewing the provider’s record on the Training Provider Information Basic Tab in MOSES. B. Regarding the effect on ITA course approval as a result of Section 30 denial based on the provider’s lack of qualifying financial capacity, there may be a number of reasons for Section 30 denial, not all of which may be relevant to a local WIB’s ITA eligibility determination. In performing either an “initial” or “subsequent” eligibility review for a course that has been Section 30 denied, the WIB designee should review the reason for the Section 30 denial on the Training Provider Maintenance Screen to determine if the reason is relevant to the WIB’s ITA eligibility determination.

Q4	Please clarify the requirement that a career center “must” refer the individual to the selected training provider as described in the third paragraph of Section III of the policy since an individual must first be “assessed” by the career center?
A	The third paragraph of Section III begins by stating that “A WIA Title I participant who has been determined eligible to receive training services may select an approved training program from the statewide list [of approved training programs] after consultation with a case manager.” To have been determined “eligible” to receive training services as a Title I participant the individual’s need for training services and his/her capacity to participate and complete various training options would have been reviewed, assessed and discussed in consultation with an appropriate career center staff person (case manager). Additionally, Sec. 663.440 (c) of the regulations states that for an individual who has been determined eligible for training under the Act, “unless a program has exhausted funds for the program year, the [career center] operator must refer the individual to the selected provider.”

Q5	Policy Issuance 04-56 establishes a 30 day review period for LWIBs to complete the ITA eligibility determination for training programs submitted by training vendors. Can the review period be changed to “a maximum of 60 days” to allow for the potential for extensive “back and forth” communication between the LWIB reviewer and the training provider that might be required to gather and analyze appropriate information, particularly fiscal information, in order to make an informed eligibility determination? This will enable customers needing a quick approval to be able to receive it “if all papers are in order”. Also, the regulations refer to the state having 30 days to approve/deny vendors, does this apply locally as well or only to the state?
A	The ITA process as described in the Workforce Investment Act and its accompanying regulations is designed to establish a rolling statewide list of pre-approved ITA eligible training programs from which WIA Title I customers who have been determined eligible for training services can choose a program that best meets their specific needs. As training providers will generally submit their training offerings for ITA approval in conjunction with scheduled training cycles, the ITA process has been designed precisely to mitigate delays in the training program approval process that would ultimately limit customers’ choices of available pre-approved training programs. As described in the response to Question #1, the review of a training provider’s “financial” capacity does not require extended “back and forth” communication between the vendor and the LWIB reviewer. Under the current process (which has been in effect since the implementation of TrainingPro and was not changed by either Policy Issuance 04-56 or 04-68), the reviewer confirms the sound fiscal and programmatic capacity of the provider by reviewing the entry of licensure/accreditation information in the provider’s MOSES record. 30 days is a reasonable period of time to complete the local review of programs submitted for ITA eligibility determination. IMPORTANT NOTE: Notwithstanding the maximum 30-day review period, ITA eligibility approval of a specific training course must be completed prior to the enrollment of any WIA Title I eligible customer into the course. Sec. 663.515 (d) of the Regulations requires the LWIB to submit the providers who meet the requirements of sections 663.515 (a) and (c) for initial eligibility to the State for purposes of including those providers on the statewide list. Upon submission of this information by the LWIB, the regulations requires the State to “verify” that information provided by vendors is accurate and, in accordance with sections 663.515 (a) and (c), meets the criteria for initial eligibility. The State has 30 days to complete the “verification” requirement. The State does not “approve” or “deny” the vendors or their specific training programs. That is a responsibility of the LWIB. If the State determines that a training provider intentionally submitted inaccurate information in conjunction with ITA initial eligibility requirements, the State is responsible for taking appropriate enforcement action as described in sections 122(f)(1) or (f)(2). The 30 day LWIB ITA eligibility review period described in WIA Policy Issuance 04-68 (and 04-56) relates to the specific eligibility determination of the training programs by the LWIB and is independent of the 30 day “verification” period referenced above.

Q6	What is the reasoning behind the requirement under the policy that each LWIB that decides not to approve a course for ITA eligibility (either initial or subsequent) submit an explanation to the DCS Director for Career Services Central Operations?
A	Entry of the explanation in the appropriate “Comment” field in MOSES does, in fact, constitute submittal of the explanation by the LWIB to the DCS Director for Career Services Central Operations. The policy does not intend or require that the designated LWIB reviewer submit a separate explanation. The language in the policy will be revised to describe the process more clearly.

Q7	What would DCS consider to be acceptable as verifiable documentation of successful past programming of a similar nature if a training provider has not previously offered the specific training program for which it is seeking initial ITA approval?
A	As the determination of initial ITA eligibility is the responsibility of the LWIB, the decision as to what will constitute an acceptable response must be determined at the local level. As a guideline, information provided by the training organization related to attendance/completion rates, cost, placement/entered employment data and employment wage data for training programs of similar or related content might be items for consideration by an LWIB in making a determination for a training program not previously offered.

Q8	What would DCS consider to be an acceptable explanation submitted by a training provider for not providing training program performance data as part of its ITA eligibility request through TrainingPro?
A	Provider performance data and cost requirements are described in §122 (d) of the Act. While §122 (d) specifically relates to the Subsequent Eligibility determination process, §122(b)(2)(D)(ii) requires providers who are applying for initial eligibility and who “provide training services through a program on the date of application” to include as part of the application “an appropriate portion” of the performance and cost information described in §122 (d). Under the Act, the review of program performance data as part of the ITA eligibility determination process is a responsibility of the LWIB, not the State and as such it is up to each LWIB to determine the appropriateness and acceptability of a provider’s response as to why it is unable to provide the performance data. Policy Issuance 04-68 (as did Policy Issuance 04-56) clearly describes the performance criteria DCS will apply to compile the list of training courses to be considered for a Subsequent Eligibility upgrade. If any LWIB uses eligibility criteria more stringent than those applied by DCS, the LWIB must review the list of training programs to determine if a specific program or course meets its higher local standards. If the program does not meet the local criteria, the LWIB must (per the process described in the Policy Issuance) enter the “Denied” status immediately following the date on which DCS completes its Subsequent Eligibility upgrade.

Q9	To which training providers does the requirement to review Fiscal and Programmatic Capacity apply?
A	To assure a level of statewide consistency the Commonwealth has prescribed three minimum criteria that each Workforce Investment Board must include as part of its review of all training service providers seeking an initial ITA eligibility determination for their training courses/programs: • Fiscal Capacity, Financial Stability and Sound Financial Accounting Systems, • Programmatic Capacity, and • Verifiable Performance MOSES allows the designated WIB representative to apply all three criteria as part of the local WIB review. Fiscal and programmatic capacity is reviewed by accessing the Accreditation/Oversight and License Number fields on the Training Provider Information Basic screen. As cited in the response to Question #1, accreditation and licensure by DOE, MA Board of Higher Education, New England Association of Schools & Colleges or other recognized accreditation agencies are the indicators to be reviewed to determine that a training entity meets the criteria for sound fiscal and programmatic capacity. Course performance is reviewed by accessing the Performance screen from the Course Record. Included as part of its regular procedures a local WIB may choose to adopt higher level criteria on which to base an initial eligibility determination that may require the training organization to provide additional information not found in the MOSES record. Again, please note that certain long established institutions of higher learning are not licensed by the MA Board of Higher Education and institutions accredited by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges do not receive a License Number (refer to ”IMPORTANT NOTE” in response to Question #1).

Q10	If a training program that had been previously approved for either ITA “initial” eligibility or ITA “subsequent” is not approved in the next scheduled subsequent eligibility cycle as described in Policy Issuance 04-68, what happens to the status of any trainee who is enrolled in or attending the course at the time that DCS designates the course as denied?
A	Under the subsequent eligibility process delineated in Policy Issuance 04-68, DCS does not designate a course that has been previously approved as “denied” if it fails to meet the established subsequent eligibility criteria. For those previously approved courses that do not appear to meet the minimum state criteria that will be applied for the subsequent eligibility update, the approval status and the original approval period remain unchanged in the MOSES database. Under the established process the ultimate decision to either approve or deny subsequent eligibility remains the responsibility of the local WIB. Under the policy, DCS establishes a list of previously approved courses that indicates that a specific course either does or does not appear to meet the minimal eligibility criteria established by the policy (on which a subsequent eligibility designation will be transacted by DCS). Prior to completing the transaction, the list of courses is forwarded to each LWIB for review. If the local WIB reviewer determines that a particular course that is listed as appearing to meet the minimum state criteria for subsequent approval actually fails to meet either the minimal criteria or any more stringent eligibility criteria established by the local Board, the local WIB reviewer must actively enter a denial of the course immediately subsequent to the date that DCS has designated it will update the listed courses to approved “subsequent” eligibility status. On the other hand, if the local reviewer determines that a course that was listed by DCS as not appearing to meet the minimum requirements for subsequent eligibility does, in fact, meet the subsequent eligibility criteria for the local area, the local WIB reviewer should indicate its “subsequent” approval by updating the course end date (the end date only) to 52 weeks beyond the prior end date. Under the subsequent eligibility process delineated in WIA Issuance 04-68 and as referenced above, the updating of the eligibility status by DCS (or the local WIB) to “subsequent” eligibility is indicated in MOSES (for job seeker customers and career center staff) and in TrainingPro (for training providers) by the establishment of a new course approval end date (the start date will remain unchanged). As cited above, the new approval period end date will be 52 weeks following the “end” date recorded in MOSES for the prior approval period of the course (the new end date will not be the date 52 weeks from the date the “subsequent approval” transaction is completed by DCS). Under this process, it must be noted that the prior course approval period for any particular training course may not actually have expired at the time DCS conducts its annual “subsequent eligibility” analysis and status transaction. As stated above, if the course is ultimately determined by the LWIB to be eligible for subsequent approval, the DCS transaction to update the course will establish a new end date for the course approval period. If at the time DCS conducts its scheduled subsequent eligibility transaction, the approval period for a course that has been previously determined ITA eligible (either for initial or subsequent eligibility) has not yet expired and a trainee (or trainees) has enrolled and is currently participating in the course but, according to the DCS analysis, the course no longer meets the established criteria for subsequent eligibility and is therefore not included on the list of courses to receive the subsequent eligibility upgrade, the current course approval start and end dates will not change and the course record will continue to identify the course status as “approved” for the indicated “approval period”. Therefore, there will be no issue of potential “disallowable costs” for the LWIB with a trainee remaining in and completing the course (as long as the trainee’s course participation does not extend beyond the recorded course approval period ???).

	New Question
Q11	When DCS identifies those ITA courses that it plans to update for subsequent eligibility, does it also notify the training provider of the intent to either update or not update the course(s) for subsequent eligibility?
A	DCS does not notify training providers that, based on the eligibility criteria, courses that have previously been approved for ITAs will or will not be approved for subsequent eligibility. The DCS process described in WIA Communication 05-31 (regarding FY 2006 subsequent eligibility determination) and originally described in WIA Communication 04-68 was developed as a strictly administrative action, conducted centrally by DCS to assist local Workforce Investment Boards to more efficiently carry out their responsibilities as described in the Workforce Investment Act of reviewing training courses for both initial and subsequent ITA eligibility. The process was designed in such a manner as to maintain and foster the local review/approval process relationship between the local WIB and training providers as intended by the Act. Consistent with maintaining and fostering the local relationships, any communication with a training provider regarding the status of the provider’s course or courses in relation to ITA eligibility should be conducted at the local level as part of the eligibility review process.