Adult and Dislocated Work - Microsoft



HYPERLINK \l "AdultandDW" Adult and Dislocated Worker Program Tool Review HYPERLINK \l "Youth" Youth Program Tool Review HYPERLINK \l "AdminandFiscal" Administrative & Fiscal Tool ReviewAdult and Dislocated Worker Program Tool ReviewIs there a box indicating verbal self-attest was used for Legally Entitled to Work due to COVID-19 closure?Yes. You can find the section that covers compliance of WIN 0109 regarding verbal self-attestation located on the first page of all program participant file checklists.Any indication that the suspension of having to use CASAS will be extended beyond 10/17/20?WIN 0107, Temporary Suspension of WSS Policy 1011, (CASAS for Basic Skills?Assessment) to allow alternative documentation of basic skills deficiency in WIOA Title I-B?programs, has been extended to 11/20/20. This will allow the WTECB to discuss this matter at the Board meeting on 11/18/2020. Will you be monitoring the NHE Grant as well? So, even though we had an extension through most of this program year, we will not be monitored on it?Programmatic review of the NHE Grants were done in PY19. Administrative and Fiscal monitoring will occur for all open NHE Grants and any of those that require follow-up from previous monitoring visits. Will you be monitoring RRAA?For those areas that we were not able to do a comprehensive programmatic review in PY19, we will be monitoring those in PY20. In addition, all areas with open RRAA contracts will be fiscally monitored in PY20. Will this session be recorded? No, the sessions were not recorded. We will look into that for next year’s sessions. Will there be a checklist for Incumbent Worker or a highlight of what items to use on this document?Incumbent Worker training is monitored on the Admin and Fiscal side of procured contracts and training. The section on the participant file checklist for Incumbent Worker was removed, as the program monitors do not review this piece of compliance. We have included any evidence or indicators on the participant file checklist under the Incumbent Worker section of the Comprehensive Monitoring Guide in the final version. Are we covering EcSA in another call?We worked with all local boards with EcSA contracts last year to create monitoring tools. We will be using those checklists to conduct monitoring this year. We will work with Grants Management to determine if any necessary changes are needed from recent contract modifications, make necessary updates and then connect with the affected boards to schedule a review.Priority of Service does not list Self-attestation as a source documentation for category 4?Adult priority of service for category 4 is a local determination and outlined in local policy. We always look to local policy for evidence and indicators under this category.Youth Program Tool ReviewIs there any guidance around how much information the Youth program case manager has to capture if a participant is co-enrolled in other WorkSource programs? Example - If the participant is co-enrolled in Adult & Youth programs and does a work experience in the adult program, what information does the Youth program need to enter into ETO? How detailed should it be?Documentation requirements may vary by local area. Please refer to your LWDB policies for that specific guidance, if any exists. Additionally, you should keep in mind that the WIOA youth programs require participants to have an objective assessment and ISS. TEGL 33-12 requires OA’s should be an on-going process continually reviewing participant interests, abilities, etc., which allows the case manager an opportunity to evaluate how effective services are in meeting needs and ensuring flexibility in adapting service delivery strategies to youth’s needs and employment goals. WIOA Final Rule, narrative page 56177, notes the Department does require the program elements provided to a youth to align with the goals the youth set forth in the ISS. Case managers must update the ISS on an on-going basis and document, among other items:Services provided;Participant’s progress,Activities completed;Benchmarks reached; andAny other accomplishments.Case managers must document this information regardless of who provides the element. What information does the Youth program need to enter into ETO? How detailed should it be?Recording TouchpointsTEGL 19-16 for concurrent program enrollment requires local program operators must identify and track the funding streams which pay the costs of services provided to individuals who are concurrently enrolled and ensure no duplication of services. If a WIOA program is funding the service, that program of enrollment should be attached to the service recorded in ETO to track the funding source. For services provided by non-WIOA providers, please refer to WIN 0089: Recording Youth Program Elements provided to WIOA Title I youth participants by non-WIOA providers.Recording Case NotesCoordination between WIOA program case managers is essential to avoiding potential duplication of services that could result in disallowed costs. This information should be documented in case notes.WIN 0088 WIOA Title 1 Case Note Guidance. It is imperative that Local Workforce Development Boards (LWDBs), their Title I sub-contractors, one-stop system partners, and federal and state monitors/auditors, be able to recognize and discern each service and expenditure provided to, and made on behalf of, a one-stop system customer.Have you heard if the DOL has lifted the 75%/25% OSY/ ISY Expenditure limits?No. Some states have requested waivers from DOL, and those have been approved. The State of Washington has not requested a waiver. Has there ever been thought/requests around adding in more specific language about where, specifically, certain information should be located in ETO? For ex: under "data validation" there could be a list of appropriate ETO Touchpoints to validate that info that would be helpful just to make those validations cross-walked directly to ETO for ease of data entry.Not that we are aware of. We have shared this with our Policy and System Performance colleagues. Administrative & Fiscal Tool ReviewPlease clarify what “is readily or easily available in the open market.” (Questionnaire, Internal Controls)Readily and easily available on the open market refers to information that an individual may be able to obtain through other means, such as an Internet search. However, just because they may be able to obtain PII information elsewhere, we still have an obligation to protect and safeguard such information. What makes the RSA applicable or not?Many LWDB’s still refer to and use RSA, thus the reason why we still include it in the Monitoring tool. Do you mean the operating cost of the system or the operating cost of the WorkSource Center? (MOU/IFA/RSA Monitoring Tool)This question for review and discussion has been removed from the Monitoring Tool due to the update to the IFA/MOU/RSA section. Instead of trying to simplify this, we have chosen to insert language specifically from the DOL Core Monitoring Guide. However, the MOU requires that a budget be developed for the one-stop system whereas the IFA speaks to specifically defined costs for the comprehensive one-stop centers.Increase Employment is listed as “if applicable” in a couple of places. However, all 12 WDCs have active IE contracts through 6/30/2021. Can you please confirm that all IE expenditures are within scope? Yes, we will be reviewing IE contracts that did not receive a comprehensive review in PY19 and all open contracts.Greg’s reply to Mike and Corinne sounded like IFAs only apply to the comprehensive one-stops, that MOUs apply to the broader system, and that infrastructure costs of other things (like affiliates sites) aren’t part of IFAs. Did I capture that correctly? Are IFAs limited to only the comprehensive one-stops?This question for review and discussion has been removed from the Monitoring Tool due to the update to the IFA/MOU/RSA section. Instead of trying to simplify this, we have chosen to insert language specifically from the DOL Core Monitoring Guide. Minimally, IFAs are required to cover the infrastructure and other shared costs, as defined by the agreement, for comprehensive one-stops. IFAs must include sharing of infrastructure costs and other shared costs for comprehensive one-stop centers by all required WIOA partners, even if they are not physically present in the center. LWDBs-WDCs are not required to include affiliate sites in the IFA; however, certain LWDBs-WDCs have chosen to include them in their broad IFA; whereas, others have chosen to have separate IFAs or RSAs for comprehensive one stop centers and affiliate sites. New MOU bullet 5 "Does the MOU include infrastructure costs of the one-stop system?"? My answer would be No. My question is why is this question asked???121(h) describes infrastructure funding of comprehensive one stop centers. When asked to clarify, you answered centers consistent with new bullet 5 under IFA.??This question for review and discussion has been removed from the Monitoring Tool due to the update to the IFA/MOU/RSA section. Instead of trying to simplify this, we have chosen to insert language specifically from the DOL Core Monitoring Guide. The MOU must include a budget for the workforce system in a WDA. The IFA is the agreement that specifically focuses on, at a minimum, infrastructure costs and other shared costs for comprehensive one stop centers.What does IFA bullet #8 mean?? "Does the LWDB generate revenue from the IFA?"?This question was referencing revenue in excess of expenditures for required partner program IFA contributions. However, this question has been removed due to the update to the IFA/MOU/RSA section. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download