There were 15comments to the draft version of this directive:
Comment # 1 –If additional partners who were not included in the Phase I Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) have been deemed necessary and desired for the Local Workforce Development Board (Local Board), would a Phase II MOU that includes provisions of Phase I, be sufficient to meet requirements?
Resolution –Yes, as Phase II is a continuation of the overall MOU development process, changes can be made without formally resubmitting an amended Phase I. However, any amendments or changes to Phase I must be included in the Phase II submission.This includes language to ensure new partners are under the same statutory requirements and obligations as all other America’s Job Center of CaliforniaSM(AJCC)partners. As indicated in the directive, the budget for other system costs must align with the portion of Phase I that outlined shared customers and services. If it does not, then the appropriate amendment to Phase I must be indicated in order to justify the budgeted system costs.
Comment #2 –More guidance is requested on existing MOUs or subleases that are in place with partners currently located at the AJCC locations. Negotiations can be a lengthy process. There are provisions of the Phase II MOUs which are required to be in place by July 1, 2017. Allowance is being requested for extra time for those provisions that require changes in the sublease at the AJCCs. Also, should the timeline be delayed beyond the control of the Local Workforce Development Area (Local Area), exceptions are requested to allow for further time.
Resolution–Federal regulations mandate that an agreed upon Infrastructure Funding Agreement (IFA) must be in place by June 30, 2017 in order to go into effect on July 1, 2017. The US Department of Labor (DOL) issued a WIOA One-Stop Infrastructure Costs FAQ on December 27, 2016 which moved the effective date to January 1, 2018. As such, the timelines for all IFAs has been restructured and the new submission date is September 1, 2017. Technical assistance will be available to Local Boards who are experiencing delays and issues. If timing issues arise, please contact your Regional Advisor. Please note that the State is prepared to deal with “extenuating circumstances” scenarios like those detailed above, on a case-by-case basis.
Comments #3 and 4 –If the budgets are required to be updated annually, and if all partners must agree to the budget, then all partners will need to agree to those budget revisions on an annual basis. This will be a complex and time-consuming process for areas with large numbers of AJCCs. A change of wording and policy is requested as follows: “infrastructure budgets must be reviewed annually and updated if there are substantial changes”. Other commenters suggested allowing the Local Board to negotiate the frequency of reviews, within the three year federal limit.
Resolution –The directive has been updated on page 8 to include the requested change in wording. However, Local Boardsmust still review their IFA budget annually to ensure all partners are paying the appropriate and equitable proportionate share.
Comment #5 –Workforce Services Directive WSD15-12required descriptions of “the services to be provided through one-stop delivery system…including the manner in which the services will be coordinated and delivered through such a system”. The Phase II MOU Draft Directive is now requiring more information which requires Local Boards to amend Phase I MOUs. Flexibility in the wording to this provision that would NOT require Local Boards to go back and amend the Phase I work of the MOU is requested.
Resolution –As indicated in the response to Comment #1, Phase II is a continuation of the overall MOU development process, changes can be made without formally resubmitting an amended Phase I. However, any amendments or changes to Phase I must be included in the Phase II submission.ThePhase II budget for other system costs must align with the portion of Phase I that outlined shared customers and services. If it does not, then the appropriate amendment to Phase I must be indicated in order to justify the budgeted system costs.
Comment # 6 – Other system costs must be allocable according to the relative benefit to each partner program. However, there is no ability to accurately calculate the relative benefit at this present time. Can other system costs be waived to allow for gathering of data, similar to the allowance of non-colocated partners until sufficient data are available?
Resolution– WIOA Joint Rule Section 678.760states that other system costs budget must include applicable career services and may include other costs, such as shared services. Therefore, an other systems costs budget cannot be waived and must still be developed.However,inclusion of any components beyond applicable career servicesis at the discretion of the Local Board andits AJCC partners.
Comment # 7 – Local Workforce Development Plans (Local Plans) are due on March 15th while the information on non-agreeance is due on March 1st. Because of the 15 day difference, would the state allow a Local Area to turn in an incomplete Local Plan if they are having issues with all partner agreement on the MOU?
Resolution–The deadline for submission of Phase II or triggering of the state funding mechanism (SFM) has been exteneded to September 1, 2017, therefore the final version of Local Plans will already be in place and must be submitted.
Comments # 8& 9– The current wording of the draft directive appears to make it impossible for an AJCC to receive infrastructure funds under the SFM. The draft directive states that in order for the AJCC to receive infrastructure funding, the AJCC must be certified, but the only way to be certified is to have all partners at the local level agree to the Phase II MOU, thus eliminating the need for the SFM. Also, by establishing the requirement that only AJCCs with signed Phase II MOU’s can be certified, the California Workforce Development Board appears to have established an AJCC certification criterion without having consulted with Chief Elected Officials and Local Boards.
Resolution–The state understands that this language could cause a conundrum that may not be easily resolved during this first Program Year of IFA negotiations. In response, the directive has been updated to remove the statement that AJCC certification is contingent onPhase II having been agreed to at the local level. Further guidance regarding certification and the SFM will be released as more guidance is issued by DOL.
Comment # 10 – Can the state provide an estimated date for the development of the statewide data tracking system to be used for determining the benefit received by non-colocated partners?
Resolution– The state is currently piloting the statewide data tracking system within 10 AJCCs throughout California and anticipates rolling out the system to all AJCC sites in Program Year 2017-18.
Comment # 11 – Once a data tracking system is in place, will non-colocated partner’s proportionate benefit be calculated and thus requiring the non-colocated partners to start sharing costs immediately as an amendment or not until there is a budget review?
Resolution– Once non-colocated partners can accurately determine their proportionate share, they are expected to contribute. As this will likely require additional negotiations and a significant update to the IFA, the state expects the non-colocated partner’s proportionate share to be added to the IFA during the next annual budget review.
Comment # 12 – Several partners require a lengthy process for Local Board review and signature when signing MOU(s). If the Local Board used individual MOUs vs. an umbrella MOU and has included an overview of cost sharing, do the non-contributing partners (i.e. Native American programs) have to resign?
Resolution– WIOA requires all partners to sign the MOU, this includes both Phase I and Phase II. For Phase II, non-colocated partners must still sign an assurance they will contribute when sufficient data are available. Native American programs are not mandated to contribute to infrastructure costs but are a required partner and therefore must sign the Phase II MOU even if they are not contributing.
Comment # 13 – Will the state notify the DOL of the unrealistic deadline of June 30, 2017? The original deadline of December 31, 2017 would allow extra time for the increased complexity of the Phase II MOU cost allocation methodology vs. the Phase I MOU service delivery breakdown.
Resolution– The state has informed DOL about this concern. DOL issued a WIOA FAQ that extended the timelines. The new submission date for all IFAs is September 1, 2017.
Comment # 14 – The fifth paragraph on page 8 of the draft directive should include line items for any other necessary costs that may arise for effective communicationon reasonable accommodations, or access features (such as signage for programs and services including any necessary directional and informational signage in the AJCC, etc.).
Resolution– Clarifying language has been added on page 7 of the directive to indicate that the referenced paragraph is a list of suggested examples and not an exhaustive list of what may be included in the IFA.
Comment # 15 – Of particular concern is the draft directive’s interpretation of the WIOA Joint Final Rule Section 678.720 to preclude non-cash contributions from partner programs if the contributions include non-infrastructure costs on page 11. We think a more accurate reading of the regulation would be that all non-cash contributions to the AJCC system from partners are recognized and that only third-party in-kind contributions are precluded if they include non-infrastructure costs.
Resolution– AJCC partners may contribute non-cash resources toward infrastructure costs as long as they are applicable. They may not use non-infrastructure contributions towards their share of the IFA. However, AJCC partners may use non-infrastructure contributions, such as personnel, toward the other shared costs budget.
Page 1 of 4