Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; Joint Rule for Unified and Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability, and the One-Stop System Joint Provisions; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20573-20687 [2015-05528]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 73
April 16, 2015
Part II
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
20 CFR Parts 676, 677, and 678
Department of Education
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
34 CFR Parts 361 and 463
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; Joint Rule for Unified and
Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability, and the One-Stop
System Joint Provisions; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Proposed Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20574
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training
Administration
20 CFR Parts 676, 677, and 678
[Docket No. ETA–2015–0002]
RIN 1205–AB74
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 361 and 463
RIN 1830–AA21
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act; Joint Rule for Unified and
Combined State Plans, Performance
Accountability, and the One-Stop
System Joint Provisions; Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
Office of Career, Technical, and
Adult Education, Rehabilitation
Services Administration, Education;
Employment and Training
Administration (ETA), Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The Departments of
Education (ED) and Labor (DOL) are
proposing, through this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), to
implement jointly-administered
activities authorized by title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act (WIOA). Through these regulations,
the Departments propose to implement
job training system reforms and
strengthen the nation’s workforce
development system to put Americans
back to work and make the United
States more competitive in the 21st
Century. This joint proposed rule
provides guidance for State and local
workforce development systems that
increase the skill and credential
attainment, employment, retention, and
earnings of participants, especially
those with significant barriers to
employment, thereby improving the
quality of the workforce, reducing
welfare dependency, and enhancing the
productivity and competitiveness of the
nation.
WIOA strengthened the alignment of
the workforce development system’s six
core programs by imposing unified
strategic planning requirements,
common performance accountability
measures, and requirements governing
the one-stop delivery system. In so
doing, WIOA placed heightened
emphasis on coordination and
collaboration at the Federal, State, and
local levels to ensure a streamlined and
coordinated service delivery system for
job seekers, including those with
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
disabilities, and employers. To that end,
the Departments of Education and Labor
propose to issue this joint NPRM to
implement jointly-administered
activities under title I of WIOA. These
regulations lay the foundation, through
coordination and collaboration at the
Federal level, for implementing the
vision and goals of WIOA.
In addition to this joint NPRM, the
Departments have proposed separate
NPRMs to implement program-specific
requirements of WIOA that fall under
each Department’s purview. The
Department of Labor is proposing a
NPRM governing program-specific
requirements under titles I and III of
WIOA. The Department of Education is
proposing three NPRMs: one
implementing program-specific
requirements of the Adult Education
and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), as
reauthorized by title II of WIOA; and
two NPRMs implementing all programspecific requirements for all programs
authorized under the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, as amended by title IV of
WIOA. The Department-specific NPRMs
have been simultaneously published in
this issue of the Federal Register.
Developing and issuing all five WIOA
NPRMs in a coordinated manner
reinforces WIOA’s heightened emphasis
on collaboration to ensure an integrated
and seamless service delivery system for
job seekers and employers.
DATES: To be ensured consideration,
comments must be submitted in writing
on or before June 15, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number ETA–
2015–0002, for Regulatory Information
Number (RIN) 1205–AB74 and/or 1830–
AA21, by one of the following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web
site instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail and hand delivery/courier:
Written comments, disk, and CD–ROM
submissions may be mailed to Adele
Gagliardi, Administrator, Office of
Policy Development and Research, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Room N–5641,
Washington, DC 20210.
Instructions: Label all submissions
with ‘‘RIN 1205–AB74’’ and/or ‘‘RIN
1830–AA21.’’ Please submit your
comments by only one method. Please
be advised that the Departments will
post all comments received that are
related to this NPRM on https://
www.regulations.gov without making
any change to the comments or
redacting any information. The https://
www.regulations.gov Web site is the
Federal eRulemaking portal and all
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
comments posted there are available
and accessible to the public. Therefore,
the Departments recommend that
commenters remove personal
information such as Social Security
Numbers, personal addresses, telephone
numbers, and email addresses included
in their comments as such information
may become easily available to the
public via the https://
www.regulations.gov Web site. It is the
responsibility of the commenter to
safeguard personal information.
Also, please note that due to security
concerns, postal mail delivery in
Washington, DC may be delayed.
Therefore, the Departments encourage
the public to submit comments on
https://www.regulations.gov.
Docket: All comments on this
proposed rule will be available on the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site
and can be found using RIN 1205–AB74
or RIN 1830–AA21. The Departments
also will make all the comments it
receives available for public inspection
by appointment during normal business
hours at the above addresses. If you
need assistance to review the comments,
the Departments will provide
appropriate aids such as readers or print
magnifiers. The Departments will make
copies of this proposed rule available,
upon request, in large print and
electronic file on computer disk. To
schedule an appointment to review the
comments and/or obtain the proposed
rule in an alternative format, contact the
Office of Policy Development and
Research (ETA) at (202) 693–3700 (this
is not a toll-free number). You may also
contact these offices at the addresses
listed below.
Comments under the Paperwork
Reduction Act: In addition to filing
comments with ETA or the Department
of Education, persons wishing to
comment on the information collection
aspects of this rule may send comments
to: Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for
DOL–ETA, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 10235, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202–
395–6881 (this is not a toll-free
number), email: OIRA_submission@
omb.eop.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DOL: Adele Gagliardi, Administrator,
Office of Policy and Research (OPDR),
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment
and Training Administration, 200
Constitution Avenue NW.,
Room N–5641, Washington, DC 20210,
Telephone: (202) 693–3700 (voice) (this
is not a toll-free number) or 1–800–326–
2577 (TDD).
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
ED: Lekesha Campbell, U.S.
Department of Education, OCTAE, 400
Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11–145,
PCP, Washington, DC 20202–7240,
Telephone: (202) 245–7808; Janet
LaBreck, U.S. Department of Education,
RSA, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room
5086 PCP, Washington, DC 20202–2800,
Telephone: (202) 245–7408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Table of Contents
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
I. Executive Summary
II. Acronyms and Abbreviations
III. Background
IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of
Proposed Regulations
A. Unified and Combined State Plans
Under Title I of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (20 CFR
part 676; 34 CFR part 361, subpart D; 34
CFR part 463, subpart H)
B. Performance Accountability Under Title
I of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (20 CFR part 677; 34
CFR part 361, subpart E; 34 CFR part
463, subpart I)
C. Description of the One-Stop System
Under Title I of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (20 CFR
part 678; 34 CFR part 361, subpart F; 34
CFR part 463, subpart J)
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563:
Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Plain Language
H. Assessment of Federal Regulations and
Policies on Families
I. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal
Governments)
J. Executive Order 12630 (Government
Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights)
K. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply)
I. Executive Summary
President Barack Obama signed WIOA
into law on July 22, 2014. WIOA is
landmark legislation designed to
strengthen and improve our nation’s
public workforce system and help put
Americans, especially youth and those
with significant barriers to employment,
back to work. WIOA supports
innovative strategies to keep pace with
changing economic conditions and
seeks to improve coordination between
the core WIOA and other Federal
programs that support employment
services, workforce development, adult
education and literacy, and vocational
rehabilitation activities.
In WIOA, Congress directed the
Departments of Education and Labor to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
issue an NPRM to implement new
statutory requirements to ensure that the
workforce system operates as a
comprehensive, integrated, and
streamlined system to provide pathways
to prosperity for those it serves and
continuously improve the quality and
performance of its services. Therefore,
the Departments of Labor and Education
are issuing this joint NPRM to
implement jointly-administered
activities authorized under title I of
WIOA, specifically those related to the
Unified and Combined State Plans,
performance accountability, and the
one-stop system.
The Departments of Education and
Labor are publishing this joint NPRM to
implement those provisions of WIOA
that affect all of the WIOA core
programs (titles I–IV) and which will be
jointly administered by both
Departments. In addition to this joint
NPRM, the Departments are publishing
separately four agency-specific NPRMs
that implement the provisions of WIOA
that are administered separately by the
Departments—one published by the
Department of Labor implementing the
agency-specific provisions of title I, and
three published by the Department of
Education implementing the agencyspecific provisions of titles II and IV.
Readers should note that there are a
number of cross-references in this joint
NPRM to the agency-specific NPRMs.
Finally, this NPRM has been structured
so that the proposed Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) parts will align with
the CFR parts in the agency-specific
regulations once all of the proposed
rules have been finalized.
II. Acronyms and Abbreviations
AEFLA—Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act
CBO—Community-based organization
CEO—Chief elected official
CFR—Code of Federal Regulations
CSBG—Community Services Block Grant
DINAP—Division of Indian and Native
American Programs
DOL—U.S. Department of Labor
ED—U.S. Department of Education
E.O.—Executive Order
ESL—English-as-a-second-language
ETA—Employment and Training
Administration
ETP—Eligible training provider
FEIN—Federal employer identification
number
FR—Federal Register
HHS—Department of Health and Human
Services
INA—Indian and Native American
INAP—Indian and Native American
Programs
IPE—Individualized Plan for Employment
IT—Information technology
JTPA—Job Training Partnership Act
JVSG—Jobs for Veterans State Grants
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20575
LMI—Labor market information
MOU—Memorandum of Understanding
NACTP—Native American Career and
Technical Education Program
NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OJT—On-the-job training
OMB—Office of Management and Budget
OPRD—Office of Policy and Research
PRA—Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Pub.L.—Public Law
PY—Program year
RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act
RFI—Requests for Information
RFP—Request for Proposals
RIN—Regulatory Information Number
ROI—Requests of Information
SBA—Small Business Administration
SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
sec.—Section of a Public Law or the United
States Code
SNAP—Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program
SSA—Social Security Administration
TANF—Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families
TEGL—Training and Employment Guidance
Letter
UC—Unemployment compensation
UI—Unemployment insurance
U.S.C.—United States Code
VETS—Veterans’ Employment and Training
Service
VR—Vocational rehabilitation
WDB—Workforce Development Board
WIA—Workforce Investment Act of 1998
WIOA—Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act
WISPR—Workforce Investment Streamlined
Performance Reporting
WRIS—Wage Record Interchange System
III. Background
On July 22, 2014, President Obama
signed WIOA, the first legislative reform
of the public workforce system in more
than 15 years, which passed Congress
by a wide bipartisan majority. WIOA
supersedes the Workforce Investment
Act of 1998 (WIA) and amends the
Wagner-Peyser Act and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. WIOA
reaffirms the role of the customerfocused one-stop delivery system, a
cornerstone of the public workforce
development system, and enhances and
increases coordination among several
key employment, education, and
training programs.
WIOA presents an extraordinary
opportunity for the workforce system to
accelerate its transformational efforts
and demonstrate its ability to improve
job and career options for our citizens
through an integrated, job-driven public
workforce system that links diverse
talent to our nation’s businesses. It
supports the development of strong,
vibrant regional economies where
businesses thrive and people want to
live and work.
Most provisions in titles I–III of WIOA
take effect on July 1, 2015, the first full
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20576
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
program year after enactment; however,
the new State Plans and performance
accountability system take effect July 1,
2016. Title IV took effect upon
enactment.
WIOA is designed to help job seekers
access employment, education, training,
and support services to succeed in the
labor market and to match employers
with the skilled workers they need to
compete in the global economy. WIOA
has six main purposes: (1) Increasing
access to and opportunities for the
employment, education, training, and
support services that individuals,
particularly those with barriers to
employment, need to succeed in the
labor market; (2) supporting the
alignment of workforce investment,
education, and economic development
systems in support of a comprehensive,
accessible, and high-quality workforce
development system; (3) improving the
quality and labor market relevance of
workforce investment, education, and
economic development efforts; (4)
promoting improvement in the structure
and delivery of services; (5) increasing
the prosperity of workers and
employers, the economic growth of
communities, regions and States, and
the global competitiveness of the United
States; and (6) providing workforce
investment activities, through workforce
development systems, that increase
employment, retention, and earnings of
participants and that increase postsecondary credential attainment and, as
a result, improve the quality of the
workforce, reduce welfare dependency,
increase economic self-sufficiency, meet
skill requirements of employers, and
enhance productivity and
competitiveness of the nation.
WIOA offers an opportunity to
continue to modernize the workforce
system, and achieve key hallmarks of a
strong workforce system: A customercentered system, where the needs of
business and workers drive workforce
solutions; a system where one-stop
career centers and partners provide
excellent customer service to job seekers
and businesses, and where the
workforce system supports strong
regional economies.
To achieve these goals, WIOA
requires an integrated approach to the
implementation, administration, service
delivery, and evaluation of the services
provided under the core programs at the
Federal, State, and local levels. The core
programs consist of: (1) The adult,
dislocated worker, and youth formula
programs administered by DOL under
title I of WIOA; (2) the AEFLA program
administered by ED under title II of
WIOA; (3) the Wagner-Peyser Act
employment services program
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
administered by DOL under title III of
WIOA; and (4) the vocational
rehabilitation program administered by
ED under title IV of WIOA. Integration
of the core programs essential to the
effective operation of the workforce
development system is achieved
through the development of a Unified or
Combined State Plan, the
implementation of a common
performance accountability system, and
the design of the one-stop service
delivery system. Under a Unified or
Combined State Plan every State
collaborates across the core programs
(adult, dislocated worker, and youth;
Wagner-Peyser; AEFLA; and Vocational
Rehabilitation) and one-stop partner
programs and other partners at the local
and State levels to create a single
unified and integrated strategic State
Plan. States govern the core programs as
one system assessing strategic needs and
aligning them with service strategies to
ensure the workforce system is designed
to meet those needs. States use the
certification process and competition to
help achieve this vision and ensure
continuous improvement.
State and Local Boards, one-stop
center operators and partners must
increase coordination of programs and
resources to support a comprehensive
system providing integrated seamless
services to all job seekers and workers
and effective strategies that meet
businesses’ workforce needs across the
business life cycle. The Departments
will work with State and Local Boards,
one-stop center operators and partners
to achieve an integrated data system for
the core programs and other programs to
ensure interoperability and the accurate
and standardized collection of program
and participant information. Integrated
data systems will allow for unified and
streamlined intake, case management
and service delivery; minimize the
duplication of data; ensure consistently
defined and applied data elements;
facilitate compliance with performance
reporting and evaluation requirements;
and provide meaningful information
about core program participation to
inform operations.
To facilitate the integration of the core
programs, the Departments of Labor and
Education have jointly developed this
NPRM to implement the jointlyadministered activities authorized
under title I of WIOA, specifically those
related to the Unified and Combined
State Plan, performance accountability,
and one-stop requirements. In so doing,
the Departments agreed, for purposes of
this NPRM, that the joint regulations
would be identical across all core
programs in order to ensure consistency.
However, we recognize that some of the
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
proposed regulations may not be
applicable for a particular core program.
For example, proposed provisions
related to local areas would not be
applicable to the Vocational
Rehabilitation program because it
operates solely at a State level.
Furthermore, various provisions of
these proposed regulations reference
joint guidance that the Departments
plan to develop in the near future. The
guidance may include: (1) Procedural
requirements, such as how to submit a
State Plan to the Department of Labor;
(2) interpretative rules; and (3) the
information that will be collected by the
Departments pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) information
collection process, which includes an
opportunity for public comment.
Legal Basis
On July 22, 2014, the President signed
WIOA (Pub. L. 113–128) into law.
WIOA repeals WIA (29 U.S.C. 2801 et
seq.). As a result, the WIA regulations
no longer reflect current law, thus
necessitating this NPRM for jointlyadministered activities. Furthermore,
sec. 503(f) of WIOA requires the
Departments of Education and Labor to
issue NPRMs and then final rules that
implement the changes made by WIOA.
To that end, the Departments of Labor
and Education are issuing this joint
NPRM to implement jointlyadministered activities authorized
under title I of WIOA. The Departments
of Labor and Education will each issue
separate NPRMs, simultaneously with
this joint NPRM, to implement programspecific requirements imposed by
WIOA.
IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of
Proposed Regulations
A. Unified and Combined State Plans
Under Title I of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (20
CFR Part 676; 34 CFR Part 361, Subpart
D; 34 CFR Part 463, Subpart H)
WIOA requires the Governor of each
State to submit a Unified or Combined
State Plan to the Secretary of DOL that
outlines a 4-year strategy for the State’s
workforce development system. States
must have approved State Plans in place
to receive funding for the six core
programs under WIOA—the adult,
dislocated worker, and youth programs
(title I of WIOA); the AEFLA program
(title II of WIOA); the Wagner-Peyser
Act employment services program (title
III of WIOA); and the Vocational
Rehabilitation program under title I of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (title IV
of WIOA). Previously, WIA gave States
the option of submitting a plan similar
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
to the Combined State Plans (referred to
as Unified Plans in WIA).
WIOA reforms State Plan
requirements to foster better alignment
of Federal investments in job training, to
integrate service delivery across
programs, and to ensure that the
workforce system is job-driven and
matches employers with skilled
individuals. At a minimum, States must
submit a Unified State Plan, which
encompasses the six core programs
under WIOA. States are strongly
encouraged to submit a Combined State
Plan, which includes the six core
programs of the Unified State Plan, plus
one or more optional programs, as
described at § 676.140. Coordination
across multiple Federal programs
provides a wider range of coordinated
and streamlined services to the
customer.
One of WIOA’s principal areas of
reform is to require States to plan across
the programs and include this planning
process in the Unified or Combined
State Plans, which promotes a shared
understanding of the workforce needs of
a State and a comprehensive strategy for
addressing those needs. Unified or
combined planning can support better
alignment of resources, increased
coordination among programs, and
improved efficiency in service delivery.
This proposed part describes the
submission process and content
requirements for the Unified and
Combined State Plans under WIOA. The
major content areas of the Unified or
Combined State Plan include strategic
and operational planning elements.
Strategic planning elements include
State analyses of economic and
workforce factors, an assessment of
workforce development activities,
formulation of the State’s vision and
goals for preparing an educated and
skilled workforce that meets the needs
of employers, and a strategy to achieve
the vision and goals. Operational
planning elements include State strategy
implementation, State operating systems
and policies, program-specific
requirements, assurances, and
additional requirements imposed by the
Secretaries of Labor or Education, or
other Secretaries, as appropriate.
WIOA separates the strategic and
operational plan elements to facilitate
cross-program strategic planning. The
separation of strategic elements allows
the State to develop a vision for its
entire system and identify the
operational elements across the
programs that support the system-wide
vision. The plan requirements also
require the use of economic and labor
market information to ensure that the
Governor’s vision and the State’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
strategies are based on a thorough
understanding of the economic
opportunities and workforce needs of
the State. This will align the best
interests of job seekers and employers
with the economic future of the State.
The proposed regulations also
describe the Unified or Combined State
Plan modification requirements and the
deadlines for the Unified or Combined
State Plan, depending on which option
the State elects. Given the multi-year
life of the plan, States are required to
revisit regularly strategies to ensure the
plan remains responsive to economic
conditions and labor market needs.
State Workforce Development Boards
are responsible for the development,
implementation, and modification of the
plan, and for convening of all relevant
programs, required partners, and
stakeholders. The Governor must ensure
that the Unified or Combined State Plan
is developed in a transparent manner
and in consultation with representatives
of Local Boards and chief elected
officials (CEOs), businesses,
representatives of labor organizations,
community-based organizations (CBOs),
adult and youth education and
workforce development providers,
institutions of higher education,
disability service entities, youth-serving
programs, and other stakeholders with
an interest in the services provided by
the six core programs and any optional
program included in a Combined Plan,
as well as the general public, including
individuals with disabilities.
As part of the PRA process for
information collections, the Unified or
Combined State Plan information
collection instrument and submission
requirements will be published in the
Federal Register pending completion of
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) review. Additionally, DOL and
ED will issue joint planning guidance to
assist States in implementing the
planning requirements for both the
Unified and Combined State Plans.
Additional guidance related to
Combined State Plans may also be
jointly issued in partnership with other
Secretaries as necessary to clarify
requirements for optional programs.
Currently, the Departments issue State
planning guidance separately to explain
the Administration’s priorities in
relation to the planning requirements,
explaining such requirements where
necessary, submission procedures, and
other matters. Jointly issued guidance
would best meet the needs of State
planning processes and submission
requirements for WIOA.
The Departments note that titles I, II,
and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as
amended by title IV of WIOA appear to
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20577
raise inconsistencies regarding the
applicability of certain jointlyadministered requirements as they
relate to the outlying areas—American
Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
and the Northern Mariana Islands. The
apparent inconsistencies are grounded
in the fact that WIOA and the
Rehabilitation Act contain two differing
definitions of ‘‘State.’’ Specifically, sec.
3(56) of WIOA defines ‘‘State,’’ for
purposes of programs funded under title
I of WIOA, as the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; the
outlying areas are defined separately in
sec. 3(45) as described above, and
include Palau in certain circumstances.
On the other hand, title IV, which
amended the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
defines ‘‘State’’ at sec. 7(34) as the 50
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and the Northern
Mariana Islands, thereby defining any of
the outlying areas as a State for
purposes of programs funded under title
IV of WIOA. Title II of WIOA does not
separately define either ‘‘State’’ or
‘‘outlying area,’’ but defines ‘‘eligible
agency’’ at sec. 203(3) to mean ‘‘the sole
entity or agency in a State or outlying
area responsible for administering or
supervising policy for adult education
and literacy activities in the State or
outlying area . . .’’ These differences in
definitions raise potential
inconsistencies in the applicability of
certain jointly-administered
requirements for purposes of the
outlying areas, such as those related to
the requirements in secs. 102 and 103 of
WIOA, which require States to submit a
Unified or Combined State Plan to
receive funding. Given the differing
definitions, WIOA appears to be
inconsistent across the core programs as
to whether an outlying area must submit
a Unified or Combined State Plan to
receive funding.
WIOA sec. 102(a) requires that, in
order for a State to be eligible to receive
allotments for the core programs, the
State must submit a Unified State Plan.
Read in isolation, sec. 102(a) does not
appear to require that outlying areas
submit a Unified State Plan as a
prerequisite to receiving funds for the
core programs.
However, several other provisions in
title I of WIOA create uncertainty on
this point. Sections 126 (youth formula
program) and 131 (adult and dislocated
worker formula programs) require States
to meet the requirements of secs. 102 or
103 to receive a formula allotment
under title I, while those same sections
require outlying areas to comply with
the requirements of title I, without
elaboration, to receive an allotment
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20578
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
under title I. The requirement in WIOA
secs. 126 and 131 that outlying areas
must comply with the requirements of
title I implies—but is not clear—that
they must submit a Unified State Plan.
Between the clear language in sec. 102
and the failure of secs. 126 and 131 to
reference secs. 102 and 103, WIOA title
I is unclear if outlying areas are required
to submit a Unified State Plan to receive
funding under title I.
Under title II of WIOA, which
reauthorizes AEFLA, sec. 211(b)(1)
states that eligible agencies shall be
awarded a grant to carry out their adult
education program if they have a
Unified State Plan approved under sec.
102. Section 211(c)(1) includes similar
language with regard to sec. 102 of
WIOA when it describes the amounts to
be allotted to eligible agencies. As noted
above, WIOA sec. 203 defines an
eligible agency as the agency in the
State or outlying area (as those terms are
defined in sec. 3 of WIOA) responsible
for administering the adult education
program in the State or outlying area.
Thus, a plain reading of secs. 211(b)(1)
and 211(c)(1) is that both States and
outlying areas must have an approved
Unified State Plan to be eligible to
receive title II funds. WIOA sec. 221(1)
reinforces this reading by requiring each
eligible agency to develop, implement,
and monitor the relevant portions of the
Unified State Plan.
However, WIOA sec. 224 only
requires each State that wants funds
under title II for any fiscal year to
submit a Unified State Plan in
accordance with sec. 102. In other
words, sec. 224 does not mention
eligible agencies or outlying areas, as is
done in other provisions throughout
title II. Of additional note is that
separate from the requirements of
WIOA, the Department of Education has
permitted outlying areas administering
AEFLA-funded programs to include
AEFLA in an application for
Consolidated Grants to Insular Areas
(Consolidated Grant), in accordance
with 48 U.S.C. 1469a. Consolidated
Grant applications are submitted in lieu
of any other State plan that is required
under the programs included in the
consolidation. Finally, sec. 101(a)(1) of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended by title IV of WIOA, requires
a State—the definition of which
includes outlying areas as described
above—to submit a Unified State Plan in
accordance with sec. 102 of WIOA in
order to be eligible to receive Vocational
Rehabilitation Services funds. This
provision, unlike the similar provisions
in WIOA titles I and II discussed above,
is clear that the submission of a Unified
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
State Plan is a prerequisite to receiving
funding.
Given these differences and potential
inconsistencies, there are two possible
options with regard to outlying areas.
The first option is to require the
outlying areas to submit a Unified or
Combined State Plan as a prerequisite to
receiving funding for the core programs.
Under this option, the outlying areas
would receive their funding through the
relevant statutory and regulatory
processes for all core programs as would
be applicable to any State. While this
option is consistent with WIOA’s goal of
creating a more integrated, streamlined
system and treats all grantees similarly,
the Departments understand that the
Unified or Combined State Plan
requirements could pose additional
burden on the outlying areas that may
not exist for other States in terms of
size, capacity, and resources. If the
Departments were to adopt this option,
the Department of Education would
have, as an additional consideration, the
implications of the Consolidated Grant
application process as an option for the
outlying areas to apply for AEFLA
funds.
The second option would be not to
require the outlying areas to submit a
complete Unified or Combined State
Plan as a prerequisite to receiving
funding for the core programs. Under
this option, the Departments would
continue to award funds to the outlying
areas under WIOA as they have in the
past. For example, under this option the
Department of Labor would continue to
require the outlying areas to submit a
plan as part of the competitive grant
competition required by WIOA sec.
127(b)(1)(B). On the other hand, the
Department of Education would require
the outlying areas to submit a Unified or
Combined State Plan, in accordance
with secs. 102 and 103 of WIOA, for
both the AEFLA and Vocational
Rehabilitation Services programs. Under
this option, outlying areas administering
AEFLA would also still have the option
to submit a Consolidated Grant to
Insular Areas in lieu of the Unified or
Combined State Plan under WIOA.
While this option may be consistent
with current practice for each program
and most in line with the plain meaning
of each of the relevant programmatic
requirements under WIOA, it may not as
effectively promote the collaborative,
integrated purposes of WIOA among the
core programs. In addition, this option
imposes differing requirements for the
core programs administered by the
outlying areas, thereby causing potential
confusion during the implementation
process. Moreover, this option could
result in the Vocational Rehabilitation
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Services program being the only
component on a Unified or Combined
State Plan, which would render the
Unified or Combined State Plan
requirements meaningless.
The Departments specifically request
comments on the options proposed
above, as well as any additional options,
and which option the Departments
should adopt.
In the section-by-section discussions
of each proposed Unified and Combined
State Plan provision below, the heading
references the proposed DOL CFR part
and section number. However, the
Department of Education proposes in
this joint NPRM identical provisions at
34 CFR part 361, subpart D (under its
State Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Program regulations) and at 34 CFR part
463, subpart H (under a new CFR part
for AEFLA regulations). For purposes of
brevity, the section-by-section
discussions for each Department’s
provisions appear only once—in
conjunction with the DOL section
number—and constitute the
Departments’ collective explanation and
rationale for each proposed provision.
§ 676.100 What are the purposes of the
Unified and Combined State Plans?
Proposed § 676.100 describes the
principal purposes of the Unified and
Combined State Plans, which
communicate the State’s vision for the
State workforce system and serve as a
vehicle for aligning and integrating the
State workforce system across Federal
programs.
Proposed § 676.100(a) explains that
the Unified or Combined State Plan
serves as the vehicle for the State to
outline its vision of the workforce
development system and how the State
will achieve WIOA’s goals.
Proposed § 676.100(b) explains that
the Unified or Combined State Plan
serves as a 4-year plan for how the State
will align and integrate the workforce
development system.
Proposed § 676.100(b)(1)–(4) explain
how the strategies articulated in the
Plan support the State’s vision and
overarching goals. The goals of the 4year Unified and Combined State Plans
are to align and integrate Federal
education, employment, and training
programs; guide investments to ensure
that training and services are meeting
the needs of employers and job seekers;
apply consistent job-driven training
strategies across all relevant Federal
programs; and engage economic,
education, and workforce partners in
improving the workforce development
system.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 676.105 What are the general
requirements for the Unified State Plan?
Proposed § 676.105 describes the
general requirements for the Unified
State Plan that apply to all six core
programs. These requirements set the
foundation for WIOA implementation
by fostering strategic alignment,
improving service integration, and
ensuring that the workforce system is
industry-relevant, responds to the
economic needs of the State, and
matches employers with skilled
workers. The Departments envision a
plan that describes how the State will
develop and implement a unified,
integrated program rather than a plan
that separately discusses the State’s
approach to operating each program
individually.
Proposed § 676.105(a) explains that
Unified State Plans must be submitted
in accordance with § 676.130 and that
the Secretaries of Labor and Education
will issue joint planning guidance, as
discussed above, with instructions to
States on how to submit Unified State
Plans.
Proposed § 676.105(b) implements
WIOA’s statutory requirements in sec.
102(a), and requires that the State
submit the Unified State Plan to the
Secretary of Labor to receive funding for
the workforce development system’s six
core programs.
Proposed § 676.105(c) requires, in
accordance with sec. 102(a) of WIOA,
that the State outline its 4-year strategy
for WIOA’s core programs and meet the
requirements of WIOA sec. 102(b). This
section further explains that the
Secretaries of Labor and Education will
jointly issue planning guidance, which
will include additional requirements
with which the State’s plan must
comply.
Proposed § 676.105(d), which
implements sec. 102(b) of WIOA,
describes the content required to be
included in the Unified State Plan. The
proposed regulation includes major
structural elements rather than
repeating all the statutory State
planning requirements. States still must
comply with each of the statutory
requirements, regardless of whether
they are repeated in regulation.
Proposed §§ 676.105(d)(1)–(3)
implement the key WIOA statutory
requirements found in sec. 102(b)(1),
(b)(1)(E), and (b)(2), respectively. The
plan contains two major content areas—
strategic elements and operational
planning elements. Strategic planning
elements include State analyses of
economic and workforce factors, an
assessment of workforce development
activities, formulation of the State’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
vision and goals for preparing an
educated and skilled workforce that
meets the needs of employers, and a
strategy to achieve the vision and goals.
Operational planning elements include
State strategy implementation, State
operating systems and policies,
program-specific requirements,
assurances, and other requirements
imposed by the Secretaries of Labor or
Education. Additional explanations and
clarifications of assurances and plan
requirements will be contained in the
subsequently issued joint planning
guidance. The plan requirements also
emphasize the use of economic and
labor market information to ensure that
the Governor’s vision and State
strategies are based on a thorough
understanding of the economic
opportunities and workforce needs of
the State, to align the best interests of
job seekers and employers with the
economic future of the State.
Finally, proposed § 676.105(d)(3)(v),
as allowed by WIOA sec.
102(b)(2)(C)(viii), requires the State Plan
to include any additional operational
planning elements as the Secretaries
determine are necessary. These
additional elements will be included in
the joint planning guidance.
§ 676.110 What are the programspecific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the adult, dislocated
worker and youth workforce investment
activities in Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act title I?
§ 676.115 What are the programspecific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the Adult Education and
Family Literacy Act program in
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act title II?
§ 676.120 What are the programspecific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the Wagner-Peyser Act
Employment Services programs as
amended by title III of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
§ 676.125 What are the programspecific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the State Vocational
Rehabilitation Program in title IV of
WIOA?
States are required to develop a
unified or combined plan as described
in § 676.105. While States must address
general common planning requirements,
States must also ensure that their
planning process and plan content
adhere to the legal requirements for
each of the six core programs that
remains unique to each program, as
required by sec. 102(b)(2)(D) of WIOA.
Proposed § 676.110, implementing
WIOA sec. 102(b)(2)(d)(i), describes the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20579
additional requirements to which the
adult, dislocated worker, and youth
programs are subject.
Proposed § 676.115 explains the
additional requirements to which the
AEFLA program is subject.
Proposed paragraph (a) contains three
specific program requirements. First,
subparagraph (1) restates the statutory
requirement that the eligible agency
must align its adult education content
standards with its State-adopted
challenging academic content standards
under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended, and
further establishes that the eligible
agency must have completed that
alignment by July 1, 2016. Establishing
the July 1, 2016, date will ensure that all
States are positioned to work toward
full implementation of rigorous
standards in the first year of the Unified
State Plan and promote consistency
across States. Second, subparagraph (2)
addresses the general requirement that
States, in the Unified State Plan,
describe the methods and factors the
State will use to distribute funds under
the core programs. The regulation
clarifies and reinforces requirements in
title II that the eligible agency must
compete title II funds, award multi-year
grants, and provide direct and equitable
access to funds using the same grant or
contract announcement and application
procedure. Adding the provisions found
in sec. 231 of WIOA to this
subparagraph is intended to clarify the
requirements related to the distribution
of AEFLA funds that must be
incorporated into the Unified State Plan.
Third, subparagraph (3) addresses the
requirement that the State describe how
it will integrate workforce and
education data on core programs,
unemployment programs and education
through post-secondary education. The
regulation requires that for title II, a
State must include in the Unified State
Plan how it will ensure interoperability
of data systems in the reporting of core
indicators and performance reports
required to be submitted by the State.
This regulation is intended to support
the work of eligible agencies
participating in State Longitudinal Data
Systems initiatives and Workforce Data
Quality initiatives and otherwise
support the concepts of interoperability
that will allow efficient reporting of
performance under WIOA.
Proposed § 676.120, consistent with
sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iv), requires States to
include any information the Secretary of
Labor determines is necessary to
administer the Employment Services
Program. This additional information
will be provided in the jointly issued
planning guidance.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20580
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Proposed § 676.125 explains the
additional requirements to which the
State Vocational Rehabilitation program
is subject. Specifically, States must
submit a Vocational Rehabilitation
Services portion, which complies with
all State plan requirements set forth in
sec. 101(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended by WIOA, as part of
the Unified State Plan. The
Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration of ED is
responsible for approving the
Vocational Rehabilitation Services
portion of the Unified State Plan.
In addition to the specific elements
required by WIOA, the Unified State
Plans must include any additional
program specific aspects as required by
sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii).
§ 676.130 What is the submission and
approval process of the Unified State
Plan?
In order to facilitate the State strategic
planning process, and concurrent
review by the relevant Federal program
offices, the Unified State Plan must be
submitted to the Secretary of Labor,
according to the procedures established
in this section, and as clarified and
explained through joint planning
guidance. Proposed § 676.130(d),
discussed below, outlines the
procedures the Secretary of Labor will
follow upon receipt of a Unified State
Plan. Proposed § 676.130 also describes
the requirements for transparency,
public comment, and submission, as
well as the terms for approval.
Proposed § 676.130(a) requires that
the Unified State Plan be submitted in
accordance with the procedures set out
in the joint planning guidance, as
previously discussed, issued by the
Secretaries of Labor and Education and
the procedures outlined in sec. 102(c) of
WIOA.
Proposed §§ 676.130(b)(1) and (2)
reiterate the requirement at sec.
102(c)(1) of WIOA regarding the
deadlines for submitting the initial and
subsequent Unified State Plans to the
Secretary of Labor. The Secretary will
develop a process for submission of
Unified State Plans to ensure that ED
receives the entire Unified State Plan
submission concurrently. Based on this
timeline, States are required to submit
their first Unified State Plan on March
3, 2016. The Departments anticipate that
the second Unified State Plans will need
to be submitted 4 years after the first
plan, in roughly the spring of 2020. The
official submission dates for the Plans
will be announced in the joint planning
guidance.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) clarifies
that, consistent with current practice for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
many of the core programs, a PY runs
from July 1 through June 30 of any year.
This clarification is particularly
important, in this context, for the
Vocational Rehabilitation program since
that program operates on a Federal fiscal
year and will continue to do so, in
accordance with title I of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, despite the
fact that the Vocational Rehabilitation
Services portion of the Unified State
Plan will align, for submission
purposes, with the other partners on a
PY basis.
Proposed § 676.130(c) requires that
the State ensure that the Unified State
Plan is developed and drafted as part of
a transparent process.
Proposed § 676.130(c)(1) implements
WIOA’s Sunshine Provision at sec.
101(g), which the Departments have
interpreted to require that the State
provide an opportunity for comment by
the general public and by
representatives of Local Boards, CEOs,
businesses, representatives of labor
organizations, CBOs, adult education
providers, institutions of higher
education, and other stakeholders with
an interest in the services provided by
the six core programs, including
individuals with disabilities. This
opportunity for comment provides
interested stakeholders with a means to
participate actively and effectively in
the development of the plan in a
transparent manner.
Proposed § 676.130(c)(2) reiterates
WIOA’s Sunshine Provision’s
requirement at WIOA sec. 101(g) that
the State Board make information
regarding Unified State Planning
publicly available to the public through
regularly occurring open meetings. In
addition, this section requires that the
Unified State Plan describe the State’s
process and public comment period.
Proposed § 676.130(d) implements
WIOA sec. 102(c)(2)(A) which requires
the Secretary of Labor to provide the
entire Unified State Plan to the
Secretary of Education for review
pursuant to the submission process
described in § 676.130(b). Because
content pertaining to each of the six
core programs will be integrated
throughout the Unified State Plan, it
will be more efficient and effective to
provide both Secretaries the opportunity
to review the entirety of a State’s plan
rather than trying to break out the
portions of the plan pertaining to the
specific programs. This joint review
process supports the purposes of the
Unified State Plan in fostering program
integration and alignment.
Proposed §§ 676.130(e)–(g),
implementing WIOA sec. 102(c)(2)(B),
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
pertain to the approval of the Unified
State Plan.
Proposed § 676.130(e) implements
WIOA’s statutory requirement that the
Unified State Plan is subject to the
approval of the Secretary of Labor and
the Secretary of Education. WIOA
requires both Secretaries to approve the
Unified State Plan to ensure crossprogram alignment, integration, and
collaboration between the programs
administered by the two Departments.
Proposed § 676.130(f) implements
WIOA’s statutory requirement that the
Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration approve the
vocational rehabilitation services
portion of the Unified State Plan before
the Secretaries of Labor and Education
approve the Unified State Plan.
Proposed § 676.130(g) implements
WIOA’s statutory requirement that the
Unified State Plan must be reviewed
and approved by the Secretaries of
Labor and Education within 90 days of
receipt. The Secretary of Labor will
develop a process for submission of
Unified State Plans to ensure that the
Secretary of Education receives the
entire Unified State Plan submission
concurrently. The section further states
that in order to disapprove a Unified
State Plan either the Secretary of Labor
or the Secretary of Education must find,
in writing, that the Plan is inconsistent
with a core program requirement, is
inconsistent with Unified State Plan
requirements under WIOA sec. 102, is
incomplete, or that the plan does not
provide sufficient information to make
the findings described in proposed
§§ 676.130(g)(1)–(2).
Proposed § 676.130(h) implements
WIOA sec. 102(c)(2)(B), which provides
that if one of the Secretaries does not
affirmatively make the determination
described in §§ 676.130(g)(1)–(3) within
90 days of receipt, the Unified State
Plan will be considered approved.
§ 676.135 What are the requirements
for modification of the Unified State
Plan?
Given the multi-year life of the
Unified State Plan, States must revisit
regularly State Plan strategies and
recalibrate these strategies to respond to
the changing economic conditions and
workforce needs of the State. At a
minimum, a State is required to submit
modifications to its Unified State Plan at
the end of the first 2-year period of any
4-year plan and also under specific
circumstances, examples of which have
been included in this section. States
may also choose to submit a State Plan
modification at any time during the life
of the plan. Proposed § 676.135 further
describes the requirements for
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
submission and approval of Unified
State Plan modifications, which are
subject to the same public review and
comment requirements and approval
process as the full Unified State Plan
submissions.
Proposed § 676.135(a) reiterates
WIOA’s statutory authority in sec.
102(c)(3)(B), which allows the Governor
to submit a modification of the Unified
State Plan at any time during the 4-year
period of the Unified State Plan.
Proposed § 676.135(b)(1) implements
the statutory requirement in WIOA sec.
102(c)(3)(A), requiring the Governor to
submit a Unified State Plan
modification at the end of the first 2year period of any 4-year State Plan.
In addition to the statutory mandate
to modify the Plan, proposed
§§ 676.135(b)(2)–(3) require that the
Governor modify the Unified State Plan
when changes in Federal or State law or
policy substantially affect the strategies,
goals, and priorities upon which the
Unified State Plan is based or when
there are substantial changes in the
State’s workforce investment system. In
order for the plan to both effectively
govern the State’s implementation and
operation of the core programs and
effectively serve the State’s workforce
and employers, the plan must be
consistent with relevant laws and
policies.
Proposed § 676.135(c) requires that
modifications to the Unified State Plan
be subject to the same public review and
comment requirements for submitting a
Unified State Plan described at
proposed § 676.130(c). This requirement
ensures transparency in the process of
developing the Unified State Plan
modification. The Unified State Plan
modification must describe the State’s
process and timeline for ensuring public
comment.
Proposed § 676.135(d), implementing
WIOA sec. 102(c)(3)(B), requires Unified
State Plan modifications to be subject to
the same approval process as the
original Unified State Plan submission.
Modifications must be approved by both
the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary
of Education within 90 days of receipt,
in accordance with the standards
described at § 676.130, which also
includes the approval process for the
Vocational Rehabilitation Services
portion of the State plan.
§ 676.140 What are the general
requirements for submitting a Combined
State Plan?
States have the option to submit a
Combined State Plan that goes beyond
the core programs of a Unified State
Plan to include at least one optional,
additional Federal workforce,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
educational, or social service program
from the programs identified in sec.
103(a)(2) of WIOA. Generally, the
requirements for a Combined State Plan
include the requirements for the Unified
State Plan as well as the programspecific requirements for any optional
programs that are included in the
Combined State Plan. To expand the
benefits of cross-program strategic
planning, increase alignment among
State programs, and improve service
integration, States are strongly
encouraged to submit Combined State
Plans.
Proposed § 676.140, which
implements sec. 103(a) and (b) of WIOA,
authorizes the submission of a
Combined State Plan, lists the optional
programs that a State may include, and
describes the requirements of the
combined plan.
Proposed § 676.140(a) allows a State
to submit a Combined State Plan in lieu
of a Unified State Plan. Proposed
§ 676.140(b), implementing WIOA sec.
103(b)(2), clarifies that, if a State
submits a Combined State Plan that is
approved, the State is not required to
submit any other plan in order to
receive the funds to operate the
programs covered by the combined
plan. The Combined State Plan takes the
place of the individual State Plans for
the optional programs that are covered
by the plan and replaces the Unified
State Plan. In this way, the Combined
State Plan is meant to reduce the burden
for States and promote integrated
planning across State programs. One
proposed exception to this rule, for the
optional program, employment and
training activities carried out under the
Community Services Block Grant
(CSBG) Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.), is
described below under proposed
§ 676.140(h).
The 4-year cycle, with a 2-year
modification, for the Combined State
Plan is inconsistent with the planning
cycles for the plans governing the
optional programs. The Departments
seek comment on how to address this
issue and reduce the burden of
managing multiple cycles. Specifically,
the Departments request comment on
how to treat the plan for an optional
program whose planning cycle is longer
than 2 years, whose planning cycle is
less than 2 years, and whose planning
process includes intra-cycle
modifications of the plan. Similarly, the
Departments request comments on how
best to treat the plan for an optional
program that is reauthorized or
otherwise significantly amended during
the 4-year or 2-year cycle of a Combined
State Plan, including a change to the
optional program’s planning cycle.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20581
Proposed § 676.140(c) requires that
the Combined State Plan be submitted
to the appropriate Secretary for approval
in accordance with the procedures
described in proposed § 676.143(a).
Proposed § 676.140(d) reiterates the
requirement that the Combined State
Plan include all of the core programs,
and at least one of the optional
programs described in WIOA sec.
103(a)(2).
Proposed §§ 676.140(d)(1)–(11)
identify the programs that a State may
include in the Combined State Plan.
These are Federal programs that offer
educational, training, employment, or
supportive services to populations that
may overlap with those core programs
serve. By expanding the State’s crossprogram planning beyond the core
programs to include one or more of the
optional programs the State will further
improve strategic alignment and service
integration for job seekers and
employers.
Proposed §§ 676.140(e)(1)–(4)
generally describe what must be
included in the Combined State Plan. It
is important to note that the portions of
the Combined State Plan covering the
core programs must include all of the
required contents of the Unified State
Plan, while the portions of the
Combined State Plan covering optional
programs must include the information
for a plan or application as required by
the laws authorizing and governing the
optional programs, as well as common
planning requirements (both strategic
and operational) described in sec. 102(b)
of WIOA, and as clarified and explained
in the joint planning guidance for all
included optional programs. This
provision implements sec. 103(b)(1) of
WIOA.
Proposed § 676.140(f) clarifies that
although the optional programs listed in
sec. 103(a)(2) of WIOA are included in
the Combined State Plan, those
programs are subject to the requirements
of the applicable Federal law,
regulations, and program-specific
requirements governing those programs.
A program’s inclusion in the Combined
State Plan does not negate a State’s duty
to comply with all of the relevant laws
and regulations, procedures, and any
other requirements imposed by the
agency or organization administering or
governing that program.
Proposed § 676.140(g), consistent with
sec. 103(d)(2) of WIOA, explains that
the term ‘‘appropriate secretary’’ when
used in relation to the optional
programs refers to the head of the
Federal agency overseeing the program.
Proposed § 676.140(h) indicates that
States that elect to include employment
and training activities carried out under
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20582
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
the CSBG Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.)
under a Combined State Plan would
submit all other required elements of a
complete CSBG State Plan directly to
the Federal agency that administers the
program, according to the requirements
of Federal law and regulations. Because
employment and training activities are
only a subset of the broad range of antipoverty activities and other
requirements addressed in the overall
CSBG plan, States would not be
required to include these programspecific elements of a complete CSBG
State Plan in the WIOA Combined State
Plan.
§ 676.143 What is the submission and
approval process of the Combined State
Plan?
In order to facilitate the State’s
strategic planning process, and
concurrent review by the relevant
Federal program offices, the Combined
State Plan must be submitted in
accordance with jointly-issued planning
guidelines issued by the Secretaries of
Labor and Education and any programspecific requirements of each optional
program that a State includes.
Proposed § 676.143 implements
WIOA’s statutory requirements for
submitting a Combined State Plan.
These are similar to the requirements for
submitting a Unified State Plan, with
added considerations for review and
approval by the Federal agencies that
oversee the optional Combined State
Plan programs.
Proposed § 676.143(a) requires the
Combined State Plan to be submitted in
accordance with the requirements in
§ 676.143 and joint planning guidelines
issued by the Secretaries of DOL and
ED.
Proposed § 676.143(b) requires the
State to submit, to all Secretaries whose
programs are included in the Combined
State Plan, in accordance with the
procedures described in the joint
planning guidance described in
§ 676.143(a), any plan documents,
application, form, or similar documents
that are required by the optional
Combined State Plan programs or
activities in order to receive Federal
funding for that program. Though the
Combined State Plan takes the place of
the individual State Plans for the
optional programs or activities included
in the Combined State Plan, the State
must still comply with the submission
requirements for approval of Federal
funding under the optional programs.
Proposed § 676.143(c) requires that
the Combined State Plan be approved or
disapproved in accordance with the
requirements of sec. 103(c) of WIOA.
This section requires that only the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Secretary tasked with administering the
relevant optional program review and
approve that portion of the Combined
State Plan. Accordingly, proposed
§ 676.143(c)(1) implements sec.
103(c)(3)(A) of WIOA, describing the
approval process by the Secretaries of
Labor and Education for those parts of
the Combined State Plan that cover the
core programs, while proposed
§ 676.143(c)(2) implements sec.
103(c)(3)(B) of WIOA, describing the
approval process by the appropriate
secretary for the optional programs
included in the Combined State Plan.
Proposed § 676.143(d) implements
WIOA’s standards for the Secretaries of
Labor, Education, or other appropriate
secretary to determine if a Combined
State Plan should be approved or
disapproved, or otherwise deemed
complete. These standards are similar to
the standards for disapproving a Unified
State Plan, with considerations for the
requirements of the optional Combined
State Plan programs and activities.
Proposed §§ 676.143(d)(1)–(3) state that
the plan may not be approved if the
relevant Secretary determines, in
writing, within the relevant review
period that: the plan is inconsistent
with the requirements of the core
programs or one or more of the optional
programs included; does not meet the
criteria for the core programs or one or
more of the optional programs included;
or is considered incomplete or
insufficient to make an approval
determination.
Under this section, the appropriate
Secretary reviewing his or her portion of
the Combined State Plan is not required
to take any action or make any
determination to approve/disapprove a
plan beyond what is required or
permitted under the law governing that
program. For example, if the appropriate
Secretary is only authorized to
determine if a plan is complete, as part
of the Combined State Plan approval
process that Secretary would not also be
required to make the additional
determinations described in
§ 676.143(d) in order to approve or
disapprove that portion of the plan.
Proposed § 676.143(e) implements the
requirement in WIOA sec. 103(c)(3) that,
unless the relevant Secretary makes the
determination described in § 676.143(d),
the relevant portion of the plan will be
deemed approved.
Proposed § 676.143(f) requires a State,
with respect to the core programs, and
a program under the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of
2006, to reach an agreement with the
appropriate Secretaries regarding State
performance measures or State
performance accountability measures, as
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the case may be, including levels of
performance. The plan may not be
approved if an agreement as to these
measures is not reached and included in
the plan. Performance requirements for
the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006 continue to
apply.
§ 676.145 What are the requirements
for modifications of the Combined State
Plan?
Section 103 of WIOA provides for the
modification process for parts of the
Combined State Plan. Proposed
§ 676.145 applies to the Combined State
Plans the same requirements for
modifications as Unified State Plans,
with added requirements for the
additional Federal programs included in
the Combined State Plan. For the
additional program and activities that
are not part of the Unified State Plan,
the State may elect to modify the
Combined State Plan according to
WIOA sec. 102(c)(3).
Proposed § 676.145(a) requires
modification of the Combined State Plan
for the core programs at the end of the
first 2-year period of any 4-year
Combined State Plan. This proposed
regulation subjects the core programs in
the Combined State Plan to the
modification requirements described at
§ 676.135 for Unified State Plans,
ensuring that all State plans governing
the core programs are treated equally.
Additionally, this proposed regulation
requires the State Workforce
Development Board to review the
Combined State Plan, and the Governor
to submit a modification to the
Combined State Plans to ensure that the
Plan remains responsive to changes in
labor market and economic conditions
and to other factors that impact the
strategies described in the Combined
State Plan.
Proposed § 676.145(b), similar to the
Unified State Plan provision, allows
States to modify a Combined State Plan,
at any time during the 4-year period of
the Plan and requires modifications as
described in § 676.145(a).
Proposed § 676.145(c)(1) allows the
State, at its discretion, to apply the
modification requirements in § 676.135
to the optional programs and activities
included in the Combined State Plan.
Proposed § 676.145(c)(2) requires the
State to submit, in accordance with the
submission requirements described in
§ 676.143, any modification,
amendment, or revision required by
Federal law for the optional programs
included in the Combined State Plan.
However, the State is required to submit
the modification, amendment, or
revision for approval only to the
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Secretary overseeing the program if the
modification, amendment, or revision
affects the administration of that
particular program and has no impact
on the Combined State Plan as a whole
or the integration and administration of
the core and optional programs at the
State level. In this case, the State may
submit its modification, amendment, or
revision in accordance with the
procedures and requirements applicable
to the particular program.
In addition, if the program-specific
requirements change by law for an
optional Combined State Plan program,
the State may choose to either: (1)
Modify the Combined State Plan or (2)
remove the program from the Combined
State Plan and submit a separate plan to
the Federal agency that oversees that
program, in accordance with the new
Federal law authorizing the optional
program and other applicable legal
requirements for such program. Since
Combined State Plan programs are
optionally included by the State in a
Plan, the State may also choose to
exclude them at a later date. A State also
may amend its Combined State Plan to
add an optional program or activity
described in § 676.140(d), provided that
it meets the requirements of WIOA and
the optional program or activity.
Proposed § 676.145(d) requires the
modifications of Combined State Plans
to be subject to public review and
comment as described in proposed
§ 676.130(c) or in program-specific
requirements of each optional program
included by the State. The Combined
State Plan modification process must
comply with the transparency
requirements for the six core programs
in the Combined State Plan. The
Departments seek comment on how to
streamline the public review and
comment process for Combined State
Plan modifications; whether it is
advisable to limit the comment process
to significant or substantial
modifications to the common planning
elements; and, if so, how the
Departments might define significant or
substantial changes.
Proposed § 676.145(e) requires that
modifications of the portions of the
Combined State Plan that pertain to the
core programs must be approved by the
Secretaries of Labor and Education
according to the approval standards
described in § 676.143.
Proposed § 676.145(f) requires that
modifications of the Combined State
Plan for the programs or activities
described in § 676.140(d) be approved
by the appropriate Secretary if the
modification, amendment, or revision
affects the administration of only that
particular optional program and has no
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
impact on the Combined State Plan as
a whole or the integration and
administration of the core and optional
programs at the State level.
B. Performance Accountability Under
Title I of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (20 CFR Part 677; 34
CFR Part 361, Subpart E; 34 CFR Part
463, Subpart I)
1. Introduction
Section 116 of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA) establishes performance
accountability indicators and
performance reporting requirements to
assess the effectiveness of States and
local areas in achieving positive
outcomes for individuals served by the
core programs. The core programs are
defined in sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA
to include the adult, dislocated worker,
and youth programs under title I of
WIOA, the AEFLA programs under title
II; the Employment Services authorized
by the Wagner-Peyser program under
the Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by
title III (‘‘Employment Services’’); and
the Vocational Rehabilitation program
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended by title IV.
With a few exceptions, including the
local accountability system under sec.
116(c) of WIOA, the performance
accountability requirements apply
across all of the core programs. It is
instructive to note that sec. 116 is
located in the statute under subtitle A,
which is System Alignment. This is an
historic opportunity to align definitions,
streamline performance indicators, and
integrate reporting for each of the core
programs to the extent practicable,
while implementing program-specific
requirements. Through these proposed
joint regulations, the Departments are
laying the foundation for the
establishment of a performance
accountability system that serves all
core programs and their targeted
populations in a manner that is
customer-focused and that supports an
integrated service design and delivery
model. In addition, WIOA requires
additional programs, including Job
Corps, Native American programs, the
Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker
programs, and the YouthBuild program,
to use the same performance
accountability indicators as the core
programs, as provided in 29 CFR part
686 and 29 CFR part 684. This will
better align both the core programs and
other education and training programs
across the workforce system. Further,
DOL plans to include other workforce
programs under its purview in this
streamlining effort, including the Jobs
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20583
for Veterans State Grants (JVSG)
program as authorized by the Jobs for
Veterans Act, other formula and
applicable competitive grant programs
administered by DOL.
As with the planning requirements
discussed previously, the differing
definitions of ‘‘State’’ raise potential
inconsistencies as to the applicability of
the performance accountability system
requirements of sec. 116 of WIOA for
purposes of the outlying areas and their
administration of the core programs.
Section 116, which consistently
references States, establishes a common
performance system to measure the
effectiveness of the States and local
areas in achieving positive outcomes for
participants in the core programs.
However, sec. 116 does not specifically
reference the outlying areas. Sections
126 and 131 of WIOA require that
outlying areas comply with all of the
requirements of title I as a prerequisite
to their receipt of title I funds, although
neither section specifically references
the requirements of sec. 116. The
silence in sec. 116 is especially
important with regard to the core
programs funded under title I of WIOA,
and administered by the Department of
Labor, since sec. 3 defines the terms
‘‘State’’ and ‘‘outlying area’’ separately.
Reading title I, and sec. 116 specifically,
in isolation, suggests that the
performance system does not apply to
the outlying areas.
Unlike the title I programs, the Adult
Education and Vocational Rehabilitation
programs under titles II and IV,
respectively, clearly require the outlying
areas to comply with the performance
accountability system requirements of
sec. 116 of WIOA. Section 212 applies
the performance provisions in sec. 116
to all of the programs and activities
authorized in title II, which includes the
adult education programs and activities
administered by the eligible agencies in
the outlying areas. Additionally, sec.
106 of the Rehabilitation Act, as
amended by title IV of WIOA, requires
that States—which includes the
outlying areas—comply with the
performance accountability system
requirements of sec. 116 of WIOA.
Given the use of the term ‘‘State’’ in
sec. 116 and the differing definitions for
that term for the various core programs,
ambiguity exists within WIOA as to the
applicability of the performance
accountability system requirements
with regard to the core programs
administered by the Department of
Labor under title I of WIOA.
Nevertheless, WIOA is clear that the
core programs funded under titles II and
IV are subject to these requirements. For
this reason, there are two options to
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20584
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
resolve this potential inconsistency,
thereby ensuring that the performance
of the core programs in the outlying
areas can be measured to ensure
programmatic effectiveness.
The first option would be to subject
the title I WIOA core programs
administered by the outlying areas to
the sec. 116 performance system, as
WIOA requires of the core programs
funded under titles II and IV. The
second option would be not to apply the
performance accountability system
requirements of sec. 116 of the title I
WIOA programs administered by the
outlying areas, since title I is less clear
in the applicability of these
requirements to the outlying areas,
while requiring the outlying areas
administering the Adult Education and
Vocational Rehabilitation Services
programs, funded under titles II and IV
respectively, to comply with the sec.
116 requirements since these titles
clearly require such compliance. This
option, while perhaps most in line with
the plain meaning of the relevant
statutory provisions, is contrary to the
purpose of WIOA generally and the
performance accountability system
established in sec. 116 specifically.
Moreover, this option would treat the
various core programs differently,
thereby causing potential confusion
during implementation and could result
in disparate treatment with regard to
sanctions.
The Departments specifically request
comments on the options proposed
above, as well as any additional options,
and which option the Departments
should adopt.
In the section-by-section discussions
of each proposed performance
accountability provision below, the
heading references the proposed DOL
CFR part and section number. However,
the Department of Education proposes
in this joint NPRM identical provisions
at 34 CFR part 361, subpart E (under its
State Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Program regulations) and at 34 CFR part
463, subpart I (under a new CFR part for
AEFLA regulations). For purposes of
brevity, the section-by-section
discussions for each Department’s
provisions appear only once—in
conjunction with the DOL section
number—and constitute the
Departments’ collective explanation and
rationale for each proposed provision.
§ 677.150 What definitions apply to
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act performance measurements and
reporting requirements?
Proposed § 677.150 defines key
performance-related terms which States
must use in their reporting on
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
performance calculations. The
Departments propose these definitions
to facilitate consistent reporting across
the States. Under WIA, States created
differing definitions of key terms for
performance reporting, which resulted
in inconsistent reporting and prevented
the Departments from fully evaluating
the effectiveness of its workforce and
educational programs.
The definitions the Departments are
proposing in these regulations are
sufficiently broad to apply across core
programs and other programs
authorized by this statute, to create an
integrated performance accountability
system, and to support clarity and
alignment of performance metrics and
comparability among the programs and
States.
Proposed § 677.150 defines
participant, reportable individual, and
exit.
Proposed § 677.150(a) proposes a
definition of ‘‘participant’’ across the
core programs because participants are
specifically identified in the statute as
included in performance calculations.
The definition of participant establishes
a common point of measurement at
which an individual is meaningfully
engaged in a core program. This
measurement point takes into
consideration the unique purposes and
characteristics of each program and the
ways in which an individual may
access, and ultimately engage in,
services in each of the core programs.
The proposed definition does not
attempt to define the activities leading
up to participation in the same way
across all of the core programs, but
instead seeks to establish a common
point in service design and delivery that
an individual reaches regardless of the
program in which he or she is enrolled.
In each program, an individual must
meet a specific programmatic threshold
at which he or she begins receiving
services regardless of the program. The
proposed definition takes into account
the unique processes of each program to
meet such thresholds and, thus,
participant is defined in a manner that
works across the core programs. The
proposal defines participant as a
reportable individual who has received
staff-assisted services after satisfying all
applicable programmatic requirements
for the provision of services, such as the
eligibility determination. This proposed
definition establishes a common
approach to establishing a minimum
participation threshold that is
appropriate to the services provided by
each program. This approach also
ensures consistent definition of
participant within each program. This
definition excludes self-service
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
individuals because they have minimal
interaction with the program and
minimal resources are spent on their
behalf. Such individuals are reportable,
as defined below, because they have
contact with the system but are not
participants and, thus, are not included
in performance calculations.
Specifically for Wagner-Peyser
Employment Services, only those
reportable individuals who received
staff-assisted services would be
included in performance calculations.
For WIOA adults, reportable individuals
who receive staff assisted services
would be considered participants and,
thus, be included in performance
calculations. For WIOA dislocated
workers, reportable individuals who are
determined eligible and receive a staffassisted service would be considered
participants and, thus, be included in
performance calculations. For WIOA
youth, reportable individuals who are
determined eligible, receive an
assessment, and receive a program
element (a staff-assisted service) would
be considered participants and, thus, be
included in performance calculations.
For the AEFLA program, reportable
individuals who have been determined
eligible and who have completed at
least 12 contact hours in an adult
education and literacy activity under
AEFLA would be considered
participants and, thus, be included in
performance calculations. For the
Vocational Rehabilitation program,
reportable individuals who have been
determined eligible for services and
who have an approved and signed
Individualized Plan for Employment
(IPE) that outlines the services that the
individual will receive would be
considered participants and, thus, be
included in performance calculations.
Proposed § 677.150(b) defines
‘‘reportable individual’’ as an individual
who meets specific core program criteria
for reporting such as the provision of
identifying information or a level of
service receipt that is below the staffassisted level, which will be further
explained in guidance issued by DOL
and ED. This approach would allow for
counting self-service system utilization
or those who received only
informational services/activities as well
as other services that may occur prior to
an individual meeting all of the
established benchmarks for
participation.
These definitions are critical for
determining who is subject to
performance calculations. All
individuals receiving staff-assisted
services through WIOA workforce
system core programs would be reported
under a single count of program
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
participants and would be subject to
performance calculations. It is
important to note that this differs from
ETA’s current approach for the
Employment Services’ under WIA
reporting whereby self-service
individuals are included in performance
calculations. In contrast, under these
proposed regulations all self-service and
information-only individuals would be
subjected to reportable counts and other
associated information, but not
performance calculations for the
primary indicators of performance. This
proposed approach also would address
the current inconsistency in reporting
based on various co-enrollment
strategies.
The Departments are seeking feedback
regarding this proposed approach,
specifically for the WIOA title I and III
programs, on the appropriate point of
receipt of staff-assisted services, which
has not been a commonly defined point
under WIA. A stronger delineation of
that measurement point, which would
be the same for the Wagner-Peyser
Employment Services, WIOA adults,
and WIOA dislocated workers, would
enhance comparability across States.
Proposed § 677.150(c) defines the
term ‘‘exit’’ for the purposes of a
uniform performance accountability
system for the core programs under
WIOA, as well as applicable non-core
programs as established through
regulation or guidance. Several of the
primary indicators of performance for
performance accountability require
measuring participants’ progress after
they have exited from the program. One
consistent definition of exit would
facilitate this calculation and will allow
the Departments to make meaningful
comparisons across the States. For the
core programs, excluding Vocational
Rehabilitation, the Departments propose
defining ‘‘exit’’ as the last date of
service. The last date of service means
the individual has not received any
services for 90 days and there are no
future services planned. For the purpose
of this definition, ‘‘service’’ does not
include self-service, information-only
activities, or follow-up services.
Therefore, in order to determine
whether or not an individual has exited,
States will retroactively determine if 90
days have passed with no further
service and no further services
scheduled.
The proposed definition of ‘‘exit’’ for
the Vocational Rehabilitation program is
similar in that it marks the point at
which the individual no longer is
engaged with the program and there is
no ongoing relationship between the
individual and the program. However,
the proposed definition takes into
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
account specific programmatic
requirements. Under the Vocational
Rehabilitation program, an individual
would be determined to have exited the
program on the date the individual’s
case is closed in accordance with
Vocational Rehabilitation program
requirements. Even with this
programmatic distinction, the
calculations would be essentially the
same as with the other core programs
because in all instances the ‘‘exit’’ count
would capture all individuals who are
no longer active participants in any of
the core programs. In addition, the
Departments exclude from the
definition of ‘‘exit,’’ for purposes of the
Vocational Rehabilitation program,
those individuals who have achieved a
supported employment outcome at a
subminimum wage. This proposed
provision is necessary to implement
WIOA’s heightened emphasis on
competitive integrated employment.
The Departments considered various
approaches to defining ‘‘exit’’ across the
programs. The proposed definition
introduces common language that is
broad enough to apply to all of the core
programs, but also accommodates
statutory requirements specific to the
Vocational Rehabilitation program as
implemented in 34 CFR 361.43 and
361.56.
The Departments seek comments on
whether an individual’s continued use
of self-service offerings should extend
the individual’s exit date, or if a
participant should be considered as
having exited after the final staffassisted service. The self-service
component is limited to WIOA title I
programs and the Wagner-Peyser
Employment Services.
WIOA sec. 116(d)(2)(I) requires States
to report on the number of participants
who are enrolled in more than one
WIOA core program. Therefore, the
Departments are also considering the
value of a cross-program definition of
exit, sometimes called a common exit,
that is based upon the last staff-assisted
service from all core programs rather
than a program exit. The current
proposed definition of ‘‘exit’’ is program
specific so if an individual was
receiving services from more than one
program, that individual could have
multiple ‘‘exits.’’ The current proposed
definition would allow programs to
capture all exit-based participant
outcomes in a reporting period
regardless of whether the participant
continued to receive services from other
core programs. The Departments have
considered a common exit-based
definition that requires an individual to
have completed all programs in order to
officially exit from the system. Such a
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20585
definition would emphasize the
importance of an individual receiving
and completing all partner program
services necessary to ensure a successful
attachment to the labor market. It is,
however, largely dependent on the
ability of States to exchange data
effectively and efficiently across State
agencies in order to determine outcomes
for each of the programs. The
Departments are seeking comments on
the costs and benefits of taking a
program-exit approach or a common
exit approach in defining ‘‘exit.’’
2. Subpart A—State Indicators of
Performance for Core Programs
§ 677.155 What are the primary
indicators of performance under the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act?
Proposed § 677.155 identifies the
primary indicators of performance that
States must include in their Unified or
Combined State Plans. The primary
indicators are applied in numerous
places across all of the WIOA proposed
regulations. Though the indicators may
appear under other components of the
regulations the indicators are aligned
and the same and do not vary across the
regulations. The Departments have
considered a variety of approaches to
define the primary indicators of
performance, which will be applied to
each of the core programs outlined in
sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA.
Specifically, these indicators will apply
to the core programs administered by
ED’s Office of Career, Technical, and
Adult Education, ED’s Rehabilitation
Services Administration, and DOL’s
ETA. WIOA presents new opportunities
for system alignment through
performance accountability. The ED and
DOL envision a performance system
whereby all programs’ primary
performance metrics share a common
language that supports comparability
and facilitates enhanced consumer
choice and better programmatic
decision-making.
Proposed § 677.155(a)(1) identifies the
six primary indicators that will be
applied to the core programs identified
in sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA. The
DOL is also planning to leverage these
indicators to streamline reporting for
other DOL programs, such as the JVSG
program, and other discretionary grant
programs. To that end, the Departments
invite comments specific to this issue.
Proposed § 677.155(a)(1)(i)
implements the first statutory
performance indicator in sec.
116(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) of WIOA and requires
States to report on the percentage of
participants in unsubsidized
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20586
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
employment in the second quarter after
exit from the program. This statutory
language requires States to measure the
employment rate of participants in the
second quarter after exit from the
program. In contrast, WIA’s first
indicator of performance required States
to report on an ‘‘entered employment
rate.’’ The WIA indicator measured
individuals who were unemployed at
the time of entry into the program and
after receiving services, obtained
employment, thus allowing the
Departments to evaluate whether the
WIA services were effective in helping
unemployed individuals obtain
employment. The proposed WIOA
indicator is different from WIA’s
‘‘entered employment rate’’ indicator in
two ways: (1) The time period for
measurement in WIOA is the second
quarter after exit instead of the first
quarter; and (2) the statutory language
under WIOA does not specify that the
indicator is to measure entry into
employment. The Departments plan to
calculate both an ‘‘employment rate’’ for
all participants in the program
regardless of employment status at
program entry and an ‘‘entered
employment rate’’ for participants who
were unemployed at the time of
program entry. The Departments seek
public comment on whether and how to
collect information on the quality of
employment and how WIOA’s programs
help employed and underemployed
individuals find new or better jobs.
Proposed § 677.155(a)(1)(ii)
implements WIOA’s second statutory
primary indicator of performance and is
similar to the first, except that the time
period for measurement is the fourth
quarter after exit. This statutory
language requires States to measure the
employment rate of participants in the
fourth quarter after exit from the
program without regard to whether
those participants were employed in the
second quarter after exit from the
program. Under WIA, this indicator is a
retention measure that analyzes whether
individuals who were employed in the
first quarter after exiting from WIA
services were still employed in the
second and third quarters. As a
retention measure such as the approach
under WIA, this indicator would have
counted participants who were
employed in the second quarter after
exit and measured of this group, who
were still employed in the fourth
quarter after exit from the program. The
Departments seek comment on the
advantages and disadvantages of
collecting or reporting the employment
retention rate in addition to the
employer rate.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Proposed § 677.155(a)(1)(iii)
implements WIOA’s third statutory
indicator found at sec.
116(b)(2)(A)(i)(III) and measures
participants’ median earnings in the
second quarter after exit. This indicator
measures median earnings at the same
time frame as the first indicator
measures the employment rate of
participants. The use of a median is a
shift from the use of an average under
WIA and is based on the language
provided in WIOA.
Proposed § 677.155(a)(1)(iv)
implements WIOA’s fourth statutory
indicator and measures post-secondary
credential attainment and high school
completion of program participants
during participation in the program or
within 1 year after exit. The proposed
regulation defines this measure with the
same language as the statute and
includes the statutory language limiting
participants who obtain a secondary
school diploma or its equivalent to be
included in the percentage counted as
meeting the criterion only if the
participant is employed or is enrolled in
an education or training program
leading to a recognized post-secondary
credential within 1 year after exit from
the program. The Departments
specifically seek comment on
clarifications that will be necessary to
implement this indicator.
Proposed § 677.155(a)(1)(v) measures
the percentage of participants who,
during a PY, are in education or training
programs that lead to a recognized postsecondary credential or employment,
and who are achieving measurable skill
gains, which the Departments are
defining as documented academic,
technical, occupational or other forms of
progress, toward the credential or
employment.
The Departments are considering
using this indicator to measure interim
progress of participants who may be
enrolled in education or training
services for a specified reporting period.
For example, if a participant is enrolled
in a 4-year registered apprenticeship
program, the indicator would track the
skills the participant gains throughout
the reporting period, not just at the end
of the 4-year training program. For lowskilled adults, this proposed indicator
provides an opportunity to track
progress in reading, writing,
mathematics, and English proficiency
while they are participating in an adult
education program prior to completing
the high school credential and entering
post-secondary education or training or
employment. The measurable skill gains
indicator will encourage local adult
education programs to serve all lowskilled adults as Congress intended.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Another example pertains to a
participant who is training for multiple
fields in the YouthBuild program. Such
an individual may be pursuing
certifications that require several years
of experience, specific study hours, and
demonstration of skills and knowledge
prior to the final certification exam. The
measurable skill gains indicator would
capture documented progress on interim
milestones leading up to the final
certification. The measurable skill gains
indicator is intended to capture
important progressions through
pathways that offer different services
based on program purposes and
participant needs and can help fulfill
the Departments’ vision of creating a
workforce system that serves a diverse
set of individuals with a range of
services tailored to individual needs
and goals.
In using this indicator as a measure of
interim progress of participants, the
Departments are considering how States
can document progression during
participation in an education or training
program in a standardized way.
Documented progress could include
such measures as:
(1) The achievement of at least one
educational functioning level of a
participant in an education program that
provides instruction below the postsecondary level;
(2) attainment of a high school
diploma or its equivalent;
(3) a transcript or report card for
either secondary or post-secondary
education for 1 academic year (or 24
credit hours) that shows a participant is
achieving the State unit’s policies for
academic standards;
(4) a satisfactory or better progress
report, towards established milestones
from an employer who is providing
training (e.g., completion of on-the-job
training (OJT), completion of 1 year of
an apprenticeship program);
(5) the successful completion of an
exam that is required for a particular
occupation, progress in attaining
technical or occupational skills as
evidenced by trade-related benchmarks
such as knowledge-based exams; and
(6) measurable observable
performance based on industry
standards.
The Departments seek comments on
the proposed indicator and request
comments on the ways States can
measure and document participants’
measurable skill gains in a standardized
way, including whether time intervals
are required and what time intervals
might be. The Departments also seek
comments on whether the performance
targets for this indicator should be set at
the indicator (i.e., measurable skill
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
gains) or documented progress measure
(e.g., attainment of high school diploma)
level.
Proposed § 677.155(a)(1)(vi)
implements the sixth statutory primary
indicator related to effectiveness in
serving employers. Under WIOA, the
Departments are required to consult
with stakeholders and receive public
comment on proposed approaches to
defining the indicator. As part of this
requirement, the Departments have
already sought public input on
performance indicators generally and on
the business indicators specifically
through several avenues, including a
town-hall meeting that addressed all of
the primary indicators, a town-hall
meeting convened with employers,
numerous town-halls and webinars on
WIOA across the country, and
consultations with State Administrators
for the AEFLA and Vocational
Rehabilitation (VR) stakeholders.
Because the Departments have not
previously used this indicator, it is
important to hear from States and
stakeholders on what they consider core
functions of their services to employers
in order to best determine how to
understand and measure the
effectiveness of the services provided.
Additionally, it is critical to hear from
employers on the attributes of services
that they find effective. In drafting the
potential proposals described below, the
Departments consulted with a wide
range of representatives to develop the
indicators of effectiveness in serving
employers as required by WIOA sec.
116(b)(2)(A)(i)(VI). See WIOA sec.
116(b)(A)(2)(iv) and 116(b)(4)(B).
Based on the consultations, the
Departments have established several
potential approaches to measuring the
effectiveness of serving employers,
including potential measures that could
be used. One of the Departments’
principal concerns in crafting a final
definition of this indicator is
minimizing burden that measuring this
indicator will impose on employers in
order to avoid discouraging employer
engagement with the workforce and
education systems. The Departments
value the interaction of employers with
the workforce and education systems
and do not want to impose any barriers
to that interaction. With this in mind,
the Departments’ proposed approaches
aim to minimize employer burden while
still attempting to measure the
effectiveness of how the Departments’
programs serve employers.
One approach to measure this
indicator is to measure employee
retention rates tied to the employment
they obtained after receiving WIOA
services. Under this approach, States
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
would be required to use wage records
to identify whether or not a participant
matched the same Federal employer
identification number (FEIN) in the
second and fourth quarters. This
approach has the lowest burden on
employers, as it requires no action from
the employer. Under this approach,
WIOA’s services are effectively serving
an employer if that employer hires a
WIOA participant and the participant is
still employed by that employer in the
fourth quarter (up to a year) after
program exit. The Departments would
be interested in specific comments
around the feasibility of this, and if it
measures the systems’ effectiveness in
serving employers.
Another potential way to define this
indicator would measure the repeat/
retention rates for employers’ use of the
core programs. The Departments seek
comments around this approach,
including how States could capture this
data, the feasibility of capturing and
reporting this data, and if this indicator
would measure the efficacy of the
services provided to employers.
The Departments are also considering
using the number or percent of
employers that are using the core
program services out of all employers
represented in an area or State served by
the system (i.e., employers served) as a
measure of the effectiveness of serving
employers. Employer usage may reflect
the effectiveness of the system’s ability
to reach out to employers, convey the
services the core programs provide, and
meet employers’ needs. The
Departments seek comment on the
feasibility of capturing this data
accurately, the validity of such an
approach in measuring effectiveness of
program services, and the usefulness of
this approach in managing employer
services.
The Departments are proposing to
look at this as a shared indicator across
programs, as many employers are served
by multiple programs. Another
approach could be to apply this measure
to individual core programs. The
Departments seek comment on the
relative merits of each approach. The
Departments also seek comment about
whether a single metric for this
indicator would sufficiently capture
effectiveness in serving employers or if
this indicator should encompass a
combination of metrics, including how
these metrics could most effectively be
combined.
Understanding that an array of
programs provide services to employers,
the Departments seek public comment
on additional ways to measure the core
programs’ effectiveness in serving
employers.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20587
Proposed § 677.155(b) applies the six
indicators outlined in proposed
§ 677.155(a)(1) to the adult and
dislocated worker programs under title
I of WIOA, the AEFLA program under
title II of WIOA, and the Vocational
Rehabilitation program as amended by
title IV of WIOA.
Proposed § 677.155(c) applies the
primary indicators of performance in
proposed §§ 677.155(a)(1)(i)–(iii) and
(vi) that States must include in their
Unified or Combined State Plans for the
Employment Services as amended by
WIOA title III. Those indicators of
performance which apply to the
Employment Services are: (1) The
percentage of program participants who
are in unsubsidized employment during
the second quarter after exit from the
program; (2) the percentage of program
participants who are in unsubsidized
employment during the fourth quarter
after exit from the program; (3) the
median earnings of program participants
who are in unsubsidized employment
during the second quarter after exit; and
(4) the effectiveness in serving
employers. The Departments also seeks
comments on how to best measure the
Wagner-Peyser Employment Services’
effectiveness in serving employers.
Proposed § 677.155(d)(1)–(6)
identifies the primary indicators of
performance that States must to address
in their Unified or Combined State
Plans for the youth program under
WIOA title I. The youth indicators apply
universally to the youth workforce
investment program and, therefore,
apply to in-school and out-of-school
youth as defined in WIOA sec.
129(a)(1)(B) and (C).
Proposed § 677.155(d)(1) implements
the first statutory indicator for youth,
which measures the percentage of
program participants who are in
education or training activities, or in
unsubsidized employment, during the
second quarter after exit from the
program. Under WIA, States report on a
placement rate, which measures a
youth’s placement in either education or
employment, after exiting from the
program. The WIOA indicator differs
from WIA’s placement rate in three
ways. First, the time period for
measurement in WIOA is the second
quarter after exit instead of the first
quarter after exit. Second, the placement
rate under WIA only allowed postsecondary education to be reported;
whereas, under WIOA, any education,
including secondary and postsecondary, is reported. Third, the
placement measure under WIA
excluded those youth who were
enrolled in post-secondary education,
employed, or in the military at the time
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20588
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
of participation; WIOA’s indicators do
not make these exclusions. WIA’s
measure provided insight into how
many youth came to a program not
enrolled in post-secondary education,
employed, or in the military, and then
after receiving services, obtained
employment or were placed into postsecondary education or training
program. Under WIOA, this indicator
does not provide for this exclusion and
the Departments’ proposed indicator
measures placement in the second
quarter after exit of all participants.
Proposed § 677.155(d)(2) implements
the second statutory indicator that
applies to the WIOA youth program
under title I. This indicator under sec.
116 of WIOA is similar to the first
indicator in that it is the percentage of
program participants who are in an
education or training program or in
unsubsidized employment in the fourth
quarter after exit. The Departments
propose that this indicator measure
whether a participant is in education,
training or unsubsidized employment in
the fourth quarter.
Proposed § 677.155(d)(3) implements
the third statutory indicator that applies
to the youth program under WIOA title
I. This indicator measures median
earnings in the second quarter after
participants exit from the program.
States must report the median point for
earnings for all program participants in
unsubsidized employment in the second
quarter after exit. This indicator
measures earnings in the second quarter
after exit, which is the same time frame
in which the States will measure if
program participants are in education or
training activities or unsubsidized
employment.
Proposed § 677.155(d)(4) implements
the fourth statutory indicator and
measures post-secondary credential
attainment and high school completion
of program participants who have exited
from the youth program under WIOA
title I. The language of the proposed
regulation is the same as the indicator
in § 677.155(a)(1)(iv). The Departments
have provided an in-depth explanation
of this in the preamble for
§ 677.155(a)(1)(iv) and therefore, refer
readers to this section for more
information on this definition.
Proposed § 677.155(d)(5) implements
the fifth statutory indicator and pertains
to measurable skill gains. The language
of the proposed regulation is the same
as the indicator in § 677.155(a)(1)(v).
The Departments have provided an indepth explanation of this in the
preamble for § 677.155(a)(1)(v) and
refers readers to this section for more
information on this definition.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Proposed § 677.155(d)(6) implements
the sixth statutory indicator and is the
same language for the indicator in
§ 677.155(a)(1)(vi). The Departments
have provided an in-depth explanation
of this in the preamble for
§ 677.155(a)(1)(v) and refers readers to
this section for more information on this
definition.
§ 677.160 What information is
required for State performance reports?
Proposed § 677.160 identifies the
information States are statutorily
required to report in the State
performance report under WIOA sec.
116(d)(2). The Departments agree that
integrated performance reports would
facilitate assessment of WIOA
performance across programs. The
proposed regulation reorganizes in a
more user-friendly format the WIOA
statutory requirements for the State
performance reports.
Section 116(d)(1) of WIOA requires
the Departments to provide a
performance reporting template for each
of the performance reports required in
secs. 116(d)(2)–(4) of WIOA. The
Departments will seek public comment
on the reporting templates through the
PRA process. In developing these report
templates, the Departments will seek to
maximize the value of the templates for
workers, job seekers, employers, local
elected officials, State officials, Federal
policy-makers, and other key
stakeholders, and seek feedback on the
formats that will be most useful for each
audience through the PRA process. The
Departments will seek to align
performance reports to the extent
possible while maximizing the value of
each report for its primary audience, in
order to have comparable reporting
elements across all core programs in
keeping with the shared statutory
performance requirements. Aligning the
reports and performance definitions will
create a performance accountability
system that is easier to understand and
assess the effectiveness of States in
achieving positive outcomes for
individuals served by these programs.
Proposed § 677.160(a) implements the
reporting provisions of WIOA sec.
116(d)(2) for the State performance
reports.
Proposed § 677.160(a)(1) requires
States to report the number of
participants served and the number of
participants who exited from each of the
core programs identified in WIOA sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(ii).
Proposed § 677.160(a)(1)(i)–(ii)
implements WIOA’s statutory
requirement that the States include a
count of the number of participants and
exiters served that are individuals with
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
barriers to employment, disaggregated
by those barriers as defined in WIOA
sec. 3(24) and that are co-enrolled in
any of the programs in WIOA sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(ii) in the State performance
report. Additional reporting information
required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2) in
regard to participants and exiters are
age, sex, and race and ethnicity. The
provisions of the statute are clear in
what is required and the Departments
have proposed rule text to coincide with
the statutory language.
Proposed § 677.160(a)(2) implements
WIOA’s statutory requirement that
States include the levels achieved for
the primary indicators of performance
listed in § 677.155 in the performance
report. This section also requires that
the States’ performance report include
disaggregated levels for individuals with
barriers to employment as defined in
WIOA sec. 3(24), as well as age, sex,
race, and ethnicity as required by sec.
116(d)(2) of WIOA.
Proposed § 677.160(a)(3)–(7)
implements WIOA’s statutory
requirement that States report
information on career and training
services including: (1) Participant and
exiter counts by career and training
services, (2) the performance levels
achieved for the primary indicators
consistent with § 677.155 for career and
training services, (3) the percentage of
participants who are placed into
training-related employment, (4) the
amount of funds spent on each type of
career and training service, and (5) the
average cost per participant for
participants who received career and
training services.
The Departments propose that these
requirements are applied based on the
applicable services provided by a core
program. For example, the Employment
Services do not provide training
services and as such would not be
required to report on training related
information—they would only report on
the applicable career services that they
provide. Similarly, the AEFLA program
also only provides certain career
services, through the one-stop delivery
system, and as such, reporting would
only be required with respect to
applicable career services that the
program provides. Requiring programs
to report on services they do not provide
would create an additional and
unnecessary reporting burden. This
interpretation is in line with sec. 504 of
WIOA, which requires the Departments
to simplify and reduce reporting
burdens. (Further information on the
career and training services is found at
20 CFR 680.150 and 680.200.)
Additionally, the Departments interpret
these provisions as prospective
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
provisions that do not require
retroactive collection of information.
Proposed § 677.160(a)(3) implements
the requirement for core programs to
report on the number of participants
and exiters in a program who received
career and training services. Other than
the proposed limitation that this be
reported by a program based on the
applicable services it provides, the
statutory language is clear in the
requirement and propose to implement
as stated.
Proposed § 677.160(a)(4) requires
States to provide information on the
performance levels achieved for the
primary indicators consistent with
§ 677.155 for career and training
services for the most recent program
year and the 3 preceding program years,
as applicable to the program providing
services. The Departments interpret this
provision to apply to the core programs
only with respect to the applicable
services they provide and have more
fully discussed this rationale above.
Proposed § 677.160(a)(5) requires
States to include the percent of
participants in a WIOA title I program
who obtained unsubsidized
employment related to the training
received. This provision implements
WIOA’s statutory requirement that
States report on training-related
employment. WIOA sec. 116(d)(2)(G)
requires States to report on the
participants in programs ‘‘authorized
under this subtitle.’’ Section 116 is in
subtitle A, which does not authorize any
programs under WIOA. Therefore, the
Departments interpret this provision of
WIOA to mean that States must report
on core programs authorized by title I.
Proposed §§ 677.160(a)(6) and (a)(7)
require States to report on the amount
of funds spent on each type of career
and training service as well as the
average cost per participant for
participants receiving career and
training services for the most recent
program year and the 3 preceding
program years. The Departments
interpret this provision to apply to the
core programs only with respect to the
applicable services they provide as
discussed above.
Proposed § 677.160(a)(8) implements
WIOA’s statutory requirement that
States report on the percent of the
State’s annual allotment under WIOA
sec. 132(b) that the State spent on
administrative costs.
Proposed § 677.160(a)(9) implements
the WIOA statutory allowance for the
collection of information that facilitates
comparisons of programs with programs
in other States. The Departments are
considering collecting a variety of
supplemental information such as
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
outcomes for Unemployment Insurance
claimants, reportable individuals, and
other subgroups served by the core
programs, as well as additional
outcomes, such as entered employment
(the number of individuals who were
unemployed when coming into a
program and obtained employment
following program exit) or employment
retention (the number of people who
were employed in a quarter that
remained employed in subsequent
quarters) and information about
participants enrolled in education or
training programs that do not lead to a
recognized post-secondary credential as
potential performance information for
inclusion in the State annual report
narratives. The Departments are also
considering the addition of a
supplemental customer service measure,
which would assess the quality of
services provided to American Job
Center customers. This measure would
not be a primary indicator of
performance, but would be used as a
tool for tracking the quality of the
customer experience. The Departments
seek comment on how to structure such
a measure (e.g., using the net promoter
score) and whether the inclusion of
such a measure would be valuable.
Proposed § 677.160(a)(10) implements
WIOA’s requirement that if at least one
local area within a State is
implementing a Pay-for-Performance
contract strategy, the States’ title I
programs must provide a State narrative
report that contains the performance
reporting requirements regarding payfor-performance contracting strategies,
including the performance of service
providers entering into contracts for
pay-for-performance strategies and
evaluation of the design of the programs
and the performance strategies.
Additionally, this provision requires the
evaluation of program design and
activities that require narrative in order
to meet the requirements of the
provision. The Departments interpret
this provision to only apply to title I
programs and only to apply to those
States in which Pay-for-Performance
contracting strategies are being
implemented. Pay-for-performance
contracting provisions are only included
in the title I programs. Requiring
programs to report on services and
contracting mechanisms they do not
provide or employ would create an
additional and unnecessary reporting
burden. This interpretation is in line
with sec. 504 of WIOA, which requires
the Departments to simplify and reduce
reporting burdens.
Proposed § 677.160(b) requires States
to comply with WIOA sec. 116(d)(6)(C).
This section of WIOA prohibits the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20589
disaggregation of data for a category in
the State performance report if the
number of participants in that category
is insufficient to yield statistically
reliable information or when the results
would reveal personally identifiable
information about a participant. As
written, WIOA sec. 116(d)(2) requires
the performance report to be subject to
WIOA sec. 116(d)(5)(C). However, this
section refers to Data Validation, and
the Departments interpret this reference
to require States to comply with sec.
116(d)(6)(C) which ensures the
Departments receive statistically reliable
information and protects participants’
privacy. The Departments will issue
guidance on these issues.
Proposed § 677.160(c) requires that
the State performance report include a
mechanism for electronic access to the
State’s local area and eligible training
provider (ETP) performance reports.
This provision does not require the
State to submit the actual local area and
ETP performance reports with their
State report.
Proposed § 677.160(d) proposes that
the Departments will require
compliance with these requirements in
sec. 116 of WIOA as explained through
joint guidance. The Departments may
request information on reportable
individuals for the purpose of
understanding the number of
individuals who are accessing services,
including self-services and informationonly services, and for other purposes,
including costs.
§ 677.165 May a State require
additional indicators of performance?
Proposed § 677.165 is updated to
reflect WIOA citations. The provision of
additional performance indicators
proposed by the State remains
unchanged.
§ 677.170 How are State adjusted
levels of performance for primary
indicators established?
Proposed § 677.170 outlines the
process that will be followed and the
factors that will be considered in
determining adjusted levels of
performance.
Proposed § 677.170(a)(1) implements
the requirement in sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(iii)
that States provide expected levels of
performance in the Unified or
Combined State Plan for the first 2 years
of the plan. Proposed § 677.170(a)(2)
requires the State to submit expected
levels for the third and fourth year
before the start of the third PY covered
by the Unified or Combined State Plan.
This requirement is needed to
implement the statutory requirement in
WIOA sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(iv)(II) that the
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20590
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
State reach agreement with the
Secretaries on the negotiated levels of
performance before the start of the third
PY.
Proposed § 677.170(b) requires that
the Secretaries will reach agreement
with the States on negotiated levels of
performance based on the factors in sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(v) of WIOA, and proposed
§ 677.170(c) provides that the
Secretaries will disseminate a statistical
adjustment model that will be used to
make the adjustments in the State
adjusted levels of performance for actual
economic condition and characteristics
of participants including the factors
required by WIOA sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(viii). The statistical
adjustment model must be developed
after consultation with specified
stakeholder groups, including
appropriate external experts. The
Departments request comment on
whether any additional factors beyond
those in the statute should be
considered in developing the model,
and the best approach to updating the
model as necessary.
Proposed § 677.170(d)(1) provides for
the application of the model to the
primary indicators for the core programs
based on the availability of data to
sufficiently populate the model. For
example, baseline data will be required
to populate the model. None of the core
programs will have this data for the new
indicators of performance, such as the
measurable skill gains indicator, until
after States have begun reporting data
for the indicator.
Proposed §§ 677.170(d)(2)–(3) provide
our interpretation that the model will be
applied twice in the PY. Specifically,
the model will generate an estimate of
expected performance to serve as a
framework for negotiating performance
targets for the upcoming PY; the model
will also be applied at the end of the PY
to adjust expectations for performance
levels based on actual circumstances.
This interpretation is required by WIOA
sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(vii), which states that
the negotiated levels will be revised
based on the model. This approach is
similar to that utilized under WIA’s
predecessor, the Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA), which applied
an objective statistical model in order to
develop targets and then updated the
model based on actual circumstances at
the end of a PY. Under JTPA, models
were established for each required
indicator and sec. 116 of WIOA intends
a similar process.
Proposed § 677.170(e) requires
compliance with these requirements
from sec. 116 of WIOA as explained in
joint guidance issued by DOL and ED
for subsequent programmatic guidance
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
to be issued for programs concerning the
model, and its application.
§ 677.175 What responsibility do
States have to use quarterly wage record
information for performance
accountability?
Proposed § 677.175 implements the
requirement in sec. 116(i)(2) of WIOA,
that States use quarterly wage records,
consistent with State law, to measure
State and local progress on the
performance accountability measures.
The use of quarterly wage records is
essential to achieve full accountability
under the WIOA performance
accountability system to identify high
performing States and localities, and, if
necessary, to provide technical
assistance to help improve performance
or sanction low performing States and
localities. Matching participant social
security numbers against quarterly wage
record information is the most effective
means by which timely and accurate
data can be made available to the
system.
Proposed § 677.175(a) requires States
to use quarterly wage record
information to measure States’ and local
areas’ progress on the adjusted levels of
performance for the primary indicators
of performance. WIOA sec. 116(i)(2)
requires the Secretary of Labor to make
arrangements, consistent with State law,
to ensure that the wage records of any
State are available to other States to
carry out the State plan or to complete
the 116(d) annual report. Proposed
§ 677.175(a), therefore, expressly
authorizes the use of participants’ social
security numbers to measure
participants’ progress through quarterly
wage records.
Section 136(f)(2) of WIA required the
Secretary of Labor to make arrangements
to ensure that wage records of each State
are available to any other State. Under
this requirement, the Secretary worked
with the States to create the Wage
Record Interchange System (WRIS) and
WRIS2. WRIS and WRIS 2 are
automated networks that allow
participating States to query the wage
records of other participating States for
the purpose of assessing and reporting
on State and local employment,
training, and education program
performance. WRIS 2 allows States to
share information for the purposes of
reporting on outcomes for employment,
training, and education programs and
currently has approximately 36 States
participating. WRIS was narrower and
only allowed for reporting on outcomes
for employment and training programs;
there are currently 50 States
participating in WRIS. These data
sharing agreements greatly increased
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
accuracy in States’ performance
reporting and helped the Departments
evaluate the effectiveness of educational
and training programs. Given that WIOA
expands the common performance
measures and common reporting
standards across all WIOA programs,
including employment, education and
training programs, the Departments
intend to engage in a renegotiation of
WRIS data sharing agreements with
States, which will allow States to
conduct interstate wage matches for all
WIOA programs.
Proposed § 677.175(b) defines
quarterly wage record information as the
intra and interstate wages paid to an
individual, the social security number
of the individual, and the name,
address, State, and the FEIN of the
employer paying the wages to the
individual. This definition clarifies that
the Departments interpret WIOA’s
reference to quarterly wage records in
sec. 116(i)(2) to mean all of the wages
an individual earned in any State. In
today’s economy, WIOA participants
may receive services in one State and
have work, or have wages reported, in
another State. Therefore, in defining
‘‘quarterly wage records’’ as the
interstate and intrastate wages, the
Departments hope to encourage States to
conduct interstate wage queries to
accurately report on an individual’s
wages after participating in a WIOA
program.
3. Subpart B—Sanctions for State
Performance and the Provision of
Technical Assistance
§ 677.180 What State actions are
subject to a financial sanction under
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act sec. 116?
Proposed § 677.180 outlines
performance and reporting requirements
that are subject to sanctions under sec.
116(f) of WIOA.
Proposed § 677.180(a) provides that
only the failure to submit the State
annual performance reports required
under sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA is
sanctionable. Section 116(f)(1)(B) of
WIOA requires the Departments to
assess a sanction if ‘‘a State fails to
submit a report under subsection (d) for
any PY.’’ There are three reports
required under sec. 116(d): the State
annual performance reports, the local
area performance reports, and the ETP
performance reports. However, of these,
only the State annual performance
reports must be submitted by the State
to the Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Education.
Proposed § 677.180(b) implements the
requirement in sec. 116(f)(1) of WIOA
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
that sanctions for performance failure be
based on the primary indicators of
performance at § 677.155 of this part for
the core programs: the adult, dislocated
worker, and youth programs under
WIOA title I, the AEFLA programs
under title II, the program under the
Employment Services authorized by the
Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended by title
III, and the Vocational Rehabilitation
program under the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, as amended by title IV.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 677.185 When are sanctions applied
for failure to report?
Proposed § 677.185 outlines the
circumstances under which a State may
be sanctioned for failure to report under
sec. 116(f)(1)(B) of WIOA.
Under proposed § 677.185(a)(1), it
would be a failure to report if a State
submits its annual performance reports
on any date later than the date for
submission set in guidance. The
Departments propose to deem any late
submission a failure to report because
the Departments are concerned that
setting the date for reporting failure at
some later time would effectively
extend the deadline for submission of
the reports. The date for submission will
be set in guidance by the Departments.
In addition, under § 677.185(a)(2), the
Departments propose that it would be a
failure to report if the State submits a
report on a timely basis, but the report
is incomplete, including failure to
include a mechanism to access the local
area performance reports and ETP
performance reports. This proposal is
based on the Departments’ concern that
if only timeliness is required, States
could not be sanctioned for submitting
reports that do not meet statutory
requirements for reporting elements. If a
State fails to submit a State annual
performance report, it will be subject to
a 5 percent sanction of the Governor’s
Reserve allotment as discussed in
§ 677.195 of this part.
Proposed § 677.185(b) outlines the
exceptional circumstances that would
exempt a State from sanction in the case
of failure to report under WIOA sec.
116(f)(1)(B). The statute provides that a
failure to report can be excused by
either Secretary in the case of
exceptional circumstances but does not
define these circumstances. This
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
proposal provides a non-exclusive list of
exceptional circumstances beyond the
State’s control that would be likely to
cause a significant disruption in the
State’s ability to submit timely,
accurate, and complete performance
reports. Reporting challenges that are
routine or predictable would not
qualify, because the statute requires the
exception to be based on circumstances
that are exceptional.
Under proposed § 677.185(c)(1), the
Departments would require States to
notify the Secretary of Education or
Labor of exceptional circumstances as
soon as possible but no later than 30
days prior to the established deadline
for the State annual reports to request an
extension to the reporting deadline.
This minimum 30-day period for
notification would provide the
Secretaries with adequate opportunity
to review the extension request and
assess whether the circumstances
underlying the request fit within the
statutory exception.
Proposed § 677.185(c)(2) deals with
circumstances where an exceptional
circumstance arises less than 30 days
before the reporting deadline. Under
this proposal, the Secretaries will
review the request under guidance that
the Departments will issue to deal with
procedures for extension requests with
less than 30 days’ notice.
§ 677.190 When are sanctions applied
for failure to achieve adjusted levels of
performance?
Proposed § 677.190 explains how
States will be assessed for performance
failure and when such failures will
result in a financial sanction. Though
the Departments have referenced other
non-core programs in previous sections,
performance success or failure will be
based solely on the six core programs
consistent with sec. 116(b)(2) and (f)(1)
of WIOA.
Proposed § 677.190(a) explains,
consistent with § 677.170, that the
statistical adjustment model will be
applied at the end of a PY to adjust
expected levels of performance based on
actual economic conditions experienced
and the characteristics of participants.
Proposed § 677.190(b) clarifies that a
determination that a State has failed
performance will be based on the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20591
performance levels achieved after the
application of the statistical adjustment
model, pursuant to WIOA sec. 116(f)(1)
which states that sanctions must be
assessed if a State fails to meet adjusted
levels of performance. In addition, this
proposed section restates statutory
language that requires the Secretary of
Labor or Education to provide technical
assistance, as appropriate, to include
assistance with the development of a
performance improvement plan in any
year when a State fails to meet the
adjusted levels of performance.
Proposed § 677.190(c) outlines the
three criteria that will be used to assess
a State’s performance at the end of a PY:
An overall State program score, an
overall State indicator score, and
individual indicator scores. The overall
State program score would be an
average score based on the percent of
the State adjusted goal achieved on each
of the six primary indicators for a core
program. The overall State indicator
score would be based on an average
score of the percent of the State adjusted
goal achieved across core programs on
each of the six primary indicators. The
individual indicator scores would be
based on the percent of the State
adjusted goal achieved on any single
primary indicator for each of the six
core programs.
Table 1 below illustrates the manner
in which each State is proposed to be
assessed using the overall State program
score and the overall State indicator
score. Under this proposal, a failing
average program score for any core
program, a failing average indicator
score for any indicator across programs,
or a failing score on any individual
indicator for each of the core programs
would be a performance failure under
sec. 116(f)(1) of WIOA. The Departments
propose this approach because it
provides accountability for all programs
and all measures. For example, a State
that on average falls below its median
earnings target threshold across all
programs would be subject to sanctions
even if its performance on other
indicators is satisfactory. The
Departments seek comment on whether
to use a weighted average or a straight
average for purposes of each overall
indicator score.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
As shown in Table 1, there are a total
of 12 scores on which a State will be
assessed for the proposed overall State
indicator score and overall State
program score criteria proposed. The
first six averages on which a State is
assessed are the average indicator scores
across the core programs. The second
six averages on which a State is assessed
are the average program scores across
each of the six indicators. The first six
scores will be the average of the core
programs’ percent achieved against their
adjusted goals on the first indicator
(employment in the second quarter after
exit). The second six scores are the
average of the core programs’ percent
achieved against their adjusted goals on
the second indicator (employment in
the fourth quarter after exit). For the
Employment Services, the Departments
propose to exclude indicators four and
five because WIOA exempts the
Employment Services from these
indicators. Therefore, the Departments
propose that the program score for the
Employment Services be comprised of
the total average score of the percent
achieved by the States’ Employment
Services against their targets for
indicators one, two, three, and six only.
In addition, the Departments propose to
phase in the inclusion of the measurable
skills gain and effectiveness in serving
employers indicators.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Proposed § 677.190(d) establishes two
thresholds for performance failure. The
first threshold at proposed
§ 677.190(d)(1) is 90 percent for each of
the overall State program scores and the
overall State indicator scores. The
Departments are considering potentially
setting this threshold higher to
emphasize the importance of
performance success and would be
interested in specific comments on the
established levels for success/failure in
assessing performance under WIOA for
the core programs. The second
threshold in proposed § 677.190(d)(2)
establishes a minimum threshold of 50
percent for the individual indicator
scores. The Departments consider this
minimum threshold of performance
critical for the purpose of underscoring
the need to achieve and maintain
successful performance with respect to
each individual performance indicator,
regardless of average performance across
performance indicators and across core
programs. The Departments seek
comment on the implications of the
proposed methodology, including the
three criteria and associated thresholds
for failure established under this
proposed regulation (i.e., the overall
State indicator score [90 percent of
adjusted goal], the overall State program
score [90 percent of adjusted goal], and
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the individual indicator scores [50
percent of adjusted goal]).
The Departments also request
comments generally on how to define
‘‘fails to meet the State adjusted levels
of performance’’ and specifically on the
methods described above.
The Departments seek comment on
the specific timelines for reporting
outcomes on the core indicators of
performance as well as the timing for
using the annual State report to
determine success or failure against
adjusted levels of performance. Under
WIA’s performance accountability
provisions, titles I and II use the
performance information reported in the
State’s annual reports. Under WIA,
these data have a built-in time-lag.
WIOA establishes an employment
indicator that extends the time-lag even
further. The fourth quarter employment
indicator would not be available until
six quarters after a participant has
exited. Given the inherent lag, by
statutory definition, in the indicators,
the Departments seek comment on the
specific operational timelines for
determining which performance
outcomes to use for assessing
performance. Specifically, the
Departments seek comment on which
State report should be the first annual
State report used to assess performance
against the State’s adjusted levels of
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
EP16AP15.000</GPH>
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20592
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
performance. In the event of
performance failure in the first year, the
Departments are seeking comment on
when the performance improvement
plan should be developed and, in the
event there is performance failure in the
second consecutive year, when the
financial sanction should be applied. To
the extent possible, the Departments
would like to tie ultimate imposition of
financial sanction with the performance
improvement plan process, such that
States have the chance to avoid
financial sanction if they successfully
execute the reforms included in their
performance improvement plan. The
Departments welcome comment on how
best to accomplish this goal.
In addition to timelines for
calculating a State’s performance against
its adjusted levels of performance, the
Departments seek comment on the
timelines for implementing the full
accountability system to include
determining performance failure for
sanctions. Because WIOA introduces
new indicators on which no historical
data exist, there is a need to establish
baseline benchmarks from which to
establish adjusted levels of performance
under WIOA. For this reason, the
Departments seek comment on the
transition timing of the performance
accountability system as WIOA is
implemented.
Proposed § 677.190(e) outlines the
statutory process under which
performance failure by any State for 2
consecutive years will result in a
performance sanction.
§ 677.195 What should States expect
when a sanction is applied to the
Governor’s Reserve Allotment?
Proposed § 677.195 explains what
will occur when a sanction is applied to
the Governor’s Reserve for failure to
report or failure to meet adjusted levels
of performance. It clarifies that the
sanction will be 5 percent of the amount
that could otherwise be reserved by the
Governor. Section 116(f)(1)(B) of WIOA
provides that ‘‘the percentage of each
amount that would . . . be reserved by
the Governor under section 128(a)
[Governor’s Reserve fund] . . . shall be
reduced by five percentage points.’’
This provision is ambiguous and
could be interpreted to require a
percentage point reduction in the
overall State allotment that could
otherwise be reserved by the Governor.
For example, under a percentage pointbased interpretation, if the total State
allotment was one million dollars, and
the Governor could reserve 15
percentage points of the State allotment
for a total of $150,000 reserved, the
reduced amount of the Governor’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Reserve after a sanction of five
percentage points would be 10 percent
of the State allotment (i.e., $100,000).
The better reading is that the
maximum amount that could otherwise
be reserved would be reduced by 5
percent. For example, under this
scenario, if the State allotment was one
million dollars, and without a sanction
the Governor could reserve $150,000,
the amount of the Governor’s Reserve
after sanctions would be 95 percent of
the amount that could otherwise be
reserved (i.e., $142,500), or in other
words, the $150,000 reserve less the 5
percent sanction. This is a better reading
because a reading that required a
reduction of percentage points of the
overall allotment, rather than the
percentage reserved by the Governor,
would be unnecessarily punitive and
inconsistent with the overall intent of
WIOA. The Departments are further
concerned that such an extreme
reduction would frustrate the State’s
ability to take actions to improve
performance or submit timely,
complete, and accurate performance
reports in the future.
Proposed § 677.195(b) clarifies that if,
in the same PY, a State fails under
proposed § 677.195(a)(1), failure to
report in any given PY, and fails under
proposed § 677.190(a)(2), failure to meet
adjusted levels of performance for 2
consecutive program years, then
sanctions in the amount of 5 percent
will be applied for each of these
failures. The maximum sanction
therefore that could be applied to a State
in any given PY is 10 percent of the
maximum available amount of the
Governor’s Reserve allotment—for
failure to submit a performance report
and for failure to meet adjusted levels of
performance for 2 consecutive program
years. The Departments are seeking
comment on this interpretation of the
language under WIOA sec. 116(f), as
well as the implications of this
proposed regulation. The Departments
also note that the application of
sanctions against the Governor’s Reserve
does not preclude the Departments from
pursuing other avenues of enforcement
as permitted under applicable laws.
Proposed § 677.195(c) clarifies the
statutory requirement in sec. 116(f)(1)(B)
of WIOA that a sanction be applied until
such a time as the Secretaries of
Education and Labor determine that
performance levels have been met and
the State annual performance reports
have been submitted. The immediately
following PY is the first point at which
the Departments could reasonably
determine that a State that has
previously failed performance has met
adjusted levels of performance because
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20593
the statistical adjustment model is only
applied at the beginning and the end of
the year and not at the time of the
quarterly reports. The Departments
interpret this statutory provision to
mean that the reduction continues for
the entire PY with no earn-back
potential. This interpretation is
consistent with the imposition of a
sanction. If a State could earn its full
reserve allotment even if it submitted its
State annual performance report 6
months after the deadline, reporting
deadlines would be undermined and
there would be little incentive for timely
reporting. In addition, appropriations
law prevents us from redistributing
funds in a later PY. Finally, the proposal
clarifies that the State will continue to
have a sanction at the reduced amount
of the total allotment of the Governor’s
Reserve in successive PYs if they
continue to fail to meet expected levels
of performance, or fail to report.
All performance reports required
under sec. 116(d) of WIOA, are critically
important for accountability purposes;
however, as discussed above for
proposed § 677.180, because the State
annual performance reports are the only
of these reports submitted by the State
to the Departments, they are the only
reports that are subject to sanctions. All
required reports must be provided on a
timely basis irrespective of the
applicability of sanctions.
Proposed § 677.195(d) identifies that a
State may request a review of any
sanction DOL imposes in accordance
with the provisions outlined in 20 CFR
683.800.
The Departments also request
comments on the specific approach
outlined above, as well as generally on
(1) how to define ‘‘fails to meet the State
adjusted levels of performance,’’ and (2)
how to operationalize the Departments’
approach to applying sanctions for both
failure to submit a performance report
and performance failure (i.e., a
maximum sanction of 10 percent),
including when sanctions should be
applied. The Departments are
considering whether failure to submit a
performance report would automatically
constitute failure to meet State adjusted
levels of performance, resulting in the
maximum sanction of 10 percent (5
percent for failure to submit a
performance report and 5 percent for
failure to meet State adjusted levels of
performance). In order to encourage
States to submit the performance report
and avoid the maximum potential
sanction, the Departments are
considering a definition of performance
failure that would provide a final
deadline for the States to submit their
performance data and avoid a sanction
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20594
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
for failure to meet the State’s adjusted
levels of performance.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 677.200 What other administrative
actions will be applied to States’
performance requirements?
Proposed § 677.200 outlines the
circumstances under which a State will
be subject to additional administrative
actions when determined to be at risk
due to low performance on an
individual primary indicator.
Proposed § 677.200(a) identifies the
circumstances under which
administrative actions would be
triggered outside of the sanctions
process. While States’ performance on
the primary indicators will be
aggregated into an overall program score
and overall indicator score to assess
performance failure, the individual
indicators will be assessed, as explained
in guidance, in order to establish
whether a program’s performance is at
risk. While sanctions are based on
performance and reporting failures, the
Departments want to foster a workforce
system that is focused on achieving
success, not just avoiding failure. Early
intervention in the event of performance
problems is necessary for States to
achieve successful outcomes.
Accordingly, to assist the States in
performing well for all one-stop
customers, the Departments propose
alternate administrative actions for
performance issues that do not rise to
the level of sanctionable failure.
Under proposed § 677.200(b) if a
single primary indicator for a State’s
programs is determined to be at risk, as
explained in guidance issued by DOL or
ED, the State must develop and submit
a performance risk plan to outline the
primary reasons for low performance
and the steps they are taking to improve
performance and ameliorate the risk for
that indicator or indicators. This will
require States to take a proactive
approach to addressing performance
concerns before they rise to the level of
failure. The Departments propose that
the levels set for administrative actions
will be explained in guidance so that
the Departments can adjust the levels as
needed as the Departments gain
programmatic experience with the new
WIOA performance measures. As these
levels will not be the subject of financial
sanctions but are instead within the
Departments’ general monitoring
responsibilities, the inclusion of the
levels in regulation is not required.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
4. Subpart C—Local Performance
Accountability for Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I
Programs
§ 677.205 What performance
indicators apply to local areas?
Proposed §§ 677.205(a) and (b)
implement sec. 116(c) of WIOA and
clarify that for the core programs under
title I of WIOA each local workforce
area will be subject to the same primary
indicators as States, although Governors
may elect to apply additional
performance indicators to local areas.
Proposed § 677.205(c) outlines and
explains that local area reports are
required to be reported on the standard
template that the Departments will
provide under WIOA sec. 116(d)(1); be
made available to the public on an
annual basis, including by electronic
means; and must include, at a
minimum, the local areas’ performance
levels achieved with respect to the
primary indicators under § 677.155 as
well as additional information States are
required to report under WIOA sec.
116(d)(3). This section largely
summarizes statutory language in WIOA
and establishes the proposed framework
for guidelines and instructions that the
Departments plan to issue later to
implement and carry out the
performance reporting requirements of
WIOA sec. 116. In addition, proposed
§ 677.205(c) requires the State to
provide electronic links to the local area
performance report as part of its annual
State performance report. The
Departments propose this requirement
because while WIOA sec. 116(d)(6)(B)
requires the State to make the local
report publicly available, sec.
116(d)(6)(D) requires the Secretaries to
disseminate these reports to Congress.
The proposal will enable the
Departments to fulfill this statutory
requirement.
Proposed §§ 677.205(d) and (e)
outline the minimum required
information to be provided in those
reports consistent with sec. 116(d)(3) of
WIOA. Under proposed § 677.205(d),
the local area reports must contain
information on actual performance
levels achieved (consistent with
§ 677.175, regarding the use and
aggregation of interstate and intrastate
wage records) on the primary indicators
as outlined in § 677.155. Under
proposed § 677.205(e), States must also
make available performance information
for their local areas for the adult,
dislocated worker, and youth programs
under WIOA title I consistent with
§ 677.160(a). States are also required to
make available information on the
percentage of a local area’s allotment
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
under WIOA sec. 128(b) and 133(b) that
the local areas spent on administrative
costs as well as any other information
that may be proposed in guidance from
the Secretary of Labor to facilitate
comparisons of programs, with other
programs in local areas or planning
regions as deemed appropriate.
Proposed § 677.205(f) reiterates that
States are responsible for compliance
with any associated guidance, including
the use of the performance reporting
template, issued by the Secretary of
Labor for compliance with local area
performance reporting requirements.
§ 677.210 How are local performance
levels established?
Proposed § 677.210 describes the
process to be utilized to establish local
performance targets prior to the start of
a PY and, subsequently, to establish
performance levels based on actual
circumstances at the conclusion of a PY.
The proposed process is similar to the
proposed language for establishing State
performance levels, including the
negotiations process, which is proposed
to be developed and disseminated by
the Governor and conducted with the
Local Boards and CEOs.
Proposed § 677.210(a) implements the
requirements of sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(viii) of
WIOA to apply a statistical adjustment
model in the establishment of local area
adjusted levels of performance. It
requires the Departments to run the
model at the beginning of a PY and at
the end of the PY to revise adjusted
levels of performance based on actual
conditions experienced and the
characteristics of participants.
Proposed § 677.210(b)–(c) requires
that the Governor, Local Board, and
CEO reach agreement on local targets
and adjusted levels of performance
based on a negotiations process prior to
the start of a PY. The Governor is to
establish a negotiations process and
disseminate it to all of the Local Boards
and CEOs.
Proposed § 677.210(d) states that
Local Boards have the authority to
establish performance targets for service
providers in a local area. Setting
performance targets will help local areas
in evaluating the performance of service
providers, managing programs at the
local level, and determining whether to
maintain or change providers. This also
allows locals some flexibility in the way
they structure their service delivery
design while taking into account the
performance requirements for a local
area. The Departments suggest that the
local area should consider its negotiated
local performance levels, the services to
be provided by each provider, and
populations the service provider is
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
intended to serve in developing these
targets. Targets may vary by provider
and may be different from the local
area’s performance measures.
5. Subpart D—Incentives and Sanctions
for Local Performance for Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I
Programs
§ 677.215 Under what circumstances
are local areas eligible for State
Incentive Grants?
Proposed § 677.215 outlines the
circumstances in which a local area is
eligible for an incentive grant.
Proposed § 677.215(a) implements
sec. 116(h) of WIOA and explains that
the Governor is not required, but is
allowed to use non-Federal funds to
create incentives for Local Boards to
implement pay-for-performance contract
strategies for the delivery of training
services described in sec. 134(c)(3) and
sec. 129(c)(2) of WIOA in the local areas
served by the Local Boards.
Proposed § 677.215(b) maintains that
pay-for-performance contract strategies
must be implemented in accordance
with 20 CFR 683.500 through 683.530
and § 677.160.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 677.220 Under what circumstances
may a corrective action or sanction be
applied to local areas for poor
performance?
Proposed § 677.220(a) explains the
circumstances under which local areas
must receive technical assistance under
WIOA sec. 116(g) for failure to meet
levels of performance. In accordance
with WIOA, the proposed rule would
require that local areas must receive
technical assistance and may be subject
to a performance improvement plan for
failure to achieve adjusted levels of
performance established with the State
for primary performance indicators in
the adult, dislocated worker, or youth
programs authorized under title I of
WIOA in any PY. The Governor, or his/
her designee, or upon request of the
Governor, the Secretary of Labor, must
provide technical assistance, which may
include assistance in the development
of a performance improvement plan or
a modified local or regional plan, to the
local area in the first year of failure to
meet levels on the required performance
indicators. In requesting assistance from
the Secretary of Labor, the Governor’s
request should include the factors that
impede the provision of successful
technical assistance at the State level,
because the State is generally in the best
position to address failure to meet the
performance levels it negotiated with
the local area. The Departments further
clarify that a State must establish the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
threshold for failure for a local area to
meet levels of performance prior to
negotiating local area adjusted levels of
performance. A local area cannot
accurately negotiate adjusted levels of
performance without having an
understanding of what the State will
consider failure.
Proposed paragraph (b), in accordance
with WIOA, outlines the required
corrective actions for local areas that
continue to fail to meet performance
indicators for 3 consecutive years. A
local area that failed to meet adjusted
levels of performance on required
performance indicators for a third
consecutive year is subject to
reorganization, which would include
the certification of a new Board, the
exclusion of underperforming service
providers or partners, and other actions
the Governor deems appropriate. The
Departments request comments
regarding what other actions should be
considered in this circumstance.
§ 677.225 Under what circumstances
may local areas appeal a reorganization
plan?
Proposed § 677.225 implements sec.
116(g)(2)(B) of WIOA and outlines when
a local area and CEO may appeal a
reorganization plan executed by the
Governor.
Proposed § 677.225(a) explains that
the Local Board and CEO for a local area
subject to a reorganization plan under
WIOA sec. 116(g)(2)(A) may appeal to
the Governor to rescind or revise a
reorganization plan no later than 30
days after receiving notice of the
reorganization plan. The Governor must
make a final decision 30 days after
receipt of an appeal.
Proposed § 677.225(b) implements the
statutory requirement that if the Local
Board and CEO wish to appeal the final
decision of the Governor, they must
make an appeal to the Secretary of Labor
no later than 30 days after receiving the
final decision from the Governor. The
Departments propose to require that any
appeal to the Governor under proposed
§ 677.225(a) or the Secretary of Labor
under proposed § 677.225(b) must be
submitted jointly by the Local Board
and the CEO. The Departments propose
this interpretation because the statute
uses the conjunctive ‘‘and’’ in stating
that the Local Board and the CEO may
appeal. In addition, this interpretation
has the benefit of requiring review only
in circumstances where the Local Board
and CEO are in agreement that the
reorganization plan should be appealed
and will conserve government resources
in cases where either the Local Board or
CEO agrees with the Governor’s
decision. This approach also avoids
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20595
duplication and inefficiency that would
be engendered by providing an
opportunity for the Local Board and the
CEO to appeal separately.
Proposed §§ 677.225(c)–(d)
implement statutory requirements that
the Secretary must make a final decision
regarding an appeal within 30 days of
receipt of the appeal and that a
reorganization decision made by the
Governor is effective at the time it is
issued and remains in effect unless and
until such time that the Secretary of
Labor rescinds or revises the
reorganization plan on appeal.
6. Subpart E—Eligible Training Provider
Performance for Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act Title I Programs
§ 677.230 What information is
required for the eligible training
provider performance reports?
Proposed § 677.230 implements the
requirements of sec. 116(d)(4) of WIOA,
which requires annual ETP performance
reports. The ETP performance reports
provide critical information, including
the employment, earnings, and
credentials obtained by individuals in
the programs of study eligible to receive
funding under the adult and dislocated
worker formula programs under title I–
B of WIOA. This information will be of
significant benefit in assisting WIOA
participants and members of the general
public in identifying effective training
programs and providers. The
information will also benefit providers
by widely disseminating information
about their programs and potentially as
a tool to enhance their programs.
The Departments are seeking
comment on how the Departments may
best support ETPs in meeting the
requirements of this section as well as
how to make the ETP reports a useful
tool for WIOA participants, ETPs,
interested stakeholders, and the general
public.
This proposed regulation, in
conjunction with proposed § 680.400
through 680.530, establishes the
minimum requirements for performance
information to be provided in the ETP
performance reports.
Proposed § 677.230(a) requires that
States make publicly available and
publish in the standard template
disseminated by the Departments under
ETP performance reports under WIOA
sec. 116(d)(4), including by electronic
means, the ETP reports for those ETPs
who provide services under sec. 122 of
WIOA, which is further discussed in 20
CFR 680.500.
Consistent with proposed § 680.470,
and as provided below in proposed
paragraph (b) of the section, States are
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20596
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
only required to provide performance
information on registered
apprenticeship programs if these
programs voluntarily submit
performance information. DOL is
considering ways to support interested
registered apprenticeship programs in
the collection and dissemination of
performance data. The Department
seeks comment on ways to support
registered apprenticeship programs that
are interested in providing performance
information, and what that information
might look like.
Proposed § 677.230(a)(1) outlines the
minimum participant performance
information that is required to be made
available under the statutory provisions
in sec. 116(d)(4) of WIOA. ETP
performance reports must include
performance information on the total
number of participants who receive
training services under the adult and
dislocated worker programs of WIOA
title I for the most recent PY of
performance as well as the three
preceding PYs. The ETP reports must
provide disaggregated counts of
participants in the adult and dislocated
worker programs with respect to barriers
to employment, age, sex, and race and
ethnicity.
Additionally, the ETP performance
reports must include counts of
participants disaggregated by type of
training entity for the adult and
dislocated worker programs for the most
recent PY and three preceding PYs. The
Departments interpret this requirement
to be applicable only in prospective
years; this would not apply retroactively
and would not require ETPs to provide
information for these reports in years
prior to being established as an ETP in
the performance reports. Any data
provided for initial eligibility
determinations should be done
consistent with established parameters
under 20 CFR part 680, subpart E.
Proposed § 677.230(a)(2) outlines the
minimum exit-based performance
information that is required to be made
available under the statutory provisions
in sec. 116(d)(4) of WIOA. At a
minimum, the ETP performance reports
must contain the number of participants
who exit from a program of study, and
the total number of participants who
exited, disaggregated by type of training
entity for a PY and the three preceding
PYs.
Proposed § 677.230(a)(3) identifies
additional requirements that the ETP
performance reports contain
performance information on the average
cost-per-participant for participants who
received training services and
disaggregated by type of training entity
for the PY and three preceding PYs. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Departments interpret this requirement
to be applicable only in prospective
years; this would not apply
retroactively, and does not require ETPs
to provide information for these reports
in years prior to being established as an
ETP. The Departments seek comment on
the best way to calculate cost-perparticipant. Any data provided for
initial eligibility determinations should
be done consistent with established
parameters under 20 CFR part 680,
subpart E.
Proposed § 677.230(a)(4) provides that
the ETP performance reports contain
information on the total number of
individuals exiting from a program of
study (or its equivalent). This includes
all students in a program of study and
is not limited to those students who are
WIOA participants. Including all
students provides significantly better
information on the effectiveness of a
program of study.
Proposed § 677.230(a)(5) reiterates the
statutory requirements for outcome
information on all students in a program
of study with regard to the primary
indicators of performance (as identified
in clauses (I)–(IV), sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i) of
WIOA, and §§ 677.155(a)(1)(i)–(iv)).
Proposed § 677.230(b) is consistent
with 20 CFR 680.470 and provides that
registered apprenticeship programs
need not submit performance
information. Under this proposal, if a
registered apprenticeship program
voluntarily submits this information, it
must be part of the report as with any
other training provider.
Proposed § 677.230(c) requires the
State to provide electronic access to the
eligible training provide performance
report as part of its annual State
performance report. The Departments
propose this requirement because while
WIOA sec. 116(d)(6)(B) requires the
State to make the ETP performance
report available, sec. 116(d)(6)(D)
requires the Secretaries to summarize
and disseminate these reports to
Congress. The proposal will enable the
Departments to fulfill this statutory
requirement.
Proposed § 677.230(d) requires States
to follow reporting guidance to be
issued that will explain and clarify
procedures governing this section.
Proposed § 677.230(e) establishes that
a Governor may designate one or more
State agencies or appropriate State
entities, such as a State education
agency or State educational authority, to
assist in overseeing the ETP
performance and facilitating the
production and dissemination of ETP
performance reports. These agencies
may be the same agencies that are
designated responsible for
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
administering the ETP list as provided
for in § 680.210. The designated State
agency or entity is responsible for data
matching required to produce the ETP
reports using quarterly wage data,
creating and disseminating the reports,
and coordinating the dissemination of
the performance reports with the ETP
list as provided in § 680.210.
Proposed § 677.230(e)(1) establishes
that the designated agency would be
responsible for the facilitating the data
matches necessary to develop and
compile the ETP performance reports.
This proposed regulation seeks to
provide a foundation for data matching
for the purposes of these reports to
allow States more opportunities to
establish the necessary connections and
procedures that are in compliance with
the existing regulations governing
education data governed by the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA) and the UI wage data governed
by State law and UI Confidentiality
Regulations found in 20 CFR part 603.
Proposed § 677.230(e)(2) establishes
that the designated State agency or State
entity responsible for these reports
would carry the responsibility for the
creation and dissemination
requirements found in this subsection.
The Departments recognize that the ETP
performance reports are a departure
from the previous reporting mechanisms
related to ETPs as they existed under
WIA. The Departments are seeking
comment on specific aspects of this new
performance reporting requirement as it
relates to reporting burden for training
providers under this requirement. The
Departments are interested in comments
on ways the Departments may reduce
this burden for training providers as
well as how the Departments may
leverage this performance reporting
requirement to be of more use to the
ETPs. The Departments would like
specific comments on what would
facilitate the reporting process to make
it easier for ETPs to report on multiple
programs of study, including programs
that they would like to be on the list but
do not have currently any WIOA funded
participants enrolled.
Proposed § 677.230(e)(3) establishes
the designated State agency or State
entity as responsible for coordinating
the dissemination of the ETP
performance reports with the
dissemination of the ETP list. WIOA
sec. 122 establishes the ETP list as a key
resource in the State one-stop system
and requires it to be available to
individuals seeking information on
training programs as well as participants
receiving career services funded under
WIOA and other programs. DOL
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
considers the ETP reports to also be a
key component of consumer choice.
The Departments propose that the
ETP performance report be
disseminated in coordination with the
dissemination of the ETP list and the
information that is required to
accompany that list under § 680.500.
This coordination requirement is
consistent with the statutory emphasis
on consumer choice and performance
accountability.
7. Subpart F—Performance Reporting
Administrative Requirements
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 677.235 What are the reporting
requirements for individual records for
core Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act title I, III, and IV
programs?
Proposed § 677.235 outlines the
requirements for core WIOA title I, III
and IV programs for the collection and
submission of individual records.
Proposed § 677.235(a) requires that
States submit individual records
containing demographic information,
information on services received, and
information on resulting outcomes for
individuals served by specific programs
to be submitted by programs to their
appropriate Secretary on a quarterly
basis. At the time of WIOA’s enactment,
DOL already required the submission of
standardized individual records for the
adult, dislocated worker and youth
programs, and programs authorized
under the Wagner-Peyser Act. Similarly,
ED required the submission of
individual-level data from case service
records for the Vocational Rehabilitation
program.
DOL began requiring States to submit
quarterly individual records, in part, to
ensure the information submitted in
States’ annual reports as required by
WIA were accurate. These quarterly
reports also helped DOL identify States
that needed early intervention to
provide assistance if they are not
meeting their performance goals. The
DOL interpreted several provisions of
WIA as authorizing the collection of
these reports. Specifically, WIA sec. 136
required DOL to measure States’
progress, WIA sec. 172 required DOL to
evaluate the activities of its programs,
and WIA sec. 189 required DOL to
submit an annual report to Congress on
WIA title I programs. Additionally, WIA
sec. 185 required States to maintain
records sufficient to prepare
performance reports. Considered as a
whole, these statutory provisions
authorized DOL to require States submit
these reports.
ED has collected individual-level data
regarding all individuals served by the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Vocational Rehabilitation program,
whose case service records were closed,
in order to satisfy data collection
requirements and to ensure States’
compliance with programmatic
requirements under WIA and the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ED has
historically collected this data, via the
Case Service Report (RSA–911), for
open cases as well as closed cases,
annually, but proposes to start
collecting this data on a quarterly basis
to satisfy requirements imposed by
WIOA.
Section 13 of the Rehabilitation Act
requires ED to collect and report
information required by WIOA sec.
101(a)(10) to Congress and to the
President in the Annual Report. Section
14 of the Rehabilitation Act requires ED
to conduct evaluations of the VR
program. The information from this data
collection is used in these evaluations.
Section 106 of the Rehabilitation Act
requires each State to report to ED the
extent to which each State is in
compliance with standards and
indicators. Section 107 of the Act
requires an annual review and periodic
onsite monitoring of States’
performance, much of which is
determined on the basis of this data
collection activity. RSA–911 data are
also needed to satisfy the requirements
of sec. 131 of the Rehabilitation Act,
which requires an exchange of data
between RSA, the Social Security
Administration (SSA), and DOL.
Sections 116, 169, and 185 of WIOA
retain similar requirements to the WIA
provisions the Departments relied on to
require these reports. Additionally,
WIOA’s increased focus on performance
accountability and requirement that the
Departments sanction failing States, give
the Departments authority to require
these reports.
Proposed § 677.235(b) requires the
individual records be submitted in one
record that is integrated across all core
DOL programs. The proposal would
require that the individual records
submitted by States be standardized in
terms of data elements and associated
reporting specifications. Currently
quarterly individual records are
program-specific and not part of an
integrated performance reporting
system. For DOL programs, States are
required to provide two separate
individual records for an individual
receiving services under WIA and
Wagner-Peyser. This duplication
increases the reporting burden on States
and treats these programs separately
rather than as parts of a holistic,
integrated system designed to efficiently
provide necessary employment and
training services to an individual.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20597
Furthermore, sec. 504 of WIOA
requires DOL and ED to reduce
reporting burden and simplify reporting
requirements. A single integrated
individual record best meets these
needs. Requiring a single, integrated
record will eliminate duplicative
reporting of an individual’s
demographic information across
programs.
At the time of enactment, the
Workforce Investment Streamlined
Performance Reporting (WISPR) system
is the most integrated individual record
layout utilized in workforce
development programs administered by
DOL. The WISPR includes
programmatic and performance
reporting across programs authorized
under WIA (adult, dislocated worker,
and youth), Wagner-Peyser, the Trade
Act, and the Jobs for Veterans State
Grant programs administered by DOL’s
Veterans’ Employment and Training
Service (VETS). This new regulation
proposes an integrated, individual
record that is similar to the WISPR
approach for core programs
administered by DOL, which supports
system alignment, as well as reduced
reporting burden as required under sec.
504 of WIOA. The Departments are
working towards establishing reporting
templates for the required performance
reports and individual record formats
that States will be required to use in
order to meet these reporting
requirements.
Proposed § 677.235(c) explains that
associated reporting instructions are
proposed to be provided through policy
guidance.
§ 677.240 What are the requirements
for data validation of State annual
performance reports?
Proposed § 677.240 implements sec.
116(d)(5) of WIOA, which requires
States to establish procedures,
consistent with DOL and ED guidelines
to provide that the information in the
States’ annual performance reports are
valid and reliable. Therefore, the
Departments propose to add § 677.240,
which requires States to submit valid
and reliable annual State performance
reports and associated individual record
information consistent with
requirements that the Secretaries of
Labor and Education will explain
through guidance. To ensure States are
meeting this statutory requirement, the
Departments propose that if a State fails
to achieve the accuracy standards, the
Secretary of Labor or Education may
require the State to develop and
implement corrective actions, which
may require the State to provide training
for its subrecipients. These proposed
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20598
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
requirements are separate from the
corrective actions provided under
§ 677.185 and § 677.220. The
Departments are committed to providing
that States have the information needed
to effectively validate data and propose
that the Departments will provide
training and technical assistance about
these requirements.
C. Description of the One-Stop System
Under Title I of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (20
CFR Part 678; 34 CFR Part 361, Subpart
F; 34 CFR Part 463, Subpart J)
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
1. Introduction
In the section-by-section discussions
of each proposed one-stop provision
below, the heading references the
proposed DOL CFR part and section
number. However, the Department of
Education proposes in this joint NPRM
identical provisions at 34 CFR part 361,
subpart F (under its State Vocational
Rehabilitation Services Program
regulations) and at 34 CFR part 463,
subpart J (under a new CFR part for
AEFLA regulations). For purposes of
brevity, the section-by-section
discussions for each Department’s
provisions appear only once—in
conjunction with the DOL section
number—and constitute the
Departments’ collective explanation and
rationale for each proposed provision.
2. Subpart A—General Description of
the One-Stop Delivery System
The WIOA reaffirms the role of the
one-stop system, a cornerstone of the
public workforce development system,
and subpart A describes the one-stop
delivery system. Although there are
many similarities to the system
established under the WIA, there are
also significant changes under WIOA.
This subpart, therefore, restates WIA
requirements governing one-stop
centers, to the extent they are still
applicable under WIOA, and embodies
a set of reforms that, when implemented
effectively, are intended to make
significant improvements to the public
workforce delivery system. These
proposed regulations would establish
requirements of the one-stop career
center system as defined under WIOA,
requiring partners to collaborate to
support a seamless customer-focused
service delivery network. The proposed
regulations would require that programs
and providers collocate, coordinate, and
integrate activities and information, so
that the system as a whole is cohesive
and accessible for individuals and
businesses alike. The ultimate goal is to
increase the long-term employment
outcomes for individuals seeking
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
services, especially those with
significant barriers to employment, and
to improve services to employers.
Proposed subpart A describes the onestop center system established under
WIOA. It establishes the different types
of one-stop career centers allowable in
each local area, and addresses the use of
technology to provide services through
the one-stop delivery system. As
discussed in §§ 678.305 and 678.310, a
local area’s one-stop delivery system
may be made up of a combination of a
comprehensive one-stop center and a
network of affiliated sites. When
designing the one-stop delivery system,
States and Local Boards must ensure
that information on the availability of
career services is available at all onestop physical locations and access
points, including electronic access
points, regardless of where individuals
initially enter the local one-stop system.
§ 678.300 What is the one-stop
delivery system?
Proposed § 678.300(a) describes the
requirements of the one-stop delivery
system and the purpose. The one-stop
delivery system brings together a series
of partner programs and entities
responsible for workforce development,
educational, and other human resource
programs to collaborate in the creation
of a seamless customer-focused service
delivery network that enhances access
to the programs’ services. Partners,
programs, and providers will collocate,
coordinate, and integrate activities so
that individuals seeking assistance will
have access to information and services
that lead to positive employment
outcomes for individuals seeking
services.
Proposed § 678.300(b) provides that
there are responsibilities at the local,
State and Federal levels relative to the
establishment and maintenance of the
one-stop delivery system.
Proposed § 678.300(c) retains the
same requirement found under WIA at
20 CFR 662.100(c) that there be at least
one physical one-stop career center in
each local area.
Proposed § 678.300(d) allows for the
establishment of additional affiliate
locations including specialized centers
serving targeted participant populations,
such as youth or dislocated workers, or
industry sector specific centers.
Proposed § 678.300(e) states that
required one-stop partners must provide
electronic access to programs, activities,
and services by electronic means, in
addition to providing access to the
services at a comprehensive one-stop
center or making the program services
available at an affiliated site if the
partner is participating at the affiliated
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
site. Services provided through
electronic means would need to
supplement and not supplant those
provided through the physical one-stop
delivery system. The phrase ‘‘electronic
means’’ includes Web sites, social
media, internet chat features, and
telephone.
Proposed § 678.300(f) requires that the
description of the one-stop delivery
system be included in the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) required at
proposed 20 CFR 678.500.
§ 678.305 What is a comprehensive
one-stop center and what must be
provided there?
Proposed § 678.305 requires that there
be a comprehensive one-stop career
center in each local area. Although the
requirement to have at least one
physical center in each local area is
unchanged from the requirement under
WIA, and the requirement is more fully
described under these proposed
regulations.
Proposed § 678.305(a) establishes that
the comprehensive one-stop center is a
physical location where individuals
must have access to a specific set of
services that must be made available to
individuals seeking services. The
required services are listed in proposed
§ 678.305(b) and the proposed rule
defines ‘‘access’’ in § 678.305(d).
Customers can access a specific program
without that program’s staff being
physically present at a one-stop center.
However, in order to ensure that
comprehensive one-stop centers are not
all virtual services, the Departments
propose that WIOA title I staff be
physically present in the one-stop.
There may be creative ways to provide
all virtual services to customers, but
such an all-virtual site would not be
considered a comprehensive one-stop
center. This proposed physical presence
requirement does not have to be met by
a full-time staff person, and can be met
by the physical presence of different
staff trading off throughout regular
business hours (e.g., job-sharing or shift
work).
Proposed § 678.305(c) provides that
individuals must have access to the
required services under § 678.305(b) on
regular business days, at a minimum, at
the comprehensive center. This is a
more specific requirement than exists
under WIA. If, for example, the
comprehensive one-stop center is open
Monday through Friday, customers
must have access to the services listed
at § 678.305(b) Monday through Friday.
The Departments strongly encourage
Local Boards to find creative ways to
expand the hours that services are
available to customers, to ensure that
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
services are universally accessible to
people with various working hours,
different access to transportation, and
different family care arrangements. For
example, Local Boards should consider
ways to make services available to job
seekers who might have childcare
responsibilities or work during the
normal business day. State Boards must
consider service hours when evaluating
effectiveness of one-stop centers, as part
of the one-stop certification process
described further in § 678.800(b).
Proposed § 678.305(d) defines the
access to services that must be available
to individuals seeking assistance at the
comprehensive one-stop. This access
can be provided in one of three
variations of physically present staff or
through technology: (1) Program staff
physically present at the location; (2)
staff physically present at the one-stop
from any partner program appropriately
trained to provide information to
customers about the programs, services,
and activities available through partner
programs, such as the types of services
that program provides and whether the
services might meet the individual’s
needs; or (3) providing direct linkage
through technology to someone who can
either provide the program services, or
provide information such as how to
apply for the program, or how to begin
receiving services. Under the proposed
rule, if there is access to technological
direct linkages (as defined in
§ 678.305(d)(1)) at a comprehensive onestop center for a specific program, no
partner program staff must be physically
present.
Proposed §§ 678.305(d)(1) and (2)
provide that services provided through
technology must be meaningful,
available in a timely manner and not
simply a referral to additional services
at a later date or time.
Proposed § 678.305(e) requires that all
comprehensive one-stop career centers
be physically and programmatically
accessible to individuals with
disabilities.
§ 678.310 What is an affiliated site and
what must be provided there?
In addition to the proposed
requirement for a physical center in
each local area where required one-stop
partners must provide access to their
programs, services and activities,
proposed § 678.310 provides that the
one-stop delivery system may also
provide programs, services, and
activities through affiliated sites or
through a network of eligible one-stop
partners that provide at least one or
more of the programs, services, and
activities at a physical location or
through an electronically or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
technologically linked access point,
such as a library.
Proposed § 678.310(a) defines an
affiliated site as a location that makes
available one or more of the required or
optional programs, services, and
activities to individuals. The proposed
rule is not intended to establish a new
physical presence requirement for onestop partner programs in affiliated sites.
Physical presence at affiliated sites can
be negotiated at the local level by
partner programs and the Local Board,
and may be under 50 percent for any
individual partner program, except in
those cases described in proposed
§ 678.315(b).
Proposed § 678.310(b) sets forth the
prohibition against standalone WagnerPeyser employment service centers,
described more fully in proposed
§ 678.315. Section 121(e)(3) of WIOA,
which requires colocation of WagnerPeyser employment services, is effective
on July 1, 2015. However, proposed
§ 678.310(c) recognizes that States will
need a reasonable amount of time to
fully integrate the delivery of
employment services into the one-stop
system. Real property issues, decisions
on site locations, discussions with
municipal or county governments, and
development of agreements with
partners to participate at both
comprehensive and affiliated sites may
require some time. Nevertheless, a State
in such circumstances must be prepared
to provide DOL with a plan that details
the steps the State will take to achieve
colocation of Wagner-Peyser
employment services as described in
proposed § 678.315, and a timetable
showing how the State will achieve
colocation of Wagner-Peyser services
within a reasonable time. The
Departments are aware that States may
also be considering how best to integrate
other partner programs and may be
considering the colocation of other
programs as well. In its plan for
achieving Wagner-Peyser employment
services colocation, the State may wish
to include how it will collocate other
programs too, but this is not required.
DOL may request the plan for achieving
Wagner-Peyser employment services
colocation during monitoring and other
oversight activities. DOL’s ETA will
provide guidance on the approach it
will use to obtain the plan and timeline
from States.
Proposed § 678.310(d) requires that all
affiliate one-stop centers be physically
and programmatically accessible to
individuals with disabilities, as
described in proposed § 678.800.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20599
§ 678.315 Can a stand-alone WagnerPeyser employment service office be
designated as an affiliated one-stop site?
Proposed § 678.315 sets forth the
prohibition against standalone WagnerPeyser employment services offices, to
implement WIOA’s amendment to the
Wagner-Peyser Act that requires
Wagner-Peyser employment services to
be collocated with one-stop centers.
Wagner-Peyser employment services
cannot, by themselves, constitute an
affiliated one-stop center. In those cases
where Wagner-Peyser employment
services are located in an affiliated site,
there must be at least one other partner
in that affiliated site whose staff is
physically present more than 50 percent
of the time the center is open. Certain
partner programs cannot be considered
the ‘‘other partner’’ when determining
whether Wagner-Peyser employment
services are stand-alone; these are: local
veterans’ employment representatives,
disabled veterans’ outreach program
specialists, or unemployment
compensation (UC) staff. Local veterans’
employment representatives, disabled
veterans’ outreach program specialists,
also referred to collectively as JVSG
programs, are typically provided
alongside Wagner-Peyser employment
services programs. When a veteran does
not receive services through the
disabled veterans’ outreach program,
that veteran is served by the WagnerPeyser employment service. To provide
individuals with the full range of
employment, training, and education
services available, it is important to
connect both the JVSG programs and the
Wagner-Peyser employment service
with the rest of the one-stop system. The
Departments expect that the entity that
administers the Wagner-Peyser
employment service, in consultation
with Local Boards and one-stop
partners, will need to make the changes
needed to comply with the proposed
rule. The proposed rule is not intended
to establish a new physical presence
requirement for individual one-stop
partner programs in affiliated sites. The
proposed rule is meant to trigger
adjustments on where Wagner-Peyser
employment services are delivered. The
Departments are aware that some onestop partner programs are unable to
have a physical presence in every
affiliated site. Partner programs and the
Local Board can negotiate physical
presence at affiliated sites, and this
presence may be below 50 percent for
any one partner program. The
Departments seek feedback, particularly
from workforce programs outside WIOA
title I and III, on whether the proposed
requirement that other partners be
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20600
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program and the Ex-Offender program
administered by DOL under sec. 212 of
the Second Chance Act of 2007 to the
list of required partners.
§ 678.320 Are there any requirements
for networks of eligible one-stop
partners or specialized centers?
Proposed § 678.320 explains the
requirements for the networks of onestop partners and specialized centers
named in the statute. These entities
were not listed in WIA but were
included as part of the one-stop system
in the WIA regulations. An example of
a specialized center is one targeted for
youth, one geared at a specific industry
sector, or one established specifically to
respond to a large localized layoff.
These specialized centers do not need to
provide access to every required
partner, but must have a way to make
referrals to one-stop partners in
comprehensive and affiliate centers. The
specialized centers should also followup to make sure that services were
provided after referral. A Local Board
can design the specialized center to
meet local needs. A specialized center
must not be a standalone Wagner-Peyser
employment service office. The
requirements of proposed § 678.315(b)
apply to specialized centers just as they
apply to affiliated sites.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
present more than 50 percent of the time
creates an impediment to participating
in the one-stop system, and whether any
other changes would facilitate
colocation.
§ 678.405 Is Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families a required one-stop
partner?
3. Subpart B—One-Stop Partners and
the Responsibilities of Partners
The public workforce system
envisioned by WIOA seeks to provide
all participants with access to highquality one-stop centers that connect
them with the full range of services
available in their communities, whether
they are looking to find jobs, build basic
educational or occupational skills, earn
a post-secondary certificate or degree,
get guidance on how to chart careers, or
are employers seeking skilled workers.
A true seamless, one-stop experience
requires strong partnerships across
programs that are able to streamline
service delivery and align program
requirements. In this subpart of the
proposed rule, the Departments describe
requirements relating to such one-stop
partnerships. Specifically, this subpart
identifies the programs that are required
partners, the other entities that may
serve as partners, the roles and
responsibilities of required partners,
and the types of services provided.
§ 678.400 Who are the required onestop partners?
Proposed §§ 678.400(a)–(b) lists the
required partners under WIOA. Beyond
the partners previously required under
WIA, WIOA adds the Temporary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Proposed § 678.405(a) clarifies that
TANF is a required partner. Proposed
§ 678.405(b) provides further
clarification that the Governor may
determine that TANF will not be a
required partner in a local area(s) but
must notify the Secretaries of Labor and
Health and Human Services in writing
of this determination. This implements
sec. 121(b)(1)(C) of WIOA. Proposed
§ 678.405(c) clarifies that TANF may
always partner or collaborate with the
one-stop, even if the Governor has
determined it is not a required partner
in that State or local area.
§ 678.410 What other entities may
serve as one-stop partners?
Partnerships across programs are
critical to supporting the one-stop
vision for service delivery. Proposed
§ 678.410(a) reinforces the sec.
121(b)(2)(B)(vii) of WIOA, which states
that other Federal, State, local, or
private sector entities that carry out
workforce development programs may
serve as additional one-stop partners if
the Local Board and CEOs approve.
Proposed § 678.410(b) provides a list of
possible additional partners. In addition
to the optional partners listed, Local
Boards may partner with a wide range
of organizations, including but not
limited to CBOs, non-profit community
action agencies, disability service
providers, nonprofit workforce
providers, and nonprofit English-as-asecond-language (ESL) providers.
In contrast to the former WIA
requirement, the proposed rule does not
contain an allowance for the State to
require that optional partners be
included as a partner in all of the local
one-stop delivery systems in the State.
This omission reflects the WIOA
requirement that the Local Board
determine partners in the one-stop and
that the State cannot mandate partners
other than those specifically required in
WIOA. This change places greater
discretion at the local level in
identifying the appropriate mix of
services provided and the Departments
expect that such decisions will be based
on local or regional labor market
information and population
demographics.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 678.415 What entity serves as the
one-stop partner for a particular
program in the local area?
The proposed regulation at § 678.415
provides a general definition of the
‘‘entity’’ that carries out the programs
identified in §§ 678.400 and 678.410
and serves as the one-stop partner. The
regulation defines the entity as the grant
recipient or other entity or organization
responsible for administering the
program’s funds in the local area. The
term ‘‘entity’’ does not include service
providers that contract with or are sub
recipients of the local entity. The
proposed regulation notes that for
programs that do not have local
administrative entities, the responsible
State agency may be the one-stop
partner. In addition, the proposed
regulation specifies the appropriate
entity to serve as partner for the Adult
Education and Vocational Rehabilitation
(AEFLA) program, WIOA national
programs, and the Carl D. Perkins Career
and Technical Education (Perkins)
program is the State eligible agency.
Further, a State eligible agency for the
AEFLA or Perkins programs may
delegate its responsibilities to act as a
local one-stop partner to one or more
State agencies (for the Perkins program
only), local entities, or consortia of local
entities, as specified in the proposed
regulation. In making such a delegation,
a State eligible agency would have to
meet all Federal and State requirements
applicable to such delegations.
§ 678.420 What are the roles and
responsibilities of the required one-stop
partners?
Proposed § 678.420 describes and
elaborates upon the statutory
responsibilities of the one-stop partners.
These responsibilities and
corresponding WIOA provisions are
identified and summarized in
paragraphs (a) through (e). Jointly
funding services is a necessary
foundation for an integrated service
delivery system. All partner
contributions to the costs of operating
and providing services within the onestop center system must be
proportionate to the benefits received
and adhere to the partner program’s
Federal authorizing statute, and to
Federal cost principles requiring that
costs are reasonable, necessary and
allocable. The proposed requirement in
§ 678.420(e), to provide representation
on State and Local Workforce
Development Boards, is new in WIOA
and only required of core programs;
WIA only required one-stop partner
representation on Local Boards, and
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
required it for all one-stop partner
programs.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 678.425 What are the applicable
career services that must be provided
through the one-stop delivery system by
required one-stop partners?
§ 678.430 What are career services?
WIOA requires one-stop partners to
deliver career services applicable to
their specific program. This proposed
regulation clarifies that an applicable
career service is a service identified in
§ 678.430 and is an authorized program
activity. The TANF statute does not
include a definition for career services.
Accordingly, the TANF State grantees
need to identify any employment
services and related supports being
provided by the TANF program (within
the particular local area) that are
comparable with the career services as
described in proposed § 678.430. At a
minimum, the TANF program partner
must provide intake services at the onestop for TANF assistance and nonassistance benefits via application
processing and initial eligibility
determinations. These latter services
comport with proposed § 678.420. The
Departments seek specific comments
about our proposal regarding the
identification and inclusion of TANF
employment, related support services
and TANF intake functions as ‘‘career
services,’’ that are required to be
provided locally in one-stop centers.
Other program specific information
about the applicability of various career
services is provided where needed in
subsequent sections of this proposed
rule. Proposed § 678.425 repeats the
WIOA prohibition on one-stop partners
requiring a particular sequence of
services. Seamless service delivery,
which is one of the underlying
principles of the one-stop system,
requires that appropriate services be
made available to individuals based on
their needs, and that multiple services
can be provided simultaneously.
Career services are identified in sec.
134(c)(2) of WIOA. In addition to
replacing core and intensive services as
they were described in WIA, a number
of new activities are included in the
definition of ‘‘career services.’’ This
section organizes WIOA careers services
into three categories: (1) Career services
that must be made available to all
participants; (2) career services that
must be made available if deemed
appropriate and needed for an
individual to obtain or retain
employment; and (3) follow-up
activities. The proposed regulation
respectively designates these categories
as: basic career services; individualized
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
career services; and follow-up services.
The activities included under these
categories are identified in
§§ 678.430(a), 678.430(b), and
678.430(c), respectively.
The proposed regulation reiterates the
list of services included in the statute,
and elaborates on some of the career
services. Section 134(c)(2)(A)(x) of
WIOA requires as a career service the
provision of both information and
assistance to customers regarding filing
an UI claim. The proposed regulation at
§ 678.430(a)(10) further provides that
such assistance must be meaningful and
provided by staff who are well trained
in UC claims. This proposed paragraph
reflects the Departments’ interpretation
that the one-stop system established by
WIOA is intended to provide
participants with a seamless, one-stop
experience that includes a professional
level of service provided in a timely
manner. Specifically, the Departments
have concluded that individuals
directly seeking career services from the
one-stop system should receive more
robust or ‘‘meaningful’’ service beyond
what they could obtain on their own
using self-service tools, such as public
Web sites and phone numbers; instead,
the Departments intend for them to
receive meaningful staff assisted
services if needed. In the context of
providing assistance with UI claims, the
proposed rule defines ‘‘meaningful
assistance’’ as having staff well-trained
in UC claims filing and the rights and
responsibility of claimants available in
the one-stop centers to provide
customers with assistance in filing a
claim if they request it or are identified
as needing the service due to barriers
such as limited English proficiency or
disabilities. This staff can be UI staff
placed in the one-stop or Wagner-Peyser
or other one-stop partner staff who have
been properly cross-trained to provide
this service. Alternatively, meaningful
assistance can also be provided by
phone or by means of other technology,
including computer access, as long as
the assistance is provided by
specifically identified staff and within a
reasonable time. This means that if the
customer is referred to a phone for UI
claims assistance, it must be a phone
line dedicated to serving one-stop
customers. It cannot be simply placing
the customer into the general State UI
agency contact center’s phone queue. If
the assistance is provided remotely
using technology, it must be a
technology that enables trained staff to
provide the assistance. Examples of
technology that enables remote
assistance include live Web chat
applications, video conference
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20601
applications, or other similar
technology. In addition to UI program
funding, adult and dislocated worker
funds may be used for these services as
allowed in WIOA sec. 134(c)(2)(A)(x);
Wagner-Peyser funds may be used for
the provision of these services as
allowed sec. 7(a)(3)(F) of the WagnerPeyser Act; or some combination of
these three funding sources. It is
important to acknowledge that the vast
majority of UI claims filing will
continue to be done remotely through
self-service options. This proposed
regulation does not require that States
actively promote in-person claims filing
through the one-stop centers. It does
mean that assistance must be made
available to customers who come to the
one-stop for assistance in filing a UI
claim and to customers that have been
identified as having barriers to filing a
UI claim without assistance.
§ 678.435 What are the business
services provided through the one-stop
delivery system, and how are they
provided?
The one-stop system is intended to
serve both job seekers and businesses.
Similar to job seekers, businesses
should have access to a truly one-stop
experience in which high quality and
professional services are provided
across partner programs in a seamless
manner. Labor markets are typically
regional, but programs often design
service delivery strategies around State
and local geographic boundaries.
Effective business services must be
developed in a manner that supports
engagement of employers of all sizes in
the context of both regional and local
economies, but should avoid burdening
employers, for example with multiple
uncoordinated points of contact.
Proposed § 678.435(a) lists required
business services. Proposed § 678.435(b)
States that local areas have flexibility to
provide services that meet the needs of
area businesses and must carry out these
activities in accordance with relevant
statutory provisions.
Section 134(d)(1)(A)(ix)(I) of WIOA
provides additional flexibility to allow
business-focused activities to be carried
out by business intermediaries working
in conjunction with the Local Board.
Such activities can also be carried out
through the use of economic
development, philanthropic, and other
public and private resources in a
manner determined by the Local Board
and in cooperation with the State.
Proposed § 678.435(b) reiterates this
flexibility.
Proposed § 678.435(c) provides a nonexhaustive list of allowable business
activities. In addition to traditional
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20602
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
employer services, such as customized
screening and referral of candidates, this
list includes activities specifically
identified in sec. 134(d)(1)(A) of WIOA
that demonstrate WIOA’s emphasis on
innovative and regional strategies, such
as regional labor market information,
sector strategies, and development of
career pathways. This list reflects
activities specifically identified in
WIOA and activities the Department
had previously identified in
administrative guidance under WIA.
Proposed § 678.435(d) states that
business services and strategies must be
reflected in the local plan.
§ 678.440 When may a fee be charged
for the business services in 20 CFR
678.435?
Section 134(d)(1)(A)(ii) of WIOA
allows customized employer-related
services to be provided on a fee-forservice basis. Proposed § 678.440
clarifies that there is no requirement
that a fee-for-service be charged to
employers. However, the Local
Workforce Development Boards should
examine available resources and assets
to determine an appropriate cost
structure. They may also provide such
services for no fee.
WIOA seeks to create a seamless
service delivery system by linking and
aligning one-stop partners. However, as
described in § 678.425(a), eligibility and
other requirements of one-stop partner
programs continue to apply. Proposed
§ 678.425(b) clarifies that resources of
each partner may only be used to
provide authorized services to eligible
individuals. It also clarifies that
seamless service delivery can still be
provided through joint funding of
shared services based on the relative
benefit received by each program. For
example, one-stop staff conducting
intake for all programs could be a
shared cost. Joint funding must be in
compliance with Federal cost
principles.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
4. Subpart C—Memorandum of
Understanding for the One-Stop
Delivery System
This subpart describes the
requirements for the MOU between the
Local Board, CEO, and the one-stop
partners relating to the operation of the
one-stop delivery system in the local
area. The Local Board acts as the
convener of MOU negotiations and
shaper of how local one-stop services
are delivered.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 678.500 What is the Memorandum of
Understanding for the one-stop delivery
system and what must be included in
the Memorandum of Understanding?
Proposed § 678.500 describes what
must be included in the MOU executed
between the Local Board, with the
agreement of the CEO, and the one-stop
partners relating to the operation of the
one-stop delivery system in the local
area. Proposed § 678.500(a) establishes
that two or more local areas in a region
may develop a single joint MOU when
the areas submit a regional plan. The
Departments encourage regional
planning, and allowing joint MOUs to
support regional planning, particularly
where local areas have the same onestop operator, are providing business
services at a regional level, or have
planned other joint activities typically
discussed in an MOU.
The MOU must include the
provisions described in paragraphs (b)
through (e) of the section, consistent
with WIOA sec. 121(c)(2). As stated in
proposed § 678.500(b), the MOU must
include the final plan, or an interim
plan if needed, on how the costs of the
services and the operating costs of the
one-stop system will be funded. Shared
operating costs may include shared
costs of the Local Board, as stated in
proposed § 678.760. The MOU must also
contain all of the information about
infrastructure costs listed in proposed
§ 678.755. When fully executed, the
MOU must contain the signatures of the
Local Board, one-stop partners, the
CEO(s), and the period in which the
agreement is effective, and the MOU
must be periodically updated to reflect
any changes in the signatories or onestop infrastructure funding. Signatures
to the MOU indicate that the MOU has
been executed. A lack of signatures for
the MOU means that the Local Board
has not established an MOU.
§ 678.505 Is there a single
Memorandum of Understanding for the
local area, or must there be separate
Memoranda of Understanding between
the Local Board and each partner?
Proposed § 678.505 establishes that a
Local Board and one-stop partners may
develop a single ‘‘umbrella’’ MOU that
applies to all partners, or develop
separate agreements between the Local
Board and each partner or groups of
partners. Under either approach, the
MOU requirements described in
§ 678.500 apply. The Departments
encourage States and local areas to use
‘‘umbrella’’ MOUs to facilitate
transparent, flexible agreements that are
not burdensome, so that partners may
focus upon service delivery.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 678.510 How should the
Memorandum of Understanding be
negotiated?
Proposed § 678.510 describes the
collaborative and good-faith approach
Local Boards and partners are expected
to use to negotiate MOUs. ‘‘Good faith’’
may include fully and repeatedly
engaging partners, transparently sharing
information, and maintaining a shared
focus on the needs of the customer.
Proposed § 678.510(a) allows Local
Boards, CEOs, and partners to request
assistance from a State agency
responsible for the program, the
Governor, State Board, or other
appropriate parties when negotiating the
MOU. Proposed § 678.510(b) describes
options for including the infrastructure
cost plans in the MOU; the MOU may
include an interim infrastructure
funding plan in the MOU, as described
in proposed § 678.715(c). This may be
particularly needed if the local area uses
the State infrastructure cost funding
mechanism, as described in proposed
§ 678.730, to enable the local area to
move forward with implementing onestop service delivery in areas where
there is agreement. The MOU must be
amended once a final infrastructure cost
plan is determined. Proposed
§ 678.510(c) describes how to address
MOU impasses. Consistent with WIA
regulations, any local area in which a
Local Board has failed to execute an
MOU with all of the required partners
is not eligible for State incentive grants
and these sanctions are in addition to,
not in lieu of, any other remedies that
may be applicable to the Local Board or
to each partner for failure to comply
with any statutory requirements.
5. Subpart D—One-Stop Operators
This proposed subpart addresses the
role and selection of one-stop operators.
Unlike the other subparts in this
proposed rule, this subpart is
administered primarily by DOL. The
DOL and ED agreed that the subpart
should remain in this part of the Joint
Rule, so that all of the subparts having
to do with one-stop requirements are
together. However, unlike the rest of
this proposed part, this portion of the
preamble refers mainly to DOL.
Under WIA, one-stop operators could
be designated or certified through a
competitive process, or they could be
‘‘grandfathered’’ in from JTPA. Section
121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA only allows for
selection of a one-stop operator through
a competitive process. This proposed
regulation uses the term ‘‘selection’’ of
one-stop operator through a competitive
process, rather than ‘‘designation’’ or
‘‘certification’’ to avoid confusion. The
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
competitive process established by this
proposed subpart requires States to
follow the same policies and procedures
they use for procurement from nonFederal funds. All other non-Federal
entities, including subrecipients of a
State (such as local areas), are required
to use a competitive process based on
the principles of competitive
procurement in the Uniform
Administrative Guidance set out at 2
CFR 200.318–200.326.
Unlike under WIA, there is no
‘‘designation’’ or ‘‘certification’’ of an
entity as a one-stop operator, including
a Local Board. Section 107(g)(2) of
WIOA states that a Local Board may be
designated or certified as a one-stop
operator only with the agreement of the
CEO in the local area and the Governor.
The DOL interprets this provision to
create an additional check for situations
where a Local Board is selected to be
one-stop operator through the
competitive process as required under
WIOA sec. 121(d)(2)(A) and as
described in this proposed subpart at
§ 678.605(d). In these situations, it is
appropriate to require that the Governor
and chief local official to approve the
selection.
The DOL received many comments
during consultations regarding the
impact of competition on local services.
This proposed subpart seeks to clarify
and address those concerns. For
example, some States shared concerns
that the outcome of such a competition
may result in the layoff of State merit
staff. Proposed § 678.635 clarifies that
merit staff may continue to work in the
one-stop so long as a system for
management of merit staff in accordance
with State policies and procedures is
established. This is consistent with how
some local non-governmental one-stop
operators manage merit staff currently
under WIA. Local government staff may
also work in the one-stop regardless of
who the operator is, if they are
responsible for delivering a one-stop
partner program’s services.
Additionally, Stakeholders have
voiced concerns about the cost and
burden associated with running a
competition, as well as situations where
there are a limited number of, or only
one, possible provider(s). While
procurement can take time, Local
Boards are encouraged to perform
extensive market research and prepare a
thorough cost and price analysis to best
identify the type of procurement most
appropriate to minimize cost and
burden of the competitive process. A
Local Board has the flexibility to
identify and implement the options set
forth in proposed § 678.605(d). This
may include a limited competition
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
where a smaller number of providers,
identified in market research, Requests
of Information (ROI), and/or the cost
price analysis, are identified and invited
to apply. Sole source awards are
allowable in only very limited
circumstances. For example, concern
about the time associated with
competition or failure to plan sufficient
time for a competition does not
constitute an ‘‘unusual and compelling
urgency’’ as defined in § 678.605(d).
Thus, Local Boards retain flexibility to
reduce burden while remaining
consistent with the provisions of WIOA.
WIOA describes a more robust role for
Local Boards and partners to jointly
develop local plans and one-stop MOUs,
and the DOL and ED strongly
recommend that Local Boards align
these activities with the one-stop
operator function and competitive
process. Similarly, the competitive
process can and should provide for a
transition time that minimizes or
eliminates disruption in services to
participants. This can be achieved in a
variety of ways, including provisions in
the competition to ensure some staff
continuity, transition time between
operators, and requiring robust standard
operating procedures to be developed by
one-stop operators.
Finally, numerous States and local
agencies have inquired as to their
eligibility to be a one-stop operator.
There is nothing in the statute or in
these proposed regulations that would
prevent a State workforce agency or
local agency from competing for and
being selected as a one-stop operator.
Because Local Board structures vary
across State and local areas, in order to
ensure there is no real or apparent
conflict of interest, Local Boards (or
State Boards in the case of single State
areas) will need to have robust conflict
of interest policies, as well as firewalls
in place to ensure that development and
conduct of the Board competition is
kept separate and apart from the State
or local agency, particularly if that
entity is the current one-stop operator.
Additionally, the firewalls and conflict
of interest policy must ensure that, if
selected as operator, there are internal
controls to ensure that the agency, as
operator, has oversight and management
from a source other than itself. Use of
internal controls and firewalls to avoid
conflicts of interest are also addressed
in proposed § 679.430.
In sum, this proposed regulation
represents the most flexibility that could
be offered to Local Boards within the
confines of the statutory requirement
that one-stop operators be selected
through a competitive process.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20603
§ 678.600 Who may operate one-stop
centers?
Proposed §§ 678.600(a)–(d) describe
who may operate a one-stop center. As
stated in paragraph (a), WIOA allows a
one-stop operator to be a single eligible
entity or a consortium of one-stop
partners. Consortia, like single entities,
must be selected through a competitive
process. Proposed paragraph (c) lists the
types of entities what may be selected
to be the one-stop operator. These repeat
the eligible entities from sec.
121(d)(2)(B) of the statute, and also
clarify that a Local Board, with the
approval of the chief local elected
official and the Governor, may serve as
a one-stop operator, as stated in
proposed paragraph (c)(6), and that
another interested organization which is
capable of carrying out the duties of
one-stop operator may serve as the
operator, as stated in proposed
paragraph (c)(7). Proposed § 678.600(d)
repeats the requirement in sec. 121(d)(3)
of WIOA that elementary schools and
secondary schools are not eligible to be
one-stop operators; however,
nontraditional public secondary schools
such as night schools, adult schools, or
area career and technical education
schools are eligible to be operators.
§ 678.605 How is the one-stop operator
selected?
Proposed § 678.605 requires the onestop operator to be selected through a
competitive process conducted not less
than every 4 years. As discussed above,
the Departments interpret sec.
121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA to require a
competition for selection of a one-stop
operator. Competition provides the best
method of providing that Local Boards
examine operator effectiveness.
Additionally, regular competition
allows Local Boards to make
adjustments based on findings of the
one-stop certification process described
in proposed subpart F of this part,
particularly to the role of the operator
and other specifics that may shift as
one-stop partners and the Local Board
update their MOUs. The DOL received
feedback that the burden of a
competition every year would be large,
and the Departments preliminarily
concur. In looking at options, the
Departments were concerned that a
period of 3 years might also be too short
because if a Local Board were to
conduct a full competition with a
Request for Proposals (RFP), it could
take as long as 18 months and would
result in a Board preparing for the next
RFP before the current operator had an
opportunity to demonstrate
performance. Durations of 5 years or
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20604
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
more presents a risk of having an
ineffective operator in place for an
extended period. Therefore, proposed
§ 678.605 settled on a time period of 4
years to ensure that there is a solid
period of performance in which to
evaluate effectiveness of the operator,
including the results of the one-stop
certification. This proposed section also
provides flexibility to both States and to
local areas to require or implement
competitions more frequently than
every 4 years. The Departments seeks
comments regarding the length of time
required between competitions for
operators.
Proposed §§ 678.605(a), (b), and (c)
require the one-stop operator
competition to be done through a
competitive process. In most cases, the
entity conducting the competition to
procure a one-stop operator will be the
Local Board, pursuant to its
responsibility under sec. 107(d)(10)(A)
of WIOA to select the one-stop
operators. However, in some cases, such
as when the one-stop is in a single State
local area, a State entity might conduct
the competition. If a State conducts the
competition, the State must follow
applicable State procurement laws.
Other entities, including subrecipients
of a State (such as local areas) must
conduct the competition following the
principles of competitive procurement
in the Uniform Administrative
Guidance at chapter II of 2 CFR.
This should simplify implementation
for Local Boards. The requirements of
the competitive process identified in
WIOA should be consistent with the
principles of competitive procurement
in the Uniform Administrative
Guidance set out at 2 CFR parts 200 and
2900. However, while the competitive
process described in this proposed
subpart is consistent with the principles
of competitive procurement in the
Uniform Administrative Guidance, not
every particular requirement or process
of that Guidance is applicable. This
proposed subpart seeks to establish a
particular competitive process that
fulfills the requirements of sec.
121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA for a competitive
process, while remaining consistent
with the principles set forth in the
Uniform Administrative Guidance. The
Departments want to make clear that the
specific requirements of the Uniform
Guidance are only applicable where the
subpart specifically refers to it. This
approach provides sufficient flexibility
to enable a range of operators, including
current one-stop operators, State
agencies, or consortia of required
partners to compete for and be selected
as one-stop operator. The Departments
seek comments regarding the nature and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
extent of the competitive process
outlined in the proposed regulations.
Proposed § 678.605(d) states that nonFederal entities, including subrecipients
of a State (such as local areas) must first
determine the nature of the competitive
process to be used. The different
processes that may be used are
procurement by sealed bids or
procurement by competitive proposals.
Procurement by sole-source is permitted
only under limited conditions. Because
of the potential for abuse of the sole
source selection method, DOL intends
to set a high bar for justifying that there
is only one possible operator. Local
Boards cannot use their past experience
with an entity being the one-stop
operator or one response to Requests for
Information (RFI) alone as justification.
Robust market research, combined with
other methods, including but not
limited to an RFI and a detailed cost and
price analysis, will help a Local Board
meet the burden of demonstrating they
meet the requirement of proposed
§ 678.605(d)(3)(i) for utilizing sole
source selection. Additionally, the Local
Board must comply with its own
procurement policies regarding sole
source procurements.
There are two scenarios listed in
proposed paragraph (d)(3)(i) that justify
the use of sole-source procurement, and
as discussed the Departments envision
limited use of these options. These two
scenarios are consistent with the
circumstances that justify sole source
selection under the Uniform
Administrative Guidance at 2 CFR
200.320(f), with the important exception
of 2 CFR 200.320(f)(3). Governors may
not approve a written request for sole
source selection of a Local Board unless
it complies with § 678.605(d)(3).
Proposed § 678.605(e) requires
maintenance records, which are crucial
to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of this subpart.
§ 678.610 How is sole source selection
of one-stop operators accomplished?
Proposed § 678.610 explains how
sole-source selection of one-stop
operators is accomplished. It includes
requirements about maintaining written
documentation and developing
appropriate conflict of interest policies.
It states that a Local Board can be
selected as one-stop operator through
sole-source procurement only with the
agreement of the CEO in the local area
and the Governor. The Governor must
approve the conflict of interest policies
the Local Board has in place when also
serving as one-stop operator. This is
consistent with DOL’s interpretation of
sec. 107(g)(2) of WIOA—the section
adds an additional check in the
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
situations where a Local Board is
selected to be operator.
§ 678.615 Can an entity serving as onestop operator compete to be a one-stop
operator under the procurement
requirements of this subpart?
Proposed § 678.615(a) states that
Local Boards may compete to be
selected as a one-stop operator only if
appropriate firewalls and conflict of
interest policies and procedures are in
place. The Departments seek comments
on whether and how a sufficient
firewall could be established in such a
competition, whether alternate entities
could conduct the competition, and
who those entities might be.
Proposed § 678.615(b) allows State or
local agencies to compete for, and be
selected as, one-stop operators.
However, the proposed paragraph
recognizes that there would need to be
strong firewalls, internal controls, and
conflict of interest policies and
procedures in place. There is precedent
for State agencies applying and being
selected as one-stop operators under
WIA. For example, in one multi-county
local area, the Local Board issued an
RFP on a per county basis. In one
county, a community action program
was selected as the operator. In another
county, the State workforce agency was
selected as the operator. In this scenario,
State workforce agency staff provides
both WIA and Employment Services in
the county where the agency was
selected as one-stop operator. In a
second example under WIA, from a
single area State: the State Board (which
also serves as the Local Board) issued an
RFP for the entire State for adult and
dislocated workers and a separate RFP
for youth services. A non-profit entity
was selected as the operator for adult
and dislocated worker services. That
non-profit then subcontracted with
other non-profits to serve the different
geographic regions of the State. The staff
of the State workforce agency continues
to provide the labor exchange services
in the one-stop career centers. A State
agency was selected as the youth
provider. Additional sub-awards were
made by that State agency to ensure that
all ten youth program elements were
available.
However, in the above two scenarios
and any scenario where the State agency
is competing to be the one-stop
operator, there is a high risk for conflict
of interest, particularly in the case of
single State areas. Therefore, proposed
§ 678.615(b) and (c) require robust
conflict of interest policies as well as
internal firewalls within the State
agency to address the real and perceived
conflicts of interest that could arise for
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
a State or local agency applying to a
competition run by a Local Board.
The DOL notes that this proposed
section is relevant to the first
competitions that are conducted after
these regulations are promulgated for
one-stop operators. With appropriate
firewalls and conflict of interest policies
and procedures to provide a fair and
open competitive process, entities
serving as one-stop operators at the time
these regulations are promulgated,
including Local Boards and other
current one-stop operators, may
compete and be selected as operator
under the competition requirements in
this proposed subpart. However, like the
entities specifically mentioned in this
proposed section, appropriate firewalls
must be in place to provide that the
current operator is not involved in
conducting the competitive process, as
that would be an inherent conflict of
interest.
§ 678.620 What is the one-stop
operator’s role?
Proposed § 678.620(a) describes the
role of the one-stop operator without
prescribing a specific and uniform role
across the system. The proposed
minimum role that an operator must
perform is coordination across one-stop
partners and service providers.
Additionally, the proposed paragraph
(b) prohibits one-stop operators from
assuming functions that are inherently
the responsibility of the Local Board
under proposed § 679.370. The DOL
seeks comments as to whether all of the
functions listed in proposed paragraph
(b) are accurately described as inherent
to the responsibility of a Local Board.
As the one-stop system evolved under
WIA, some of the Local Board
responsibilities may have changed or
been devolved to the operator or fiscal
agent as well.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 678.625 Can a one-stop operator also
be a service provider?
Proposed § 678.625 allows a one-stop
operator to also be a service provider.
However, the section clarifies that there
must be firewalls in place to ensure that
the operator is not conducting oversight
of itself as service provider. There also
must be proper internal controls and
firewalls in place to ensure that the
entity, in its role as operator, does not
conflict with its role of service provider.
This is consistent with the firewall and
internal control provisions in proposed
§ 679.430.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 678.630 Can State merit staff still
work in a one-stop where the operator
is not a governmental entity?
Proposed § 678.630 addresses the
concern about whether State merit staff
can continue to work in a one-stop
where the operator is an entity other
than the State. State merit staff support
numerous programs at the one-stop
career center, including Wagner-Peyser,
Vocational Rehabilitation, UI, and the
JVSG program. Some States have shared
concerns that competition may result in
the layoff of State merit staff. Proposed
§ 678.630 clarifies that State merit staff
may continue to work in the one-stop so
long as a system for management of
merit staff in accordance with State
policies and procedures is established.
This is consistent with how some local
non-governmental one-stop operators
manage merit staff currently under WIA.
Local government staff may also work in
the one-stop regardless of who the
operator is, if they are responsible for
delivering a one-stop partner program’s
services. Nothing prohibits this from
occurring, and there are numerous
examples under WIA where this is
currently occurring, including the above
scenario of a single area State where the
State Board (which also serves as the
Local Board) issued an RFP for the
entire State for adult and dislocated
workers and a separate RFP for youth
services. A non-profit entity was
selected as the operator for adult and
dislocated worker services. That nonprofit then subcontracted with other
non-profits to serve the different
geographic regions of the State. The staff
of the State workforce agency continues
to provide the labor exchange services
in the one-stops due to the merit staffing
requirements. In another multi-county
local area, the Local Board issued an
RFP for a single operator throughout the
entire local area. A large-scale nonprofit was selected as the operator.
Under the arrangement, State merit staff
still provided labor exchange services
because of the merit staffing
requirement but under the operational
direction of the one-stop operator.
Similar to State merit staff, nothing
would prevent local government staff
from being employees in the one-stop
center, although the Department
recognizes that local government
employees are not equivalent to the
State merit staff, because State merit
staff are governed by the requirements
attached to specific programs that must
be in the one-stop regardless of operator.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20605
§ 678.635 What is the effective date of
the provisions of this subpart?
To ensure an orderly transition, as
authorized under sec. 503 of WIOA,
proposed § 678.635(a) states that onestop operators selected through the
competitive process described in this
subpart need to be in place no later than
July 1, 2017. This lengthy transition
period serves several goals: (1) It allows
sufficient time for State and local areas
to prepare to transition to a competitive
process, including conducting market
research, RFIs, cost and price analysis,
and competitions; (2) it reduces or
eliminates the likelihood of disruption
in services to participants as Local
Boards have time to plan for and
incorporate into the competition a plan
for transition to a new provider; and (3)
it allows State and local areas to have
the WIOA Final Rule to use to guide the
implementation of a competitive
process. It is important for Local Boards
to begin planning for competition
immediately, and therefore proposed
§ 678.635(b) states that Local Boards
must engage in and be able to
demonstrate they are planning for a
competition for one-stop operator in PY
2015 (July 1, 2015–June 30, 2016).
6. Subpart E—One-Stop Operating Costs
One-stop partner funding of
infrastructure costs is intended to:
(1) Maintain the one-stop delivery
system to meet the needs of the local
areas;
(2) Reduce duplication by improving
program effectiveness through the
sharing of services, resources and
technologies among partners;
(3) Reduce overhead by streamlining
and sharing financial, procurement, and
facilities costs;
(4) Encourage efficient use of
information technology to include
where possible the use of machine
readable forms and shared management
systems; and
(5) Ensure that costs are appropriately
shared by one-stop partners by basing
contributions on proportionate share of
use, and requiring that all funds are
spent solely for allowable purposes in a
manner consistent with the applicable
authorizing statute and all other
applicable legal requirements, including
the Federal cost principles; and
(6) Ensure that services provided by
the one-stop partners to reduce
duplication or to increase financial
efficiency at the one-stop centers are
allowable under the partner’s program.
§ 678.700 What are one-stop
infrastructure costs?
Proposed § 678.700 provides the
definition for infrastructure costs based
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20606
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
on sec. 121(h)(4) of WIOA. In addition
to those items, the section adds common
one-stop delivery system identifier
costs. These costs are those associated
with signage and other expenses related
to the one-stop common identifier as
required by sec. 121(e)(4) of WIOA. The
Departments seek comments as to other
common identifier costs, or other types
of costs, to include in the definition of
infrastructure costs.
Jointly funding services is a necessary
foundation for an integrated service
delivery system. Proposed § 678.700(c)
reiterates that all partner contributions
to the costs of operating and providing
services within the one-stop center
system must adhere to the partner
program’s Federal authorizing statute,
and to all other applicable legal
requirements, including the Federal cost
principles that require costs that are
allowable, reasonable, necessary and
allocable. There are a variety of methods
to allocate costs, for instance: Based on
proportion of a partner program’s
customers of all customers coming to
the one-stop, proportion of partner
program’s staff among all staff at the
one-stop, or based on a partner
program’s use of a particular expense
item such as certain equipment. The
DOL’s previous Financial Management
Technical Assistance Guide published
for WIA remains useful for cost
allocation explanations. See https://
www.doleta.gov/grants/pdf/TAG_
PartI.pdf and https://www.doleta.gov/
grants/pdf/TAG_PartII_July2011.pdf.
The DOL and ED jointly will update this
guide and provide technical assistance
on cost allocation.
§ 678.705 What guidance must the
Governor issue regarding one-stop
infrastructure funding?
Proposed § 678.705 addresses the
requirement in sec. 121(h)(1)(B) of
WIOA for the Governor to issue
guidelines to State programs and
guidance to local areas regarding
infrastructure funding. The Departments
have interpreted the statute also to
require that the local areas follow these
guidelines, and to allow the State
grantee to monitor local areas for
compliance with the Governor’s
guidance. The proposed section
includes certain requirements for the
Governor’s guidance, including
establishing roles, defining equitable
and efficient methods for negotiating
around infrastructure costs, and
establishing timelines for local areas.
These requirements are essential to
ensuring a consistent general approach
to the Governors’ guidance across
States, and appropriate timeframes
which then allow for one-stop
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
certification, competition of one-stop
operator, and inclusion of funding
agreement terms into the local State
plan. The proposed rule allows for
different methods of reaching
consensus, and different ways for the
Governor to interact with a local area
during the consensus-building process.
The Departments seek comments about
the types of information or requirements
local areas would like to see included in
guidance issued by the Governor.
§ 678.710 How are infrastructure costs
funded?
Proposed § 678.710 indicates that sec.
121(h)(1) of WIOA establishes two
methods for funding the infrastructure
costs of one-stop centers: A local onestop funding mechanism and a State
one-stop funding mechanism. Both
methods utilize the funds provided to
one-stop partners by their authorizing
legislations. There is no separate
funding source for one-stop
infrastructure costs.
§ 678.715 How are one-stop
infrastructure costs funded in the local
funding mechanism?
Proposed § 678.715 addresses the
local funding mechanism. Local Boards,
in consultation with CEOs, should
engage one-stop partners early in
discussions about one-stop center
locations and other services, so that
decisions about physical locations and
services are cooperatively made, and
can be financially supported by the
partners within the workforce system.
Under the local mechanism, local
partners can contribute amounts in
excess of the limitations contained
under the State funded infrastructure
mechanism at sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(ii) of
WIOA, if the parties agree that is the
proportionate share of their use for
reasonable one-stop infrastructure costs
and it is consistent with the Federal
authorizing statute and other applicable
legal requirements, including Federal
cost principles Under this proposed
paragraph, agreement is achieved when
all of the one-stop partners sign the
MOU with the Local Board, which
includes a final agreement regarding
funding of infrastructure that includes
the elements listed in proposed
§ 678.755, or an interim funding
agreement that includes as many of
these elements as possible.
§ 678.720 What funds are used to pay
for infrastructure costs in the local onestop infrastructure funding mechanism?
Proposed § 678.720 explains the
funding that one-stop partners can use
to pay for infrastructure cost
contributions. Partner programs can
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
determine the funds they will use, but
these funds must still meet the
requirements of the program’s relevant
statutes and regulations. Further, all
one-stop partners must work together to
administer the partner programs and the
one-stop and other activities of the core
programs under WIOA as efficiently and
effectively as possible. This will ensure
that, as recipients and stewards of
Federal funds for all of these programs,
the partners and their subrecipients
administer these programs and activities
to meet all applicable legal requirements
and goals. Different Federal statutes and
regulations define administrative costs
slightly differently. Some programs’
statutes and regulations define all of the
infrastructure costs listed in § 678.700
as administrative costs, some programs’
statutes and regulations define some of
the infrastructure costs as
administrative costs, and some as
program costs. Under this proposed
paragraph, one-stop partner programs
must adhere to the administrative and
program cost limitations of their
program’s statutes and regulations.
Proposed § 678.720(a) would give
State agencies responsible for title II of
WIOA or the Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act of 2006
(Perkins Act) great flexibility in
determining how to pay for
infrastructure costs under the local onestop funding mechanism. It would
permit a State eligible agency under title
II of WIOA to use Federal funds that
were available for State administration
of title II of WIOA. Similarly, proposed
§ 678.720 would permit a State eligible
agency under the Perkins Act to use
Federal funds that were available for
State administration of post-secondary
level programs or activities.
Additionally, proposed § 678.720 would
permit a State eligible agency under title
II of WIOA or the Perkins Act to use
non-Federal funds that these State
agencies contribute to meet these
programs’ matching or maintenance of
effort requirements in lieu of the State’s
administrative funds from its Federal
grants. Further, if a State eligible agency
were to delegate to a local entity or a
consortium of local entities the
authority to serve as the local one-stop
partner pursuant to proposed
§ 678.415(b) and (e), the entity or
consortium could contribute local
administrative funds for title II of WIOA
or the Perkins Act, respectively, to the
infrastructure costs in lieu of a
contribution from the State’s
administrative funds from its Federal
grants. The goal of providing the State
agencies with this flexibility is to enable
them to meet their responsibilities for
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
paying one-stop infrastructure costs in a
manner that best allows them to meet
their responsibilities as one-stop
partners and grantees under title II of
WIOA or the Perkins Act. The
Departments seek public comment on
whether the proposed regulation would
achieve this goal.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 678.725 What happens if consensus
on infrastructure funding is not reached
at the local level between the Local
Board, chief elected officials, and onestop partners?
Proposed § 678.725 states that failure
to sign the MOU containing the final
infrastructure funding agreement or
interim agreement by the beginning of
each PY would trigger the State one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism. The
proposed section states that Local
Boards must notify the State if they
cannot reach consensus. This
notification policy must be included in
the Governor’s guidance, as required by
proposed § 678.705(b)(3). The State
monitors the local areas to address
violations of State guidance. The
Governor’s guidance might establish an
earlier date for notification to the State
of milestones or decision points in the
negotiation process.
§ 678.730 What is the State one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
Proposed § 678.730 discusses the
State infrastructure funding mechanism.
In establishing a State-funded
alternative to the local one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism, the
statute ensures infrastructure costs will
still be funded if one-stop partners
cannot agree on their contribution
amounts to fund the infrastructure of
the one-stop center. An important goal
under both the local and State funding
mechanisms is to ensure that each onestop partner contributes its
proportionate share to the funding of
one-stop infrastructure costs, consistent
with the Federal cost principles. This is
in alignment with the requirements in
the new Uniform Requirements, cost
principles and audit requirements
issued on December 26, 2014 (2 CFR
part 200). In the State infrastructure
funding mechanism, the Governor
determines how much each partner will
contribute, as described in proposed
§§ 678.735 and 678.740. The State Board
determines how the contributed funds
will be allocated out to local areas, as
described in proposed § 678.745.
§ 678.735 How are partner
contributions determined in the State
one-stop funding mechanism?
In the State-funded option proposed
in §§ 678.735(a)–(b), the Governor, after
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
consultation with State and Local
Boards and CEOs, will determine the
amount each partner must contribute to
assist in paying the infrastructure costs
of one-stop centers. The Governor must
calculate amounts based on the
proportionate use of the one-stop
centers by each partner and other factors
stated in proposed § 678.735(a).
Proposed § 678.735(b) clarifies that
because Native American Program
grantees under part 684 of this proposed
rule have a government-to-government
relationship, the Governor does not
determine the contribution amounts for
infrastructure grants from these
grantees. The Native American
Programs, as required one-stop partners,
must contribute to infrastructure
funding, and must negotiate with the
Local Board on that contribution
amount. The Local Board and Native
American Program grantee can ask for
assistance from the State in negotiating
the MOU and infrastructure cost
funding, and can also consult with DOL
to resolve any impasse.
Proposed § 678.735(c) includes the
limitation for one-stop partners’
contributions, based on a percentage of
their funding allocation, from sec.
121(h)(2)(D)(ii) of WIOA. These
limitations do not apply to the local
one-stop funding mechanism. However,
the use of a program partner’s funds
must meet the requirements of the
program’s authorizing statute, all other
applicable legal requirements, and the
requirements in this subpart. Proposed
§ 678.735(c)(1) states that the cap on
WIOA formula and Wagner-Peyser
required contributions will not exceed 3
percent of the amount of funds provided
to carry out that program for a PY.
Although WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(ii)(I)
refers to a fiscal year, WIOA and
Wagner-Peyser funds are provided on a
PY basis (which is from July 1 through
June 30 of the following year).
Therefore, calculating on a fiscal year
basis would cause numerous
administrative difficulties, because the
WIOA and Wagner-Peyser formula
programs receive their appropriations at
two different times during the fiscal
year. This interpretation is consistent
with the statute because under WIOA
sec. 121(h)(1)(A)(ii) the determination of
whether the State infrastructure funding
mechanism will apply occurs on July 1,
at the beginning of each PY.
Proposed § 678.735(c)(2) includes a
clarification that the 1.5 percent cap on
contribution applies to the relevant
education program and employment
and training program of a required onestop partner. For instance, States receive
a large block grant for delivering TANF
services. The 1.5 percent cap on
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20607
contributions applies to the
employment and training activities
under that grant, not the entire TANF
grant. Proposed § 678.735(c)(3) states
that the entities administering the
Vocational Rehabilitation program must
not be required to contribute more than
a specific cap each year. In States where
there are two Vocational Rehabilitation
agencies (a general agency and a blind
agency), the combined contribution
from these programs cannot exceed the
cap in the proposed rule, which is based
on the total allotment to the State.
Because there is a chance that the
funding amount limitations would
prevent the allocation from being fully
funded, proposed § 678.735(d) allows
the Governor to direct the local partners
to reenter negotiations to resolve the
shortage in a manner that is consistent
with each partner’s program’s
authorizing laws and regulations and all
other applicable legal requirements,
including the Federal cost principles, or
to identify alternate infrastructure
funding. When local partners reenter
negotiations in this situation, the new
negotiations should be conducted
according to the same procedure as
negotiations are conducted under the
local funding mechanism, as discussed
in proposed § 678.715. The limitations
for one-stop partners’ contributions
discussed in proposed § 678.735(c) do
not apply to the local funding
mechanism. If an agreement is still not
reached, the Governor will reduce the
allocation for total one-stop
infrastructure funding for that local area
to match the amount of available partner
contributions under the cap. In
implementing a one-stop infrastructure
allocation by the Governor, although
sec. 121(h)(3)(B) of WIOA refers to the
Governor allocating out to local areas
the funds provided under sec. 121(h)(1)
of WIOA, which is the local funding
allocation mechanism, that section as
enacted would also require the
Governor to allocate those funds to only
the local areas that are not using the
local funding mechanism. This
incongruity seems a clear scrivener’s
error—sec. 121(h)(3)(B) was meant to
instruct the Governor to apply the
allocation formula developed by the
State Boards only to the local areas that
are not subject to an agreement under
the local funding mechanism. Proposed
§§ 678.730 through 678.745 reflect this
interpretation.
§ 678.740 What funds are used to pay
for infrastructure costs in the State onestop infrastructure funding mechanism?
Proposed § 678.740 describes the
funds that one-stop partners can use to
pay for infrastructure costs. For some
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20608
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
partner programs, some infrastructure
costs are classified as program costs
under the partners’ authorizing statute
or implementing regulations, while
other infrastructure costs are classified
as administrative costs. In other partner
programs, all infrastructure costs are
classified as administrative costs. Onestop partner programs must follow their
own program’s rules in classifying costs
as program or administrative costs, and
must adhere to their program’s
administrative cost limit.
Like proposed § 678.720(a), proposed
§§ 678.740(c) and (d) would give State
eligible agencies responsible for title II
of WIOA and the Perkins Act great
flexibility in determining how to pay for
infrastructure costs under the State onestop funding mechanism. It would
enable these State agencies to use
Federal funds that were available for
State administration of title II of WIOA
or for the administration of postsecondary level programs and activities
under the Perkins Act, as well as nonFederal funds that the partners
contribute to meet these programs’
matching or maintenance of effort
requirements. Further, as with
§ 678.720(a), if a State eligible agency
were to delegate to a local entity or a
consortium of local entities authority to
serve as the local one-stop partner
pursuant to proposed §§ 678.415(b) and
(e), the entity or consortium could
contribute local administrative funds for
title II of WIOA or the Perkins Act,
respectively, to the infrastructure costs
in lieu of a contribution from the State’s
administrative funds from its Federal
grants to be contributed to the one-stop
infrastructure costs.
The goal of providing the State
agencies with this flexibility is to enable
them to meet their responsibilities for
paying one-stop infrastructure costs in a
manner that best allows them to meet
their responsibilities as one-stop
partners and grantees under title II of
WIOA or the Perkins Act. The
Departments seek public comment on
whether the proposed regulation would
achieve this goal.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 678.745 How is the allocation
formula used by the Governor
determined in the State one-stop
funding mechanism?
Proposed § 678.745 states that the
State Board must establish an allocation
formula, taking into account several
requirements from WIOA 121(h)(3)(B),
and the Governor will use the allocation
formula to distribute funds to local areas
that are opting to use the State
infrastructure cost funding mechanism,
so long as the distribution is consistent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
with the Federal cost principles for each
affected partner program.
§ 678.750 When and how can a onestop partner appeal a one-stop
infrastructure amount designated by the
State under the State infrastructure
funding mechanism?
Proposed § 678.750 requires an
appeals process, as outlined in WIOA
sec. 121(h)(2)(E), to be established by
the Governor and proposes similar
principles regarding timely resolution as
those seen under other appeals
processes, such as the WIA regulations
at 20 CFR 661.280. The Departments
seek comments regarding the proposed
State infrastructure funding mechanism,
and in how local areas with existing
successful infrastructure cost
agreements have funded these costs and
what factors contributed to local areas’
success.
§ 678.755 What are the required
elements regarding infrastructure
funding that must be included in the
one-stop Memorandum of
Understanding?
Proposed § 678.755 explains what
information the local areas must include
about operating costs in the one-stop
MOU, described in proposed § 678.500.
Under the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, the partner
contributions will be required to be
included in the MOU. Once the State
infrastructure funding mechanism is
triggered, and the Governor determines
each partner’s required funding
contribution, the partners must include
these in, and sign, the MOU.
§ 678.760 How do one-stop partners
jointly fund other shared costs under
the Memorandum of Understanding?
In addition to infrastructure, WIOA
sec. 121(i)(1) requires that one-stop
partners must contribute jointly to fund
the cost of career services, and allows
one-stop partners to jointly fund other
shared services, such as intake,
assessment, skill appraisals,
identification of appropriate services,
referrals, accommodations and other
services, including business services.
Shared operating costs may also include
shared costs of the Local Board’s
functions. Under proposed § 678.760,
these costs must be determined as part
of the MOU described in proposed
§ 678.500 and be comprised of cash and
noncash resources. Non-cash, or inkind, contributions may be such
resources as space, equipment, staff to
deliver shared services, and other
examples. The Departments expect onestop partners to engage early with each
other and the Local Board to identify
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
services that benefit multiple
populations and programs and could be
jointly funded through the MOU. Such
agreements improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the one-stop system,
and benefit the system’s customers.
WIOA neither requires programs to
examine if other funds are available
before using program funds to pay for a
service, nor does it establish
requirements that any program can only
be a ‘‘payer of last resort.’’ One-stop
partners may jointly fund services in a
manner of their choosing that meets the
requirements of this part, meets the
Federal cost principles, and meets the
requirements of the programs’
authorizing statutes and regulations.
The DOL published Financial
Management Technical Assistance
Guides for use under WIA that are still
useful in determining reasonable cost
allocation methodologies, and how to
jointly fund shared activities and
services. See https://www.doleta.gov/
grants/pdf/TAG_PartI.pdf and https://
www.doleta.gov/grants/pdf/TAG_PartII_
July2011.pdf. The DOL will provide
further technical assistance on this
topic.
7. Subpart F—One-Stop Certification
Proposed part 678, subpart F
implements the requirements in sec.
121(g) of WIOA that the Local Board
certify the one-stop center every 3 years.
The certification process is important to
setting a minimum level of quality and
consistency of services in one-stop
centers across a State. The certification
criteria allow States to set standard
expectations for customer-focused
seamless services from a network of
employment, training, and related
services that help individuals overcome
barriers to becoming and staying
employed. The Departments seek
comments on how local areas can best
measure the customer satisfaction of
individuals who utilize American Job
Centers as an aspect of effectiveness.
§ 678.800 How are one-stop centers
and one-stop delivery systems certified
for effectiveness, physical and
programmatic accessibility, and
continuous improvement?
Proposed § 678.800(a) requires that
State Boards establish criteria and
procedures for certification, and allows
Local Boards to use additional
certification factors in order to respond
to labor market, economic, and
demographic conditions and trends in
the local area. The criteria must assess
the effectiveness, physical and
programmatic accessibility, and
continuous improvement of one-stop
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
centers and the one-stop delivery
systems.
Proposed § 678.800(b) sets
requirements for evaluations of
effectiveness, including those mandated
by sec. 121(g)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii) of WIOA.
States may establish further
effectiveness factors, and set specific
standards for program coordination or
integration. Program coordination
standards might include customerfocused standards such as: front desk
and intake staff are trained to complete
an initial assessment of a participant’s
needs and inform participants of the
services available to them; intake forms
and basic assessment tools and
processes are harmonized across
programs to minimize customers filling
out multiple forms; and staff work in
functional rather than program teams.
Program coordination standards might
also include operational standards such
as: integrated resource teams such as
those piloted in the Disability
Employment Initiative or other methods
are used to jointly fund services to meet
the specific needs of individuals;
resource rooms include high-quality upto-date information about the services
and supportive services available to
individuals; Web sites and materials for
the one-stop provide information about
the services and supports of all partner
programs; and business services teams
include representatives or otherwise
integrate with key partner programs and
represent the center as a whole. This
paragraph also emphasizes the
importance of maximizing access to
services to all customers, particularly
outside regular business hours. Access
to services can be through a physical
one-stop location, but can also be
through online or phone access as
discussed in the § 678.300(e) definition
of ‘‘direct linkage,’’ as long as services
are equally available to all customers,
including those with disabilities. The
Departments seek input on other
important factors in making one-stop
centers operate more efficiently and
effectively, both for consideration as
one-stop certification criteria and for
general program implementation and
management.
Proposed paragraph § 678.800(c)
describes evaluations of continuous
improvement, including those
mandated by sec. 121(g)(2)(B)(i) of
WIOA. Continuous improvement
requires local areas and one-stop centers
to collect, analyze and use several types
of data, from customer satisfaction and
feedback to program and performance
data. Professional development is a key
feature of any continuous improvement
loop, in order to ensure that staff are
aware of the implications of recent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
evidence-based research, and can
implement the latest policies and
procedures established at the local,
State and Federal levels.
Proposed § 678.800(d) describes how
Local Boards apply the certification
criteria, including that Local Boards
must assess the one-stop centers at least
once every 3 years. This section also
requires that any additional local
criteria be reviewed and updated as part
of the biennial review and modification
process for updating local plans. This
provision also explains that this
certification must be completed for onestop centers to be eligible to receive
infrastructure funds in the State
infrastructure funding mechanism, as
required by sec. 121(g)(4) of WIOA.
Proposed § 678.800(e) emphasizes
that all one-stops must be physically
and programmatically accessible. The
requirements related to accessibility are
set forth in the regulations
implementing WIOA sec. 188, at 29 CFR
part 37.
In addition to complying with the
applicable architectural and
programmatic accessibility requirements
of the proposed regulations, one-stop
centers and Boards may wish to
consider the use of ‘‘universal design,’’
which designs inclusive space and
materials to be available to individuals
regardless of their range of abilities,
mobility, age, language, learning style,
intelligence, or educational level.
Improved availability, a welcoming
atmosphere, inclusive settings, and high
quality customer service benefit all
customers. Extensive technical
assistance is available at www.ada.gov,
and www.lep.gov. The Departments
recommend that State Boards and Local
Boards engage early with relevant Equal
Opportunity officers in establishing the
criteria for determining compliance
with accessibility standards and other
requirements related to providing equal
opportunity, particularly for persons
with disabilities.
8. Subpart G—Common Identifier
The proposed regulation in subpart G
promotes increased public identification
of the one-stop delivery system through
use of a common identifier across the
nation, consistent with sec. 121(e)(4) of
WIOA.
§ 678.900 What is the common
identifier to be used by each one-stop
delivery system?
Proposed § 678.900(a) designates the
name ‘‘American Job Center’’ as the
common identifier for the one-stop
delivery system. This designation was
made by the Secretaries after consulting
with the heads of other appropriate
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20609
departments and agencies,
representatives of State Boards and
Local Boards, and other stakeholders in
the one-stop delivery system. As part of
this consultation process, DOL engaged
in a series of town hall meetings with
State workforce agencies, and State and
Local Workforce Boards, conducted in
September and October 2014, in various
cities across the country. In addition,
two webinars were conducted on
November 14 and December 9 with
various stakeholders, including State
agencies, State and Local Workforce
Boards, and one-stop partners, and were
open to the public. The topic of the
webinar was dedicated solely to the
topic of the common identifier for the
one-stop delivery system. The DOL has
also consulted with other departments
and agencies, specifically ED and the
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). The Departments also
specifically request that the public or
any interested stakeholder provide
feedback and input as comments on the
proposed ‘‘American Job Center’’
common identifier designation.
‘‘American Job Center’’ is the common
identifier that is currently being used by
several one-stop delivery systems;
furthermore, it has been promoted by
the DOL and used by other Federal
agencies since the issuance of Training
and Employment Guidance Letter
(TEGL) No. 36–11 on June 14, 2012.
Continued use of the identifier
‘‘American Job Center’’ will avoid the
confusion of implementing a new
common identifier; and several State
and Local Boards have already begun
incorporating the identifier in their
products, materials, Web sites, and
facilities. The Departments continue to
seek feedback on the name and
associated logo as part of the proposed
rulemaking process.
Proposed § 678.900(b) requires the use
of ‘‘American Job Center’’ or the tagline
‘‘a proud partner of the American Job
Center network’’ on all one-stop
delivery system products, programs,
activities, services, facilities, and related
property and materials to help inform
system users that the products,
programs, activities, services, facilities,
and related property and materials are
provided by and through the publically
funded one-stop delivery system. The
Departments will issue templates and
designs of a logo, phrase, or other
material for the one-stop delivery
system to use to associate this common
identifier with the system. Local Boards
should immediately start the process of
incorporating the identifier on products,
programs, activities, services, and
related and materials. Incorporating the
identifier on facilities and related
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20610
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
property may take time. Local Boards
may start the process of incorporating
the identifier on facilities and property
anytime, but must start this process at
the time these regulations are published
as a final rule, and fully implement the
requirements listed in the final rule
within PY 2016.
Proposed paragraph § 678.900(c)
allows the use of additional identifiers,
per sec. 121(e)(4) of WIOA.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563:
Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 directs
agencies, in deciding whether and how
to regulate, to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives, including the alternative of
not regulating. E.O. 13563 is
supplemental to and reaffirms E.O.
12866. It emphasizes the importance of
quantifying present and future benefits
and costs; directs that regulations be
adopted with public participation; and,
where relevant and feasible, directs that
regulatory approaches be considered
that reduce burdens, harmonize rules
across agencies, and maintain flexibility
and freedom of choice for the public.
Costs and benefits are to include both
quantifiable measures and qualitative
assessments of possible impacts that are
difficult to quantify. If regulation is
necessary, agencies should select
regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. OMB determines whether a
regulatory action is significant and,
therefore, subject to review.
Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as any
action that is likely to result in a rule
that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising from legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in E.O. 12866.
Summary of the analysis. The
Departments provide the following
summary of the regulatory impact
analysis:
(1) The proposed joint rule is a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
section 3(f)(4) of E.O. 12866 and
accordingly, OMB has reviewed the
proposed rule.
(2) The proposed joint rule would
have no cost impact on small entities.
(3) The proposed joint rule would not
impose an unfunded mandate on
Federal, State, local, or tribal
governments as defined by the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
In total, the Departments estimate that
this joint NPRM would have an average
annual cost of $147,128,434 and a total
10-year cost of $1,154,622,032 (with 7percent discounting). The largest
contributor to the cost is the
requirement related to evaluation of
State programs, followed by the
development of strategies to align
technology and data systems across onestop partner programs.
The Departments were unable to
quantify estimates of several important
benefits to society due to data
limitations or lack of existing data or
evaluation findings on particular items.
Based on a review of empirical studies
(primarily studies published in peerreviewed academic publications and
studies sponsored by the Departments),
the Departments identified a variety of
societal benefits: (1) Training services
increase job placement rates; (2)
participants in occupational training
experience higher reemployment rates;
(3) training is associated with higher
earnings; and (4) State performance
accountability measures, in combination
with the Board membership provision
requiring employer/business
representation, can be expected to
improve the quality of the training and,
ultimately, the number and caliber of
job placements. The Departments
identified several channels through
which these benefits might be achieved,
including: (1) Better information about
training providers will enable workers
to make better-informed choices about
programs to pursue; and (2) enhanced
services for dislocated workers, selfemployed individuals, and workers
with disabilities will lead to the benefits
discussed above.
The Departments request comment on
the costs and benefits of this NPRM
with the goal of ensuring a thorough
consideration and discussion at the final
rule stage.
1. Need for Regulation
Section 503(f)(1) of WIOA requires
publication of proposed implementation
regulations. Implementing regulations
are necessary in order for WIOA to be
efficiently and effectively operated and
such regulations will provide Congress
and others with uniform information
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
necessary to evaluate the outcomes of
the new workforce law.
2. Alternatives in Light of the Required
Publication of Proposed Regulations
OMB Circular A–4, which outlines
best practices in regulatory analysis,
directs agencies to analyze alternatives
outside the scope of their current legal
authority if such alternatives best satisfy
the philosophy and principles of E.O.
12866. While WIOA provides little
regulatory discretion, the Departments
assessed, to the extent feasible,
alternatives to the proposed regulations.
In this NPRM, the Departments
considered significant alternatives to
accomplish the stated objectives of
WIOA while also attempting to
minimize any significant economic
impact of the proposed rule on small
entities. This analysis considered the
extent to which WIOA’s prescriptive
language presented any regulatory
options that also would allow for
achieving the statute’s articulated
programmatic goals. In many instances,
the Departments have reiterated WIOA’s
language in the regulatory text and
expansions are offered for clarification
and guidance to the regulated
community. The additional regulatory
guidance should create more efficient
administration of the program by
reducing ambiguities and subsequent
State and local revisions as a result of
unclear statutory language.
In addition, the Departments
considered and, where feasible,
proposed to issue sub-regulatory
guidance in lieu of additional regulatory
requirements. This policy option has
two primary benefits to small entities.
First, guidance will be issued following
publication of the rules, thereby
allowing States, local areas, and small
entities additional time to prepare their
compliance efforts. Second, this level of
guidance is more flexible in nature
allowing for faster modifications and
any subsequent issuances, as necessary.
The Departments considered three
possible alternatives:
(1) To implement the legislative
changes prescribed in WIOA, as noted
in this NPRM, thereby satisfying the
legislative mandate; or
(2) To take no action, that is, to
attempt to implement WIOA utilizing
existing Workforce Investment Act
(WIA) regulations; or
(3) To not publish any regulation and
rescind existing WIA regulations,
thereby ignoring the WIOA statutory
requirement to publish implementing
regulations and, thus forcing the
regulated community to follow statutory
language for implementation and
compliance purposes.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
The Departments considered these
three options in accordance with the
provisions of E.O. 12866 and chose to
publish the WIOA NPRM, i.e., the first
alternative. The Departments considered
the second alternative, i.e., retain
existing WIA regulations as the guide
for WIOA implementation, but WIOA
has changed WIA’s requirements
substantially enough that new
implementing regulations are necessary
in order for the workforce system to
achieve compliance. The Departments
considered the third alternative, i.e., to
not publish an implementing regulation
and rescind existing WIA regulations,
but rejected it because this option, in
and of itself, does not provide sufficient
detailed guidance to effectively
implement the statutory requirements.
Thus, regulations are necessary to
achieve program compliance.
In addition to the regulatory
alternatives noted above, the
Departments also considered whether
certain aspects of WIOA could be
phased-in over a prescribed period of
time (different compliance dates),
thereby allowing States and localities
additional time for planning and
successful implementation. As a policy
option, this alternative appears
appealing in a broad theoretical sense
and, where feasible, the Departments
have recognized and made allowances
for different schedules of
implementation. However, upon further
discussion and in order to begin to
achieve the intended legislative benefits
of WIOA, additional implementation
delays beyond those noted in this
NPRM may create potentially more
issues than the benefit of alternative
starting dates. Specifically, many
critical WIOA elements follow upon the
implementation of other provisions and,
therefore, discussions around delaying
aspects became quite complicated. The
interrelatedness of WIOA’s
requirements suggested that the
alternative of delaying aspects was not
operationally feasible.
Furthermore, the data necessary to
fully review this option does not yet
exist and will not until Local Workforce
Development Boards (WDBs) conduct
procurements and announce awards.
Similarly, performance standards will
be negotiated at a future time and based
on a variety of factors including State
and local economic conditions,
resources, and priorities. Establishing
proposed standards in advance of this
statutorily-defined process may not be
an efficient or effective action. The
enforcement methods described in the
proposed joint rule are a reflection of
prescribed WIOA requirements and
entity size should not in and of itself
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
create alternative methods for
compliance or different time periods for
achieving compliance. Although the
Departments have not determined
sufficiently valid reasons for altering
compliance timeframes in addition to
those described in the proposed rule for
small entities, we seek comment on this
issue.
The Departments’ initial impact
analysis has concluded that by virtue of
WIOA’s prescriptive language,
particularly the requirement to publish
implementing regulations within 180
days, there are no viable regulatory
alternatives available other than those
discussed above.
The Departments request comment on
these or other alternatives, including
alternatives on the specific proposed
provisions contained in this NPRM,
with the goal of ensuring a thorough
consideration and discussion at the final
rule stage.
3. Analysis Considerations
The Departments derived their
estimates by comparing the existing
baseline, i.e., the benefits and costs
associated with current practices, which
at a minimum, must comply with the
2000 WIA Final Rule (65 FR 49294,
Aug. 11, 2000), against the additional
benefits and costs associated with
implementation of the provisions
contained in this WIOA-required joint
NPRM.
For a proper evaluation of the
additional benefits and costs of this
NPRM, the Departments explain how
the required actions of States, WDBs,
employers and training entities,
government agencies, and other related
entities are linked to the expected
benefits and estimated costs. The
Departments also considered, when
appropriate, the unintended
consequences of the proposed
regulations introduced by this NPRM.
The Departments make every effort,
when feasible, to quantify and monetize
the benefits and costs of the joint
NPRM. The Departments were unable to
quantify the benefits associated with the
proposed rule because of data
limitations and a lack of operational
data or evaluation findings on the
provisions of the proposed rule or
WIOA in general. Therefore, the
Departments describe the benefits
qualitatively. The Departments followed
the same approach when we were
unable to quantify the costs.
Throughout the benefit-cost analysis,
the Departments made every effort to
identify and quantify all potential
incremental costs associated with the
implementation of WIOA as distinct
from what already exists under WIA,
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20611
WIOA’s predecessor statute. Despite our
best estimation efforts, however, the
Departments might be double-counting
some activities that are already
happening under WIA. Thus, the costs
itemized below represent an upper
bound of the potential cost of
implementing the statute. The
Departments request comment on our
cost estimates, specifically in terms of
whether we have accurately captured
the additional costs associated with
implementation of WIOA.
In addition to this joint NPRM, the
Departments plan to propose separate
NPRMs to implement program-specific
requirements of WIOA that fall under
each Department’s purview; see the
Executive Summary section of this
NPRM for details. While the
Departments acknowledge that these
proposed rules and their associated
impacts are not wholly independent
from one another, we are unaware of
any reliable method of quantifying the
effects of this interdependence.
Therefore, this analysis does not capture
the correlated impacts of the benefits
and costs of this proposed joint rule and
those associated with the other NPRMs.
The Departments have made an effort to
ensure there are no duplication of costs
and benefits between this and the other
NPRMs. We request comments from the
public about the appropriateness of this
assumption.
In accordance with the regulatory
analysis guidance contained in OMB
Circular A–4 and consistent with the
Departments’ practices in previous
rulemakings, this regulatory analysis
focuses on the likely consequences
(benefits and costs that accrue to
citizens and residents of the United
States) of this WIOA-required NPRM.
The analysis covers 10 years (2015
through 2024) to ensure it captures
major additional benefits and costs that
accrue over time. The Departments
express all quantifiable impacts in 2013
dollars and use 3-percent and 7-percent
discounting following OMB Circular
A–4.
Exhibit 1 presents the estimated
number of entities expected to
1 Based on internal Department of Education data.
This figure includes the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and Palau.
2 Based on internal Department of Labor data.
This figure includes the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
3 Pursuant to sec. 7(34) of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973, as amended, this figure includes the 50
States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa,
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico,
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
Continued
16APP2
20612
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
experience an increase in level of effort
(workload) due to the proposed
regulations contained in this joint
NPRM. These estimates are provided by
the Departments and are used
extensively throughout this analysis to
calculate the estimated cost of each
proposed provision.
EXHIBIT 1—NUMBER OF AFFECTED ENTITIES BY TYPE
Number of
entities
Entity type
States impacted by Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) program requirements ........................................................
States impacted by DOL program requirements .................................................................................................................................
States impacted by Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program requirements ........................................................................................
States that need to develop and disseminate best practices .............................................................................................................
States that need low effort to implement software/IT systems ...........................................................................................................
States that need high effort to implement software/IT systems ..........................................................................................................
Workforce Development Boards ..........................................................................................................................................................
Transfer Payments
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The Departments provide an
assessment of transfer payments
associated with transitioning the
nation’s public workforce system from
the requirements of WIA to new
requirements imposed by WIOA. In
accordance with OMB Circular A–4, the
Departments consider transfer payments
as payments from one group to another
that do not affect total resources
available to society. For example, under
both WIA and WIOA, financial transfers
via formula grants will be made from
the Federal government to the States
and from the States to Local WDBs, as
appropriate. In accordance with the
State allotment provisions required by
WIOA sec. 127, the interstate funding
formula methodology is not
significantly different than that utilized
for the distribution of funds under
WIA.4 Final program year grant
allocations will reflect WIOA
requirements and are under
development.
One example of where impacts are
discussed qualitatively, rather than
quantified, concerns the expectation
and the Virgin Islands. Twenty-four States have two
designated State agencies for the VR program;
therefore, there are a total of 80 VR agencies. The
Departments note particularly that we have sought
to avoid duplication of costs, given the fact that
some States have two VR agencies.
4 States may elect to change the distribution of
funds at the local level and appropriately document
such changes in the State plans. However, as small
entities are fully funded by the States, which are
not small entities, the Departments do not
anticipate any significant impact on small entities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
1 57
2 56
3 56
40
20
15
580
that available U.S. workers trained and
hired who were previously unemployed
will no longer need to seek new or
continued unemployment insurance
benefits. Assuming other factors remain
constant, the Departments expect State
unemployment insurance expenditures
to decline because of the hiring of U.S.
workers following WIOA
implementation. The Departments,
however, cannot quantify these transfer
payments due to a lack of adequate data.
In the subject-by-subject analysis, the
Departments present the additional
labor and other costs associated with the
implementation of each of the proposed
provisions in this NPRM. Exhibit 2
presents the compensation rates for the
occupational categories expected to
experience an increase in level of effort
(workload) due to the proposed rule.
The Departments used wage rates from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Mean
Hourly Wage Rate for private and State
and local employees.5 The Departments
also used wage rates from the Office of
Personnel Management’s Salary Table
for the 2013 General Schedule for
Federal employees.6 The Departments
adjusted the wage rates using a loaded
wage factor to reflect total
compensation, which includes health
and retirement benefits. For the State
and local sectors, the Departments used
a loaded wage factor of 1.55, which
represents the ratio of total
compensation 7 to wages.8 For Federal
employees, we used a loaded wage
factor of 1.69 based on internal data
from DOL. The Departments then
multiplied the loaded wage factor by
each occupational category’s wage rate
to calculate an hourly compensation
rate.
The Departments invite comments
regarding the assumptions used to
estimate the level of additional effort
required for the various proposed new
activities, as well as data sources for the
wages and the loaded wage factors that
reflect employee benefits used in the
analysis.
The Departments use the hourly
compensation rates presented in Exhibit
2 throughout this analysis to estimate
additional labor costs for each proposed
provision.
5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2013, National
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates,
retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_
nat.htm.
6 The wage rate for Federal employees is based on
Step 5 of the General Schedule (source: OPM, 2013,
Salary Table for the 2013 General Schedule,
retrieved from: https://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2013/generalschedule/gs_h.pdf).
7 BLS Employment Cost Index, 2013 Average
Series ID CMU3010000000000D,
CMU3010000000000P (source: Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2013 Employer Costs for Employee
Compensation, retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/
schedule/archives/ecec_nr.htm).
8 The State and local loaded wage factor was
applied to all non-Federal employees. Discerning
the number of State and local-sector employees and
private-sector employees at the local level is
difficult; therefore, the Departments used the State
and local-sector loaded wage factor (1.55) instead of
the private-sector wage factor (1.42) for all nonFederal employees to avoid underestimating the
costs.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20613
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
EXHIBIT 2—CALCULATION OF HOURLY COMPENSATION RATES
Average
hourly wage
Loaded wage
factor
Hourly
compensation
rate
a
Grade
level
Position
B
c=a×b
State and Local Employees
staff 9
Administrative
................................................................................................
Board staff 10 ............................................................................................................
Legal counsel/staff 11 ...............................................................................................
Local stakeholders 12 ...............................................................................................
Managers 11 .............................................................................................................
Technical staff 13 ......................................................................................................
N/A
................
................
................
................
................
$17.96
45.32
40.68
44.52
45.32
43.38
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.55
$27.84
70.25
63.05
69.01
70.25
67.24
GS–13
38.92
1.69
65.77
Federal Employees
Federal positions .....................................................................................................
entities that are not yet in compliance
with the proposed rule. The equation
below shows the method by which the
Departments calculated the incremental
total cost for each provision over the 10year analysis period.
number of affected entities that will
incur labor costs, Al. The labor cost for
each labor type i is calculated by
multiplying the number of staff required
to perform the proposed activity, Ni; the
hours required per staff member to
perform the proposed activity, Hi; the
mean hourly wage of staff of labor type
i, Wi; and the loaded wage factor of staff
of labor type i, Li. The total non-labor
cost is the sum of the non-labor costs for
each non-labor cost type j (e.g.,
consulting costs) multiplied by the
number of affected entities that will
incur non-labor costs, Aj.
The total cost of each provision is
calculated as the sum of the total labor
cost and total non-labor cost incurred
each year over the 10-year period (see
Exhibit 3 for a summary of the 10-year
cost of the proposed joint rule by
provision). The total labor cost is the
sum of the labor costs for each labor
type i (e.g., administrative staff, counsel
staff, and managers) multiplied by the
4. Subject-by-Subject Benefit-Cost
Analysis
The Departments’ analysis below
covers the expected impacts of the
following proposed provisions of the
WIOA joint NPRM against the baseline
of the current practice under WIA: (a)
Time to Review the New Rule; (b) New
Elements to State and Local Plans; (c)
Development and Updating of State
Performance Accountability Measures;
(d) Identification and Dissemination of
Best Practices; (e) Development of
Strategies for Aligning Technology and
Data Systems across One-stop Partner
Programs to Enhance Service Delivery
and Improve Efficiencies; (f) Unified or
Combined State Plan; (g) Local Plan
Revisions; (h) State Performance
Accountability Measures; (i)
Performance Reports; and (j) Evaluation
of State Programs.
The Departments emphasize that
many of the proposed provisions in this
WIOA-required joint NPRM are also
existing requirements under WIA. For
example, the requirement that States
‘‘prepare performance reports’’ is a
current requirement under WIA that
States routinely undertake. Accordingly,
our regulatory analysis focuses on
‘‘new’’ benefits and costs that can be
attributed exclusively to new
requirements under WIOA, as addressed
in this joint NPRM. Much of WIA’s
infrastructure and operations are carried
11 BLS OES, May 2013, 23–10111 Lawyers
(https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/999201.htm#230000).
12 BLS OES, May 2013, 11–0000 Management
Occupations (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
999201.htm#11-0000).
13 BLS OES, May 2013, average for the following
occupational categories weighted by the number of
employees in State government: 15–1131 Computer
Programmers (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
999201.htm#15-0000); 15–1132 Software
Developers, Applications (https://www.bls.gov/oes/
current/999201.htm#15-0000); 15–1133 Software
Developers, Systems Software (https://www.bls.gov/
oes/current/999201.htm#15-0000); and 15–1134
Web Developers (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
999201.htm#15-0000).
9 BLS OES, May 2013, 44–0000 Office and
Administrative Support Occupations (https://www.
bls.gov/oes/current/999201.htm#43-0000).
10 BLS OES, May 2013, 11–1021 General and
Operations Managers (https://www.bls.gov/oes/
current/999201.htm#11-0000).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
EP16AP15.001</GPH>
the 2000 WIA Final Rule (65 FR 49294,
Aug. 11, 2000); however, some affected
entities may already be in compliance
with aspects of the proposed joint rule.
This analysis estimates the incremental
cost that would be incurred by affected
Where,
Al = Number of affected entities that would
incur labor costs,
Ni = Number of staff of labor type i,
Hi = Hours required per staff of labor type i,
Wi = Mean hourly wage of staff of labor type
i,
Li = Loaded wage factor of staff of labor type
i,
Aj = Number of affected entities incurring
non-labor costs of type j,
Cj = Non-labor cost of type j,
i = Staff type,
n = Number of staff types,
j = Non-labor cost type,
m = Number of non-labor cost types,
T = Year.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The section-by-section analysis
presents the total incremental cost of the
proposed joint rule relative to the
baseline, i.e., the current practice under
WIA. At a minimum, all affected entities
are currently required to comply with
20614
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
forward under WIOA and, therefore, are
not considered ‘‘new’’ cost burdens
under this NPRM.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
a. Time To Review the New Rule
Upon publication of this joint NPRM,
the regulated community would need to
learn about the new WIOA
requirements, including the proposed
regulations, and plan for compliance.
Costs
At the State level for DOL programs,
the Departments estimated this labor
cost by multiplying the estimated
average number of managers per State
(2) by the time required to read and
review the new rule (20 hours), and
then by the applicable hourly
compensation rate. We multiplied this
product ($8,189) by the number of
States (56) to estimate this one-time cost
of $458,582.14
At the State level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated this
labor cost by multiplying the estimated
average number of managers per State
(5) by the time required to read and
review the new rule (40 hours) and then
by the applicable hourly compensation
rate. We performed the same calculation
for the following occupational
categories: counsel staff (1 legal counsel
for 40 hours), technical staff (2 staff for
40 hours), and administrative staff (5
staff for 40 hours). We summed the
labor cost for all four categories
($27,518) and multiplied the result by
the number of States (57) to estimate
this one-time cost of $1,568,531.
At the local level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments multiplied
the estimated average number of
managers for all local entities within a
State (40) by the time required to read
and review the new rule (40 hours) and
then by the hourly compensation rate.
We repeated the calculation for the
technical (40 staff for 40 hours) and
administrative staff (40 staff for 40
hours). We did not estimate legal
counsel hours for local level AEFLA
programs as our experience indicates
that this labor category is typically
engaged only at the State level. We
summed the labor cost for all three
categories of personnel ($264,517) and
multiplied the result by the number of
States (57). This calculation yields a
total of $15,077,458 in labor costs in the
first year of the rule.
For State VR agencies, the
Departments multiplied the estimated
number of managers per VR agency (3)
by the time required to read and review
the new rule (20 hours) and then by the
14 The cost estimates in this analysis could be a
little bit off due to rounding.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
hourly compensation rate. We
performed the same calculation for the
counsel (1 staff for 40 hours) and
technical staff (1 staff for 20 hours). We
summed the labor cost for all three
categories ($6,821) and multiplied the
result by the number of VR agencies
(80). The one-time cost is estimated to
be $545,650.
The sum of these costs yields a total
one-time cost of $17,650,220 for
individuals from State-level DOL
programs, State and local level AEFLA
programs, and State VR agencies to read
and review the proposed new rule. Over
the 10-year period of analysis these onetime costs result in an average annual
cost of $1,765,022.
b. New Elements to State and Local
Plans
WIOA sec. 102(b) establishes new
major content areas of the Unified or
Combined State Plan, which include
strategic and operational planning
elements. Strategic planning elements
include State analyses of economic and
workforce factors, an assessment of
workforce development activities, and
formulation of the State’s vision and
goals for preparing an educated and
skilled workforce that meets the needs
of employers and a strategy to achieve
the vision and goals. Operational
planning elements include State strategy
implementation, State operating systems
and policies, program-specific
requirements, assurances, and
additional requirements imposed by the
Secretaries of Labor or Education, or
other Secretaries, as appropriate. WIOA
sec. 108(b) establishes strategic planning
and operational elements for local
plans. These requirements set the
foundation for WIOA principles by
fostering strategic alignment, improving
service integration, and ensuring that
the workforce system is industryrelevant, responding to the economic
needs of the local workforce
development area, and matching
employers with skilled workers.
Costs
At the State level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated this
labor cost by multiplying the estimated
average number of managers per State
(5) by the time required to develop,
review, and revise the State Plan (40
hours) and the hourly compensation
rate. We performed the same calculation
for the following occupational
categories: counsel staff (1 staff for 20
hours), technical staff (2 staff for 40
hours), and administrative staff (5 staff
for 20 hours). We summed the labor cost
for all four categories ($23,473) and
multiplied the result by the number of
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
States (57) to estimate this biennial cost
of $1,337,972. Over the 10-year period,
this calculation yields an average
annual cost of $668,986.
The Departments estimated the
consultant costs for the State-level
AEFLA program by multiplying the
consultant costs per State ($25,000) by
the number of States (57). This
calculation yields a biennial cost of
$1,425,000. Over the 10-year period,
this results in an average annual cost of
$712,500.
At the local level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated this
cost by multiplying the estimated
average number of managers for all local
entities within a State (40) by the time
required to develop, review, and revise
the local plan (40 hours) and the hourly
compensation rate. We repeated the
calculation for the administrative staff
(40 staff for 20 hours). We did not
estimate any legal counsel or technical
staff hours for local level AEFLA
programs as our experience indicates
that these labor categories are typically
engaged only at the State level. We
summed the labor cost for the two
occupational categories ($134,664) and
multiplied the result by the number of
States (57). The biennial cost at the local
level for the AEFLA program is
estimated to be $7,675,848, which
would result in an average annual cost
of $3,837,924 over the 10-year period.
For State VR agencies, the
Departments estimated this cost by first
multiplying the estimated number of
managers per VR agency (1) by the time
required to review and revise the State
Plan (5 hours) and the hourly
compensation rate. We performed the
same calculation for the technical staff
(1 staff for 5 hours). Summing the labor
cost for both categories ($687) and
multiplying the result by the number of
VR agencies (80) results in a biennial
cost of $54,994 for State VR agencies.
Over the 10-year period, this calculation
yields an average annual cost of
$27,497.
For State Boards, DOL estimates that
there will be costs associated with State
planning attributed to the extra effort to
coordinate and develop a plan between
the six core programs administered by
the Departments of Education and
Labor, respectively, which is a new
requirement under WIOA. The
Departments estimate the costs for this
new requirement to coordinate among
the six core programs in the State plan
under (f) Unified or Combined State
Plan and (g) Local Plan Revisions.
WIOA requires more substantial labor
market information (LMI) data be
included in the State Plan than was
required under WIA. This is a cost that
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
DOL estimates will impact the State
level DOL core programs because the
State typically provides the LMI data to
local areas for the formulation of the
local plan. Furthermore, WIOA will
allow States to use existing data for their
initial State Plan, so the additional cost
will be offset substantially for the first
State Plan required. For the required
modification of State Plans and any
subsequent State Plan under WIOA, the
State will incur this cost to include
substantial LMI data.
For State-level DOL programs, the
Departments estimated this cost by first
multiplying the estimated number of
technical staff per State (2) by the time
required to review and revise the State
Plan (16 hours) and the hourly
compensation rate. We performed the
same calculation for administrative staff
(1 staff for 16 hours). Summing the labor
cost for both categories ($2,597) and
multiplying the result by the number of
States (56) results in an annual cost of
$145,435.
The sum of these costs yields a total
10-year cost of $53,923,423, or an
average annual cost of $5,392,342, for
individuals from the State and local
level for all core programs to review and
revise State and local plans to ensure
they include the new elements.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
c. Development and Updating of State
Performance Accountability Measures
WIOA sec. 116 establishes
performance accountability indicators
and performance reporting requirements
to assess the effectiveness of States and
local areas in achieving positive
outcomes for individuals served by the
core programs. The core programs are
defined in WIOA sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(ii) to
include the adult, dislocated worker,
and youth programs under title I of
WIOA, the AEFLA program under
WIOA title II, the Wagner-Peyser
program under the Wagner-Peyser Act
as amended by WIOA title III, and the
VR program under the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 as amended by WIOA title
IV. With a few exceptions, including the
local accountability system under WIOA
sec. 116(c), the performance
accountability requirements apply
across all the core programs.
Costs
At the State level for DOL programs,
the Departments estimated this labor
cost by first multiplying the estimated
average number of managers per State
(1) by the time required to develop and
update metrics and other accountability
measures (32 hours) and the hourly
compensation rate. We performed the
same calculation for the technical (3
staff for 80 hours) and administrative
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
staff (1 staff for 32 hours). We summed
the labor cost for all three categories
($19,276) and multiplied the result by
the number of States to estimate this
annual cost of $1,079,459, or a total cost
of $10,794,587 over the 10-year period.
The Departments estimated the
software and IT system cost for Statelevel DOL programs by multiplying the
software and IT system cost ($100,000)
by the number of States. This
calculation yields an annual cost of
$5,600,000 or a total cost of $56,000,000
over the 10-year period.
The Departments estimated the
licensing fee costs for State-level DOL
programs by multiplying the licensing
fee costs ($50,000) by the number of
States. This calculation yields an annual
cost of $2,800,000 or a total cost of
$28,000,000 over the 10-year period.
The Departments estimated the
consultant cost for State-level DOL
programs by multiplying the consultant
cost ($75,000) by the number of States.
This calculation yields a one-time cost
of $4,200,000, representing an average
annual cost of $420,000 over the 10-year
period.
At the State level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated this
labor cost by first multiplying the
estimated average number of managers
per State (5) by the time required to
develop and update metrics and other
accountability measures (80 hours) and
the hourly compensation rate. We
repeated the calculation for the
technical staff (2 staff for 80 hours) and
administrative staff (5 staff for 80
hours). We summed the labor cost for all
three categories ($49,992) and
multiplied the result by the number of
States to estimate this one-time cost of
$2,849,535. Over the 10-year period,
this calculation yields an average
annual cost of $284,954.
The Departments estimated the
consultant cost for the State-level
AEFLA program by multiplying the
consulting costs per State ($25,000) by
the number of States. This calculation
yields a one-time cost of $1,425,000.
Over the 10-year period, this calculation
yields an average annual cost of
$142,500.
At the local level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated this
cost by first multiplying the estimated
average number of managers for all local
entities within a State (40) by the time
required to participate in statewide
stakeholder meetings and other
activities to provide input for the
development and updating of metrics
and other accountability measures (80
hours) and the hourly compensation
rate. We performed the same calculation
for the technical staff (40 staff for 80
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20615
hours). We summed the labor cost for
the two occupational categories
($439,952) and multiplied the result by
the number of States to estimate this
one-time cost of $25,077,264. Over the
10-year period, this calculation yields
an average annual cost of $2,507,726.
For State VR agencies, the
Departments estimated this cost by first
multiplying the estimated number of
managers per VR agency (6) by the time
required to develop and update metrics
and other accountability measures (10
hours) and the hourly compensation
rate. We repeated the calculation for the
technical staff (4 staff for 10 hours). We
summed the labor cost for both
categories ($6,904) and multiplied the
result by the number of VR agencies to
estimate this one-time cost as $552,346.
The sum of these calculations yields
a total first year costs of $43,583,603
and a subsequent annual cost of
$9,479,459 for individuals from the
State and local level for all core
programs to develop and update metrics
and other accountability measures to
assess the effectiveness of the core
programs in the State. The estimated
total 10-year cost of developing and
updating State performance
accountability measures is
$128,898,731, resulting in average
annual cost of $12,889,873.
d. Identification and Dissemination of
Best Practices
Under WIOA sec. 101(d)(5), State
Boards must assist Governors in the
identification and dissemination of best
practices, including practices for the
effective operation of one-stop centers;
the development of effective Local
Boards; and the development of
effective training programs that respond
to real-time labor market analysis and
support efficient placement of
individuals into employment or career
pathways.
Costs
The Departments estimated the labor
cost for State WDB staff by multiplying
the estimated average number of
managers per State (1) by the time
required to identify and disseminate
information (20 hours) and the hourly
compensation rate. We performed the
same calculation for the technical staff
(2 staff for 40 hours) and administrative
staff (1 staff for 20 hours). We summed
the labor cost for all three categories
($7,341) and multiplied the result by the
number of States that need to develop
and disseminate best practices (40) to
estimate an average annual cost of
$293,632.
This cost is likely a lower bound
estimate because we did not include the
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20616
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
effort required for the entities that
receive the best practices to implement
them. The Departments did not have
adequate data to estimate this
implementation cost and invites the
public to submit data sources or
estimates for consideration during the
final rule stage.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
e. Development of Strategies for
Aligning Technology and Data Systems
Across One-Stop Partner Programs To
Enhance Service Delivery and Improve
Efficiencies
Under WIOA sec. 101(d)(8), State
Boards must assist Governors in the
development of strategies for aligning
technology and data systems across onestop partner programs to enhance
service delivery and improve
efficiencies in reporting on performance
accountability measures, including
design implementation of common
intake, data collection, case
management information, and
performance accountability
measurement and reporting processes
and the incorporation of local input into
such design and implementation to
improve coordination of services across
one-stop partner programs.
Costs
At the State level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated this
labor cost by first multiplying the
estimated average number of managers
per State (5) by the time required to
develop strategies (40 hours) and the
hourly compensation rate. We
performed the same calculation for the
technical staff (2 staff for 120 hours) and
administrative staff (5 staff for 40
hours). We summed the labor cost for all
three categories ($35,754) and
multiplied the result by the number of
States to estimate a recurring annual
cost of $2,037,987.
The Departments estimated the
software and IT systems cost for the
State-level AEFLA program by
multiplying the software and IT systems
costs per State ($150,000) by the number
of States. This calculation yields an
estimated recurring annual cost of
$8,550,000.15
At the local level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated this
cost by first multiplying the estimated
average number of managers for all local
entities within a State (40) by the time
required to develop strategies (40 hours)
and the hourly compensation rate. We
15 The Departments estimated the annual software
and IT systems cost of this provision at the State
level for the AEFLA program by multiplying the
software and IT systems cost per State by the
number of States ($150,000 × 57). This yields an
average annual cost of $8,550,000.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
performed the same calculation for the
technical staff (40 staff for 120 hours).
We summed the labor cost for the two
occupational categories ($435,141) and
multiplied the result by the number of
States to estimate a recurring annual
cost of $24,803,026.
For State VR agencies, the
Departments estimated this cost by first
multiplying the estimated number of
managers per VR agency (1) by the time
required to develop strategies (8 hours)
and the hourly compensation rate. We
repeated the calculation for the legal
staff (1 staff for 4 hours) and technical
staff (1 staff for 16 hours). We summed
the labor cost for the two categories
($1,890) and multiplied the result by the
number of VR agencies to estimate a
recurring annual cost of $151,201.
The Departments estimated the labor
cost that State WDBs would incur by
multiplying the estimated average
number of WDB staff per State (1) by the
time required to develop strategies (80
hours) and the hourly compensation
rate. We repeated the calculation for the
technical staff (2 staff for 120 hours). We
summed the labor cost for both
categories ($21,757) and multiplied the
result by the number of States to
estimate this one-time cost of
$1,218,394.
The sum of these calculations yields
a first year cost of $36,760,608 with
subsequent annual costs of $35,542,213
for individuals from the State and local
level for all core programs to develop
strategies for aligning technology and
data systems across one-stop partner
programs. The estimated total 10-year
cost of developing and updating State
performance accountability measures is
$356,640,528, resulting in average
annual cost of $35,664,053.
f. Unified or Combined State Plan
WIOA sec. 102 requires the Governor
of each State to submit a Unified or
Combined State Plan to the Secretary of
the Department of Labor that outlines a
4-year strategy for the State’s workforce
development system. States must have
approved State Plans in place to receive
funding for the six core programs under
WIOA—the adult, dislocated worker,
and youth programs (title I of WIOA);
the AEFLA program (title II of WIOA);
the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service
(Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by title
III of WIOA); and the VR program under
title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
(as amended by title IV of WIOA). At a
minimum, States must submit a Unified
State Plan, which encompasses these six
core programs. Although each of the
core programs was required to submit
State Plans under WIA and, thus, the
submission of the plans does not
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
represent an added cost under WIOA,
some programs may experience
additional costs related to the planning
requirements unique to becoming part
of a Unified or Combined State Plan
under WIOA.
As stated above, WIOA sec. 102
requires, at a minimum, States to submit
a Unified State Plan, which
encompasses the six core programs
under WIOA. Under WIOA sec. 103,
States may submit, in the alternative, a
Combined State Plan, which includes
the six core programs of the Unified
State Plan, plus one or more of the
optional Combined State Plan programs
described in WIOA sec. 103(a)(2).
Costs
At the State level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated this
labor cost by first multiplying the
estimated average number of managers
per State (5) by the time required to
participate in statewide stakeholder
meetings and other activities to develop,
review, and revise the State Plan (24
hours) and the hourly compensation
rate. We repeated the calculation for the
following occupational categories:
counsel staff (1 staff for 8 hours),
technical staff (2 staff for 24 hours), and
administrative staff (5 staff for 16
hours). We summed the labor cost for all
four categories ($14,388) and multiplied
the result by the number of States to
estimate this one-time cost of $820,142.
The Departments estimated the
consultant costs for the State-level
AEFLA program by multiplying the
consultant costs per State ($25,000) by
the number of States. This calculation
yields a one-time cost of $1,425,000.
At the local level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated this
cost by first multiplying the estimated
average number of managers for all local
entities within a State (40) by the time
required to participate in statewide
stakeholder meetings and other
activities to develop, review, and revise
a Unified or Combined State plan (24
hours) and the hourly compensation
rate. We repeated the calculation for the
following occupational categories:
counsel staff (3 staff for 8 hours),
technical staff (40 staff for 24 hours),
administrative staff (40 staff for 16
hours), and local stakeholders (100
stakeholders for 8 hours). We summed
the labor cost for the five occupational
categories ($217,221) and multiplied the
result by the number of States to
estimate this one-time cost of
$12,381,609.
For DOL’s State-level program costs
associated with State WDBs, the
Departments estimated this labor cost by
first multiplying the estimated average
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
number of managers per State (2) by the
time required to submit a Unified and
Combined State Plan (20 hours) and the
hourly compensation rate. We
performed the same calculation for the
following occupational categories:
counsel staff (1 staff for 8 hours),
technical staff (4 staff for 20 hours), and
administrative staff (1 staff for 8 hours).
We summed the labor cost for all four
categories ($8,916) and multiplied the
result by the number of States to
estimate this cost of $499,301 that
occurs in 2016 and 2020.
For State VR agencies, the
Departments estimated this cost by
multiplying the estimated number of
managers per VR agency (2) by the time
required to engage in the planning
process for Unified or Combined State
Plans (7 hours) and the hourly
compensation rate. We performed the
same calculation for the technical staff
(2 staff for 7 hours). We summed the
labor cost for the two categories ($1,925)
and multiplied the result by the number
of VR agencies to estimate a recurring
annual cost of $153,983.
There is no additional cost to DOL
State or local programs associated with
this provision because these programs
currently submit Unified or Combined
State Plans under WIA.
The sum of these calculations yields
first year costs of $14,780,735 for
individuals from the State and local
level for all core programs to comply
with this provision, subsequent annual
costs of $153,983 for VR State agencies,
and a total cost of $998,603 associated
with State WDBs for years 2016 and
2020. The estimated total 10-year cost of
activities related to the submission of
the States Unified or Combined State
Plan is $17,165,187, resulting in average
annual cost of $1,716,519.
g. Local Plan Revisions
WIOA sec. 108(b) establishes strategic
planning and operational elements for
local plans. These requirements set the
foundation for WIOA principles, by
fostering strategic alignment, improving
service integration, and ensuring that
the workforce system is industryrelevant, responding to the economic
needs of the local workforce
development area, and matching
employers with skilled workers. The
previously developed local plans under
WIA will have to be revised to address
new issues and submitted every 4 years.
Costs
For DOL’s local-level program costs
associated with local WDBs, the
Departments estimated this cost by first
multiplying the estimated average
number of managers per local WDB (2)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
by the time required to revise and
submit an updated local plan (20) and
the hourly compensation rate. We
performed the same calculation for the
following occupational categories:
counsel staff (1 staff for 8 hours),
technical staff (4 staff for 20 hours), and
administrative staff (1 staff for 8 hours).
We summed the labor cost for all four
categories ($8,916) and multiplied the
result by the number of local WDBs
(580) to estimate this cost of $5,171,336,
which occurs twice during the analysis
period (2016 and 2020).
At the local level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated this
cost by first multiplying the estimated
average number of managers for all local
entities within a State (40) by the time
required to develop, review, revise, and
submit an updated local plan (24 hours)
and the hourly compensation rate. We
performed the same calculation for the
following occupational categories:
technical staff (40 staff for 24 hours),
administrative staff (40 staff for 16
hours), and local stakeholders (100
stakeholders for 8 hours). We summed
the labor cost for all four categories
($215,708) and multiplied the result by
the number of States to estimate this
one-time cost as $12,295,351.
These particular projected costs
pertain solely to locally-administered
programs and do not impact the core
programs at the State level.
The sum of these calculations yields
a total 10-year cost of $22,638,023,
which results in an average annual cost
of $2,263,802 for individuals from the
local WDBs and the local AEFLA
programs to revise and submit updated
local plans.
h. State Performance Accountability
Measures
WIOA sec. 116(b) establishes
performance accountability indicators
and performance reporting requirements
to assess the effectiveness of States and
local areas in achieving positive
outcomes for individuals served by the
core programs. Under that provision,
States must include primary indicators
of performance in their Unified or
Combined State Plans, and may identify
additional indicators of performance for
the six core programs. These indicators
must be included in the Unified or
Combined State Plan.
Costs
At the State level for DOL programs,
the Departments estimated this labor
cost by first multiplying the estimated
average number of managers per State
(1) by the time required to comply with
increased data collection and processing
requirements (32 hours) and the hourly
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20617
compensation rate. We performed the
same calculation for the technical staff
(3 staff for 80 hours) and administrative
staff (1 staff for 32 hours). We summed
the labor cost for all three categories
($19,276) and multiplied the result by
the number of States to estimate this
annual cost of $96,380.
The Departments estimated the
software and IT system cost for Statelevel DOL programs by multiplying the
software and IT system cost ($100,000)
by the number of States expected to
submit data (5). This calculation yields
an annual cost of $500,000.
The Departments estimated the
licensing fee costs for State-level DOL
programs by multiplying the licensing
fee costs ($50,000) by the number of
States expected to submit data (5). This
calculation yields an annual cost of
$250,000.
The Departments estimated the
consultant cost for State-level DOL
programs by multiplying the consultant
cost ($75,000) by the number of States
expected to submit data. This
calculation yields a one-time cost of
$375,000.
At the State level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated this
labor cost by first multiplying the
estimated average number of managers
per State (5) by the time required to
obtain these data (7 hours) and the
hourly compensation rate. We
performed the same calculation for
technical staff (2 staff for 7 hours) and
administrative staff (5 staff for 7 hours).
We summed the labor cost for all three
categories ($4,374) and multiplied the
result by the number of States expected
to submit additional data to estimate
this one-time cost as $21,871.
For State VR agencies, the
Departments estimated the cost to
obtain quarterly State unemployment
insurance wage data by first multiplying
the estimated number of managers per
VR agency (2) by the time required to
obtain these data (20 hours) and the
hourly compensation rate. We
performed the same calculation for the
counsel staff (1 staff for 20 hours) and
technical staff (2 staff for 20 hours). We
summed the labor cost for all three
categories ($6,760) and multiplied the
result by the number of VR agencies
expected to provide additional
information (7) to estimate this one-time
cost as $47,323.
For State VR agencies, the
Departments estimated the cost to
obtain additional information for new
data fields by multiplying the estimated
number of technical staff per VR agency
(60) by the time required to obtain these
data (9 hours) and the hourly
compensation rate. We multiplied the
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20618
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
result ($36,309) by the number of VR
agencies expected to provide additional
information to estimate this annual cost
as $254,163.
The Departments estimated the
software and IT costs for State VR
agencies to obtain additional
information for new data fields by
multiplying the software and IT costs
($5,000) by the number of VR agencies
expected to provide additional
information. This calculation yields a
one-time cost of $35,000.
At the local level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated this
labor cost by multiplying the estimated
average number of managers for all local
entities within a State (40) by the time
required to obtain additional
information (7 hours) and the hourly
compensation rate. We performed the
same calculation for technical staff (40
staff for 7 hours). We summed the labor
cost for these categories ($38,496) and
multiplied the number of States
expected to provide additional
information (5) to estimate this one-time
cost of $192,479.
The sum of these calculations yields
a total 10-year cost of $11,677,110,
which results in an average annual cost
of $1,167,711 for individuals from the
State and local levels for core programs
to comply with increased data
collection and processing requirements.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
i. Performance Reports
Under WIOA sec. 116(d), States must
make available performance reports for
local areas and for ETPs under title I of
the WIOA. WIOA also requires that
States cooperate in evaluations of State
programs overseen by the Departments
of Labor and Education. Section
116(d)(1) of WIOA requires the
Departments to provide a performance
reporting template for the performance
reports required in WIOA secs.
116(d)(2)–(4).
Costs
At the Federal level, the Departments
estimated this labor cost by first
multiplying the estimated average
number of GS–13 Step 5 managers (1) by
the time required to develop the
reporting template (60 hours) and the
hourly compensation rate. We
performed the same calculation for the
Federal staff labor category (10 staff for
120 hours). We summed the labor cost
of these two categories to estimate this
one-time cost of $82,870.
At the State level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated this
labor cost by first multiplying the
estimated average number of managers
per State (5) by the time required to
develop the reporting template (40
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
hours) and the hourly compensation
rate. We performed the same calculation
for the technical staff (2 staff for 40
hours) and administrative staff (5 staff
for 40 hours). We summed the labor cost
for all three categories ($24,996) and
multiplied the result by the number of
States to estimate this one-time cost of
$1,399,772.
The Departments estimated the
software and IT system cost for the
State-level AEFLA programs by
multiplying the software and IT system
cost ($1,750,000) by the number of
States. This calculation yields a onetime cost of $99,750,000, resulting in an
average annual cost of $9,975,000 over
a 10-year period.
The Departments estimated the
licensing fees for the State-level AEFLA
programs by multiplying the per-State
licensing fees ($25,000) by the number
of States. This calculation yields a
recurring annual cost of $1,425,000.
At the local level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated this
labor cost by multiplying the estimated
average number of managers for all local
entities within a State (40) by the time
required to participate in statewide
stakeholder meetings and other
activities to develop, review, and revise
the reporting template (40 hours) and
the hourly compensation rate. We
multiplied the product by the number of
States to estimate this one-time cost of
$6,406,435.
The sum of these calculations yields
a total one-time cost of $107,639,077 for
individuals from the Federal, State, and
local levels to develop the reporting
templates and an annual cost of
$1,425,000 for licensing fees. The 10year total costs result in an average
annualized cost of $12,188,908.
j. Evaluation of State Programs
WIOA sec. 116(e)(1) requires States to
conduct ongoing evaluations of
activities carried out in the State under
the core programs. To comply with
WIOA sec. 116(e)(4), States must, to the
extent practicable, cooperate in the
conduct of evaluations (including
related research projects) provided for
by the Secretary of Labor or the
Secretary of Education under the
provisions of Federal law identified in
WIOA sec. 116(e)(1); WIOA secs. 169
and 242(c)(2)(D); secs. 12(a)(5), 14, and
sec. 107 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (29 U.S.C. 709(a)(5), 711, 727)
(applied with respect to programs
carried out under title I of that Act (29
U.S.C. 720 et seq.)); and the
investigations provided for by the
Secretary of Labor under sec. 10(b) of
the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C.
49i(b)).
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Costs
At the State level for DOL programs,
the Departments estimated this labor
cost by first multiplying the estimated
average number of managers per State
(1) by the time required to evaluate
ongoing program activities (20 hours)
and the hourly compensation rate. We
performed the same calculation for the
technical staff (2 staff for 20 hours) and
administrative staff (1 staff for 10
hours). We summed the labor cost for all
three categories ($4,373) and multiplied
the result by the number of States to
estimate this annual cost of $244,880.
At the State level for DOL programs,
the Departments estimated the software,
IT system, and consultant costs for both
‘‘low-effort’’ States, those with either
smaller populations or more robust
existing IT system infrastructure, and
for ‘‘high-effort’’ States with larger
populations or limited IT system
infrastructure. We first multiplied the
software, IT system, and consultant
costs for low-effort States ($200,000) by
the number of low-effort States (20). We
performed the same calculation for
high-effort States (15 States at
$1,000,000 each). We summed these
costs for both State categories to
estimate an annual cost of
$19,000,000.16 This estimate represents
the cost associated with the proposed
joint rule beyond the IT expenditures
currently incurred by State workforce
agencies.
At the State level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated the
labor cost by first multiplying the
estimated average number of managers
per State (5) by the time required to
evaluate ongoing program activities (120
hours) and the hourly compensation
rate. We performed the same calculation
for the technical staff (2 staff for 80
hours) and administrative staff (5 staff
for 80 hours). We summed the labor cost
for all three categories ($64,041) and
multiplied the result by the number of
States to estimate an annual cost of
$3,650,339.
At the State level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated the
software and IT system costs by
16 To estimate the software, IT, and consultant
cost of this provision at the State-level for DOL
programs, the Departments first estimated the
software, IT, and consultant cost for low-effort
States by multiplying the non-labor cost per loweffort State by the number of low-effort States
($200,000 × 20 = $4,000,000). We estimated the
software, IT, and consultant program cost for higheffort States by multiplying the non-labor cost per
high-effort State by the number of high-effort States
($1,000,000 × 15 = $15,000,000). We summed these
non-labor costs for low- and high-effort States
($4,000,000 + $15,000,000), yielding an estimated
annual software, IT, and consultant cost of
$19,000,000.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
multiplying the software and IT system
costs ($250,000) by the number of
States. This calculation yields an annual
cost of $14,250,000.17
At the local level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments estimated this
labor cost by first multiplying the
estimated average number of managers
for all local entities within a State (40)
by the time estimated to collect, review,
and revise data provided for the
evaluation of ongoing program activities
(120 hours) and the hourly
compensation rate. We performed the
same calculation for the technical staff
(40 staff for 80 hours) and
administrative staff (40 staff for 80
hours). We summed the labor cost for all
three categories ($641,427) and
multiplied the result by the number of
States to estimate an annual cost of
$36,561,350.
For State VR agencies, the
Departments estimated this labor cost by
first multiplying the estimated average
number of managers per VR agency (1)
by the time estimated to evaluate
ongoing program activities (1 hour) and
the hourly compensation rate. We
performed the same calculation for the
technical staff (1 staff for 13 hours) and
administrative staff (1 staff for 2 hours).
We summed the labor cost for all three
categories ($1,000) and multiplied the
result by the number of VR agencies to
estimate an annual cost of $80,002.
The sum of these calculations yields
a total annual cost of $73,786,572,
resulting in a total cost over the 10-year
period of $737,865,722, for individuals
from the State and local levels for all
core programs to evaluate ongoing
program activities.
5. Summary of Analysis
Exhibit 3 summarizes the annual and
total costs of the proposed joint rule.
The exhibit provides the total 10-year
costs and the average annualized costs
for each provision of the proposed joint
20619
rule. The exhibit also presents a highlevel description of the benefits
resulting from full WIOA
implementation for each rule provision.
These qualitative forecasts are
predicated on program experience and
are outcomes for which data will
become available only after
implementation. The Departments
estimate the average annual cost of the
proposed joint rule over the 10-year
period of analysis at $147.1 million. The
largest contributor to this cost is the
provision related to the evaluation of
State programs, which is estimated at
$73.8 million per year. The next largest
cost results from the development of
strategies for aligning technology and
data systems across one-stop partner
programs at an estimated $35.7 million
per year, followed by the average cost of
developing and updating State
performance accountability measures at
an estimated $12.9 million per year.
EXHIBIT 3—COST OF THE PROPOSED DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION AND LABOR JOINT RULE BY PROVISION
Total 10-year
cost
(undiscounted)
Average annual
cost
(undiscounted)
(a) Time to Review the New Rule ................
(b) New Elements to State and Local Plans
$17,650,220
53,923,423
$1,765,022
5,392,342
1.20
3.67
(c) Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Measures.
128,898,731
12,889,873
8.76
(d) Identification and Dissemination of Best
Practices.
(e) Development of Strategies for Aligning
Technology and Data Systems across
One-stop Partner Programs to Enhance
Service Delivery and Improve Efficiencies.
(f) Unified or Combined State Plan ..............
2,936,320
293,632
0.20
356,640,528
35,664,053
24.24
17,165,187
1,716,519
1.17
(g) Local Plan Revisions ...............................
22,638,023
2,263,802
1.54
(h) State Performance Accountability Measures.
(i) Performance Reports ...............................
11,677,110
1,167,711
0.79
121,889,077
12,188,908
8.28
(j) Evaluation of State Programs ..................
737,865,722
73,786,572
50.15
Total .......................................................
1,471,284,341
147,128,434
100.00
Percent of
total cost
Qualitative benefit highlights
General requirement.
Enhanced data for management decisionmaking and policy integration.
Clear articulation of expectations and outcomes for evaluation and accountability
purposes.
Mission clarification and system building.
More efficient use of public resources; enhanced customer service; improved program management based on actual client
data.
Avoided program service duplication; enhanced internal State planning; avoided
‘‘silos’’ and service duplications; more efficient use of public resources.
Continued accountability and linkage to outcomes and customer service.
Improved policy and management decisionmaking from measure data.
Better management and policy decisions
using outcome data; improved service
and placements; more accountability.
Improved service delivery and customer
service; enhanced policy-making and system building; more accountability.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Note: Totals might not sum due to rounding.
Exhibit 4 summarizes the first-year
cost for each provision of the proposed
joint rule. The Departments estimate the
total first-year cost of the proposed joint
rule at $320.6 million. The largest
contributor to the first-year cost is the
provision related to performance report
development at $109.1 million. The
next largest first-year cost results from
evaluating State programs, amounting to
$73.8 million, followed by the cost of
developing and updating State
performance accountability measures at
$43.6 million.
17 To estimate the software and IT system cost of
this provision at the State-level for the AEFLA
program, the Departments multiplied the software
and IT system cost per State by the number of States
($250,000 × 57). This yields an annual software and
IT system cost of $14,250,000.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20620
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
EXHIBIT 4—FIRST-YEAR COST OF THE PROPOSED JOINT RULE BY PROVISION
Total first-year
cost
Percent of
total first-year
cost
(a) Time to Review the New Rule ...........................................................................................................................
(b) New Elements to State and Local Plans ...........................................................................................................
(c) Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability Measures ....................................................
(d) Identification and Dissemination of Best Practices ............................................................................................
(e) Development of Strategies for Aligning Technology and Data Systems across One-stop Partner Programs
to Enhance Service Delivery and Improve Efficiencies .......................................................................................
(f) Unified or Combined State Plan .........................................................................................................................
(g) Local Plan Revisions ..........................................................................................................................................
(h) State Performance Accountability Measures .....................................................................................................
(i) Performance Reports ..........................................................................................................................................
(j) Evaluation of State Programs .............................................................................................................................
$17,650,220
10,639,250
43,583,603
293,632
5.50
3.32
13.59
0.09
36,760,608
14,780,735
12,295,351
1,772,217
109,064,077
73,786,572
11.47
4.61
3.83
0.55
34.02
23.01
Total ..................................................................................................................................................................
320,626,265
100.00
Note: Totals might not sum due to rounding.
Exhibit 5 summarizes the annual and
total costs of the proposed joint
Departments of Labor and Education
rule. The total (undiscounted) cost of
the rule sums to $1.5 billion over the 10year analysis period, which amounts to
an average annual cost of $147.1 million
per year. In total, the 10-year discounted
costs of the proposed rule range from
$1.2 billion to $1.3 billion (with 7- and
3-percent discounting, respectively).
To contextualize the cost of the
proposed joint rule, the average annual
budget for WIA implementation over the
past three years for the Departments of
Labor and Education combined was $6.4
billion. Thus, the annual additional cost
of implementing this proposed rule is
between 2.6 percent and 2.7 percent of
the current WIA budget (with 3 percent
and 7 percent discounting, respectively).
EXHIBIT 5—MONETIZED COSTS OF DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR AND EDUCATION PROPOSED JOINT RULE
(2013 DOLLARS)
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Year
Total costs
2015 ......................................
2016 ......................................
2017 ......................................
2018 ......................................
2019 ......................................
2020 ......................................
2021 ......................................
2022 ......................................
2023 ......................................
2024 ......................................
Undiscounted 10-year Total
10-year Total with 3% Discounting .............................
10-year Total with 7% Discounting .............................
10-year Average ...................
Annualized with 3% Discounting .............................
Annualized with 7% Discounting .............................
$320,626,265
127,597,475
132,420,653
121,926,838
132,420,653
127,597,475
132,420,653
121,926,838
132,420,653
121,926,838
1,471,284,341
1,316,646,285
1,154,622,032
147,128,434
154,351,111
164,392,201
Note: Totals might not sum due to rounding.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Benefits
The Departments were unable to
quantify the benefits associated with the
proposed joint rule because of data
limitations and a lack of operational
(WIOA) data or evaluation findings on
the provisions of the proposed joint
rule. Thus, the Departments cannot
provide monetary estimates of several
important benefits to society, including
the increased employment opportunities
for unemployed or under-employed U.S.
workers, enhanced ETP process, and
evaluation of State programs. In support
of a State’s strategic plan and goals,
State-conducted evaluation and research
of programs would enable each State to
test various interventions geared toward
State conditions and opportunities.
Results from such evaluation and
research, if used by States, could
improve service quality and
effectiveness and, thus, potentially lead
to higher employment rates and
earnings among participants.
Implementing various innovations that
have been tested and found effective
could also lead to lower unit costs and
increased numbers of individuals served
within a State. Sharing the findings
nationally could lead to new service or
management practices that other States
could adopt and use to improve
participant results, lower unit costs, or
increase the number served.
The Departments invite comments
regarding possible data sources or
methodologies for estimating these
benefits. In addition, the Departments
invite comments regarding other
benefits that might arise from the
proposed joint rule and how these
benefits could be estimated.
The Departments provide a qualitative
description of the anticipated WIOA
benefits below. These qualitative
forecasts are predicated on program
experience and are outcomes for which
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
data will only become available after
implementation. Although these studies
are largely based on programs and their
existing requirements under WIA, they
capture the essence of the societal
benefits that can be expected from this
proposed joint rule.
Training’s impact on placement. A
recent study found that flexible and
innovative training that is closely
related to a real and in-demand
occupation is associated with better
labor market outcomes for training
participants. Youth disconnected from
work and school can benefit from
comprehensive and integrated models of
training that combine education,
occupational skills, and support
services.18 However, the study noted
that evidence for effective employment
and training-related programs for youth
is less extensive than for adults, and
that there are fewer positive findings
from evaluations.19 The WIA youth
program remains largely untested.20
One study found that WIA training
services increase placement rates by 4.4
percent among adults and by 5.9 percent
among dislocated workers,21 while
another study concluded that placement
rates are 3 to 5 percent higher among all
training recipients.22
18 Department of Labor et. al. ‘‘What Works In Job
Training: A Synthesis of the Evidence.’’ July 2014.
19 Ibid.
20 Decker, Paul T. and Jillian A. Berk. 2011. ‘‘Ten
Years of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA):
Interpreting the Research on WIA and Related
Programs.’’ Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management 30 (4): 906–926.
21 Hollenbeck, Kevin, Daniel Schroeder,
Christopher T. King, and Wei-Jang Huang. ‘‘Net
Impact Estimates for Services Provided through the
Workforce Investment Act.’’ Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor, 2005. Available at https://
wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?
fuseaction=dsp_puListingDetails&pub_id=2367&
mp=y&start=81&sort=7.
22 Heinrich, Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser, and
Kenneth R. Troske. ‘‘Workforce Investment Act
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Participants in occupational training
had a ‘‘5 percentage points higher
reemployment rate than those who
received no training, and reemployment
rates were highest among recipients of
on-the-job training, a difference of 10 to
11 percentage points.’’ 23 However, the
study found that training did not
correspond to higher employment
retention or earnings.24 A Youth
Opportunity Grant Initiative study
found that Youth Opportunity was
successful at improving outcomes for
high-poverty youth. Youth Opportunity
also increased the labor-force
participation rate overall and for
subgroups, including 16- to 19-year-old
adolescents, women, African
Americans, and in-school youth.25 DOLsponsored research found that
participants who received core services
(often funded by Employment Services)
and other services in American Job
Centers were more likely to enter and
retain employment.26
Training’s impact on wages. Before
enactment of WIA, Job Training
Partnership Act services had a modest
but statistically significant impact on
the earnings of adult participants.27
WIA training increased participants’
quarterly earnings by $660; these
impacts persisted beyond 2 years and
were largest among women.28 WIA adult
program participants who received core
services (e.g., skill assessment, labor
market information) or intensive
services (e.g., specialized assessments,
counseling) earned up to $200 more per
quarter than non-WIA participants.
Participants who received training
Non-Experimental Net Impact Evaluation.’’
Columbia, MD: IMPAQ International, LLC, 2009.
23 Park, Jooyoun. ‘‘Does Occupational Training by
the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program Really
Help Reemployment? Success Measured as
Matching.’’ Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Labor, Employment and Training Administration,
2011.
24 Ibid.
25 Jackson, Russell H., Jamie Diamandopoulos,
Carol Pistorino, Paul Zador, John Lopdell, Juanita
Lucas-McLean, and Lee Bruno. ‘‘Youth Opportunity
Grant Initiative (YO).’’ Houston, TX: Decision
Information Resources, Inc., 2008. Available at
https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_
Documents/YO%20Impact%20and%20Synthesis
%20Report.pdf.
26 Office of Policy Development and Research,
U.S. Department of Labor. ‘‘Five-Year Research and
Evaluation Strategic Plan Program Years 2012–
2017.’’ May 2013. Available at https://wdr.doleta.
gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_result
Details&pub_id=2516&mp=y.
27 Barnow, Burt, and Daniel Gubits. ‘‘Review of
Recent Pilot, Demonstration, Research, and
Evaluation Initiatives to Assist in the
Implementation of Programs under the Workforce
Investment Act.’’ Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins
University, 2003. Available at https://wdr.doleta.
gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_
puListingDetails&pub_id=2365&mp=y&start=81&
sort=7.
28 Ibid.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
services in addition to core and
intensive services initially earned less
but caught up within 10 quarters with
the earnings of participants who only
received core or intensive services;
marginal benefits of training could
exceed $400 per quarter. Earnings
progressions were similar for WIA adult
program participants and users of the
labor exchange only.29 WIA training
services also improved participants’
long-term wage rates, doubling earnings
after 10 quarters over those not
receiving training services.30 However,
WIA participants who did not receive
training earned $550 to $700 more in
the first quarter after placement. The
study also noted that individuals who
did not receive training received
effective short-term counseling that
enabled them to gain an immediate
advantage in the labor market.31
Another DOL program, the Job Corps
program for disadvantaged youth and
young adults, produced sustained
increases in earnings for participants in
their early twenties. Students who
completed Job Corps vocational training
experienced average earnings increases
by the fourth follow-up year over the
comparison group, whereas those who
did not complete training experienced
no increase.32
Another publication also noted that
on average, adults experienced a $743
quarterly post-exit earnings boost.33
Those who completed training
experienced a 15-percent increase in
employment rates and an increase in
29 Earnings Progression among Workforce
Development Participants: Evidence from
Washington State.’’ Eugene, OR: University of
Oregon, 2011. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/
research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_puListing
Details&pub_id=2468&mp=y&start=1&sort=7.
30 Heinrich, Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser, and
Kenneth R. Troske. ‘‘Workforce Investment Act
Non-Experimental Net Impact Evaluation.’’
Columbia, MD: IMPAQ International, LLC, 2009.
31 Heinrich, Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser, and
Kenneth R. Troske. ‘‘Workforce Investment Act
Non-Experimental Net Impact Evaluation.’’
Columbia, MD: IMPAQ International, LLC, 2009.
Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/
FullText_Documents/Workforce%20Investment%20
Act%20Non-Experimental%20Net%20Impact%20
Evaluation%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf.
32 Gritz, Mark, and Terry Johnson. ‘‘National Job
Corps Study: Assessing Program Effects on Earnings
for Students Achieving Key Program Milestones.’’
Seattle, WA: Battelle Memorial Institute, 2001.
Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/
keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_puListing
Details&pub_id=2257&mp=y&start=141&sort=7.
33 Hollenbeck, Kevin, Daniel Schroeder,
Christopher T. King, and Wei-Jang Huang. ‘‘Net
Impact Estimates for Services Provided through the
Workforce Investment Act.’’ Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor, 2005. Available at https://wdr.
doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/
Net%20Impact%20Estimates
%20for%20Services%20Provided
%20through%20the%20Workforce%20Investment
%20Act-%20Final%20Report.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20621
hourly wages of $1.21 relative to
participants without training.34
Participation in WIA training also had a
distinct positive, but smaller, impact on
employment and earnings, with
employment 4.4 percentage points
higher and quarterly earnings $660
higher than comparison group members.
National and international studies
provided strong evidence for the need
for and economic value of adult basic
skills. One study shows that not only do
individuals who participate in adult
basic skills training programs have
higher future earnings, but income
premiums are higher with more
intensive participation. At 100 hours or
more, the average treatment effect
corresponded to $9,621 in 2013
dollars.35
Vocational and adult literacy’s
education impact. Vocational managers
indicate that closely aligning service
offerings with labor market reports
improves the likelihood that
participants will learn applicable skills.
The lengthy and involved process of
implementing changes to existing
programs and developing new
programs, however, might delay the
benefits derived from improved labor
market data.36
Studies examining the impact of
participation on literacy proficiency
determined that individuals who
participated in adult basic skills
programs tended to have higher levels of
future literacy proficiency.37 Additional
studies examined the impact of
participation in adult basic skills
training on General Education
Development credential attainment and
concluded that rates were elevated by
0.20 and 0.32 by adult basic skills
program participation.38 Another study
found a robust impact of adult basic
skills program participation on
engagement in post-secondary
education. The findings show that the
programs increase adult basic skills
students’ success in the early stages of
post-secondary engagement and serve as
34 Needels, Karen, Jeanne Bellotti, Mina Dadgar,
and Walter Nicholson. ‘‘Evaluation of the Military
Base National Emergency Grants: Final Report.’’
Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, 2006.
35 Reder, Stephen. Portland State University.
2013. Briefs available at https://LINCS.ed.gov.
36 Johnson, Terry, Mark Gritz, Russell Jackson,
John Burghardt, Carol Boussy, Jan Leonard, and
Carlyn Orians. ‘‘National Job Corps Study: Report
on the Process Analysis.’’ Princeton, NJ:
Mathematica Policy Research, 1999. Available at
https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?
fuseaction=dsp_puListingDetails&pub_
id=2213&mp=y&start=201&sort=7.
37 Reder, Stephen. Portland State University.
2013. Briefs available at https://LINCS.ed.gov.
38 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20622
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
effective tools for nontraditional student
populations.39
The following are channels through
which these benefits might be achieved:
Better information for workers. The
accountability measures would provide
workers with higher-quality information
about potential training program
providers and enable them to make
better-informed choices about which
programs to pursue. The information
analyzed and published by the WDBs
about local labor markets also would
help trainees and providers target their
efforts and develop reasonable
expectations about outcomes.
Consumers of educational services,
including disadvantaged and displaced
workers, require reliable information on
the value of different training options to
make informed choices. Displaced
workers tend to be farther removed from
schooling and lack information about
available courses and the fields with the
highest economic return.40 Given these
information gaps and financial
pressures, it is important that displaced
workers learn of the economic returns to
various training plans.41 Still, one study
determined that the cost-effectiveness of
WIA job training for disadvantaged
workers is ‘‘modestly positive’’ due to
the limited sample of States on which
the research was based.42
State performance accountability
measures. This requirement would
include significant data collection for
Local Boards to address performance
measures for the core programs in their
jurisdictions. This data collection would
permit the State WDBs to assess
performance across each State. Training
providers would be required to provide
data to Local Boards, which would
represent a cost in the form of increased
data collection and processing.
Employers and employees also would
have to provide information to the
training providers, which would take
time. This provision, in combination
with the Board membership provision
39 Ibid.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
40 Greenstone,
Michael, and Adam Looney.
‘‘Building America’s Job Skills with Effective
Workforce Programs: A Training Strategy to Raise
Wages and Increase Work Opportunities.’’
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2011.
41 Jacobson, Louis, Robert LaLonde, and Daniel
Sullivan. ‘‘Policies to reduce high-tenured
displaced workers’ earnings losses through
retraining.’’ Discussion Paper 2011–11, The
Hamilton Project, Brookings Institution,
Washington, DC, 2011.
42 Heinrich, Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser, Kenneth
R. Troske, Kyung-Seong Jeon, Daver C. Kahvecioglu.
2009 (November). ‘‘New Estimates of Public
Employment and Training Program Net Impacts: A
Nonexperimental Evaluation of the Workforce
Investment Act Program.’’ Discussion Paper 4569,
Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn,
Germany.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
requiring employer/business
representation, is expected to improve
the quality of local training and,
ultimately, the number and caliber of
job placements.
Implementation of follow-up
measures, rather than termination-based
measures, might improve long-term
labor market outcomes, although some
could divert resources from training
activities.43
Before-after earning metrics capture
the contribution of training to earnings
potential and minimize incentives to
select only training participants with
high initial earnings.44 The study found
that value added net of social cost is one
objective that is too difficult to measure
on a regular basis. With the exception of
programs in a few States, current
incentives do not reward enrollment of
the least advantaged.45 In addition, the
study noted evidence that the
performance-standards can be ‘‘gamed’’
in an attempt to maximize their centers’
measured performance.46
Pressure to meet performance levels
could lead providers to focus on offering
services to participants most likely to
succeed. For example, current
accountability measures might create
incentives for training providers to
screen participants for motivation, delay
participation for those needing
significant improvement, or discourage
participation by those with high existing
wages.47
The following subsections present
additional channels by which economic
benefits may be associated with various
aspects of the proposed joint rule.
Dislocated workers. A study found
that for dislocated workers, receiving
WIA services significantly increased
employment rates by 13.5 percent and
boosted post-exit quarterly earnings by
$951.48 However, another study found
43 Courty, Pascal, and Gerald Marschke. ‘‘Making
Government Accountable: Lessons from a Federal
Job Training Program.’’ Public Administration
Review 67.5 (2007): 904–916.
44 Heckman, James J., Carolyn Heinrich, and
Jeffrey A. Smith. 1997. ‘‘Assessing the Performance
of Performance Standards in Public Bureaucracies.’’
American Economic Review 87(2): 389–95.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Dunham, Kate, Melissa Mack, Jeff Salzman, and
Andrew Wiegand. ‘‘Evaluation of the WIA
Performance Measurement System: Survey Report.’’
Oakland, CA: SPR Associates, 2005. Available at
https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/
keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_puListing
Details&pub_id=2408&mp=y&start=41&sort=7.
48 Hollenbeck, Kevin, Daniel Schroeder,
Christopher T. King, and Wei-Jang Huang. ‘‘Net
Impact Estimates for Services Provided through the
Workforce Investment Act.’’ Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor, 2005. Available at https://wdr.
doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/
Net%20Impact%20Estimates%20for%20Services%
20Provided%20through%20the%
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
that training in the WIA dislocated
worker program had a net benefit close
to zero or even negative.49
Self-employed individuals. Job
seekers who received self-employment
services started businesses sooner and
had longer lasting businesses than
nonparticipants. Self-employment
assistance participants were 19 times
more likely to be self-employed than
nonparticipants and expressed high
levels of satisfaction with selfemployment. A study of Maine, New
Jersey, and New York programs found
that participants were four times more
likely to obtain employment of any kind
than nonparticipants.50
Workers with disabilities. A study of
individuals with disabilities enrolled in
training for a broad array of occupations
(including wastewater treatment, auto
body repair, meat cutter/wrapper,
clerical support staff, surgical tools
technician, and veterinary assistant)
found that the mean hourly wage and
hours worked per quarter for program
graduates were higher than for
individuals who did not complete the
program.
In conclusion, after a review of the
quantitative and qualitative analysis of
the impacts of this NPRM, the
Departments have determined that the
societal benefits justify the anticipated
costs.
Transfers
The Reemployment and Eligibility
Assessment program was effective in
assisting claimants to exit the
unemployment insurance program and
avoid exhausting regular unemployment
insurance benefits in Florida, Idaho, and
Nevada. By avoiding unemployment
insurance benefit exhaustion, the
program led to reductions in the
likelihood of receiving Extended
Unemployment Compensation benefits.
There exists notable evidence that the
Reemployment and Eligibility
Assessment program is cost-effective.51
20Workforce%20Investment%20Act-%20Final%
20Report.pdf.
49 Heinrich, Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser, and
Kenneth R. Troske. ‘‘Workforce Investment Act
Non-Experimental Net Impact Evaluation.’’
Columbia, MD: IMPAQ International, LLC, 2009.
Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/
keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_
puListingDetails&pub_id=2419&mp=y&start=41&
sort=7.
50 Kosanovich, William, Heather Fleck, Berwood
Yost, Wendy Armon, and Sandra Siliezar.
‘‘Comprehensive Assessment of Self-Employment
Assistance Programs.’’ Arlington, VA: DTI
Associates, 2002. Available at https://wdr.doleta.
gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_
puListingDetails&pub_id=2293&mp=y&start=121&
sort=7.
51 Poe-Yamagata, Eileen, Jacob Benus, Nicholas
Bill, Hugh Carrington, Marios Michaelides, and Ted
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
The program reduced unemployment
insurance payments and increased tax
revenue resulting from increased worker
earnings.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),
5 U.S.C. 603, requires agencies to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
to determine whether a regulation will
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Section 605 of the RFA allows an
agency to certify a rule in lieu of
preparing an analysis if the regulation is
not expected to have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Further, under
the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5
U.S.C. 801 (SBREFA), an agency is
required to produce compliance
guidance for small entities if the rule
has a significant economic impact.
The Small Business Administration
(SBA) defines a small business as one
that is ‘‘independently owned and
operated and which is not dominant in
its field of operation.’’ The definition of
small business varies from industry to
industry to the extent necessary to
reflect industry size differences
properly. An agency must either use the
SBA definition for a small entity or
establish an alternative definition, in
this instance, for the workforce
industry. The Departments have
adopted the SBA definition for purposes
of this certification.
The Departments have notified the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA,
under the RFA at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), and
proposes to certify that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This finding is supported, in very large
measure, by the fact that small entities
are already receiving financial
assistance under the WIA program and
will likely continue to do so under the
WIOA program as articulated in this
NPRM.
Affected Small Entities
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The proposed rule can be expected to
impact small one-stop center operators.
One-stop operators can be a single entity
Shen. ‘‘Impact of the Reemployment and Eligibility
Assessment (REA) Initiative.’’ IMPAQ International,
2011. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/
keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_
puListingDetails&pub_
id=2487&mp=y&start=21&sort=7.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
(public, private, or nonprofit) or a
consortium of entities. The types of
entities that might be a one-stop
operator include: (1) An institution of
higher education; (2) an employment
service State agency established under
the Wagner-Peyser Act; (3) a
community-based organization,
nonprofit organization, or workforce
intermediary; (4) a private for-profit
entity; (5) a government agency; (6) a
Local Board, with the approval of the
chief local elected official and the
Governor; or (7) another interested
organization or entity that can carry out
the duties of the one-stop operator.
Examples include a local chamber of
commerce or other business
organization, or a labor organization.
The proposed joint rule can also be
expected to impact a variety of AEFLA
local providers: (1) Local education
agencies; (2) community-based
organizations; (3) faith-based
organizations; (4) libraries; community,
junior, and technical colleges; (5) 4-year
colleges and universities; (6)
correctional institutions; and (7) other
institutions, such as medical and special
institutions not designed for criminal
offenders.52
Impact on Small Entities
The Departments indicate that
transfer payments are a significant
aspect of this analysis in that the
majority of WIOA program cost burdens
on State and Local WDBs will be fully
financed through Federal transfer
payments to States. The Departments
have highlighted costs that are new to
WIOA implementation and this NPRM.
Therefore, the Departments expect that
the WIOA joint NPRM will have no cost
impact on small entities.
C. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
The Departments have determined
that this proposed joint rulemaking does
not impose a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the RFA; therefore, the
Departments are not required to produce
any Compliance Guides for Small
Entities, as mandated by the SBREFA.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The purposes of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44 U.S.C.
52 In terms of VR grantees, they are State
government entities and, by definition, are not
small entities.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20623
3501 et seq., include minimizing the
paperwork burden on affected entities.
The PRA requires certain actions before
an agency can adopt or revise a
collection of information, including
publishing for public comment a
summary of the collection of
information and a brief description of
the need for and proposed use of the
information.
As part of continuing efforts to reduce
paperwork and respondent burden, the
Departments conduct preclearance
consultation activities to provide the
general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on
proposed and continuing collections of
information in accordance with the
PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This
activity helps to ensure that: (1) The
public understands the collection
instructions; (2) respondents can
provide the requested data in the
desired format; (3) reporting burden
(time and financial resources) is
minimized; (4) respondents clearly
understand the collection instruments;
and (5) the Departments can properly
assess the impact of collection
requirements on respondents.
Furthermore, the PRA requires all
Federal agencies to analyze proposed
regulations for potential time burdens
on the regulated community created by
provisions in the proposed regulations,
which require the submission of
information. The information collection
requirements must also be submitted to
the OMB for approval.
The Departments note that a Federal
agency may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless it is
approved by the OMB under the PRA
and displays a currently valid OMB
Control Number. The public is also not
required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
In addition, notwithstanding any other
provisions of law, no person will be
subject to penalty for failing to comply
with a collection of information if the
collection of information does not
display a currently valid OMB Control
Number (44 U.S.C. 3512).
The information collections in this
joint NPRM are summarized in the
section-by-section discussion of this
NPRM, Section IV. The table below
captures the current and proposed
burden hours associated with the
information collections.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20624
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
CURRENT AND PROPOSED INFORMATION COLLECTION BURDENS
Annual burden
hours proposed
for new
requirements
under WIOA
Annual burden
hours currently
approved
OMB Approval No.
1205–0420—WIOA Common Performance Management and Information and Reporting for Core Programs .....................................................................................
1205–4NEW—Required Elements for Submission of the Unified or Combined
State Plan and Plan Modifications under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act ................................................................................................................
Change
0
* 2,351,905
0
3,279
** 3,279
0
Total ....................................................................................................................
2,351,905
2,355,184
2,355,184
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
* OMB 1205–0420 will be the information collection for the common performance accountability data collected under sec. 116 of WIOA. Hours
associated with this information collection represent the burden associated with reporting the new common performance data elements by the
core programs. Burden hours associated with program-specific reporting for each of the core programs, which are currently approved and will
continue in addition to the common performance reporting, will be reported and summarized in other NPRMs published elsewhere in this Federal
Register. The currently-approved program-specific data reporting that will continue, as applicable, for the core programs include:
• Control Number 1205–0420, Workforce Investment Act Management Information and Reporting System, with an annual burden of 508,589;
• Control Number 1205–0240, Labor Exchange Reporting System, with an annual burden of 568,192;
• Control Number 1830–0027, Measures and Methods for the National Reporting System for Adult Education, with an annual burden of 5,700;
and
• Control Number 1820–0508, RSA–911 Case Service Report, with an annual burden of 6,500.
The Departments anticipate that the above collections may be phased out or modified, as appropriate, as the WIOA performance measures
are fully implemented.
The above-described currently-approved reporting burdens are presented here in order to provide respondents full transparency of the complete reporting burden that is imposed by WIOA, both in terms of the new common performance data elements as well as program-specific reporting requirements. However, to be clear, the net new burden as listed in the table above only reflects the additional burden imposed by the
new common performance reporting requirements, set forth at sec. 116 of WIOA, that are applicable to all core programs.
** OMB 1205–4NEW is the information collection for the submission of the Unified or Combined State Plan under secs. 102 and 103 of WIOA,
which will replace the following currently-approved State Plan collections for the core programs:
• Control Number 1205–0398, Planning Guidance and Instructions for Submission of the Strategic State Plan and Plan Modifications for Title I
of the Workforce Investment Act and Wagner-Peyser Act, with an annual burden of 2,280;
• Control Number 1830–0026, Adult Education and Family Literacy Act State Plan, with an annual burden of 2,565; and
• Control Number 1820–0500, 1820–0500, State Plan for the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program and Supplement for the Supported
Employment Services Program (now referred under WIOA as the VR services portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan), with an annual
burden of 2,000.
In an effort to give full meaning to the
requirement that States submit a Unified
or Combined State Plan, the
Departments propose to consolidate all
currently-approved program-specific
State Plan submissions for each of the
core programs into one information
collection instrument. To that end, the
total burden hours associated with this
proposed new consolidated information
collection is the sum of the additional
burden required to satisfy the integrated
strategic and operational planning
requirements (see table above) plus the
currently-approved requirements (see
bullets above). However, to be clear, the
net additional burden to respondents is
only that associated with the new
planning requirements.
Agency: DOL–ETA.
Title of Collection: WIOA Common
Performance Management and
Information and Reporting for Core
Programs
OMB Control Number: 1205–0420.
Description: This new information
collection will collect common
performance data required under sec.
116 of WIOA from all core programs,
including WIOA adult and dislocated
workers, youth, Wagner-Peyser, Adult
Education and Literacy, Eligible
Training Providers, and Vocational
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Rehabilitation Services programs. The
Departments of Education and Labor
will use a common approach to
standardize the quarterly, as
appropriate, and annual reporting of
common data elements for all core
programs and Eligible Training
Providers. These data are in addition to
other performance data reported by each
of the core programs under current and
proposed regulations discussed in
program-specific NPRMs available
elsewhere in this Federal Register.
Affected Public: State, local and tribal
governments, private sector.
Obligation to Respond: Required to
obtain or retain benefits (WIOA sec.
116).
Total Estimated Number of
Respondents Annually: 53 for DOL
programs, 80 for RSA, 57 for OCTAE (no
additional respondents resulting from
this proposed rulemaking).
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 722—each DOL and RSA
respondent reports 5 times per year
(quarterly plus annually); and each
OCTAE respondent reports only
annually (no additional responses
resulting from this proposed
rulemaking).
Total Estimated Annual Time Burden:
2,351,905 hours. This includes hours
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
estimated for both collecting the
information and reporting.
Total Estimated Annual Other Costs
Burden: $0 (no change as a result of this
proposed rulemaking).
Proposed Regulations Containing
Information Collections Approved
Under this Control Number: 20 CFR part
680 (Adult, Dislocated Workers, and
Eligible Training Providers); 20 CFR
part 681 (Youth); 20 CFR part 652
(Wagner-Peyser); 34 CFR parts 462 and
463 (Office of Career, Technical, and
Adult Education); and 34 CFR part 361
(Rehabilitation Services
Administration).
Title of Collection: Required Elements
for Submission of the Unified or
Combined State Plan and Plan
Modifications under the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act:
Wagner-Peyser and WIOA Title I
programs (Department of Labor) and
Vocational Rehabilitation and Adult
Education programs (Department of
Education).
OMB Control Number: 1205–4NEW.
Description: The proposed rule would
require each State (which includes
applicable outlying areas) to submit a
Unified or Combined State Plan that
fosters strategic alignment of the core
programs, which include the title I
adult, dislocated worker, and youth
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
programs; title II adult education and
literacy programs; the Wagner-Peyser
program as amended by title III of
WIOA; and the title IV Vocational
Rehabilitation program. The Unified or
Combined State Plan requirements
improve service integration and ensure
that the workforce system is industryrelevant and responds to the economic
needs of the State and matches
employers with skilled workers. The
Unified or Combined State Plan would
describe how the State will develop and
implement a unified, integrated service
delivery system rather than separately
discuss the State’s approach to
operating each core program
individually. This consolidated
information collection implements secs.
102 and 103 of WIOA. The Unified or
Combined State Plan would replace the
planning requirements collected under
the currently-approved program-specific
State Plan information collections.
While each State, at a minimum, must
submit a Unified State Plan covering all
core programs, sec. 103 of WIOA
permits a State to submit a Combined
State Plan that would include the core
programs plus one or more additional
Federal programs listed in sec. 103(b). If
the State chooses to include these
programs, the Combined Plan will
include all of the common planning
elements included in the Unified State
Plan, and an additional element
describing how the State will coordinate
the additional programs with the core
programs (WIOA sec. 103(b)(3)).
As with the Unified State Plan
collection for the core programs
described above, the total burden
associated with the Combined State
Plan would represent the total burden
for the new (additional) WIOA planning
requirements (as described in the table
above), plus an additional 0.25 hours
per Combined State Plan to account for
the one additional new question that
will be included in Combined State
Plans. The burden required for fulfilling
the program-specific State Plan
requirements (for the non-core
additional programs that may be
included in the Combined State Plan)
will continue to be separately accounted
for under the non-core programs’
existing, approved Information
Collections. Those existing Information
Collections are described in the table
below for reference:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
20625
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 38 (Annualized as described
above; no additional responses resulting
from this proposed rulemaking).
Control Number 1830–0029,
Total Estimated Annual Time Burden:
Carl D. Perkins Career and
3,279. This number includes the hours
Technical Education Imfor all the jurisdictions to submit a
provement Act of 2006 (P.L.
109–270) State Plan Guide ..
2,240 Unified State Plan, plus an additional
0.25 hours for each respondent
Control Number 0970–0145,
submitting a Combined State Plan. We
Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) State
estimate that 10 respondents will
Plan Guidance ......................
594 submit a Combined State Plan. It also
Control Number 0584–0083,
includes the estimate that all
Supplemental Nutrition Asrespondents will submit an update in
sistance Program Operating
the third planning year, which is
Guidelines, Forms, and
estimated to require a third of the hours
Waivers, Program and Budget Summary Statement .........
1431 compared to submitting the initial plan.
Then the number has been annualized
Control Number 1225–0086,
over 3 years.
Grant Application RequireTotal Estimated Annual Other Costs
ments for the Jobs for Veteran State Grants Program ..
1620 Burden: $0 (no change as a result of this
Control Number 1205–0132,
proposed rulemaking).
Unemployment Insurance
Proposed Regulations Containing
State Quality Service Plan
Information Collections Approved
Planning and Reporting
Under this Control Number: DOL
Guidelines .............................
1530 programs—20 CFR 652.211, 653.107(d),
Control Number 1205–0040,
653.109(d), 676.105, 676.110, 676.115,
Senior Community Service
676.120, 676.135, 676,140, 676.145,
Employment Program Per677.230, 678.310, 678.405, 678.750(a),
formance Measurement System ........................................
406 681.400(a)(1), 681.410(b)(2), 682.100,
683.115. Department of Education
Control Number 0970–0382,
programs—34 CFR parts 361, 462 and
Community Services Block
Grant (CSBG) Program
463.
Model Plan Applications .......
112
Interested parties may obtain a copy
free of charge of one or more of the
The table does not include the
information collection requests
additional programs that may be part of
submitted to the OMB on the
a Combined State Plan but do not have
reginfo.gov Web site at https://
currently-approved planning
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.
requirements of their own, such as the
From the Information Collection Review
Housing and Urban Development
tab, select Information Collection
Employment and Training Programs and Review. Then select the applicable
the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Department (e.g., Department of
Program. Because these programs do not Education or Department of Labor) from
have currently-approved planning
the Currently Under Review dropdown
collections, the additional burden hours menu, and lookup the Control Number.
would be the total additional burden
A free copy of the requests may also be
associated with the new unified
obtained by contacting the person
planning requirements set forth in the
named in the ADDRESSES section of this
table above that would be true for any
preamble.
program included in the Unified or
As noted in the ADDRESSES section of
Combined State Plan.
this joint NPRM, interested parties may
Affected Public: State, local and tribal send comments about the information
governments.
collections to the applicable Department
Obligation to Respond: Required to
throughout the 60-day comment period
obtain or maintain benefits (WIOA, secs. and/or to the OMB within 30 days of
102 and 103).
publication of this notice in the Federal
Total Estimated Number of
Register. In order to help ensure
Respondents Annually: 38. (This is the
appropriate consideration, comments
annualized number of respondents.)
should mention the applicable OMB
Fifty-seven jurisdictions submit a plan
Control Number(s). The Departments
the first year and all 57 are required to
and OMB are particularly interested in
submit an update in the third year of the comments that:
planning cycle. No submissions are
• Evaluate whether the proposed
required the second year. This is the
collection of information is necessary
same as the current planning
for the proper performance of the
documents. (No additional respondents
functions of the Departments, including
resulting from this proposed
whether the information will have
rulemaking.)
practical utility;
Additional program control No.
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Approved
burden
hours
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20626
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
Departments’ estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
The Departments note that in order to
meet WIOA requirements, the
information collections mentioned in
this NPRM need to be in place prior to
the final rule taking effect. The
Departments will follow PRA
requirements in clearing the collections
(emergency procedures, as appropriate),
including providing appropriate public
engagement and taking into account the
comments received as part of this
rulemaking.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
E.O. 13132 requires Federal agencies
to ensure that the principles of
Federalism established by the Framers
of our Constitution guide the executive
departments and agencies in the
formulation and implementation of
policies and to further the policies of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Further, agencies must strictly adhere to
constitutional principles. Agencies must
closely examine the constitutional and
statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and they
must carefully assess the necessity for
any such action. To the extent
practicable, State and local officials
must be consulted before any such
action is implemented. Section 3(b) of
the E.O. further provides that Federal
agencies must implement regulations
that have a substantial direct effect only
if statutory authority permits the
regulation and it is of national
significance. The Departments have
reviewed the WIOA joint NPRM in light
of these requirements and have
determined that, with the enactment of
WIOA and its clear requirement to
publish national implementing
regulations, E.O. sec. 3(b) has been fully
reviewed and its requirement satisfied.
Accordingly, the Departments have
reviewed this WIOA-required joint
NPRM and have determined that the
proposed rulemaking has no Federalism
implications. The proposed joint rule, as
noted above, has no substantial direct
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
effects on States, on the relationships
between the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government as described by
E.O. 13132. Therefore, the Departments
have determined that this proposed rule
does not have a sufficient Federalism
implication to warrant the preparation
of a summary impact statement.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This Act directs agencies to assess the
effects of Federal regulatory actions on
State, local, and tribal governments, and
the private sector. A Federal mandate is
any provision in a regulation that
imposes an enforceable duty upon State,
local, or tribal governments, or imposes
a duty upon the private sector that is not
voluntary.
WIOA contains specific language
supporting employment and training
activities for Indian, Alaska Natives, and
Native Hawaiian individuals. These
program requirements are supported, as
is the WIOA workforce development
system generally, by Federal formula
grant funds and are accordingly not
considered unfunded mandates.
Similarly, Migrant and Seasonal
Farmworker activities are authorized
and funded under the WIOA program as
is currently done under the WIA
program. The States are mandated to
perform certain activities for the Federal
government under WIOA and will be
reimbursed (grant funding) for the
resources required to perform those
activities. The same process and grant
relationship exists between States and
Local WDBs under the WIA program
and must continue under the WIOA
program as identified in this NPRM.
WIOA contains language establishing
procedures regarding the eligibility of
training providers to receive funds
under the WIOA program and also
contains clear State information
collection requirements for training
entities (e.g., submission of appropriate,
accurate, and timely information). A
decision by a private training entity to
participate as a provider under the
WIOA program is purely voluntary and,
therefore, information collection
burdens do not impose a duty on the
private sector that is not voluntarily
assumed.
The Departments following
consideration of these factors have
determined that this proposed joint rule
contains no unfunded Federal
mandates, which are defined in 2 U.S.C.
658(6) to include either a ‘‘Federal
intergovernmental mandate’’ or a
‘‘Federal private sector mandate.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
G. Plain Language
The Departments drafted this joint
NPRM in plain language.
H. Assessment of Federal Regulations
and Policies on Families
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act of
1999 (Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681)
requires the assessment of the impact of
this proposed rule on family well-being.
A rule that is determined to have a
negative effect on families must be
supported with an adequate rationale.
The Departments have assessed this
proposed joint rule in light of this
requirement and determined that the
joint NPRM would not have a negative
effect on families.
I. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal
Governments)
The Departments reviewed this
proposed joint rule under the terms of
E.O. 13175 and have determined it
would have no tribal implications in
addition to those created through the
reimbursement of WIA and future
WIOA program expenses via Federally
disbursed formula grant funds.
However, the proposed joint rule would
have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian Tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian Tribes.
As a result, a tribal summary impact
statement has been prepared.
Prior to developing the proposed joint
rule, the Department of Labor held three
events to talk with the tribal institutions
about their concerns about the current
state of Indian and Native American
Programs (INAP) as well as what
concerns they see in the future. These
three events consisted of a consultation
webinar and two in-person town hall
meetings. The consultation webinar,
entitled ‘‘Listening session on Indian
and Native American Programs,’’
occurred on September 15, 2014. Two
other consultations were held, including
an October 21, 2014, town hall meeting
with Indian and Native American (INA)
leaders and membership organizations
serving Indians and Native Americans,
Hawaiians, and Alaskan Natives, and a
formal consultation December 17, 2014,
with members of the Native American
Employment and Training Advisory
Council to the Secretary of Labor.
The Department of Labor received
feedback from the INA community and
the public that established several areas
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
of interest concerning the Department of
Labor’s relationship with INA Tribes
and tribal governments. These areas of
interest are summarized below.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Services Received in American Job
Centers
Specifically, the INA community
expressed interest in learning how
American Job Centers will account for
the use of their INA funding dollars and
how to ensure that the funds intended
for the INA population will be
dedicated to that population. In
addition, several individuals expressed
concerns that INA individuals that enter
an American Job Center may not get the
general assistance that is intended for
all people that seek assistance. In other
words, several commenters wanted to
ensure that INA individuals should
receive assistance intended for other
populations for which they may qualify
when seeking service. Finally, several
commenters were interested in learning
more about how INA programs may be
required to contribute to American Job
Center infrastructure funding and how
American Job Centers will account for
INA members served to ensure that the
American Job Center network is
responding to the relevant INA
population needs.
Funding per Participant was Low for
INA Programs Especially When
Compared to Other Job Training
Programs
Many commenters expressed concern
that the funds made available on a perparticipant basis for INA programs were
not sufficient to meet the needs of the
populations being served. Specifically,
many commenters stated that funds
available for INA youth are inadequate
to fully meet their needs. In addition,
commenters felt that more funds were
needed for INA job training programs to
ensure that career pathway training
could be carried out. Several
commenters compared the cost per
participant funding for other programs,
such as Job Corps, as evidence of the
lack of funding for INA programs. The
commenters went on to request a
comparison of other WIA-funded
programs and the INA programs.
Finally, one commenter felt that because
of the lack of funds, INA youth were
being served instead of INA adults.
The majority of comments focused on
the use of new funding streams and the
requirements attached to those funds.
Commenters expressed concern about
the issue of using and transferring
WIOA funding to support activities
under Indian Employment, Training,
and Related Services Demonstration Act
of 1992, as amended (Pub. L. 102–477).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Specifically, commenters talked about
the importance of flexibility in
adherence to the requirements because
Pub. L. 102–477 programs are tribal
programs, may be located in rural areas,
and have been effectively and efficiently
reporting through existing processes,
including a single reporting feature in
the annual report. Additionally,
commenters suggested that vocational
rehabilitation, adult education reentry,
and other applicable job/educationrelated program funding also should be
allowed to support Pub. L. 102–477
programs. Clarity around which funding
streams are allowable also was
suggested. Commenters also expressed
hope that the Department of Education
will integrate Carl D. Perkins funding
under Pub. L. 102–477 which allows
Federally-recognized Tribes and Alaska
Native entities to combine formulafunded Federal grant funds
administered by the Department of
Interior, which are employment and
training-related into a single plan with
a single budget and a single reporting
system. Commenters noted that the
Native American Career and Technical
Education Program (NACTEP) is a
required partner and that NACTEP has
limited the partner funds available to
fund supportive services and work
experiences. One commenter asked if
statutory language regarding key
investments in vulnerable populations
would result in an increase in funding
for Division of Indian and Native
American Programs (DINAP) programs.
Lastly, it was suggested that the 166
Advisory Council continue, and DINAP
programs continue to be staffed with
Native Americans and Native American
Chiefs.
Concerns About the Effects of the New
Performance Reporting Requirements
Established in WIOA on the INA
Community
Many commenters expressed concern
that INA programs would not be able to
meet the performance reporting
requirements established by WIOA for
several reasons, including limited funds
to train individuals for the new
performance standards and the need to
purchase new technology and
equipment to meet the reporting
requirements. In addition, several
commenters said that INA programs will
have to be more selective in determining
eligibility for training programs because
of insufficient funding and the
increased focus on performance
outcomes.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20627
Lack of Funding To Hire and Effectively
Train Staff and Ensuring Policy is
Responsive to INA Community Needs
Commenters stated concerns that INA
programs will not be able to achieve
expected performance levels because
they lacked funding to adequately staff
programs. Several commenters stated
concerns about the limited number of
staff, increased training needs for staff,
and the need to ensure that technical
assistance is made available to staff.
Specifically, commenters are concerned
that INA programs may transition
slower than States to the new WIOA
requirements because of funding and
staff needs. In addition, they stated that
INA programs need more funds to
implement new administrative tasks as
well as provide services to the INA
community.
Working With States and Other
Programs
Commenters expressed concerns
about States’ accountability to the INA
community and how to make other
training programs administered by the
State work comprehensively with INA
programs. Others encouraged flexibility
and freedom in funding in working with
these same entities and lauded this
flexibility as a way to get more out of
funds. Furthermore, the commenters
emphasized how important it is for INA
leaders to have a voice in the policy and
guidance formulation process so that
policy is directly responsive to the
needs and funding has to go hand in
hand with the needs identified. Some
commenters suggested an ongoing
dialogue between INA leaders,
Workforce Investment Boards, local and
State agencies, and the American Job
Centers to discuss training and
education that leads to jobs. Some
commenters asserted that State-run
programs need to be more accountable
for how they interact with INA
populations. Other commenters
expressed frustration that some State
programs do not see a need to work with
INA programs because the States think
that the INA programs get money from
other sources, such as casinos. Many of
the commenters said that they wanted
better collaboration with State-run
programs and increased networking
among INA programs and State
agencies. Finally, one commenter stated
that collaboration between INA
programs and the State-run training
systems would make services to
individuals more efficient because it
would prevent ‘‘double-dipping’’ in
programs. The Department invites
public comment about what can be done
to address the areas summarized above.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20628
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
J. Executive Order 12630 (Government
Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights)
The Departments have determined
that this joint NPRM is not subject to
E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights, because it
does not involve implementation of a
policy with takings implications.
K. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice
Reform)
This WIOA joint NPRM was drafted
and reviewed in accordance with E.O.
12988, Civil Justice Reform, and the
Departments have determined that the
proposed rule will not unduly burden
the Federal court system. The proposed
WIOA regulations were written to
minimize litigation and to the extent
feasible, provide a clear legal standard
for affected conduct, and have been
reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguities.
L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy
Supply)
This joint NPRM was drafted and
reviewed in accordance with E.O.
13211, Energy Supply. The Departments
have determined the joint NPRM will
not have a significant adverse effect on
the supply, distribution, or use of
energy and is not subject to E.O. 13211.
List of Subjects
20 CFR Parts 676, 677, and 678
Employment, Grant programs—labor.
34 CFR Part 361
Administrative practice and
procedure, Grant programs—education,
Grant programs—social programs,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 463
Adult education, Grant programs—
education, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Department of Labor
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Employment and Training
Administration
20 CFR Chapter V
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, ETA proposes to amend 20
CFR chapter V as follows:
■ 1. Add part 676 to read as follows:
PART 676—UNIFIED AND COMBINED
STATE PLANS UNDER TITLE I OF THE
WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND
OPPORTUNITY ACT
Sec.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
676.100 What is the purpose of the Unified
and Combined State Plans?
676.105 What are the general requirements
for the Unified State Plan?
676.110 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan
for the adult, dislocated worker, and
youth workforce investment activities in
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act title I?
676.115 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan
for the Adult Education and Literacy
Program in Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act title II?
676.120 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan
for Wagner-Peyser Act Employment
Service programs in title III of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act?
676.125 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan
for the State Vocational Rehabilitation
program in Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act title IV?
676.130 What is the submission and
approval process of the Unified State
Plan?
676.135 What are the requirements for
modification of the Unified State Plan?
676.140 What are the general requirements
for submitting a Combined State Plan?
676.143 What is the submission and
approval process of the Combined State
Plan?
676.145 What are the requirements for
modifications of the Combined State
Plan?
Authority: Secs. 503, 102, 103, Pub. L.
113–128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 2014).
§ 676.100 What is the purpose of the
Unified and Combined State Plans?
(a) The Unified and Combined State
Plans provide the framework for States
to outline a strategic vision of, and goals
for, how their workforce development
systems will achieve the purposes of
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act (WIOA).
(b) The Unified and Combined State
Plans serve as 4-year action plans to
develop, align, and integrate the State’s
systems and provide a platform to
achieve the State’s vision and strategic
and operational goals. A Unified or
Combined State Plan is intended to:
(1) Align, in strategic coordination,
the six core programs required in the
Unified State Plan pursuant to
§ 676.105(b), and additional optional
programs that may be part of the
Combined State Plan pursuant to
§ 676.140;
(2) Direct investments in economic,
education, and workforce training
programs to focus on providing relevant
education and training to ensure that
individuals, including youth and
individuals with barriers to
employment, have the skills to compete
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
in the job market and that employers
have a ready supply of skilled workers;
(3) Apply strategies for job-driven
training consistently across Federal
programs, and;
(4) Enable economic, education, and
workforce partners to build a skilled
workforce through innovation in, and
alignment of, employment, training, and
education programs.
§ 676.105 What are the general
requirements for the Unified State Plan?
(a) The Unified State Plan must be
submitted in accordance with § 676.130
and joint planning guidelines issued by
the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary
of Education.
(b) The Governor of each State must
submit, in accordance with § 676.130, a
Unified or Combined State Plan to the
Secretary of Labor to be eligible to
receive funding for the workforce
development system’s six core
programs:
(1) The adult, dislocated worker, and
youth programs authorized under
subtitle B of title I of WIOA and
administered by the U.S. Department of
Labor;
(2) The Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act (AEFLA) program
authorized under title II of WIOA and
administered by the U.S. Department of
Education;
(3) The Wagner-Peyser Act
Employment Services programs
amended by title III of WIOA and
administered by the U.S. Department of
Labor; and
(4) The State Vocational
Rehabilitation program amended by title
IV of WIOA and administered by the
U.S. Department of Education.
(c) The Unified State Plan must
outline the State’s 4-year strategy for the
core programs described in paragraph
(b) of this section and meet the
requirements of sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as
explained in the joint planning
guidance issued by the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Education.
(d) The Unified State Plan must
include strategic and operational
planning elements to facilitate the
development of an aligned, coordinated,
and comprehensive workforce
development system. The Unified State
Plan must include:
(1) Strategic planning elements that
describe the State’s strategic vision and
goals for preparing an educated and
skilled workforce under sec. 102(b)(1) of
WIOA. The strategic planning elements
must be informed by and include an
analysis of the State’s economic
conditions and employer and workforce
needs, including education and skill
needs.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(2) Strategies for aligning the core
programs and optional programs, as
well as other resources available to the
State, to achieve the strategic vision and
goals in accordance with sec.
102(b)(1)(E) of WIOA.
(3) Operational planning elements in
accordance with sec. 102(b)(2) of WIOA
that support the strategies for aligning
the core programs and other resources
available to the State to achieve the
State’s vision and goals and a
description of how the State Workforce
Development Board will implement its
functions, in accordance with sec.
101(d) of WIOA. Operational planning
elements must include:
(i) A description of how the State
strategy will be implemented by each
core program’s lead State agency;
(ii) State operating systems, including
data systems, and policies that will
support the implementation of the
State’s strategy identified in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section;
(iii) Program-specific requirements for
the core programs required by WIOA
sec. 102(b)(2)(D);
(iv) Assurances required by sec.
102(b)(2)(E) of WIOA and others
deemed necessary by the Secretaries of
Labor and Education under sec.
102(b)(2)(E)(x) of WIOA; and
(v) Any additional operational
planning requirements imposed by the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of
Education under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii)
of WIOA.
§ 676.110 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan for
the adult, dislocated worker, and youth
workforce investment activities in
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
title I?
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The program-specific requirements for
the adult, dislocated worker, and youth
workforce investment activities that
must be included in the Unified State
Plan are described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D) of
WIOA. Additional planning
requirements may be required by the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of
Education in accordance with joint
planning guidelines issued by the
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Education.
§ 676.115 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan for
the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act
program in Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act title II?
The program-specific requirements for
the AEFLA program in title II that must
be included in the Unified State Plan
are described in secs. 102(b)(2)(D)(ii)
and 102(b)(2)(C) of WIOA.
(a) With regard to the description
required in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(ii)(I) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
WIOA pertaining to content standards,
the Unified State Plan must describe
how the eligible agency will, by July 1,
2016, align its content standards for
adult education with State-adopted
challenging academic content standards
under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended.
(b) With regard to the description
required in sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(iv) of
WIOA pertaining to the methods and
factors the State will use to distribute
funds under the core programs, for title
II of WIOA, the Unified State Plan must
include—
(1) How the eligible agency will
award multi-year grants on a
competitive basis to eligible providers
in the State; and
(2) How the eligible agency will
provide direct and equitable access to
funds using the same grant or contract
announcement and application
procedure.
(c) With regard to the description
required under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(v)(I) of
WIOA pertaining to the integration of
workforce and education data on core
programs, unemployment insurance
programs, and education through postsecondary education, for title II of
WIOA, the Unified State Plan must
include how the State will ensure
interoperability of data systems in the
reporting on core indicators of
performance and performance reports
required to be submitted by the State.
§ 676.120 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan for
Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service
programs in title III of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
Wagner-Peyser Act Employment
Services programs amended by title III
are subject to requirements in sec.
102(b) of WIOA and any additional
requirements imposed by the Secretary
of Labor under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii) of
WIOA, in accordance with joint
planning guidelines issued by the
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Education.
§ 676.125 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan for
the State Vocational Rehabilitation program
in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act title IV?
The program specific requirements for
the vocational rehabilitation services
portion of the Unified or Combined
State Plan are set forth in sec. 101(a) of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended. All submission requirements
of the Vocational Rehabilitation
Services portion of the Unified or
Combined State Plan are in addition to
the jointly developed strategic and
operational content requirements
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20629
prescribed by secs. 102(b) and 103 of
WIOA.
§ 676.130 What is the submission and
approval process of the Unified State Plan?
(a) The Unified State Plan described
in § 676.105 must be submitted in
accordance with planning guidelines
issued jointly by the Secretaries of Labor
and Education which explain the
submission and approval process in
WIOA sec. 102(c).
(b) A State must submit its Unified
State Plan to the Secretary of Labor
pursuant to a process identified by the
Secretary.
(1) The initial Unified State Plan must
be submitted no later than 120 days
prior to the commencement of the
second full program year of WIOA.
(2) The subsequent Unified State Plan
must be submitted no later than 120
days prior to the end of the 4-year
period described in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of
this section, ‘‘program year’’ means July
1 through June 30 of any year.
(c) The State must provide an
opportunity for public comment on and
input into the development of the
Unified State Plan prior to its
submission.
(1) The opportunity for public
comment must include an opportunity
for comment by representatives of Local
Boards and chief elected officials,
businesses, representatives of labor
organizations, community-based
organizations, adult education
providers, institutions of higher
education, other stakeholders with an
interest in the services provided by the
six core programs, and the general
public, including individuals with
disabilities.
(2) Consistent with the ‘‘Sunshine
Provision’’ of WIOA in sec. 101(g), the
State Board must make information
regarding the Unified State Plan
available to the public through
electronic means and regularly
occurring open meetings in accordance
with State law. The Unified State Plan
must describe the State’s process and
timeline for ensuring a meaningful
opportunity for public comment.
(d) Upon receipt of the Unified State
Plan from the State, the Secretary of
Labor will ensure that the entire Unified
State Plan is submitted to the Secretary
of Education pursuant to a process
developed by the Secretaries.
(e) The Unified State Plan is subject
to the approval of both the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Education.
(f) Before the Secretary of Labor and
the Secretary of Education approve the
Unified State Plan, the vocational
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20630
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
rehabilitation portion of the Unified
State Plan described in WIOA sec.
102(b)(2)(D)(iii) must be approved by
the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration.
(g) The Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Education will review and
approve the Unified State Plan within
90 days of receipt by the appropriate
Secretary, unless the Secretary of Labor
or the Secretary of Education
determines in writing within that period
that:
(1) The plan is inconsistent with a
core program’s requirements;
(2) The Unified State Plan is
inconsistent with any requirement of
sec. 102 of WIOA; or
(3) The plan is incomplete or
otherwise insufficient to determine
whether it is consistent with a core
program’s requirements or other
requirements of WIOA.
(h) If neither the Secretary of Labor
nor the Secretary of Education makes
the written determination described in
paragraph (g) of this section within 90
days of the receipt by the Secretaries,
the Unified State Plan will be
considered approved.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 676.135 What are the requirements for
modification of the Unified State Plan?
(a) In addition to the required
modification review set forth in
paragraph (b) of this section, a Governor
may submit a modification of its Unified
State Plan at any time during the 4-year
period of the plan.
(b) Modifications are required, at a
minimum:
(1) At the end of the first 2-year
period of any 4-year State Plan, wherein
the State Board must review the Unified
State Plan, and the Governor must
submit modifications to the plan to
reflect changes in labor market and
economic conditions or other factors
affecting the implementation of the
Unified State Plan;
(2) When changes in Federal or State
law or policy substantially affect the
strategies, goals, and priorities upon
which the Unified State Plan is based;
(3) When there are changes in the
statewide vision, strategies, policies,
State adjusted levels of performance, the
methodology used to determine local
allocation of funds, reorganizations
which change the working relationship
with system employees, changes in
organizational responsibilities, changes
to the membership structure of the State
Board or alternative entity, and similar
substantial changes to the State’s
workforce investment system.
(c) Modifications to the Unified State
Plan are subject to the same public
review and comment requirements in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 676.130(c) that apply to the
development of the original Unified
State Plan.
(d) Unified State Plan modifications
must be approved by the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Education,
based on the approval standards
applicable to the original Unified State
Plan under § 676.130. This approval
must come after the approval of the
Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration for
modification of any portion of the plan
described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of
WIOA.
§ 676.140 What are the general
requirements for submitting a Combined
State Plan?
(a) A State may choose to develop and
submit a 4-year Combined State Plan in
lieu of the Unified State Plan described
in § 676.105.
(b) A State that submits a Combined
State Plan covering an activity or
program described in paragraph (d) of
this section that is approved under
WIOA sec. 103(c) or determined
complete under the law relating to the
program will not be required to submit
any other plan or application in order to
receive Federal funds to carry out the
core programs or the program or
activities described under paragraph (d)
of this section that are covered by the
Combined State Plan.
(c) If a State develops a Combined
State Plan, it must be submitted in
accordance with the process described
in § 676.143.
(d) If a State chooses to submit a
Combined State Plan, the Plan must
include the six core programs and one
or more of the optional programs and
activities described in sec. 103(a)(2) of
WIOA. The optional programs and
activities that may be included in the
Combined State Plan are:
(1) Career and technical education
programs authorized under the Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education
Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.);
(2) Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families or TANF, authorized under
part A of title IV of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
(3) Employment and training
programs authorized under sec. 6(d)(4)
of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4));
(4) Work programs authorized under
sec. 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o));
(5) Trade adjustment assistance
activities under chapter 2 of title II of
the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271
et seq.);
(6) Services for veterans authorized
under chapter 41 of title 38 United
States Code;
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(7) Programs authorized under State
unemployment compensation laws (in
accordance with applicable Federal
law);
(8) Senior Community Service
Employment Programs under title V of
the Older Americans Act of 1956 (42
U.S.C. 3056 et seq.);
(9) Employment and training
activities carried out by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development;
(10) Employment and training
activities carried out under the
Community Services Block Grant Act
(42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.); and
(11) Reintegration of offenders
programs authorized under sec. 212 of
the Second Chance Act of 2007 (42
U.S.C. 17532).
(e) A Combined State Plan must
contain:
(1) For the core programs, the
information required by sec. 102(b) of
WIOA and § 676.105, as explained in
the joint planning guidance issued by
the Secretaries;
(2) For the optional programs, except
as described in paragraph (h) of this
section, the information required by the
law authorizing and governing that
program to be submitted to the
appropriate Secretary, any other
applicable legal requirements, and any
common planning requirements
described in sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as
explained in the joint planning
guidance issued by the Secretaries;
(3) A description of joint planning
methods across all programs included in
the Combined State Plan; and
(4) An assurance that all of the
entities responsible for planning or
administering the programs described in
the Combined State Plan have had a
meaningful opportunity to review and
comment on all portions of the Plan.
(f) Each optional program included in
the Combined State Plan remains
subject to the applicable programspecific requirements of the Federal law
and regulations, and any other
applicable legal or program
requirements, governing the
implementation and operation of that
program.
(g) For purposes of §§ 676.140 through
676.145 the term ‘‘appropriate
Secretary’’ means the head of the
Federal agency who exercises either
plan or application approval authority
for the program or activity under the
Federal law authorizing the program or
activity or, if there are no planning or
application requirements, who exercises
administrative authority over the
program or activity under that Federal
law.
(h) States that include employment
and training activities carried out under
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
the Community Services Block Grant
(CSBG) Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.)
under a Combined State Plan would
submit all other required elements of a
complete CSBG State Plan directly to
the Federal agency that administers the
program, according to the requirements
of Federal law and regulations.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 676.143 What is the submission and
approval process of the Combined State
Plan?
(a) For purposes of § 676.140(a), if a
State chooses to develop a Combined
State Plan it must submit the Combined
State Plan in accordance with the
requirements described below and the
joint planning guidelines, which will
further explain the submission and
approval procedures for the Combined
State Plan, issued by the Secretaries.
(b) The State must submit to the
Secretaries of Labor and Education and
to the Secretary of the agency with
responsibility for approving the
program’s plan or determining it
complete under the law governing the
program, as part of its Combined State
Plan, any plan, application, form, or any
other similar document that is required
as a condition for the approval of
Federal funding under the applicable
program or activity. Such submission
must occur in accordance with a process
identified by the relevant Secretaries in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The Combined State Plan will be
approved or disapproved in accordance
with the requirements of sec. 103(c) of
WIOA.
(1) The portion of the Combined State
Plan covering programs administered by
the Departments of Labor and Education
must be reviewed, and approved or
disapproved, by the appropriate
Secretary within 90 days beginning on
the day the plan is received by the
appropriate Secretary from the State,
except as provided in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(2) If an appropriate Secretary other
than the Secretary of Labor or the
Secretary of Education has authority to
approve or determine complete a
portion of the Combined State Plan for
a program or activity described in
§ 676.140(d), that portion of the plan
must be reviewed, and approved,
disapproved, or have a determination of
completeness, by the appropriate
Secretary within 120 days beginning on
the day the plan is received by the
appropriate Secretary from the State
except as provided in paragraph (e) of
this section.
(d) The review and determination of
approval or disapproval, or
determination of completeness, of the
relevant portion of the Combined State
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Plan must occur within 90 days for all
Department of Labor and Education
programs included in the State Plan and
within 120 days for the programs
administered by other Federal Agencies
unless the appropriate Secretary
determines in writing within that period
that:
(1) The Plan is inconsistent with the
requirements of the six core programs or
the Federal laws authorizing or
applicable to the program or activity
involved, including the criteria for
approval of a plan or application, or
determining the plan’s completeness, if
any, under such law;
(2) The portion of the Plan describing
the six core programs or the program or
activity described in paragraph (a) of
this section involved does not satisfy
the criteria as provided in sec. 102 or
103 of WIOA, as applicable; or
(3) The Plan is incomplete, or
otherwise insufficient to determine
whether it is consistent with a core
program’s requirements, other
requirements of WIOA, or the Federal
laws authorizing, or applicable to, the
program or activity described in
§ 676.140(d), including the criteria for
approval of a plan or application, if any,
under such law.
(e) If the Secretary of Labor, the
Secretary of Education, or the
appropriate Secretary does not make the
written determination described in
paragraph (d) of this section within the
relevant period of time after submission
of the Plan, that portion of the
Combined State Plan over which the
Secretary has jurisdiction will be
considered approved.
(f) Special rule. In paragraphs (d)(1)
and (3) of this section, the term ‘‘criteria
for approval of a plan or application,’’
with respect to a State or a core program
or a program under the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of
2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), includes
a requirement for agreement between
the State and the appropriate Secretaries
regarding State performance measures
or State performance accountability
measures, as the case may be, including
levels of performance.
§ 676.145 What are the requirements for
modifications of the Combined State Plan?
(a) For the core program portions of
the Combined State Plan, modifications
are required at the end of the first 2-year
period of any 4-year Combined State
Plan. The State Board must review the
Combined State Plan, and the Governor
must submit a modification of the
Combined State Plan to reflect changes
in labor market and economic
conditions or in other factors affecting
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20631
the implementation of the Combined
State Plan.
(b) In addition to the required
modification review described in
paragraph (a) of this section, a State may
submit a modification of its Combined
State Plan at any time during the 4-year
period of the plan.
(c) For any programs and activities
described in § 676.140(d) that are
included in a State’s Combined State
Plan, the State—
(1) May decide if the modification
requirements under WIOA sec. 102(c)(3)
that apply to the core programs will
apply to the optional programs or
activities described in § 676.140(d) that
are included in the Combined State Plan
or may comply with the procedures and
requirements applicable to only the
particular optional program or activity;
and
(2) Must submit, in accordance with
the procedure described in § 676.143,
any other modification, amendment, or
revision required by the Federal law
authorizing, or applicable to, the
program or activity described in
§ 676.140(d). If the underlying
programmatic requirements change for
Federal laws authorizing such programs,
a State must either modify its Combined
State Plan or submit a separate plan to
the appropriate Federal agency in
accordance with the new Federal law
authorizing the optional program or
activity and other legal requirements
applicable to such program or activity.
A State also may amend its Combined
State Plan to add an optional program
or activity described in § 676.140(d).
(d) Modifications of the Combined
State Plan are subject to the same public
review and comment requirements that
apply to the development of the original
Combined State Plan as described in
§ 676.130(c) except that, if the
modification, amendment, or revision
affects the administration of a particular
optional program and has no impact on
the Combined State Plan as a whole or
the integration and administration of the
core and optional programs at the State
level, a State may comply instead with
the procedures and requirements
applicable to the particular optional
program.
(e) Modifications for the core program
portions of the Combined State Plan
must be approved by the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Education,
based on the approval standards
applicable to the original Combined
State Plan under § 676.143. This
approval must come after the approval
of the Commissioner of the
Rehabilitation Services Administration
for modification of any portion of the
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20632
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Combined State Plan described in sec.
102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA.
(f) Modifications for the portions of
the Combined State Plan for any
optional program or activity described
in § 676.140(d) must be submitted for
approval by only the appropriate
Secretary, based on the approval
standards applicable to the original
Combined State Plan under § 676.143, if
the State elects, or in accordance with
the procedures and requirements
applicable to the particular optional
program if the modification,
amendment, or revision affects the
administration of only that particular
optional program and has no impact on
the Combined State Plan as a whole or
the integration and administration of the
core and optional programs at the State
level.
■ 2. Add part 677 to read as follows:
PART 677—PERFORMANCE
ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER TITLE I OF
THE WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND
OPPORTUNITY ACT
Sec.
677.150 What definitions apply to
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act performance measurement and
reporting requirements?
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Subpart A—State Indicators of Performance
for Core Programs
677.155 What are the primary indicators of
performance under the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
677.160 What information is required for
State performance reports?
677.165 May a State require additional
indicators of performance?
677.170 How are State adjusted levels of
performance for primary indicators
established?
677.175 What responsibility do States have
to use quarterly wage record information
for performance accountability?
Subpart B—Sanctions for State
Performance and the Provision of Technical
Assistance
677.180 What State actions are subject to
a financial sanction under Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
677.185 When are sanctions applied for
failure to report?
677.190 When are sanctions applied for
failure to achieve adjusted levels of
performance?
677.195 What should States expect when a
sanction is applied to the Governor’s
Reserve Allotment?
677.200 What other administrative actions
will be applied to States’ performance
requirements?
Subpart C—Local Performance
Accountability for Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act Title I Programs
677.205 What performance indicators
apply to local areas?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
677.210 How are local performance levels
established?
Subpart D—Incentives and Sanctions for
Local Performance for Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I
Programs
677.215 Under what circumstances are
local areas eligible for State Incentive
Grants?
677.220 Under what circumstances may a
corrective action or sanction be applied
to local areas for poor performance?
677.225 Under what circumstances may
local areas appeal a reorganization plan?
Subpart E—Eligible Training Provider
Performance for Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act Title I Programs
677.230 What information is required for
the eligible training provider
performance reports?
Subpart F—Performance Reporting
Administrative Requirements
677.235 What are the reporting
requirements for individual records for
core Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act title I, III, and IV
programs?
677.240 What are the requirements for data
validation of State annual performance
reports?
Authority: Secs. 503, 116, 189, Pub. L.
113–128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 2014).
§ 677.150 What definitions apply to
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
performance measurement and reporting
requirements?
(a) Participant. A reportable
individual who has received staffassisted services after satisfying all
applicable programmatic requirements
for the provision of services, such as
eligibility determination.
(1) For the Vocational Rehabilitation
(VR) program, a Participant is an
individual who has an approved and
signed Individualized Plan for
Employment (IPE) and has begun to
receive services.
(2) The following individuals are not
Participants:
(i) Individuals who have not
completed at least 12 contact hours in
the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act (AEFLA) program;
(ii) Individuals who only use the selfservice system; and
(iii) Individuals who only receive
information services or activities.
(3) Programs must include
participants in their performance
calculations.
(b) Reportable individual. An
individual who has taken action that
demonstrates an intent to use program
services and who meets specific
reporting criteria of the core program,
including:
(1) Individuals who provide
identifying information;
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(2) Individuals who only use the selfservice system; and
(3) Individuals who only receive
information on services or activities.
(c) Exit. As defined for the purpose of
performance calculations, exit is the
point after which an individual who has
received services through any program
meets the following criteria:
(1) For the adult, dislocated worker,
and youth programs under Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA) title I, the AEFLA program
under WIOA title II, and the
Employment Services authorized by the
Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by
WIOA title III, exit date is the last date
of service:
(i) The exit date cannot be determined
until 90 days of no services has elapsed.
At that point the exit date is applied
retroactively to the last date of service.
(A) Ninety days of no service does not
include self-service or information-only
activities or follow-up services and
(B) There are no future services
planned, excluding follow-up services.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2)(i) For the VR program as amended
by WIOA title IV:
(A) The participant’s record of service
is closed in accordance with 34 CFR
361.56 because the participant has
achieved an employment outcome; or
(B) The participant’s service record is
closed because the individual has not
achieved an employment outcome or
the individual has been determined
ineligible after receiving services in
accordance with 34 CFR 361.43.
(ii) Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, a participant
will not be considered as meeting the
definition of exit from the Vocational
Rehabilitation program if the
individual’s service record is closed
because the individual has achieved a
supported employment outcome in an
integrated setting but not in competitive
integrated employment.
Subpart A—State Indicators of
Performance for Core Programs
§ 677.155 What are the primary indicators
of performance under the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
(a) All States submitting either a
Unified or Combined State Plan under
§§ 676.130 and 676.143 of this chapter,
must propose expected levels of
performance for each of the primary
indicators of performance for the adult,
dislocated worker, and youth programs
under title I of WIOA, the AEFLA
program under title II of WIOA, the
Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by title
III of WIOA, and the VR program as
amended by WIOA.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(1) The six primary indicators for
performance are:
(i) The percentage of participants,
who are in unsubsidized employment
during the second quarter after exit from
the program;
(ii) The percentage of participants,
who are in unsubsidized employment
during the fourth quarter after exit from
the program;
(iii) Median earnings of participants,
who are in unsubsidized employment
during the second quarter after exit from
the program;
(iv) The percentage of participants
who obtained a recognized postsecondary credential or a secondary
school diploma, or its recognized
equivalent during participation in or
within 1 year after exit from the
program. A participant who has
obtained a secondary school diploma or
its recognized equivalent is only
included in this measure if the
participant is also employed or is
enrolled in an education or training
program leading to a recognized postsecondary credential within 1 year from
program exit;
(v) The percentage of participants
who during a program year, are in an
education or training program that leads
to a recognized post-secondary
credential or employment and who are
achieving measurable skill gains,
defined as documented academic,
technical, occupational or other forms of
progress, towards such a credential or
employment.
(vi) Effectiveness in serving
employers, based on indicators
developed as required by sec.
116(b)(2)(A)(iv) of WIOA.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) The indicators in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section
apply to the adult, dislocated worker,
AEFLA and VR programs.
(c) The indicators in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (vi) of this
section apply to the Employment
Services.
(d) For the youth program under title
I of WIOA, the indicators are:
(1) Percentage of participants who are
in education or training activities, or in
unsubsidized employment, during the
second quarter after exit from the
program;
(2) Percentage of participants in
education or training activities, or in
unsubsidized employment, during the
fourth quarter after exit from the
program;
(3) Median earnings of participants
who are in unsubsidized employment
during the second quarter after exit from
the program;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
(4) The percentage of participants
who obtained a recognized postsecondary credential or a secondary
school diploma, or its recognized
equivalent, during participation or up to
1 year after exit. A participant who has
obtained a secondary school diploma or
its recognized equivalent is only
included in this measure if the
participant is also employed or is
enrolled in an education or training
program leading to a recognized postsecondary credential within 1 year from
program exit;
(5) The percentage of participants
who during a program year, are in an
education or training program that leads
to a recognized post-secondary
credential or employment and who are
achieving measurable skill gains,
defined as documented academic,
technical, occupational or other forms of
progress towards such a credential or
employment;
(6) Effectiveness in serving employers,
based on indicators developed as
required by sec. 116(b)(2)(iv) of WIOA.
§ 677.160 What information is required for
State performance reports?
(a) Section 116(d)(2) of WIOA requires
States to submit a State performance
report. The State performance report
must be submitted annually using a
template the Departments will
disseminate and must provide, at a
minimum, information on the actual
performance levels achieved consistent
with § 677.175 with respect to:
(1) The total number of participants
served, and the total number of
participants who exited each of the core
programs identified in sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA, including
disaggregated counts of those who
participated in and exited a core
program, by:
(i) Individuals with barriers to
employment as defined in WIOA sec.
3(24); and
(ii) Co-enrollment in any of the
programs in WIOA sec 116(b)(3)(A)(ii).
(2) Information on the performance
levels achieved for the primary
indicators for all of the core programs
identified in § 677.155 including
disaggregated levels for:
(i) Individuals with barriers to
employment as defined in WIOA sec.
3(24);
(ii) Age;
(iii) Sex; and
(iv) Race and ethnicity.
(3) The total number of participants
and exiters who received career and
training services for the most recent
program year and the three preceding
program years, as applicable to the
program;
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20633
(4) Information on the performance
levels achieved for the primary
indicators consistent with § 677.155 for
career and training services for the most
recent program year and the 3 preceding
program years, as applicable to the
program;
(5) The percentage of participants in
a program who obtained unsubsidized
employment related to the training
received (often referred to as trainingrelated employment) through WIOA
title I–B programs;
(6) The amount of funds spent on
each type of career and training service
for the most recent program year and the
3 preceding program years, as
applicable to the program;
(7) The average cost per participant
for those participants who received
career and training services,
respectively, during the most recent
program year and the 3 preceding
program years for, as applicable to the
program;
(8) The percentage of a State’s annual
allotment under WIOA sec. 132(b) that
the State spent on administrative costs;
and
(9) Information that facilitates
comparisons of programs with programs
in other States.
(10) For WIOA title I programs, a State
performance narrative, which, for States
in which a local area is implementing a
pay-for-performance contracting
strategy, at a minimum provides:
(i) A description of pay-forperformance contract strategies being
used for programs;
(ii) The performance of service
providers entering into contracts for
such strategies, measured against the
levels of performance specified in the
contracts for such strategies; and
(iii) An evaluation of the design of the
programs and performance strategies
and, when available, the satisfaction of
employers and participants who
received services under such strategies.
(b) The disaggregation of data for the
State performance report must be done
in compliance with WIOA sec.
116(d)(6)(C).
(c) The State performance reports
must include a mechanism of electronic
access to the State’s local area and ETP
performance reports.
(d) States must comply with these
requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as
explained in joint guidance issued by
the Departments of Education and
Labor, which may include information
on reportable individuals as determined
by the Secretaries.
§ 677.165 May a State require additional
indicators of performance?
States may identify additional
indicators of performance for the six
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20634
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
core programs. These indicators must be
included in the Unified or Combined
State Plan.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 677.170 How are State adjusted levels of
performance for primary indicators
established?
(a) A State must submit in the State
Plan expected levels of performance on
the primary indicators for each core
program as required by sec. 116(b)(iv) of
WIOA as explained in joint guidance
issued by the Secretaries of Education
and Labor.
(1) The initial State Plan submitted
under WIOA must contain expected
levels of performance for the first 2
years of the State Plan period.
(2) States must submit expected levels
of performance for the third and fourth
year of the State Plan before the third
program year consistent with §§ 676.135
and 676.145 of this chapter.
(b) The State must reach agreement on
levels of performance with the
Secretaries of Education and Labor for
each of the core programs based on the
following factors:
(1) How the levels of performance
compare with State adjusted levels of
performance established for other
States;
(2) The application of an objective
statistical model established by the
Secretaries of Education and Labor,
subject to paragraph (d) of this section;
(3) How the levels promote
continuous improvement in
performance based on the primary
indicators and ensure optimal return on
investment of Federal funds; and
(4) The extent to which the levels
assist the State in meeting the
performance goals established by the
Secretaries of Education and Labor for
the core programs in accordance with
the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, and its
amendments.
(c) An objective statistical adjustment
model will be developed and
disseminated by the Secretaries. The
model will be based on:
(1) Differences among States in actual
economic conditions, including
unemployment rates and job losses or
gains in particular industries; and
(2) The characteristics of participants,
including:
(i) Indicators of poor work history;
(ii) Lack of work experience;
(iii) Lack of educational or
occupational skills attainment;
(iv) Dislocation from high-wage and
high-benefit employment;
(v) Low levels of literacy;
(vi) Low levels of English proficiency;
(vii) Disability status;
(viii) Homelessness;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
(ix) Ex-offender status; and
(x) Welfare dependency.
(d) The objective statistical
adjustment model developed under
paragraph (c) of this section will be:
(1) Applied to the core programs’
primary indicators upon availability of
data which is necessary to populate the
model and apply it to the programs;
(2) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, used before the beginning of a
program year in order to establish State
performance targets for the upcoming
program year; and
(3) subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, used to revise performance
levels at the end of a program year based
on actual circumstances, consistent with
sec. 116(b)(3)(vii) of WIOA.
(e) States must comply with these
requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as
explained in joint guidance issued by
the Departments of Education and
Labor.
§ 677.175 What responsibility do States
have to use quarterly wage record
information for performance
accountability?
(a) States must, consistent with State
laws, use quarterly wage record
information in measuring the progress
on State adjusted levels of performance
for the primary indicators outlined in
§ 677.155 and local performance
indicators identified in § 677.205. The
use of social security numbers from
participants and such other information
as is necessary to measure the progress
of those participants through quarterly
wage record information is authorized.
(b) ‘‘Quarterly wage record
information’’ means intrastate and
interstate wages paid to an individual,
the social security number (or numbers,
if more than one) of the individual and
the name, address, State, and the
Federal employer identification number
of the employer paying the wages to the
individual.
(c) The Governor may designate a
State agency [or appropriate State
entity] to assist in carrying out the
performance reporting requirements for
WIOA core programs and eligible
training providers. The Governor or
such agency [or appropriate State entity]
is responsible for:
(1) Facilitating data matches; and
(2) Data quality reliability, protection
against disaggregation that would
violate privacy.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Subpart B—Sanctions for State
Performance and the Provision of
Technical Assistance
§ 677.180 What State actions are subject
to a financial sanction under Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
The following failures by a State are
subject to financial sanction under
WIOA sec. 116(d):
(a) The failure by a State to submit the
State annual performance report
required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2); or
(b) The failure by a State to meet
adjusted levels of performance for the
primary indicators of performance in
accordance with sec. 116(f) of WIOA.
§ 677.185 When are sanctions applied for
failure to report?
(a) Sanctions will be applied when a
State fails to submit the State annual
performance reports required under sec.
116(d)(2) of WIOA. It is a failure to
report if the State either:
(1) Does not submit a State annual
performance report by the date for
timely submission set in performance
reporting guidance; or
(2) Submits a State annual
performance report by the date for
timely submission, but the report is
incomplete.
(b) Sanctions will not be assessed if
the reporting failure is due to
exceptional circumstances outside of
the State’s control. Exceptional
circumstances may include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Natural disasters;
(2) Unexpected personnel transitions;
and
(3) Unexpected technology related
impacts.
(c) In the event that a State may not
be able to submit a complete and
accurate performance report by the
deadline for timely reporting:
(1) The State must notify the Secretary
of Labor or Secretary of Education as
soon as possible of a potential impact on
the ability to submit their State annual
performance reports by no later than 30
days prior to the established deadline in
order to not be considered failing to
report.
(2) In circumstances where
unexpected events occur within the 30day period before the deadline for
submission of the State annual
performance reports, the Secretary of
Labor and Secretary of Education will
review requests for extending the
reporting deadline in accordance with
the Departments’ procedures explained
in guidance on reporting timelines.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 677.190 When are sanctions applied for
failure to achieve adjusted levels of
performance?
(a) States’ negotiated levels of
performance will be adjusted through
the application of the statistical
adjustment model established under
§ 677.170 to account for actual
conditions experienced during a
program year and characteristics of
participants, annually at the close of
each program year.
(b) States that fail to meet adjusted
levels of performance for the primary
indicators of performance outlined in
§ 677.155 for any year will receive
technical assistance, including
assistance in the development of a
performance improvement plan
provided by the Secretary of Labor or
Secretary of Education.
(c) State failure to meet adjusted
levels of performance will be
determined through three criteria:
(1) Overall State program scores,
based on the percent achieved by a
program on each of the six primary
indicators compared to the adjusted goal
for each primary indicator. The average
of the percentage of the adjusted goal
achieved for each primary indicator will
constitute the overall program score for
the State;
(2) Overall State indicator scores,
based on the percent achieved by each
program on each of the individual
primary indicators compared to the
adjusted goal. The average of the
percentage of the adjusted goal achieved
for each of the six core programs’ will
constitute an overall indicator score for
the State; and
(3) Individual indicator scores, based
on the percent achieved by each
program on each of the individual
primary indicators compared to the
adjusted goals.
(d) A performance failure occurs
when:
(1) Any overall State program score or
overall State indicator score falls below
90 percent for the program year; or
(2) Any of the States’ individual
indicator scores fall below 50 percent
for the program year.
(e) Sanctions based on performance
failure will be applied to States if, for 2
consecutive years, the State fails to meet
90 percent of the overall State program
score, 90 percent of the overall State
indicator score, or 50 percent on any
individual indicator score for the same
program or indicator.
§ 677.195 What should States expect when
a sanction is applied to the Governor’s
Reserve Allotment?
(a) The Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Education will reduce the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Governor’s Reserve Allotment by 5
percent of the maximum available
amount for the immediately succeeding
program year if:
(1) The State fails to submit the State
annual performance reports as required
under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2), as defined
in § 677.185; or
(2) The State fails to meet State
adjusted levels of performance for the
same primary performance indicator(s)
under either § 677.190(d)(1) or
§ 677.190(d)(2) for the second
consecutive year as defined in
§ 677.190.
(b) If the State fails under paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section in the same
program year, the Secretary of Labor and
the Secretary of Education will reduce
the Governor’s Reserve Allotment by 10
percent of the maximum available
amount for the immediately succeeding
program year.
(c) If a State’s Governor’s Reserve
Allotment is reduced:
(1) The reduced amount will not be
returned to the State in the event that
the State later improves performance or
submits its annual performance report;
and
(2) The Governor’s reserve will
continue to be set at the reduced level
in each subsequent year until the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of
Education, dependent upon the
impacted program, determines that the
State met the State adjusted levels of
performance for the applicable primary
performance indicators and has
submitted all of the required
performance reports.
(d) A State may request review of a
sanction the U.S. Department of Labor
imposes in accordance with the
provisions of § 683.800 of this chapter.
§ 677.200 What other administrative
actions will be applied to States’
performance requirements?
(a) In addition to sanctions for failure
to report or failure to meet adjusted
levels of performance, States will be
subject to administrative actions in the
case of poor performance.
(b) States’ performance achievement
on the individual primary indicators
will be assessed in addition to the
overall program score and overall
indicator score. Based on this
assessment, as clarified and explained
in guidance, for performance on any
individual primary indicator, the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of
Education will require the State to
establish a performance risk plan to
address continuous improvement on the
individual primary indicator.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20635
Subpart C—Local Performance
Accountability for Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I
Programs
§ 677.205 What performance indicators
apply to local areas?
(a) Each local workforce investment
area in a State under title I of WIOA is
subject to the same primary indicators
of performance for the core programs for
WIOA title I under § 677.155(a)(1) and
(d) that apply to the State.
(b) In addition to the indicators
described in paragraph (a) of this
section, under § 677.165, the Governor
may apply additional indicators of
performance to local areas in the State.
(c) States must annually make local
area performance reports available to
the public using a template that the
Departments will disseminate in
guidance, including by electronic
means. The State must provide
electronic access to the public local area
performance report in its annual State
performance report.
(d) The local area performance report
must provide information on the actual
performance levels for the local area
based on quarterly wage records
consistent with the requirements for
States under § 677.175.
(e) The local area performance report
must include:
(1) Performance levels achieved by
the local area for the indicators for the
adult, dislocated worker, and youth
programs under title I of WIOA in
§ 677.155(a)(1) and (3);
(2) Performance levels achieved by
the local area for the adult, dislocated
worker, and youth programs under title
I of WIOA in § 677.160(a);
(3) The percentage of a local area’s
allotment under WIOA sec. 128(b) and
sec. 133(b) that the local area spent on
administrative costs; and
(4) Other information that facilitates
comparisons of programs with programs
in other local areas (or planning regions
if the local area is part of a planning
region).
(f) States must comply with any
requirements from sec. 116(d)(3) of
WIOA as explained in guidance,
including the use of the performance
reporting template, issued by the
Department of Labor.
§ 677.210 How are local performance
levels established?
(a) The objective statistical adjustment
model required under sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(viii) of WIOA and
described in the § 677.170 must be:
(1) Used to establish local
performance targets for the upcoming
program year; and
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20636
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(2) Used to revise performance levels
at the end of a program year based on
actual circumstances, consistent with
WIOA sec. 116(c)(3).
(b) The Governor, Local Board, and
chief elected official must reach
agreement on local targets and levels
based on a negotiations process before
the start of a program year with the use
of the objective statistical model
described in paragraph (a) of this
section. The negotiations will include a
discussion of circumstances not
accounted for in the model and will take
into account the extent to which the
levels promote continuous
improvement. The objective statistical
model will be applied at the end of the
program year based on actual conditions
experienced.
(c) The negotiations process described
in paragraph (b) of this section must be
developed by the Governor and
disseminated to all Local Boards and
chief elected officials.
(d) The Local Boards may apply
performance measures to service
providers that differ from the
performance measures that apply to the
local area. These performance measures
should be established after considering:
(1) The established local performance
levels;
(2) The services provided by each
provider; and
(3) The populations the service
providers are intended to serve.
Subpart D—Incentives and Sanctions
for Local Performance for Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I
Programs
§ 677.215 Under what circumstances are
local areas eligible for State Incentive
Grants?
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(a) The Governor is not required to
award local incentive funds. The
Governor may use non-Federal funds to
create incentives for Local Boards to
implement pay-for-performance contract
strategies for the delivery of training
services described in WIOA sec.
134(c)(3) or activities described in
WIOA sec. 129(c)(2) in the local areas
served by the Local Boards.
(b) Pay-for-performance contract
strategies must be implemented in
accordance with §§ 683.500 through
683.530 of this chapter and § 677.160.
§ 677.220 Under what circumstances may
a corrective action or sanction be applied
to local areas for poor performance?
(a) If a local area fails to meet the
levels of performance agreed to under
§ 677.210 for the primary indicators of
performance in the adult, dislocated
worker, and youth programs authorized
under WIOA title I in any program year,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
technical assistance must be provided
by the Governor or, upon the Governor’s
request, by the Secretary of Labor.
(1) A State must establish the
threshold for failure in meeting levels of
performance for a local area before
negotiating the adjusted levels of
performance for the local area.
(2) The technical assistance may
include:
(i) Assistance in the development of a
performance improvement plan;
(ii) The development of a modified
local or regional plan; or
(iii) Other actions designed to assist
the local area in improving
performance.
(b) If a local area fails to meet the
levels of performance agreed to under
§ 677.210 for the primary indicators of
performance for the adult, dislocated
worker, and youth programs authorized
under WIOA title I for a third
consecutive program year, the Governor
must take corrective actions. The
corrective actions must include the
development of a reorganization plan
under which the Governor:
(1) Requires the appointment and
certification of a new Local Board,
consistent with the criteria established
under § 679.350 of this chapter;
(2) Prohibits the use of eligible
providers and one-stop partners that
have been identified as achieving poor
levels of performance; or
(3) Takes such other significant
actions as the Governor determines are
appropriate.
§ 677.225 Under what circumstances may
local areas appeal a reorganization plan?
(a) The Local Board and chief elected
official for a local area that is subject to
a reorganization plan under WIOA sec.
116(g)(2)(A) may appeal to the Governor
to rescind or revise the reorganization
plan not later than 30 days after
receiving notice of the reorganization
plan. The Governor must make a final
decision within 30 days after receipt of
the appeal.
(b) The Local Board and chief elected
official may appeal the final decision of
the Governor to the Secretary of Labor
not later than 30 days after receiving the
decision from the Governor. Any appeal
of the Governor’s final decision must be:
(1) Appealed jointly by the Local
Board and chief elected official to the
Secretary under § 683.650 of this
chapter; and
(2) Must be submitted by certified
mail, return receipt requested, to the
Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington
DC 20210, Attention: ASET. A copy of
the appeal must be simultaneously
provided to the Governor.
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(c) Upon receipt of the joint appeal
from the Local Board and chief elected
official, the Secretary must make a final
decision within 30 days. In making this
determination the Secretary may
consider any comments submitted by
the Governor in response to the appeals.
(d) The decision by the Governor to
impose a reorganization plan becomes
effective at the time it is issued and
remains effective unless the Secretary of
Labor rescinds or revises the
reorganization plan under WIOA sec.
116(g)(2)(B)(ii).
Subpart E—Eligible Training Provider
Performance for Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act Title I Programs
§ 677.230 What information is required for
the eligible training provider performance
reports?
(a) States are required to make
available, and publish, annually using a
template the Departments will
disseminate including through
electronic means, the eligible training
provider performance reports for
eligible training providers who provide
services under sec. 122 of WIOA that are
described in §§ 680.400 through 680.530
of this chapter. These reports at a
minimum must include, consistent with
§ 677.175 and with respect to each
program of study that is eligible to
receive funds under WIOA:
(1) The total number of participants
who received training services under
the adult and dislocated worker
programs authorized under WIOA title I
for the most recent year and the 3
preceding program years, including:
(i) The number of participants under
the adult and dislocated worker
programs disaggregated by barriers to
employment;
(ii) The number of participants under
the adult and dislocated worker
programs disaggregated by race,
ethnicity, sex, and age;
(iii) The number of participants under
the adult and dislocated worker
programs disaggregated by the type of
training entity for the most recent
program year and the 3 preceding
program years;
(2) The total number of participants
who exit a program of study or its
equivalent, including disaggregate
counts by the type of training entity
during the most recent program year
and the 3 preceding program years;
(3) The average cost-per-participant
for participants who received training
services for the most recent program
year and the 3 preceding program years
disaggregated by type of training entity;
(4) The total number of individuals
exiting from the program of study (or
the equivalent); and
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(5) The levels of performance
achieved for the primary indicators of
performance identified in
§§ 677.155(a)(1)(i) through (iv) with
respect to all individuals in a program
of study (or the equivalent).
(b) Registered apprenticeship
programs are not required to submit
performance information. See § 680.470
of this chapter. If a registered
apprenticeship program voluntarily
submits performance information to a
State, the State must include this
information in the report.
(c) The State must provide electronic
access to the public eligible training
provider performance report in its
annual State performance report.
(d) States must comply with any
requirements from sec. 116(d)(4) of
WIOA as explained in guidance issued
by the Department of Labor.
(e) The Governor may designate one
or more State agencies such as a State
education agency or State educational
authority to assist in overseeing eligible
training provider performance and
facilitating the production and
dissemination of eligible training
provider performance reports. These
agencies may be the same agencies that
are designated as responsible for
administering the eligible training
providers list as provided under
§ 680.500 of this chapter. The Governor
or such agencies, or authorities, is
responsible for:
(1) Facilitating data matches between
ETP records and UI wage data in order
to produce the report;
(2) The creation and dissemination of
the reports as described in paragraphs
(a) through (d) of this section;
(3) Coordinating the dissemination of
the performance reports with the
eligible training provider list and the
information required to accompany the
list, as provided in § 680.500 of this
chapter.
Subpart F—Performance Reporting
Administrative Requirements
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 677.235 What are the reporting
requirements for individual records for core
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
title I, III, and IV programs?
(a) On a quarterly basis, each State
must submit to the Secretary of Labor or
Secretary of Education, as appropriate,
individual records that include
demographic information, information
on services received, and information
on resulting outcomes, as appropriate,
for each reportable individual in a core
program administered by the Secretary
of Labor or Education. Such records
submitted to the Department of Labor
must be submitted in one record that is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
integrated across all core Department of
Labor programs.
(b) For individual records submitted
to the Secretary of Labor, records must
be integrated across all core programs
administered by the Secretary of Labor
in one single file.
(c) States must comply with any other
requirements from sec. 116(d)(2) of
WIOA as explained in guidance issued
by the Department of Labor.
§ 677.240 What are the requirements for
data validation of State annual performance
reports?
(a) States must establish procedures,
consistent with guidelines issued by the
Secretary of Education or Secretary of
Labor, to submit complete annual
performance reports that contain
information that is valid and reliable.
(b) If a State fails to meet standards in
paragraph (a) of this section as
determined by the Secretary of Labor or
Secretary of Education, the appropriate
Secretary will provide technical
assistance and may require the State to
develop and implement corrective
actions, which may require the State to
provide training for its subrecipients.
(c) The Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Education will provide
training and technical assistance to
States in order to implement this
section.
■ 3. Add part 678 to read as follows:
PART 678—DESCRIPTION OF THE
ONE–STOP SYSTEM UNDER TITLE I
OF THE WORKFORCE INNOVATION
AND OPPORTUNITY ACT
Subpart A—General Description of the OneStop Delivery System
Sec.
678.300 What is the one-stop delivery
system?
678.305 What is a comprehensive one-stop
center and what must be provided there?
678.310 What is an affiliated site and what
must be provided there?
678.315 Can a stand-alone Wagner-Peyser
employment service office be designated
as an affiliated one-stop site?
678.320 Are there any requirements for
networks of eligible one-stop partners or
specialized centers?
Subpart B—One-Stop Partners and the
Responsibilities of Partners
678.400 Who are the required one-stop
partners?
678.405 Is Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families a required one-stop partner?
678.410 What other entities may serve as
one-stop partners?
678.415 What entity serves as the one-stop
partner for a particular program in the
local area?
678.420 What are the roles and
responsibilities of the required one-stop
partners?
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20637
678.425 What are the applicable career
services that must be provided through
the one-stop delivery system by required
one-stop partners?
678.430 What are career services?
678.435 What are the business services
provided through the one-stop delivery
system, and how are they provided?
678.440 When may a fee be charged for the
business services in this subpart?
Subpart C—Memorandum of Understanding
for the One-Stop Delivery System
678.500 What is the Memorandum of
Understanding for the one-stop delivery
system and what must be included in the
Memorandum of Understanding?
678.505 Is there a single Memorandum of
Understanding for the local area, or must
there be separate Memoranda of
Understanding between the Local Board
and each partner?
678.510 How should the Memorandum of
Understanding be negotiated?
Subpart D—One-Stop Operators
678.600 Who may operate one-stop centers?
678.605 How is the one-stop operator
selected?
678.610 How is sole source selection of
one-stop operators accomplished?
678.615 Can an entity serving as one-stop
operator compete to be a one-stop
operator under the procurement
requirements of this subpart?
678.620 What is the one-stop operator’s
role?
678.625 Can a one-stop operator also be a
service provider?
678.630 Can State merit staff still work in
a one-stop where the operator is not a
governmental entity?
678.635 What is the effective date of the
provisions of this subpart?
Subpart E—One-Stop Operating Costs
678.700 What are one-stop infrastructure
costs?
678.705 What guidance must the Governor
issue regarding one-stop infrastructure
funding?
678.710 How are infrastructure costs
funded?
678.715 How are one-stop infrastructure
costs funded in the local funding
mechanism?
678.720 What funds are used to pay for
infrastructure costs in the local one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
678.725 What happens if consensus on
infrastructure funding is not reached at
the local level between the Local Board,
chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners?
678.730 What is the State one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
678.735 How are partner contributions
determined in the State one-stop funding
mechanism?
678.740 What funds are used to pay for
infrastructure costs in the State one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
678.745 How is the allocation formula used
by the Governor determined in the State
one-stop funding mechanism?
678.750 When and how can a one-stop
partner appeal a one-stop infrastructure
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20638
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
amount designated by the State under
the State infrastructure funding
mechanism?
678.755 What are the required elements
regarding infrastructure funding that
must be included in the one-stop
Memorandum of Understanding?
678.760 How do one-stop partners jointly
fund other shared costs under the
Memorandum of Understanding?
Subpart F—One-Stop Certification
678.800 How are one-stop centers and onestop delivery systems certified for
effectiveness, physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous
improvement?
Subpart G—Common Identifier
678.900 What is the common identifier to
be used by each one-stop delivery
system?
Authority: Secs. 503, 107, 121, 134, 189,
Pub. L. 113–128, 128 Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22,
2014).
Subpart A—General Description of the
One-Stop Delivery System
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 678.300
system?
What is the one-stop delivery
(a) The one-stop delivery system
brings together workforce development,
educational, and other human resource
services in a seamless customer-focused
service delivery network that enhances
access to the programs’ services and
improves long-term employment
outcomes for individuals receiving
assistance. One-stop partners administer
separately funded programs as a set of
integrated streamlined services to
customers.
(b) Title I of the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act (WIOA) assigns
responsibilities at the local, State, and
Federal level to ensure the creation and
maintenance of a one-stop delivery
system that enhances the range and
quality of education and workforce
development services that business and
individual customers can access.
(c) The system must include at least
one comprehensive physical center in
each local area as described in
§ 678.305.
(d) The system may also have
additional arrangements to supplement
the comprehensive center. These
arrangements include:
(1) An affiliated site or a network of
affiliated sites, where one or more
partners make programs, services, and
activities available, as described in
§ 678.310;
(2) A network of eligible one-stop
partners, as described in §§ 678.400
through 678.410, through which each
partner provides one or more of the
programs, services, and activities that
are linked, physically or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
technologically, to an affiliated site or
access point that assures customers are
provided information on the availability
of career services, as well as other
program services and activities,
regardless of where they initially enter
the workforce system in the local area;
and
(3) Specialized centers that address
specific needs, including those of
dislocated workers, youth, or key
industry sectors, or clusters.
(e) Required one-stop partner
programs must provide access to
programs, services, and activities
through electronic means if applicable
and practicable. This is in addition to
providing access to services through the
mandatory comprehensive physical onestop center and any affiliated sites or
specialized centers. The provision of
programs and services by electronic
methods such as Web sites, telephones,
or other means must improve the
efficiency, coordination, and quality of
one-stop partner services. Electronic
delivery must not replace access to such
services at a comprehensive one-stop
center or be a substitute to making
services available at an affiliated site if
the partner is participating in an
affiliated site. Electronic delivery
systems must be in compliance with the
nondiscrimination and equal
opportunity provisions of WIOA in sec.
188 and its implementing regulations at
29 CFR part 37.
(f) The design of the local area’s onestop delivery system must be described
in the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) executed with the one-stop
partners, described in § 678.500.
§ 678.305 What is a comprehensive onestop center and what must be provided
there?
(a) A comprehensive one-stop center
is a physical location where jobseeker
and employer customers can access the
programs, services, and activities of all
required one-stop partners. A
comprehensive one-stop center must
have at least one title I staff person
physically present.
(b) The comprehensive one-stop
center must provide:
(1) Career services, described in
§ 678.430;
(2) Access to training services
described in § 680.200 of this chapter;
(3) Access to any employment and
training activities carried out under sec.
134(d) of WIOA;
(4) Access to programs and activities
carried out by one-stop partners listed
in §§ 678.400 through 678.410,
including Wagner-Peyser employment
services; and
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(5) Workforce and labor market
information.
(c) Customers must have access to
these programs, services, and activities
during regular business days at a
comprehensive one-stop center. The
Local Board may establish other service
hours at other times to accommodate the
schedules of individuals who work on
regular business days. The State Board
will evaluate the hours of access to
service as part of the evaluation of
effectiveness in the one-stop
certification process described in
§ 678.800(b).
(d) ‘‘Access’’ to programs and services
means having either: Program staff
physically present at the location;
having partner program staff physically
present at the one-stop appropriately
trained to provide information to
customers about the programs, services,
and activities available through partner
programs; or providing direct linkage
through technology to program staff
who can provide meaningful
information or services.
(1) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ means
providing direct connection at the onestop, within a reasonable time, by phone
or through a real-time Web-based
communication to a program staff
member who can provide program
information or services to the customer.
(2) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ does not
include providing a phone number or
computer Web site that can be used at
an individual’s home; providing
information, pamphlets, or materials; or
making arrangements for the customer
to receive services at a later time or on
a different day.
(e) All comprehensive one-stop
centers must be physically and
programmatically accessible to
individuals with disabilities, as
described in § 678.800.
§ 678.310 What is an affiliated site and
what must be provided there?
(a) An affiliated site, or affiliate onestop center, is a site that makes available
to jobseeker and employer customers
one or more of the one-stop partners’
programs, services, and activities. An
affiliated site does not need to provide
access to every required one-stop
partner program. The frequency of
program staff’s physical presence in the
affiliated site will be determined at the
local level. Affiliated sites are access
points in addition to the Comprehensive
one-stop center(s) in each local area. If
used by local areas as a part of the
service delivery strategy, affiliate sites
should be implemented in a manner
that supplements and enhances
customer access to services.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(b) As described in § 678.315, WagnerPeyser employment services cannot be a
stand-alone affiliated site.
(c) States, in conjunction with the
Local Workforce Development Boards,
must examine lease agreements and
property holdings throughout the onestop delivery system in order to use
property in an efficient and effective
way. Where necessary and appropriate,
States and Local Boards must take
expeditious steps to align lease
expiration dates with efforts to
consolidate one-stop operations into
service points where Wagner-Peyser
employment services are collocated as
soon as reasonably possible. These steps
must be included in the State Plan.
(d) All affiliated sites must be
physically and programmatically
accessible to individuals with
disabilities, as described in § 678.800.
§ 678.315 Can a stand-alone WagnerPeyser employment service office be
designated as an affiliated one-stop site?
(a) Separate stand-alone WagnerPeyser employment services offices are
not permitted under WIOA, as also
described in § 652.202 of this chapter.
(b) If Wagner-Peyser employment
services are provided at an affiliated
site, there must be at least one other
partner in the affiliated site with staff
physically present more than 50 percent
of the time the center is open.
Additionally, the other partner must not
be the partner administering local
veterans’ employment representatives,
disabled veterans’ outreach program
specialists, or unemployment
compensation programs. If WagnerPeyser employment services and any of
these three programs are provided at an
affiliated site, an additional partner
must have staff present in the center
more than 50 percent of the time the
center is open.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 678.320 Are there any requirements for
networks of eligible one-stop partners or
specialized centers?
Any network of one-stop partners or
specialized centers must be connected
to, such as having processes in place to
make referrals to, the comprehensive
and any appropriate affiliate one-stop
centers. Wagner-Peyser employment
services cannot stand alone in a
specialized center. Just as described in
§ 678.315 for an affiliated site, a
specialized center must include other
programs besides Wagner-Peyser
employment services, local veterans’
employment representatives, disabled
veterans’ outreach program specialists,
and unemployment compensation.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
20639
Subpart B—One-Stop Partners and the
Responsibilities of Partners
§ 678.405 Is Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families a required one-stop
partner?
§ 678.400 Who are the required one-stop
partners?
(a) Yes, TANF, authorized under part
A of title IV of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), is a required
partner. (WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(xiii)).
(b) The Governor may determine that
TANF will not be a required partner in
the State, or within some specific local
areas in the State. In this instance, the
Governor must notify the Secretaries of
the U.S. Departments of Labor and
Health and Human Services in writing
of this determination.
(c) In States, or local areas within a
State, where the Governor has
determined that TANF is not required to
be a partner, local TANF programs may
still opt to be a one-stop partner, or to
work in collaboration with the one-stop
center.
(a) Section 121(b)(1)(B) of WIOA
identifies the entities that are required
partners in the local one-stop systems.
(b) The required partners are the
entities responsible for administering
the following programs and activities in
the local area:
(1) Programs authorized under title I
of WIOA, including:
(i) Adults;
(ii) Dislocated workers;
(iii) Youth;
(iv) Job Corps;
(v) YouthBuild;
(vi) Native American programs; and
(vii) Migrant and seasonal farmworker
programs;
(2) Employment services authorized
under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C.
49 et seq.);
(3) Adult education and literacy
activities authorized under title II of
WIOA;
(4) The Vocational Rehabilitation
program authorized under title I of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
720 et seq.);
(5) The Senior Community Service
Employment Program authorized under
title V of the Older Americans Act of
1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.);
(6) Career and technical education
programs at the post-secondary level
authorized under the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of
2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.);
(7) Trade Adjustment Assistance
activities authorized under chapter 2 of
title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2271 et seq.);
(8) Jobs for Veterans State Grants
programs authorized under chapter 41
of title 38, U.S.C.;
(9) Employment and training
activities carried out under the
Community Services Block Grant (42
U.S.C. 9901 et seq.);
(10) Employment and training
activities carried out by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development;
(11) Programs authorized under State
unemployment compensation laws (in
accordance with applicable Federal
law);
(12) Programs authorized under sec.
212 of the Second Chance Act of 2007
(42 U.S.C. 17532); and
(13) Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) authorized under part
A of title IV of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), unless exempted
by the Governor under § 678.405(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 678.410 What other entities may serve as
one-stop partners?
(a) Other entities that carry out a
workforce development program,
including Federal, State, or local
programs and programs in the private
sector, may serve as additional partners
in the one-stop system if the Local
Board and chief elected official(s)
approve the entity’s participation.
(b) Additional partners may include:
(1) Employment and training
programs administered by the Social
Security Administration, including the
Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency
Program established under sec. 1148 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1320b–19);
(2) Employment and training
programs carried out by the Small
Business Administration;
(3) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) employment and
training programs, authorized under
secs. 6(d)(4) and 6(o) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2015(d)(4));
(4) Client Assistance Program
authorized under sec. 112 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
732);
(5) Programs authorized under the
National and Community Service Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.); and
(6) Other appropriate Federal, State or
local programs, including employment,
education, and training programs
provided by public libraries or in the
private sector.
§ 678.415 What entity serves as the onestop partner for a particular program in the
local area?
(a) The entity that carries out the
program and activities listed in
§ 678.400 or § 678.405, and therefore
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20640
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
serves as the one-stop partner, is the
grant recipient, administrative entity, or
organization responsible for
administering the funds of the specified
program in the local area. The term
‘‘entity’’ does not include the service
providers that contract with, or are
subrecipients of, the local
administrative entity. For programs that
do not include local administrative
entities, the responsible State agency
should be the partner. Specific entities
for particular programs are identified in
paragraph (b) of this section. If a
program or activity listed in § 678.400 is
not carried out in a local area, the
requirements relating to a required onestop partner are not applicable to such
program or activity in that local onestop system.
(b) For title II of WIOA, the entity that
carries out the program for the purposes
of paragraph (a) of this section is the
sole entity or agency in the State or
outlying area responsible for
administering or supervising policy for
adult education and literacy activities in
the State or outlying area. The State
eligible entity may delegate its
responsibilities under paragraph (a) of
this section to one or more eligible
providers or consortium of eligible
providers.
(c) For the Vocational Rehabilitation
program, authorized under title I of the
Rehabilitation Act, the entity that
carries out the program for the purposes
of paragraph (a) of this section is the
designated State agencies or designated
State units specified under sec. 101(a)(2)
of the Rehabilitation Act that is
primarily concerned with vocational
rehabilitation, or vocational and other
rehabilitation, of individuals with
disabilities.
(d) Under WIOA, the national
programs, including Job Corps, the
Native American program, YouthBuild,
and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker
programs are required one-stop partners.
The entity for the Native American
program and Migrant and Seasonal
Farmworker programs is the grantee of
those respective programs. The entity
for Job Corps is the Job Corps center.
(e) For the Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act of 2006, the
entity that carries out the program for
the purposes of paragraph (a) of this
section is the State eligible agency. The
State eligible agency may delegate its
responsibilities under paragraph (a) of
this section to one or more State
agencies, eligible recipients at the postsecondary level, or consortia of eligible
recipients at the post-secondary level.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 678.420 What are the roles and
responsibilities of the required one-stop
partners?
Each required partner must:
(a) Provide access to its programs or
activities through the one-stop delivery
system, in addition to any other
appropriate locations; (WIOA sec.
121(b)(1)(A)(i).)
(b) Use a portion of funds made
available to the partner’s program, to the
extent consistent with the Federal law
authorizing the partner’s program and
with Federal cost principles in 2 CFR
parts 200 and 2900 (requiring, among
other things, that costs are allowable,
reasonable, necessary, and allocable), to:
(1) Provide applicable career services;
and
(2) Work collaboratively with the
State and Local Boards to establish and
maintain the one-stop delivery system.
This includes jointly funding the onestop infrastructure through partner
contributions that are based upon:
(i) A reasonable cost allocation
methodology by which infrastructure
costs are charged to each partner in
proportion to the relative benefits;
(ii) Federal cost principles; and
(iii) Any local administrative cost
requirements in the Federal law
authorizing the partner’s program. (This
is further described in § 678.700).
(WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(A)(ii).)
(c) Enter into an MOU with the Local
Board relating to the operation of the
one-stop system that meets the
requirements of § 678.500(d);
(d) Participate in the operation of the
one-stop system consistent with the
terms of the MOU, requirements of
authorizing laws, the Federal cost
principles, and all other applicable legal
requirements; (WIOA sec.
121(b)(1)(A)(iv)); and
(e) Provide representation on the State
and Local Workforce Development
Boards as required and participate in
Board committees as needed. (WIOA
secs. 101(b)(iii) and 107(b)(2)(C) and
(D))
§ 678.425 What are the applicable career
services that must be provided through the
one-stop delivery system by required onestop partners?
(a) The applicable career services to
be delivered by required one-stop
partners are those services listed in
§ 678.430 that are authorized to be
provided under each partner’s program.
(b) One-stop centers provide services
to individual customers based on
individual needs, including the
seamless delivery of multiple services to
individual customers. There is no
required sequence of services. (WIOA
sec. 121(e)(1)(A).)
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 678.430
What are career services?
Career services, as identified in sec.
134(c)(2) of WIOA, consist of three
types:
(a) Basic career services must be made
available and, at a minimum, must
include the following services, as
consistent with allowable program
activities and Federal cost principles:
(1) Determinations of whether the
individual is eligible to receive
assistance from the adult, dislocated
worker, or youth programs;
(2) Outreach, intake (including worker
profiling), and orientation to
information and other services available
through the one-stop delivery system;
(3) Initial assessment of skill levels
including literacy, numeracy, and
English language proficiency, as well as
aptitudes, abilities (including skills
gaps), and supportive services needs;
(4) Labor exchange services,
including—
(i) Job search and placement
assistance, and, when needed by an
individual, career counseling,
including—
(A) Provision of information on indemand industry sectors and
occupations (as defined in sec. 3(23) of
WIOA); and
(B) Provision of information on
nontraditional employment; and
(ii) Appropriate recruitment and other
business services on behalf of
employers, including information and
referrals to specialized business services
other than those traditionally offered
through the one-stop delivery system;
(5) Provision of referrals to and
coordination of activities with other
programs and services, including
programs and services within the onestop delivery system and, when
appropriate, other workforce
development programs;
(6) Provision of workforce and labor
market employment statistics
information, including the provision of
accurate information relating to local,
regional, and national labor market
areas, including—
(i) Job vacancy listings in labor market
areas;
(ii) Information on job skills necessary
to obtain the vacant jobs listed; and
(iii) Information relating to local
occupations in demand and the
earnings, skill requirements, and
opportunities for advancement for those
jobs;
(7) Provision of performance
information and program cost
information on eligible providers of
training services by program and type of
providers;
(8) Provision of information, in usable
and understandable formats and
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
languages, about how the local area is
performing on local performance
accountability measures, as well as any
additional performance information
relating to the area’s one-stop delivery
system;
(9) Provision of information, in usable
and understandable formats and
languages, relating to the availability of
supportive services or assistance, and
appropriate referrals to those services
and assistance, including: child care;
child support; medical or child health
assistance available through the State’s
Medicaid program and Children’s
Health Insurance Program; benefits
under SNAP; assistance through the
earned income tax credit; and assistance
under a State program for Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families, and
other supportive services and
transportation provided through that
program;
(10) Provision of information and
assistance regarding filing claims for
unemployment compensation, by which
the one-stop must provide meaningful
assistance to individuals seeking
assistance in filing a claim for
unemployment compensation.
(i) ‘‘Meaningful assistance’’ means:
(A) Providing assistance on-site using
staff who are well-trained in
unemployment compensation claims
filing and the rights and responsibilities
of claimants; or
(B) Providing assistance by phone or
via other technology, as long as the
assistance is provided by trained and
available staff and within a reasonable
time.
(ii) The costs associated in providing
this assistance may be paid for by the
State’s unemployment insurance
program, or the WIOA adult or
dislocated worker programs, or some
combination thereof.
(11) Assistance in establishing
eligibility for programs of financial aid
assistance for training and education
programs not provided under WIOA.
(b) Individualized career services
must be made available if determined to
be appropriate in order for an individual
to obtain or retain employment. These
services include the following services,
as consistent with program
requirements and Federal cost
principles:
(1) Comprehensive and specialized
assessments of the skill levels and
service needs of adults and dislocated
workers, which may include—
(i) Diagnostic testing and use of other
assessment tools; and
(ii) In-depth interviewing and
evaluation to identify employment
barriers and appropriate employment
goals;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
(2) Development of an individual
employment plan, to identify the
employment goals, appropriate
achievement objectives, and appropriate
combination of services for the
participant to achieve his or her
employment goals, including the list of,
and information about, the eligible
training providers (as described in
§ 680.180 of this chapter);
(3) Group counseling;
(4) Individual counseling;
(5) Career planning;
(6) Short-term pre-vocational services
including development of learning
skills, communication skills,
interviewing skills, punctuality,
personal maintenance skills, and
professional conduct services to prepare
individuals for unsubsidized
employment or training;
(7) Internships and work experiences
that are linked to careers (as described
in § 680.170 of this chapter);
(8) Workforce preparation activities;
(9) Financial literacy services as
described in sec. 129(b)(2)(D) of WIOA
and § 681.500 of this chapter;
(10) Out-of-area job search assistance
and relocation assistance; and
(11) English language acquisition and
integrated education and training
programs.
(c) Follow-up services must be
provided, as appropriate, including:
counseling regarding the workplace, for
participants in adult or dislocated
worker workforce investment activities
who are placed in unsubsidized
employment, for up to 12 months after
the first day of employment.
§ 678.435 What are the business services
provided through the one-stop delivery
system, and how are they provided?
(a) Certain career services must be
made available to local businesses,
specifically labor exchange activities
and labor market information described
in §§ 678.430(a)(4)(ii) and 678.430(a)(6).
Local areas must establish and develop
relationships and networks with large
and small employers and their
intermediaries. (WIOA sec.
134(c)(1)(A)(iv).) Local areas also must
develop, convene, or implement
industry or sector partnerships. (WIOA
sec. 134(c)(1)(A)(v).)
(b) Customized business services may
be provided to employers, employer
associations, or other such organizations
(WIOA sec. 134(d)(1)(A)(ii)). These
services are tailored for specific
employers and may include:
(1) Customized screening and referral
of qualified participants in training
services to employers;
(2) Customized services to employers,
employer associations, or other such
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20641
organizations, on employment-related
issues;
(3) Customized recruitment events
and related services for employers
including targeted job fairs;
(4) Human resource consultation
services, including but not limited to
assistance with:
(i) Writing/reviewing job descriptions
and employee handbooks;
(ii) Developing performance
evaluation and personnel policies;
(iii) Creating orientation sessions for
new workers;
(iv) Honing job interview techniques
for efficiency and compliance;
(v) Analyzing employee turnover; or
(vi) Explaining labor laws to help
employers comply with wage/hour and
safety/health regulations;
(5) Customized labor market
information for specific employers,
sectors, industries or clusters; and
(6) Other similar customized services.
(c) Local areas may also provide other
business services and strategies that
meet the workforce investment needs of
area employers, in accordance with
partner programs’ statutory
requirements and consistent with
Federal cost principles. These business
services may be provided through
effective business intermediaries
working in conjunction with the Local
Board, or through the use of economic
development, philanthropic, and other
public and private resources in a
manner determined appropriate by the
Local Board and in cooperation with the
State. Allowable activities, consistent
with each partner’s authorized
activities, include, but are not limited
to:
(1) Developing and implementing
industry sector strategies (including
strategies involving industry
partnerships, regional skills alliances,
industry skill panels, and sectoral skills
partnerships);
(2) Customized assistance or referral
for assistance in the development of a
registered apprenticeship program;
(3) Developing and delivering
innovative workforce investment
services and strategies for area
employers, which may include career
pathways, skills upgrading, skill
standard development and certification
for recognized post-secondary credential
or other employer use, and other
effective initiatives for meeting the
workforce investment needs of area
employers and workers;
(4) Assistance to area employers in
managing reductions in force in
coordination with rapid response
activities and with strategies for the
aversion of layoffs, which may include
strategies such as early identification of
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20642
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
firms at risk of layoffs, use of feasibility
studies to assess the needs of and
options for at-risk firms, and the
delivery of employment and training
activities to address risk factors;
(5) The marketing of business services
to appropriate area employers,
including small and mid-sized
employers; and
(6) Assisting employers with
accessing local, State, and Federal tax
credits.
(d) All business services and
strategies must be reflected in the local
plan, described in § 679.560(b)(3) of this
chapter.
§ 678.440 When may a fee be charged for
the business services in this subpart?
(a) There is no requirement that a feefor-service be charged to employers.
(b) No fee may be charged for services
provided in § 678.435(a).
(c) A fee may be charged for services
provided under §§ 678.435(b) and (c).
Services provided under § 678.435(c)
may be provided through effective
business intermediaries working in
conjunction with the Local Board and
may also be provided on a fee-forservice basis or through the leveraging
of economic development,
philanthropic, and other public and
private resources in a manner
determined appropriate by the Local
Board. The Local Workforce
Development Board may examine the
services provided compared with the
assets and resources available within
the local one-stop delivery system and
through its partners to determine an
appropriate cost structure for services, if
any.
Subpart C—Memorandum of
Understanding for the One-Stop
Delivery System
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 678.500 What is the Memorandum of
Understanding for the one-stop delivery
system and what must be included in the
Memorandum of Understanding?
(a) The MOU is the product of local
discussion and negotiation, and is an
agreement developed and executed
between the Local Board, with the
agreement of the chief elected official
and the one-stop partners, relating to the
operation of the one-stop delivery
system in the local area. Two or more
local areas in a region may develop a
single joint MOU, if they are in a region
that has submitted a regional plan under
sec. 106 of WIOA.
(b) The MOU must include:
(1) A description of services to be
provided through the one-stop delivery
system, including the manner in which
the services will be coordinated and
delivered through the system;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
(2) A final plan, or an interim plan if
needed, on how the costs of the services
and the operating costs of the system
will be funded, including:
(i) Funding of infrastructure costs of
one-stop centers in accordance with
§§ 678.700 through 678.755; and
(ii) Funding of the shared services and
operating costs of the one-stop delivery
system described in § 678.760;
(3) Methods for referring individuals
between the one-stop operators and
partners for appropriate services and
activities;
(4) Methods to ensure that the needs
of workers, youth, and individuals with
barriers to employment, including
individuals with disabilities, are
addressed in providing access to
services, including access to technology
and materials that are available through
the one-stop delivery system;
(5) The duration of the MOU and
procedures for amending it; and
(6) Assurances that each MOU will be
reviewed, and if substantial changes
have occurred, renewed, not less than
once every 3-year period to ensure
appropriate funding and delivery of
services.
(c) The MOU may contain any other
provisions agreed to by the parties that
are consistent with WIOA title I, the
authorizing statutes and regulations of
one-stop partner programs, and the
WIOA regulations. (WIOA sec. 121(c).)
(d) When fully executed, the MOU
must contain the signatures of the Local
Board, one-stop partners, the chief
elected official(s), and the time period
in which the agreement is effective. The
MOU must be updated not less than
every 3 years to reflect any changes in
the signatory official of the Board, onestop partners, and chief elected officials,
or one-stop infrastructure funding.
(e) If a one-stop partner appeal to the
State regarding infrastructure costs,
using the process described in
§ 678.750, results in a change to the onestop partner’s infrastructure cost
contributions, the MOU must be
updated to reflect the final one-stop
partner infrastructure cost
contributions.
§ 678.505 Is there a single Memorandum of
Understanding for the local area, or must
there be separate Memoranda of
Understanding between the Local Board
and each partner?
(a) A single ‘‘umbrella’’ MOU may be
developed that addresses the issues
relating to the local one-stop delivery
system for the Local Board, chief elected
official and all partners. Alternatively,
the Local Board (with agreement of chief
elected official) may enter into separate
agreements between each partner or
groups of partners.
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(b) Under either approach, the
requirements described in § 678.500
apply. Since funds are generally
appropriated annually, the Local Board
may negotiate financial agreements with
each partner annually to update funding
of services and operating costs of the
system under the MOU.
§ 678.510 How should the Memorandum of
Understanding be negotiated?
(a) WIOA emphasizes full and
effective partnerships between Local
Boards, chief elected officials, and onestop partners. Local Boards and partners
must enter into good-faith negotiations.
Local Boards, chief elected officials, and
one-stop partners may also request
assistance from a State agency
responsible for administering the
partner program, the Governor, State
Board, or other appropriate parties on
other aspects of the MOU.
(b) Local Boards and one-stop
partners must establish, in the MOU, a
final plan for how the Local Board and
programs will fund the infrastructure
costs of the one-stop centers. If a final
plan regarding infrastructure costs is not
complete when other sections of the
MOU are ready, an interim
infrastructure cost plan may be included
instead, as described in § 678.715(c).
Once the final infrastructure cost plan is
approved, the Local Board and one-stop
partners must amend the MOU to
include the final plan for funding
infrastructure costs of the one-stop
centers, including a description of the
funding mechanism established by the
Governor relevant to the local area.
Infrastructure cost funding is described
in detail in subpart E of this part.
(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2).)
(c) The Local Board must report to the
State Board, Governor, and relevant
State agency when MOU negotiations
with one-stop partners have reached an
impasse.
(1) The Local Board and partners must
document the negotiations and efforts
that have taken place in the MOU. The
State Board, one-stop partner programs,
and the Governor may consult with the
appropriate Federal agencies to address
impasse situations related to issues
other than infrastructure funding after
attempting to address the impasse.
Impasses related to infrastructure cost
funding must be resolved using the
State infrastructure cost funding
mechanism described in § 678.730.
(2) The Local Board must report
failure to execute an MOU with a
required partner to the Governor, State
Board, and the State agency responsible
for administering the partner’s program.
Additionally, if the State cannot assist
the Local Board in resolving the
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
impasse, the Governor or the State
Board must report the failure to the
Secretary of Labor and to the head of
any other Federal agency with
responsibility for oversight of a partner’s
program.
Subpart D—One-Stop Operators
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 678.600
centers?
Who may operate one-stop
(a) One-stop operators may be a single
entity (public, private, or nonprofit) or
a consortium of entities. If the
consortium of entities is one of one-stop
partners, it must include a minimum of
three of the one-stop partners described
in § 678.400.
(b) The one-stop operator may operate
one or more one-stop centers. There
may be more than one one-stop operator
in a local area.
(c) The types of entities that may be
a one-stop operator include:
(1) An institution of higher education;
(2) An Employment Service State
agency established under the WagnerPeyser Act;
(3) A community-based organization,
nonprofit organization, or workforce
intermediary;
(4) A private for-profit entity;
(5) A government agency;
(6) A Local Board, with the approval
of the chief local elected official and the
Governor; or
(7) Another interested organization or
entity, which is capable of carrying out
the duties of the one-stop operator.
Examples may include a local chamber
of commerce or other business
organization, or a labor organization.
(d) Elementary schools and secondary
schools are not eligible as one-stop
operators, except that a nontraditional
public secondary school such as a night
school, adult school, or an area career
and technical education school may be
selected.
(e) The State and Local Boards must
ensure that, in carrying out WIOA
programs and activities, one-stop
operators:
(1) Disclose any potential conflicts of
interest arising from the relationships of
the operators with particular training
service providers or other service
providers (further discussed in
§ 679.430 of this chapter);
(2) Do not establish practices that
create disincentives to providing
services to individuals with barriers to
employment who may require longerterm career and training services; and
(3) Comply with Federal regulations
and procurement policies relating to the
calculation and use of profits, including
those at § 683.295 of this chapter, the
Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR chapter II,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
and other applicable regulations and
policies.
§ 678.605 How is the one-stop operator
selected?
(a) Consistent with paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section, the Local Board must
select the one-stop operator through a
competitive process, as required by sec.
121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA, at least once
every 4 years. A State may require, or
a Local Board may choose to implement,
a competitive selection process more
than once every 4 years.
(b) In instances in which a State is
conducting the competitive process
described in paragraph (a) of this
section, the State must follow the same
policies and procedures it uses for
procurement with non-Federal funds.
(c) All other non-Federal entities,
including subrecipients of a State (such
as local areas), must use a competitive
process based on the principles of
competitive procurement in the
Uniform Administrative Guidance set
out at 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326.
(d) Entities described in paragraph (c)
of this section must first determine the
nature of the process to be used to
comply with sec. 121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA.
The acceptable processes are:
(1) Procurement by sealed bids;
(2) Procurement by competitive
proposals; or
(3) Procurement by sole source,
permitted only if:
(i) Analysis of market conditions and
other factors lead to a determination
that it is necessary to use sole-source
procurement because:
(A) There is only one entity that could
serve as an operator; or
(B) Unusual and compelling urgency
will not permit a delay resulting from
competitive solicitation; or
(ii) Results of the competition
conducted under paragraphs (d)(1) or (2)
of this section were determined to be
inadequate.
(e) Entities must prepare written
documentation explaining the
determination concerning the nature of
the competitive process to be followed
in selecting a one-stop operator.
§ 678.610 How is sole source selection of
one-stop operators accomplished?
(a) As set forth in § 678.605(d)(3),
under certain conditions, sole source
procurement is an allowable method of
procurement.
(b) In the event that sole source
procurement is determined necessary
and reasonable, in accordance with
§ 678.605(d)(3), written documentation
must be prepared and maintained
concerning the entire process of making
such a selection.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20643
(c) Such sole source procurement
must include appropriate conflict of
interest policies and procedures. These
policies and procedures must conform
to the specifications in § 679.430 of this
chapter for demonstrating internal
controls and preventing conflict of
interest.
(d) A Local Board can be selected as
a one-stop operator through sole source
procurement only with agreement of the
chief elected official in the local area
and the Governor. The Local Board must
establish sufficient conflict of interest
policies and procedures and they must
be approved by the Governor.
§ 678.615 Can an entity serving as onestop operator compete to be a one-stop
operator under the procurement
requirements of this subpart?
(a) Local Boards can compete for and
be selected as one-stop operators, as
long as appropriate firewalls and
conflict of interest policies and
procedures are in place. These policies
and procedures must conform to the
specifications in § 679.430 of this
chapter for demonstrating internal
controls and preventing conflict of
interest.
(b) State and local agencies can
compete for and be selected as one-stop
operators by the Local Board, as long as
appropriate firewalls and conflict of
interest policies and procedures are in
place. These policies and procedures
must conform to the specifications in
§ 679.430 of this chapter for
demonstrating internal controls and
preventing conflict of interest.
(c) In the case of single State areas
where the State Board serves as the
Local Board, the State agency is eligible
to compete for and be selected as
operator as long as appropriate firewalls
and conflict of interest policies are in
place and followed for the competition.
These policies and procedures must
conform to the specifications in
§ 679.430 of this chapter for
demonstrating internal controls and
preventing conflict of interest.
§ 678.620
role?
What is the one-stop operator’s
(a) At a minimum, the one-stop
operator must coordinate the service
delivery of required one-stop partners
and service providers. Local Boards may
establish additional roles of one-stop
operator, including, but not limited to:
Coordinating service providers within
the center and across the one-stop
system, being the primary provider of
services within the center, providing
some of the services within the center,
or coordinating service delivery in a
multi-center area. The competition for a
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20644
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
one-stop operator must clearly articulate
the role of the one-stop operator.
(b) A one-stop operator may not
perform the following functions:
convene system stakeholders to assist in
the development of the local plan;
prepare and submit local plans (as
required under sec. 107 of WIOA); be
responsible for oversight of itself;
manage or significantly participate in
the competitive selection process for
one-stop operators; select or terminate
one-stop operators, career services, and
youth providers; negotiate local
performance accountability measures;
and develop and submit budget for
activities of the Local Board in the local
area. An entity serving as a one-stop
operator may perform some or all of
these functions if it also serves in
another capacity, if it has established
sufficient firewalls and conflict of
interest policies. The policies must
conform to the specifications in
§ 679.430 of this chapter for
demonstrating internal controls and
preventing conflict of interest.
§ 678.625 Can a one-stop operator also be
a service provider?
Yes, but there must be appropriate
firewalls in place in regards to the
competition, and subsequent oversight,
monitoring, and evaluation of
performance of the service provider.
The operator cannot develop, manage or
conduct the competition of a service
provider in which it intends to compete.
In cases where an operator is also a
service provider, there must be firewalls
and internal controls within the
operator-service provider entity, as well
as specific policies and procedures at
the Local Board level regarding
oversight, monitoring, and evaluation of
performance of the service provider.
The firewalls must conform to the
specifications in § 679.430 of this
chapter for demonstrating internal
controls and preventing conflict of
interest.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 678.630 Can State merit staff still work in
a one-stop where the operator is not a
governmental entity?
Yes. State merit staff can continue to
perform functions and activities in the
one-stop career center. The Local Board
and one-stop operator must establish a
system for management of merit staff in
accordance with State policies and
procedures. Continued use of State
merit staff may be included in the
competition for and final contract with
the one-stop operator.
§ 678.635 What is the effective date of the
provisions of this subpart?
(a) No later than June 30, 2017, onestop operators selected under the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
competitive process described in this
subpart must be in place and operating
the one-stop.
(b) By June 30, 2016, every Local
Board must demonstrate it is taking
steps to prepare for competition of its
one-stop operator. This demonstration
may include, but is not limited to,
market research, requests for
information, and conducting a cost and
price analysis.
Subpart E—One-Stop Operating Costs
§ 678.700
costs?
What are one-stop infrastructure
(a) Infrastructure costs of one-stop
centers are nonpersonnel costs that are
necessary for the general operation of
the one-stop center, including:
(1) Rental of the facilities;
(2) Utilities and maintenance;
(3) Equipment (including assessmentrelated products and assistive
technology for individuals with
disabilities); and
(4) Technology to facilitate access to
the one-stop center, including
technology used for the center’s
planning and outreach activities.
(b) Local Boards may consider
common identifier costs as costs of onestop infrastructure.
(c) Each entity that carries out a
program or activities in a local one-stop
center, described in §§ 678.400 through
678.410, must use a portion of the funds
available for the program and activities
to maintain the one-stop delivery
system, including payment of the
infrastructure costs of one-stop centers.
These payments must be in accordance
with this subpart; Federal cost
principles, which require that all costs
must be allowable, reasonable,
necessary, and allocable to the program;
and all other applicable legal
requirements.
§ 678.705 What guidance must the
Governor issue regarding one-stop
infrastructure funding?
(a) The Governor, after consultation
with chief elected officials, the State
Board, and Local Boards, and consistent
with guidance and policies provided by
the State Board, must develop and issue
guidance for use by local areas,
specifically:
(1) Guidelines for State-administered
one-stop partner programs for
determining such programs’
contributions to a one-stop delivery
system, based on such programs’
proportionate use of such system
consistent with Office of Management
and Budget Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards
in 2 CFR part 200, including
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
determining funding for the costs of
infrastructure; and
(2) Guidance to assist Local Boards,
chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners in local areas in determining
equitable and stable methods of funding
the costs of infrastructure at one-stop
centers based on proportionate benefits
received, and consistent with Federal
cost principles.
(b) The guidance must include:
(1) The appropriate roles of the onestop partner programs in identifying
one-stop infrastructure costs;
(2) Approaches to facilitate equitable
and efficient cost allocation that results
in a reasonable cost allocation
methodology where infrastructure costs
are charged to each partner in
proportion to relative benefits received,
consistent with Federal cost principles;
and
(3) The timelines regarding
notification to the Governor for not
reaching local agreement and triggering
the State-funded infrastructure
mechanism described in § 678.730, and
timelines for a one-stop partner to
submit an appeal in the State-funded
infrastructure mechanism.
§ 678.710
funded?
How are infrastructure costs
Infrastructure costs are funded either
through the local funding mechanism
described in § 678.715 or through the
State funding mechanism described in
§ 678.730.
§ 678.715 How are one-stop infrastructure
costs funded in the local funding
mechanism?
(a) In the local funding mechanism,
the Local Board, chief elected officials,
and one-stop partners agree to amounts
and methods of calculating amounts
each partner will contribute for one-stop
infrastructure funding, include the
infrastructure funding terms in the
MOU, and sign the MOU. The local onestop funding mechanism must meet all
of the following requirements:
(1) The infrastructure costs are funded
through cash and fairly evaluated inkind partner contributions and include
any funding from philanthropic
organizations or other private entities,
or through other alternative financing
options, to provide a stable and
equitable funding stream for ongoing
one-stop delivery system operations;
(2) Contributions must be negotiated
between one-stop partners, chief elected
officials, and the Local Board and the
amount to be contributed must be
included in the MOU;
(3) The one-stop partner program’s
proportionate share of funding must be
calculated in accordance with the
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Uniform Administrative Requirements,
Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards in 2
CFR part 200 based upon a reasonable
cost allocation methodology whereby
infrastructure costs are charged to each
partner in proportion to relative benefits
received, and must be allowable,
reasonable, necessary, and allocable;
(4) Partner shares must be
periodically reviewed and reconciled
against actual costs incurred, and
adjusted to ensure that actual costs
charged to any one-stop partners are
proportionate and equitable to the
benefit received by the one-stop
partners and their respective programs
or activities.
(b) In developing the section of the
MOU on one-stop infrastructure funding
fully described in § 678.755, the Local
Board and chief elected officials will:
(1) Ensure that the one-stop partners
adhere to the guidance identified in
§ 678.705 on one-stop delivery system
infrastructure costs.
(2) Work with one-stop partners to
achieve consensus and informally
mediate any possible conflicts or
disagreements among one-stop partners.
(3) Provide technical assistance to
new one-stop partners and local grant
recipients to ensure that those entities
are informed and knowledgeable of the
elements contained in the MOU and the
one-stop infrastructure costs
arrangement.
(c) The MOU may include an interim
infrastructure funding agreement,
including as much detail as the Local
Board has negotiated with one-stop
partners, if all other parts of the MOU
have been negotiated, in order to allow
the partner programs to operate in the
one-stop centers. The interim
infrastructure agreement must be
finalized within 6 months of when the
MOU is signed. If the infrastructure
interim infrastructure agreement is not
finalized within that timeframe, the
Local Board must notify the Governor,
as described in § 678.725.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 678.720 What funds are used to pay for
infrastructure costs in the local one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) In the local one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, one-stop partner
programs can determine what funds
they will use to fund infrastructure
costs. The use of these funds must be in
accordance with the requirements in
this subpart, and with the relevant
partner’s authorizing statutes and
regulations, including, for example,
prohibitions against supplanting nonFederal resources, statutory limitations
on administrative costs, and all other
applicable legal requirements. In the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
case of partners administering adult
education and literacy programs
authorized by title II of WIOA or the
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006, these funds may
include Federal funds that are available
for State administration of adult
education and literacy programs
authorized by title II of WIOA or for
State administration of post-secondary
level programs and activities under the
Perkins Act, and non-Federal funds that
the partners contribute to meet these
programs’ matching or maintenance of
effort requirements. These funds also
may include local administrative funds
available to local entities or consortia of
local entities that have been delegated
authority to serve as one-stop local
partners by a State eligible agency as
permitted by § 678.415(b) and (e).
(b) There are no specific caps on the
amount or percent of overall funding a
one-stop partner may contribute to fund
infrastructure costs under the local onestop funding mechanism, except that
contributions for administrative costs
may not exceed the amount available for
administrative costs under the
authorizing statute of the partner
program. However, amounts contributed
for infrastructure costs must be
allowable and based on proportionate
use by or benefit to the partner program,
taking into account the total cost of the
one-stop infrastructure as well as
alternate financing options, and must be
consistent with 2 CFR chapter II,
including the Federal cost principles.
§ 678.725 What happens if consensus on
infrastructure funding is not reached at the
local level between the Local Board, chief
elected officials, and one-stop partners?
If, after July 1, 2016, and each
subsequent July 1, the Local Board,
chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners do not reach consensus on
methods of sufficiently funding local
infrastructure through the local
infrastructure cost funding mechanism,
and include that consensus agreement
in the signed MOU, then the Local
Board must notify the Governor and the
Governor must administer funding
through the State one-stop funding
mechanism, as described in § 678.730.
(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2))
§ 678.730 What is the State one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, the Governor, after
consultation with the chief elected
officials, Local Boards, and the State
Board, determines one-stop partner
contributions, based upon a
methodology where infrastructure costs
are charged to each partner in
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20645
proportion to relative benefits received
and consistent with the partner
program’s authorizing laws and
regulations, 2 CFR chapter II, including
the Federal cost principles, and other
applicable legal requirements described
in § 678.735(a).
(b) The State Board develops an
allocation formula to allocate funds to
local areas to support the infrastructure
costs for local area one-stop centers for
all local areas that did not use the local
funding mechanism, and the Governor
uses that formula to allocate the funds.
This is described in detail in § 678.745.
§ 678.735 How are partner contributions
determined in the State one-stop funding
mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop funding
mechanism, the Governor, after
consultation with State and Local
Boards and chief elected officials, will
determine the amount each partner
must contribute to assist in paying the
infrastructure costs of one-stop centers.
The Governor must calculate amounts
based on the proportionate use of the
one-stop centers by each partner,
consistent with chapter II of title 2,
Code of Federal Regulations (or any
corresponding similar regulation or
ruling), taking into account the costs of
administration of the one-stop delivery
system for purposes not related to onestop centers for each partner such as
costs associated with maintaining the
Local Board, or information technology
systems. The Governor will also take
into account the statutory requirements
for each partner program, all other
applicable legal requirements, and the
partner program’s ability to fulfill such
requirements.
(b) In certain situations, the Governor
does not determine the infrastructure
cost contributions for one-stop partner
programs.
(1) The Governor will not determine
the contribution amounts for
infrastructure funds for Native
American grantees described in 20 CFR
part 684. (WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(iii).)
The appropriate portion of funds to be
provided by Native American grantees
to pay for one-stop infrastructure must
be determined as part of the
development of the MOU described in
§ 678.500 and specified in that MOU.
(2) In a State in which the State
constitution or a State statute places
policy-making authority that is
independent of the authority of the
Governor in an entity or official with
respect to the funds provided for adult
education and literacy activities, postsecondary career and technical
education activities, or vocational
rehabilitation services, the chief officer
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20646
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
of that entity or the official must
determine the contribution amounts for
infrastructure funds in consultation
with the Governor. (WIOA sec.
121(h)(2)(C)(ii).)
(c) Limitations. Per WIOA sec.
122(h)(2)(D), the amount established by
the Governor under paragraph (a) of this
section may not exceed the following
caps:
(1) WIOA formula programs and
employment service. The portion of
funds required to be contributed under
the WIOA youth, adult, or dislocated
worker programs, or under the WagnerPeyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.) must
not exceed 3 percent of the amount of
Federal funds provided to carry out that
program in the State for a program year.
(2) Other one-stop partners. The
portion of funds required to be
contributed must not exceed 1.5 percent
of the amount of Federal funds provided
to carry out that education program or
employment and training program in
the State for a fiscal year. For purposes
of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006, the cap on
contributions is determined based on
the funds made available for State
administration of post-secondary level
programs and activities.
(3) Vocational rehabilitation. Within a
State, the entity or entities
administering the programs described in
WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(iv) the allotment
is based on the one State allotment,
even in instances where that allotment
is shared between two State agencies,
and will not be required to provide from
that program a cumulative portion that
exceeds—
(i) 0.75 percent of the amount of
Federal funds provided to carry out
such program in the State for Fiscal
Year 2016;
(ii) 1.0 percent of the amount
provided to carry out such program in
the State for Fiscal Year 2017;
(iii) 1.25 percent of the amount
provided to carry out such program in
the State for Fiscal Year 2018; and
(iv) 1.5 percent of the amount
provided to carry out such program in
the State for Fiscal Year 2019 and
following years.
(4) Federal direct spending programs.
For local areas that have not reached a
one-stop infrastructure funding
agreement by consensus, an entity
administering a program funded with
direct spending as defined in sec.
250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
as in effect on February 15, 2014 (2
U.S.C. 900(c)(8)), must not be required
to provide more for infrastructure costs
than the amount that the Governor
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
determined (as described in
§ 678.735(a)).
(d) If the above limitations result in
funding less than each partner’s
proportionate share and contribute to
inadequate funding of the allocation
amount determined under § 678.745(b),
the Governor may direct the Local
Board, chief elected officials, and onestop partners to reenter negotiations to
reduce the infrastructure costs to reflect
the amount of funds that are available
for such costs, discuss proportionate
share of each one-stop partner, or to
identify alternative sources of financing
for one-stop infrastructure funding, but,
in any event, a partner will only be
required to pay an amount that is
consistent with the proportionate
benefit received by the partner, the
program’s authorizing laws and
regulations, the Federal cost principles,
and other applicable legal requirements.
(1) The Local Board, chief elected
officials, and one-stop partners, after
renegotiation, may come to agreement
and sign an MOU and proceed under
the local one-stop funding mechanism.
(2) If after renegotiation, agreement
amongst partners still cannot be reached
or alternate financing identified, the
Governor may adjust the specified
allocation, in accordance with the
amounts available and the limitations
described in § 678.735(c).
§ 678.740 What funds are used to pay for
infrastructure costs in the State one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, infrastructure costs
for WIOA title I programs, including
Native American Programs described in
20 CFR part 684, can be paid using
program funds, administrative funds, or
both. Infrastructure costs for the Senior
Community Service Employment
Program under title V of the Older
Americans Act (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.)
can also be paid using program funds,
administrative funds, or both. (WIOA
sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(i)(II).)
(b) In the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, infrastructure costs
for other required one-stop partner
programs (listed in §§ 678.400 through
678.410) are limited to the program’s
administrative funds, as appropriate.
(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(i)(I).)
(c) In the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, infrastructure costs
for the adult education program
authorized by title II of WIOA must be
paid from the funds that are available
for State administration or from nonFederal funds that the partner
contributes to meet the program’s
matching or maintenance of effort
requirement. Infrastructure costs for title
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
II of WIOA may also be paid from funds
available for local administration of
programs and activities to eligible
providers or consortia of eligible
providers delegated responsibilities to
act as a local one-stop partner pursuant
to § 678.415(b).
(d) In the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, infrastructure costs
for the Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act of 2006 must
be paid from the Federal funds that are
available for State administration of
post-secondary level programs and
activities under the Perkins Act, or from
non-Federal funds that the partner
contributes to meet the program’s
matching or maintenance of effort
requirement. Infrastructure costs for the
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006 may also be paid
from funds available for local
administration of post-secondary level
programs and activities to eligible
recipients or consortia of eligible
recipients delegated responsibilities to
act as a local one-stop partner pursuant
to § 678.415(e).
§ 678.745 How is the allocation formula
used by the Governor determined in the
State one-stop funding mechanism?
(a) The State Board must develop an
allocation formula to be used by the
Governor to allocate funds to the local
areas that did not successfully use the
local funding mechanism. The
allocation formula must take into
account the number of one-stop centers
in a local area, the population served by
such centers, the services provided by
such centers, and other factors relating
to the performance of such centers that
the State Board determines are
appropriate and that are consistent with
Federal cost principles. (WIOA sec.
121(h)(3)(B).)
(b) Using the funds contributed by the
one-stop partners described in
§ 678.735, the Governor will then use
this formula to allocate funds to the
local areas that did not use the local
funding mechanism to fund one-stop
center infrastructure costs, so long as
that funding distribution is consistent
with Federal cost principles for each of
the affected one-stop partners.
§ 678.750 When and how can a one-stop
partner appeal a one-stop infrastructure
amount designated by the State under the
State infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) The Governor must establish a
process, described under sec.
121(h)(2)(E) of WIOA, for a one-stop
partner administering a program
described in §§ 678.400 through 678.410
to appeal the Governor’s determination
regarding the one-stop partner’s portion
of funds to be provided for one-stop
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
infrastructure costs. This appeal process
must be described in the Unified State
Plan. (WIOA secs. 121(h)(2)(E) and
102(b)(2)(D)(i)(IV).)
(b) The appeal may be made on the
ground that the Governor’s
determination is inconsistent with
proportionate share requirements in
§ 678.735(a), the cost contribution
limitations in § 678.735(b), or the cost
contribution caps in § 678.735(c).
(c) The process must ensure prompt
resolution of the appeal in order to
ensure the funds are distributed in a
timely manner, consistent with the
requirements of § 683.630 of this
chapter.
(d) The one-stop partner must submit
an appeal in accordance with State’s
deadlines for appeals specified in the
guidance issued under § 678.705(b)(3),
or if the State has not set a deadline,
within 21 days from the Governor’s
determination.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 678.755 What are the required elements
regarding infrastructure funding that must
be included in the one-stop Memorandum
of Understanding?
The MOU, fully described in
§ 678.500, must contain the following
information whether the local areas use
either the local one-stop or the State
one-stop infrastructure funding method:
(a) The period of time in which this
infrastructure funding agreement is
effective. This may be a different time
period than the duration of the MOU.
(b) Identification of an infrastructure
and shared services budget that will be
periodically reconciled against actual
costs incurred and adjusted accordingly
to ensure that it reflects a cost allocation
methodology that demonstrates how
infrastructure costs are charged to each
partner in proportion to relative benefits
received, and that complies with
chapter II of title 2 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (or any
corresponding similar regulation or
ruling).
(c) Identification of all one-stop
partners, chief elected officials, and
Local Board participating in the
infrastructure funding arrangement.
(d) Steps the Local Board, chief
elected officials, and one-stop partners
used to reach consensus or an assurance
that the local area followed the guidance
for the State one-stop infrastructure
funding process.
(e) Description of the process to be
used between partners to resolve issues
during the MOU duration period when
consensus cannot be reached.
(f) Description of the periodic
modification and review process to
ensure equitable benefit among one-stop
partners.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 678.760 How do one-stop partners jointly
fund other shared costs under the
Memorandum of Understanding?
(a) In addition to jointly funding
infrastructure costs, one-stop partners
listed in §§ 678.400 through 678.410
must use a portion of funds made
available under their programs’
authorizing Federal law (or fairly
evaluated in-kind contributions) to pay
the additional costs relating to the
operation of the one-stop delivery
system, which must include applicable
career services.
(b) Additionally, one-stop partners
may jointly fund shared services to the
extent consistent with their programs’
Federal authorizing statutes and other
applicable legal requirements. Shared
services’ costs may include the costs of
shared services that are authorized for
and may be commonly provided
through the one-stop partner programs
to any individual, such as initial intake,
assessment of needs, appraisal of basic
skills, identification of appropriate
services to meet such needs, referrals to
other one-stop partners, and business
services. Shared operating costs may
also include shared costs of the Local
Board’s functions.
(c) These shared costs must be
allocated according to the proportion of
benefit received by each of the partners,
consistent with the Federal law
authorizing the partner’s program, and
consistent with all other applicable legal
requirements, including Federal cost
principles in chapter II of title 2 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (or any
corresponding similar regulation or
ruling) requiring that costs are
reasonable, necessary, and allocable.
(d) Any shared costs agreed upon by
the one-stop partners must be included
in the MOU.
Subpart F—One-Stop Certification
§ 678.800 How are one-stop centers and
one-stop delivery systems certified for
effectiveness, physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous
improvement?
(a) The State Board, in consultation
with chief elected officials and Local
Boards, must establish objective criteria
and procedures for Local Boards to use
when certifying one-stop centers.
(1) The State Board must review and
update the criteria every 2 years as part
of the review and modification of State
Plans pursuant to § 676.135 of this
chapter.
(2) The criteria must be consistent
with the Governor’s and State Board’s
guidelines, guidance and policies on
infrastructure funding decisions,
described in § 678.705. The criteria
must evaluate the one-stop centers and
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20647
one-stop delivery system for
effectiveness, including customer
satisfaction, physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous
improvement.
(3) When the Local Board is the onestop operator as described in § 679.410
of this chapter, the State Board must
certify the one-stop center.
(b) Evaluations of effectiveness must
include how well the one-stop center
integrates available services for
participants and businesses, meets the
workforce development needs of
participants and the employment needs
of local employers, operates in a costefficient manner, coordinates services
among the one-stop partner programs,
and provides maximum access to
partner program services even outside
regular business hours. These
evaluations must take into account
feedback from one-stop customers. They
must also include evaluations of how
well the one-stop center ensures equal
opportunity for individuals with
disabilities to participate in or benefit
from one-stop center services. These
evaluations must include criteria
evaluating how well the centers and
delivery systems take actions to comply
with the disability-related regulations
implementing WIOA sec. 188, set forth
at 29 CFR part 37. Such actions include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Providing reasonable
accommodations for individuals with
disabilities;
(2) Making reasonable modifications
to policies, practices, and procedures
where necessary to avoid discrimination
against persons with disabilities;
(3) Administering programs in the
most integrated setting appropriate;
(4) Communicating with persons with
disabilities as effectively as with others;
and
(5) Providing appropriate auxiliary
aids and services, including assistive
technology devices and services, where
necessary to afford individuals with
disabilities an equal opportunity to
participate in, and enjoy the benefits of,
the program or activity.
(c) Evaluations of continuous
improvement must include how well
the one-stop center supports the
achievement of the negotiated local
levels of performance for the indicators
of performance for the local area
described in sec. 116(b)(2) of WIOA and
20 CFR part 677. Other continuous
improvement factors may include a
regular process for identifying and
responding to technical assistance
needs, a regular system of continuing
professional staff development, and
having systems in place to capture and
respond to specific customer feedback.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20648
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(d) Local Boards must assess at least
once every 3 years the effectiveness,
physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous
improvement of one-stop centers and
the one-stop delivery systems using the
criteria and procedures developed by
the State Board. The Local Board may
establish additional criteria, or set
higher standards for service
coordination, than those set by the State
criteria. Local Boards must review and
update the criteria every 2 years as part
of the Local Plan update process
described in § 676.580 of this chapter.
Local Boards must certify one-stop
centers in order to be eligible to receive
infrastructure funds in the State
infrastructure funding mechanism
described in § 678.730.
(e) All one-stop centers must comply
with applicable physical accessibility
requirements, as set forth in 29 CFR part
37.
Subpart G—Common Identifier
§ 678.900 What is the common identifier to
be used by each one-stop delivery system?
(a) The common one-stop delivery
system identifier is ‘‘American Job
Center.’’
(b) As of July 1, 2016, each one-stop
delivery system must include the
‘‘American Job Center’’ identifier or ‘‘a
proud partner of the American Job
Center network’’ on all products,
programs, activities, services, facilities,
and related property and materials used
in the one-stop system.
(c) One-stop partners, States or local
areas may use additional identifiers on
their products, programs, activities,
services, facilities, and related property
and materials.
Department of Education
34 CFR Chapters III and IV
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Department of Education
proposes to amend 34 CFR chapters III
and IV as follows:
PART 361—STATE VOCATIONAL
REHABILITATION SERVICES
PROGRAM
4. The authority citation for part 361
continues to read as follows:
■
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 709(c), unless
otherwise noted.
5. Add subpart D of part 361 to read
as follows:
■
Subpart D—Unified and Combined State
Plans Under Title I of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec.
361.100 What is the purpose of the Unified
and Combined State Plans?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
361.105 What are the general requirements
for the Unified State Plan?
361.110 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan
for the adult, dislocated worker, and
youth workforce investment activities in
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act title I?
361.115 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan
for the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act program in Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act title II?
361.120 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan
for Wagner-Peyser Act Employment
Service programs in title III of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act?
361.125 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan
for the State Vocational Rehabilitation
program in Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act title IV?
361.130 What is the submission and
approval process of the Unified State
Plan?
361.135 What are the requirements for
modification of the Unified State Plan?
361.140 What are the general requirements
for submitting a Combined State Plan?
361.143 What is the submission and
approval process of the Combined State
Plan?
361.145 What are the requirements for
modifications of the Combined State
Plan?
Subpart D—Unified and Combined
State Plans Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act
§ 361.100 What is the purpose of the
Unified and Combined State Plans?
(a) The Unified and Combined State
Plans provide the framework for States
to outline a strategic vision of, and goals
for, how their workforce development
systems will achieve the purposes of
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act (WIOA).
(b) The Unified and Combined State
Plans serve as 4-year action plans to
develop, align, and integrate the State’s
systems and provide a platform to
achieve the State’s vision and strategic
and operational goals. A Unified or
Combined State Plan is intended to:
(1) Align, in strategic coordination,
the six core programs required in the
Unified State Plan pursuant to
§ 361.105(b), and additional optional
programs that may be part of the
Combined State Plan pursuant to
§ 361.140;
(2) Direct investments in economic,
education, and workforce training
programs to focus on providing relevant
education and training to ensure that
individuals, including youth and
individuals with barriers to
employment, have the skills to compete
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
in the job market and that employers
have a ready supply of skilled workers;
(3) Apply strategies for job-driven
training consistently across Federal
programs, and;
(4) Enable economic, education, and
workforce partners to build a skilled
workforce through innovation in, and
alignment of, employment, training, and
education programs.
§ 361.105 What are the general
requirements for the Unified State Plan?
(a) The Unified State Plan must be
submitted in accordance with § 361.130
and joint planning guidelines issued by
the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary
of Education.
(b) The Governor of each State must
submit, in accordance with § 361.130, a
Unified or Combined State Plan to the
Secretary of Labor to be eligible to
receive funding for the workforce
development system’s six core
programs:
(1) The adult, dislocated worker, and
youth programs authorized under
subtitle B of title I of WIOA and
administered by the U.S. Department of
Labor;
(2) The Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act (AEFLA) program
authorized under title II of WIOA and
administered by the U.S. Department of
Education;
(3) The Wagner-Peyser Act
Employment Services programs
amended by title III of WIOA and
administered by the U.S. Department of
Labor; and
(4) The State Vocational
Rehabilitation program amended by title
IV of WIOA and administered by the
U.S. Department of Education.
(c) The Unified State Plan must
outline the State’s 4-year strategy for the
core programs described in paragraph
(b) of this section and meet the
requirements of sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as
explained in the joint planning
guidance issued by the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Education.
(d) The Unified State Plan must
include strategic and operational
planning elements to facilitate the
development of an aligned, coordinated,
and comprehensive workforce
development system. The Unified State
Plan must include:
(1) Strategic planning elements that
describe the State’s strategic vision and
goals for preparing an educated and
skilled workforce under sec. 102(b)(1) of
WIOA. The strategic planning elements
must be informed by and include an
analysis of the State’s economic
conditions and employer and workforce
needs, including education and skill
needs.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(2) Strategies for aligning the core
programs and optional programs, as
well as other resources available to the
State, to achieve the strategic vision and
goals in accordance with sec.
102(b)(1)(E) of WIOA.
(3) Operational planning elements in
accordance with sec. 102(b)(2) of WIOA
that support the strategies for aligning
the core programs and other resources
available to the State to achieve the
State’s vision and goals and a
description of how the State Workforce
Development Board will implement its
functions, in accordance with sec.
101(d) of WIOA. Operational planning
elements must include:
(i) A description of how the State
strategy will be implemented by each
core program’s lead State agency;
(ii) State operating systems, including
data systems, and policies that will
support the implementation of the
State’s strategy identified in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section;
(iii) Program-specific requirements for
the core programs required by WIOA
sec. 102(b)(2)(D);
(iv) Assurances required by sec.
102(b)(2)(E) of WIOA and others
deemed necessary by the Secretaries of
Labor and Education under sec.
102(b)(2)(E)(x) of WIOA; and
(v) Any additional operational
planning requirements imposed by the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of
Education under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii)
of WIOA.
§ 361.110 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan for
the adult, dislocated worker, and youth
workforce investment activities in
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
title I?
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
The program-specific requirements for
the adult, dislocated worker, and youth
workforce investment activities that
must be included in the Unified State
Plan are described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D) of
WIOA. Additional planning
requirements may be required by the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of
Education in accordance with joint
planning guidelines issued by the
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Education.
§ 361.115 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan for
the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act
program in Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act title II?
The program-specific requirements for
the AEFLA program in title II that must
be included in the Unified State Plan
are described in secs. 102(b)(2)(D)(ii)
and 102(b)(2)(C) of WIOA.
(a) With regard to the description
required in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(ii)(I) of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
WIOA pertaining to content standards,
the Unified State Plan must describe
how the eligible agency will, by July 1,
2016, align its content standards for
adult education with State-adopted
challenging academic content standards
under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended.
(b) With regard to the description
required in sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(iv) of
WIOA pertaining to the methods and
factors the State will use to distribute
funds under the core programs, for title
II of WIOA, the Unified State Plan must
include—
(1) How the eligible agency will
award multi-year grants on a
competitive basis to eligible providers
in the State; and
(2) How the eligible agency will
provide direct and equitable access to
funds using the same grant or contract
announcement and application
procedure.
(c) With regard to the description
required under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(v)(I) of
WIOA pertaining to the integration of
workforce and education data on core
programs, unemployment insurance
programs, and education through postsecondary education, for title II of
WIOA, the Unified State Plan must
include how the State will ensure
interoperability of data systems in the
reporting on core indicators of
performance and performance reports
required to be submitted by the State.
§ 361.120 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan for
Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service
programs in title III of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
Wagner-Peyser Act Employment
Services programs amended by title III
are subject to requirements in sec.
102(b) of WIOA and any additional
requirements imposed by the Secretary
of Labor under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii) of
WIOA, in accordance with joint
planning guidelines issued by the
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Education.
§ 361.125 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan for
the State Vocational Rehabilitation program
in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act title IV?
The program specific requirements for
the vocational rehabilitation services
portion of the Unified or Combined
State Plan are set forth in sec. 101(a) of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended. All submission requirements
of the Vocational Rehabilitation
Services portion of the Unified or
Combined State Plan are in addition to
the jointly developed strategic and
operational content requirements
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20649
prescribed by secs. 102(b) and 103 of
WIOA.
§ 361.130 What is the submission and
approval process of the Unified State Plan?
(a) The Unified State Plan described
in § 361.105 must be submitted in
accordance with planning guidelines
issued jointly by the Secretaries of Labor
and Education which explain the
submission and approval process in
WIOA sec. 102(c).
(b) A State must submit its Unified
State Plan to the Secretary of Labor
pursuant to a process identified by the
Secretary.
(1) The initial Unified State Plan must
be submitted no later than 120 days
prior to the commencement of the
second full program year of WIOA.
(2) The subsequent Unified State Plan
must be submitted no later than 120
days prior to the end of the 4-year
period described in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of
this section, ‘‘program year’’ means July
1 through June 30 of any year.
(c) The State must provide an
opportunity for public comment on and
input into the development of the
Unified State Plan prior to its
submission.
(1) The opportunity for public
comment must include an opportunity
for comment by representatives of Local
Boards and chief elected officials,
businesses, representatives of labor
organizations, community-based
organizations, adult education
providers, institutions of higher
education, other stakeholders with an
interest in the services provided by the
six core programs, and the general
public, including individuals with
disabilities.
(2) Consistent with the ‘‘Sunshine
Provision’’ of WIOA in sec. 101(g), the
State Board must make information
regarding the Unified State Plan
available to the public through
electronic means and regularly
occurring open meetings in accordance
with State law. The Unified State Plan
must describe the State’s process and
timeline for ensuring a meaningful
opportunity for public comment.
(d) Upon receipt of the Unified State
Plan from the State, the Secretary of
Labor will ensure that the entire Unified
State Plan is submitted to the Secretary
of Education pursuant to a process
developed by the Secretaries.
(e) The Unified State Plan is subject
to the approval of both the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Education.
(f) Before the Secretary of Labor and
the Secretary of Education approve the
Unified State Plan, the vocational
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20650
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
rehabilitation portion of the Unified
State Plan described in WIOA sec.
102(b)(2)(D)(iii) must be approved by
the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration.
(g) The Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Education will review and
approve the Unified State Plan within
90 days of receipt by the appropriate
Secretary, unless the Secretary of Labor
or the Secretary of Education
determines in writing within that period
that:
(1) The plan is inconsistent with a
core program’s requirements;
(2) The Unified State Plan is
inconsistent with any requirement of
sec. 102 of WIOA; or
(3) The plan is incomplete or
otherwise insufficient to determine
whether it is consistent with a core
program’s requirements or other
requirements of WIOA.
(h) If neither the Secretary of Labor
nor the Secretary of Education makes
the written determination described in
paragraph (g) of this section within 90
days of the receipt by the Secretaries,
the Unified State Plan will be
considered approved.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 361.135 What are the requirements for
modification of the Unified State Plan?
(a) In addition to the required
modification review set forth in
paragraph (b) of this section, a Governor
may submit a modification of its Unified
State Plan at any time during the 4-year
period of the plan.
(b) Modifications are required, at a
minimum:
(1) At the end of the first 2-year
period of any 4-year State Plan, wherein
the State Board must review the Unified
State Plan, and the Governor must
submit modifications to the plan to
reflect changes in labor market and
economic conditions or other factors
affecting the implementation of the
Unified State Plan;
(2) When changes in Federal or State
law or policy substantially affect the
strategies, goals, and priorities upon
which the Unified State Plan is based;
(3) When there are changes in the
statewide vision, strategies, policies,
State adjusted levels of performance, the
methodology used to determine local
allocation of funds, reorganizations
which change the working relationship
with system employees, changes in
organizational responsibilities, changes
to the membership structure of the State
Board or alternative entity, and similar
substantial changes to the State’s
workforce investment system.
(c) Modifications to the Unified State
Plan are subject to the same public
review and comment requirements in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 361.130(c) that apply to the
development of the original Unified
State Plan.
(d) Unified State Plan modifications
must be approved by the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Education,
based on the approval standards
applicable to the original Unified State
Plan under § 361.130. This approval
must come after the approval of the
Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration for
modification of any portion of the plan
described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of
WIOA.
§ 361.140 What are the general
requirements for submitting a Combined
State Plan?
(a) A State may choose to develop and
submit a 4-year Combined State Plan in
lieu of the Unified State Plan described
in § 361.105.
(b) A State that submits a Combined
State Plan covering an activity or
program described in paragraph (d) of
this section that is approved under
WIOA sec. 103(c) or determined
complete under the law relating to the
program will not be required to submit
any other plan or application in order to
receive Federal funds to carry out the
core programs or the program or
activities described under paragraph (d)
of this section that are covered by the
Combined State Plan.
(c) If a State develops a Combined
State Plan, it must be submitted in
accordance with the process described
in § 361.143.
(d) If a State chooses to submit a
Combined State Plan, the Plan must
include the six core programs and one
or more of the optional programs and
activities described in sec. 103(a)(2) of
WIOA. The optional programs and
activities that may be included in the
Combined State Plan are:
(1) Career and technical education
programs authorized under the Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education
Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.);
(2) Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families or TANF, authorized under
part A of title IV of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
(3) Employment and training
programs authorized under sec. 6(d)(4)
of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4));
(4) Work programs authorized under
sec. 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o));
(5) Trade adjustment assistance
activities under chapter 2 of title II of
the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271
et seq.);
(6) Services for veterans authorized
under chapter 41 of title 38, United
States Code;
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(7) Programs authorized under State
unemployment compensation laws (in
accordance with applicable Federal
law);
(8) Senior Community Service
Employment Programs under title V of
the Older Americans Act of 1956 (42
U.S.C. 3056 et seq.);
(9) Employment and training
activities carried out by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development;
(10) Employment and training
activities carried out under the
Community Services Block Grant Act
(42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.); and
(11) Reintegration of offenders
programs authorized under sec. 212 of
the Second Chance Act of 2007 (42
U.S.C. 17532).
(e) A Combined State Plan must
contain:
(1) For the core programs, the
information required by sec. 102(b) of
WIOA and § 361.105, as explained in
the joint planning guidance issued by
the Secretaries;
(2) For the optional programs, except
as described in paragraph (h) of this
section, the information required by the
law authorizing and governing that
program to be submitted to the
appropriate Secretary, any other
applicable legal requirements, and any
common planning requirements
described in sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as
explained in the joint planning
guidance issued by the Secretaries;
(3) A description of joint planning
methods across all programs included in
the Combined State Plan; and
(4) An assurance that all of the
entities responsible for planning or
administering the programs described in
the Combined State Plan have had a
meaningful opportunity to review and
comment on all portions of the Plan.
(f) Each optional program included in
the Combined State Plan remains
subject to the applicable programspecific requirements of the Federal law
and regulations, and any other
applicable legal or program
requirements, governing the
implementation and operation of that
program.
(g) For purposes of §§ 361.140 through
361.145 the term ‘‘appropriate
Secretary’’ means the head of the
Federal agency who exercises either
plan or application approval authority
for the program or activity under the
Federal law authorizing the program or
activity or, if there are no planning or
application requirements, who exercises
administrative authority over the
program or activity under that Federal
law.
(h) States that include employment
and training activities carried out under
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
the Community Services Block Grant
(CSBG) Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.)
under a Combined State Plan would
submit all other required elements of a
complete CSBG State Plan directly to
the Federal agency that administers the
program, according to the requirements
of Federal law and regulations.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 361.143 What is the submission and
approval process of the Combined State
Plan?
(a) For purposes of § 361.140(a), if a
State chooses to develop a Combined
State Plan it must submit the Combined
State Plan in accordance with the
requirements described below and the
joint planning guidelines, which will
further explain the submission and
approval procedures for the Combined
State Plan, issued by the Secretaries.
(b) The State must submit to the
Secretaries of Labor and Education and
to the Secretary of the agency with
responsibility for approving the
program’s plan or determining it
complete under the law governing the
program, as part of its Combined State
Plan, any plan, application, form, or any
other similar document that is required
as a condition for the approval of
Federal funding under the applicable
program or activity. Such submission
must occur in accordance with a process
identified by the relevant Secretaries in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The Combined State Plan will be
approved or disapproved in accordance
with the requirements of sec. 103(c) of
WIOA.
(1) The portion of the Combined State
Plan covering programs administered by
the Departments of Labor and Education
must be reviewed, and approved or
disapproved, by the appropriate
Secretary within 90 days beginning on
the day the plan is received by the
appropriate Secretary from the State,
except as provided in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(2) If an appropriate Secretary other
than the Secretary of Labor or the
Secretary of Education has authority to
approve or determine complete a
portion of the Combined State Plan for
a program or activity described in
§ 361.140(d), that portion of the plan
must be reviewed, and approved,
disapproved, or have a determination of
completeness, by the appropriate
Secretary within 120 days beginning on
the day the plan is received by the
appropriate Secretary from the State
except as provided in paragraph (e) of
this section.
(d) The review and determination of
approval or disapproval, or
determination of completeness, of the
relevant portion of the Combined State
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Plan must occur within 90 days for all
Department of Labor and Education
programs included in the State Plan and
within 120 days for the programs
administered by other Federal Agencies
unless the appropriate Secretary
determines in writing within that period
that:
(1) The Plan is inconsistent with the
requirements of the six core programs or
the Federal laws authorizing or
applicable to the program or activity
involved, including the criteria for
approval of a plan or application, or
determining the plan’s completeness, if
any, under such law;
(2) The portion of the Plan describing
the six core programs or the program or
activity described in paragraph (a) of
this section involved does not satisfy
the criteria as provided in sec. 102 or
103 of WIOA, as applicable; or
(3) The Plan is incomplete, or
otherwise insufficient to determine
whether it is consistent with a core
program’s requirements, other
requirements of WIOA, or the Federal
laws authorizing, or applicable to, the
program or activity described in
§ 361.140(d), including the criteria for
approval of a plan or application, if any,
under such law.
(e) If the Secretary of Labor, the
Secretary of Education, or the
appropriate Secretary does not make the
written determination described in
paragraph (d) of this section within the
relevant period of time after submission
of the Plan, that portion of the
Combined State Plan over which the
Secretary has jurisdiction will be
considered approved.
(f) Special rule. In paragraphs (d)(1)
and (3) of this section, the term ‘‘criteria
for approval of a plan or application,’’
with respect to a State or a core program
or a program under the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of
2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), includes
a requirement for agreement between
the State and the appropriate Secretaries
regarding State performance measures
or State performance accountability
measures, as the case may be, including
levels of performance.
§ 361.145 What are the requirements for
modifications of the Combined State Plan?
(a) For the core program portions of
the Combined State Plan, modifications
are required at the end of the first 2-year
period of any 4-year Combined State
Plan. The State Board must review the
Combined State Plan, and the Governor
must submit a modification of the
Combined State Plan to reflect changes
in labor market and economic
conditions or in other factors affecting
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20651
the implementation of the Combined
State Plan.
(b) In addition to the required
modification review described in
paragraph (a) of this section, a State may
submit a modification of its Combined
State Plan at any time during the 4-year
period of the plan.
(c) For any programs and activities
described in § 361.140(d) that are
included in a State’s Combined State
Plan, the State—
(1) May decide if the modification
requirements under WIOA sec. 102(c)(3)
that apply to the core programs will
apply to the optional programs or
activities described in § 361.140(d) that
are included in the Combined State Plan
or may comply with the procedures and
requirements applicable to only the
particular optional program or activity;
and
(2) Must submit, in accordance with
the procedure described in § 361.143,
any other modification, amendment, or
revision required by the Federal law
authorizing, or applicable to, the
program or activity described in
§ 361.140(d). If the underlying
programmatic requirements change for
Federal laws authorizing such programs,
a State must either modify its Combined
State Plan or submit a separate plan to
the appropriate Federal agency in
accordance with the new Federal law
authorizing the optional program or
activity and other legal requirements
applicable to such program or activity.
A State also may amend its Combined
State Plan to add an optional program
or activity described in § 361.140(d).
(d) Modifications of the Combined
State Plan are subject to the same public
review and comment requirements that
apply to the development of the original
Combined State Plan as described in
§ 361.130(c) except that, if the
modification, amendment, or revision
affects the administration of a particular
optional program and has no impact on
the Combined State Plan as a whole or
the integration and administration of the
core and optional programs at the State
level, a State may comply instead with
the procedures and requirements
applicable to the particular optional
program.
(e) Modifications for the core program
portions of the Combined State Plan
must be approved by the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Education,
based on the approval standards
applicable to the original Combined
State Plan under § 361.143. This
approval must come after the approval
of the Commissioner of the
Rehabilitation Services Administration
for modification of any portion of the
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20652
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Combined State Plan described in sec.
102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA.
(f) Modifications for the portions of
the Combined State Plan for any
optional program or activity described
in § 361.140(d) must be submitted for
approval by only the appropriate
Secretary, based on the approval
standards applicable to the original
Combined State Plan under § 361.143, if
the State elects, or in accordance with
the procedures and requirements
applicable to the particular optional
program if the modification,
amendment, or revision affects the
administration of only that particular
optional program and has no impact on
the Combined State Plan as a whole or
the integration and administration of the
core and optional programs at the State
level.
■ 6. Revise subpart E of part 361 to read
as follows:
Subpart E—Performance Accountability
Under Title I of the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act
Sec.
361.150 What definitions apply to
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act performance measurement and
reporting requirements?
361.155 What are the primary indicators of
performance under the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
361.160 What information is required for
State performance reports?
361.165 May a State require additional
indicators of performance?
361.170 How are State adjusted levels of
performance for primary indicators
established?
361.175 What responsibility do States have
to use quarterly wage record information
for performance accountability?
361.180 What State actions are subject to a
financial sanction under Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
361.185 When are sanctions applied for
failure to report?
361.190 When are sanctions applied for
failure to achieve adjusted levels of
performance?
361.195 What should States expect when a
sanction is applied to the Governor’s
Reserve Allotment?
361.200 What other administrative actions
will be applied to States’ performance
requirements?
361.205 What performance indicators apply
to local areas?
361.210 How are local performance levels
established?
361.215 Under what circumstances are
local areas eligible for State Incentive
Grants?
361.220 Under what circumstances may a
corrective action or sanction be applied
to local areas for poor performance?
361.225 Under what circumstances may
local areas appeal a reorganization plan?
361.230 What information is required for
the eligible training provider
performance reports?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
361.235 What are the reporting
requirements for individual records for
core Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act title I, III, and IV
programs?
361.240 What are the requirements for data
validation of State annual performance
reports?
Subpart E—Performance
Accountability Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act
§ 361.150 What definitions apply to
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
performance measurement and reporting
requirements?
(a) Participant. A reportable
individual who has received staffassisted services after satisfying all
applicable programmatic requirements
for the provision of services, such as
eligibility determination.
(1) For the Vocational Rehabilitation
(VR) program, a Participant is an
individual who has an approved and
signed Individualized Plan for
Employment (IPE) and has begun to
receive services.
(2) The following individuals are not
Participants:
(i) Individuals who have not
completed at least 12 contact hours in
the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act (AEFLA) program;
(ii) Individuals who only use the selfservice system; and
(iii) Individuals who only receive
information services or activities.
(3) Programs must include
participants in their performance
calculations.
(b) Reportable individual. An
individual who has taken action that
demonstrates an intent to use program
services and who meets specific
reporting criteria of the core program,
including:
(1) Individuals who provide
identifying information;
(2) Individuals who only use the selfservice system; and
(3) Individuals who only receive
information on services or activities.
(c) Exit. As defined for the purpose of
performance calculations, exit is the
point after which an individual who has
received services through any program
meets the following criteria:
(1) For the adult, dislocated worker,
and youth programs under Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA) title I, the AEFLA program
under WIOA title II, and the
Employment Services authorized by the
Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by
WIOA title III, exit date is the last date
of service:
(i) The exit date cannot be determined
until 90 days of no services has elapsed.
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
At that point the exit date is applied
retroactively to the last date of service.
(A) Ninety days of no service does not
include self-service or information-only
activities or follow-up services and
(B) There are no future services
planned, excluding follow-up services.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2)(i) For the VR program as amended
by WIOA title IV:
(A) The participant’s record of service
is closed in accordance with § 361.56
because the participant has achieved an
employment outcome; or
(B) The participant’s service record is
closed because the individual has not
achieved an employment outcome or
the individual has been determined
ineligible after receiving services in
accordance with § 361.43.
(ii) Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, a participant
will not be considered as meeting the
definition of exit from the Vocational
Rehabilitation program if the
individual’s service record is closed
because the individual has achieved a
supported employment outcome in an
integrated setting but not in competitive
integrated employment.
§ 361.155 What are the primary indicators
of performance under the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
(a) All States submitting either a
Unified or Combined State Plan under
§§ 361.130 and 361.143, must propose
expected levels of performance for each
of the primary indicators of performance
for the adult, dislocated worker, and
youth programs under title I of WIOA,
the AEFLA program under title II of
WIOA, the Wagner-Peyser Act as
amended by title III of WIOA, and the
VR program as amended by WIOA.
(1) The six primary indicators for
performance are:
(i) The percentage of participants,
who are in unsubsidized employment
during the second quarter after exit from
the program;
(ii) The percentage of participants,
who are in unsubsidized employment
during the fourth quarter after exit from
the program;
(iii) Median earnings of participants,
who are in unsubsidized employment
during the second quarter after exit from
the program;
(iv) The percentage of participants
who obtained a recognized postsecondary credential or a secondary
school diploma, or its recognized
equivalent during participation in or
within 1 year after exit from the
program. A participant who has
obtained a secondary school diploma or
its recognized equivalent is only
included in this measure if the
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
participant is also employed or is
enrolled in an education or training
program leading to a recognized postsecondary credential within 1 year from
program exit;
(v) The percentage of participants
who during a program year, are in an
education or training program that leads
to a recognized post-secondary
credential or employment and who are
achieving measurable skill gains,
defined as documented academic,
technical, occupational or other forms of
progress, towards such a credential or
employment.
(vi) Effectiveness in serving
employers, based on indicators
developed as required by sec.
116(b)(2)(A)(iv) of WIOA.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) The indicators in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section
apply to the adult, dislocated worker,
AEFLA and VR programs.
(c) The indicators in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (vi) of this
section apply to the Employment
Services.
(d) For the youth program under title
I of WIOA, the indicators are:
(1) Percentage of participants who are
in education or training activities, or in
unsubsidized employment, during the
second quarter after exit from the
program;
(2) Percentage of participants in
education or training activities, or in
unsubsidized employment, during the
fourth quarter after exit from the
program;
(3) Median earnings of participants
who are in unsubsidized employment
during the second quarter after exit from
the program;
(4) The percentage of participants
who obtained a recognized postsecondary credential or a secondary
school diploma, or its recognized
equivalent, during participation or up to
1 year after exit. A participant who has
obtained a secondary school diploma or
its recognized equivalent is only
included in this measure if the
participant is also employed or is
enrolled in an education or training
program leading to a recognized postsecondary credential within 1 year from
program exit;
(5) The percentage of participants
who during a program year, are in an
education or training program that leads
to a recognized post-secondary
credential or employment and who are
achieving measurable skill gains,
defined as documented academic,
technical, occupational or other forms of
progress towards such a credential or
employment;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
(6) Effectiveness in serving employers,
based on indicators developed as
required by sec. 116(b)(2)(iv) of WIOA.
§ 361.160 What information is required for
State performance reports?
(a) Section 116(d)(2) of WIOA requires
States to submit a State performance
report. The State performance report
must be submitted annually using a
template the Departments will
disseminate and must provide, at a
minimum, information on the actual
performance levels achieved consistent
with § 361.175 with respect to:
(1) The total number of participants
served, and the total number of
participants who exited each of the core
programs identified in sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA, including
disaggregated counts of those who
participated in and exited a core
program, by:
(i) Individuals with barriers to
employment as defined in WIOA sec.
3(24); and
(ii) Co-enrollment in any of the
programs in WIOA sec 116(b)(3)(A)(ii).
(2) Information on the performance
levels achieved for the primary
indicators for all of the core programs
identified in § 361.155 including
disaggregated levels for:
(i) Individuals with barriers to
employment as defined in WIOA sec.
3(24);
(ii) Age;
(iii) Sex; and
(iv) Race and ethnicity.
(3) The total number of participants
and exiters who received career and
training services for the most recent
program year and the three preceding
program years, as applicable to the
program;
(4) Information on the performance
levels achieved for the primary
indicators consistent with § 361.155 for
career and training services for the most
recent program year and the 3 preceding
program years, as applicable to the
program;
(5) The percentage of participants in
a program who obtained unsubsidized
employment related to the training
received (often referred to as trainingrelated employment) through WIOA
title I–B programs;
(6) The amount of funds spent on
each type of career and training service
for the most recent program year and the
3 preceding program years, as
applicable to the program;
(7) The average cost per participant
for those participants who received
career and training services,
respectively, during the most recent
program year and the 3 preceding
program years for, as applicable to the
program;
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20653
(8) The percentage of a State’s annual
allotment under WIOA sec. 132(b) that
the State spent on administrative costs;
and
(9) information that facilitates
comparisons of programs with programs
in other States.
(10) For WIOA title I programs, a State
performance narrative, which, for States
in which a local area is implementing a
pay-for-performance contracting
strategy, at a minimum provides:
(i) A description of pay-forperformance contract strategies being
used for programs;
(ii) The performance of service
providers entering into contracts for
such strategies, measured against the
levels of performance specified in the
contracts for such strategies; and
(iii) An evaluation of the design of the
programs and performance strategies
and, when available, the satisfaction of
employers and participants who
received services under such strategies.
(b) The disaggregation of data for the
State performance report must be done
in compliance with WIOA sec.
116(d)(6)(C).
(c) The State performance reports
must include a mechanism of electronic
access to the State’s local area and ETP
performance reports.
(d) States must comply with these
requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as
explained in joint guidance issued by
the Departments of Education and
Labor, which may include information
on reportable individuals as determined
by the Secretaries.
§ 361.165 May a State require additional
indicators of performance?
States may identify additional
indicators of performance for the six
core programs. These indicators must be
included in the Unified or Combined
State Plan.
§ 361.170 How are State adjusted levels of
performance for primary indicators
established?
(a) A State must submit in the State
Plan expected levels of performance on
the primary indicators for each core
program as required by sec. 116(b)(iv) of
WIOA as explained in joint guidance
issued by the Secretaries of Education
and Labor.
(1) The initial State Plan submitted
under WIOA must contain expected
levels of performance for the first 2
years of the State Plan period.
(2) States must submit expected levels
of performance for the third and fourth
year of the State Plan before the third
program year consistent with §§ 361.135
and 361.145.
(b) The State must reach agreement on
levels of performance with the
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20654
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Secretaries of Education and Labor for
each of the core programs based on the
following factors:
(1) How the levels of performance
compare with State adjusted levels of
performance established for other
States;
(2) The application of an objective
statistical model established by the
Secretaries of Education and Labor,
subject to paragraph (d) of this section;
(3) How the levels promote
continuous improvement in
performance based on the primary
indicators and ensure optimal return on
investment of Federal funds; and
(4) The extent to which the levels
assist the State in meeting the
performance goals established by the
Secretaries of Education and Labor for
the core programs in accordance with
the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, and its
amendments.
(c) An objective statistical adjustment
model will be developed and
disseminated by the Secretaries. The
model will be based on:
(1) Differences among States in actual
economic conditions, including
unemployment rates and job losses or
gains in particular industries; and
(2) The characteristics of participants,
including:
(i) Indicators of poor work history;
(ii) Lack of work experience;
(iii) Lack of educational or
occupational skills attainment;
(iv) Dislocation from high-wage and
high-benefit employment;
(v) Low levels of literacy;
(vi) Low levels of English proficiency;
(vii) Disability status;
(viii) Homelessness;
(ix) Ex-offender status; and
(x) Welfare dependency.
(d) The objective statistical
adjustment model developed under
paragraph (c) of this section will be:
(1) Applied to the core programs’
primary indicators upon availability of
data which is necessary to populate the
model and apply it to the programs;
(2) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, used before the beginning of a
program year in order to establish State
performance targets for the upcoming
program year; and
(3) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, used to revise performance
levels at the end of a program year based
on actual circumstances, consistent with
sec. 116(b)(3)(vii) of WIOA.
(e) States must comply with these
requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as
explained in joint guidance issued by
the Departments of Education and
Labor.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 361.175 What responsibility do States
have to use quarterly wage record
information for performance
accountability?
(a) States must, consistent with State
laws, use quarterly wage record
information in measuring the progress
on State adjusted levels of performance
for the primary indicators outlined in
§ 361.155 and local performance
indicators identified in § 361.205. The
use of social security numbers from
participants and such other information
as is necessary to measure the progress
of those participants through quarterly
wage record information is authorized.
(b) ‘‘Quarterly wage record
information’’ means intrastate and
interstate wages paid to an individual,
the social security number (or numbers,
if more than one) of the individual and
the name, address, State, and the
Federal employer identification number
of the employer paying the wages to the
individual.
(c) The Governor may designate a
State agency [or appropriate State
entity] to assist in carrying out the
performance reporting requirements for
WIOA core programs and eligible
training providers. The Governor or
such agency [or appropriate State entity]
is responsible for:
(1) Facilitating data matches;
(2) Data quality reliability, protection
against disaggregation that would
violate privacy.
§ 361.180 What State actions are subject
to a financial sanction under Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
The following failures by a State are
subject to financial sanction under
WIOA sec. 116(d):
(a) The failure by a State to submit the
State annual performance report
required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2); or
(b) The failure by a State to meet
adjusted levels of performance for the
primary indicators of performance in
accordance with sec. 116(f) of WIOA.
§ 361.185 When are sanctions applied for
failure to report?
(a) Sanctions will be applied when a
State fails to submit the State annual
performance reports required under sec.
116(d)(2) of WIOA. It is a failure to
report if the State either:
(1) Does not submit a State annual
performance report by the date for
timely submission set in performance
reporting guidance; or
(2) Submits a State annual
performance report by the date for
timely submission, but the report is
incomplete.
(b) Sanctions will not be assessed if
the reporting failure is due to
exceptional circumstances outside of
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
the State’s control. Exceptional
circumstances may include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Natural disasters;
(2) Unexpected personnel transitions;
and
(3) Unexpected technology related
impacts.
(c) In the event that a State may not
be able to submit a complete and
accurate performance report by the
deadline for timely reporting:
(1) The State must notify the Secretary
of Labor or Secretary of Education as
soon as possible of a potential impact on
the ability to submit their State annual
performance reports by no later than 30
days prior to the established deadline in
order to not be considered failing to
report.
(2) In circumstances where
unexpected events occur within the 30day period before the deadline for
submission of the State annual
performance reports, the Secretary of
Labor and Secretary of Education will
review requests for extending the
reporting deadline in accordance with
the Departments’ procedures explained
in guidance on reporting timelines.
§ 361.190 When are sanctions applied for
failure to achieve adjusted levels of
performance?
(a) States’ negotiated levels of
performance will be adjusted through
the application of the statistical
adjustment model established under
§ 361.170 to account for actual
conditions experienced during a
program year and characteristics of
participants, annually at the close of
each program year.
(b) States that fail to meet adjusted
levels of performance for the primary
indicators of performance outlined in
§ 361.155 for any year will receive
technical assistance, including
assistance in the development of a
performance improvement plan
provided by the Secretary of Labor or
Secretary of Education.
(c) State failure to meet adjusted
levels of performance will be
determined through three criteria:
(1) Overall State program scores,
based on the percent achieved by a
program on each of the six primary
indicators compared to the adjusted goal
for each primary indicator. The average
of the percentage of the adjusted goal
achieved for each primary indicator will
constitute the overall program score for
the State;
(2) Overall State indicator scores,
based on the percent achieved by each
program on each of the individual
primary indicators compared to the
adjusted goal. The average of the
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
percentage of the adjusted goal achieved
for each of the six core programs’ will
constitute an overall indicator score for
the State; and
(3) Individual indicator scores, based
on the percent achieved by each
program on each of the individual
primary indicators compared to the
adjusted goals.
(d) A performance failure occurs
when:
(1) Any overall State program score or
overall State indicator score falls below
90 percent for the program year; or
(2) Any of the States’ individual
indicator scores fall below 50 percent
for the program year.
(e) Sanctions based on performance
failure will be applied to States if, for 2
consecutive years, the State fails to meet
90 percent of the overall State program
score, 90 percent of the overall State
indicator score, or 50 percent on any
individual indicator score for the same
program or indicator.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 361.195 What should States expect when
a sanction is applied to the Governor’s
Reserve Allotment?
(a) The Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Education will reduce the
Governor’s Reserve Allotment by 5
percent of the maximum available
amount for the immediately succeeding
program year if:
(1) The State fails to submit the State
annual performance reports as required
under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2), as defined
in § 361.185; or
(2) The State fails to meet State
adjusted levels of performance for the
same primary performance indicator(s)
under either § 361.190(d)(1) or (2) for
the second consecutive year as defined
in § 361.190.
(b) If the State fails under paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section in the same
program year, the Secretary of Labor and
the Secretary of Education will reduce
the Governor’s Reserve Allotment by 10
percent of the maximum available
amount for the immediately succeeding
program year.
(c) If a State’s Governor’s Reserve
Allotment is reduced:
(1) The reduced amount will not be
returned to the State in the event that
the State later improves performance or
submits its annual performance report;
and
(2) The Governor’s reserve will
continue to be set at the reduced level
in each subsequent year until the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of
Education, dependent upon the
impacted program, determines that the
State met the State adjusted levels of
performance for the applicable primary
performance indicators and has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
submitted all of the required
performance reports.
(d) A State may request review of a
sanction the U.S. Department of Labor
imposes in accordance with the
provisions of § 683.800 of this chapter.
§ 361.200 What other administrative
actions will be applied to States’
performance requirements?
(a) In addition to sanctions for failure
to report or failure to meet adjusted
levels of performance, States will be
subject to administrative actions in the
case of poor performance.
(b) States’ performance achievement
on the individual primary indicators
will be assessed in addition to the
overall program score and overall
indicator score. Based on this
assessment, as clarified and explained
in guidance, for performance on any
individual primary indicator, the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of
Education will require the State to
establish a performance risk plan to
address continuous improvement on the
individual primary indicator.
§ 361.205 What performance indicators
apply to local areas?
(a) Each local workforce investment
area in a State under title I of WIOA is
subject to the same primary indicators
of performance for the core programs for
WIOA title I under § 361.155(a)(1) and
(d) that apply to the State.
(b) In addition to the indicators
described in paragraph (a) of this
section, under § 361.165, the Governor
may apply additional indicators of
performance to local areas in the State.
(c) States must annually make local
area performance reports available to
the public using a template that the
Departments will disseminate in
guidance, including by electronic
means. The State must provide
electronic access to the public local area
performance report in its annual State
performance report.
(d) The local area performance report
must provide information on the actual
performance levels for the local area
based on quarterly wage records
consistent with the requirements for
States under § 361.175.
(e) The local area performance report
must include:
(1) Performance levels achieved by
the local area for the indicators for the
adult, dislocated worker, and youth
programs under title I of WIOA in
§ 361.155(a)(1) and (3);
(2) Performance levels achieved by
the local area for the adult, dislocated
worker, and youth programs under title
I of WIOA in § 361.160(a);
(3) The percentage of a local area’s
allotment under WIOA sec. 128(b) and
PO 00000
Frm 00083
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20655
sec. 133(b) that the local area spent on
administrative costs; and
(4) Other information that facilitates
comparisons of programs with programs
in other local areas (or planning regions
if the local area is part of a planning
region).
(f) States must comply with any
requirements from sec. 116(d)(3) of
WIOA as explained in guidance,
including the use of the performance
reporting template, issued by the
Department of Labor.
§ 361.210 How are local performance
levels established?
(a) The objective statistical adjustment
model required under sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(viii) of WIOA and
described in the § 361.170 must be:
(1) Used to establish local
performance targets for the upcoming
program year, and
(2) Used to revise performance levels
at the end of a program year based on
actual circumstances, consistent with
WIOA sec. 116(c)(3).
(b) The Governor, Local Board, and
chief elected official must reach
agreement on local targets and levels
based on a negotiations process before
the start of a program year with the use
of the objective statistical model
described in paragraph (a) of this
section. The negotiations will include a
discussion of circumstances not
accounted for in the model and will take
into account the extent to which the
levels promote continuous
improvement. The objective statistical
model will be applied at the end of the
program year based on actual conditions
experienced.
(c) The negotiations process described
in paragraph (b) of this section must be
developed by the Governor and
disseminated to all Local Boards and
chief elected officials.
(d) The Local Boards may apply
performance measures to service
providers that differ from the
performance measures that apply to the
local area. These performance measures
should be established after considering:
(1) The established local performance
levels,
(2) The services provided by each
provider; and
(3) The populations the service
providers are intended to serve.
§ 361.215 Under what circumstances are
local areas eligible for State Incentive
Grants?
(a) The Governor is not required to
award local incentive funds. The
Governor may use non-Federal funds to
create incentives for Local Boards to
implement pay-for-performance contract
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20656
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
strategies for the delivery of training
services described in WIOA sec.
134(c)(3) or activities described in
WIOA sec. 129(c)(2) in the local areas
served by the Local Boards.
(b) Pay-for-performance contract
strategies must be implemented in
accordance with §§ 683.500 through
683.530 of this chapter and § 361.160.
§ 361.220 Under what circumstances may
a corrective action or sanction be applied
to local areas for poor performance?
(a) If a local area fails to meet the
levels of performance agreed to under
§ 361.210 for the primary indicators of
performance in the adult, dislocated
worker, and youth programs authorized
under WIOA title I in any program year,
technical assistance must be provided
by the Governor or, upon the Governor’s
request, by the Secretary of Labor.
(1) A State must establish the
threshold for failure in meeting levels of
performance for a local area before
negotiating the adjusted levels of
performance for the local area.
(2) The technical assistance may
include:
(i) Assistance in the development of a
performance improvement plan,
(ii) The development of a modified
local or regional plan; or
(iii) Other actions designed to assist
the local area in improving
performance.
(b) If a local area fails to meet the
levels of performance agreed to under
§ 361.210 for the primary indicators of
performance for the adult, dislocated
worker, and youth programs authorized
under WIOA title I for a third
consecutive program year, the Governor
must take corrective actions. The
corrective actions must include the
development of a reorganization plan
under which the Governor:
(1) Requires the appointment and
certification of a new Local Board,
consistent with the criteria established
under § 679.350 of this chapter;
(2) Prohibits the use of eligible
providers and one-stop partners that
have been identified as achieving poor
levels of performance; or
(3) Takes such other significant
actions as the Governor determines are
appropriate.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 361.225 Under what circumstances may
local areas appeal a reorganization plan?
(a) The Local Board and chief elected
official for a local area that is subject to
a reorganization plan under WIOA sec.
116(g)(2)(A) may appeal to the Governor
to rescind or revise the reorganization
plan not later than 30 days after
receiving notice of the reorganization
plan. The Governor must make a final
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
decision within 30 days after receipt of
the appeal.
(b) The Local Board and chief elected
official may appeal the final decision of
the Governor to the Secretary of Labor
not later than 30 days after receiving the
decision from the Governor. Any appeal
of the Governor’s final decision must be:
(1) Appealed jointly by the Local
Board and chief elected official to the
Secretary under § 683.650 of this
chapter; and
(2) Must be submitted by certified
mail, return receipt requested, to the
Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington
DC 20210, Attention: ASET. A copy of
the appeal must be simultaneously
provided to the Governor.
(c) Upon receipt of the joint appeal
from the Local Board and chief elected
official, the Secretary must make a final
decision within 30 days. In making this
determination the Secretary may
consider any comments submitted by
the Governor in response to the appeals.
(d) The decision by the Governor to
impose a reorganization plan becomes
effective at the time it is issued and
remains effective unless the Secretary of
Labor rescinds or revises the
reorganization plan under WIOA sec.
116(g)(2)(B)(ii).
§ 361.230 What information is required for
the eligible training provider performance
reports?
(a) States are required to make
available, and publish, annually using a
template the Departments will
disseminate including through
electronic means, the eligible training
provider performance reports for
eligible training providers who provide
services under sec. 122 of WIOA that are
described in §§ 680.400 through 680.530
of this chapter. These reports at a
minimum must include, consistent with
§ 361.175 and with respect to each
program of study that is eligible to
receive funds under WIOA:
(1) The total number of participants
who received training services under
the adult and dislocated worker
programs authorized under WIOA title I
for the most recent year and the 3
preceding program years, including:
(i) The number of participants under
the adult and dislocated worker
programs disaggregated by barriers to
employment;
(ii) The number of participants under
the adult and dislocated worker
programs disaggregated by race,
ethnicity, sex, and age;
(iii) The number of participants under
the adult and dislocated worker
programs disaggregated by the type of
training entity for the most recent
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
program year and the 3 preceding
program years;
(2) The total number of participants
who exit a program of study or its
equivalent, including disaggregate
counts by the type of training entity
during the most recent program year
and the 3 preceding program years;
(3) The average cost-per-participant
for participants who received training
services for the most recent program
year and the 3 preceding program years
disaggregated by type of training entity;
(4) The total number of individuals
exiting from the program of study (or
the equivalent); and
(5) The levels of performance
achieved for the primary indicators of
performance identified in
§§ 361.155(a)(1)(i) through (iv) with
respect to all individuals in a program
of study (or the equivalent).
(b) Registered apprenticeship
programs are not required to submit
performance information. See § 680.470
of this chapter. If a registered
apprenticeship program voluntarily
submits performance information to a
State, the State must include this
information in the report.
(c) The State must provide electronic
access to the public eligible training
provider performance report in its
annual State performance report.
(d) States must comply with any
requirements from sec. 116(d)(4) of
WIOA as explained in guidance issued
by the Department of Labor.
(e) The Governor may designate one
or more State agencies such as a State
education agency or State educational
authority to assist in overseeing eligible
training provider performance and
facilitating the production and
dissemination of eligible training
provider performance reports. These
agencies may be the same agencies that
are designated as responsible for
administering the eligible training
providers list as provided under
§ 680.500 of this chapter. The Governor
or such agencies, or authorities, is
responsible for:
(1) Facilitating data matches between
ETP records and UI wage data in order
to produce the report;
(2) The creation and dissemination of
the reports as described in paragraphs
(a) through (d) of this section;
(3) Coordinating the dissemination of
the performance reports with the
eligible training provider list and the
information required to accompany the
list, as provided in § 680.500 of this
chapter.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
§ 361.235 What are the reporting
requirements for individual records for core
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
title I, III, and IV programs?
(a) On a quarterly basis, each State
must submit to the Secretary of Labor or
Secretary of Education, as appropriate,
individual records that include
demographic information, information
on services received, and information
on resulting outcomes, as appropriate,
for each reportable individual in a core
program administered by the Secretary
of Labor or Education. Such records
submitted to the Department of Labor
must be submitted in one record that is
integrated across all core Department of
Labor programs.
(b) For individual records submitted
to the Secretary of Labor, records must
be integrated across all core programs
administered by the Secretary of Labor
in one single file.
(c) States must comply with any other
requirements from sec. 116(d)(2) of
WIOA as explained in guidance issued
by the Department of Labor.
§ 361.240 What are the requirements for
data validation of State annual performance
reports?
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(a) States must establish procedures,
consistent with guidelines issued by the
Secretary of Education or Secretary of
Labor, to submit complete annual
performance reports that contain
information that is valid and reliable.
(b) If a State fails to meet standards in
paragraph (a) of this section as
determined by the Secretary of Labor or
Secretary of Education, the appropriate
Secretary will provide technical
assistance and may require the State to
develop and implement corrective
actions, which may require the State to
provide training for its subrecipients.
(c) The Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Education will provide
training and technical assistance to
States in order to implement this
section.
■ 7. Add subpart F to part 361 to read
as follows:
Subpart F—Description of the One-Stop
System Under Title I of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec.
361.300 What is the one-stop delivery
system?
361.305 What is a comprehensive one-stop
center and what must be provided there?
361.310 What is an affiliated site and what
must be provided there?
361.315 Can a stand-alone Wagner-Peyser
employment service office be designated
as an affiliated one-stop site?
361.320 Are there any requirements for
networks of eligible one-stop partners or
specialized centers?
361.400 Who are the required one-stop
partners?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
361.405 Is Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families a required one-stop partner?
361.410 What other entities may serve as
one-stop partners?
361.415 What entity serves as the one-stop
partner for a particular program in the
local area?
361.420 What are the roles and
responsibilities of the required one-stop
partners?
361.425 What are the applicable career
services that must be provided through
the one-stop delivery system by required
one-stop partners?
361.430 What are career services?
361.435 What are the business services
provided through the one-stop delivery
system, and how are they provided?
361.440 When may a fee be charged for the
business services in this subpart?
361.500 What is the Memorandum of
Understanding for the one-stop delivery
system and what must be included in the
Memorandum of Understanding?
361.505 Is there a single Memorandum of
Understanding for the local area, or must
there be separate Memoranda of
Understanding between the Local Board
and each partner?
361.510 How should the Memorandum of
Understanding be negotiated?
361.600 Who may operate one-stop
centers?
361.605 How is the one-stop operator
selected?
361.610 How is sole source selection of
one-stop operators accomplished?
361.615 Can an entity serving as one-stop
operator compete to be a one-stop
operator under the procurement
requirements of this subpart?
361.620 What is the one-stop operator’s
role?
361.625 Can a one-stop operator also be a
service provider?
361.630 Can State merit staff still work in
a one-stop where the operator is not a
governmental entity?
361.635 What is the effective date of the
provisions of this subpart?
361.700 What are one-stop infrastructure
costs?
361.705 What guidance must the Governor
issue regarding one-stop infrastructure
funding?
361.710 How are infrastructure costs
funded?
361.715 How are one-stop infrastructure
costs funded in the local funding
mechanism?
361.720 What funds are used to pay for
infrastructure costs in the local one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
361.725 What happens if consensus on
infrastructure funding is not reached at
the local level between the Local Board,
chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners?
361.730 What is the State one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
361.735 How are partner contributions
determined in the State one-stop funding
mechanism?
361.740 What funds are used to pay for
infrastructure costs in the State one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20657
361.745 How is the allocation formula used
by the Governor determined in the State
one-stop funding mechanism?
361.750 When and how can a one-stop
partner appeal a one-stop infrastructure
amount designated by the State under
the State infrastructure funding
mechanism?
361.755 What are the required elements
regarding infrastructure funding that
must be included in the one-stop
Memorandum of Understanding?
361.760 How do one-stop partners jointly
fund other shared costs under the
Memorandum of Understanding?
361.800 How are one-stop centers and onestop delivery systems certified for
effectiveness, physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous
improvement?
361.900 What is the common identifier to
be used by each one-stop delivery
system?
Subpart F—Description of the OneStop System Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act
§ 361.300
system?
What is the one-stop delivery
(a) The one-stop delivery system
brings together workforce development,
educational, and other human resource
services in a seamless customer-focused
service delivery network that enhances
access to the programs’ services and
improves long-term employment
outcomes for individuals receiving
assistance. One-stop partners administer
separately funded programs as a set of
integrated streamlined services to
customers.
(b) Title I of the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act (WIOA) assigns
responsibilities at the local, State, and
Federal level to ensure the creation and
maintenance of a one-stop delivery
system that enhances the range and
quality of education and workforce
development services that business and
individual customers can access.
(c) The system must include at least
one comprehensive physical center in
each local area as described in
§ 361.305.
(d) The system may also have
additional arrangements to supplement
the comprehensive center. These
arrangements include:
(1) An affiliated site or a network of
affiliated sites, where one or more
partners make programs, services, and
activities available, as described in
§ 361.310;
(2) A network of eligible one-stop
partners, as described in §§ 361.400
through 361.410, through which each
partner provides one or more of the
programs, services, and activities that
are linked, physically or
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20658
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
technologically, to an affiliated site or
access point that assures customers are
provided information on the availability
of career services, as well as other
program services and activities,
regardless of where they initially enter
the workforce system in the local area;
and
(3) Specialized centers that address
specific needs, including those of
dislocated workers, youth, or key
industry sectors, or clusters.
(e) Required one-stop partner
programs must provide access to
programs, services, and activities
through electronic means if applicable
and practicable. This is in addition to
providing access to services through the
mandatory comprehensive physical onestop center and any affiliated sites or
specialized centers. The provision of
programs and services by electronic
methods such as Web sites, telephones,
or other means must improve the
efficiency, coordination, and quality of
one-stop partner services. Electronic
delivery must not replace access to such
services at a comprehensive one-stop
center or be a substitute to making
services available at an affiliated site if
the partner is participating in an
affiliated site. Electronic delivery
systems must be in compliance with the
nondiscrimination and equal
opportunity provisions of WIOA in sec.
188 and its implementing regulations at
29 CFR part 37.
(f) The design of the local area’s onestop delivery system must be described
in the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) executed with the one-stop
partners, described in § 361.500.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 361.305 What is a comprehensive onestop center and what must be provided
there?
(a) A comprehensive one-stop center
is a physical location where jobseeker
and employer customers can access the
programs, services, and activities of all
required one-stop partners. A
comprehensive one-stop center must
have at least one title I staff person
physically present.
(b) The comprehensive one-stop
center must provide:
(1) Career services, described in
§ 361.430;
(2) Access to training services
described in of this chapter;
(3) Access to any employment and
training activities carried out under sec.
134(d) of WIOA;
(4) Access to programs and activities
carried out by one-stop partners listed
in §§ 361.400 through 361.410,
including Wagner-Peyser employment
services; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
(5) Workforce and labor market
information.
(c) Customers must have access to
these programs, services, and activities
during regular business days at a
comprehensive one-stop center. The
Local Board may establish other service
hours at other times to accommodate the
schedules of individuals who work on
regular business days. The State Board
will evaluate the hours of access to
service as part of the evaluation of
effectiveness in the one-stop
certification process described in
§ 361.800(b).
(d) ‘‘Access’’ to programs and services
means having either: Program staff
physically present at the location;
having partner program staff physically
present at the one-stop appropriately
trained to provide information to
customers about the programs, services,
and activities available through partner
programs; or providing direct linkage
through technology to program staff
who can provide meaningful
information or services.
(1) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ means
providing direct connection at the onestop, within a reasonable time, by phone
or through a real-time Web-based
communication to a program staff
member who can provide program
information or services to the customer.
(2) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ does not
include providing a phone number or
computer Web site that can be used at
an individual’s home; providing
information, pamphlets, or materials; or
making arrangements for the customer
to receive services at a later time or on
a different day.
(e) All comprehensive one-stop
centers must be physically and
programmatically accessible to
individuals with disabilities, as
described in § 361.800.
§ 361.310 What is an affiliated site and
what must be provided there?
(a) An affiliated site, or affiliate onestop center, is a site that makes available
to jobseeker and employer customers
one or more of the one-stop partners’
programs, services, and activities. An
affiliated site does not need to provide
access to every required one-stop
partner program. The frequency of
program staff’s physical presence in the
affiliated site will be determined at the
local level. Affiliated sites are access
points in addition to the Comprehensive
one-stop center(s) in each local area. If
used by local areas as a part of the
service delivery strategy, affiliate sites
should be implemented in a manner
that supplements and enhances
customer access to services.
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(b) As described in § 361.315, WagnerPeyser employment services cannot be a
stand-alone affiliated site.
(c) States, in conjunction with the
Local Workforce Development Boards,
must examine lease agreements and
property holdings throughout the onestop delivery system in order to use
property in an efficient and effective
way. Where necessary and appropriate,
States and Local Boards must take
expeditious steps to align lease
expiration dates with efforts to
consolidate one-stop operations into
service points where Wagner-Peyser
employment services are collocated as
soon as reasonably possible. These steps
must be included in the State Plan.
(d) All affiliated sites must be
physically and programmatically
accessible to individuals with
disabilities, as described in § 361.800.
§ 361.315 Can a stand-alone WagnerPeyser employment service office be
designated as an affiliated one-stop site?
(a) Separate stand-alone WagnerPeyser employment services offices are
not permitted under WIOA, as also
described in.
(b) If Wagner-Peyser employment
services are provided at an affiliated
site, there must be at least one other
partner in the affiliated site with staff
physically present more than 50 percent
of the time the center is open.
Additionally, the other partner must not
be the partner administering local
veterans’ employment representatives,
disabled veterans’ outreach program
specialists, or unemployment
compensation programs. If WagnerPeyser employment services and any of
these three programs are provided at an
affiliated site, an additional partner
must have staff present in the center
more than 50 percent of the time the
center is open.
§ 361.320 Are there any requirements for
networks of eligible one-stop partners or
specialized centers?
Any network of one-stop partners or
specialized centers must be connected
to, such as having processes in place to
make referrals to, the comprehensive
and any appropriate affiliate one-stop
centers. Wagner-Peyser employment
services cannot stand alone in a
specialized center. Just as described in
§ 361.315 for an affiliated site, a
specialized center must include other
programs besides Wagner-Peyser
employment services, local veterans’
employment representatives, disabled
veterans’ outreach program specialists,
and unemployment compensation.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 361.400 Who are the required one-stop
partners?
(a) Section 121(b)(1)(B) of WIOA
identifies the entities that are required
partners in the local one-stop systems.
(b) The required partners are the
entities responsible for administering
the following programs and activities in
the local area:
(1) Programs authorized under title I
of WIOA, including:
(i) Adults;
(ii) Dislocated workers;
(iii) Youth;
(iv) Job Corps;
(v) YouthBuild;
(vi) Native American programs; and
(vii) Migrant and seasonal farmworker
programs;
(2) Employment services authorized
under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C.
49 et seq.);
(3) Adult education and literacy
activities authorized under title II of
WIOA;
(4) The Vocational Rehabilitation
program authorized under title I of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
720 et seq.);
(5) The Senior Community Service
Employment Program authorized under
title V of the Older Americans Act of
1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.);
(6) Career and technical education
programs at the post-secondary level
authorized under the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of
2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.);
(7) Trade Adjustment Assistance
activities authorized under chapter 2 of
title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2271 et seq.);
(8) Jobs for Veterans State Grants
programs authorized under chapter 41
of title 38, U.S.C.;
(9) Employment and training
activities carried out under the
Community Services Block Grant (42
U.S.C. 9901 et seq.);
(10) Employment and training
activities carried out by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development;
(11) Programs authorized under State
unemployment compensation laws (in
accordance with applicable Federal
law);
(12) Programs authorized under sec.
212 of the Second Chance Act of 2007
(42 U.S.C. 17532); and
(13) Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) authorized under part
A of title IV of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), unless exempted
by the Governor under § 361.405(b).
§ 361.405 Is Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families a required one-stop
partner?
(a) Yes, TANF, authorized under part
A of title IV of the Social Security Act
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), is a required
partner. (WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(xiii)).
(b) The Governor may determine that
TANF will not be a required partner in
the State, or within some specific local
areas in the State. In this instance, the
Governor must notify the Secretaries of
the U.S. Departments of Labor and
Health and Human Services in writing
of this determination.
(c) In States, or local areas within a
State, where the Governor has
determined that TANF is not required to
be a partner, local TANF programs may
still opt to be a one-stop partner, or to
work in collaboration with the one-stop
center.
§ 361.410 What other entities may serve as
one-stop partners?
(a) Other entities that carry out a
workforce development program,
including Federal, State, or local
programs and programs in the private
sector, may serve as additional partners
in the one-stop system if the Local
Board and chief elected official(s)
approve the entity’s participation.
(b) Additional partners may include:
(1) Employment and training
programs administered by the Social
Security Administration, including the
Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency
Program established under sec. 1148 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1320b–19);
(2) Employment and training
programs carried out by the Small
Business Administration;
(3) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) employment and
training programs, authorized under
secs. 6(d)(4) and 6(o) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2015(d)(4));
(4) Client Assistance Program
authorized under sec. 112 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
732);
(5) Programs authorized under the
National and Community Service Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.); and
(6) Other appropriate Federal, State or
local programs, including employment,
education, and training programs
provided by public libraries or in the
private sector.
§ 361.415 What entity serves as the onestop partner for a particular program in the
local area?
(a) The entity that carries out the
program and activities listed in
§ 361.400 or § 361.405, and therefore
serves as the one-stop partner, is the
grant recipient, administrative entity, or
organization responsible for
administering the funds of the specified
program in the local area. The term
PO 00000
Frm 00087
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20659
‘‘entity’’ does not include the service
providers that contract with, or are
subrecipients of, the local
administrative entity. For programs that
do not include local administrative
entities, the responsible State agency
should be the partner. Specific entities
for particular programs are identified in
paragraph (b) of this section. If a
program or activity listed in § 361.400 is
not carried out in a local area, the
requirements relating to a required onestop partner are not applicable to such
program or activity in that local onestop system.
(b) For title II of WIOA, the entity that
carries out the program for the purposes
of paragraph (a) of this section is the
sole entity or agency in the State or
outlying area responsible for
administering or supervising policy for
adult education and literacy activities in
the State or outlying area. The State
eligible entity may delegate its
responsibilities under paragraph (a) of
this section to one or more eligible
providers or consortium of eligible
providers.
(c) For the Vocational Rehabilitation
program, authorized under title I of the
Rehabilitation Act, the entity that
carries out the program for the purposes
of paragraph (a) of this section is the
designated State agencies or designated
State units specified under sec. 101(a)(2)
of the Rehabilitation Act that is
primarily concerned with vocational
rehabilitation, or vocational and other
rehabilitation, of individuals with
disabilities.
(d) Under WIOA, the national
programs, including Job Corps, the
Native American program, YouthBuild,
and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker
programs are required one-stop partners.
The entity for the Native American
program and Migrant and Seasonal
Farmworker programs is the grantee of
those respective programs. The entity
for Job Corps is the Job Corps center.
(e) For the Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act of 2006, the
entity that carries out the program for
the purposes of paragraph (a) of this
section is the State eligible agency. The
State eligible agency may delegate its
responsibilities under paragraph (a) of
this section to one or more State
agencies, eligible recipients at the postsecondary level, or consortia of eligible
recipients at the post-secondary level.
§ 361.420 What are the roles and
responsibilities of the required one-stop
partners?
Each required partner must:
(a) Provide access to its programs or
activities through the one-stop delivery
system, in addition to any other
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20660
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
appropriate locations; (WIOA sec.
121(b)(1)(A)(i).)
(b) Use a portion of funds made
available to the partner’s program, to the
extent consistent with the Federal law
authorizing the partner’s program and
with Federal cost principles in 2 CFR
parts 200 and 3474 (requiring, among
other things, that costs are allowable,
reasonable, necessary, and allocable), to:
(1) Provide applicable career services;
and
(2) Work collaboratively with the
State and Local Boards to establish and
maintain the one-stop delivery system.
This includes jointly funding the onestop infrastructure through partner
contributions that are based upon:
(i) A reasonable cost allocation
methodology by which infrastructure
costs are charged to each partner in
proportion to the relative benefits;
(ii) Federal cost principles; and
(iii) Any local administrative cost
requirements in the Federal law
authorizing the partner’s program. (This
is further described in § 361.700).
(WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(A)(ii).)
(c) Enter into an MOU with the Local
Board relating to the operation of the
one-stop system that meets the
requirements of § 361.500(d);
(d) Participate in the operation of the
one-stop system consistent with the
terms of the MOU, requirements of
authorizing laws, the Federal cost
principles, and all other applicable legal
requirements; (WIOA sec.
121(b)(1)(A)(iv)) and
(e) Provide representation on the State
and Local Workforce Development
Boards as required and participate in
Board committees as needed. (WIOA
secs. 101(b)(iii) and 107(b)(2)(C) and
(D))
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 361.425 What are the applicable career
services that must be provided through the
one-stop delivery system by required onestop partners?
(a) The applicable career services to
be delivered by required one-stop
partners are those services listed in
§ 361.430 that are authorized to be
provided under each partner’s program.
(b) One-stop centers provide services
to individual customers based on
individual needs, including the
seamless delivery of multiple services to
individual customers. There is no
required sequence of services. (WIOA
sec. 121(e)(1)(A).)
§ 361.430
What are career services?
Career services, as identified in sec.
134(c)(2) of WIOA, consist of three
types:
(a) Basic career services must be made
available and, at a minimum, must
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
include the following services, as
consistent with allowable program
activities and Federal cost principles:
(1) Determinations of whether the
individual is eligible to receive
assistance from the adult, dislocated
worker, or youth programs;
(2) Outreach, intake (including worker
profiling), and orientation to
information and other services available
through the one-stop delivery system;
(3) Initial assessment of skill levels
including literacy, numeracy, and
English language proficiency, as well as
aptitudes, abilities (including skills
gaps), and supportive services needs;
(4) Labor exchange services,
including—
(i) Job search and placement
assistance, and, when needed by an
individual, career counseling,
including—
(A) Provision of information on indemand industry sectors and
occupations (as defined in sec. 3(23) of
WIOA); and,
(B) Provision of information on
nontraditional employment; and
(ii) Appropriate recruitment and other
business services on behalf of
employers, including information and
referrals to specialized business services
other than those traditionally offered
through the one-stop delivery system;
(5) Provision of referrals to and
coordination of activities with other
programs and services, including
programs and services within the onestop delivery system and, when
appropriate, other workforce
development programs;
(6) Provision of workforce and labor
market employment statistics
information, including the provision of
accurate information relating to local,
regional, and national labor market
areas, including—
(i) Job vacancy listings in labor market
areas;
(ii) Information on job skills necessary
to obtain the vacant jobs listed; and
(iii) Information relating to local
occupations in demand and the
earnings, skill requirements, and
opportunities for advancement for those
jobs;
(7) Provision of performance
information and program cost
information on eligible providers of
training services by program and type of
providers;
(8) Provision of information, in usable
and understandable formats and
languages, about how the local area is
performing on local performance
accountability measures, as well as any
additional performance information
relating to the area’s one-stop delivery
system;
PO 00000
Frm 00088
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(9) Provision of information, in usable
and understandable formats and
languages, relating to the availability of
supportive services or assistance, and
appropriate referrals to those services
and assistance, including: Child care;
child support; medical or child health
assistance available through the State’s
Medicaid program and Children’s
Health Insurance Program; benefits
under SNAP; assistance through the
earned income tax credit; and assistance
under a State program for Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families, and
other supportive services and
transportation provided through that
program;
(10) Provision of information and
assistance regarding filing claims for
unemployment compensation, by which
the one-stop must provide meaningful
assistance to individuals seeking
assistance in filing a claim for
unemployment compensation.
(i) ‘‘Meaningful assistance’’ means:
(A) Providing assistance on-site using
staff who are well-trained in
unemployment compensation claims
filing and the rights and responsibilities
of claimants, or
(B) Providing assistance by phone or
via other technology, as long as the
assistance is provided by trained and
available staff and within a reasonable
time.
(ii) The costs associated in providing
this assistance may be paid for by the
State’s unemployment insurance
program, or the WIOA adult or
dislocated worker programs, or some
combination thereof.
(11) Assistance in establishing
eligibility for programs of financial aid
assistance for training and education
programs not provided under WIOA.
(b) Individualized career services
must be made available if determined to
be appropriate in order for an individual
to obtain or retain employment. These
services include the following services,
as consistent with program
requirements and Federal cost
principles:
(1) Comprehensive and specialized
assessments of the skill levels and
service needs of adults and dislocated
workers, which may include—
(i) Diagnostic testing and use of other
assessment tools; and
(ii) In-depth interviewing and
evaluation to identify employment
barriers and appropriate employment
goals;
(2) Development of an individual
employment plan, to identify the
employment goals, appropriate
achievement objectives, and appropriate
combination of services for the
participant to achieve his or her
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
employment goals, including the list of,
and information about, the eligible
training providers (as described in);
(3) Group counseling;
(4) Individual counseling;
(5) Career planning;
(6) Short-term pre-vocational services
including development of learning
skills, communication skills,
interviewing skills, punctuality,
personal maintenance skills, and
professional conduct services to prepare
individuals for unsubsidized
employment or training;
(7) Internships and work experiences
that are linked to careers (as described
in);
(8) Workforce preparation activities;
(9) Financial literacy services as
described in sec. 129(b)(2)(D) of WIOA
and § 681.500 of this chapter;
(10) Out-of-area job search assistance
and relocation assistance; and
(11) English language acquisition and
integrated education and training
programs.
(c) Follow-up services must be
provided, as appropriate, including:
Counseling regarding the workplace, for
participants in adult or dislocated
worker workforce investment activities
who are placed in unsubsidized
employment, for up to 12 months after
the first day of employment.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 361.435 What are the business services
provided through the one-stop delivery
system, and how are they provided?
(a) Certain career services must be
made available to local businesses,
specifically labor exchange activities
and labor market information described
in § 361.430(a)(4)(ii) and (a)(6). Local
areas must establish and develop
relationships and networks with large
and small employers and their
intermediaries. (WIOA sec.
134(c)(1)(A)(iv)). Local areas also must
develop, convene, or implement
industry or sector partnerships. (WIOA
sec. 134(c)(1)(A)(v)).
(b) Customized business services may
be provided to employers, employer
associations, or other such organizations
(WIOA sec. 134(d)(1)(A)(ii)). These
services are tailored for specific
employers and may include:
(1) Customized screening and referral
of qualified participants in training
services to employers;
(2) Customized services to employers,
employer associations, or other such
organizations, on employment-related
issues;
(3) Customized recruitment events
and related services for employers
including targeted job fairs;
(4) Human resource consultation
services, including but not limited to
assistance with:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
(i) Writing/reviewing job descriptions
and employee handbooks;
(ii) Developing performance
evaluation and personnel policies;
(iii) Creating orientation sessions for
new workers;
(iv) Honing job interview techniques
for efficiency and compliance;
(v) Analyzing employee turnover; or
(vi) Explaining labor laws to help
employers comply with wage/hour and
safety/health regulations;
(5) Customized labor market
information for specific employers,
sectors, industries or clusters; and
(6) Other similar customized services.
(c) Local areas may also provide other
business services and strategies that
meet the workforce investment needs of
area employers, in accordance with
partner programs’ statutory
requirements and consistent with
Federal cost principles. These business
services may be provided through
effective business intermediaries
working in conjunction with the Local
Board, or through the use of economic
development, philanthropic, and other
public and private resources in a
manner determined appropriate by the
Local Board and in cooperation with the
State. Allowable activities, consistent
with each partner’s authorized
activities, include, but are not limited
to:
(1) Developing and implementing
industry sector strategies (including
strategies involving industry
partnerships, regional skills alliances,
industry skill panels, and sectoral skills
partnerships);
(2) Customized assistance or referral
for assistance in the development of a
registered apprenticeship program;
(3) Developing and delivering
innovative workforce investment
services and strategies for area
employers, which may include career
pathways, skills upgrading, skill
standard development and certification
for recognized post-secondary credential
or other employer use, and other
effective initiatives for meeting the
workforce investment needs of area
employers and workers;
(4) Assistance to area employers in
managing reductions in force in
coordination with rapid response
activities and with strategies for the
aversion of layoffs, which may include
strategies such as early identification of
firms at risk of layoffs, use of feasibility
studies to assess the needs of and
options for at-risk firms, and the
delivery of employment and training
activities to address risk factors;
(5) The marketing of business services
to appropriate area employers,
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20661
including small and mid-sized
employers; and
(6) Assisting employers with
accessing local, State, and Federal tax
credits.
(d) All business services and
strategies must be reflected in the local
plan, described in § 679.560(b)(3) of this
chapter.
§ 361.440 When may a fee be charged for
the business services in this subpart?
(a) There is no requirement that a feefor-service be charged to employers.
(b) No fee may be charged for services
provided in § 361.435(a).
(c) A fee may be charged for services
provided under § 361.435(b) and (c).
Services provided under § 361.435(c)
may be provided through effective
business intermediaries working in
conjunction with the Local Board and
may also be provided on a fee-forservice basis or through the leveraging
of economic development,
philanthropic, and other public and
private resources in a manner
determined appropriate by the Local
Board. The Local Workforce
Development Board may examine the
services provided compared with the
assets and resources available within
the local one-stop delivery system and
through its partners to determine an
appropriate cost structure for services, if
any.
§ 361.500 What is the Memorandum of
Understanding for the one-stop delivery
system and what must be included in the
Memorandum of Understanding?
(a) The MOU is the product of local
discussion and negotiation, and is an
agreement developed and executed
between the Local Board, with the
agreement of the chief elected official
and the one-stop partners, relating to the
operation of the one-stop delivery
system in the local area. Two or more
local areas in a region may develop a
single joint MOU, if they are in a region
that has submitted a regional plan under
sec. 106 of WIOA.
(b) The MOU must include:
(1) A description of services to be
provided through the one-stop delivery
system, including the manner in which
the services will be coordinated and
delivered through the system;
(2) A final plan, or an interim plan if
needed, on how the costs of the services
and the operating costs of the system
will be funded, including:
(i) Funding of infrastructure costs of
one-stop centers in accordance with
§§ 361.700 through 361.755; and
(ii) Funding of the shared services and
operating costs of the one-stop delivery
system described in § 361.760;
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20662
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(3) Methods for referring individuals
between the one-stop operators and
partners for appropriate services and
activities;
(4) Methods to ensure that the needs
of workers, youth, and individuals with
barriers to employment, including
individuals with disabilities, are
addressed in providing access to
services, including access to technology
and materials that are available through
the one-stop delivery system;
(5) The duration of the MOU and
procedures for amending it; and
(6) Assurances that each MOU will be
reviewed, and if substantial changes
have occurred, renewed, not less than
once every 3-year period to ensure
appropriate funding and delivery of
services.
(c) The MOU may contain any other
provisions agreed to by the parties that
are consistent with WIOA title I, the
authorizing statutes and regulations of
one-stop partner programs, and the
WIOA regulations. (WIOA sec. 121(c).)
(d) When fully executed, the MOU
must contain the signatures of the Local
Board, one-stop partners, the chief
elected official(s), and the time period
in which the agreement is effective. The
MOU must be updated not less than
every 3 years to reflect any changes in
the signatory official of the Board, onestop partners, and chief elected officials,
or one-stop infrastructure funding.
(e) If a one-stop partner appeal to the
State regarding infrastructure costs,
using the process described in
§ 361.750, results in a change to the onestop partner’s infrastructure cost
contributions, the MOU must be
updated to reflect the final one-stop
partner infrastructure cost
contributions.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 361.505 Is there a single Memorandum of
Understanding for the local area, or must
there be separate Memoranda of
Understanding between the Local Board
and each partner?
(a) A single ‘‘umbrella’’ MOU may be
developed that addresses the issues
relating to the local one-stop delivery
system for the Local Board, chief elected
official and all partners. Alternatively,
the Local Board (with agreement of chief
elected official) may enter into separate
agreements between each partner or
groups of partners.
(b) Under either approach, the
requirements described in § 361.500
apply. Since funds are generally
appropriated annually, the Local Board
may negotiate financial agreements with
each partner annually to update funding
of services and operating costs of the
system under the MOU.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 361.510 How should the Memorandum of
Understanding be negotiated?
§ 361.600
centers?
(a) WIOA emphasizes full and
effective partnerships between Local
Boards, chief elected officials, and onestop partners. Local Boards and partners
must enter into good-faith negotiations.
Local Boards, chief elected officials, and
one-stop partners may also request
assistance from a State agency
responsible for administering the
partner program, the Governor, State
Board, or other appropriate parties on
other aspects of the MOU.
(b) Local Boards and one-stop
partners must establish, in the MOU, a
final plan for how the Local Board and
programs will fund the infrastructure
costs of the one-stop centers. If a final
plan regarding infrastructure costs is not
complete when other sections of the
MOU are ready, an interim
infrastructure cost plan may be included
instead, as described in § 361.715(c).
Once the final infrastructure cost plan is
approved, the Local Board and one-stop
partners must amend the MOU to
include the final plan for funding
infrastructure costs of the one-stop
centers, including a description of the
funding mechanism established by the
Governor relevant to the local area.
Infrastructure cost funding is described
in detail in subpart E of this part.
(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2).)
(c) The Local Board must report to the
State Board, Governor, and relevant
State agency when MOU negotiations
with one-stop partners have reached an
impasse.
(1) The Local Board and partners must
document the negotiations and efforts
that have taken place in the MOU. The
State Board, one-stop partner programs,
and the Governor may consult with the
appropriate Federal agencies to address
impasse situations related to issues
other than infrastructure funding after
attempting to address the impasse.
Impasses related to infrastructure cost
funding must be resolved using the
State infrastructure cost funding
mechanism described in § 361.730.
(2) The Local Board must report
failure to execute an MOU with a
required partner to the Governor, State
Board, and the State agency responsible
for administering the partner’s program.
Additionally, if the State cannot assist
the Local Board in resolving the
impasse, the Governor or the State
Board must report the failure to the
Secretary of Labor and to the head of
any other Federal agency with
responsibility for oversight of a partner’s
program.
(a) One-stop operators may be a single
entity (public, private, or nonprofit) or
a consortium of entities. If the
consortium of entities is one of one-stop
partners, it must include a minimum of
three of the one-stop partners described
in § 361.400.
(b) The one-stop operator may operate
one or more one-stop centers. There
may be more than one one-stop operator
in a local area.
(c) The types of entities that may be
a one-stop operator include:
(1) An institution of higher education;
(2) An Employment Service State
agency established under the WagnerPeyser Act;
(3) A community-based organization,
nonprofit organization, or workforce
intermediary;
(4) A private for-profit entity;
(5) A government agency;
(6) A Local Board, with the approval
of the chief local elected official and the
Governor; or
(7) Another interested organization or
entity, which is capable of carrying out
the duties of the one-stop operator.
Examples may include a local chamber
of commerce or other business
organization, or a labor organization.
(d) Elementary schools and secondary
schools are not eligible as one-stop
operators, except that a nontraditional
public secondary school such as a night
school, adult school, or an area career
and technical education school may be
selected.
(e) The State and Local Boards must
ensure that, in carrying out WIOA
programs and activities, one-stop
operators:
(1) Disclose any potential conflicts of
interest arising from the relationships of
the operators with particular training
service providers or other service
providers (further discussed in);
(2) Do not establish practices that
create disincentives to providing
services to individuals with barriers to
employment who may require longerterm career and training services; and
(3) Comply with Federal regulations
and procurement policies relating to the
calculation and use of profits, including
those at, the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR
chapter II, and other applicable
regulations and policies.
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Who may operate one-stop
§ 361.605 How is the one-stop operator
selected?
(a) Consistent with paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section, the Local Board must
select the one-stop operator through a
competitive process, as required by sec.
121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA, at least once
every 4 years. A State may require, or
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
a Local Board may choose to implement,
a competitive selection process more
than once every 4 years.
(b) In instances in which a State is
conducting the competitive process
described in paragraph (a) of this
section, the State must follow the same
policies and procedures it uses for
procurement with non-Federal funds.
(c) All other non-Federal entities,
including subrecipients of a State (such
as local areas), must use a competitive
process based on the principles of
competitive procurement in the
Uniform Administrative Guidance set
out at 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326.
(d) Entities described in paragraph (c)
of this section must first determine the
nature of the process to be used to
comply with sec. 121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA.
The acceptable processes are:
(1) Procurement by sealed bids;
(2) Procurement by competitive
proposals; or
(3) Procurement by sole source,
permitted only if:
(i) Analysis of market conditions and
other factors lead to a determination
that it is necessary to use sole-source
procurement because:
(A) There is only one entity that could
serve as an operator; or
(B) Unusual and compelling urgency
will not permit a delay resulting from
competitive solicitation; or
(ii) Results of the competition
conducted under paragraphs (d)(1) or (2)
of this section were determined to be
inadequate.
(e) Entities must prepare written
documentation explaining the
determination concerning the nature of
the competitive process to be followed
in selecting a one-stop operator.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 361.610 How is sole source selection of
one-stop operators accomplished?
(a) As set forth in § 361.605(d)(3),
under certain conditions, sole source
procurement is an allowable method of
procurement.
(b) In the event that sole source
procurement is determined necessary
and reasonable, in accordance with
§ 361.605(d)(3) of this section, written
documentation must be prepared and
maintained concerning the entire
process of making such a selection.
(c) Such sole source procurement
must include appropriate conflict of
interest policies and procedures. These
policies and procedures must conform
to the specifications in for
demonstrating internal controls and
preventing conflict of interest.
(d) A Local Board can be selected as
a one-stop operator through sole source
procurement only with agreement of the
chief elected official in the local area
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
and the Governor. The Local Board must
establish sufficient conflict of interest
policies and procedures and they must
be approved by the Governor.
§ 361.615 Can an entity serving as onestop operator compete to be a one-stop
operator under the procurement
requirements of this subpart?
(a) Local Boards can compete for and
be selected as one-stop operators, as
long as appropriate firewalls and
conflict of interest policies and
procedures are in place. These policies
and procedures must conform to the
specifications in for demonstrating
internal controls and preventing conflict
of interest.
(b) State and local agencies can
compete for and be selected as one-stop
operators by the Local Board, as long as
appropriate firewalls and conflict of
interest policies and procedures are in
place. These policies and procedures
must conform to the specifications in for
demonstrating internal controls and
preventing conflict of interest.
(c) In the case of single State areas
where the State Board serves as the
Local Board, the State agency is eligible
to compete for and be selected as
operator as long as appropriate firewalls
and conflict of interest policies are in
place and followed for the competition.
These policies and procedures must
conform to the specifications in for
demonstrating internal controls and
preventing conflict of interest.
§ 361.620
role?
What is the one-stop operator’s
(a) At a minimum, the one-stop
operator must coordinate the service
delivery of required one-stop partners
and service providers. Local Boards may
establish additional roles of one-stop
operator, including, but not limited to:
Coordinating service providers within
the center and across the one-stop
system, being the primary provider of
services within the center, providing
some of the services within the center,
or coordinating service delivery in a
multi-center area. The competition for a
one-stop operator must clearly articulate
the role of the one-stop operator.
(b) A one-stop operator may not
perform the following functions:
Convene system stakeholders to assist in
the development of the local plan;
prepare and submit local plans (as
required under sec. 107 of WIOA); be
responsible for oversight of itself;
manage or significantly participate in
the competitive selection process for
one-stop operators; select or terminate
one-stop operators, career services, and
youth providers; negotiate local
performance accountability measures;
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20663
and develop and submit budget for
activities of the Local Board in the local
area. An entity serving as a one-stop
operator may perform some or all of
these functions if it also serves in
another capacity, if it has established
sufficient firewalls and conflict of
interest policies. The policies must
conform to the specifications in for
demonstrating internal controls and
preventing conflict of interest.
§ 361.625 Can a one-stop operator also be
a service provider?
Yes, but there must be appropriate
firewalls in place in regards to the
competition, and subsequent oversight,
monitoring, and evaluation of
performance of the service provider.
The operator cannot develop, manage or
conduct the competition of a service
provider in which it intends to compete.
In cases where an operator is also a
service provider, there must be firewalls
and internal controls within the
operator-service provider entity, as well
as specific policies and procedures at
the Local Board level regarding
oversight, monitoring, and evaluation of
performance of the service provider.
The firewalls must conform to the
specifications in for demonstrating
internal controls and preventing conflict
of interest.
§ 361.630 Can State merit staff still work in
a one-stop where the operator is not a
governmental entity?
Yes. State merit staff can continue to
perform functions and activities in the
one-stop career center. The Local Board
and one-stop operator must establish a
system for management of merit staff in
accordance with State policies and
procedures. Continued use of State
merit staff may be included in the
competition for and final contract with
the one-stop operator.
§ 361.635 What is the effective date of the
provisions of this subpart?
(a) No later than June 30, 2017, onestop operators selected under the
competitive process described in this
subpart must be in place and operating
the one-stop.
(b) By June 30, 2016, every Local
Board must demonstrate it is taking
steps to prepare for competition of its
one-stop operator. This demonstration
may include, but is not limited to,
market research, requests for
information, and conducting a cost and
price analysis.
§ 361.700
costs?
What are one-stop infrastructure
(a) Infrastructure costs of one-stop
centers are nonpersonnel costs that are
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20664
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
necessary for the general operation of
the one-stop center, including:
(1) Rental of the facilities;
(2) Utilities and maintenance;
(3) Equipment (including assessmentrelated products and assistive
technology for individuals with
disabilities); and
(4) Technology to facilitate access to
the one-stop center, including
technology used for the center’s
planning and outreach activities.
(b) Local Boards may consider
common identifier costs as costs of onestop infrastructure.
(c) Each entity that carries out a
program or activities in a local one-stop
center, described in §§ 361.400 through
361.410, must use a portion of the funds
available for the program and activities
to maintain the one-stop delivery
system, including payment of the
infrastructure costs of one-stop centers.
These payments must be in accordance
with this subpart; Federal cost
principles, which require that all costs
must be allowable, reasonable,
necessary, and allocable to the program;
and all other applicable legal
requirements.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 361.705 What guidance must the
Governor issue regarding one-stop
infrastructure funding?
(a) The Governor, after consultation
with chief elected officials, the State
Board, and Local Boards, and consistent
with guidance and policies provided by
the State Board, must develop and issue
guidance for use by local areas,
specifically:
(1) Guidelines for State-administered
one-stop partner programs for
determining such programs’
contributions to a one-stop delivery
system, based on such programs’
proportionate use of such system
consistent with Office of Management
and Budget Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards
in 2 CFR part 200, including
determining funding for the costs of
infrastructure; and
(2) Guidance to assist Local Boards,
chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners in local areas in determining
equitable and stable methods of funding
the costs of infrastructure at one-stop
centers based on proportionate benefits
received, and consistent with Federal
cost principles.
(b) The guidance must include:
(1) The appropriate roles of the onestop partner programs in identifying
one-stop infrastructure costs;
(2) Approaches to facilitate equitable
and efficient cost allocation that results
in a reasonable cost allocation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
methodology where infrastructure costs
are charged to each partner in
proportion to relative benefits received,
consistent with Federal cost principles;
and
(3) The timelines regarding
notification to the Governor for not
reaching local agreement and triggering
the State-funded infrastructure
mechanism described in § 361.730, and
timelines for a one-stop partner to
submit an appeal in the State-funded
infrastructure mechanism.
§ 361.710
funded?
How are infrastructure costs
Infrastructure costs are funded either
through the local funding mechanism
described in § 361.715 or through the
State funding mechanism described in
§ 361.730.
§ 361.715 How are one-stop infrastructure
costs funded in the local funding
mechanism?
(a) In the local funding mechanism,
the Local Board, chief elected officials,
and one-stop partners agree to amounts
and methods of calculating amounts
each partner will contribute for one-stop
infrastructure funding, include the
infrastructure funding terms in the
MOU, and sign the MOU. The local onestop funding mechanism must meet all
of the following requirements:
(1) The infrastructure costs are funded
through cash and fairly evaluated inkind partner contributions and include
any funding from philanthropic
organizations or other private entities,
or through other alternative financing
options, to provide a stable and
equitable funding stream for ongoing
one-stop delivery system operations;
(2) Contributions must be negotiated
between one-stop partners, chief elected
officials, and the Local Board and the
amount to be contributed must be
included in the MOU;
(3) The one-stop partner program’s
proportionate share of funding must be
calculated in accordance with the
Uniform Administrative Requirements,
Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards in 2
CFR part 200 based upon a reasonable
cost allocation methodology whereby
infrastructure costs are charged to each
partner in proportion to relative benefits
received, and must be allowable,
reasonable, necessary, and allocable;
(4) Partner shares must be
periodically reviewed and reconciled
against actual costs incurred, and
adjusted to ensure that actual costs
charged to any one-stop partners are
proportionate and equitable to the
benefit received by the one-stop
partners and their respective programs
or activities.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(b) In developing the section of the
MOU on one-stop infrastructure funding
fully described in § 361.755, the Local
Board and chief elected officials will:
(1) Ensure that the one-stop partners
adhere to the guidance identified in
§ 361.705 on one-stop delivery system
infrastructure costs.
(2) Work with one-stop partners to
achieve consensus and informally
mediate any possible conflicts or
disagreements among one-stop partners.
(3) Provide technical assistance to
new one-stop partners and local grant
recipients to ensure that those entities
are informed and knowledgeable of the
elements contained in the MOU and the
one-stop infrastructure costs
arrangement.
(c) The MOU may include an interim
infrastructure funding agreement,
including as much detail as the Local
Board has negotiated with one-stop
partners, if all other parts of the MOU
have been negotiated, in order to allow
the partner programs to operate in the
one-stop centers. The interim
infrastructure agreement must be
finalized within 6 months of when the
MOU is signed. If the infrastructure
interim infrastructure agreement is not
finalized within that timeframe, the
Local Board must notify the Governor,
as described in § 361.725.
§ 361.720 What funds are used to pay for
infrastructure costs in the local one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) In the local one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, one-stop partner
programs can determine what funds
they will use to fund infrastructure
costs. The use of these funds must be in
accordance with the requirements in
this subpart, and with the relevant
partner’s authorizing statutes and
regulations, including, for example,
prohibitions against supplanting nonFederal resources, statutory limitations
on administrative costs, and all other
applicable legal requirements. In the
case of partners administering adult
education and literacy programs
authorized by title II of WIOA or the
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006, these funds may
include Federal funds that are available
for State administration of adult
education and literacy programs
authorized by title II of WIOA or for
State administration of post-secondary
level programs and activities under the
Perkins Act, and non-Federal funds that
the partners contribute to meet these
programs’ matching or maintenance of
effort requirements. These funds also
may include local administrative funds
available to local entities or consortia of
local entities that have been delegated
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
authority to serve as one-stop local
partners by a State eligible agency as
permitted by § 361.415(b) and (e).
(b) There are no specific caps on the
amount or percent of overall funding a
one-stop partner may contribute to fund
infrastructure costs under the local onestop funding mechanism, except that
contributions for administrative costs
may not exceed the amount available for
administrative costs under the
authorizing statute of the partner
program. However, amounts contributed
for infrastructure costs must be
allowable and based on proportionate
use by or benefit to the partner program,
taking into account the total cost of the
one-stop infrastructure as well as
alternate financing options, and must be
consistent with 2 CFR chapter II,
including the Federal cost principles.
§ 361.725 What happens if consensus on
infrastructure funding is not reached at the
local level between the Local Board, chief
elected officials, and one-stop partners?
If, after July 1, 2016, and each
subsequent July 1, the Local Board,
chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners do not reach consensus on
methods of sufficiently funding local
infrastructure through the local
infrastructure cost funding mechanism,
and include that consensus agreement
in the signed MOU, then the Local
Board must notify the Governor and the
Governor must administer funding
through the State one-stop funding
mechanism, as described in § 361.730.
(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2))
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 361.730 What is the State one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, the Governor, after
consultation with the chief elected
officials, Local Boards, and the State
Board, determines one-stop partner
contributions, based upon a
methodology where infrastructure costs
are charged to each partner in
proportion to relative benefits received
and consistent with the partner
program’s authorizing laws and
regulations, 2 CFR chapter II, including
the Federal cost principles, and other
applicable legal requirements described
in § 361.735(a).
(b) The State Board develops an
allocation formula to allocate funds to
local areas to support the infrastructure
costs for local area one-stop centers for
all local areas that did not use the local
funding mechanism, and the Governor
uses that formula to allocate the funds.
This is described in detail in § 361.745.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 361.735 How are partner contributions
determined in the State one-stop funding
mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop funding
mechanism, the Governor, after
consultation with State and Local
Boards and chief elected officials, will
determine the amount each partner
must contribute to assist in paying the
infrastructure costs of one-stop centers.
The Governor must calculate amounts
based on the proportionate use of the
one-stop centers by each partner,
consistent with chapter II of title 2,
Code of Federal Regulations (or any
corresponding similar regulation or
ruling), taking into account the costs of
administration of the one-stop delivery
system for purposes not related to onestop centers for each partner such as
costs associated with maintaining the
Local Board, or information technology
systems. The Governor will also take
into account the statutory requirements
for each partner program, all other
applicable legal requirements, and the
partner program’s ability to fulfill such
requirements.
(b) In certain situations, the Governor
does not determine the infrastructure
cost contributions for one-stop partner
programs.
(1) The Governor will not determine
the contribution amounts for
infrastructure funds for Native
American grantees described in. (WIOA
sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(iii).) The appropriate
portion of funds to be provided by
Native American grantees to pay for
one-stop infrastructure must be
determined as part of the development
of the MOU described in § 361.500 and
specified in that MOU.
(2) In a State in which the State
constitution or a State statute places
policy-making authority that is
independent of the authority of the
Governor in an entity or official with
respect to the funds provided for adult
education and literacy activities, postsecondary career and technical
education activities, or vocational
rehabilitation services, the chief officer
of that entity or the official must
determine the contribution amounts for
infrastructure funds in consultation
with the Governor. (WIOA sec.
121(h)(2)(C)(ii).)
(c) Limitations. Per WIOA sec.
122(h)(2)(D), the amount established by
the Governor under paragraph (a) of this
section may not exceed the following
caps:
(1) WIOA formula programs and
employment service. The portion of
funds required to be contributed under
the WIOA youth, adult, or dislocated
worker programs, or under the WagnerPeyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.) must
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20665
not exceed 3 percent of the amount of
Federal funds provided to carry out that
program in the State for a program year.
(2) Other one-stop partners. The
portion of funds required to be
contributed must not exceed 1.5 percent
of the amount of Federal funds provided
to carry out that education program or
employment and training program in
the State for a fiscal year. For purposes
of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006, the cap on
contributions is determined based on
the funds made available for State
administration of post-secondary level
programs and activities.
(3) Vocational rehabilitation. Within a
State, the entity or entities
administering the programs described in
WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(iv) the allotment
is based on the one State allotment,
even in instances where that allotment
is shared between two State agencies,
and will not be required to provide from
that program a cumulative portion that
exceeds—
(i) 0.75 percent of the amount of
Federal funds provided to carry out
such program in the State for Fiscal
Year 2016;
(ii) 1.0 percent of the amount
provided to carry out such program in
the State for Fiscal Year 2017;
(iii) 1.25 percent of the amount
provided to carry out such program in
the State for Fiscal Year 2018; and
(iv) 1.5 percent of the amount
provided to carry out such program in
the State for Fiscal Year 2019 and
following years.
(4) Federal direct spending programs.
For local areas that have not reached a
one-stop infrastructure funding
agreement by consensus, an entity
administering a program funded with
direct spending as defined in sec.
250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
as in effect on February 15, 2014 (2
U.S.C. 900(c)(8)), must not be required
to provide more for infrastructure costs
than the amount that the Governor
determined (as described in
§ 361.735(a)).
(d) If the above limitations result in
funding less than each partner’s
proportionate share and contribute to
inadequate funding of the allocation
amount determined under § 361.745(b),
the Governor may direct the Local
Board, chief elected officials, and onestop partners to reenter negotiations to
reduce the infrastructure costs to reflect
the amount of funds that are available
for such costs, discuss proportionate
share of each one-stop partner, or to
identify alternative sources of financing
for one-stop infrastructure funding, but,
in any event, a partner will only be
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20666
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
required to pay an amount that is
consistent with the proportionate
benefit received by the partner, the
program’s authorizing laws and
regulations, the Federal cost principles,
and other applicable legal requirements.
(1) The Local Board, chief elected
officials, and one-stop partners, after
renegotiation, may come to agreement
and sign an MOU and proceed under
the local one-stop funding mechanism.
(2) If after renegotiation, agreement
amongst partners still cannot be reached
or alternate financing identified, the
Governor may adjust the specified
allocation, in accordance with the
amounts available and the limitations
described in § 361.735(c).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 361.740 What funds are used to pay for
infrastructure costs in the State one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, infrastructure costs
for WIOA title I programs, including
Native American Programs described in,
can be paid using program funds,
administrative funds, or both.
Infrastructure costs for the Senior
Community Service Employment
Program under title V of the Older
Americans Act (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.)
can also be paid using program funds,
administrative funds, or both. (WIOA
sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(i)(II).)
(b) In the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, infrastructure costs
for other required one-stop partner
programs (listed in §§ 361.400 through
361.410) are limited to the program’s
administrative funds, as appropriate.
(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(i)(I).)
(c) In the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, infrastructure costs
for the adult education program
authorized by title II of WIOA must be
paid from the funds that are available
for State administration or from nonFederal funds that the partner
contributes to meet the program’s
matching or maintenance of effort
requirement. Infrastructure costs for title
II of WIOA may also be paid from funds
available for local administration of
programs and activities to eligible
providers or consortia of eligible
providers delegated responsibilities to
act as a local one-stop partner pursuant
to § 361.415(b).
(d) In the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, infrastructure costs
for the Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act of 2006 must
be paid from the Federal funds that are
available for State administration of
post-secondary level programs and
activities under the Perkins Act, or from
non-Federal funds that the partner
contributes to meet the program’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
matching or maintenance of effort
requirement. Infrastructure costs for the
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006 may also be paid
from funds available for local
administration of post-secondary level
programs and activities to eligible
recipients or consortia of eligible
recipients delegated responsibilities to
act as a local one-stop partner pursuant
to § 361.415(e).
§ 361.745 How is the allocation formula
used by the Governor determined in the
State one-stop funding mechanism?
(a) The State Board must develop an
allocation formula to be used by the
Governor to allocate funds to the local
areas that did not successfully use the
local funding mechanism. The
allocation formula must take into
account the number of one-stop centers
in a local area, the population served by
such centers, the services provided by
such centers, and other factors relating
to the performance of such centers that
the State Board determines are
appropriate and that are consistent with
Federal cost principles. (WIOA
121(h)(3)(B))
(b) Using the funds contributed by the
one-stop partners described in
§ 361.735, the Governor will then use
this formula to allocate funds to the
local areas that did not use the local
funding mechanism to fund one-stop
center infrastructure costs, so long as
that funding distribution is consistent
with Federal cost principles for each of
the affected one-stop partners.
§ 361.750 When and how can a one-stop
partner appeal a one-stop infrastructure
amount designated by the State under the
State infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) The Governor must establish a
process, described under sec.
121(h)(2)(E) of WIOA, for a one-stop
partner administering a program
described in §§ 361.400 through 361.410
to appeal the Governor’s determination
regarding the one-stop partner’s portion
of funds to be provided for one-stop
infrastructure costs. This appeal process
must be described in the Unified State
Plan. (WIOA secs. 121(h)(2)(E) and
102(b)(2)(D)(i)(IV).)
(b) The appeal may be made on the
ground that the Governor’s
determination is inconsistent with
proportionate share requirements in
§ 361.735(a), the cost contribution
limitations in § 361.735(b), or the cost
contribution caps in § 361.735(c).
(c) The process must ensure prompt
resolution of the appeal in order to
ensure the funds are distributed in a
timely manner, consistent with the
requirements of.
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(d) The one-stop partner must submit
an appeal in accordance with State’s
deadlines for appeals specified in the
guidance issued under § 361.705(b)(3),
or if the State has not set a deadline,
within 21 days from the Governor’s
determination.
§ 361.755 What are the required elements
regarding infrastructure funding that must
be included in the one-stop Memorandum
of Understanding?
The MOU, fully described in
§ 361.500, must contain the following
information whether the local areas use
either the local one-stop or the State
one-stop infrastructure funding method:
(a) The period of time in which this
infrastructure funding agreement is
effective. This may be a different time
period than the duration of the MOU.
(b) Identification of an infrastructure
and shared services budget that will be
periodically reconciled against actual
costs incurred and adjusted accordingly
to ensure that it reflects a cost allocation
methodology that demonstrates how
infrastructure costs are charged to each
partner in proportion to relative benefits
received, and that complies with
chapter II of title 2 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (or any
corresponding similar regulation or
ruling).
(c) Identification of all one-stop
partners, chief elected officials, and
Local Board participating in the
infrastructure funding arrangement.
(d) Steps the Local Board, chief
elected officials, and one-stop partners
used to reach consensus or an assurance
that the local area followed the guidance
for the State one-stop infrastructure
funding process.
(e) Description of the process to be
used between partners to resolve issues
during the MOU duration period when
consensus cannot be reached.
(f) Description of the periodic
modification and review process to
ensure equitable benefit among one-stop
partners.
§ 361.760 How do one-stop partners jointly
fund other shared costs under the
Memorandum of Understanding?
(a) In addition to jointly funding
infrastructure costs, one-stop partners
listed in §§ 361.400 through 361.410
must use a portion of funds made
available under their programs’
authorizing Federal law (or fairly
evaluated in-kind contributions) to pay
the additional costs relating to the
operation of the one-stop delivery
system, which must include applicable
career services.
(b) Additionally, one-stop partners
may jointly fund shared services to the
extent consistent with their programs’
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Federal authorizing statutes and other
applicable legal requirements. Shared
services’ costs may include the costs of
shared services that are authorized for
and may be commonly provided
through the one-stop partner programs
to any individual, such as initial intake,
assessment of needs, appraisal of basic
skills, identification of appropriate
services to meet such needs, referrals to
other one-stop partners, and business
services. Shared operating costs may
also include shared costs of the Local
Board’s functions.
(c) These shared costs must be
allocated according to the proportion of
benefit received by each of the partners,
consistent with the Federal law
authorizing the partner’s program, and
consistent with all other applicable legal
requirements, including Federal cost
principles in chapter II of title 2 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (or any
corresponding similar regulation or
ruling) requiring that costs are
reasonable, necessary, and allocable.
(d) Any shared costs agreed upon by
the one-stop partners must be included
in the MOU.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 361.800 How are one-stop centers and
one-stop delivery systems certified for
effectiveness, physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous
improvement?
(a) The State Board, in consultation
with chief elected officials and Local
Boards, must establish objective criteria
and procedures for Local Boards to use
when certifying one-stop centers.
(1) The State Board must review and
update the criteria every 2 years as part
of the review and modification of State
Plans pursuant to § 361.135.
(2) The criteria must be consistent
with the Governor’s and State Board’s
guidelines, guidance and policies on
infrastructure funding decisions,
described in § 361.705. The criteria
must evaluate the one-stop centers and
one-stop delivery system for
effectiveness, including customer
satisfaction, physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous
improvement.
(3) When the Local Board is the onestop operator as described in, the State
Board must certify the one-stop center.
(b) Evaluations of effectiveness must
include how well the one-stop center
integrates available services for
participants and businesses, meets the
workforce development needs of
participants and the employment needs
of local employers, operates in a costefficient manner, coordinates services
among the one-stop partner programs,
and provides maximum access to
partner program services even outside
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
regular business hours. These
evaluations must take into account
feedback from one-stop customers. They
must also include evaluations of how
well the one-stop center ensures equal
opportunity for individuals with
disabilities to participate in or benefit
from one-stop center services. These
evaluations must include criteria
evaluating how well the centers and
delivery systems take actions to comply
with the disability-related regulations
implementing WIOA sec. 188, set forth
at 29 CFR part 37. Such actions include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Providing reasonable
accommodations for individuals with
disabilities;
(2) Making reasonable modifications
to policies, practices, and procedures
where necessary to avoid discrimination
against persons with disabilities;
(3) Administering programs in the
most integrated setting appropriate;
(4) Communicating with persons with
disabilities as effectively as with others;
and
(5) Providing appropriate auxiliary
aids and services, including assistive
technology devices and services, where
necessary to afford individuals with
disabilities an equal opportunity to
participate in, and enjoy the benefits of,
the program or activity.
(c) Evaluations of continuous
improvement must include how well
the one-stop center supports the
achievement of the negotiated local
levels of performance for the indicators
of performance for the local area
described in sec. 116(b)(2) of WIOA and.
Other continuous improvement factors
may include a regular process for
identifying and responding to technical
assistance needs, a regular system of
continuing professional staff
development, and having systems in
place to capture and respond to specific
customer feedback.
(d) Local Boards must assess at least
once every 3 years the effectiveness,
physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous
improvement of one-stop centers and
the one-stop delivery systems using the
criteria and procedures developed by
the State Board. The Local Board may
establish additional criteria, or set
higher standards for service
coordination, than those set by the State
criteria. Local Boards must review and
update the criteria every 2 years as part
of the Local Plan update process
described in § 361.580. Local Boards
must certify one-stop centers in order to
be eligible to receive infrastructure
funds in the State infrastructure funding
mechanism described in § 361.730.
PO 00000
Frm 00095
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20667
(e) All one-stop centers must comply
with applicable physical accessibility
requirements, as set forth.
§ 361.900 What is the common identifier to
be used by each one-stop delivery system?
(a) The common one-stop delivery
system identifier is ‘‘American Job
Center.’’
(b) As of July 1, 2016, each one-stop
delivery system must include the
‘‘American Job Center’’ identifier or ‘‘a
proud partner of the American Job
Center network’’ on all products,
programs, activities, services, facilities,
and related property and materials used
in the one-stop system.
(c) One-stop partners, States or local
areas may use additional identifiers on
their products, programs, activities,
services, facilities, and related property
and materials.
PART 463—ADULT EDUCATION AND
FAMILY LITERACY ACT
8. The authority citation for part 463
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 102 and 103, unless
otherwise noted.
9. Add subpart H to part 463, as added
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, to read as follows:
■
Subpart H—Unified and Combined State
Plans Under Title I of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec.
463.100 What is the purpose of the Unified
and Combined State Plans?
463.105 What are the general requirements
for the Unified State Plan?
463.110 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan
for the adult, dislocated worker, and
youth workforce investment activities in
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act title I?
463.115 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan
for the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act program in Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act title II?
463.120 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan
for Wagner-Peyser Act Employment
Service programs in title III of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act?
463.125 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan
for the State Vocational Rehabilitation
program in Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act title IV?
463.130 What is the submission and
approval process of the Unified State
Plan?
463.135 What are the requirements for
modification of the Unified State Plan?
463.140 What are the general requirements
for submitting a Combined State Plan?
463.143 What is the submission and
approval process of the Combined State
Plan?
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20668
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
463.145 What are the requirements for
modifications of the Combined State
Plan?
Subpart H—Unified and Combined
State Plans Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act
§ 463.100 What is the purpose of the
Unified and Combined State Plans?
(a) The Unified and Combined State
Plans provide the framework for States
to outline a strategic vision of, and goals
for, how their workforce development
systems will achieve the purposes of
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act (WIOA).
(b) The Unified and Combined State
Plans serve as 4-year action plans to
develop, align, and integrate the State’s
systems and provide a platform to
achieve the State’s vision and strategic
and operational goals. A Unified or
Combined State Plan is intended to:
(1) Align, in strategic coordination,
the six core programs required in the
Unified State Plan pursuant to
§ 463.105(b), and additional optional
programs that may be part of the
Combined State Plan pursuant to
§ 463.140;
(2) Direct investments in economic,
education, and workforce training
programs to focus on providing relevant
education and training to ensure that
individuals, including youth and
individuals with barriers to
employment, have the skills to compete
in the job market and that employers
have a ready supply of skilled workers;
(3) Apply strategies for job-driven
training consistently across Federal
programs, and;
(4) Enable economic, education, and
workforce partners to build a skilled
workforce through innovation in, and
alignment of, employment, training, and
education programs.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 463.105 What are the general
requirements for the Unified State Plan?
(a) The Unified State Plan must be
submitted in accordance with § 463.130
and joint planning guidelines issued by
the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary
of Education.
(b) The Governor of each State must
submit, in accordance with § 463.130, a
Unified or Combined State Plan to the
Secretary of Labor to be eligible to
receive funding for the workforce
development system’s six core
programs:
(1) The adult, dislocated worker, and
youth programs authorized under
subtitle B of title I of WIOA and
administered by the U.S. Department of
Labor;
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
(2) The Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act (AEFLA) program
authorized under title II of WIOA and
administered by the U.S. Department of
Education;
(3) The Wagner-Peyser Act
Employment Services programs
amended by title III of WIOA and
administered by the U.S. Department of
Labor; and
(4) The State Vocational
Rehabilitation program amended by title
IV of WIOA and administered by the
U.S. Department of Education.
(c) The Unified State Plan must
outline the State’s 4-year strategy for the
core programs described in paragraph
(b) of this section and meet the
requirements of sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as
explained in the joint planning
guidance issued by the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Education.
(d) The Unified State Plan must
include strategic and operational
planning elements to facilitate the
development of an aligned, coordinated,
and comprehensive workforce
development system. The Unified State
Plan must include:
(1) Strategic planning elements that
describe the State’s strategic vision and
goals for preparing an educated and
skilled workforce under sec. 102(b)(1) of
WIOA. The strategic planning elements
must be informed by and include an
analysis of the State’s economic
conditions and employer and workforce
needs, including education and skill
needs.
(2) Strategies for aligning the core
programs and optional programs, as
well as other resources available to the
State, to achieve the strategic vision and
goals in accordance with sec.
102(b)(1)(E) of WIOA.
(3) Operational planning elements in
accordance with sec. 102(b)(2) of WIOA
that support the strategies for aligning
the core programs and other resources
available to the State to achieve the
State’s vision and goals and a
description of how the State Workforce
Development Board will implement its
functions, in accordance with sec.
101(d) of WIOA. Operational planning
elements must include:
(i) A description of how the State
strategy will be implemented by each
core program’s lead State agency;
(ii) State operating systems, including
data systems, and policies that will
support the implementation of the
State’s strategy identified in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section;
(iii) Program-specific requirements for
the core programs required by WIOA
sec. 102(b)(2)(D);
(iv) Assurances required by sec.
102(b)(2)(E) of WIOA and others
PO 00000
Frm 00096
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
deemed necessary by the Secretaries of
Labor and Education under sec.
102(b)(2)(E)(x) of WIOA; and
(v) Any additional operational
planning requirements imposed by the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of
Education under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii)
of WIOA.
§ 463.110 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan for
the adult, dislocated worker, and youth
workforce investment activities in
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
title I?
The program-specific requirements for
the adult, dislocated worker, and youth
workforce investment activities that
must be included in the Unified State
Plan are described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D) of
WIOA. Additional planning
requirements may be required by the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of
Education in accordance with joint
planning guidelines issued by the
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Education.
§ 463.115 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan for
the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act
program in Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act title II?
The program-specific requirements for
the AEFLA program in title II that must
be included in the Unified State Plan
are described in secs. 102(b)(2)(D)(ii)
and 102(b)(2)(C) of WIOA.
(a) With regard to the description
required in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(ii)(I) of
WIOA pertaining to content standards,
the Unified State Plan must describe
how the eligible agency will, by July 1,
2016, align its content standards for
adult education with State-adopted
challenging academic content standards
under the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965, as amended.
(b) With regard to the description
required in sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(iv) of
WIOA pertaining to the methods and
factors the State will use to distribute
funds under the core programs, for title
II of WIOA, the Unified State Plan must
include—
(1) How the eligible agency will
award multi-year grants on a
competitive basis to eligible providers
in the State; and
(2) How the eligible agency will
provide direct and equitable access to
funds using the same grant or contract
announcement and application
procedure.
(c) With regard to the description
required under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(v)(I) of
WIOA pertaining to the integration of
workforce and education data on core
programs, unemployment insurance
programs, and education through post-
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
secondary education, for title II of
WIOA, the Unified State Plan must
include how the State will ensure
interoperability of data systems in the
reporting on core indicators of
performance and performance reports
required to be submitted by the State.
§ 463.120 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan for
Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service
programs in title III of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
Wagner-Peyser Act Employment
Services programs amended by title III
are subject to requirements in sec.
102(b) of WIOA and any additional
requirements imposed by the Secretary
of Labor under sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii) of
WIOA, in accordance with joint
planning guidelines issued by the
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Education.
§ 463.125 What are the program-specific
requirements in the Unified State Plan for
the State Vocational Rehabilitation program
in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act title IV?
The program specific requirements for
the vocational rehabilitation services
portion of the Unified or Combined
State Plan are set forth in sec. 101(a) of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended. All submission requirements
of the Vocational Rehabilitation
Services portion of the Unified or
Combined State Plan are in addition to
the jointly developed strategic and
operational content requirements
prescribed by secs. 102(b) and 103 of
WIOA.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 463.130 What is the submission and
approval process of the Unified State Plan?
(a) The Unified State Plan described
in § 463.105 must be submitted in
accordance with planning guidelines
issued jointly by the Secretaries of Labor
and Education which explain the
submission and approval process in
WIOA sec. 102(c).
(b) A State must submit its Unified
State Plan to the Secretary of Labor
pursuant to a process identified by the
Secretary.
(1) The initial Unified State Plan must
be submitted no later than 120 days
prior to the commencement of the
second full program year of WIOA.
(2) The subsequent Unified State Plan
must be submitted no later than 120
days prior to the end of the 4-year
period described in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of
this section, ‘‘program year’’ means July
1 through June 30 of any year.
(c) The State must provide an
opportunity for public comment on and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
input into the development of the
Unified State Plan prior to its
submission.
(1) The opportunity for public
comment must include an opportunity
for comment by representatives of Local
Boards and chief elected officials,
businesses, representatives of labor
organizations, community-based
organizations, adult education
providers, institutions of higher
education, other stakeholders with an
interest in the services provided by the
six core programs, and the general
public, including individuals with
disabilities.
(2) Consistent with the ‘‘Sunshine
Provision’’ of WIOA in sec. 101(g), the
State Board must make information
regarding the Unified State Plan
available to the public through
electronic means and regularly
occurring open meetings in accordance
with State law. The Unified State Plan
must describe the State’s process and
timeline for ensuring a meaningful
opportunity for public comment.
(d) Upon receipt of the Unified State
Plan from the State, the Secretary of
Labor will ensure that the entire Unified
State Plan is submitted to the Secretary
of Education pursuant to a process
developed by the Secretaries.
(e) The Unified State Plan is subject
to the approval of both the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Education.
(f) Before the Secretary of Labor and
the Secretary of Education approve the
Unified State Plan, the vocational
rehabilitation portion of the Unified
State Plan described in WIOA sec.
102(b)(2)(D)(iii) must be approved by
the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration.
(g) The Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Education will review and
approve the Unified State Plan within
90 days of receipt by the appropriate
Secretary, unless the Secretary of Labor
or the Secretary of Education
determines in writing within that period
that:
(1) The plan is inconsistent with a
core program’s requirements;
(2) The Unified State Plan is
inconsistent with any requirement of
sec. 102 of WIOA; or
(3) The plan is incomplete or
otherwise insufficient to determine
whether it is consistent with a core
program’s requirements or other
requirements of WIOA.
(h) If neither the Secretary of Labor
nor the Secretary of Education makes
the written determination described in
paragraph (g) of this section within 90
days of the receipt by the Secretaries,
the Unified State Plan will be
considered approved.
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20669
§ 463.135 What are the requirements for
modification of the Unified State Plan?
(a) In addition to the required
modification review set forth in
paragraph (b) of this section, a Governor
may submit a modification of its Unified
State Plan at any time during the 4-year
period of the plan.
(b) Modifications are required, at a
minimum:
(1) At the end of the first 2-year
period of any 4-year State Plan, wherein
the State Board must review the Unified
State Plan, and the Governor must
submit modifications to the plan to
reflect changes in labor market and
economic conditions or other factors
affecting the implementation of the
Unified State Plan;
(2) When changes in Federal or State
law or policy substantially affect the
strategies, goals, and priorities upon
which the Unified State Plan is based;
(3) When there are changes in the
statewide vision, strategies, policies,
State adjusted levels of performance, the
methodology used to determine local
allocation of funds, reorganizations
which change the working relationship
with system employees, changes in
organizational responsibilities, changes
to the membership structure of the State
Board or alternative entity, and similar
substantial changes to the State’s
workforce investment system.
(c) Modifications to the Unified State
Plan are subject to the same public
review and comment requirements in
§ 463.130(c) that apply to the
development of the original Unified
State Plan.
(d) Unified State Plan modifications
must be approved by the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Education,
based on the approval standards
applicable to the original Unified State
Plan under § 463.130. This approval
must come after the approval of the
Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration for
modification of any portion of the plan
described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of
WIOA.
§ 463.140 What are the general
requirements for submitting a Combined
State Plan?
(a) A State may choose to develop and
submit a 4-year Combined State Plan in
lieu of the Unified State Plan described
in § 463.105.
(b) A State that submits a Combined
State Plan covering an activity or
program described in paragraph (d) of
this section that is approved under
WIOA sec. 103(c) or determined
complete under the law relating to the
program will not be required to submit
any other plan or application in order to
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20670
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
receive Federal funds to carry out the
core programs or the program or
activities described under paragraph (d)
of this section that are covered by the
Combined State Plan.
(c) If a State develops a Combined
State Plan, it must be submitted in
accordance with the process described
in § 463.143.
(d) If a State chooses to submit a
Combined State Plan, the Plan must
include the six core programs and one
or more of the optional programs and
activities described in sec. 103(a)(2) of
WIOA. The optional programs and
activities that may be included in the
Combined State Plan are:
(1) Career and technical education
programs authorized under the Carl D.
Perkins Career and Technical Education
Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.);
(2) Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families or TANF, authorized under
part A of title IV of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
(3) Employment and training
programs authorized under sec. 6(d)(4)
of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008
(7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4));
(4) Work programs authorized under
sec. 6(o) of the Food and Nutrition Act
of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o));
(5) Trade adjustment assistance
activities under chapter 2 of title II of
the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271
et seq.);
(6) Services for veterans authorized
under chapter 41 of title 38, United
States Code;
(7) Programs authorized under State
unemployment compensation laws (in
accordance with applicable Federal
law);
(8) Senior Community Service
Employment Programs under title V of
the Older Americans Act of 1956 (42
U.S.C. 3056 et seq.);
(9) Employment and training
activities carried out by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development;
(10) Employment and training
activities carried out under the
Community Services Block Grant Act
(42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.); and
(11) Reintegration of offenders
programs authorized under sec. 212 of
the Second Chance Act of 2007 (42
U.S.C. 17532).
(e) A Combined State Plan must
contain:
(1) For the core programs, the
information required by sec. 102(b) of
WIOA and § 463.105, as explained in
the joint planning guidance issued by
the Secretaries;
(2) For the optional programs, except
as described in paragraph (h) of this
section, the information required by the
law authorizing and governing that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
program to be submitted to the
appropriate Secretary, any other
applicable legal requirements, and any
common planning requirements
described in sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as
explained in the joint planning
guidance issued by the Secretaries;
(3) A description of joint planning
methods across all programs included in
the Combined State Plan; and
(4) An assurance that all of the
entities responsible for planning or
administering the programs described in
the Combined State Plan have had a
meaningful opportunity to review and
comment on all portions of the Plan.
(f) Each optional program included in
the Combined State Plan remains
subject to the applicable programspecific requirements of the Federal law
and regulations, and any other
applicable legal or program
requirements, governing the
implementation and operation of that
program.
(g) For purposes of §§ 463.140 through
463.145 the term ‘‘appropriate
Secretary’’ means the head of the
Federal agency who exercises either
plan or application approval authority
for the program or activity under the
Federal law authorizing the program or
activity or, if there are no planning or
application requirements, who exercises
administrative authority over the
program or activity under that Federal
law.
(h) States that include employment
and training activities carried out under
the Community Services Block Grant
(CSBG) Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.)
under a Combined State Plan would
submit all other required elements of a
complete CSBG State Plan directly to
the Federal agency that administers the
program, according to the requirements
of Federal law and regulations.
§ 463.143 What is the submission and
approval process of the Combined State
Plan?
(a) For purposes of § 463.140(a), if a
State chooses to develop a Combined
State Plan it must submit the Combined
State Plan in accordance with the
requirements described below and the
joint planning guidelines, which will
further explain the submission and
approval procedures for the Combined
State Plan, issued by the Secretaries.
(b) The State must submit to the
Secretaries of Labor and Education and
to the Secretary of the agency with
responsibility for approving the
program’s plan or determining it
complete under the law governing the
program, as part of its Combined State
Plan, any plan, application, form, or any
other similar document that is required
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
as a condition for the approval of
Federal funding under the applicable
program or activity. Such submission
must occur in accordance with a process
identified by the relevant Secretaries in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(c) The Combined State Plan will be
approved or disapproved in accordance
with the requirements of sec. 103(c) of
WIOA.
(1) The portion of the Combined State
Plan covering programs administered by
the Departments of Labor and Education
must be reviewed, and approved or
disapproved, by the appropriate
Secretary within 90 days beginning on
the day the plan is received by the
appropriate Secretary from the State,
except as provided in paragraph (d) of
this section.
(2) If an appropriate Secretary other
than the Secretary of Labor or the
Secretary of Education has authority to
approve or determine complete a
portion of the Combined State Plan for
a program or activity described in
§ 463.140(d), that portion of the plan
must be reviewed, and approved,
disapproved, or have a determination of
completeness, by the appropriate
Secretary within 120 days beginning on
the day the plan is received by the
appropriate Secretary from the State
except as provided in paragraph (e) of
this section.
(d) The review and determination of
approval or disapproval, or
determination of completeness, of the
relevant portion of the Combined State
Plan must occur within 90 days for all
Department of Labor and Education
programs included in the State Plan and
within 120 days for the programs
administered by other Federal Agencies
unless the appropriate Secretary
determines in writing within that period
that:
(1) The Plan is inconsistent with the
requirements of the six core programs or
the Federal laws authorizing or
applicable to the program or activity
involved, including the criteria for
approval of a plan or application, or
determining the plan’s completeness, if
any, under such law;
(2) The portion of the Plan describing
the six core programs or the program or
activity described in paragraph (a) of
this section involved does not satisfy
the criteria as provided in sec. 102 or
103 of WIOA, as applicable; or
(3) The Plan is incomplete, or
otherwise insufficient to determine
whether it is consistent with a core
program’s requirements, other
requirements of WIOA, or the Federal
laws authorizing, or applicable to, the
program or activity described in
§ 463.140(d), including the criteria for
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
approval of a plan or application, if any,
under such law.
(e) If the Secretary of Labor, the
Secretary of Education, or the
appropriate Secretary does not make the
written determination described in
paragraph (d) of this section within the
relevant period of time after submission
of the Plan, that portion of the
Combined State Plan over which the
Secretary has jurisdiction will be
considered approved.
(f) Special rule. In paragraphs (d)(1)
and (3) of this section, the term ‘‘criteria
for approval of a plan or application,’’
with respect to a State or a core program
or a program under the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of
2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.), includes
a requirement for agreement between
the State and the appropriate Secretaries
regarding State performance measures
or State performance accountability
measures, as the case may be, including
levels of performance.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 463.145 What are the requirements for
modifications of the Combined State Plan?
(a) For the core program portions of
the Combined State Plan, modifications
are required at the end of the first 2-year
period of any 4-year Combined State
Plan. The State Board must review the
Combined State Plan, and the Governor
must submit a modification of the
Combined State Plan to reflect changes
in labor market and economic
conditions or in other factors affecting
the implementation of the Combined
State Plan.
(b) In addition to the required
modification review described in
paragraph (a) of this section, a State may
submit a modification of its Combined
State Plan at any time during the 4-year
period of the plan.
(c) For any programs and activities
described in § 463.140(d) that are
included in a State’s Combined State
Plan, the State—
(1) May decide if the modification
requirements under WIOA sec. 102(c)(3)
that apply to the core programs will
apply to the optional programs or
activities described in § 463.140(d) that
are included in the Combined State Plan
or may comply with the procedures and
requirements applicable to only the
particular optional program or activity;
and
(2) Must submit, in accordance with
the procedure described in § 463.143,
any other modification, amendment, or
revision required by the Federal law
authorizing, or applicable to, the
program or activity described in
§ 463.140(d). If the underlying
programmatic requirements change for
Federal laws authorizing such programs,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
a State must either modify its Combined
State Plan or submit a separate plan to
the appropriate Federal agency in
accordance with the new Federal law
authorizing the optional program or
activity and other legal requirements
applicable to such program or activity.
A State also may amend its Combined
State Plan to add an optional program
or activity described in § 463.140(d).
(d) Modifications of the Combined
State Plan are subject to the same public
review and comment requirements that
apply to the development of the original
Combined State Plan as described in
§ 463.130(c) except that, if the
modification, amendment, or revision
affects the administration of a particular
optional program and has no impact on
the Combined State Plan as a whole or
the integration and administration of the
core and optional programs at the State
level, a State may comply instead with
the procedures and requirements
applicable to the particular optional
program.
(e) Modifications for the core program
portions of the Combined State Plan
must be approved by the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Education,
based on the approval standards
applicable to the original Combined
State Plan under § 463.143. This
approval must come after the approval
of the Commissioner of the
Rehabilitation Services Administration
for modification of any portion of the
Combined State Plan described in sec.
102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA.
(f) Modifications for the portions of
the Combined State Plan for any
optional program or activity described
in § 463.140(d) must be submitted for
approval by only the appropriate
Secretary, based on the approval
standards applicable to the original
Combined State Plan under § 463.143, if
the State elects, or in accordance with
the procedures and requirements
applicable to the particular optional
program if the modification,
amendment, or revision affects the
administration of only that particular
optional program and has no impact on
the Combined State Plan as a whole or
the integration and administration of the
core and optional programs at the State
level.
■ 10. Add subpart I to part 463, as
added elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, to read as follows:
Subpart I—Performance Accountability
Under Title I of the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act
Sec.
463.150 What definitions apply to
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act performance measurement and
reporting requirements?
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20671
463.155 What are the primary indicators of
performance under the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
463.160 What information is required for
State performance reports?
463.165 May a State require additional
indicators of performance?
463.170 How are State adjusted levels of
performance for primary indicators
established?
463.175 What responsibility do States have
to use quarterly wage record information
for performance accountability?
463.180 What State actions are subject to a
financial sanction under Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
463.185 When are sanctions applied for
failure to report?
463.190 When are sanctions applied for
failure to achieve adjusted levels of
performance?
463.195 What should States expect when a
sanction is applied to the Governor’s
Reserve Allotment?
463.200 What other administrative actions
will be applied to States’ performance
requirements?
463.205 What performance indicators apply
to local areas?
463.210 How are local performance levels
established?
463.215 Under what circumstances are
local areas eligible for State Incentive
Grants?
463.220 Under what circumstances may a
corrective action or sanction be applied
to local areas for poor performance?
463.225 Under what circumstances may
local areas appeal a reorganization plan?
463.230 What information is required for
the eligible training provider
performance reports?
463.235 What are the reporting
requirements for individual records for
core Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act title I, III, and IV
programs?
463.240 What are the requirements for data
validation of State annual performance
reports?
Subpart I—Performance Accountability
Under Title I of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act
§ 463.150 What definitions apply to
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
performance measurement and reporting
requirements?
(a) Participant. A reportable
individual who has received staffassisted services after satisfying all
applicable programmatic requirements
for the provision of services, such as
eligibility determination.
(1) For the Vocational Rehabilitation
(VR) program, a Participant is an
individual who has an approved and
signed Individualized Plan for
Employment (IPE) and has begun to
receive services.
(2) The following individuals are not
Participants:
(i) Individuals who have not
completed at least 12 contact hours in
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20672
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act (AEFLA) program;
(ii) Individuals who only use the selfservice system; and
(iii) Individuals who only receive
information services or activities.
(3) Programs must include
participants in their performance
calculations.
(b) Reportable individual. An
individual who has taken action that
demonstrates an intent to use program
services and who meets specific
reporting criteria of the core program,
including:
(1) Individuals who provide
identifying information;
(2) Individuals who only use the selfservice system; and
(3) Individuals who only receive
information on services or activities.
(c) Exit. As defined for the purpose of
performance calculations, exit is the
point after which an individual who has
received services through any program
meets the following criteria:
(1) For the adult, dislocated worker,
and youth programs under Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act
(WIOA) title I, the AEFLA program
under WIOA title II, and the
Employment Services authorized by the
Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by
WIOA title III, exit date is the last date
of service:
(i) The exit date cannot be determined
until 90 days of no services has elapsed.
At that point the exit date is applied
retroactively to the last date of service.
(A) Ninety days of no service does not
include self-service or information-only
activities or follow-up services and
(B) There are no future services
planned, excluding follow-up services.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2)(i) For the VR program as amended
by WIOA title IV:
(A) The participant’s record of service
is closed in accordance with § 463.56
because the participant has achieved an
employment outcome; or
(B) The participant’s service record is
closed because the individual has not
achieved an employment outcome or
the individual has been determined
ineligible after receiving services in
accordance with § 463.43.
(ii) Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, a participant
will not be considered as meeting the
definition of exit from the Vocational
Rehabilitation program if the
individual’s service record is closed
because the individual has achieved a
supported employment outcome in an
integrated setting but not in competitive
integrated employment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 463.155 What are the primary indicators
of performance under the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
(a) All States submitting either a
Unified or Combined State Plan under
§§ 463.130 and 676.143 of this chapter,
must propose expected levels of
performance for each of the primary
indicators of performance for the adult,
dislocated worker, and youth programs
under title I of WIOA, the AEFLA
program under title II of WIOA, the
Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by title
III of WIOA, and the VR program as
amended by WIOA.
(1) The six primary indicators for
performance are:
(i) The percentage of participants,
who are in unsubsidized employment
during the second quarter after exit from
the program;
(ii) The percentage of participants,
who are in unsubsidized employment
during the fourth quarter after exit from
the program;
(iii) Median earnings of participants,
who are in unsubsidized employment
during the second quarter after exit from
the program;
(iv) The percentage of participants
who obtained a recognized postsecondary credential or a secondary
school diploma, or its recognized
equivalent during participation in or
within 1 year after exit from the
program. A participant who has
obtained a secondary school diploma or
its recognized equivalent is only
included in this measure if the
participant is also employed or is
enrolled in an education or training
program leading to a recognized postsecondary credential within 1 year from
program exit;
(v) The percentage of participants
who during a program year, are in an
education or training program that leads
to a recognized post-secondary
credential or employment and who are
achieving measurable skill gains,
defined as documented academic,
technical, occupational or other forms of
progress, towards such a credential or
employment.
(vi) Effectiveness in serving
employers, based on indicators
developed as required by sec.
116(b)(2)(A)(iv) of WIOA.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) The indicators in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (vi) of this section
apply to the adult, dislocated worker,
AEFLA and VR programs.
(c) The indicators in paragraphs
(a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (vi) of this
section apply to the Employment
Services.
(d) For the youth program under title
I of WIOA, the indicators are:
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(1) Percentage of participants who are
in education or training activities, or in
unsubsidized employment, during the
second quarter after exit from the
program;
(2) Percentage of participants in
education or training activities, or in
unsubsidized employment, during the
fourth quarter after exit from the
program;
(3) Median earnings of participants
who are in unsubsidized employment
during the second quarter after exit from
the program;
(4) The percentage of participants
who obtained a recognized postsecondary credential or a secondary
school diploma, or its recognized
equivalent, during participation or up to
1 year after exit. A participant who has
obtained a secondary school diploma or
its recognized equivalent is only
included in this measure if the
participant is also employed or is
enrolled in an education or training
program leading to a recognized postsecondary credential within 1 year from
program exit;
(5) The percentage of participants
who during a program year, are in an
education or training program that leads
to a recognized post-secondary
credential or employment and who are
achieving measurable skill gains,
defined as documented academic,
technical, occupational or other forms of
progress towards such a credential or
employment;
(6) Effectiveness in serving employers,
based on indicators developed as
required by sec. 116(b)(2)(iv) of WIOA.
§ 463.160 What information is required for
State performance reports?
(a) Section 116(d)(2) of WIOA requires
States to submit a State performance
report. The State performance report
must be submitted annually using a
template the Departments will
disseminate and must provide, at a
minimum, information on the actual
performance levels achieved consistent
with § 463.175 with respect to:
(1) The total number of participants
served, and the total number of
participants who exited each of the core
programs identified in sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA, including
disaggregated counts of those who
participated in and exited a core
program, by:
(i) Individuals with barriers to
employment as defined in WIOA sec.
3(24); and
(ii) Co-enrollment in any of the
programs in WIOA sec 116(b)(3)(A)(ii).
(2) Information on the performance
levels achieved for the primary
indicators for all of the core programs
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
identified in § 463.155 including
disaggregated levels for:
(i) Individuals with barriers to
employment as defined in WIOA sec.
3(24);
(ii) Age;
(iii) Sex; and
(iv) Race and ethnicity.
(3) The total number of participants
and exiters who received career and
training services for the most recent
program year and the three preceding
program years, as applicable to the
program;
(4) Information on the performance
levels achieved for the primary
indicators consistent with § 463.155 for
career and training services for the most
recent program year and the 3 preceding
program years, as applicable to the
program;
(5) The percentage of participants in
a program who obtained unsubsidized
employment related to the training
received (often referred to as trainingrelated employment) through WIOA
title I–B programs;
(6) The amount of funds spent on
each type of career and training service
for the most recent program year and the
3 preceding program years, as
applicable to the program;
(7) The average cost per participant
for those participants who received
career and training services,
respectively, during the most recent
program year and the 3 preceding
program years for, as applicable to the
program;
(8) The percentage of a State’s annual
allotment under WIOA sec. 132(b) that
the State spent on administrative costs;
and
(9) information that facilitates
comparisons of programs with programs
in other States.
(10) For WIOA title I programs, a State
performance narrative, which, for States
in which a local area is implementing a
pay-for-performance contracting
strategy, at a minimum provides:
(i) A description of pay-forperformance contract strategies being
used for programs;
(ii) The performance of service
providers entering into contracts for
such strategies, measured against the
levels of performance specified in the
contracts for such strategies; and
(iii) An evaluation of the design of the
programs and performance strategies
and, when available, the satisfaction of
employers and participants who
received services under such strategies.
(b) The disaggregation of data for the
State performance report must be done
in compliance with WIOA sec.
116(d)(6)(C).
(c) The State performance reports
must include a mechanism of electronic
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
access to the State’s local area and ETP
performance reports.
(d) States must comply with these
requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as
explained in joint guidance issued by
the Departments of Education and
Labor, which may include information
on reportable individuals as determined
by the Secretaries.
§ 463.165 May a State require additional
indicators of performance?
States may identify additional
indicators of performance for the six
core programs. These indicators must be
included in the Unified or Combined
State Plan.
§ 463.170 How are State adjusted levels of
performance for primary indicators
established?
(a) A State must submit in the State
Plan expected levels of performance on
the primary indicators for each core
program as required by sec. 116(b)(iv) of
WIOA as explained in joint guidance
issued by the Secretaries of Education
and Labor.
(1) The initial State Plan submitted
under WIOA must contain expected
levels of performance for the first 2
years of the State Plan period.
(2) States must submit expected levels
of performance for the third and fourth
year of the State Plan before the third
program year consistent with §§ 463.135
and 463.145.
(b) The State must reach agreement on
levels of performance with the
Secretaries of Education and Labor for
each of the core programs based on the
following factors:
(1) How the levels of performance
compare with State adjusted levels of
performance established for other
States;
(2) The application of an objective
statistical model established by the
Secretaries of Education and Labor,
subject to paragraph (d) of this section;
(3) How the levels promote
continuous improvement in
performance based on the primary
indicators and ensure optimal return on
investment of Federal funds; and
(4) The extent to which the levels
assist the State in meeting the
performance goals established by the
Secretaries of Education and Labor for
the core programs in accordance with
the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, and its
amendments.
(c) An objective statistical adjustment
model will be developed and
disseminated by the Secretaries. The
model will be based on:
(1) Differences among States in actual
economic conditions, including
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20673
unemployment rates and job losses or
gains in particular industries; and
(2) The characteristics of participants,
including:
(i) Indicators of poor work history;
(ii) Lack of work experience;
(iii) Lack of educational or
occupational skills attainment;
(iv) Dislocation from high-wage and
high-benefit employment;
(v) Low levels of literacy;
(vi) Low levels of English proficiency;
(vii) Disability status;
(viii) Homelessness;
(ix) Ex-offender status; and
(x) Welfare dependency.
(d) The objective statistical
adjustment model developed under
paragraph (c) of this section will be:
(1) Applied to the core programs’
primary indicators upon availability of
data which is necessary to populate the
model and apply it to the programs;
(2) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, used before the beginning of a
program year in order to establish State
performance targets for the upcoming
program year; and
(3) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this
section, used to revise performance
levels at the end of a program year based
on actual circumstances, consistent with
sec. 116(b)(3)(vii) of WIOA.
(e) States must comply with these
requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as
explained in joint guidance issued by
the Departments of Education and
Labor.
§ 463.175 What responsibility do States
have to use quarterly wage record
information for performance
accountability?
(a) States must, consistent with State
laws, use quarterly wage record
information in measuring the progress
on State adjusted levels of performance
for the primary indicators outlined in
§ 463.155 and local performance
indicators identified in § 463.205. The
use of social security numbers from
participants and such other information
as is necessary to measure the progress
of those participants through quarterly
wage record information is authorized.
(b) ‘‘Quarterly wage record
information’’ means intrastate and
interstate wages paid to an individual,
the social security number (or numbers,
if more than one) of the individual and
the name, address, State, and the
Federal employer identification number
of the employer paying the wages to the
individual.
(c) The Governor may designate a
State agency [or appropriate State
entity] to assist in carrying out the
performance reporting requirements for
WIOA core programs and eligible
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20674
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
training providers. The Governor or
such agency [or appropriate State entity]
is responsible for:
(1) Facilitating data matches;
(2) Data quality reliability, protection
against disaggregation that would
violate privacy.
§ 463.180 What State actions are subject
to a financial sanction under Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act?
The following failures by a State are
subject to financial sanction under
WIOA sec. 116(d):
(a) The failure by a State to submit the
State annual performance report
required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2); or
(b) The failure by a State to meet
adjusted levels of performance for the
primary indicators of performance in
accordance with sec. 116(f) of WIOA.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 463.185 When are sanctions applied for
failure to report?
(a) Sanctions will be applied when a
State fails to submit the State annual
performance reports required under sec.
116(d)(2) of WIOA. It is a failure to
report if the State either:
(1) Does not submit a State annual
performance report by the date for
timely submission set in performance
reporting guidance; or
(2) Submits a State annual
performance report by the date for
timely submission, but the report is
incomplete.
(b) Sanctions will not be assessed if
the reporting failure is due to
exceptional circumstances outside of
the State’s control. Exceptional
circumstances may include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Natural disasters,
(2) Unexpected personnel transitions;
and
(3) Unexpected technology related
impacts.
(c) In the event that a State may not
be able to submit a complete and
accurate performance report by the
deadline for timely reporting:
(1) The State must notify the Secretary
of Labor or Secretary of Education as
soon as possible of a potential impact on
the ability to submit their State annual
performance reports by no later than 30
days prior to the established deadline in
order to not be considered failing to
report.
(2) In circumstances where
unexpected events occur within the 30day period before the deadline for
submission of the State annual
performance reports, the Secretary of
Labor and Secretary of Education will
review requests for extending the
reporting deadline in accordance with
the Departments’ procedures explained
in guidance on reporting timelines.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
§ 463.190 When are sanctions applied for
failure to achieve adjusted levels of
performance?
(a) States’ negotiated levels of
performance will be adjusted through
the application of the statistical
adjustment model established under
§ 463.170 to account for actual
conditions experienced during a
program year and characteristics of
participants, annually at the close of
each program year.
(b) States that fail to meet adjusted
levels of performance for the primary
indicators of performance outlined in
§ 463.155 for any year will receive
technical assistance, including
assistance in the development of a
performance improvement plan
provided by the Secretary of Labor or
Secretary of Education.
(c) State failure to meet adjusted
levels of performance will be
determined through three criteria:
(1) Overall State program scores,
based on the percent achieved by a
program on each of the six primary
indicators compared to the adjusted goal
for each primary indicator. The average
of the percentage of the adjusted goal
achieved for each primary indicator will
constitute the overall program score for
the State;
(2) Overall State indicator scores,
based on the percent achieved by each
program on each of the individual
primary indicators compared to the
adjusted goal. The average of the
percentage of the adjusted goal achieved
for each of the six core programs’ will
constitute an overall indicator score for
the State; and
(3) Individual indicator scores, based
on the percent achieved by each
program on each of the individual
primary indicators compared to the
adjusted goals.
(d) A performance failure occurs
when:
(1) Any overall State program score or
overall State indicator score falls below
90 percent for the program year; or
(2) Any of the States’ individual
indicator scores fall below 50 percent
for the program year.
(e) Sanctions based on performance
failure will be applied to States if, for 2
consecutive years, the State fails to meet
90 percent of the overall State program
score, 90 percent of the overall State
indicator score, or 50 percent on any
individual indicator score for the same
program or indicator.
§ 463.195 What should States expect when
a sanction is applied to the Governor’s
Reserve Allotment?
(a) The Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Education will reduce the
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Governor’s Reserve Allotment by 5
percent of the maximum available
amount for the immediately succeeding
program year if:
(1) The State fails to submit the State
annual performance reports as required
under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2), as defined
in § 463.185; or
(2) The State fails to meet State
adjusted levels of performance for the
same primary performance indicator(s)
under either § 463.190(d)(1) or (2) for
the second consecutive year as defined
in § 463.190.
(b) If the State fails under paragraphs
(a)(1) and (2) of this section in the same
program year, the Secretary of Labor and
the Secretary of Education will reduce
the Governor’s Reserve Allotment by 10
percent of the maximum available
amount for the immediately succeeding
program year.
(c) If a State’s Governor’s Reserve
Allotment is reduced:
(1) The reduced amount will not be
returned to the State in the event that
the State later improves performance or
submits its annual performance report;
and
(2) The Governor’s reserve will
continue to be set at the reduced level
in each subsequent year until the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of
Education, dependent upon the
impacted program, determines that the
State met the State adjusted levels of
performance for the applicable primary
performance indicators and has
submitted all of the required
performance reports.
(d) A State may request review of a
sanction the U.S. Department of Labor
imposes in accordance with the
provisions of § 683.800 of this chapter.
§ 463.200 What other administrative
actions will be applied to States’
performance requirements?
(a) In addition to sanctions for failure
to report or failure to meet adjusted
levels of performance, States will be
subject to administrative actions in the
case of poor performance.
(b) States’ performance achievement
on the individual primary indicators
will be assessed in addition to the
overall program score and overall
indicator score. Based on this
assessment, as clarified and explained
in guidance, for performance on any
individual primary indicator, the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of
Education will require the State to
establish a performance risk plan to
address continuous improvement on the
individual primary indicator.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
§ 463.205 What performance indicators
apply to local areas?
(a) Each local workforce investment
area in a State under title I of WIOA is
subject to the same primary indicators
of performance for the core programs for
WIOA title I under § 463.155(a)(1) and
(d) that apply to the State.
(b) In addition to the indicators
described in paragraph (a) of this
section, under § 463.165, the Governor
may apply additional indicators of
performance to local areas in the State.
(c) States must annually make local
area performance reports available to
the public using a template that the
Departments will disseminate in
guidance, including by electronic
means. The State must provide
electronic access to the public local area
performance report in its annual State
performance report.
(d) The local area performance report
must provide information on the actual
performance levels for the local area
based on quarterly wage records
consistent with the requirements for
States under § 463.175.
(e) The local area performance report
must include:
(1) Performance levels achieved by
the local area for the indicators for the
adult, dislocated worker, and youth
programs under title I of WIOA in
§ 463.155(a)(1) and (3);
(2) Performance levels achieved by
the local area for the adult, dislocated
worker, and youth programs under title
I of WIOA in § 463.160(a);
(3) The percentage of a local area’s
allotment under WIOA sec. 128(b) and
sec. 133(b) that the local area spent on
administrative costs; and
(4) Other information that facilitates
comparisons of programs with programs
in other local areas (or planning regions
if the local area is part of a planning
region).
(f) States must comply with any
requirements from sec. 116(d)(3) of
WIOA as explained in guidance,
including the use of the performance
reporting template, issued by the
Department of Labor.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 463.210 How are local performance
levels established?
(a) The objective statistical adjustment
model required under sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(viii) of WIOA and
described in the § 463.170 must be:
(1) Used to establish local
performance targets for the upcoming
program year, and
(2) Used to revise performance levels
at the end of a program year based on
actual circumstances, consistent with
WIOA sec. 116(c)(3).
(b) The Governor, Local Board, and
chief elected official must reach
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
agreement on local targets and levels
based on a negotiations process before
the start of a program year with the use
of the objective statistical model
described in paragraph (a) of this
section. The negotiations will include a
discussion of circumstances not
accounted for in the model and will take
into account the extent to which the
levels promote continuous
improvement. The objective statistical
model will be applied at the end of the
program year based on actual conditions
experienced.
(c) The negotiations process described
in paragraph (b) of this section must be
developed by the Governor and
disseminated to all Local Boards and
chief elected officials.
(d) The Local Boards may apply
performance measures to service
providers that differ from the
performance measures that apply to the
local area. These performance measures
should be established after considering:
(1) The established local performance
levels,
(2) The services provided by each
provider; and
(3) The populations the service
providers are intended to serve.
§ 463.215 Under what circumstances are
local areas eligible for State Incentive
Grants?
(a) The Governor is not required to
award local incentive funds. The
Governor may use non-Federal funds to
create incentives for Local Boards to
implement pay-for-performance contract
strategies for the delivery of training
services described in WIOA sec.
134(c)(3) or activities described in
WIOA sec. 129(c)(2) in the local areas
served by the Local Boards.
(b) Pay-for-performance contract
strategies must be implemented in
accordance with §§ 683.500 through
683.530 of this chapter and § 463.160.
§ 463.220 Under what circumstances may
a corrective action or sanction be applied
to local areas for poor performance?
(a) If a local area fails to meet the
levels of performance agreed to under
§ 463.210 for the primary indicators of
performance in the adult, dislocated
worker, and youth programs authorized
under WIOA title I in any program year,
technical assistance must be provided
by the Governor or, upon the Governor’s
request, by the Secretary of Labor.
(1) A State must establish the
threshold for failure in meeting levels of
performance for a local area before
negotiating the adjusted levels of
performance for the local area.
(2) The technical assistance may
include:
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20675
(i) Assistance in the development of a
performance improvement plan,
(ii) The development of a modified
local or regional plan; or
(iii) Other actions designed to assist
the local area in improving
performance.
(b) If a local area fails to meet the
levels of performance agreed to under
§ 463.210 for the primary indicators of
performance for the adult, dislocated
worker, and youth programs authorized
under WIOA title I for a third
consecutive program year, the Governor
must take corrective actions. The
corrective actions must include the
development of a reorganization plan
under which the Governor:
(1) Requires the appointment and
certification of a new Local Board,
consistent with the criteria established
under § 679.350 of this chapter;
(2) Prohibits the use of eligible
providers and one-stop partners that
have been identified as achieving poor
levels of performance; or
(3) Takes such other significant
actions as the Governor determines are
appropriate.
§ 463.225 Under what circumstances may
local areas appeal a reorganization plan?
(a) The Local Board and chief elected
official for a local area that is subject to
a reorganization plan under WIOA sec.
116(g)(2)(A) may appeal to the Governor
to rescind or revise the reorganization
plan not later than 30 days after
receiving notice of the reorganization
plan. The Governor must make a final
decision within 30 days after receipt of
the appeal.
(b) The Local Board and chief elected
official may appeal the final decision of
the Governor to the Secretary of Labor
not later than 30 days after receiving the
decision from the Governor. Any appeal
of the Governor’s final decision must be:
(1) Appealed jointly by the Local
Board and chief elected official to the
Secretary under § 683.650 of this
chapter; and
(2) Must be submitted by certified
mail, return receipt requested, to the
Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor,
200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington
DC 20210, Attention: ASET. A copy of
the appeal must be simultaneously
provided to the Governor.
(c) Upon receipt of the joint appeal
from the Local Board and chief elected
official, the Secretary must make a final
decision within 30 days. In making this
determination the Secretary may
consider any comments submitted by
the Governor in response to the appeals.
(d) The decision by the Governor to
impose a reorganization plan becomes
effective at the time it is issued and
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20676
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
remains effective unless the Secretary of
Labor rescinds or revises the
reorganization plan under WIOA sec.
116(g)(2)(B)(ii).
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 463.230 What information is required for
the eligible training provider performance
reports?
(a) States are required to make
available, and publish, annually using a
template the Departments will
disseminate including through
electronic means, the eligible training
provider performance reports for
eligible training providers who provide
services under sec. 122 of WIOA that are
described in §§ 680.400 through 680.530
of this chapter. These reports at a
minimum must include, consistent with
§ 463.175 and with respect to each
program of study that is eligible to
receive funds under WIOA:
(1) The total number of participants
who received training services under
the adult and dislocated worker
programs authorized under WIOA title I
for the most recent year and the 3
preceding program years, including:
(i) The number of participants under
the adult and dislocated worker
programs disaggregated by barriers to
employment;
(ii) The number of participants under
the adult and dislocated worker
programs disaggregated by race,
ethnicity, sex, and age;
(iii) The number of participants under
the adult and dislocated worker
programs disaggregated by the type of
training entity for the most recent
program year and the 3 preceding
program years;
(2) The total number of participants
who exit a program of study or its
equivalent, including disaggregate
counts by the type of training entity
during the most recent program year
and the 3 preceding program years;
(3) The average cost-per-participant
for participants who received training
services for the most recent program
year and the 3 preceding program years
disaggregated by type of training entity;
(4) The total number of individuals
exiting from the program of study (or
the equivalent); and
(5) The levels of performance
achieved for the primary indicators of
performance identified in
§ 463.155(a)(1)(i) through (iv) with
respect to all individuals in a program
of study (or the equivalent).
(b) Registered apprenticeship
programs are not required to submit
performance information. See § 680.470
of this chapter. If a registered
apprenticeship program voluntarily
submits performance information to a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
State, the State must include this
information in the report.
(c) The State must provide electronic
access to the public eligible training
provider performance report in its
annual State performance report.
(d) States must comply with any
requirements from sec. 116(d)(4) of
WIOA as explained in guidance issued
by the Department of Labor.
(e) The Governor may designate one
or more State agencies such as a State
education agency or State educational
authority to assist in overseeing eligible
training provider performance and
facilitating the production and
dissemination of eligible training
provider performance reports. These
agencies may be the same agencies that
are designated as responsible for
administering the eligible training
providers list as provided under
§ 680.500 of this chapter. The Governor
or such agencies, or authorities, is
responsible for:
(1) Facilitating data matches between
ETP records and UI wage data in order
to produce the report;
(2) The creation and dissemination of
the reports as described in paragraphs
(a) through (d) of this section;
(3) Coordinating the dissemination of
the performance reports with the
eligible training provider list and the
information required to accompany the
list, as provided in § 680.500 of this
chapter.
§ 463.235 What are the reporting
requirements for individual records for core
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
title I, III, and IV programs?
(a) On a quarterly basis, each State
must submit to the Secretary of Labor or
Secretary of Education, as appropriate,
individual records that include
demographic information, information
on services received, and information
on resulting outcomes, as appropriate,
for each reportable individual in a core
program administered by the Secretary
of Labor or Education. Such records
submitted to the Department of Labor
must be submitted in one record that is
integrated across all core Department of
Labor programs.
(b) For individual records submitted
to the Secretary of Labor, records must
be integrated across all core programs
administered by the Secretary of Labor
in one single file.
(c) States must comply with any other
requirements from sec. 116(d)(2) of
WIOA as explained in guidance issued
by the Department of Labor.
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 463.240 What are the requirements for
data validation of State annual performance
reports?
(a) States must establish procedures,
consistent with guidelines issued by the
Secretary of Education or Secretary of
Labor, to submit complete annual
performance reports that contain
information that is valid and reliable.
(b) If a State fails to meet standards in
paragraph (a) of this section as
determined by the Secretary of Labor or
Secretary of Education, the appropriate
Secretary will provide technical
assistance and may require the State to
develop and implement corrective
actions, which may require the State to
provide training for its subrecipients.
(c) The Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Education will provide
training and technical assistance to
States in order to implement this
section.
■ 11. Add subpart J to part 463, as
added elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, to read as follows:
Subpart J—Description of the One-Stop
System Under Title I of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec.
463.300 What is the one-stop delivery
system?
463.305 What is a comprehensive one-stop
center and what must be provided there?
463.310 What is an affiliated site and what
must be provided there?
463.315 Can a stand-alone Wagner-Peyser
employment service office be designated
as an affiliated one-stop site?
463.320 Are there any requirements for
networks of eligible one-stop partners or
specialized centers?
463.400 Who are the required one-stop
partners?
463.405 Is Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families a required one-stop partner?
463.410 What other entities may serve as
one-stop partners?
463.415 What entity serves as the one-stop
partner for a particular program in the
local area?
463.420 What are the roles and
responsibilities of the required one-stop
partners?
463.425 What are the applicable career
services that must be provided through
the one-stop delivery system by required
one-stop partners?
463.430 What are career services?
463.435 What are the business services
provided through the one-stop delivery
system, and how are they provided?
463.440 When may a fee be charged for the
business services in this subpart?
463.500 What is the Memorandum of
Understanding for the one-stop delivery
system and what must be included in the
Memorandum of Understanding?
463.505 Is there a single Memorandum of
Understanding for the local area, or must
there be separate Memoranda of
Understanding between the Local Board
and each partner?
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
463.510 How should the Memorandum of
Understanding be negotiated?
463.600 Who may operate one-stop centers?
463.605 How is the one-stop operator
selected?
463.610 How is sole source selection of
one-stop operators accomplished?
463.615 Can an entity serving as one-stop
operator compete to be a one-stop
operator under the procurement
requirements of this subpart?
463.620 What is the one-stop operator’s
role?
463.625 Can a one-stop operator also be a
service provider?
463.630 Can State merit staff still work in
a one-stop where the operator is not a
governmental entity?
463.635 What is the effective date of the
provisions of this subpart?
463.700 What are one-stop infrastructure
costs?
463.705 What guidance must the Governor
issue regarding one-stop infrastructure
funding?
463.710 How are infrastructure costs
funded?
463.715 How are one-stop infrastructure
costs funded in the local funding
mechanism?
463.720 What funds are used to pay for
infrastructure costs in the local one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
463.725 What happens if consensus on
infrastructure funding is not reached at
the local level between the Local Board,
chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners?
463.730 What is the State one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
463.735 How are partner contributions
determined in the State one-stop funding
mechanism?
463.740 What funds are used to pay for
infrastructure costs in the State one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
463.745 How is the allocation formula used
by the Governor determined in the State
one-stop funding mechanism?
463.750 When and how can a one-stop
partner appeal a one-stop infrastructure
amount designated by the State under
the State infrastructure funding
mechanism?
463.755 What are the required elements
regarding infrastructure funding that
must be included in the one-stop
Memorandum of Understanding?
361.760 How do one-stop partners jointly
fund other shared costs under the
Memorandum of Understanding?
463.800 How are one-stop centers and onestop delivery systems certified for
effectiveness, physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous
improvement?
463.900 What is the common identifier to
be used by each one-stop delivery
system?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
Subpart J—Description of the OneStop System Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act
§ 463.300
system?
What is the one-stop delivery
(a) The one-stop delivery system
brings together workforce development,
educational, and other human resource
services in a seamless customer-focused
service delivery network that enhances
access to the programs’ services and
improves long-term employment
outcomes for individuals receiving
assistance. One-stop partners administer
separately funded programs as a set of
integrated streamlined services to
customers.
(b) Title I of the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act (WIOA) assigns
responsibilities at the local, State, and
Federal level to ensure the creation and
maintenance of a one-stop delivery
system that enhances the range and
quality of education and workforce
development services that business and
individual customers can access.
(c) The system must include at least
one comprehensive physical center in
each local area as described in
§ 463.305.
(d) The system may also have
additional arrangements to supplement
the comprehensive center. These
arrangements include:
(1) An affiliated site or a network of
affiliated sites, where one or more
partners make programs, services, and
activities available, as described in
§ 463.310;
(2) A network of eligible one-stop
partners, as described in §§ 463.400
through 463.410, through which each
partner provides one or more of the
programs, services, and activities that
are linked, physically or
technologically, to an affiliated site or
access point that assures customers are
provided information on the availability
of career services, as well as other
program services and activities,
regardless of where they initially enter
the workforce system in the local area;
and
(3) Specialized centers that address
specific needs, including those of
dislocated workers, youth, or key
industry sectors, or clusters.
(e) Required one-stop partner
programs must provide access to
programs, services, and activities
through electronic means if applicable
and practicable. This is in addition to
providing access to services through the
mandatory comprehensive physical onestop center and any affiliated sites or
specialized centers. The provision of
programs and services by electronic
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20677
methods such as Web sites, telephones,
or other means must improve the
efficiency, coordination, and quality of
one-stop partner services. Electronic
delivery must not replace access to such
services at a comprehensive one-stop
center or be a substitute to making
services available at an affiliated site if
the partner is participating in an
affiliated site. Electronic delivery
systems must be in compliance with the
nondiscrimination and equal
opportunity provisions of WIOA in sec.
188 and its implementing regulations at
29 CFR part 37.
(f) The design of the local area’s onestop delivery system must be described
in the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) executed with the one-stop
partners, described in § 463.500.
§ 463.305 What is a comprehensive onestop center and what must be provided
there?
(a) A comprehensive one-stop center
is a physical location where jobseeker
and employer customers can access the
programs, services, and activities of all
required one-stop partners. A
comprehensive one-stop center must
have at least one title I staff person
physically present.
(b) The comprehensive one-stop
center must provide:
(1) Career services, described in
§ 463.430;
(2) Access to training services
described in § 680.200 of this chapter;
(3) Access to any employment and
training activities carried out under sec.
134(d) of WIOA;
(4) Access to programs and activities
carried out by one-stop partners listed
in §§ 463.400 through 463.410,
including Wagner-Peyser employment
services; and
(5) Workforce and labor market
information.
(c) Customers must have access to
these programs, services, and activities
during regular business days at a
comprehensive one-stop center. The
Local Board may establish other service
hours at other times to accommodate the
schedules of individuals who work on
regular business days. The State Board
will evaluate the hours of access to
service as part of the evaluation of
effectiveness in the one-stop
certification process described in
§ 463.800(b).
(d) ‘‘Access’’ to programs and services
means having either: Program staff
physically present at the location;
having partner program staff physically
present at the one-stop appropriately
trained to provide information to
customers about the programs, services,
and activities available through partner
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20678
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
§ 463.315 Can a stand-alone WagnerPeyser employment service office be
designated as an affiliated one-stop site?
§ 463.310 What is an affiliated site and
what must be provided there?
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
programs; or providing direct linkage
through technology to program staff
who can provide meaningful
information or services.
(1) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ means
providing direct connection at the onestop, within a reasonable time, by phone
or through a real-time Web-based
communication to a program staff
member who can provide program
information or services to the customer.
(2) A ‘‘direct linkage’’ does not
include providing a phone number or
computer Web site that can be used at
an individual’s home; providing
information, pamphlets, or materials; or
making arrangements for the customer
to receive services at a later time or on
a different day.
(e) All comprehensive one-stop
centers must be physically and
programmatically accessible to
individuals with disabilities, as
described in § 463.800.
§ 463.320 Are there any requirements for
networks of eligible one-stop partners or
specialized centers?
(a) An affiliated site, or affiliate onestop center, is a site that makes available
to jobseeker and employer customers
one or more of the one-stop partners’
programs, services, and activities. An
affiliated site does not need to provide
access to every required one-stop
partner program. The frequency of
program staff’s physical presence in the
affiliated site will be determined at the
local level. Affiliated sites are access
points in addition to the Comprehensive
one-stop center(s) in each local area. If
used by local areas as a part of the
service delivery strategy, affiliate sites
should be implemented in a manner
that supplements and enhances
customer access to services.
(b) As described in § 463.315, WagnerPeyser employment services cannot be a
stand-alone affiliated site.
(c) States, in conjunction with the
Local Workforce Development Boards,
must examine lease agreements and
property holdings throughout the onestop delivery system in order to use
property in an efficient and effective
way. Where necessary and appropriate,
States and Local Boards must take
expeditious steps to align lease
expiration dates with efforts to
consolidate one-stop operations into
service points where Wagner-Peyser
employment services are collocated as
soon as reasonably possible. These steps
must be included in the State Plan.
(d) All affiliated sites must be
physically and programmatically
accessible to individuals with
disabilities, as described in § 463.800.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
(a) Separate stand-alone WagnerPeyser employment services offices are
not permitted under WIOA, as also
described in § 652.202 of this chapter.
(b) If Wagner-Peyser employment
services are provided at an affiliated
site, there must be at least one other
partner in the affiliated site with staff
physically present more than 50 percent
of the time the center is open.
Additionally, the other partner must not
be the partner administering local
veterans’ employment representatives,
disabled veterans’ outreach program
specialists, or unemployment
compensation programs. If WagnerPeyser employment services and any of
these three programs are provided at an
affiliated site, an additional partner
must have staff present in the center
more than 50 percent of the time the
center is open.
Any network of one-stop partners or
specialized centers must be connected
to, such as having processes in place to
make referrals to, the comprehensive
and any appropriate affiliate one-stop
centers. Wagner-Peyser employment
services cannot stand alone in a
specialized center. Just as described in
§ 463.315 for an affiliated site, a
specialized center must include other
programs besides Wagner-Peyser
employment services, local veterans’
employment representatives, disabled
veterans’ outreach program specialists,
and unemployment compensation.
§ 463.400 Who are the required one-stop
partners?
(a) Section 121(b)(1)(B) of WIOA
identifies the entities that are required
partners in the local one-stop systems.
(b) The required partners are the
entities responsible for administering
the following programs and activities in
the local area:
(1) Programs authorized under title I
of WIOA, including:
(i) Adults;
(ii) Dislocated workers;
(iii) Youth;
(iv) Job Corps;
(v) YouthBuild;
(vi) Native American programs; and
(vii) Migrant and seasonal farmworker
programs;
(2) Employment services authorized
under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C.
49 et seq.);
(3) Adult education and literacy
activities authorized under title II of
WIOA;
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(4) The Vocational Rehabilitation
program authorized under title I of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
720 et seq.);
(5) The Senior Community Service
Employment Program authorized under
title V of the Older Americans Act of
1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.);
(6) Career and technical education
programs at the post-secondary level
authorized under the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of
2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.);
(7) Trade Adjustment Assistance
activities authorized under chapter 2 of
title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19
U.S.C. 2271 et seq.);
(8) Jobs for Veterans State Grants
programs authorized under chapter 41
of title 38, U.S.C.;
(9) Employment and training
activities carried out under the
Community Services Block Grant (42
U.S.C. 9901 et seq.);
(10) Employment and training
activities carried out by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development;
(11) Programs authorized under State
unemployment compensation laws (in
accordance with applicable Federal
law);
(12) Programs authorized under sec.
212 of the Second Chance Act of 2007
(42 U.S.C. 17532); and
(13) Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) authorized under part
A of title IV of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), unless exempted
by the Governor under § 463.405(b).
§ 463.405 Is Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families a required one-stop
partner?
(a) Yes, TANF, authorized under part
A of title IV of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), is a required
partner. (WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(xiii)).
(b) The Governor may determine that
TANF will not be a required partner in
the State, or within some specific local
areas in the State. In this instance, the
Governor must notify the Secretaries of
the U.S. Departments of Labor and
Health and Human Services in writing
of this determination.
(c) In States, or local areas within a
State, where the Governor has
determined that TANF is not required to
be a partner, local TANF programs may
still opt to be a one-stop partner, or to
work in collaboration with the one-stop
center.
§ 463.410 What other entities may serve as
one-stop partners?
(a) Other entities that carry out a
workforce development program,
including Federal, State, or local
programs and programs in the private
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
sector, may serve as additional partners
in the one-stop system if the Local
Board and chief elected official(s)
approve the entity’s participation.
(b) Additional partners may include:
(1) Employment and training
programs administered by the Social
Security Administration, including the
Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency
Program established under sec. 1148 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1320b–19);
(2) Employment and training
programs carried out by the Small
Business Administration;
(3) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) employment and
training programs, authorized under
secs. 6(d)(4) and 6(o) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C.
2015(d)(4));
(4) Client Assistance Program
authorized under sec. 112 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
732);
(5) Programs authorized under the
National and Community Service Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.); and
(6) Other appropriate Federal, State or
local programs, including employment,
education, and training programs
provided by public libraries or in the
private sector.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 463.415 What entity serves as the onestop partner for a particular program in the
local area?
(a) The entity that carries out the
program and activities listed in
§ 463.400 or § 463.405, and therefore
serves as the one-stop partner, is the
grant recipient, administrative entity, or
organization responsible for
administering the funds of the specified
program in the local area. The term
‘‘entity’’ does not include the service
providers that contract with, or are
subrecipients of, the local
administrative entity. For programs that
do not include local administrative
entities, the responsible State agency
should be the partner. Specific entities
for particular programs are identified in
paragraph (b) of this section. If a
program or activity listed in § 463.400 is
not carried out in a local area, the
requirements relating to a required onestop partner are not applicable to such
program or activity in that local onestop system.
(b) For title II of WIOA, the entity that
carries out the program for the purposes
of paragraph (a) of this section is the
sole entity or agency in the State or
outlying area responsible for
administering or supervising policy for
adult education and literacy activities in
the State or outlying area. The State
eligible entity may delegate its
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
responsibilities under paragraph (a) of
this section to one or more eligible
providers or consortium of eligible
providers.
(c) For the Vocational Rehabilitation
program, authorized under title I of the
Rehabilitation Act, the entity that
carries out the program for the purposes
of paragraph (a) of this section is the
designated State agencies or designated
State units specified under sec. 101(a)(2)
of the Rehabilitation Act that is
primarily concerned with vocational
rehabilitation, or vocational and other
rehabilitation, of individuals with
disabilities.
(d) Under WIOA, the national
programs, including Job Corps, the
Native American program, YouthBuild,
and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker
programs are required one-stop partners.
The entity for the Native American
program and Migrant and Seasonal
Farmworker programs is the grantee of
those respective programs. The entity
for Job Corps is the Job Corps center.
(e) For the Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act of 2006, the
entity that carries out the program for
the purposes of paragraph (a) of this
section is the State eligible agency. The
State eligible agency may delegate its
responsibilities under paragraph (a) of
this section to one or more State
agencies, eligible recipients at the postsecondary level, or consortia of eligible
recipients at the post-secondary level.
§ 463.420 What are the roles and
responsibilities of the required one-stop
partners?
Each required partner must:
(a) Provide access to its programs or
activities through the one-stop delivery
system, in addition to any other
appropriate locations; (WIOA sec.
121(b)(1)(A)(i).)
(b) Use a portion of funds made
available to the partner’s program, to the
extent consistent with the Federal law
authorizing the partner’s program and
with Federal cost principles in 2 CFR
parts 200 and 3474 (requiring, among
other things, that costs are allowable,
reasonable, necessary, and allocable), to:
(1) Provide applicable career services;
and
(2) Work collaboratively with the
State and Local Boards to establish and
maintain the one-stop delivery system.
This includes jointly funding the onestop infrastructure through partner
contributions that are based upon:
(i) A reasonable cost allocation
methodology by which infrastructure
costs are charged to each partner in
proportion to the relative benefits;
(ii) Federal cost principles; and
(iii) Any local administrative cost
requirements in the Federal law
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20679
authorizing the partner’s program. (This
is further described in § 463.700).
(WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(A)(ii).)
(c) Enter into an MOU with the Local
Board relating to the operation of the
one-stop system that meets the
requirements of § 463.500(d);
(d) Participate in the operation of the
one-stop system consistent with the
terms of the MOU, requirements of
authorizing laws, the Federal cost
principles, and all other applicable legal
requirements; (WIOA sec.
121(b)(1)(A)(iv)) and
(e) Provide representation on the State
and Local Workforce Development
Boards as required and participate in
Board committees as needed. (WIOA
secs. 101(b)(iii) and 107(b)(2)(C) and
(D))
§ 463.425 What are the applicable career
services that must be provided through the
one-stop delivery system by required onestop partners?
(a) The applicable career services to
be delivered by required one-stop
partners are those services listed in
§ 463.430 that are authorized to be
provided under each partner’s program.
(b) One-stop centers provide services
to individual customers based on
individual needs, including the
seamless delivery of multiple services to
individual customers. There is no
required sequence of services. (WIOA
sec. 121(e)(1)(A).)
§ 463.430
What are career services?
Career services, as identified in sec.
134(c)(2) of WIOA, consist of three
types:
(a) Basic career services must be made
available and, at a minimum, must
include the following services, as
consistent with allowable program
activities and Federal cost principles:
(1) Determinations of whether the
individual is eligible to receive
assistance from the adult, dislocated
worker, or youth programs;
(2) Outreach, intake (including worker
profiling), and orientation to
information and other services available
through the one-stop delivery system;
(3) Initial assessment of skill levels
including literacy, numeracy, and
English language proficiency, as well as
aptitudes, abilities (including skills
gaps), and supportive services needs;
(4) Labor exchange services,
including—
(i) Job search and placement
assistance, and, when needed by an
individual, career counseling,
including—
(A) Provision of information on indemand industry sectors and
occupations (as defined in sec. 3(23) of
WIOA); and,
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
20680
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(B) Provision of information on
nontraditional employment; and
(ii) Appropriate recruitment and other
business services on behalf of
employers, including information and
referrals to specialized business services
other than those traditionally offered
through the one-stop delivery system;
(5) Provision of referrals to and
coordination of activities with other
programs and services, including
programs and services within the onestop delivery system and, when
appropriate, other workforce
development programs;
(6) Provision of workforce and labor
market employment statistics
information, including the provision of
accurate information relating to local,
regional, and national labor market
areas, including—
(i) Job vacancy listings in labor market
areas;
(ii) Information on job skills necessary
to obtain the vacant jobs listed; and
(iii) Information relating to local
occupations in demand and the
earnings, skill requirements, and
opportunities for advancement for those
jobs;
(7) Provision of performance
information and program cost
information on eligible providers of
training services by program and type of
providers;
(8) Provision of information, in usable
and understandable formats and
languages, about how the local area is
performing on local performance
accountability measures, as well as any
additional performance information
relating to the area’s one-stop delivery
system;
(9) Provision of information, in usable
and understandable formats and
languages, relating to the availability of
supportive services or assistance, and
appropriate referrals to those services
and assistance, including: Child care;
child support; medical or child health
assistance available through the State’s
Medicaid program and Children’s
Health Insurance Program; benefits
under SNAP; assistance through the
earned income tax credit; and assistance
under a State program for Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families, and
other supportive services and
transportation provided through that
program;
(10) Provision of information and
assistance regarding filing claims for
unemployment compensation, by which
the one-stop must provide meaningful
assistance to individuals seeking
assistance in filing a claim for
unemployment compensation.
(i) ‘‘Meaningful assistance’’ means:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
(A) Providing assistance on-site using
staff who are well-trained in
unemployment compensation claims
filing and the rights and responsibilities
of claimants, or
(B) Providing assistance by phone or
via other technology, as long as the
assistance is provided by trained and
available staff and within a reasonable
time.
(ii) The costs associated in providing
this assistance may be paid for by the
State’s unemployment insurance
program, or the WIOA adult or
dislocated worker programs, or some
combination thereof.
(11) Assistance in establishing
eligibility for programs of financial aid
assistance for training and education
programs not provided under WIOA.
(b) Individualized career services
must be made available if determined to
be appropriate in order for an individual
to obtain or retain employment. These
services include the following services,
as consistent with program
requirements and Federal cost
principles:
(1) Comprehensive and specialized
assessments of the skill levels and
service needs of adults and dislocated
workers, which may include—
(i) Diagnostic testing and use of other
assessment tools; and
(ii) In-depth interviewing and
evaluation to identify employment
barriers and appropriate employment
goals;
(2) Development of an individual
employment plan, to identify the
employment goals, appropriate
achievement objectives, and appropriate
combination of services for the
participant to achieve his or her
employment goals, including the list of,
and information about, the eligible
training providers (as described in
§ 680.180 of this chapter);
(3) Group counseling;
(4) Individual counseling;
(5) Career planning;
(6) Short-term pre-vocational services
including development of learning
skills, communication skills,
interviewing skills, punctuality,
personal maintenance skills, and
professional conduct services to prepare
individuals for unsubsidized
employment or training;
(7) Internships and work experiences
that are linked to careers (as described
in § 680.170 of this chapter);
(8) Workforce preparation activities;
(9) Financial literacy services as
described in sec. 129(b)(2)(D) of WIOA
and § 681.500 of this chapter;
(10) Out-of-area job search assistance
and relocation assistance; and
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(11) English language acquisition and
integrated education and training
programs.
(c) Follow-up services must be
provided, as appropriate, including:
Counseling regarding the workplace, for
participants in adult or dislocated
worker workforce investment activities
who are placed in unsubsidized
employment, for up to 12 months after
the first day of employment.
§ 463.435 What are the business services
provided through the one-stop delivery
system, and how are they provided?
(a) Certain career services must be
made available to local businesses,
specifically labor exchange activities
and labor market information described
in §§ 463.430(a)(4)(ii) and (a)(6). Local
areas must establish and develop
relationships and networks with large
and small employers and their
intermediaries. (WIOA sec.
134(c)(1)(A)(iv)). Local areas also must
develop, convene, or implement
industry or sector partnerships. (WIOA
sec. 134(c)(1)(A)(v)).
(b) Customized business services may
be provided to employers, employer
associations, or other such organizations
(WIOA sec. 134(d)(1)(A)(ii)). These
services are tailored for specific
employers and may include:
(1) Customized screening and referral
of qualified participants in training
services to employers;
(2) Customized services to employers,
employer associations, or other such
organizations, on employment-related
issues;
(3) Customized recruitment events
and related services for employers
including targeted job fairs;
(4) Human resource consultation
services, including but not limited to
assistance with:
(i) Writing/reviewing job descriptions
and employee handbooks;
(ii) Developing performance
evaluation and personnel policies;
(iii) Creating orientation sessions for
new workers;
(iv) Honing job interview techniques
for efficiency and compliance;
(v) Analyzing employee turnover; or
(vi) Explaining labor laws to help
employers comply with wage/hour and
safety/health regulations;
(5) Customized labor market
information for specific employers,
sectors, industries or clusters; and
(6) Other similar customized services.
(c) Local areas may also provide other
business services and strategies that
meet the workforce investment needs of
area employers, in accordance with
partner programs’ statutory
requirements and consistent with
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Federal cost principles. These business
services may be provided through
effective business intermediaries
working in conjunction with the Local
Board, or through the use of economic
development, philanthropic, and other
public and private resources in a
manner determined appropriate by the
Local Board and in cooperation with the
State. Allowable activities, consistent
with each partner’s authorized
activities, include, but are not limited
to:
(1) Developing and implementing
industry sector strategies (including
strategies involving industry
partnerships, regional skills alliances,
industry skill panels, and sectoral skills
partnerships);
(2) Customized assistance or referral
for assistance in the development of a
registered apprenticeship program;
(3) Developing and delivering
innovative workforce investment
services and strategies for area
employers, which may include career
pathways, skills upgrading, skill
standard development and certification
for recognized post-secondary credential
or other employer use, and other
effective initiatives for meeting the
workforce investment needs of area
employers and workers;
(4) Assistance to area employers in
managing reductions in force in
coordination with rapid response
activities and with strategies for the
aversion of layoffs, which may include
strategies such as early identification of
firms at risk of layoffs, use of feasibility
studies to assess the needs of and
options for at-risk firms, and the
delivery of employment and training
activities to address risk factors;
(5) The marketing of business services
to appropriate area employers,
including small and mid-sized
employers; and
(6) Assisting employers with
accessing local, State, and Federal tax
credits.
(d) All business services and
strategies must be reflected in the local
plan, described in § 679.560(b)(3) of this
chapter.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 463.440 When may a fee be charged for
the business services in this subpart?
(a) There is no requirement that a feefor-service be charged to employers.
(b) No fee may be charged for services
provided in § 463.435(a).
(c) A fee may be charged for services
provided under § 463.435(b) and (c).
Services provided under § 463.435(c)
may be provided through effective
business intermediaries working in
conjunction with the Local Board and
may also be provided on a fee-for-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
service basis or through the leveraging
of economic development,
philanthropic, and other public and
private resources in a manner
determined appropriate by the Local
Board. The Local Workforce
Development Board may examine the
services provided compared with the
assets and resources available within
the local one-stop delivery system and
through its partners to determine an
appropriate cost structure for services, if
any.
§ 463.500 What is the Memorandum of
Understanding for the one-stop delivery
system and what must be included in the
Memorandum of Understanding ?
(a) The MOU is the product of local
discussion and negotiation, and is an
agreement developed and executed
between the Local Board, with the
agreement of the chief elected official
and the one-stop partners, relating to the
operation of the one-stop delivery
system in the local area. Two or more
local areas in a region may develop a
single joint MOU, if they are in a region
that has submitted a regional plan under
sec. 106 of WIOA.
(b) The MOU must include:
(1) A description of services to be
provided through the one-stop delivery
system, including the manner in which
the services will be coordinated and
delivered through the system;
(2) A final plan, or an interim plan if
needed, on how the costs of the services
and the operating costs of the system
will be funded, including:
(i) Funding of infrastructure costs of
one-stop centers in accordance with
§§ 463.700 through 463.755; and
(ii) Funding of the shared services and
operating costs of the one-stop delivery
system described in § 463.760;
(3) Methods for referring individuals
between the one-stop operators and
partners for appropriate services and
activities;
(4) Methods to ensure that the needs
of workers, youth, and individuals with
barriers to employment, including
individuals with disabilities, are
addressed in providing access to
services, including access to technology
and materials that are available through
the one-stop delivery system;
(5) The duration of the MOU and
procedures for amending it; and
(6) Assurances that each MOU will be
reviewed, and if substantial changes
have occurred, renewed, not less than
once every 3-year period to ensure
appropriate funding and delivery of
services.
(c) The MOU may contain any other
provisions agreed to by the parties that
are consistent with WIOA title I, the
PO 00000
Frm 00109
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20681
authorizing statutes and regulations of
one-stop partner programs, and the
WIOA regulations. (WIOA sec. 121(c).)
(d) When fully executed, the MOU
must contain the signatures of the Local
Board, one-stop partners, the chief
elected official(s), and the time period
in which the agreement is effective. The
MOU must be updated not less than
every 3 years to reflect any changes in
the signatory official of the Board, onestop partners, and chief elected officials,
or one-stop infrastructure funding.
(e) If a one-stop partner appeal to the
State regarding infrastructure costs,
using the process described in
§ 463.750, results in a change to the onestop partner’s infrastructure cost
contributions, the MOU must be
updated to reflect the final one-stop
partner infrastructure cost
contributions.
§ 463.505 Is there a single Memorandum of
Understanding for the local area, or must
there be separate Memoranda of
Understanding between the Local Board
and each partner?
(a) A single ‘‘umbrella’’ MOU may be
developed that addresses the issues
relating to the local one-stop delivery
system for the Local Board, chief elected
official and all partners. Alternatively,
the Local Board (with agreement of chief
elected official) may enter into separate
agreements between each partner or
groups of partners.
(b) Under either approach, the
requirements described in § 463.500
apply. Since funds are generally
appropriated annually, the Local Board
may negotiate financial agreements with
each partner annually to update funding
of services and operating costs of the
system under the MOU.
§ 463.510 How should the Memorandum of
Understanding be negotiated?
(a) WIOA emphasizes full and
effective partnerships between Local
Boards, chief elected officials, and onestop partners. Local Boards and partners
must enter into good-faith negotiations.
Local Boards, chief elected officials, and
one-stop partners may also request
assistance from a State agency
responsible for administering the
partner program, the Governor, State
Board, or other appropriate parties on
other aspects of the MOU.
(b) Local Boards and one-stop
partners must establish, in the MOU, a
final plan for how the Local Board and
programs will fund the infrastructure
costs of the one-stop centers. If a final
plan regarding infrastructure costs is not
complete when other sections of the
MOU are ready, an interim
infrastructure cost plan may be included
instead, as described in § 463.715(c).
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20682
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Once the final infrastructure cost plan is
approved, the Local Board and one-stop
partners must amend the MOU to
include the final plan for funding
infrastructure costs of the one-stop
centers, including a description of the
funding mechanism established by the
Governor relevant to the local area.
Infrastructure cost funding is described
in detail in subpart E of this part.
(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2).)
(c) The Local Board must report to the
State Board, Governor, and relevant
State agency when MOU negotiations
with one-stop partners have reached an
impasse.
(1) The Local Board and partners must
document the negotiations and efforts
that have taken place in the MOU. The
State Board, one-stop partner programs,
and the Governor may consult with the
appropriate Federal agencies to address
impasse situations related to issues
other than infrastructure funding after
attempting to address the impasse.
Impasses related to infrastructure cost
funding must be resolved using the
State infrastructure cost funding
mechanism described in § 463.730.
(2) The Local Board must report
failure to execute an MOU with a
required partner to the Governor, State
Board, and the State agency responsible
for administering the partner’s program.
Additionally, if the State cannot assist
the Local Board in resolving the
impasse, the Governor or the State
Board must report the failure to the
Secretary of Labor and to the head of
any other Federal agency with
responsibility for oversight of a partner’s
program.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 463.600
centers?
Who may operate one-stop
(a) One-stop operators may be a single
entity (public, private, or nonprofit) or
a consortium of entities. If the
consortium of entities is one of one-stop
partners, it must include a minimum of
three of the one-stop partners described
in § 463.400.
(b) The one-stop operator may operate
one or more one-stop centers. There
may be more than one one-stop operator
in a local area.
(c) The types of entities that may be
a one-stop operator include:
(1) An institution of higher education;
(2) An Employment Service State
agency established under the WagnerPeyser Act;
(3) A community-based organization,
nonprofit organization, or workforce
intermediary;
(4) A private for-profit entity;
(5) A government agency;
(6) A Local Board, with the approval
of the chief local elected official and the
Governor; or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
(7) Another interested organization or
entity, which is capable of carrying out
the duties of the one-stop operator.
Examples may include a local chamber
of commerce or other business
organization, or a labor organization.
(d) Elementary schools and secondary
schools are not eligible as one-stop
operators, except that a nontraditional
public secondary school such as a night
school, adult school, or an area career
and technical education school may be
selected.
(e) The State and Local Boards must
ensure that, in carrying out WIOA
programs and activities, one-stop
operators:
(1) Disclose any potential conflicts of
interest arising from the relationships of
the operators with particular training
service providers or other service
providers (further discussed in
§ 679.430 of this chapter);
(2) Do not establish practices that
create disincentives to providing
services to individuals with barriers to
employment who may require longerterm career and training services; and
(3) Comply with Federal regulations
and procurement policies relating to the
calculation and use of profits, including
those at § 683.295 of this chapter, the
Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR chapter II,
and other applicable regulations and
policies.
§ 463.605 How is the one-stop operator
selected?
(a) Consistent with paragraphs (b) and
(c) of this section, the Local Board must
select the one-stop operator through a
competitive process, as required by sec.
121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA, at least once
every 4 years. A State may require, or
a Local Board may choose to implement,
a competitive selection process more
than once every 4 years.
(b) In instances in which a State is
conducting the competitive process
described in paragraph (a) of this
section, the State must follow the same
policies and procedures it uses for
procurement with non-Federal funds.
(c) All other non-Federal entities,
including subrecipients of a State (such
as local areas), must use a competitive
process based on the principles of
competitive procurement in the
Uniform Administrative Guidance set
out at 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326.
(d) Entities described in paragraph (c)
of this section must first determine the
nature of the process to be used to
comply with sec. 121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA.
The acceptable processes are:
(1) Procurement by sealed bids;
(2) Procurement by competitive
proposals; or
(3) Procurement by sole source,
permitted only if:
PO 00000
Frm 00110
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(i) Analysis of market conditions and
other factors lead to a determination
that it is necessary to use sole-source
procurement because:
(A) There is only one entity that could
serve as an operator; or
(B) Unusual and compelling urgency
will not permit a delay resulting from
competitive solicitation; or
(ii) Results of the competition
conducted under paragraphs (d)(1) or (2)
of this section were determined to be
inadequate.
(e) Entities must prepare written
documentation explaining the
determination concerning the nature of
the competitive process to be followed
in selecting a one-stop operator.
§ 463.610 How is sole source selection of
one-stop operators accomplished?
(a) As set forth in § 463.605(d)(3),
under certain conditions, sole source
procurement is an allowable method of
procurement.
(b) In the event that sole source
procurement is determined necessary
and reasonable, in accordance with
§ 463.605(d)(3), written documentation
must be prepared and maintained
concerning the entire process of making
such a selection.
(c) Such sole source procurement
must include appropriate conflict of
interest policies and procedures. These
policies and procedures must conform
to the specifications in § 679.430 of this
chapter for demonstrating internal
controls and preventing conflict of
interest.
(d) A Local Board can be selected as
a one-stop operator through sole source
procurement only with agreement of the
chief elected official in the local area
and the Governor. The Local Board must
establish sufficient conflict of interest
policies and procedures and they must
be approved by the Governor.
§ 463.615 Can an entity serving as onestop operator compete to be a one-stop
operator under the procurement
requirements of this subpart?
(a) Local Boards can compete for and
be selected as one-stop operators, as
long as appropriate firewalls and
conflict of interest policies and
procedures are in place. These policies
and procedures must conform to the
specifications in § 679.430 of this
chapter for demonstrating internal
controls and preventing conflict of
interest.
(b) State and local agencies can
compete for and be selected as one-stop
operators by the Local Board, as long as
appropriate firewalls and conflict of
interest policies and procedures are in
place. These policies and procedures
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
must conform to the specifications in
§ 679.430 of this chapter for
demonstrating internal controls and
preventing conflict of interest.
(c) In the case of single State areas
where the State Board serves as the
Local Board, the State agency is eligible
to compete for and be selected as
operator as long as appropriate firewalls
and conflict of interest policies are in
place and followed for the competition.
These policies and procedures must
conform to the specifications in
§ 679.430 of this chapter for
demonstrating internal controls and
preventing conflict of interest.
§ 463.620
role?
What is the one-stop operator’s
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(a) At a minimum, the one-stop
operator must coordinate the service
delivery of required one-stop partners
and service providers. Local Boards may
establish additional roles of one-stop
operator, including, but not limited to:
Coordinating service providers within
the center and across the one-stop
system, being the primary provider of
services within the center, providing
some of the services within the center,
or coordinating service delivery in a
multi-center area. The competition for a
one-stop operator must clearly articulate
the role of the one-stop operator.
(b) A one-stop operator may not
perform the following functions:
Convene system stakeholders to assist in
the development of the local plan;
prepare and submit local plans (as
required under sec. 107 of WIOA); be
responsible for oversight of itself;
manage or significantly participate in
the competitive selection process for
one-stop operators; select or terminate
one-stop operators, career services, and
youth providers; negotiate local
performance accountability measures;
and develop and submit budget for
activities of the Local Board in the local
area. An entity serving as a one-stop
operator may perform some or all of
these functions if it also serves in
another capacity, if it has established
sufficient firewalls and conflict of
interest policies. The policies must
conform to the specifications in
§ 679.430 of this chapter for
demonstrating internal controls and
preventing conflict of interest.
§ 463.625 Can a one-stop operator also be
a service provider?
Yes, but there must be appropriate
firewalls in place in regards to the
competition, and subsequent oversight,
monitoring, and evaluation of
performance of the service provider.
The operator cannot develop, manage or
conduct the competition of a service
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
provider in which it intends to compete.
In cases where an operator is also a
service provider, there must be firewalls
and internal controls within the
operator-service provider entity, as well
as specific policies and procedures at
the Local Board level regarding
oversight, monitoring, and evaluation of
performance of the service provider.
The firewalls must conform to the
specifications in § 679.430 of this
chapter for demonstrating internal
controls and preventing conflict of
interest.
§ 463.630 Can State merit staff still work in
a one-stop where the operator is not a
governmental entity?
Yes. State merit staff can continue to
perform functions and activities in the
one-stop career center. The Local Board
and one-stop operator must establish a
system for management of merit staff in
accordance with State policies and
procedures. Continued use of State
merit staff may be included in the
competition for and final contract with
the one-stop operator.
§ 463.635 What is the effective date of the
provisions of this subpart?
(a) No later than June 30, 2017, onestop operators selected under the
competitive process described in this
subpart must be in place and operating
the one-stop.
(b) By June 30, 2016, every Local
Board must demonstrate it is taking
steps to prepare for competition of its
one-stop operator. This demonstration
may include, but is not limited to,
market research, requests for
information, and conducting a cost and
price analysis.
§ 463.700
costs?
What are one-stop infrastructure
(a) Infrastructure costs of one-stop
centers are nonpersonnel costs that are
necessary for the general operation of
the one-stop center, including:
(1) Rental of the facilities;
(2) Utilities and maintenance;
(3) Equipment (including assessmentrelated products and assistive
technology for individuals with
disabilities); and
(4) Technology to facilitate access to
the one-stop center, including
technology used for the center’s
planning and outreach activities.
(b) Local Boards may consider
common identifier costs as costs of onestop infrastructure.
(c) Each entity that carries out a
program or activities in a local one-stop
center, described in §§ 463.400 through
463.410, must use a portion of the funds
available for the program and activities
to maintain the one-stop delivery
PO 00000
Frm 00111
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20683
system, including payment of the
infrastructure costs of one-stop centers.
These payments must be in accordance
with this subpart; Federal cost
principles, which require that all costs
must be allowable, reasonable,
necessary, and allocable to the program;
and all other applicable legal
requirements.
§ 463.705 What guidance must the
Governor issue regarding one-stop
infrastructure funding?
(a) The Governor, after consultation
with chief elected officials, the State
Board, and Local Boards, and consistent
with guidance and policies provided by
the State Board, must develop and issue
guidance for use by local areas,
specifically:
(1) Guidelines for State-administered
one-stop partner programs for
determining such programs’
contributions to a one-stop delivery
system, based on such programs’
proportionate use of such system
consistent with Office of Management
and Budget Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards
in 2 CFR part 200, including
determining funding for the costs of
infrastructure; and
(2) Guidance to assist Local Boards,
chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners in local areas in determining
equitable and stable methods of funding
the costs of infrastructure at one-stop
centers based on proportionate benefits
received, and consistent with Federal
cost principles.
(b) The guidance must include:
(1) The appropriate roles of the onestop partner programs in identifying
one-stop infrastructure costs;
(2) Approaches to facilitate equitable
and efficient cost allocation that results
in a reasonable cost allocation
methodology where infrastructure costs
are charged to each partner in
proportion to relative benefits received,
consistent with Federal cost principles;
and
(3) The timelines regarding
notification to the Governor for not
reaching local agreement and triggering
the State-funded infrastructure
mechanism described in § 463.730, and
timelines for a one-stop partner to
submit an appeal in the State-funded
infrastructure mechanism.
§ 463.710
funded?
How are infrastructure costs
Infrastructure costs are funded either
through the local funding mechanism
described in § 463.715 or through the
State funding mechanism described in
§ 463.730.
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20684
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 463.715 How are one-stop infrastructure
costs funded in the local funding
mechanism?
(a) In the local funding mechanism,
the Local Board, chief elected officials,
and one-stop partners agree to amounts
and methods of calculating amounts
each partner will contribute for one-stop
infrastructure funding, include the
infrastructure funding terms in the
MOU, and sign the MOU. The local onestop funding mechanism must meet all
of the following requirements:
(1) The infrastructure costs are funded
through cash and fairly evaluated inkind partner contributions and include
any funding from philanthropic
organizations or other private entities,
or through other alternative financing
options, to provide a stable and
equitable funding stream for ongoing
one-stop delivery system operations;
(2) Contributions must be negotiated
between one-stop partners, chief elected
officials, and the Local Board and the
amount to be contributed must be
included in the MOU;
(3) The one-stop partner program’s
proportionate share of funding must be
calculated in accordance with the
Uniform Administrative Requirements,
Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards in 2
CFR part 200 based upon a reasonable
cost allocation methodology whereby
infrastructure costs are charged to each
partner in proportion to relative benefits
received, and must be allowable,
reasonable, necessary, and allocable;
(4) Partner shares must be
periodically reviewed and reconciled
against actual costs incurred, and
adjusted to ensure that actual costs
charged to any one-stop partners are
proportionate and equitable to the
benefit received by the one-stop
partners and their respective programs
or activities.
(b) In developing the section of the
MOU on one-stop infrastructure funding
fully described in § 463.755, the Local
Board and chief elected officials will:
(1) Ensure that the one-stop partners
adhere to the guidance identified in
§ 463.705 on one-stop delivery system
infrastructure costs.
(2) Work with one-stop partners to
achieve consensus and informally
mediate any possible conflicts or
disagreements among one-stop partners.
(3) Provide technical assistance to
new one-stop partners and local grant
recipients to ensure that those entities
are informed and knowledgeable of the
elements contained in the MOU and the
one-stop infrastructure costs
arrangement.
(c) The MOU may include an interim
infrastructure funding agreement,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
including as much detail as the Local
Board has negotiated with one-stop
partners, if all other parts of the MOU
have been negotiated, in order to allow
the partner programs to operate in the
one-stop centers. The interim
infrastructure agreement must be
finalized within 6 months of when the
MOU is signed. If the infrastructure
interim infrastructure agreement is not
finalized within that timeframe, the
Local Board must notify the Governor,
as described in § 463.725.
§ 463.720 What funds are used to pay for
infrastructure costs in the local one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) In the local one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, one-stop partner
programs can determine what funds
they will use to fund infrastructure
costs. The use of these funds must be in
accordance with the requirements in
this subpart, and with the relevant
partner’s authorizing statutes and
regulations, including, for example,
prohibitions against supplanting nonFederal resources, statutory limitations
on administrative costs, and all other
applicable legal requirements. In the
case of partners administering adult
education and literacy programs
authorized by title II of WIOA or the
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006, these funds may
include Federal funds that are available
for State administration of adult
education and literacy programs
authorized by title II of WIOA or for
State administration of post-secondary
level programs and activities under the
Perkins Act, and non-Federal funds that
the partners contribute to meet these
programs’ matching or maintenance of
effort requirements. These funds also
may include local administrative funds
available to local entities or consortia of
local entities that have been delegated
authority to serve as one-stop local
partners by a State eligible agency as
permitted by §§ 463.415(b) and (e).
(b) There are no specific caps on the
amount or percent of overall funding a
one-stop partner may contribute to fund
infrastructure costs under the local onestop funding mechanism, except that
contributions for administrative costs
may not exceed the amount available for
administrative costs under the
authorizing statute of the partner
program. However, amounts contributed
for infrastructure costs must be
allowable and based on proportionate
use by or benefit to the partner program,
taking into account the total cost of the
one-stop infrastructure as well as
alternate financing options, and must be
consistent with 2 CFR chapter II,
including the Federal cost principles.
PO 00000
Frm 00112
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 463.725 What happens if consensus on
infrastructure funding is not reached at the
local level between the Local Board, chief
elected officials, and one-stop partners?
If, after July 1, 2016, and each
subsequent July 1, the Local Board,
chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners do not reach consensus on
methods of sufficiently funding local
infrastructure through the local
infrastructure cost funding mechanism,
and include that consensus agreement
in the signed MOU, then the Local
Board must notify the Governor and the
Governor must administer funding
through the State one-stop funding
mechanism, as described in § 463.730.
(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2))
§ 463.730 What is the State one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, the Governor, after
consultation with the chief elected
officials, Local Boards, and the State
Board, determines one-stop partner
contributions, based upon a
methodology where infrastructure costs
are charged to each partner in
proportion to relative benefits received
and consistent with the partner
program’s authorizing laws and
regulations, 2 CFR chapter II, including
the Federal cost principles, and other
applicable legal requirements described
in § 463.735(a).
(b) The State Board develops an
allocation formula to allocate funds to
local areas to support the infrastructure
costs for local area one-stop centers for
all local areas that did not use the local
funding mechanism, and the Governor
uses that formula to allocate the funds.
This is described in detail in § 463.745.
§ 463.735 How are partner contributions
determined in the State one-stop funding
mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop funding
mechanism, the Governor, after
consultation with State and Local
Boards and chief elected officials, will
determine the amount each partner
must contribute to assist in paying the
infrastructure costs of one-stop centers.
The Governor must calculate amounts
based on the proportionate use of the
one-stop centers by each partner,
consistent with chapter II of title 2,
Code of Federal Regulations (or any
corresponding similar regulation or
ruling), taking into account the costs of
administration of the one-stop delivery
system for purposes not related to onestop centers for each partner such as
costs associated with maintaining the
Local Board, or information technology
systems. The Governor will also take
into account the statutory requirements
for each partner program, all other
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
applicable legal requirements, and the
partner program’s ability to fulfill such
requirements.
(b) In certain situations, the Governor
does not determine the infrastructure
cost contributions for one-stop partner
programs.
(1) The Governor will not determine
the contribution amounts for
infrastructure funds for Native
American grantees described in 20 CFR
part 684. (WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(iii).)
The appropriate portion of funds to be
provided by Native American grantees
to pay for one-stop infrastructure must
be determined as part of the
development of the MOU described in
§ 463.500 and specified in that MOU.
(2) In a State in which the State
constitution or a State statute places
policy-making authority that is
independent of the authority of the
Governor in an entity or official with
respect to the funds provided for adult
education and literacy activities, postsecondary career and technical
education activities, or vocational
rehabilitation services, the chief officer
of that entity or the official must
determine the contribution amounts for
infrastructure funds in consultation
with the Governor. (WIOA sec.
121(h)(2)(C)(ii).)
(c) Limitations. Per WIOA sec.
122(h)(2)(D), the amount established by
the Governor under paragraph (a) of this
section may not exceed the following
caps:
(1) WIOA Formula programs and
employment service. The portion of
funds required to be contributed under
the WIOA youth, adult, or dislocated
worker programs, or under the WagnerPeyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.) must
not exceed 3 percent of the amount of
Federal funds provided to carry out that
program in the State for a program year.
(2) Other one-stop partners. The
portion of funds required to be
contributed must not exceed 1.5 percent
of the amount of Federal funds provided
to carry out that education program or
employment and training program in
the State for a fiscal year. For purposes
of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006, the cap on
contributions is determined based on
the funds made available for State
administration of post-secondary level
programs and activities.
(3) Vocational rehabilitation. Within a
State, the entity or entities
administering the programs described in
WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(B)(iv) the allotment
is based on the one State allotment,
even in instances where that allotment
is shared between two State agencies,
and will not be required to provide from
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
that program a cumulative portion that
exceeds—
(i) 0.75 percent of the amount of
Federal funds provided to carry out
such program in the State for Fiscal
Year 2016;
(ii) 1.0 percent of the amount
provided to carry out such program in
the State for Fiscal Year 2017;
(iii) 1.25 percent of the amount
provided to carry out such program in
the State for Fiscal Year 2018; and
(iv) 1.5 percent of the amount
provided to carry out such program in
the State for Fiscal Year 2019 and
following years.
(4) Federal direct spending programs.
For local areas that have not reached a
one-stop infrastructure funding
agreement by consensus, an entity
administering a program funded with
direct spending as defined in sec.
250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985,
as in effect on February 15, 2014 (2
U.S.C. 900(c)(8)), must not be required
to provide more for infrastructure costs
than the amount that the Governor
determined (as described in
§ 463.735(a)).
(d) If the above limitations result in
funding less than each partner’s
proportionate share and contribute to
inadequate funding of the allocation
amount determined under § 463.745(b),
the Governor may direct the Local
Board, chief elected officials, and onestop partners to reenter negotiations to
reduce the infrastructure costs to reflect
the amount of funds that are available
for such costs, discuss proportionate
share of each one-stop partner, or to
identify alternative sources of financing
for one-stop infrastructure funding, but,
in any event, a partner will only be
required to pay an amount that is
consistent with the proportionate
benefit received by the partner, the
program’s authorizing laws and
regulations, the Federal cost principles,
and other applicable legal requirements.
(1) The Local Board, chief elected
officials, and one-stop partners, after
renegotiation, may come to agreement
and sign an MOU and proceed under
the local one-stop funding mechanism.
(2) If after renegotiation, agreement
amongst partners still cannot be reached
or alternate financing identified, the
Governor may adjust the specified
allocation, in accordance with the
amounts available and the limitations
described in § 463.735(c).
§ 463.740 What funds are used to pay for
infrastructure costs in the State one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, infrastructure costs
PO 00000
Frm 00113
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
20685
for WIOA title I programs, including
Native American Programs described in
20 CFR part 684, can be paid using
program funds, administrative funds, or
both. Infrastructure costs for the Senior
Community Service Employment
Program under title V of the Older
Americans Act (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.)
can also be paid using program funds,
administrative funds, or both. (WIOA
sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(i)(II).)
(b) In the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, infrastructure costs
for other required one-stop partner
programs (listed in §§ 463.400 through
463.410) are limited to the program’s
administrative funds, as appropriate.
(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(i)(I).)
(c) In the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, infrastructure costs
for the adult education program
authorized by title II of WIOA must be
paid from the funds that are available
for State administration or from nonFederal funds that the partner
contributes to meet the program’s
matching or maintenance of effort
requirement. Infrastructure costs for title
II of WIOA may also be paid from funds
available for local administration of
programs and activities to eligible
providers or consortia of eligible
providers delegated responsibilities to
act as a local one-stop partner pursuant
to § 463.415(b).
(d) In the State one-stop infrastructure
funding mechanism, infrastructure costs
for the Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act of 2006 must
be paid from the Federal funds that are
available for State administration of
post-secondary level programs and
activities under the Perkins Act, or from
non-Federal funds that the partner
contributes to meet the program’s
matching or maintenance of effort
requirement. Infrastructure costs for the
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006 may also be paid
from funds available for local
administration of post-secondary level
programs and activities to eligible
recipients or consortia of eligible
recipients delegated responsibilities to
act as a local one-stop partner pursuant
to § 463.415(e).
§ 463.745 How is the allocation formula
used by the Governor determined in the
State one-stop funding mechanism?
(a) The State Board must develop an
allocation formula to be used by the
Governor to allocate funds to the local
areas that did not successfully use the
local funding mechanism. The
allocation formula must take into
account the number of one-stop centers
in a local area, the population served by
such centers, the services provided by
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
20686
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
such centers, and other factors relating
to the performance of such centers that
the State Board determines are
appropriate and that are consistent with
Federal cost principles. (WIOA
121(h)(3)(B))
(b) Using the funds contributed by the
one-stop partners described in
§ 463.735, the Governor will then use
this formula to allocate funds to the
local areas that did not use the local
funding mechanism to fund one-stop
center infrastructure costs, so long as
that funding distribution is consistent
with Federal cost principles for each of
the affected one-stop partners.
§ 463.750 When and how can a one-stop
partner appeal a one-stop infrastructure
amount designated by the State under the
State infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) The Governor must establish a
process, described under sec.
121(h)(2)(E) of WIOA, for a one-stop
partner administering a program
described in §§ 463.400 through 463.410
to appeal the Governor’s determination
regarding the one-stop partner’s portion
of funds to be provided for one-stop
infrastructure costs. This appeal process
must be described in the Unified State
Plan. (WIOA secs. 121(h)(2)(E) and
102(b)(2)(D)(i)(IV).)
(b) The appeal may be made on the
ground that the Governor’s
determination is inconsistent with
proportionate share requirements in
§ 463.735(a), the cost contribution
limitations in § 463.735(b), or the cost
contribution caps in § 463.735(c).
(c) The process must ensure prompt
resolution of the appeal in order to
ensure the funds are distributed in a
timely manner, consistent with the
requirements of § 683.630 of this
chapter.
(d) The one-stop partner must submit
an appeal in accordance with State’s
deadlines for appeals specified in the
guidance issued under § 463.705(b)(3),
or if the State has not set a deadline,
within 21 days from the Governor’s
determination.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 463.755 What are the required elements
regarding infrastructure funding that must
be included in the one-stop Memorandum
of Understanding?
The MOU, fully described in
§ 463.500, must contain the following
information whether the local areas use
either the local one-stop or the State
one-stop infrastructure funding method:
(a) The period of time in which this
infrastructure funding agreement is
effective. This may be a different time
period than the duration of the MOU.
(b) Identification of an infrastructure
and shared services budget that will be
periodically reconciled against actual
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
costs incurred and adjusted accordingly
to ensure that it reflects a cost allocation
methodology that demonstrates how
infrastructure costs are charged to each
partner in proportion to relative benefits
received, and that complies with
chapter II of title 2 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (or any
corresponding similar regulation or
ruling).
(c) Identification of all one-stop
partners, chief elected officials, and
Local Board participating in the
infrastructure funding arrangement.
(d) Steps the Local Board, chief
elected officials, and one-stop partners
used to reach consensus or an assurance
that the local area followed the guidance
for the State one-stop infrastructure
funding process.
(e) Description of the process to be
used between partners to resolve issues
during the MOU duration period when
consensus cannot be reached.
(f) Description of the periodic
modification and review process to
ensure equitable benefit among one-stop
partners.
§ 463.760 How do one-stop partners jointly
fund other shared costs under the
Memorandum of Understanding?
(a) In addition to jointly funding
infrastructure costs, one-stop partners
listed in §§ 463.400 through 463.410
must use a portion of funds made
available under their programs’
authorizing Federal law (or fairly
evaluated in-kind contributions) to pay
the additional costs relating to the
operation of the one-stop delivery
system, which must include applicable
career services.
(b) Additionally, one-stop partners
may jointly fund shared services to the
extent consistent with their programs’
Federal authorizing statutes and other
applicable legal requirements. Shared
services’ costs may include the costs of
shared services that are authorized for
and may be commonly provided
through the one-stop partner programs
to any individual, such as initial intake,
assessment of needs, appraisal of basic
skills, identification of appropriate
services to meet such needs, referrals to
other one-stop partners, and business
services. Shared operating costs may
also include shared costs of the Local
Board’s functions.
(c) These shared costs must be
allocated according to the proportion of
benefit received by each of the partners,
consistent with the Federal law
authorizing the partner’s program, and
consistent with all other applicable legal
requirements, including Federal cost
principles in chapter II of title 2 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (or any
PO 00000
Frm 00114
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
corresponding similar regulation or
ruling) requiring that costs are
reasonable, necessary, and allocable.
(d) Any shared costs agreed upon by
the one-stop partners must be included
in the MOU.
§ 463.800 How are one-stop centers and
one-stop delivery systems certified for
effectiveness, physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous
improvement?
(a) The State Board, in consultation
with chief elected officials and Local
Boards, must establish objective criteria
and procedures for Local Boards to use
when certifying one-stop centers.
(1) The State Board must review and
update the criteria every 2 years as part
of the review and modification of State
Plans pursuant to § 463.135.
(2) The criteria must be consistent
with the Governor’s and State Board’s
guidelines, guidance and policies on
infrastructure funding decisions,
described in § 463.705. The criteria
must evaluate the one-stop centers and
one-stop delivery system for
effectiveness, including customer
satisfaction, physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous
improvement.
(3) When the Local Board is the onestop operator as described in § 679.410
of this chapter, the State Board must
certify the one-stop center.
(b) Evaluations of effectiveness must
include how well the one-stop center
integrates available services for
participants and businesses, meets the
workforce development needs of
participants and the employment needs
of local employers, operates in a costefficient manner, coordinates services
among the one-stop partner programs,
and provides maximum access to
partner program services even outside
regular business hours. These
evaluations must take into account
feedback from one-stop customers. They
must also include evaluations of how
well the one-stop center ensures equal
opportunity for individuals with
disabilities to participate in or benefit
from one-stop center services. These
evaluations must include criteria
evaluating how well the centers and
delivery systems take actions to comply
with the disability-related regulations
implementing WIOA sec. 188, set forth
at 29 CFR part 37. Such actions include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Providing reasonable
accommodations for individuals with
disabilities;
(2) Making reasonable modifications
to policies, practices, and procedures
where necessary to avoid discrimination
against persons with disabilities;
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(3) Administering programs in the
most integrated setting appropriate;
(4) Communicating with persons with
disabilities as effectively as with others;
and
(5) Providing appropriate auxiliary
aids and services, including assistive
technology devices and services, where
necessary to afford individuals with
disabilities an equal opportunity to
participate in, and enjoy the benefits of,
the program or activity.
(c) Evaluations of continuous
improvement must include how well
the one-stop center supports the
achievement of the negotiated local
levels of performance for the indicators
of performance for the local area
described in sec. 116(b)(2) of WIOA and
20 CFR part 677. Other continuous
improvement factors may include a
regular process for identifying and
responding to technical assistance
needs, a regular system of continuing
professional staff development, and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:12 Apr 15, 2015
Jkt 235001
having systems in place to capture and
respond to specific customer feedback.
(d) Local Boards must assess at least
once every 3 years the effectiveness,
physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous
improvement of one-stop centers and
the one-stop delivery systems using the
criteria and procedures developed by
the State Board. The Local Board may
establish additional criteria, or set
higher standards for service
coordination, than those set by the State
criteria. Local Boards must review and
update the criteria every 2 years as part
of the Local Plan update process
described in § 463.580. Local Boards
must certify one-stop centers in order to
be eligible to receive infrastructure
funds in the State infrastructure funding
mechanism described in § 463.730.
(e) All one-stop centers must comply
with applicable physical accessibility
requirements, as set forth in 29 CFR part
37.
PO 00000
Frm 00115
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
20687
§ 463.900 What is the common identifier to
be used by each one-stop delivery system?
(a) The common one-stop delivery
system identifier is ‘‘American Job
Center.’’
(b) As of July 1, 2016, each one-stop
delivery system must include the
‘‘American Job Center’’ identifier or ‘‘a
proud partner of the American Job
Center network’’ on all products,
programs, activities, services, facilities,
and related property and materials used
in the one-stop system.
(c) One-stop partners, States or local
areas may use additional identifiers on
their products, programs, activities,
services, facilities, and related property
and materials.
Thomas E. Perez,
Secretary of Labor.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2015–05528 Filed 4–2–15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P; 4510–FN–P; 4510–FT–P
E:\FR\FM\16APP2.SGM
16APP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20573-20687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05528]
[[Page 20573]]
Vol. 80
Thursday,
No. 73
April 16, 2015
Part II
Department of Labor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Employment and Training Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20 CFR Parts 676, 677, and 678
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Parts 361 and 463
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; Joint Rule for Unified and
Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability, and the One-Stop
System Joint Provisions; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 73 / Thursday, April 16, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 20574]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
20 CFR Parts 676, 677, and 678
[Docket No. ETA-2015-0002]
RIN 1205-AB74
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Parts 361 and 463
RIN 1830-AA21
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; Joint Rule for Unified
and Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability, and the One-Stop
System Joint Provisions; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
AGENCY: Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education,
Rehabilitation Services Administration, Education; Employment and
Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Departments of Education (ED) and Labor (DOL) are
proposing, through this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), to
implement jointly-administered activities authorized by title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). Through these
regulations, the Departments propose to implement job training system
reforms and strengthen the nation's workforce development system to put
Americans back to work and make the United States more competitive in
the 21st Century. This joint proposed rule provides guidance for State
and local workforce development systems that increase the skill and
credential attainment, employment, retention, and earnings of
participants, especially those with significant barriers to employment,
thereby improving the quality of the workforce, reducing welfare
dependency, and enhancing the productivity and competitiveness of the
nation.
WIOA strengthened the alignment of the workforce development
system's six core programs by imposing unified strategic planning
requirements, common performance accountability measures, and
requirements governing the one-stop delivery system. In so doing, WIOA
placed heightened emphasis on coordination and collaboration at the
Federal, State, and local levels to ensure a streamlined and
coordinated service delivery system for job seekers, including those
with disabilities, and employers. To that end, the Departments of
Education and Labor propose to issue this joint NPRM to implement
jointly-administered activities under title I of WIOA. These
regulations lay the foundation, through coordination and collaboration
at the Federal level, for implementing the vision and goals of WIOA.
In addition to this joint NPRM, the Departments have proposed
separate NPRMs to implement program-specific requirements of WIOA that
fall under each Department's purview. The Department of Labor is
proposing a NPRM governing program-specific requirements under titles I
and III of WIOA. The Department of Education is proposing three NPRMs:
one implementing program-specific requirements of the Adult Education
and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), as reauthorized by title II of WIOA;
and two NPRMs implementing all program-specific requirements for all
programs authorized under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by
title IV of WIOA. The Department-specific NPRMs have been
simultaneously published in this issue of the Federal Register.
Developing and issuing all five WIOA NPRMs in a coordinated manner
reinforces WIOA's heightened emphasis on collaboration to ensure an
integrated and seamless service delivery system for job seekers and
employers.
DATES: To be ensured consideration, comments must be submitted in
writing on or before June 15, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number ETA-
2015-0002, for Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 1205-AB74 and/or
1830-AA21, by one of the following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
Web site instructions for submitting comments.
Mail and hand delivery/courier: Written comments, disk, and CD-ROM
submissions may be mailed to Adele Gagliardi, Administrator, Office of
Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-5641, Washington, DC 20210.
Instructions: Label all submissions with ``RIN 1205-AB74'' and/or
``RIN 1830-AA21.'' Please submit your comments by only one method.
Please be advised that the Departments will post all comments received
that are related to this NPRM on https://www.regulations.gov without
making any change to the comments or redacting any information. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is the Federal eRulemaking portal
and all comments posted there are available and accessible to the
public. Therefore, the Departments recommend that commenters remove
personal information such as Social Security Numbers, personal
addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses included in their
comments as such information may become easily available to the public
via the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. It is the responsibility
of the commenter to safeguard personal information.
Also, please note that due to security concerns, postal mail
delivery in Washington, DC may be delayed. Therefore, the Departments
encourage the public to submit comments on https://www.regulations.gov.
Docket: All comments on this proposed rule will be available on the
https://www.regulations.gov Web site and can be found using RIN 1205-
AB74 or RIN 1830-AA21. The Departments also will make all the comments
it receives available for public inspection by appointment during
normal business hours at the above addresses. If you need assistance to
review the comments, the Departments will provide appropriate aids such
as readers or print magnifiers. The Departments will make copies of
this proposed rule available, upon request, in large print and
electronic file on computer disk. To schedule an appointment to review
the comments and/or obtain the proposed rule in an alternative format,
contact the Office of Policy Development and Research (ETA) at (202)
693-3700 (this is not a toll-free number). You may also contact these
offices at the addresses listed below.
Comments under the Paperwork Reduction Act: In addition to filing
comments with ETA or the Department of Education, persons wishing to
comment on the information collection aspects of this rule may send
comments to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB
Desk Officer for DOL-ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235,
725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Fax: 202-395-6881 (this is
not a toll-free number), email: OIRA_submission@omb.eop.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
DOL: Adele Gagliardi, Administrator, Office of Policy and Research
(OPDR), U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-5641, Washington,
DC 20210, Telephone: (202) 693-3700 (voice) (this is not a toll-free
number) or 1-800-326-2577 (TDD).
[[Page 20575]]
ED: Lekesha Campbell, U.S. Department of Education, OCTAE, 400
Maryland Avenue SW., Room 11-145, PCP, Washington, DC 20202-7240,
Telephone: (202) 245-7808; Janet LaBreck, U.S. Department of Education,
RSA, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5086 PCP, Washington, DC 20202-2800,
Telephone: (202) 245-7408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary
II. Acronyms and Abbreviations
III. Background
IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of Proposed Regulations
A. Unified and Combined State Plans Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (20 CFR part 676; 34 CFR
part 361, subpart D; 34 CFR part 463, subpart H)
B. Performance Accountability Under Title I of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (20 CFR part 677; 34 CFR part 361,
subpart E; 34 CFR part 463, subpart I)
C. Description of the One-Stop System Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (20 CFR part 678; 34 CFR
part 361, subpart F; 34 CFR part 463, subpart J)
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning and
Review
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
G. Plain Language
H. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
I. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
J. Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights)
K. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply)
I. Executive Summary
President Barack Obama signed WIOA into law on July 22, 2014. WIOA
is landmark legislation designed to strengthen and improve our nation's
public workforce system and help put Americans, especially youth and
those with significant barriers to employment, back to work. WIOA
supports innovative strategies to keep pace with changing economic
conditions and seeks to improve coordination between the core WIOA and
other Federal programs that support employment services, workforce
development, adult education and literacy, and vocational
rehabilitation activities.
In WIOA, Congress directed the Departments of Education and Labor
to issue an NPRM to implement new statutory requirements to ensure that
the workforce system operates as a comprehensive, integrated, and
streamlined system to provide pathways to prosperity for those it
serves and continuously improve the quality and performance of its
services. Therefore, the Departments of Labor and Education are issuing
this joint NPRM to implement jointly-administered activities authorized
under title I of WIOA, specifically those related to the Unified and
Combined State Plans, performance accountability, and the one-stop
system.
The Departments of Education and Labor are publishing this joint
NPRM to implement those provisions of WIOA that affect all of the WIOA
core programs (titles I-IV) and which will be jointly administered by
both Departments. In addition to this joint NPRM, the Departments are
publishing separately four agency-specific NPRMs that implement the
provisions of WIOA that are administered separately by the
Departments--one published by the Department of Labor implementing the
agency-specific provisions of title I, and three published by the
Department of Education implementing the agency-specific provisions of
titles II and IV. Readers should note that there are a number of cross-
references in this joint NPRM to the agency-specific NPRMs. Finally,
this NPRM has been structured so that the proposed Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) parts will align with the CFR parts in the agency-
specific regulations once all of the proposed rules have been
finalized.
II. Acronyms and Abbreviations
AEFLA--Adult Education and Family Literacy Act
CBO--Community-based organization
CEO--Chief elected official
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
CSBG--Community Services Block Grant
DINAP--Division of Indian and Native American Programs
DOL--U.S. Department of Labor
ED--U.S. Department of Education
E.O.--Executive Order
ESL--English-as-a-second-language
ETA--Employment and Training Administration
ETP--Eligible training provider
FEIN--Federal employer identification number
FR--Federal Register
HHS--Department of Health and Human Services
INA--Indian and Native American
INAP--Indian and Native American Programs
IPE--Individualized Plan for Employment
IT--Information technology
JTPA--Job Training Partnership Act
JVSG--Jobs for Veterans State Grants
LMI--Labor market information
MOU--Memorandum of Understanding
NACTP--Native American Career and Technical Education Program
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OJT--On-the-job training
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
OPRD--Office of Policy and Research
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Pub.L.--Public Law
PY--Program year
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
RFI--Requests for Information
RFP--Request for Proposals
RIN--Regulatory Information Number
ROI--Requests of Information
SBA--Small Business Administration
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
sec.--Section of a Public Law or the United States Code
SNAP--Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
SSA--Social Security Administration
TANF--Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
TEGL--Training and Employment Guidance Letter
UC--Unemployment compensation
UI--Unemployment insurance
U.S.C.--United States Code
VETS--Veterans' Employment and Training Service
VR--Vocational rehabilitation
WDB--Workforce Development Board
WIA--Workforce Investment Act of 1998
WIOA--Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
WISPR--Workforce Investment Streamlined Performance Reporting
WRIS--Wage Record Interchange System
III. Background
On July 22, 2014, President Obama signed WIOA, the first
legislative reform of the public workforce system in more than 15
years, which passed Congress by a wide bipartisan majority. WIOA
supersedes the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and amends the
Wagner-Peyser Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. WIOA reaffirms
the role of the customer-focused one-stop delivery system, a
cornerstone of the public workforce development system, and enhances
and increases coordination among several key employment, education, and
training programs.
WIOA presents an extraordinary opportunity for the workforce system
to accelerate its transformational efforts and demonstrate its ability
to improve job and career options for our citizens through an
integrated, job-driven public workforce system that links diverse
talent to our nation's businesses. It supports the development of
strong, vibrant regional economies where businesses thrive and people
want to live and work.
Most provisions in titles I-III of WIOA take effect on July 1,
2015, the first full
[[Page 20576]]
program year after enactment; however, the new State Plans and
performance accountability system take effect July 1, 2016. Title IV
took effect upon enactment.
WIOA is designed to help job seekers access employment, education,
training, and support services to succeed in the labor market and to
match employers with the skilled workers they need to compete in the
global economy. WIOA has six main purposes: (1) Increasing access to
and opportunities for the employment, education, training, and support
services that individuals, particularly those with barriers to
employment, need to succeed in the labor market; (2) supporting the
alignment of workforce investment, education, and economic development
systems in support of a comprehensive, accessible, and high-quality
workforce development system; (3) improving the quality and labor
market relevance of workforce investment, education, and economic
development efforts; (4) promoting improvement in the structure and
delivery of services; (5) increasing the prosperity of workers and
employers, the economic growth of communities, regions and States, and
the global competitiveness of the United States; and (6) providing
workforce investment activities, through workforce development systems,
that increase employment, retention, and earnings of participants and
that increase post-secondary credential attainment and, as a result,
improve the quality of the workforce, reduce welfare dependency,
increase economic self-sufficiency, meet skill requirements of
employers, and enhance productivity and competitiveness of the nation.
WIOA offers an opportunity to continue to modernize the workforce
system, and achieve key hallmarks of a strong workforce system: A
customer-centered system, where the needs of business and workers drive
workforce solutions; a system where one-stop career centers and
partners provide excellent customer service to job seekers and
businesses, and where the workforce system supports strong regional
economies.
To achieve these goals, WIOA requires an integrated approach to the
implementation, administration, service delivery, and evaluation of the
services provided under the core programs at the Federal, State, and
local levels. The core programs consist of: (1) The adult, dislocated
worker, and youth formula programs administered by DOL under title I of
WIOA; (2) the AEFLA program administered by ED under title II of WIOA;
(3) the Wagner-Peyser Act employment services program administered by
DOL under title III of WIOA; and (4) the vocational rehabilitation
program administered by ED under title IV of WIOA. Integration of the
core programs essential to the effective operation of the workforce
development system is achieved through the development of a Unified or
Combined State Plan, the implementation of a common performance
accountability system, and the design of the one-stop service delivery
system. Under a Unified or Combined State Plan every State collaborates
across the core programs (adult, dislocated worker, and youth; Wagner-
Peyser; AEFLA; and Vocational Rehabilitation) and one-stop partner
programs and other partners at the local and State levels to create a
single unified and integrated strategic State Plan. States govern the
core programs as one system assessing strategic needs and aligning them
with service strategies to ensure the workforce system is designed to
meet those needs. States use the certification process and competition
to help achieve this vision and ensure continuous improvement.
State and Local Boards, one-stop center operators and partners must
increase coordination of programs and resources to support a
comprehensive system providing integrated seamless services to all job
seekers and workers and effective strategies that meet businesses'
workforce needs across the business life cycle. The Departments will
work with State and Local Boards, one-stop center operators and
partners to achieve an integrated data system for the core programs and
other programs to ensure interoperability and the accurate and
standardized collection of program and participant information.
Integrated data systems will allow for unified and streamlined intake,
case management and service delivery; minimize the duplication of data;
ensure consistently defined and applied data elements; facilitate
compliance with performance reporting and evaluation requirements; and
provide meaningful information about core program participation to
inform operations.
To facilitate the integration of the core programs, the Departments
of Labor and Education have jointly developed this NPRM to implement
the jointly-administered activities authorized under title I of WIOA,
specifically those related to the Unified and Combined State Plan,
performance accountability, and one-stop requirements. In so doing, the
Departments agreed, for purposes of this NPRM, that the joint
regulations would be identical across all core programs in order to
ensure consistency. However, we recognize that some of the proposed
regulations may not be applicable for a particular core program. For
example, proposed provisions related to local areas would not be
applicable to the Vocational Rehabilitation program because it operates
solely at a State level.
Furthermore, various provisions of these proposed regulations
reference joint guidance that the Departments plan to develop in the
near future. The guidance may include: (1) Procedural requirements,
such as how to submit a State Plan to the Department of Labor; (2)
interpretative rules; and (3) the information that will be collected by
the Departments pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
information collection process, which includes an opportunity for
public comment.
Legal Basis
On July 22, 2014, the President signed WIOA (Pub. L. 113-128) into
law. WIOA repeals WIA (29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.). As a result, the WIA
regulations no longer reflect current law, thus necessitating this NPRM
for jointly-administered activities. Furthermore, sec. 503(f) of WIOA
requires the Departments of Education and Labor to issue NPRMs and then
final rules that implement the changes made by WIOA. To that end, the
Departments of Labor and Education are issuing this joint NPRM to
implement jointly-administered activities authorized under title I of
WIOA. The Departments of Labor and Education will each issue separate
NPRMs, simultaneously with this joint NPRM, to implement program-
specific requirements imposed by WIOA.
IV. Section-by-Section Discussion of Proposed Regulations
A. Unified and Combined State Plans Under Title I of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (20 CFR Part 676; 34 CFR Part 361,
Subpart D; 34 CFR Part 463, Subpart H)
WIOA requires the Governor of each State to submit a Unified or
Combined State Plan to the Secretary of DOL that outlines a 4-year
strategy for the State's workforce development system. States must have
approved State Plans in place to receive funding for the six core
programs under WIOA--the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs
(title I of WIOA); the AEFLA program (title II of WIOA); the Wagner-
Peyser Act employment services program (title III of WIOA); and the
Vocational Rehabilitation program under title I of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (title IV of WIOA). Previously, WIA gave States the option
of submitting a plan similar
[[Page 20577]]
to the Combined State Plans (referred to as Unified Plans in WIA).
WIOA reforms State Plan requirements to foster better alignment of
Federal investments in job training, to integrate service delivery
across programs, and to ensure that the workforce system is job-driven
and matches employers with skilled individuals. At a minimum, States
must submit a Unified State Plan, which encompasses the six core
programs under WIOA. States are strongly encouraged to submit a
Combined State Plan, which includes the six core programs of the
Unified State Plan, plus one or more optional programs, as described at
Sec. 676.140. Coordination across multiple Federal programs provides a
wider range of coordinated and streamlined services to the customer.
One of WIOA's principal areas of reform is to require States to
plan across the programs and include this planning process in the
Unified or Combined State Plans, which promotes a shared understanding
of the workforce needs of a State and a comprehensive strategy for
addressing those needs. Unified or combined planning can support better
alignment of resources, increased coordination among programs, and
improved efficiency in service delivery.
This proposed part describes the submission process and content
requirements for the Unified and Combined State Plans under WIOA. The
major content areas of the Unified or Combined State Plan include
strategic and operational planning elements. Strategic planning
elements include State analyses of economic and workforce factors, an
assessment of workforce development activities, formulation of the
State's vision and goals for preparing an educated and skilled
workforce that meets the needs of employers, and a strategy to achieve
the vision and goals. Operational planning elements include State
strategy implementation, State operating systems and policies, program-
specific requirements, assurances, and additional requirements imposed
by the Secretaries of Labor or Education, or other Secretaries, as
appropriate.
WIOA separates the strategic and operational plan elements to
facilitate cross-program strategic planning. The separation of
strategic elements allows the State to develop a vision for its entire
system and identify the operational elements across the programs that
support the system-wide vision. The plan requirements also require the
use of economic and labor market information to ensure that the
Governor's vision and the State's strategies are based on a thorough
understanding of the economic opportunities and workforce needs of the
State. This will align the best interests of job seekers and employers
with the economic future of the State.
The proposed regulations also describe the Unified or Combined
State Plan modification requirements and the deadlines for the Unified
or Combined State Plan, depending on which option the State elects.
Given the multi-year life of the plan, States are required to revisit
regularly strategies to ensure the plan remains responsive to economic
conditions and labor market needs.
State Workforce Development Boards are responsible for the
development, implementation, and modification of the plan, and for
convening of all relevant programs, required partners, and
stakeholders. The Governor must ensure that the Unified or Combined
State Plan is developed in a transparent manner and in consultation
with representatives of Local Boards and chief elected officials
(CEOs), businesses, representatives of labor organizations, community-
based organizations (CBOs), adult and youth education and workforce
development providers, institutions of higher education, disability
service entities, youth-serving programs, and other stakeholders with
an interest in the services provided by the six core programs and any
optional program included in a Combined Plan, as well as the general
public, including individuals with disabilities.
As part of the PRA process for information collections, the Unified
or Combined State Plan information collection instrument and submission
requirements will be published in the Federal Register pending
completion of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review.
Additionally, DOL and ED will issue joint planning guidance to assist
States in implementing the planning requirements for both the Unified
and Combined State Plans. Additional guidance related to Combined State
Plans may also be jointly issued in partnership with other Secretaries
as necessary to clarify requirements for optional programs. Currently,
the Departments issue State planning guidance separately to explain the
Administration's priorities in relation to the planning requirements,
explaining such requirements where necessary, submission procedures,
and other matters. Jointly issued guidance would best meet the needs of
State planning processes and submission requirements for WIOA.
The Departments note that titles I, II, and the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 as amended by title IV of WIOA appear to raise inconsistencies
regarding the applicability of certain jointly-administered
requirements as they relate to the outlying areas--American Samoa,
Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The
apparent inconsistencies are grounded in the fact that WIOA and the
Rehabilitation Act contain two differing definitions of ``State.''
Specifically, sec. 3(56) of WIOA defines ``State,'' for purposes of
programs funded under title I of WIOA, as the 50 States, the District
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; the outlying areas are defined separately
in sec. 3(45) as described above, and include Palau in certain
circumstances. On the other hand, title IV, which amended the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, defines ``State'' at sec. 7(34) as the 50
States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam,
the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, thereby
defining any of the outlying areas as a State for purposes of programs
funded under title IV of WIOA. Title II of WIOA does not separately
define either ``State'' or ``outlying area,'' but defines ``eligible
agency'' at sec. 203(3) to mean ``the sole entity or agency in a State
or outlying area responsible for administering or supervising policy
for adult education and literacy activities in the State or outlying
area . . .'' These differences in definitions raise potential
inconsistencies in the applicability of certain jointly-administered
requirements for purposes of the outlying areas, such as those related
to the requirements in secs. 102 and 103 of WIOA, which require States
to submit a Unified or Combined State Plan to receive funding. Given
the differing definitions, WIOA appears to be inconsistent across the
core programs as to whether an outlying area must submit a Unified or
Combined State Plan to receive funding.
WIOA sec. 102(a) requires that, in order for a State to be eligible
to receive allotments for the core programs, the State must submit a
Unified State Plan. Read in isolation, sec. 102(a) does not appear to
require that outlying areas submit a Unified State Plan as a
prerequisite to receiving funds for the core programs.
However, several other provisions in title I of WIOA create
uncertainty on this point. Sections 126 (youth formula program) and 131
(adult and dislocated worker formula programs) require States to meet
the requirements of secs. 102 or 103 to receive a formula allotment
under title I, while those same sections require outlying areas to
comply with the requirements of title I, without elaboration, to
receive an allotment
[[Page 20578]]
under title I. The requirement in WIOA secs. 126 and 131 that outlying
areas must comply with the requirements of title I implies--but is not
clear--that they must submit a Unified State Plan. Between the clear
language in sec. 102 and the failure of secs. 126 and 131 to reference
secs. 102 and 103, WIOA title I is unclear if outlying areas are
required to submit a Unified State Plan to receive funding under title
I.
Under title II of WIOA, which reauthorizes AEFLA, sec. 211(b)(1)
states that eligible agencies shall be awarded a grant to carry out
their adult education program if they have a Unified State Plan
approved under sec. 102. Section 211(c)(1) includes similar language
with regard to sec. 102 of WIOA when it describes the amounts to be
allotted to eligible agencies. As noted above, WIOA sec. 203 defines an
eligible agency as the agency in the State or outlying area (as those
terms are defined in sec. 3 of WIOA) responsible for administering the
adult education program in the State or outlying area. Thus, a plain
reading of secs. 211(b)(1) and 211(c)(1) is that both States and
outlying areas must have an approved Unified State Plan to be eligible
to receive title II funds. WIOA sec. 221(1) reinforces this reading by
requiring each eligible agency to develop, implement, and monitor the
relevant portions of the Unified State Plan.
However, WIOA sec. 224 only requires each State that wants funds
under title II for any fiscal year to submit a Unified State Plan in
accordance with sec. 102. In other words, sec. 224 does not mention
eligible agencies or outlying areas, as is done in other provisions
throughout title II. Of additional note is that separate from the
requirements of WIOA, the Department of Education has permitted
outlying areas administering AEFLA-funded programs to include AEFLA in
an application for Consolidated Grants to Insular Areas (Consolidated
Grant), in accordance with 48 U.S.C. 1469a. Consolidated Grant
applications are submitted in lieu of any other State plan that is
required under the programs included in the consolidation. Finally,
sec. 101(a)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by title
IV of WIOA, requires a State--the definition of which includes outlying
areas as described above--to submit a Unified State Plan in accordance
with sec. 102 of WIOA in order to be eligible to receive Vocational
Rehabilitation Services funds. This provision, unlike the similar
provisions in WIOA titles I and II discussed above, is clear that the
submission of a Unified State Plan is a prerequisite to receiving
funding.
Given these differences and potential inconsistencies, there are
two possible options with regard to outlying areas. The first option is
to require the outlying areas to submit a Unified or Combined State
Plan as a prerequisite to receiving funding for the core programs.
Under this option, the outlying areas would receive their funding
through the relevant statutory and regulatory processes for all core
programs as would be applicable to any State. While this option is
consistent with WIOA's goal of creating a more integrated, streamlined
system and treats all grantees similarly, the Departments understand
that the Unified or Combined State Plan requirements could pose
additional burden on the outlying areas that may not exist for other
States in terms of size, capacity, and resources. If the Departments
were to adopt this option, the Department of Education would have, as
an additional consideration, the implications of the Consolidated Grant
application process as an option for the outlying areas to apply for
AEFLA funds.
The second option would be not to require the outlying areas to
submit a complete Unified or Combined State Plan as a prerequisite to
receiving funding for the core programs. Under this option, the
Departments would continue to award funds to the outlying areas under
WIOA as they have in the past. For example, under this option the
Department of Labor would continue to require the outlying areas to
submit a plan as part of the competitive grant competition required by
WIOA sec. 127(b)(1)(B). On the other hand, the Department of Education
would require the outlying areas to submit a Unified or Combined State
Plan, in accordance with secs. 102 and 103 of WIOA, for both the AEFLA
and Vocational Rehabilitation Services programs. Under this option,
outlying areas administering AEFLA would also still have the option to
submit a Consolidated Grant to Insular Areas in lieu of the Unified or
Combined State Plan under WIOA. While this option may be consistent
with current practice for each program and most in line with the plain
meaning of each of the relevant programmatic requirements under WIOA,
it may not as effectively promote the collaborative, integrated
purposes of WIOA among the core programs. In addition, this option
imposes differing requirements for the core programs administered by
the outlying areas, thereby causing potential confusion during the
implementation process. Moreover, this option could result in the
Vocational Rehabilitation Services program being the only component on
a Unified or Combined State Plan, which would render the Unified or
Combined State Plan requirements meaningless.
The Departments specifically request comments on the options
proposed above, as well as any additional options, and which option the
Departments should adopt.
In the section-by-section discussions of each proposed Unified and
Combined State Plan provision below, the heading references the
proposed DOL CFR part and section number. However, the Department of
Education proposes in this joint NPRM identical provisions at 34 CFR
part 361, subpart D (under its State Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Program regulations) and at 34 CFR part 463, subpart H (under a new CFR
part for AEFLA regulations). For purposes of brevity, the section-by-
section discussions for each Department's provisions appear only once--
in conjunction with the DOL section number--and constitute the
Departments' collective explanation and rationale for each proposed
provision.
Sec. 676.100 What are the purposes of the Unified and Combined State
Plans?
Proposed Sec. 676.100 describes the principal purposes of the
Unified and Combined State Plans, which communicate the State's vision
for the State workforce system and serve as a vehicle for aligning and
integrating the State workforce system across Federal programs.
Proposed Sec. 676.100(a) explains that the Unified or Combined
State Plan serves as the vehicle for the State to outline its vision of
the workforce development system and how the State will achieve WIOA's
goals.
Proposed Sec. 676.100(b) explains that the Unified or Combined
State Plan serves as a 4-year plan for how the State will align and
integrate the workforce development system.
Proposed Sec. 676.100(b)(1)-(4) explain how the strategies
articulated in the Plan support the State's vision and overarching
goals. The goals of the 4-year Unified and Combined State Plans are to
align and integrate Federal education, employment, and training
programs; guide investments to ensure that training and services are
meeting the needs of employers and job seekers; apply consistent job-
driven training strategies across all relevant Federal programs; and
engage economic, education, and workforce partners in improving the
workforce development system.
[[Page 20579]]
Sec. 676.105 What are the general requirements for the Unified State
Plan?
Proposed Sec. 676.105 describes the general requirements for the
Unified State Plan that apply to all six core programs. These
requirements set the foundation for WIOA implementation by fostering
strategic alignment, improving service integration, and ensuring that
the workforce system is industry-relevant, responds to the economic
needs of the State, and matches employers with skilled workers. The
Departments envision a plan that describes how the State will develop
and implement a unified, integrated program rather than a plan that
separately discusses the State's approach to operating each program
individually.
Proposed Sec. 676.105(a) explains that Unified State Plans must be
submitted in accordance with Sec. 676.130 and that the Secretaries of
Labor and Education will issue joint planning guidance, as discussed
above, with instructions to States on how to submit Unified State
Plans.
Proposed Sec. 676.105(b) implements WIOA's statutory requirements
in sec. 102(a), and requires that the State submit the Unified State
Plan to the Secretary of Labor to receive funding for the workforce
development system's six core programs.
Proposed Sec. 676.105(c) requires, in accordance with sec. 102(a)
of WIOA, that the State outline its 4-year strategy for WIOA's core
programs and meet the requirements of WIOA sec. 102(b). This section
further explains that the Secretaries of Labor and Education will
jointly issue planning guidance, which will include additional
requirements with which the State's plan must comply.
Proposed Sec. 676.105(d), which implements sec. 102(b) of WIOA,
describes the content required to be included in the Unified State
Plan. The proposed regulation includes major structural elements rather
than repeating all the statutory State planning requirements. States
still must comply with each of the statutory requirements, regardless
of whether they are repeated in regulation.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 676.105(d)(1)-(3) implement the key WIOA
statutory requirements found in sec. 102(b)(1), (b)(1)(E), and (b)(2),
respectively. The plan contains two major content areas--strategic
elements and operational planning elements. Strategic planning elements
include State analyses of economic and workforce factors, an assessment
of workforce development activities, formulation of the State's vision
and goals for preparing an educated and skilled workforce that meets
the needs of employers, and a strategy to achieve the vision and goals.
Operational planning elements include State strategy implementation,
State operating systems and policies, program-specific requirements,
assurances, and other requirements imposed by the Secretaries of Labor
or Education. Additional explanations and clarifications of assurances
and plan requirements will be contained in the subsequently issued
joint planning guidance. The plan requirements also emphasize the use
of economic and labor market information to ensure that the Governor's
vision and State strategies are based on a thorough understanding of
the economic opportunities and workforce needs of the State, to align
the best interests of job seekers and employers with the economic
future of the State.
Finally, proposed Sec. 676.105(d)(3)(v), as allowed by WIOA sec.
102(b)(2)(C)(viii), requires the State Plan to include any additional
operational planning elements as the Secretaries determine are
necessary. These additional elements will be included in the joint
planning guidance.
Sec. 676.110 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the adult, dislocated worker and youth workforce
investment activities in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title
I?
Sec. 676.115 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act program in
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title II?
Sec. 676.120 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Services programs as
amended by title III of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
Sec. 676.125 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the State Vocational Rehabilitation Program in title IV
of WIOA?
States are required to develop a unified or combined plan as
described in Sec. 676.105. While States must address general common
planning requirements, States must also ensure that their planning
process and plan content adhere to the legal requirements for each of
the six core programs that remains unique to each program, as required
by sec. 102(b)(2)(D) of WIOA.
Proposed Sec. 676.110, implementing WIOA sec. 102(b)(2)(d)(i),
describes the additional requirements to which the adult, dislocated
worker, and youth programs are subject.
Proposed Sec. 676.115 explains the additional requirements to
which the AEFLA program is subject.
Proposed paragraph (a) contains three specific program
requirements. First, subparagraph (1) restates the statutory
requirement that the eligible agency must align its adult education
content standards with its State-adopted challenging academic content
standards under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended, and further establishes that the eligible agency must have
completed that alignment by July 1, 2016. Establishing the July 1,
2016, date will ensure that all States are positioned to work toward
full implementation of rigorous standards in the first year of the
Unified State Plan and promote consistency across States. Second,
subparagraph (2) addresses the general requirement that States, in the
Unified State Plan, describe the methods and factors the State will use
to distribute funds under the core programs. The regulation clarifies
and reinforces requirements in title II that the eligible agency must
compete title II funds, award multi-year grants, and provide direct and
equitable access to funds using the same grant or contract announcement
and application procedure. Adding the provisions found in sec. 231 of
WIOA to this subparagraph is intended to clarify the requirements
related to the distribution of AEFLA funds that must be incorporated
into the Unified State Plan. Third, subparagraph (3) addresses the
requirement that the State describe how it will integrate workforce and
education data on core programs, unemployment programs and education
through post-secondary education. The regulation requires that for
title II, a State must include in the Unified State Plan how it will
ensure interoperability of data systems in the reporting of core
indicators and performance reports required to be submitted by the
State. This regulation is intended to support the work of eligible
agencies participating in State Longitudinal Data Systems initiatives
and Workforce Data Quality initiatives and otherwise support the
concepts of interoperability that will allow efficient reporting of
performance under WIOA.
Proposed Sec. 676.120, consistent with sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iv),
requires States to include any information the Secretary of Labor
determines is necessary to administer the Employment Services Program.
This additional information will be provided in the jointly issued
planning guidance.
[[Page 20580]]
Proposed Sec. 676.125 explains the additional requirements to
which the State Vocational Rehabilitation program is subject.
Specifically, States must submit a Vocational Rehabilitation Services
portion, which complies with all State plan requirements set forth in
sec. 101(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by WIOA, as
part of the Unified State Plan. The Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration of ED is responsible for approving the
Vocational Rehabilitation Services portion of the Unified State Plan.
In addition to the specific elements required by WIOA, the Unified
State Plans must include any additional program specific aspects as
required by sec. 102(b)(2)(C)(viii).
Sec. 676.130 What is the submission and approval process of the
Unified State Plan?
In order to facilitate the State strategic planning process, and
concurrent review by the relevant Federal program offices, the Unified
State Plan must be submitted to the Secretary of Labor, according to
the procedures established in this section, and as clarified and
explained through joint planning guidance. Proposed Sec. 676.130(d),
discussed below, outlines the procedures the Secretary of Labor will
follow upon receipt of a Unified State Plan. Proposed Sec. 676.130
also describes the requirements for transparency, public comment, and
submission, as well as the terms for approval.
Proposed Sec. 676.130(a) requires that the Unified State Plan be
submitted in accordance with the procedures set out in the joint
planning guidance, as previously discussed, issued by the Secretaries
of Labor and Education and the procedures outlined in sec. 102(c) of
WIOA.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 676.130(b)(1) and (2) reiterate the requirement
at sec. 102(c)(1) of WIOA regarding the deadlines for submitting the
initial and subsequent Unified State Plans to the Secretary of Labor.
The Secretary will develop a process for submission of Unified State
Plans to ensure that ED receives the entire Unified State Plan
submission concurrently. Based on this timeline, States are required to
submit their first Unified State Plan on March 3, 2016. The Departments
anticipate that the second Unified State Plans will need to be
submitted 4 years after the first plan, in roughly the spring of 2020.
The official submission dates for the Plans will be announced in the
joint planning guidance.
Proposed paragraph (b)(3) clarifies that, consistent with current
practice for many of the core programs, a PY runs from July 1 through
June 30 of any year. This clarification is particularly important, in
this context, for the Vocational Rehabilitation program since that
program operates on a Federal fiscal year and will continue to do so,
in accordance with title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, despite
the fact that the Vocational Rehabilitation Services portion of the
Unified State Plan will align, for submission purposes, with the other
partners on a PY basis.
Proposed Sec. 676.130(c) requires that the State ensure that the
Unified State Plan is developed and drafted as part of a transparent
process.
Proposed Sec. 676.130(c)(1) implements WIOA's Sunshine Provision
at sec. 101(g), which the Departments have interpreted to require that
the State provide an opportunity for comment by the general public and
by representatives of Local Boards, CEOs, businesses, representatives
of labor organizations, CBOs, adult education providers, institutions
of higher education, and other stakeholders with an interest in the
services provided by the six core programs, including individuals with
disabilities. This opportunity for comment provides interested
stakeholders with a means to participate actively and effectively in
the development of the plan in a transparent manner.
Proposed Sec. 676.130(c)(2) reiterates WIOA's Sunshine Provision's
requirement at WIOA sec. 101(g) that the State Board make information
regarding Unified State Planning publicly available to the public
through regularly occurring open meetings. In addition, this section
requires that the Unified State Plan describe the State's process and
public comment period.
Proposed Sec. 676.130(d) implements WIOA sec. 102(c)(2)(A) which
requires the Secretary of Labor to provide the entire Unified State
Plan to the Secretary of Education for review pursuant to the
submission process described in Sec. 676.130(b). Because content
pertaining to each of the six core programs will be integrated
throughout the Unified State Plan, it will be more efficient and
effective to provide both Secretaries the opportunity to review the
entirety of a State's plan rather than trying to break out the portions
of the plan pertaining to the specific programs. This joint review
process supports the purposes of the Unified State Plan in fostering
program integration and alignment.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 676.130(e)-(g), implementing WIOA sec.
102(c)(2)(B), pertain to the approval of the Unified State Plan.
Proposed Sec. 676.130(e) implements WIOA's statutory requirement
that the Unified State Plan is subject to the approval of the Secretary
of Labor and the Secretary of Education. WIOA requires both Secretaries
to approve the Unified State Plan to ensure cross-program alignment,
integration, and collaboration between the programs administered by the
two Departments.
Proposed Sec. 676.130(f) implements WIOA's statutory requirement
that the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration
approve the vocational rehabilitation services portion of the Unified
State Plan before the Secretaries of Labor and Education approve the
Unified State Plan.
Proposed Sec. 676.130(g) implements WIOA's statutory requirement
that the Unified State Plan must be reviewed and approved by the
Secretaries of Labor and Education within 90 days of receipt. The
Secretary of Labor will develop a process for submission of Unified
State Plans to ensure that the Secretary of Education receives the
entire Unified State Plan submission concurrently. The section further
states that in order to disapprove a Unified State Plan either the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of Education must find, in writing,
that the Plan is inconsistent with a core program requirement, is
inconsistent with Unified State Plan requirements under WIOA sec. 102,
is incomplete, or that the plan does not provide sufficient information
to make the findings described in proposed Sec. Sec. 676.130(g)(1)-
(2).
Proposed Sec. 676.130(h) implements WIOA sec. 102(c)(2)(B), which
provides that if one of the Secretaries does not affirmatively make the
determination described in Sec. Sec. 676.130(g)(1)-(3) within 90 days
of receipt, the Unified State Plan will be considered approved.
Sec. 676.135 What are the requirements for modification of the Unified
State Plan?
Given the multi-year life of the Unified State Plan, States must
revisit regularly State Plan strategies and recalibrate these
strategies to respond to the changing economic conditions and workforce
needs of the State. At a minimum, a State is required to submit
modifications to its Unified State Plan at the end of the first 2-year
period of any 4-year plan and also under specific circumstances,
examples of which have been included in this section. States may also
choose to submit a State Plan modification at any time during the life
of the plan. Proposed Sec. 676.135 further describes the requirements
for
[[Page 20581]]
submission and approval of Unified State Plan modifications, which are
subject to the same public review and comment requirements and approval
process as the full Unified State Plan submissions.
Proposed Sec. 676.135(a) reiterates WIOA's statutory authority in
sec. 102(c)(3)(B), which allows the Governor to submit a modification
of the Unified State Plan at any time during the 4-year period of the
Unified State Plan.
Proposed Sec. 676.135(b)(1) implements the statutory requirement
in WIOA sec. 102(c)(3)(A), requiring the Governor to submit a Unified
State Plan modification at the end of the first 2-year period of any 4-
year State Plan.
In addition to the statutory mandate to modify the Plan, proposed
Sec. Sec. 676.135(b)(2)-(3) require that the Governor modify the
Unified State Plan when changes in Federal or State law or policy
substantially affect the strategies, goals, and priorities upon which
the Unified State Plan is based or when there are substantial changes
in the State's workforce investment system. In order for the plan to
both effectively govern the State's implementation and operation of the
core programs and effectively serve the State's workforce and
employers, the plan must be consistent with relevant laws and policies.
Proposed Sec. 676.135(c) requires that modifications to the
Unified State Plan be subject to the same public review and comment
requirements for submitting a Unified State Plan described at proposed
Sec. 676.130(c). This requirement ensures transparency in the process
of developing the Unified State Plan modification. The Unified State
Plan modification must describe the State's process and timeline for
ensuring public comment.
Proposed Sec. 676.135(d), implementing WIOA sec. 102(c)(3)(B),
requires Unified State Plan modifications to be subject to the same
approval process as the original Unified State Plan submission.
Modifications must be approved by both the Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Education within 90 days of receipt, in accordance with
the standards described at Sec. 676.130, which also includes the
approval process for the Vocational Rehabilitation Services portion of
the State plan.
Sec. 676.140 What are the general requirements for submitting a
Combined State Plan?
States have the option to submit a Combined State Plan that goes
beyond the core programs of a Unified State Plan to include at least
one optional, additional Federal workforce, educational, or social
service program from the programs identified in sec. 103(a)(2) of WIOA.
Generally, the requirements for a Combined State Plan include the
requirements for the Unified State Plan as well as the program-specific
requirements for any optional programs that are included in the
Combined State Plan. To expand the benefits of cross-program strategic
planning, increase alignment among State programs, and improve service
integration, States are strongly encouraged to submit Combined State
Plans.
Proposed Sec. 676.140, which implements sec. 103(a) and (b) of
WIOA, authorizes the submission of a Combined State Plan, lists the
optional programs that a State may include, and describes the
requirements of the combined plan.
Proposed Sec. 676.140(a) allows a State to submit a Combined State
Plan in lieu of a Unified State Plan. Proposed Sec. 676.140(b),
implementing WIOA sec. 103(b)(2), clarifies that, if a State submits a
Combined State Plan that is approved, the State is not required to
submit any other plan in order to receive the funds to operate the
programs covered by the combined plan. The Combined State Plan takes
the place of the individual State Plans for the optional programs that
are covered by the plan and replaces the Unified State Plan. In this
way, the Combined State Plan is meant to reduce the burden for States
and promote integrated planning across State programs. One proposed
exception to this rule, for the optional program, employment and
training activities carried out under the Community Services Block
Grant (CSBG) Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.), is described below under
proposed Sec. 676.140(h).
The 4-year cycle, with a 2-year modification, for the Combined
State Plan is inconsistent with the planning cycles for the plans
governing the optional programs. The Departments seek comment on how to
address this issue and reduce the burden of managing multiple cycles.
Specifically, the Departments request comment on how to treat the plan
for an optional program whose planning cycle is longer than 2 years,
whose planning cycle is less than 2 years, and whose planning process
includes intra-cycle modifications of the plan. Similarly, the
Departments request comments on how best to treat the plan for an
optional program that is reauthorized or otherwise significantly
amended during the 4-year or 2-year cycle of a Combined State Plan,
including a change to the optional program's planning cycle.
Proposed Sec. 676.140(c) requires that the Combined State Plan be
submitted to the appropriate Secretary for approval in accordance with
the procedures described in proposed Sec. 676.143(a).
Proposed Sec. 676.140(d) reiterates the requirement that the
Combined State Plan include all of the core programs, and at least one
of the optional programs described in WIOA sec. 103(a)(2).
Proposed Sec. Sec. 676.140(d)(1)-(11) identify the programs that a
State may include in the Combined State Plan. These are Federal
programs that offer educational, training, employment, or supportive
services to populations that may overlap with those core programs
serve. By expanding the State's cross-program planning beyond the core
programs to include one or more of the optional programs the State will
further improve strategic alignment and service integration for job
seekers and employers.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 676.140(e)(1)-(4) generally describe what must
be included in the Combined State Plan. It is important to note that
the portions of the Combined State Plan covering the core programs must
include all of the required contents of the Unified State Plan, while
the portions of the Combined State Plan covering optional programs must
include the information for a plan or application as required by the
laws authorizing and governing the optional programs, as well as common
planning requirements (both strategic and operational) described in
sec. 102(b) of WIOA, and as clarified and explained in the joint
planning guidance for all included optional programs. This provision
implements sec. 103(b)(1) of WIOA.
Proposed Sec. 676.140(f) clarifies that although the optional
programs listed in sec. 103(a)(2) of WIOA are included in the Combined
State Plan, those programs are subject to the requirements of the
applicable Federal law, regulations, and program-specific requirements
governing those programs. A program's inclusion in the Combined State
Plan does not negate a State's duty to comply with all of the relevant
laws and regulations, procedures, and any other requirements imposed by
the agency or organization administering or governing that program.
Proposed Sec. 676.140(g), consistent with sec. 103(d)(2) of WIOA,
explains that the term ``appropriate secretary'' when used in relation
to the optional programs refers to the head of the Federal agency
overseeing the program.
Proposed Sec. 676.140(h) indicates that States that elect to
include employment and training activities carried out under
[[Page 20582]]
the CSBG Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.) under a Combined State Plan would
submit all other required elements of a complete CSBG State Plan
directly to the Federal agency that administers the program, according
to the requirements of Federal law and regulations. Because employment
and training activities are only a subset of the broad range of anti-
poverty activities and other requirements addressed in the overall CSBG
plan, States would not be required to include these program-specific
elements of a complete CSBG State Plan in the WIOA Combined State Plan.
Sec. 676.143 What is the submission and approval process of the
Combined State Plan?
In order to facilitate the State's strategic planning process, and
concurrent review by the relevant Federal program offices, the Combined
State Plan must be submitted in accordance with jointly-issued planning
guidelines issued by the Secretaries of Labor and Education and any
program-specific requirements of each optional program that a State
includes.
Proposed Sec. 676.143 implements WIOA's statutory requirements for
submitting a Combined State Plan. These are similar to the requirements
for submitting a Unified State Plan, with added considerations for
review and approval by the Federal agencies that oversee the optional
Combined State Plan programs.
Proposed Sec. 676.143(a) requires the Combined State Plan to be
submitted in accordance with the requirements in Sec. 676.143 and
joint planning guidelines issued by the Secretaries of DOL and ED.
Proposed Sec. 676.143(b) requires the State to submit, to all
Secretaries whose programs are included in the Combined State Plan, in
accordance with the procedures described in the joint planning guidance
described in Sec. 676.143(a), any plan documents, application, form,
or similar documents that are required by the optional Combined State
Plan programs or activities in order to receive Federal funding for
that program. Though the Combined State Plan takes the place of the
individual State Plans for the optional programs or activities included
in the Combined State Plan, the State must still comply with the
submission requirements for approval of Federal funding under the
optional programs.
Proposed Sec. 676.143(c) requires that the Combined State Plan be
approved or disapproved in accordance with the requirements of sec.
103(c) of WIOA. This section requires that only the Secretary tasked
with administering the relevant optional program review and approve
that portion of the Combined State Plan. Accordingly, proposed Sec.
676.143(c)(1) implements sec. 103(c)(3)(A) of WIOA, describing the
approval process by the Secretaries of Labor and Education for those
parts of the Combined State Plan that cover the core programs, while
proposed Sec. 676.143(c)(2) implements sec. 103(c)(3)(B) of WIOA,
describing the approval process by the appropriate secretary for the
optional programs included in the Combined State Plan.
Proposed Sec. 676.143(d) implements WIOA's standards for the
Secretaries of Labor, Education, or other appropriate secretary to
determine if a Combined State Plan should be approved or disapproved,
or otherwise deemed complete. These standards are similar to the
standards for disapproving a Unified State Plan, with considerations
for the requirements of the optional Combined State Plan programs and
activities. Proposed Sec. Sec. 676.143(d)(1)-(3) state that the plan
may not be approved if the relevant Secretary determines, in writing,
within the relevant review period that: the plan is inconsistent with
the requirements of the core programs or one or more of the optional
programs included; does not meet the criteria for the core programs or
one or more of the optional programs included; or is considered
incomplete or insufficient to make an approval determination.
Under this section, the appropriate Secretary reviewing his or her
portion of the Combined State Plan is not required to take any action
or make any determination to approve/disapprove a plan beyond what is
required or permitted under the law governing that program. For
example, if the appropriate Secretary is only authorized to determine
if a plan is complete, as part of the Combined State Plan approval
process that Secretary would not also be required to make the
additional determinations described in Sec. 676.143(d) in order to
approve or disapprove that portion of the plan.
Proposed Sec. 676.143(e) implements the requirement in WIOA sec.
103(c)(3) that, unless the relevant Secretary makes the determination
described in Sec. 676.143(d), the relevant portion of the plan will be
deemed approved.
Proposed Sec. 676.143(f) requires a State, with respect to the
core programs, and a program under the Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act of 2006, to reach an agreement with the
appropriate Secretaries regarding State performance measures or State
performance accountability measures, as the case may be, including
levels of performance. The plan may not be approved if an agreement as
to these measures is not reached and included in the plan. Performance
requirements for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act
of 2006 continue to apply.
Sec. 676.145 What are the requirements for modifications of the
Combined State Plan?
Section 103 of WIOA provides for the modification process for parts
of the Combined State Plan. Proposed Sec. 676.145 applies to the
Combined State Plans the same requirements for modifications as Unified
State Plans, with added requirements for the additional Federal
programs included in the Combined State Plan. For the additional
program and activities that are not part of the Unified State Plan, the
State may elect to modify the Combined State Plan according to WIOA
sec. 102(c)(3).
Proposed Sec. 676.145(a) requires modification of the Combined
State Plan for the core programs at the end of the first 2-year period
of any 4-year Combined State Plan. This proposed regulation subjects
the core programs in the Combined State Plan to the modification
requirements described at Sec. 676.135 for Unified State Plans,
ensuring that all State plans governing the core programs are treated
equally. Additionally, this proposed regulation requires the State
Workforce Development Board to review the Combined State Plan, and the
Governor to submit a modification to the Combined State Plans to ensure
that the Plan remains responsive to changes in labor market and
economic conditions and to other factors that impact the strategies
described in the Combined State Plan.
Proposed Sec. 676.145(b), similar to the Unified State Plan
provision, allows States to modify a Combined State Plan, at any time
during the 4-year period of the Plan and requires modifications as
described in Sec. 676.145(a).
Proposed Sec. 676.145(c)(1) allows the State, at its discretion,
to apply the modification requirements in Sec. 676.135 to the optional
programs and activities included in the Combined State Plan.
Proposed Sec. 676.145(c)(2) requires the State to submit, in
accordance with the submission requirements described in Sec. 676.143,
any modification, amendment, or revision required by Federal law for
the optional programs included in the Combined State Plan. However, the
State is required to submit the modification, amendment, or revision
for approval only to the
[[Page 20583]]
Secretary overseeing the program if the modification, amendment, or
revision affects the administration of that particular program and has
no impact on the Combined State Plan as a whole or the integration and
administration of the core and optional programs at the State level. In
this case, the State may submit its modification, amendment, or
revision in accordance with the procedures and requirements applicable
to the particular program.
In addition, if the program-specific requirements change by law for
an optional Combined State Plan program, the State may choose to
either: (1) Modify the Combined State Plan or (2) remove the program
from the Combined State Plan and submit a separate plan to the Federal
agency that oversees that program, in accordance with the new Federal
law authorizing the optional program and other applicable legal
requirements for such program. Since Combined State Plan programs are
optionally included by the State in a Plan, the State may also choose
to exclude them at a later date. A State also may amend its Combined
State Plan to add an optional program or activity described in Sec.
676.140(d), provided that it meets the requirements of WIOA and the
optional program or activity.
Proposed Sec. 676.145(d) requires the modifications of Combined
State Plans to be subject to public review and comment as described in
proposed Sec. 676.130(c) or in program-specific requirements of each
optional program included by the State. The Combined State Plan
modification process must comply with the transparency requirements for
the six core programs in the Combined State Plan. The Departments seek
comment on how to streamline the public review and comment process for
Combined State Plan modifications; whether it is advisable to limit the
comment process to significant or substantial modifications to the
common planning elements; and, if so, how the Departments might define
significant or substantial changes.
Proposed Sec. 676.145(e) requires that modifications of the
portions of the Combined State Plan that pertain to the core programs
must be approved by the Secretaries of Labor and Education according to
the approval standards described in Sec. 676.143.
Proposed Sec. 676.145(f) requires that modifications of the
Combined State Plan for the programs or activities described in Sec.
676.140(d) be approved by the appropriate Secretary if the
modification, amendment, or revision affects the administration of only
that particular optional program and has no impact on the Combined
State Plan as a whole or the integration and administration of the core
and optional programs at the State level.
B. Performance Accountability Under Title I of the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act (20 CFR Part 677; 34 CFR Part 361, Subpart E; 34
CFR Part 463, Subpart I)
1. Introduction
Section 116 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
establishes performance accountability indicators and performance
reporting requirements to assess the effectiveness of States and local
areas in achieving positive outcomes for individuals served by the core
programs. The core programs are defined in sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of
WIOA to include the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs under
title I of WIOA, the AEFLA programs under title II; the Employment
Services authorized by the Wagner-Peyser program under the Wagner-
Peyser Act as amended by title III (``Employment Services''); and the
Vocational Rehabilitation program under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
as amended by title IV.
With a few exceptions, including the local accountability system
under sec. 116(c) of WIOA, the performance accountability requirements
apply across all of the core programs. It is instructive to note that
sec. 116 is located in the statute under subtitle A, which is System
Alignment. This is an historic opportunity to align definitions,
streamline performance indicators, and integrate reporting for each of
the core programs to the extent practicable, while implementing
program-specific requirements. Through these proposed joint
regulations, the Departments are laying the foundation for the
establishment of a performance accountability system that serves all
core programs and their targeted populations in a manner that is
customer-focused and that supports an integrated service design and
delivery model. In addition, WIOA requires additional programs,
including Job Corps, Native American programs, the Migrant and Seasonal
Farmworker programs, and the YouthBuild program, to use the same
performance accountability indicators as the core programs, as provided
in 29 CFR part 686 and 29 CFR part 684. This will better align both the
core programs and other education and training programs across the
workforce system. Further, DOL plans to include other workforce
programs under its purview in this streamlining effort, including the
Jobs for Veterans State Grants (JVSG) program as authorized by the Jobs
for Veterans Act, other formula and applicable competitive grant
programs administered by DOL.
As with the planning requirements discussed previously, the
differing definitions of ``State'' raise potential inconsistencies as
to the applicability of the performance accountability system
requirements of sec. 116 of WIOA for purposes of the outlying areas and
their administration of the core programs. Section 116, which
consistently references States, establishes a common performance system
to measure the effectiveness of the States and local areas in achieving
positive outcomes for participants in the core programs. However, sec.
116 does not specifically reference the outlying areas. Sections 126
and 131 of WIOA require that outlying areas comply with all of the
requirements of title I as a prerequisite to their receipt of title I
funds, although neither section specifically references the
requirements of sec. 116. The silence in sec. 116 is especially
important with regard to the core programs funded under title I of
WIOA, and administered by the Department of Labor, since sec. 3 defines
the terms ``State'' and ``outlying area'' separately. Reading title I,
and sec. 116 specifically, in isolation, suggests that the performance
system does not apply to the outlying areas.
Unlike the title I programs, the Adult Education and Vocational
Rehabilitation programs under titles II and IV, respectively, clearly
require the outlying areas to comply with the performance
accountability system requirements of sec. 116 of WIOA. Section 212
applies the performance provisions in sec. 116 to all of the programs
and activities authorized in title II, which includes the adult
education programs and activities administered by the eligible agencies
in the outlying areas. Additionally, sec. 106 of the Rehabilitation
Act, as amended by title IV of WIOA, requires that States--which
includes the outlying areas--comply with the performance accountability
system requirements of sec. 116 of WIOA.
Given the use of the term ``State'' in sec. 116 and the differing
definitions for that term for the various core programs, ambiguity
exists within WIOA as to the applicability of the performance
accountability system requirements with regard to the core programs
administered by the Department of Labor under title I of WIOA.
Nevertheless, WIOA is clear that the core programs funded under titles
II and IV are subject to these requirements. For this reason, there are
two options to
[[Page 20584]]
resolve this potential inconsistency, thereby ensuring that the
performance of the core programs in the outlying areas can be measured
to ensure programmatic effectiveness.
The first option would be to subject the title I WIOA core programs
administered by the outlying areas to the sec. 116 performance system,
as WIOA requires of the core programs funded under titles II and IV.
The second option would be not to apply the performance accountability
system requirements of sec. 116 of the title I WIOA programs
administered by the outlying areas, since title I is less clear in the
applicability of these requirements to the outlying areas, while
requiring the outlying areas administering the Adult Education and
Vocational Rehabilitation Services programs, funded under titles II and
IV respectively, to comply with the sec. 116 requirements since these
titles clearly require such compliance. This option, while perhaps most
in line with the plain meaning of the relevant statutory provisions, is
contrary to the purpose of WIOA generally and the performance
accountability system established in sec. 116 specifically. Moreover,
this option would treat the various core programs differently, thereby
causing potential confusion during implementation and could result in
disparate treatment with regard to sanctions.
The Departments specifically request comments on the options
proposed above, as well as any additional options, and which option the
Departments should adopt.
In the section-by-section discussions of each proposed performance
accountability provision below, the heading references the proposed DOL
CFR part and section number. However, the Department of Education
proposes in this joint NPRM identical provisions at 34 CFR part 361,
subpart E (under its State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program
regulations) and at 34 CFR part 463, subpart I (under a new CFR part
for AEFLA regulations). For purposes of brevity, the section-by-section
discussions for each Department's provisions appear only once--in
conjunction with the DOL section number--and constitute the
Departments' collective explanation and rationale for each proposed
provision.
Sec. 677.150 What definitions apply to Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act performance measurements and reporting requirements?
Proposed Sec. 677.150 defines key performance-related terms which
States must use in their reporting on performance calculations. The
Departments propose these definitions to facilitate consistent
reporting across the States. Under WIA, States created differing
definitions of key terms for performance reporting, which resulted in
inconsistent reporting and prevented the Departments from fully
evaluating the effectiveness of its workforce and educational programs.
The definitions the Departments are proposing in these regulations
are sufficiently broad to apply across core programs and other programs
authorized by this statute, to create an integrated performance
accountability system, and to support clarity and alignment of
performance metrics and comparability among the programs and States.
Proposed Sec. 677.150 defines participant, reportable individual,
and exit.
Proposed Sec. 677.150(a) proposes a definition of ``participant''
across the core programs because participants are specifically
identified in the statute as included in performance calculations. The
definition of participant establishes a common point of measurement at
which an individual is meaningfully engaged in a core program. This
measurement point takes into consideration the unique purposes and
characteristics of each program and the ways in which an individual may
access, and ultimately engage in, services in each of the core
programs. The proposed definition does not attempt to define the
activities leading up to participation in the same way across all of
the core programs, but instead seeks to establish a common point in
service design and delivery that an individual reaches regardless of
the program in which he or she is enrolled. In each program, an
individual must meet a specific programmatic threshold at which he or
she begins receiving services regardless of the program. The proposed
definition takes into account the unique processes of each program to
meet such thresholds and, thus, participant is defined in a manner that
works across the core programs. The proposal defines participant as a
reportable individual who has received staff-assisted services after
satisfying all applicable programmatic requirements for the provision
of services, such as the eligibility determination. This proposed
definition establishes a common approach to establishing a minimum
participation threshold that is appropriate to the services provided by
each program. This approach also ensures consistent definition of
participant within each program. This definition excludes self-service
individuals because they have minimal interaction with the program and
minimal resources are spent on their behalf. Such individuals are
reportable, as defined below, because they have contact with the system
but are not participants and, thus, are not included in performance
calculations.
Specifically for Wagner-Peyser Employment Services, only those
reportable individuals who received staff-assisted services would be
included in performance calculations. For WIOA adults, reportable
individuals who receive staff assisted services would be considered
participants and, thus, be included in performance calculations. For
WIOA dislocated workers, reportable individuals who are determined
eligible and receive a staff-assisted service would be considered
participants and, thus, be included in performance calculations. For
WIOA youth, reportable individuals who are determined eligible, receive
an assessment, and receive a program element (a staff-assisted service)
would be considered participants and, thus, be included in performance
calculations. For the AEFLA program, reportable individuals who have
been determined eligible and who have completed at least 12 contact
hours in an adult education and literacy activity under AEFLA would be
considered participants and, thus, be included in performance
calculations. For the Vocational Rehabilitation program, reportable
individuals who have been determined eligible for services and who have
an approved and signed Individualized Plan for Employment (IPE) that
outlines the services that the individual will receive would be
considered participants and, thus, be included in performance
calculations.
Proposed Sec. 677.150(b) defines ``reportable individual'' as an
individual who meets specific core program criteria for reporting such
as the provision of identifying information or a level of service
receipt that is below the staff-assisted level, which will be further
explained in guidance issued by DOL and ED. This approach would allow
for counting self-service system utilization or those who received only
informational services/activities as well as other services that may
occur prior to an individual meeting all of the established benchmarks
for participation.
These definitions are critical for determining who is subject to
performance calculations. All individuals receiving staff-assisted
services through WIOA workforce system core programs would be reported
under a single count of program
[[Page 20585]]
participants and would be subject to performance calculations. It is
important to note that this differs from ETA's current approach for the
Employment Services' under WIA reporting whereby self-service
individuals are included in performance calculations. In contrast,
under these proposed regulations all self-service and information-only
individuals would be subjected to reportable counts and other
associated information, but not performance calculations for the
primary indicators of performance. This proposed approach also would
address the current inconsistency in reporting based on various co-
enrollment strategies.
The Departments are seeking feedback regarding this proposed
approach, specifically for the WIOA title I and III programs, on the
appropriate point of receipt of staff-assisted services, which has not
been a commonly defined point under WIA. A stronger delineation of that
measurement point, which would be the same for the Wagner-Peyser
Employment Services, WIOA adults, and WIOA dislocated workers, would
enhance comparability across States.
Proposed Sec. 677.150(c) defines the term ``exit'' for the
purposes of a uniform performance accountability system for the core
programs under WIOA, as well as applicable non-core programs as
established through regulation or guidance. Several of the primary
indicators of performance for performance accountability require
measuring participants' progress after they have exited from the
program. One consistent definition of exit would facilitate this
calculation and will allow the Departments to make meaningful
comparisons across the States. For the core programs, excluding
Vocational Rehabilitation, the Departments propose defining ``exit'' as
the last date of service. The last date of service means the individual
has not received any services for 90 days and there are no future
services planned. For the purpose of this definition, ``service'' does
not include self-service, information-only activities, or follow-up
services. Therefore, in order to determine whether or not an individual
has exited, States will retroactively determine if 90 days have passed
with no further service and no further services scheduled.
The proposed definition of ``exit'' for the Vocational
Rehabilitation program is similar in that it marks the point at which
the individual no longer is engaged with the program and there is no
ongoing relationship between the individual and the program. However,
the proposed definition takes into account specific programmatic
requirements. Under the Vocational Rehabilitation program, an
individual would be determined to have exited the program on the date
the individual's case is closed in accordance with Vocational
Rehabilitation program requirements. Even with this programmatic
distinction, the calculations would be essentially the same as with the
other core programs because in all instances the ``exit'' count would
capture all individuals who are no longer active participants in any of
the core programs. In addition, the Departments exclude from the
definition of ``exit,'' for purposes of the Vocational Rehabilitation
program, those individuals who have achieved a supported employment
outcome at a subminimum wage. This proposed provision is necessary to
implement WIOA's heightened emphasis on competitive integrated
employment.
The Departments considered various approaches to defining ``exit''
across the programs. The proposed definition introduces common language
that is broad enough to apply to all of the core programs, but also
accommodates statutory requirements specific to the Vocational
Rehabilitation program as implemented in 34 CFR 361.43 and 361.56.
The Departments seek comments on whether an individual's continued
use of self-service offerings should extend the individual's exit date,
or if a participant should be considered as having exited after the
final staff-assisted service. The self-service component is limited to
WIOA title I programs and the Wagner-Peyser Employment Services.
WIOA sec. 116(d)(2)(I) requires States to report on the number of
participants who are enrolled in more than one WIOA core program.
Therefore, the Departments are also considering the value of a cross-
program definition of exit, sometimes called a common exit, that is
based upon the last staff-assisted service from all core programs
rather than a program exit. The current proposed definition of ``exit''
is program specific so if an individual was receiving services from
more than one program, that individual could have multiple ``exits.''
The current proposed definition would allow programs to capture all
exit-based participant outcomes in a reporting period regardless of
whether the participant continued to receive services from other core
programs. The Departments have considered a common exit-based
definition that requires an individual to have completed all programs
in order to officially exit from the system. Such a definition would
emphasize the importance of an individual receiving and completing all
partner program services necessary to ensure a successful attachment to
the labor market. It is, however, largely dependent on the ability of
States to exchange data effectively and efficiently across State
agencies in order to determine outcomes for each of the programs. The
Departments are seeking comments on the costs and benefits of taking a
program-exit approach or a common exit approach in defining ``exit.''
2. Subpart A--State Indicators of Performance for Core Programs
Sec. 677.155 What are the primary indicators of performance under the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
Proposed Sec. 677.155 identifies the primary indicators of
performance that States must include in their Unified or Combined State
Plans. The primary indicators are applied in numerous places across all
of the WIOA proposed regulations. Though the indicators may appear
under other components of the regulations the indicators are aligned
and the same and do not vary across the regulations. The Departments
have considered a variety of approaches to define the primary
indicators of performance, which will be applied to each of the core
programs outlined in sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA. Specifically, these
indicators will apply to the core programs administered by ED's Office
of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, ED's Rehabilitation Services
Administration, and DOL's ETA. WIOA presents new opportunities for
system alignment through performance accountability. The ED and DOL
envision a performance system whereby all programs' primary performance
metrics share a common language that supports comparability and
facilitates enhanced consumer choice and better programmatic decision-
making.
Proposed Sec. 677.155(a)(1) identifies the six primary indicators
that will be applied to the core programs identified in sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA. The DOL is also planning to leverage these
indicators to streamline reporting for other DOL programs, such as the
JVSG program, and other discretionary grant programs. To that end, the
Departments invite comments specific to this issue.
Proposed Sec. 677.155(a)(1)(i) implements the first statutory
performance indicator in sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)(I) of WIOA and requires
States to report on the percentage of participants in unsubsidized
[[Page 20586]]
employment in the second quarter after exit from the program. This
statutory language requires States to measure the employment rate of
participants in the second quarter after exit from the program. In
contrast, WIA's first indicator of performance required States to
report on an ``entered employment rate.'' The WIA indicator measured
individuals who were unemployed at the time of entry into the program
and after receiving services, obtained employment, thus allowing the
Departments to evaluate whether the WIA services were effective in
helping unemployed individuals obtain employment. The proposed WIOA
indicator is different from WIA's ``entered employment rate'' indicator
in two ways: (1) The time period for measurement in WIOA is the second
quarter after exit instead of the first quarter; and (2) the statutory
language under WIOA does not specify that the indicator is to measure
entry into employment. The Departments plan to calculate both an
``employment rate'' for all participants in the program regardless of
employment status at program entry and an ``entered employment rate''
for participants who were unemployed at the time of program entry. The
Departments seek public comment on whether and how to collect
information on the quality of employment and how WIOA's programs help
employed and underemployed individuals find new or better jobs.
Proposed Sec. 677.155(a)(1)(ii) implements WIOA's second statutory
primary indicator of performance and is similar to the first, except
that the time period for measurement is the fourth quarter after exit.
This statutory language requires States to measure the employment rate
of participants in the fourth quarter after exit from the program
without regard to whether those participants were employed in the
second quarter after exit from the program. Under WIA, this indicator
is a retention measure that analyzes whether individuals who were
employed in the first quarter after exiting from WIA services were
still employed in the second and third quarters. As a retention measure
such as the approach under WIA, this indicator would have counted
participants who were employed in the second quarter after exit and
measured of this group, who were still employed in the fourth quarter
after exit from the program. The Departments seek comment on the
advantages and disadvantages of collecting or reporting the employment
retention rate in addition to the employer rate.
Proposed Sec. 677.155(a)(1)(iii) implements WIOA's third statutory
indicator found at sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i)(III) and measures participants'
median earnings in the second quarter after exit. This indicator
measures median earnings at the same time frame as the first indicator
measures the employment rate of participants. The use of a median is a
shift from the use of an average under WIA and is based on the language
provided in WIOA.
Proposed Sec. 677.155(a)(1)(iv) implements WIOA's fourth statutory
indicator and measures post-secondary credential attainment and high
school completion of program participants during participation in the
program or within 1 year after exit. The proposed regulation defines
this measure with the same language as the statute and includes the
statutory language limiting participants who obtain a secondary school
diploma or its equivalent to be included in the percentage counted as
meeting the criterion only if the participant is employed or is
enrolled in an education or training program leading to a recognized
post-secondary credential within 1 year after exit from the program.
The Departments specifically seek comment on clarifications that will
be necessary to implement this indicator.
Proposed Sec. 677.155(a)(1)(v) measures the percentage of
participants who, during a PY, are in education or training programs
that lead to a recognized post-secondary credential or employment, and
who are achieving measurable skill gains, which the Departments are
defining as documented academic, technical, occupational or other forms
of progress, toward the credential or employment.
The Departments are considering using this indicator to measure
interim progress of participants who may be enrolled in education or
training services for a specified reporting period. For example, if a
participant is enrolled in a 4-year registered apprenticeship program,
the indicator would track the skills the participant gains throughout
the reporting period, not just at the end of the 4-year training
program. For low-skilled adults, this proposed indicator provides an
opportunity to track progress in reading, writing, mathematics, and
English proficiency while they are participating in an adult education
program prior to completing the high school credential and entering
post-secondary education or training or employment. The measurable
skill gains indicator will encourage local adult education programs to
serve all low-skilled adults as Congress intended. Another example
pertains to a participant who is training for multiple fields in the
YouthBuild program. Such an individual may be pursuing certifications
that require several years of experience, specific study hours, and
demonstration of skills and knowledge prior to the final certification
exam. The measurable skill gains indicator would capture documented
progress on interim milestones leading up to the final certification.
The measurable skill gains indicator is intended to capture important
progressions through pathways that offer different services based on
program purposes and participant needs and can help fulfill the
Departments' vision of creating a workforce system that serves a
diverse set of individuals with a range of services tailored to
individual needs and goals.
In using this indicator as a measure of interim progress of
participants, the Departments are considering how States can document
progression during participation in an education or training program in
a standardized way. Documented progress could include such measures as:
(1) The achievement of at least one educational functioning level
of a participant in an education program that provides instruction
below the post-secondary level;
(2) attainment of a high school diploma or its equivalent;
(3) a transcript or report card for either secondary or post-
secondary education for 1 academic year (or 24 credit hours) that shows
a participant is achieving the State unit's policies for academic
standards;
(4) a satisfactory or better progress report, towards established
milestones from an employer who is providing training (e.g., completion
of on-the-job training (OJT), completion of 1 year of an apprenticeship
program);
(5) the successful completion of an exam that is required for a
particular occupation, progress in attaining technical or occupational
skills as evidenced by trade-related benchmarks such as knowledge-based
exams; and
(6) measurable observable performance based on industry standards.
The Departments seek comments on the proposed indicator and request
comments on the ways States can measure and document participants'
measurable skill gains in a standardized way, including whether time
intervals are required and what time intervals might be. The
Departments also seek comments on whether the performance targets for
this indicator should be set at the indicator (i.e., measurable skill
[[Page 20587]]
gains) or documented progress measure (e.g., attainment of high school
diploma) level.
Proposed Sec. 677.155(a)(1)(vi) implements the sixth statutory
primary indicator related to effectiveness in serving employers. Under
WIOA, the Departments are required to consult with stakeholders and
receive public comment on proposed approaches to defining the
indicator. As part of this requirement, the Departments have already
sought public input on performance indicators generally and on the
business indicators specifically through several avenues, including a
town-hall meeting that addressed all of the primary indicators, a town-
hall meeting convened with employers, numerous town-halls and webinars
on WIOA across the country, and consultations with State Administrators
for the AEFLA and Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) stakeholders. Because
the Departments have not previously used this indicator, it is
important to hear from States and stakeholders on what they consider
core functions of their services to employers in order to best
determine how to understand and measure the effectiveness of the
services provided. Additionally, it is critical to hear from employers
on the attributes of services that they find effective. In drafting the
potential proposals described below, the Departments consulted with a
wide range of representatives to develop the indicators of
effectiveness in serving employers as required by WIOA sec.
116(b)(2)(A)(i)(VI). See WIOA sec. 116(b)(A)(2)(iv) and 116(b)(4)(B).
Based on the consultations, the Departments have established
several potential approaches to measuring the effectiveness of serving
employers, including potential measures that could be used. One of the
Departments' principal concerns in crafting a final definition of this
indicator is minimizing burden that measuring this indicator will
impose on employers in order to avoid discouraging employer engagement
with the workforce and education systems. The Departments value the
interaction of employers with the workforce and education systems and
do not want to impose any barriers to that interaction. With this in
mind, the Departments' proposed approaches aim to minimize employer
burden while still attempting to measure the effectiveness of how the
Departments' programs serve employers.
One approach to measure this indicator is to measure employee
retention rates tied to the employment they obtained after receiving
WIOA services. Under this approach, States would be required to use
wage records to identify whether or not a participant matched the same
Federal employer identification number (FEIN) in the second and fourth
quarters. This approach has the lowest burden on employers, as it
requires no action from the employer. Under this approach, WIOA's
services are effectively serving an employer if that employer hires a
WIOA participant and the participant is still employed by that employer
in the fourth quarter (up to a year) after program exit. The
Departments would be interested in specific comments around the
feasibility of this, and if it measures the systems' effectiveness in
serving employers.
Another potential way to define this indicator would measure the
repeat/retention rates for employers' use of the core programs. The
Departments seek comments around this approach, including how States
could capture this data, the feasibility of capturing and reporting
this data, and if this indicator would measure the efficacy of the
services provided to employers.
The Departments are also considering using the number or percent of
employers that are using the core program services out of all employers
represented in an area or State served by the system (i.e., employers
served) as a measure of the effectiveness of serving employers.
Employer usage may reflect the effectiveness of the system's ability to
reach out to employers, convey the services the core programs provide,
and meet employers' needs. The Departments seek comment on the
feasibility of capturing this data accurately, the validity of such an
approach in measuring effectiveness of program services, and the
usefulness of this approach in managing employer services.
The Departments are proposing to look at this as a shared indicator
across programs, as many employers are served by multiple programs.
Another approach could be to apply this measure to individual core
programs. The Departments seek comment on the relative merits of each
approach. The Departments also seek comment about whether a single
metric for this indicator would sufficiently capture effectiveness in
serving employers or if this indicator should encompass a combination
of metrics, including how these metrics could most effectively be
combined.
Understanding that an array of programs provide services to
employers, the Departments seek public comment on additional ways to
measure the core programs' effectiveness in serving employers.
Proposed Sec. 677.155(b) applies the six indicators outlined in
proposed Sec. 677.155(a)(1) to the adult and dislocated worker
programs under title I of WIOA, the AEFLA program under title II of
WIOA, and the Vocational Rehabilitation program as amended by title IV
of WIOA.
Proposed Sec. 677.155(c) applies the primary indicators of
performance in proposed Sec. Sec. 677.155(a)(1)(i)-(iii) and (vi) that
States must include in their Unified or Combined State Plans for the
Employment Services as amended by WIOA title III. Those indicators of
performance which apply to the Employment Services are: (1) The
percentage of program participants who are in unsubsidized employment
during the second quarter after exit from the program; (2) the
percentage of program participants who are in unsubsidized employment
during the fourth quarter after exit from the program; (3) the median
earnings of program participants who are in unsubsidized employment
during the second quarter after exit; and (4) the effectiveness in
serving employers. The Departments also seeks comments on how to best
measure the Wagner-Peyser Employment Services' effectiveness in serving
employers.
Proposed Sec. 677.155(d)(1)-(6) identifies the primary indicators
of performance that States must to address in their Unified or Combined
State Plans for the youth program under WIOA title I. The youth
indicators apply universally to the youth workforce investment program
and, therefore, apply to in-school and out-of-school youth as defined
in WIOA sec. 129(a)(1)(B) and (C).
Proposed Sec. 677.155(d)(1) implements the first statutory
indicator for youth, which measures the percentage of program
participants who are in education or training activities, or in
unsubsidized employment, during the second quarter after exit from the
program. Under WIA, States report on a placement rate, which measures a
youth's placement in either education or employment, after exiting from
the program. The WIOA indicator differs from WIA's placement rate in
three ways. First, the time period for measurement in WIOA is the
second quarter after exit instead of the first quarter after exit.
Second, the placement rate under WIA only allowed post-secondary
education to be reported; whereas, under WIOA, any education, including
secondary and post-secondary, is reported. Third, the placement measure
under WIA excluded those youth who were enrolled in post-secondary
education, employed, or in the military at the time
[[Page 20588]]
of participation; WIOA's indicators do not make these exclusions. WIA's
measure provided insight into how many youth came to a program not
enrolled in post-secondary education, employed, or in the military, and
then after receiving services, obtained employment or were placed into
post-secondary education or training program. Under WIOA, this
indicator does not provide for this exclusion and the Departments'
proposed indicator measures placement in the second quarter after exit
of all participants.
Proposed Sec. 677.155(d)(2) implements the second statutory
indicator that applies to the WIOA youth program under title I. This
indicator under sec. 116 of WIOA is similar to the first indicator in
that it is the percentage of program participants who are in an
education or training program or in unsubsidized employment in the
fourth quarter after exit. The Departments propose that this indicator
measure whether a participant is in education, training or unsubsidized
employment in the fourth quarter.
Proposed Sec. 677.155(d)(3) implements the third statutory
indicator that applies to the youth program under WIOA title I. This
indicator measures median earnings in the second quarter after
participants exit from the program. States must report the median point
for earnings for all program participants in unsubsidized employment in
the second quarter after exit. This indicator measures earnings in the
second quarter after exit, which is the same time frame in which the
States will measure if program participants are in education or
training activities or unsubsidized employment.
Proposed Sec. 677.155(d)(4) implements the fourth statutory
indicator and measures post-secondary credential attainment and high
school completion of program participants who have exited from the
youth program under WIOA title I. The language of the proposed
regulation is the same as the indicator in Sec. 677.155(a)(1)(iv). The
Departments have provided an in-depth explanation of this in the
preamble for Sec. 677.155(a)(1)(iv) and therefore, refer readers to
this section for more information on this definition.
Proposed Sec. 677.155(d)(5) implements the fifth statutory
indicator and pertains to measurable skill gains. The language of the
proposed regulation is the same as the indicator in Sec.
677.155(a)(1)(v). The Departments have provided an in-depth explanation
of this in the preamble for Sec. 677.155(a)(1)(v) and refers readers
to this section for more information on this definition.
Proposed Sec. 677.155(d)(6) implements the sixth statutory
indicator and is the same language for the indicator in Sec.
677.155(a)(1)(vi). The Departments have provided an in-depth
explanation of this in the preamble for Sec. 677.155(a)(1)(v) and
refers readers to this section for more information on this definition.
Sec. 677.160 What information is required for State performance
reports?
Proposed Sec. 677.160 identifies the information States are
statutorily required to report in the State performance report under
WIOA sec. 116(d)(2). The Departments agree that integrated performance
reports would facilitate assessment of WIOA performance across
programs. The proposed regulation reorganizes in a more user-friendly
format the WIOA statutory requirements for the State performance
reports.
Section 116(d)(1) of WIOA requires the Departments to provide a
performance reporting template for each of the performance reports
required in secs. 116(d)(2)-(4) of WIOA. The Departments will seek
public comment on the reporting templates through the PRA process. In
developing these report templates, the Departments will seek to
maximize the value of the templates for workers, job seekers,
employers, local elected officials, State officials, Federal policy-
makers, and other key stakeholders, and seek feedback on the formats
that will be most useful for each audience through the PRA process. The
Departments will seek to align performance reports to the extent
possible while maximizing the value of each report for its primary
audience, in order to have comparable reporting elements across all
core programs in keeping with the shared statutory performance
requirements. Aligning the reports and performance definitions will
create a performance accountability system that is easier to understand
and assess the effectiveness of States in achieving positive outcomes
for individuals served by these programs.
Proposed Sec. 677.160(a) implements the reporting provisions of
WIOA sec. 116(d)(2) for the State performance reports.
Proposed Sec. 677.160(a)(1) requires States to report the number
of participants served and the number of participants who exited from
each of the core programs identified in WIOA sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(ii).
Proposed Sec. 677.160(a)(1)(i)-(ii) implements WIOA's statutory
requirement that the States include a count of the number of
participants and exiters served that are individuals with barriers to
employment, disaggregated by those barriers as defined in WIOA sec.
3(24) and that are co-enrolled in any of the programs in WIOA sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(ii) in the State performance report. Additional reporting
information required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2) in regard to
participants and exiters are age, sex, and race and ethnicity. The
provisions of the statute are clear in what is required and the
Departments have proposed rule text to coincide with the statutory
language.
Proposed Sec. 677.160(a)(2) implements WIOA's statutory
requirement that States include the levels achieved for the primary
indicators of performance listed in Sec. 677.155 in the performance
report. This section also requires that the States' performance report
include disaggregated levels for individuals with barriers to
employment as defined in WIOA sec. 3(24), as well as age, sex, race,
and ethnicity as required by sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA.
Proposed Sec. 677.160(a)(3)-(7) implements WIOA's statutory
requirement that States report information on career and training
services including: (1) Participant and exiter counts by career and
training services, (2) the performance levels achieved for the primary
indicators consistent with Sec. 677.155 for career and training
services, (3) the percentage of participants who are placed into
training-related employment, (4) the amount of funds spent on each type
of career and training service, and (5) the average cost per
participant for participants who received career and training services.
The Departments propose that these requirements are applied based
on the applicable services provided by a core program. For example, the
Employment Services do not provide training services and as such would
not be required to report on training related information--they would
only report on the applicable career services that they provide.
Similarly, the AEFLA program also only provides certain career
services, through the one-stop delivery system, and as such, reporting
would only be required with respect to applicable career services that
the program provides. Requiring programs to report on services they do
not provide would create an additional and unnecessary reporting
burden. This interpretation is in line with sec. 504 of WIOA, which
requires the Departments to simplify and reduce reporting burdens.
(Further information on the career and training services is found at 20
CFR 680.150 and 680.200.) Additionally, the Departments interpret these
provisions as prospective
[[Page 20589]]
provisions that do not require retroactive collection of information.
Proposed Sec. 677.160(a)(3) implements the requirement for core
programs to report on the number of participants and exiters in a
program who received career and training services. Other than the
proposed limitation that this be reported by a program based on the
applicable services it provides, the statutory language is clear in the
requirement and propose to implement as stated.
Proposed Sec. 677.160(a)(4) requires States to provide information
on the performance levels achieved for the primary indicators
consistent with Sec. 677.155 for career and training services for the
most recent program year and the 3 preceding program years, as
applicable to the program providing services. The Departments interpret
this provision to apply to the core programs only with respect to the
applicable services they provide and have more fully discussed this
rationale above.
Proposed Sec. 677.160(a)(5) requires States to include the percent
of participants in a WIOA title I program who obtained unsubsidized
employment related to the training received. This provision implements
WIOA's statutory requirement that States report on training-related
employment. WIOA sec. 116(d)(2)(G) requires States to report on the
participants in programs ``authorized under this subtitle.'' Section
116 is in subtitle A, which does not authorize any programs under WIOA.
Therefore, the Departments interpret this provision of WIOA to mean
that States must report on core programs authorized by title I.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 677.160(a)(6) and (a)(7) require States to
report on the amount of funds spent on each type of career and training
service as well as the average cost per participant for participants
receiving career and training services for the most recent program year
and the 3 preceding program years. The Departments interpret this
provision to apply to the core programs only with respect to the
applicable services they provide as discussed above.
Proposed Sec. 677.160(a)(8) implements WIOA's statutory
requirement that States report on the percent of the State's annual
allotment under WIOA sec. 132(b) that the State spent on administrative
costs.
Proposed Sec. 677.160(a)(9) implements the WIOA statutory
allowance for the collection of information that facilitates
comparisons of programs with programs in other States. The Departments
are considering collecting a variety of supplemental information such
as outcomes for Unemployment Insurance claimants, reportable
individuals, and other subgroups served by the core programs, as well
as additional outcomes, such as entered employment (the number of
individuals who were unemployed when coming into a program and obtained
employment following program exit) or employment retention (the number
of people who were employed in a quarter that remained employed in
subsequent quarters) and information about participants enrolled in
education or training programs that do not lead to a recognized post-
secondary credential as potential performance information for inclusion
in the State annual report narratives. The Departments are also
considering the addition of a supplemental customer service measure,
which would assess the quality of services provided to American Job
Center customers. This measure would not be a primary indicator of
performance, but would be used as a tool for tracking the quality of
the customer experience. The Departments seek comment on how to
structure such a measure (e.g., using the net promoter score) and
whether the inclusion of such a measure would be valuable.
Proposed Sec. 677.160(a)(10) implements WIOA's requirement that if
at least one local area within a State is implementing a Pay-for-
Performance contract strategy, the States' title I programs must
provide a State narrative report that contains the performance
reporting requirements regarding pay-for-performance contracting
strategies, including the performance of service providers entering
into contracts for pay-for-performance strategies and evaluation of the
design of the programs and the performance strategies. Additionally,
this provision requires the evaluation of program design and activities
that require narrative in order to meet the requirements of the
provision. The Departments interpret this provision to only apply to
title I programs and only to apply to those States in which Pay-for-
Performance contracting strategies are being implemented. Pay-for-
performance contracting provisions are only included in the title I
programs. Requiring programs to report on services and contracting
mechanisms they do not provide or employ would create an additional and
unnecessary reporting burden. This interpretation is in line with sec.
504 of WIOA, which requires the Departments to simplify and reduce
reporting burdens.
Proposed Sec. 677.160(b) requires States to comply with WIOA sec.
116(d)(6)(C). This section of WIOA prohibits the disaggregation of data
for a category in the State performance report if the number of
participants in that category is insufficient to yield statistically
reliable information or when the results would reveal personally
identifiable information about a participant. As written, WIOA sec.
116(d)(2) requires the performance report to be subject to WIOA sec.
116(d)(5)(C). However, this section refers to Data Validation, and the
Departments interpret this reference to require States to comply with
sec. 116(d)(6)(C) which ensures the Departments receive statistically
reliable information and protects participants' privacy. The
Departments will issue guidance on these issues.
Proposed Sec. 677.160(c) requires that the State performance
report include a mechanism for electronic access to the State's local
area and eligible training provider (ETP) performance reports. This
provision does not require the State to submit the actual local area
and ETP performance reports with their State report.
Proposed Sec. 677.160(d) proposes that the Departments will
require compliance with these requirements in sec. 116 of WIOA as
explained through joint guidance. The Departments may request
information on reportable individuals for the purpose of understanding
the number of individuals who are accessing services, including self-
services and information-only services, and for other purposes,
including costs.
Sec. 677.165 May a State require additional indicators of performance?
Proposed Sec. 677.165 is updated to reflect WIOA citations. The
provision of additional performance indicators proposed by the State
remains unchanged.
Sec. 677.170 How are State adjusted levels of performance for primary
indicators established?
Proposed Sec. 677.170 outlines the process that will be followed
and the factors that will be considered in determining adjusted levels
of performance.
Proposed Sec. 677.170(a)(1) implements the requirement in sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(iii) that States provide expected levels of performance in
the Unified or Combined State Plan for the first 2 years of the plan.
Proposed Sec. 677.170(a)(2) requires the State to submit expected
levels for the third and fourth year before the start of the third PY
covered by the Unified or Combined State Plan. This requirement is
needed to implement the statutory requirement in WIOA sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(iv)(II) that the
[[Page 20590]]
State reach agreement with the Secretaries on the negotiated levels of
performance before the start of the third PY.
Proposed Sec. 677.170(b) requires that the Secretaries will reach
agreement with the States on negotiated levels of performance based on
the factors in sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(v) of WIOA, and proposed Sec.
677.170(c) provides that the Secretaries will disseminate a statistical
adjustment model that will be used to make the adjustments in the State
adjusted levels of performance for actual economic condition and
characteristics of participants including the factors required by WIOA
sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(viii). The statistical adjustment model must be
developed after consultation with specified stakeholder groups,
including appropriate external experts. The Departments request comment
on whether any additional factors beyond those in the statute should be
considered in developing the model, and the best approach to updating
the model as necessary.
Proposed Sec. 677.170(d)(1) provides for the application of the
model to the primary indicators for the core programs based on the
availability of data to sufficiently populate the model. For example,
baseline data will be required to populate the model. None of the core
programs will have this data for the new indicators of performance,
such as the measurable skill gains indicator, until after States have
begun reporting data for the indicator.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 677.170(d)(2)-(3) provide our interpretation
that the model will be applied twice in the PY. Specifically, the model
will generate an estimate of expected performance to serve as a
framework for negotiating performance targets for the upcoming PY; the
model will also be applied at the end of the PY to adjust expectations
for performance levels based on actual circumstances. This
interpretation is required by WIOA sec. 116(b)(3)(A)(vii), which states
that the negotiated levels will be revised based on the model. This
approach is similar to that utilized under WIA's predecessor, the Job
Training Partnership Act (JTPA), which applied an objective statistical
model in order to develop targets and then updated the model based on
actual circumstances at the end of a PY. Under JTPA, models were
established for each required indicator and sec. 116 of WIOA intends a
similar process.
Proposed Sec. 677.170(e) requires compliance with these
requirements from sec. 116 of WIOA as explained in joint guidance
issued by DOL and ED for subsequent programmatic guidance to be issued
for programs concerning the model, and its application.
Sec. 677.175 What responsibility do States have to use quarterly wage
record information for performance accountability?
Proposed Sec. 677.175 implements the requirement in sec. 116(i)(2)
of WIOA, that States use quarterly wage records, consistent with State
law, to measure State and local progress on the performance
accountability measures.
The use of quarterly wage records is essential to achieve full
accountability under the WIOA performance accountability system to
identify high performing States and localities, and, if necessary, to
provide technical assistance to help improve performance or sanction
low performing States and localities. Matching participant social
security numbers against quarterly wage record information is the most
effective means by which timely and accurate data can be made available
to the system.
Proposed Sec. 677.175(a) requires States to use quarterly wage
record information to measure States' and local areas' progress on the
adjusted levels of performance for the primary indicators of
performance. WIOA sec. 116(i)(2) requires the Secretary of Labor to
make arrangements, consistent with State law, to ensure that the wage
records of any State are available to other States to carry out the
State plan or to complete the 116(d) annual report. Proposed Sec.
677.175(a), therefore, expressly authorizes the use of participants'
social security numbers to measure participants' progress through
quarterly wage records.
Section 136(f)(2) of WIA required the Secretary of Labor to make
arrangements to ensure that wage records of each State are available to
any other State. Under this requirement, the Secretary worked with the
States to create the Wage Record Interchange System (WRIS) and WRIS2.
WRIS and WRIS 2 are automated networks that allow participating States
to query the wage records of other participating States for the purpose
of assessing and reporting on State and local employment, training, and
education program performance. WRIS 2 allows States to share
information for the purposes of reporting on outcomes for employment,
training, and education programs and currently has approximately 36
States participating. WRIS was narrower and only allowed for reporting
on outcomes for employment and training programs; there are currently
50 States participating in WRIS. These data sharing agreements greatly
increased accuracy in States' performance reporting and helped the
Departments evaluate the effectiveness of educational and training
programs. Given that WIOA expands the common performance measures and
common reporting standards across all WIOA programs, including
employment, education and training programs, the Departments intend to
engage in a renegotiation of WRIS data sharing agreements with States,
which will allow States to conduct interstate wage matches for all WIOA
programs.
Proposed Sec. 677.175(b) defines quarterly wage record information
as the intra and interstate wages paid to an individual, the social
security number of the individual, and the name, address, State, and
the FEIN of the employer paying the wages to the individual. This
definition clarifies that the Departments interpret WIOA's reference to
quarterly wage records in sec. 116(i)(2) to mean all of the wages an
individual earned in any State. In today's economy, WIOA participants
may receive services in one State and have work, or have wages
reported, in another State. Therefore, in defining ``quarterly wage
records'' as the interstate and intrastate wages, the Departments hope
to encourage States to conduct interstate wage queries to accurately
report on an individual's wages after participating in a WIOA program.
3. Subpart B--Sanctions for State Performance and the Provision of
Technical Assistance
Sec. 677.180 What State actions are subject to a financial sanction
under Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act sec. 116?
Proposed Sec. 677.180 outlines performance and reporting
requirements that are subject to sanctions under sec. 116(f) of WIOA.
Proposed Sec. 677.180(a) provides that only the failure to submit
the State annual performance reports required under sec. 116(d)(2) of
WIOA is sanctionable. Section 116(f)(1)(B) of WIOA requires the
Departments to assess a sanction if ``a State fails to submit a report
under subsection (d) for any PY.'' There are three reports required
under sec. 116(d): the State annual performance reports, the local area
performance reports, and the ETP performance reports. However, of
these, only the State annual performance reports must be submitted by
the State to the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education.
Proposed Sec. 677.180(b) implements the requirement in sec.
116(f)(1) of WIOA
[[Page 20591]]
that sanctions for performance failure be based on the primary
indicators of performance at Sec. 677.155 of this part for the core
programs: the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs under WIOA
title I, the AEFLA programs under title II, the program under the
Employment Services authorized by the Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended by
title III, and the Vocational Rehabilitation program under the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by title IV.
Sec. 677.185 When are sanctions applied for failure to report?
Proposed Sec. 677.185 outlines the circumstances under which a
State may be sanctioned for failure to report under sec. 116(f)(1)(B)
of WIOA.
Under proposed Sec. 677.185(a)(1), it would be a failure to report
if a State submits its annual performance reports on any date later
than the date for submission set in guidance. The Departments propose
to deem any late submission a failure to report because the Departments
are concerned that setting the date for reporting failure at some later
time would effectively extend the deadline for submission of the
reports. The date for submission will be set in guidance by the
Departments. In addition, under Sec. 677.185(a)(2), the Departments
propose that it would be a failure to report if the State submits a
report on a timely basis, but the report is incomplete, including
failure to include a mechanism to access the local area performance
reports and ETP performance reports. This proposal is based on the
Departments' concern that if only timeliness is required, States could
not be sanctioned for submitting reports that do not meet statutory
requirements for reporting elements. If a State fails to submit a State
annual performance report, it will be subject to a 5 percent sanction
of the Governor's Reserve allotment as discussed in Sec. 677.195 of
this part.
Proposed Sec. 677.185(b) outlines the exceptional circumstances
that would exempt a State from sanction in the case of failure to
report under WIOA sec. 116(f)(1)(B). The statute provides that a
failure to report can be excused by either Secretary in the case of
exceptional circumstances but does not define these circumstances. This
proposal provides a non-exclusive list of exceptional circumstances
beyond the State's control that would be likely to cause a significant
disruption in the State's ability to submit timely, accurate, and
complete performance reports. Reporting challenges that are routine or
predictable would not qualify, because the statute requires the
exception to be based on circumstances that are exceptional.
Under proposed Sec. 677.185(c)(1), the Departments would require
States to notify the Secretary of Education or Labor of exceptional
circumstances as soon as possible but no later than 30 days prior to
the established deadline for the State annual reports to request an
extension to the reporting deadline. This minimum 30-day period for
notification would provide the Secretaries with adequate opportunity to
review the extension request and assess whether the circumstances
underlying the request fit within the statutory exception.
Proposed Sec. 677.185(c)(2) deals with circumstances where an
exceptional circumstance arises less than 30 days before the reporting
deadline. Under this proposal, the Secretaries will review the request
under guidance that the Departments will issue to deal with procedures
for extension requests with less than 30 days' notice.
Sec. 677.190 When are sanctions applied for failure to achieve
adjusted levels of performance?
Proposed Sec. 677.190 explains how States will be assessed for
performance failure and when such failures will result in a financial
sanction. Though the Departments have referenced other non-core
programs in previous sections, performance success or failure will be
based solely on the six core programs consistent with sec. 116(b)(2)
and (f)(1) of WIOA.
Proposed Sec. 677.190(a) explains, consistent with Sec. 677.170,
that the statistical adjustment model will be applied at the end of a
PY to adjust expected levels of performance based on actual economic
conditions experienced and the characteristics of participants.
Proposed Sec. 677.190(b) clarifies that a determination that a
State has failed performance will be based on the performance levels
achieved after the application of the statistical adjustment model,
pursuant to WIOA sec. 116(f)(1) which states that sanctions must be
assessed if a State fails to meet adjusted levels of performance. In
addition, this proposed section restates statutory language that
requires the Secretary of Labor or Education to provide technical
assistance, as appropriate, to include assistance with the development
of a performance improvement plan in any year when a State fails to
meet the adjusted levels of performance.
Proposed Sec. 677.190(c) outlines the three criteria that will be
used to assess a State's performance at the end of a PY: An overall
State program score, an overall State indicator score, and individual
indicator scores. The overall State program score would be an average
score based on the percent of the State adjusted goal achieved on each
of the six primary indicators for a core program. The overall State
indicator score would be based on an average score of the percent of
the State adjusted goal achieved across core programs on each of the
six primary indicators. The individual indicator scores would be based
on the percent of the State adjusted goal achieved on any single
primary indicator for each of the six core programs.
Table 1 below illustrates the manner in which each State is
proposed to be assessed using the overall State program score and the
overall State indicator score. Under this proposal, a failing average
program score for any core program, a failing average indicator score
for any indicator across programs, or a failing score on any individual
indicator for each of the core programs would be a performance failure
under sec. 116(f)(1) of WIOA. The Departments propose this approach
because it provides accountability for all programs and all measures.
For example, a State that on average falls below its median earnings
target threshold across all programs would be subject to sanctions even
if its performance on other indicators is satisfactory. The Departments
seek comment on whether to use a weighted average or a straight average
for purposes of each overall indicator score.
[[Page 20592]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16AP15.000
As shown in Table 1, there are a total of 12 scores on which a
State will be assessed for the proposed overall State indicator score
and overall State program score criteria proposed. The first six
averages on which a State is assessed are the average indicator scores
across the core programs. The second six averages on which a State is
assessed are the average program scores across each of the six
indicators. The first six scores will be the average of the core
programs' percent achieved against their adjusted goals on the first
indicator (employment in the second quarter after exit). The second six
scores are the average of the core programs' percent achieved against
their adjusted goals on the second indicator (employment in the fourth
quarter after exit). For the Employment Services, the Departments
propose to exclude indicators four and five because WIOA exempts the
Employment Services from these indicators. Therefore, the Departments
propose that the program score for the Employment Services be comprised
of the total average score of the percent achieved by the States'
Employment Services against their targets for indicators one, two,
three, and six only. In addition, the Departments propose to phase in
the inclusion of the measurable skills gain and effectiveness in
serving employers indicators.
Proposed Sec. 677.190(d) establishes two thresholds for
performance failure. The first threshold at proposed Sec.
677.190(d)(1) is 90 percent for each of the overall State program
scores and the overall State indicator scores. The Departments are
considering potentially setting this threshold higher to emphasize the
importance of performance success and would be interested in specific
comments on the established levels for success/failure in assessing
performance under WIOA for the core programs. The second threshold in
proposed Sec. 677.190(d)(2) establishes a minimum threshold of 50
percent for the individual indicator scores. The Departments consider
this minimum threshold of performance critical for the purpose of
underscoring the need to achieve and maintain successful performance
with respect to each individual performance indicator, regardless of
average performance across performance indicators and across core
programs. The Departments seek comment on the implications of the
proposed methodology, including the three criteria and associated
thresholds for failure established under this proposed regulation
(i.e., the overall State indicator score [90 percent of adjusted goal],
the overall State program score [90 percent of adjusted goal], and the
individual indicator scores [50 percent of adjusted goal]).
The Departments also request comments generally on how to define
``fails to meet the State adjusted levels of performance'' and
specifically on the methods described above.
The Departments seek comment on the specific timelines for
reporting outcomes on the core indicators of performance as well as the
timing for using the annual State report to determine success or
failure against adjusted levels of performance. Under WIA's performance
accountability provisions, titles I and II use the performance
information reported in the State's annual reports. Under WIA, these
data have a built-in time-lag. WIOA establishes an employment indicator
that extends the time-lag even further. The fourth quarter employment
indicator would not be available until six quarters after a participant
has exited. Given the inherent lag, by statutory definition, in the
indicators, the Departments seek comment on the specific operational
timelines for determining which performance outcomes to use for
assessing performance. Specifically, the Departments seek comment on
which State report should be the first annual State report used to
assess performance against the State's adjusted levels of
[[Page 20593]]
performance. In the event of performance failure in the first year, the
Departments are seeking comment on when the performance improvement
plan should be developed and, in the event there is performance failure
in the second consecutive year, when the financial sanction should be
applied. To the extent possible, the Departments would like to tie
ultimate imposition of financial sanction with the performance
improvement plan process, such that States have the chance to avoid
financial sanction if they successfully execute the reforms included in
their performance improvement plan. The Departments welcome comment on
how best to accomplish this goal.
In addition to timelines for calculating a State's performance
against its adjusted levels of performance, the Departments seek
comment on the timelines for implementing the full accountability
system to include determining performance failure for sanctions.
Because WIOA introduces new indicators on which no historical data
exist, there is a need to establish baseline benchmarks from which to
establish adjusted levels of performance under WIOA. For this reason,
the Departments seek comment on the transition timing of the
performance accountability system as WIOA is implemented.
Proposed Sec. 677.190(e) outlines the statutory process under
which performance failure by any State for 2 consecutive years will
result in a performance sanction.
Sec. 677.195 What should States expect when a sanction is applied to
the Governor's Reserve Allotment?
Proposed Sec. 677.195 explains what will occur when a sanction is
applied to the Governor's Reserve for failure to report or failure to
meet adjusted levels of performance. It clarifies that the sanction
will be 5 percent of the amount that could otherwise be reserved by the
Governor. Section 116(f)(1)(B) of WIOA provides that ``the percentage
of each amount that would . . . be reserved by the Governor under
section 128(a) [Governor's Reserve fund] . . . shall be reduced by five
percentage points.''
This provision is ambiguous and could be interpreted to require a
percentage point reduction in the overall State allotment that could
otherwise be reserved by the Governor. For example, under a percentage
point-based interpretation, if the total State allotment was one
million dollars, and the Governor could reserve 15 percentage points of
the State allotment for a total of $150,000 reserved, the reduced
amount of the Governor's Reserve after a sanction of five percentage
points would be 10 percent of the State allotment (i.e., $100,000).
The better reading is that the maximum amount that could otherwise
be reserved would be reduced by 5 percent. For example, under this
scenario, if the State allotment was one million dollars, and without a
sanction the Governor could reserve $150,000, the amount of the
Governor's Reserve after sanctions would be 95 percent of the amount
that could otherwise be reserved (i.e., $142,500), or in other words,
the $150,000 reserve less the 5 percent sanction. This is a better
reading because a reading that required a reduction of percentage
points of the overall allotment, rather than the percentage reserved by
the Governor, would be unnecessarily punitive and inconsistent with the
overall intent of WIOA. The Departments are further concerned that such
an extreme reduction would frustrate the State's ability to take
actions to improve performance or submit timely, complete, and accurate
performance reports in the future.
Proposed Sec. 677.195(b) clarifies that if, in the same PY, a
State fails under proposed Sec. 677.195(a)(1), failure to report in
any given PY, and fails under proposed Sec. 677.190(a)(2), failure to
meet adjusted levels of performance for 2 consecutive program years,
then sanctions in the amount of 5 percent will be applied for each of
these failures. The maximum sanction therefore that could be applied to
a State in any given PY is 10 percent of the maximum available amount
of the Governor's Reserve allotment--for failure to submit a
performance report and for failure to meet adjusted levels of
performance for 2 consecutive program years. The Departments are
seeking comment on this interpretation of the language under WIOA sec.
116(f), as well as the implications of this proposed regulation. The
Departments also note that the application of sanctions against the
Governor's Reserve does not preclude the Departments from pursuing
other avenues of enforcement as permitted under applicable laws.
Proposed Sec. 677.195(c) clarifies the statutory requirement in
sec. 116(f)(1)(B) of WIOA that a sanction be applied until such a time
as the Secretaries of Education and Labor determine that performance
levels have been met and the State annual performance reports have been
submitted. The immediately following PY is the first point at which the
Departments could reasonably determine that a State that has previously
failed performance has met adjusted levels of performance because the
statistical adjustment model is only applied at the beginning and the
end of the year and not at the time of the quarterly reports. The
Departments interpret this statutory provision to mean that the
reduction continues for the entire PY with no earn-back potential. This
interpretation is consistent with the imposition of a sanction. If a
State could earn its full reserve allotment even if it submitted its
State annual performance report 6 months after the deadline, reporting
deadlines would be undermined and there would be little incentive for
timely reporting. In addition, appropriations law prevents us from
redistributing funds in a later PY. Finally, the proposal clarifies
that the State will continue to have a sanction at the reduced amount
of the total allotment of the Governor's Reserve in successive PYs if
they continue to fail to meet expected levels of performance, or fail
to report.
All performance reports required under sec. 116(d) of WIOA, are
critically important for accountability purposes; however, as discussed
above for proposed Sec. 677.180, because the State annual performance
reports are the only of these reports submitted by the State to the
Departments, they are the only reports that are subject to sanctions.
All required reports must be provided on a timely basis irrespective of
the applicability of sanctions.
Proposed Sec. 677.195(d) identifies that a State may request a
review of any sanction DOL imposes in accordance with the provisions
outlined in 20 CFR 683.800.
The Departments also request comments on the specific approach
outlined above, as well as generally on (1) how to define ``fails to
meet the State adjusted levels of performance,'' and (2) how to
operationalize the Departments' approach to applying sanctions for both
failure to submit a performance report and performance failure (i.e., a
maximum sanction of 10 percent), including when sanctions should be
applied. The Departments are considering whether failure to submit a
performance report would automatically constitute failure to meet State
adjusted levels of performance, resulting in the maximum sanction of 10
percent (5 percent for failure to submit a performance report and 5
percent for failure to meet State adjusted levels of performance). In
order to encourage States to submit the performance report and avoid
the maximum potential sanction, the Departments are considering a
definition of performance failure that would provide a final deadline
for the States to submit their performance data and avoid a sanction
[[Page 20594]]
for failure to meet the State's adjusted levels of performance.
Sec. 677.200 What other administrative actions will be applied to
States' performance requirements?
Proposed Sec. 677.200 outlines the circumstances under which a
State will be subject to additional administrative actions when
determined to be at risk due to low performance on an individual
primary indicator.
Proposed Sec. 677.200(a) identifies the circumstances under which
administrative actions would be triggered outside of the sanctions
process. While States' performance on the primary indicators will be
aggregated into an overall program score and overall indicator score to
assess performance failure, the individual indicators will be assessed,
as explained in guidance, in order to establish whether a program's
performance is at risk. While sanctions are based on performance and
reporting failures, the Departments want to foster a workforce system
that is focused on achieving success, not just avoiding failure. Early
intervention in the event of performance problems is necessary for
States to achieve successful outcomes. Accordingly, to assist the
States in performing well for all one-stop customers, the Departments
propose alternate administrative actions for performance issues that do
not rise to the level of sanctionable failure.
Under proposed Sec. 677.200(b) if a single primary indicator for a
State's programs is determined to be at risk, as explained in guidance
issued by DOL or ED, the State must develop and submit a performance
risk plan to outline the primary reasons for low performance and the
steps they are taking to improve performance and ameliorate the risk
for that indicator or indicators. This will require States to take a
proactive approach to addressing performance concerns before they rise
to the level of failure. The Departments propose that the levels set
for administrative actions will be explained in guidance so that the
Departments can adjust the levels as needed as the Departments gain
programmatic experience with the new WIOA performance measures. As
these levels will not be the subject of financial sanctions but are
instead within the Departments' general monitoring responsibilities,
the inclusion of the levels in regulation is not required.
4. Subpart C--Local Performance Accountability for Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act Title I Programs
Sec. 677.205 What performance indicators apply to local areas?
Proposed Sec. Sec. 677.205(a) and (b) implement sec. 116(c) of
WIOA and clarify that for the core programs under title I of WIOA each
local workforce area will be subject to the same primary indicators as
States, although Governors may elect to apply additional performance
indicators to local areas. Proposed Sec. 677.205(c) outlines and
explains that local area reports are required to be reported on the
standard template that the Departments will provide under WIOA sec.
116(d)(1); be made available to the public on an annual basis,
including by electronic means; and must include, at a minimum, the
local areas' performance levels achieved with respect to the primary
indicators under Sec. 677.155 as well as additional information States
are required to report under WIOA sec. 116(d)(3). This section largely
summarizes statutory language in WIOA and establishes the proposed
framework for guidelines and instructions that the Departments plan to
issue later to implement and carry out the performance reporting
requirements of WIOA sec. 116. In addition, proposed Sec. 677.205(c)
requires the State to provide electronic links to the local area
performance report as part of its annual State performance report. The
Departments propose this requirement because while WIOA sec.
116(d)(6)(B) requires the State to make the local report publicly
available, sec. 116(d)(6)(D) requires the Secretaries to disseminate
these reports to Congress. The proposal will enable the Departments to
fulfill this statutory requirement.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 677.205(d) and (e) outline the minimum required
information to be provided in those reports consistent with sec.
116(d)(3) of WIOA. Under proposed Sec. 677.205(d), the local area
reports must contain information on actual performance levels achieved
(consistent with Sec. 677.175, regarding the use and aggregation of
interstate and intrastate wage records) on the primary indicators as
outlined in Sec. 677.155. Under proposed Sec. 677.205(e), States must
also make available performance information for their local areas for
the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs under WIOA title I
consistent with Sec. 677.160(a). States are also required to make
available information on the percentage of a local area's allotment
under WIOA sec. 128(b) and 133(b) that the local areas spent on
administrative costs as well as any other information that may be
proposed in guidance from the Secretary of Labor to facilitate
comparisons of programs, with other programs in local areas or planning
regions as deemed appropriate.
Proposed Sec. 677.205(f) reiterates that States are responsible
for compliance with any associated guidance, including the use of the
performance reporting template, issued by the Secretary of Labor for
compliance with local area performance reporting requirements.
Sec. 677.210 How are local performance levels established?
Proposed Sec. 677.210 describes the process to be utilized to
establish local performance targets prior to the start of a PY and,
subsequently, to establish performance levels based on actual
circumstances at the conclusion of a PY. The proposed process is
similar to the proposed language for establishing State performance
levels, including the negotiations process, which is proposed to be
developed and disseminated by the Governor and conducted with the Local
Boards and CEOs.
Proposed Sec. 677.210(a) implements the requirements of sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(viii) of WIOA to apply a statistical adjustment model in
the establishment of local area adjusted levels of performance. It
requires the Departments to run the model at the beginning of a PY and
at the end of the PY to revise adjusted levels of performance based on
actual conditions experienced and the characteristics of participants.
Proposed Sec. 677.210(b)-(c) requires that the Governor, Local
Board, and CEO reach agreement on local targets and adjusted levels of
performance based on a negotiations process prior to the start of a PY.
The Governor is to establish a negotiations process and disseminate it
to all of the Local Boards and CEOs.
Proposed Sec. 677.210(d) states that Local Boards have the
authority to establish performance targets for service providers in a
local area. Setting performance targets will help local areas in
evaluating the performance of service providers, managing programs at
the local level, and determining whether to maintain or change
providers. This also allows locals some flexibility in the way they
structure their service delivery design while taking into account the
performance requirements for a local area. The Departments suggest that
the local area should consider its negotiated local performance levels,
the services to be provided by each provider, and populations the
service provider is
[[Page 20595]]
intended to serve in developing these targets. Targets may vary by
provider and may be different from the local area's performance
measures.
5. Subpart D--Incentives and Sanctions for Local Performance for
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I Programs
Sec. 677.215 Under what circumstances are local areas eligible for
State Incentive Grants?
Proposed Sec. 677.215 outlines the circumstances in which a local
area is eligible for an incentive grant.
Proposed Sec. 677.215(a) implements sec. 116(h) of WIOA and
explains that the Governor is not required, but is allowed to use non-
Federal funds to create incentives for Local Boards to implement pay-
for-performance contract strategies for the delivery of training
services described in sec. 134(c)(3) and sec. 129(c)(2) of WIOA in the
local areas served by the Local Boards.
Proposed Sec. 677.215(b) maintains that pay-for-performance
contract strategies must be implemented in accordance with 20 CFR
683.500 through 683.530 and Sec. 677.160.
Sec. 677.220 Under what circumstances may a corrective action or
sanction be applied to local areas for poor performance?
Proposed Sec. 677.220(a) explains the circumstances under which
local areas must receive technical assistance under WIOA sec. 116(g)
for failure to meet levels of performance. In accordance with WIOA, the
proposed rule would require that local areas must receive technical
assistance and may be subject to a performance improvement plan for
failure to achieve adjusted levels of performance established with the
State for primary performance indicators in the adult, dislocated
worker, or youth programs authorized under title I of WIOA in any PY.
The Governor, or his/her designee, or upon request of the Governor, the
Secretary of Labor, must provide technical assistance, which may
include assistance in the development of a performance improvement plan
or a modified local or regional plan, to the local area in the first
year of failure to meet levels on the required performance indicators.
In requesting assistance from the Secretary of Labor, the Governor's
request should include the factors that impede the provision of
successful technical assistance at the State level, because the State
is generally in the best position to address failure to meet the
performance levels it negotiated with the local area. The Departments
further clarify that a State must establish the threshold for failure
for a local area to meet levels of performance prior to negotiating
local area adjusted levels of performance. A local area cannot
accurately negotiate adjusted levels of performance without having an
understanding of what the State will consider failure.
Proposed paragraph (b), in accordance with WIOA, outlines the
required corrective actions for local areas that continue to fail to
meet performance indicators for 3 consecutive years. A local area that
failed to meet adjusted levels of performance on required performance
indicators for a third consecutive year is subject to reorganization,
which would include the certification of a new Board, the exclusion of
underperforming service providers or partners, and other actions the
Governor deems appropriate. The Departments request comments regarding
what other actions should be considered in this circumstance.
Sec. 677.225 Under what circumstances may local areas appeal a
reorganization plan?
Proposed Sec. 677.225 implements sec. 116(g)(2)(B) of WIOA and
outlines when a local area and CEO may appeal a reorganization plan
executed by the Governor.
Proposed Sec. 677.225(a) explains that the Local Board and CEO for
a local area subject to a reorganization plan under WIOA sec.
116(g)(2)(A) may appeal to the Governor to rescind or revise a
reorganization plan no later than 30 days after receiving notice of the
reorganization plan. The Governor must make a final decision 30 days
after receipt of an appeal.
Proposed Sec. 677.225(b) implements the statutory requirement that
if the Local Board and CEO wish to appeal the final decision of the
Governor, they must make an appeal to the Secretary of Labor no later
than 30 days after receiving the final decision from the Governor. The
Departments propose to require that any appeal to the Governor under
proposed Sec. 677.225(a) or the Secretary of Labor under proposed
Sec. 677.225(b) must be submitted jointly by the Local Board and the
CEO. The Departments propose this interpretation because the statute
uses the conjunctive ``and'' in stating that the Local Board and the
CEO may appeal. In addition, this interpretation has the benefit of
requiring review only in circumstances where the Local Board and CEO
are in agreement that the reorganization plan should be appealed and
will conserve government resources in cases where either the Local
Board or CEO agrees with the Governor's decision. This approach also
avoids duplication and inefficiency that would be engendered by
providing an opportunity for the Local Board and the CEO to appeal
separately.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 677.225(c)-(d) implement statutory requirements
that the Secretary must make a final decision regarding an appeal
within 30 days of receipt of the appeal and that a reorganization
decision made by the Governor is effective at the time it is issued and
remains in effect unless and until such time that the Secretary of
Labor rescinds or revises the reorganization plan on appeal.
6. Subpart E--Eligible Training Provider Performance for Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I Programs
Sec. 677.230 What information is required for the eligible training
provider performance reports?
Proposed Sec. 677.230 implements the requirements of sec.
116(d)(4) of WIOA, which requires annual ETP performance reports. The
ETP performance reports provide critical information, including the
employment, earnings, and credentials obtained by individuals in the
programs of study eligible to receive funding under the adult and
dislocated worker formula programs under title I-B of WIOA. This
information will be of significant benefit in assisting WIOA
participants and members of the general public in identifying effective
training programs and providers. The information will also benefit
providers by widely disseminating information about their programs and
potentially as a tool to enhance their programs.
The Departments are seeking comment on how the Departments may best
support ETPs in meeting the requirements of this section as well as how
to make the ETP reports a useful tool for WIOA participants, ETPs,
interested stakeholders, and the general public.
This proposed regulation, in conjunction with proposed Sec.
680.400 through 680.530, establishes the minimum requirements for
performance information to be provided in the ETP performance reports.
Proposed Sec. 677.230(a) requires that States make publicly
available and publish in the standard template disseminated by the
Departments under ETP performance reports under WIOA sec. 116(d)(4),
including by electronic means, the ETP reports for those ETPs who
provide services under sec. 122 of WIOA, which is further discussed in
20 CFR 680.500.
Consistent with proposed Sec. 680.470, and as provided below in
proposed paragraph (b) of the section, States are
[[Page 20596]]
only required to provide performance information on registered
apprenticeship programs if these programs voluntarily submit
performance information. DOL is considering ways to support interested
registered apprenticeship programs in the collection and dissemination
of performance data. The Department seeks comment on ways to support
registered apprenticeship programs that are interested in providing
performance information, and what that information might look like.
Proposed Sec. 677.230(a)(1) outlines the minimum participant
performance information that is required to be made available under the
statutory provisions in sec. 116(d)(4) of WIOA. ETP performance reports
must include performance information on the total number of
participants who receive training services under the adult and
dislocated worker programs of WIOA title I for the most recent PY of
performance as well as the three preceding PYs. The ETP reports must
provide disaggregated counts of participants in the adult and
dislocated worker programs with respect to barriers to employment, age,
sex, and race and ethnicity.
Additionally, the ETP performance reports must include counts of
participants disaggregated by type of training entity for the adult and
dislocated worker programs for the most recent PY and three preceding
PYs. The Departments interpret this requirement to be applicable only
in prospective years; this would not apply retroactively and would not
require ETPs to provide information for these reports in years prior to
being established as an ETP in the performance reports. Any data
provided for initial eligibility determinations should be done
consistent with established parameters under 20 CFR part 680, subpart
E.
Proposed Sec. 677.230(a)(2) outlines the minimum exit-based
performance information that is required to be made available under the
statutory provisions in sec. 116(d)(4) of WIOA. At a minimum, the ETP
performance reports must contain the number of participants who exit
from a program of study, and the total number of participants who
exited, disaggregated by type of training entity for a PY and the three
preceding PYs.
Proposed Sec. 677.230(a)(3) identifies additional requirements
that the ETP performance reports contain performance information on the
average cost-per-participant for participants who received training
services and disaggregated by type of training entity for the PY and
three preceding PYs. The Departments interpret this requirement to be
applicable only in prospective years; this would not apply
retroactively, and does not require ETPs to provide information for
these reports in years prior to being established as an ETP. The
Departments seek comment on the best way to calculate cost-per-
participant. Any data provided for initial eligibility determinations
should be done consistent with established parameters under 20 CFR part
680, subpart E.
Proposed Sec. 677.230(a)(4) provides that the ETP performance
reports contain information on the total number of individuals exiting
from a program of study (or its equivalent). This includes all students
in a program of study and is not limited to those students who are WIOA
participants. Including all students provides significantly better
information on the effectiveness of a program of study.
Proposed Sec. 677.230(a)(5) reiterates the statutory requirements
for outcome information on all students in a program of study with
regard to the primary indicators of performance (as identified in
clauses (I)-(IV), sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(i) of WIOA, and Sec. Sec.
677.155(a)(1)(i)-(iv)).
Proposed Sec. 677.230(b) is consistent with 20 CFR 680.470 and
provides that registered apprenticeship programs need not submit
performance information. Under this proposal, if a registered
apprenticeship program voluntarily submits this information, it must be
part of the report as with any other training provider.
Proposed Sec. 677.230(c) requires the State to provide electronic
access to the eligible training provide performance report as part of
its annual State performance report. The Departments propose this
requirement because while WIOA sec. 116(d)(6)(B) requires the State to
make the ETP performance report available, sec. 116(d)(6)(D) requires
the Secretaries to summarize and disseminate these reports to Congress.
The proposal will enable the Departments to fulfill this statutory
requirement.
Proposed Sec. 677.230(d) requires States to follow reporting
guidance to be issued that will explain and clarify procedures
governing this section.
Proposed Sec. 677.230(e) establishes that a Governor may designate
one or more State agencies or appropriate State entities, such as a
State education agency or State educational authority, to assist in
overseeing the ETP performance and facilitating the production and
dissemination of ETP performance reports. These agencies may be the
same agencies that are designated responsible for administering the ETP
list as provided for in Sec. 680.210. The designated State agency or
entity is responsible for data matching required to produce the ETP
reports using quarterly wage data, creating and disseminating the
reports, and coordinating the dissemination of the performance reports
with the ETP list as provided in Sec. 680.210.
Proposed Sec. 677.230(e)(1) establishes that the designated agency
would be responsible for the facilitating the data matches necessary to
develop and compile the ETP performance reports. This proposed
regulation seeks to provide a foundation for data matching for the
purposes of these reports to allow States more opportunities to
establish the necessary connections and procedures that are in
compliance with the existing regulations governing education data
governed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and
the UI wage data governed by State law and UI Confidentiality
Regulations found in 20 CFR part 603.
Proposed Sec. 677.230(e)(2) establishes that the designated State
agency or State entity responsible for these reports would carry the
responsibility for the creation and dissemination requirements found in
this subsection. The Departments recognize that the ETP performance
reports are a departure from the previous reporting mechanisms related
to ETPs as they existed under WIA. The Departments are seeking comment
on specific aspects of this new performance reporting requirement as it
relates to reporting burden for training providers under this
requirement. The Departments are interested in comments on ways the
Departments may reduce this burden for training providers as well as
how the Departments may leverage this performance reporting requirement
to be of more use to the ETPs. The Departments would like specific
comments on what would facilitate the reporting process to make it
easier for ETPs to report on multiple programs of study, including
programs that they would like to be on the list but do not have
currently any WIOA funded participants enrolled.
Proposed Sec. 677.230(e)(3) establishes the designated State
agency or State entity as responsible for coordinating the
dissemination of the ETP performance reports with the dissemination of
the ETP list. WIOA sec. 122 establishes the ETP list as a key resource
in the State one-stop system and requires it to be available to
individuals seeking information on training programs as well as
participants receiving career services funded under WIOA and other
programs. DOL
[[Page 20597]]
considers the ETP reports to also be a key component of consumer
choice.
The Departments propose that the ETP performance report be
disseminated in coordination with the dissemination of the ETP list and
the information that is required to accompany that list under Sec.
680.500. This coordination requirement is consistent with the statutory
emphasis on consumer choice and performance accountability.
7. Subpart F--Performance Reporting Administrative Requirements
Sec. 677.235 What are the reporting requirements for individual
records for core Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title I, III,
and IV programs?
Proposed Sec. 677.235 outlines the requirements for core WIOA
title I, III and IV programs for the collection and submission of
individual records.
Proposed Sec. 677.235(a) requires that States submit individual
records containing demographic information, information on services
received, and information on resulting outcomes for individuals served
by specific programs to be submitted by programs to their appropriate
Secretary on a quarterly basis. At the time of WIOA's enactment, DOL
already required the submission of standardized individual records for
the adult, dislocated worker and youth programs, and programs
authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act. Similarly, ED required the
submission of individual-level data from case service records for the
Vocational Rehabilitation program.
DOL began requiring States to submit quarterly individual records,
in part, to ensure the information submitted in States' annual reports
as required by WIA were accurate. These quarterly reports also helped
DOL identify States that needed early intervention to provide
assistance if they are not meeting their performance goals. The DOL
interpreted several provisions of WIA as authorizing the collection of
these reports. Specifically, WIA sec. 136 required DOL to measure
States' progress, WIA sec. 172 required DOL to evaluate the activities
of its programs, and WIA sec. 189 required DOL to submit an annual
report to Congress on WIA title I programs. Additionally, WIA sec. 185
required States to maintain records sufficient to prepare performance
reports. Considered as a whole, these statutory provisions authorized
DOL to require States submit these reports.
ED has collected individual-level data regarding all individuals
served by the Vocational Rehabilitation program, whose case service
records were closed, in order to satisfy data collection requirements
and to ensure States' compliance with programmatic requirements under
WIA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ED has historically collected
this data, via the Case Service Report (RSA-911), for open cases as
well as closed cases, annually, but proposes to start collecting this
data on a quarterly basis to satisfy requirements imposed by WIOA.
Section 13 of the Rehabilitation Act requires ED to collect and
report information required by WIOA sec. 101(a)(10) to Congress and to
the President in the Annual Report. Section 14 of the Rehabilitation
Act requires ED to conduct evaluations of the VR program. The
information from this data collection is used in these evaluations.
Section 106 of the Rehabilitation Act requires each State to report to
ED the extent to which each State is in compliance with standards and
indicators. Section 107 of the Act requires an annual review and
periodic onsite monitoring of States' performance, much of which is
determined on the basis of this data collection activity. RSA-911 data
are also needed to satisfy the requirements of sec. 131 of the
Rehabilitation Act, which requires an exchange of data between RSA, the
Social Security Administration (SSA), and DOL.
Sections 116, 169, and 185 of WIOA retain similar requirements to
the WIA provisions the Departments relied on to require these reports.
Additionally, WIOA's increased focus on performance accountability and
requirement that the Departments sanction failing States, give the
Departments authority to require these reports.
Proposed Sec. 677.235(b) requires the individual records be
submitted in one record that is integrated across all core DOL
programs. The proposal would require that the individual records
submitted by States be standardized in terms of data elements and
associated reporting specifications. Currently quarterly individual
records are program-specific and not part of an integrated performance
reporting system. For DOL programs, States are required to provide two
separate individual records for an individual receiving services under
WIA and Wagner-Peyser. This duplication increases the reporting burden
on States and treats these programs separately rather than as parts of
a holistic, integrated system designed to efficiently provide necessary
employment and training services to an individual.
Furthermore, sec. 504 of WIOA requires DOL and ED to reduce
reporting burden and simplify reporting requirements. A single
integrated individual record best meets these needs. Requiring a
single, integrated record will eliminate duplicative reporting of an
individual's demographic information across programs.
At the time of enactment, the Workforce Investment Streamlined
Performance Reporting (WISPR) system is the most integrated individual
record layout utilized in workforce development programs administered
by DOL. The WISPR includes programmatic and performance reporting
across programs authorized under WIA (adult, dislocated worker, and
youth), Wagner-Peyser, the Trade Act, and the Jobs for Veterans State
Grant programs administered by DOL's Veterans' Employment and Training
Service (VETS). This new regulation proposes an integrated, individual
record that is similar to the WISPR approach for core programs
administered by DOL, which supports system alignment, as well as
reduced reporting burden as required under sec. 504 of WIOA. The
Departments are working towards establishing reporting templates for
the required performance reports and individual record formats that
States will be required to use in order to meet these reporting
requirements.
Proposed Sec. 677.235(c) explains that associated reporting
instructions are proposed to be provided through policy guidance.
Sec. 677.240 What are the requirements for data validation of State
annual performance reports?
Proposed Sec. 677.240 implements sec. 116(d)(5) of WIOA, which
requires States to establish procedures, consistent with DOL and ED
guidelines to provide that the information in the States' annual
performance reports are valid and reliable. Therefore, the Departments
propose to add Sec. 677.240, which requires States to submit valid and
reliable annual State performance reports and associated individual
record information consistent with requirements that the Secretaries of
Labor and Education will explain through guidance. To ensure States are
meeting this statutory requirement, the Departments propose that if a
State fails to achieve the accuracy standards, the Secretary of Labor
or Education may require the State to develop and implement corrective
actions, which may require the State to provide training for its
subrecipients. These proposed
[[Page 20598]]
requirements are separate from the corrective actions provided under
Sec. 677.185 and Sec. 677.220. The Departments are committed to
providing that States have the information needed to effectively
validate data and propose that the Departments will provide training
and technical assistance about these requirements.
C. Description of the One-Stop System Under Title I of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (20 CFR Part 678; 34 CFR Part 361,
Subpart F; 34 CFR Part 463, Subpart J)
1. Introduction
In the section-by-section discussions of each proposed one-stop
provision below, the heading references the proposed DOL CFR part and
section number. However, the Department of Education proposes in this
joint NPRM identical provisions at 34 CFR part 361, subpart F (under
its State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program regulations) and
at 34 CFR part 463, subpart J (under a new CFR part for AEFLA
regulations). For purposes of brevity, the section-by-section
discussions for each Department's provisions appear only once--in
conjunction with the DOL section number--and constitute the
Departments' collective explanation and rationale for each proposed
provision.
2. Subpart A--General Description of the One-Stop Delivery System
The WIOA reaffirms the role of the one-stop system, a cornerstone
of the public workforce development system, and subpart A describes the
one-stop delivery system. Although there are many similarities to the
system established under the WIA, there are also significant changes
under WIOA. This subpart, therefore, restates WIA requirements
governing one-stop centers, to the extent they are still applicable
under WIOA, and embodies a set of reforms that, when implemented
effectively, are intended to make significant improvements to the
public workforce delivery system. These proposed regulations would
establish requirements of the one-stop career center system as defined
under WIOA, requiring partners to collaborate to support a seamless
customer-focused service delivery network. The proposed regulations
would require that programs and providers collocate, coordinate, and
integrate activities and information, so that the system as a whole is
cohesive and accessible for individuals and businesses alike. The
ultimate goal is to increase the long-term employment outcomes for
individuals seeking services, especially those with significant
barriers to employment, and to improve services to employers.
Proposed subpart A describes the one-stop center system established
under WIOA. It establishes the different types of one-stop career
centers allowable in each local area, and addresses the use of
technology to provide services through the one-stop delivery system. As
discussed in Sec. Sec. 678.305 and 678.310, a local area's one-stop
delivery system may be made up of a combination of a comprehensive one-
stop center and a network of affiliated sites. When designing the one-
stop delivery system, States and Local Boards must ensure that
information on the availability of career services is available at all
one-stop physical locations and access points, including electronic
access points, regardless of where individuals initially enter the
local one-stop system.
Sec. 678.300 What is the one-stop delivery system?
Proposed Sec. 678.300(a) describes the requirements of the one-
stop delivery system and the purpose. The one-stop delivery system
brings together a series of partner programs and entities responsible
for workforce development, educational, and other human resource
programs to collaborate in the creation of a seamless customer-focused
service delivery network that enhances access to the programs'
services. Partners, programs, and providers will collocate, coordinate,
and integrate activities so that individuals seeking assistance will
have access to information and services that lead to positive
employment outcomes for individuals seeking services.
Proposed Sec. 678.300(b) provides that there are responsibilities
at the local, State and Federal levels relative to the establishment
and maintenance of the one-stop delivery system.
Proposed Sec. 678.300(c) retains the same requirement found under
WIA at 20 CFR 662.100(c) that there be at least one physical one-stop
career center in each local area.
Proposed Sec. 678.300(d) allows for the establishment of
additional affiliate locations including specialized centers serving
targeted participant populations, such as youth or dislocated workers,
or industry sector specific centers.
Proposed Sec. 678.300(e) states that required one-stop partners
must provide electronic access to programs, activities, and services by
electronic means, in addition to providing access to the services at a
comprehensive one-stop center or making the program services available
at an affiliated site if the partner is participating at the affiliated
site. Services provided through electronic means would need to
supplement and not supplant those provided through the physical one-
stop delivery system. The phrase ``electronic means'' includes Web
sites, social media, internet chat features, and telephone.
Proposed Sec. 678.300(f) requires that the description of the one-
stop delivery system be included in the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) required at proposed 20 CFR 678.500.
Sec. 678.305 What is a comprehensive one-stop center and what must be
provided there?
Proposed Sec. 678.305 requires that there be a comprehensive one-
stop career center in each local area. Although the requirement to have
at least one physical center in each local area is unchanged from the
requirement under WIA, and the requirement is more fully described
under these proposed regulations.
Proposed Sec. 678.305(a) establishes that the comprehensive one-
stop center is a physical location where individuals must have access
to a specific set of services that must be made available to
individuals seeking services. The required services are listed in
proposed Sec. 678.305(b) and the proposed rule defines ``access'' in
Sec. 678.305(d). Customers can access a specific program without that
program's staff being physically present at a one-stop center. However,
in order to ensure that comprehensive one-stop centers are not all
virtual services, the Departments propose that WIOA title I staff be
physically present in the one-stop. There may be creative ways to
provide all virtual services to customers, but such an all-virtual site
would not be considered a comprehensive one-stop center. This proposed
physical presence requirement does not have to be met by a full-time
staff person, and can be met by the physical presence of different
staff trading off throughout regular business hours (e.g., job-sharing
or shift work).
Proposed Sec. 678.305(c) provides that individuals must have
access to the required services under Sec. 678.305(b) on regular
business days, at a minimum, at the comprehensive center. This is a
more specific requirement than exists under WIA. If, for example, the
comprehensive one-stop center is open Monday through Friday, customers
must have access to the services listed at Sec. 678.305(b) Monday
through Friday. The Departments strongly encourage Local Boards to find
creative ways to expand the hours that services are available to
customers, to ensure that
[[Page 20599]]
services are universally accessible to people with various working
hours, different access to transportation, and different family care
arrangements. For example, Local Boards should consider ways to make
services available to job seekers who might have childcare
responsibilities or work during the normal business day. State Boards
must consider service hours when evaluating effectiveness of one-stop
centers, as part of the one-stop certification process described
further in Sec. 678.800(b).
Proposed Sec. 678.305(d) defines the access to services that must
be available to individuals seeking assistance at the comprehensive
one-stop. This access can be provided in one of three variations of
physically present staff or through technology: (1) Program staff
physically present at the location; (2) staff physically present at the
one-stop from any partner program appropriately trained to provide
information to customers about the programs, services, and activities
available through partner programs, such as the types of services that
program provides and whether the services might meet the individual's
needs; or (3) providing direct linkage through technology to someone
who can either provide the program services, or provide information
such as how to apply for the program, or how to begin receiving
services. Under the proposed rule, if there is access to technological
direct linkages (as defined in Sec. 678.305(d)(1)) at a comprehensive
one-stop center for a specific program, no partner program staff must
be physically present.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 678.305(d)(1) and (2) provide that services
provided through technology must be meaningful, available in a timely
manner and not simply a referral to additional services at a later date
or time.
Proposed Sec. 678.305(e) requires that all comprehensive one-stop
career centers be physically and programmatically accessible to
individuals with disabilities.
Sec. 678.310 What is an affiliated site and what must be provided
there?
In addition to the proposed requirement for a physical center in
each local area where required one-stop partners must provide access to
their programs, services and activities, proposed Sec. 678.310
provides that the one-stop delivery system may also provide programs,
services, and activities through affiliated sites or through a network
of eligible one-stop partners that provide at least one or more of the
programs, services, and activities at a physical location or through an
electronically or technologically linked access point, such as a
library.
Proposed Sec. 678.310(a) defines an affiliated site as a location
that makes available one or more of the required or optional programs,
services, and activities to individuals. The proposed rule is not
intended to establish a new physical presence requirement for one-stop
partner programs in affiliated sites. Physical presence at affiliated
sites can be negotiated at the local level by partner programs and the
Local Board, and may be under 50 percent for any individual partner
program, except in those cases described in proposed Sec. 678.315(b).
Proposed Sec. 678.310(b) sets forth the prohibition against
standalone Wagner-Peyser employment service centers, described more
fully in proposed Sec. 678.315. Section 121(e)(3) of WIOA, which
requires colocation of Wagner-Peyser employment services, is effective
on July 1, 2015. However, proposed Sec. 678.310(c) recognizes that
States will need a reasonable amount of time to fully integrate the
delivery of employment services into the one-stop system. Real property
issues, decisions on site locations, discussions with municipal or
county governments, and development of agreements with partners to
participate at both comprehensive and affiliated sites may require some
time. Nevertheless, a State in such circumstances must be prepared to
provide DOL with a plan that details the steps the State will take to
achieve colocation of Wagner-Peyser employment services as described in
proposed Sec. 678.315, and a timetable showing how the State will
achieve colocation of Wagner-Peyser services within a reasonable time.
The Departments are aware that States may also be considering how best
to integrate other partner programs and may be considering the
colocation of other programs as well. In its plan for achieving Wagner-
Peyser employment services colocation, the State may wish to include
how it will collocate other programs too, but this is not required. DOL
may request the plan for achieving Wagner-Peyser employment services
colocation during monitoring and other oversight activities. DOL's ETA
will provide guidance on the approach it will use to obtain the plan
and timeline from States.
Proposed Sec. 678.310(d) requires that all affiliate one-stop
centers be physically and programmatically accessible to individuals
with disabilities, as described in proposed Sec. 678.800.
Sec. 678.315 Can a stand-alone Wagner-Peyser employment service office
be designated as an affiliated one-stop site?
Proposed Sec. 678.315 sets forth the prohibition against
standalone Wagner-Peyser employment services offices, to implement
WIOA's amendment to the Wagner-Peyser Act that requires Wagner-Peyser
employment services to be collocated with one-stop centers. Wagner-
Peyser employment services cannot, by themselves, constitute an
affiliated one-stop center. In those cases where Wagner-Peyser
employment services are located in an affiliated site, there must be at
least one other partner in that affiliated site whose staff is
physically present more than 50 percent of the time the center is open.
Certain partner programs cannot be considered the ``other partner''
when determining whether Wagner-Peyser employment services are stand-
alone; these are: local veterans' employment representatives, disabled
veterans' outreach program specialists, or unemployment compensation
(UC) staff. Local veterans' employment representatives, disabled
veterans' outreach program specialists, also referred to collectively
as JVSG programs, are typically provided alongside Wagner-Peyser
employment services programs. When a veteran does not receive services
through the disabled veterans' outreach program, that veteran is served
by the Wagner-Peyser employment service. To provide individuals with
the full range of employment, training, and education services
available, it is important to connect both the JVSG programs and the
Wagner-Peyser employment service with the rest of the one-stop system.
The Departments expect that the entity that administers the Wagner-
Peyser employment service, in consultation with Local Boards and one-
stop partners, will need to make the changes needed to comply with the
proposed rule. The proposed rule is not intended to establish a new
physical presence requirement for individual one-stop partner programs
in affiliated sites. The proposed rule is meant to trigger adjustments
on where Wagner-Peyser employment services are delivered. The
Departments are aware that some one-stop partner programs are unable to
have a physical presence in every affiliated site. Partner programs and
the Local Board can negotiate physical presence at affiliated sites,
and this presence may be below 50 percent for any one partner program.
The Departments seek feedback, particularly from workforce programs
outside WIOA title I and III, on whether the proposed requirement that
other partners be
[[Page 20600]]
present more than 50 percent of the time creates an impediment to
participating in the one-stop system, and whether any other changes
would facilitate colocation.
Sec. 678.320 Are there any requirements for networks of eligible one-
stop partners or specialized centers?
Proposed Sec. 678.320 explains the requirements for the networks
of one-stop partners and specialized centers named in the statute.
These entities were not listed in WIA but were included as part of the
one-stop system in the WIA regulations. An example of a specialized
center is one targeted for youth, one geared at a specific industry
sector, or one established specifically to respond to a large localized
layoff. These specialized centers do not need to provide access to
every required partner, but must have a way to make referrals to one-
stop partners in comprehensive and affiliate centers. The specialized
centers should also follow-up to make sure that services were provided
after referral. A Local Board can design the specialized center to meet
local needs. A specialized center must not be a standalone Wagner-
Peyser employment service office. The requirements of proposed Sec.
678.315(b) apply to specialized centers just as they apply to
affiliated sites.
3. Subpart B--One-Stop Partners and the Responsibilities of Partners
The public workforce system envisioned by WIOA seeks to provide all
participants with access to high-quality one-stop centers that connect
them with the full range of services available in their communities,
whether they are looking to find jobs, build basic educational or
occupational skills, earn a post-secondary certificate or degree, get
guidance on how to chart careers, or are employers seeking skilled
workers. A true seamless, one-stop experience requires strong
partnerships across programs that are able to streamline service
delivery and align program requirements. In this subpart of the
proposed rule, the Departments describe requirements relating to such
one-stop partnerships. Specifically, this subpart identifies the
programs that are required partners, the other entities that may serve
as partners, the roles and responsibilities of required partners, and
the types of services provided.
Sec. 678.400 Who are the required one-stop partners?
Proposed Sec. Sec. 678.400(a)-(b) lists the required partners
under WIOA. Beyond the partners previously required under WIA, WIOA
adds the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and the
Ex-Offender program administered by DOL under sec. 212 of the Second
Chance Act of 2007 to the list of required partners.
Sec. 678.405 Is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families a required
one-stop partner?
Proposed Sec. 678.405(a) clarifies that TANF is a required
partner. Proposed Sec. 678.405(b) provides further clarification that
the Governor may determine that TANF will not be a required partner in
a local area(s) but must notify the Secretaries of Labor and Health and
Human Services in writing of this determination. This implements sec.
121(b)(1)(C) of WIOA. Proposed Sec. 678.405(c) clarifies that TANF may
always partner or collaborate with the one-stop, even if the Governor
has determined it is not a required partner in that State or local
area.
Sec. 678.410 What other entities may serve as one-stop partners?
Partnerships across programs are critical to supporting the one-
stop vision for service delivery. Proposed Sec. 678.410(a) reinforces
the sec. 121(b)(2)(B)(vii) of WIOA, which states that other Federal,
State, local, or private sector entities that carry out workforce
development programs may serve as additional one-stop partners if the
Local Board and CEOs approve. Proposed Sec. 678.410(b) provides a list
of possible additional partners. In addition to the optional partners
listed, Local Boards may partner with a wide range of organizations,
including but not limited to CBOs, non-profit community action
agencies, disability service providers, nonprofit workforce providers,
and nonprofit English-as-a-second-language (ESL) providers.
In contrast to the former WIA requirement, the proposed rule does
not contain an allowance for the State to require that optional
partners be included as a partner in all of the local one-stop delivery
systems in the State. This omission reflects the WIOA requirement that
the Local Board determine partners in the one-stop and that the State
cannot mandate partners other than those specifically required in WIOA.
This change places greater discretion at the local level in identifying
the appropriate mix of services provided and the Departments expect
that such decisions will be based on local or regional labor market
information and population demographics.
Sec. 678.415 What entity serves as the one-stop partner for a
particular program in the local area?
The proposed regulation at Sec. 678.415 provides a general
definition of the ``entity'' that carries out the programs identified
in Sec. Sec. 678.400 and 678.410 and serves as the one-stop partner.
The regulation defines the entity as the grant recipient or other
entity or organization responsible for administering the program's
funds in the local area. The term ``entity'' does not include service
providers that contract with or are sub recipients of the local entity.
The proposed regulation notes that for programs that do not have local
administrative entities, the responsible State agency may be the one-
stop partner. In addition, the proposed regulation specifies the
appropriate entity to serve as partner for the Adult Education and
Vocational Rehabilitation (AEFLA) program, WIOA national programs, and
the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education (Perkins) program is
the State eligible agency. Further, a State eligible agency for the
AEFLA or Perkins programs may delegate its responsibilities to act as a
local one-stop partner to one or more State agencies (for the Perkins
program only), local entities, or consortia of local entities, as
specified in the proposed regulation. In making such a delegation, a
State eligible agency would have to meet all Federal and State
requirements applicable to such delegations.
Sec. 678.420 What are the roles and responsibilities of the required
one-stop partners?
Proposed Sec. 678.420 describes and elaborates upon the statutory
responsibilities of the one-stop partners. These responsibilities and
corresponding WIOA provisions are identified and summarized in
paragraphs (a) through (e). Jointly funding services is a necessary
foundation for an integrated service delivery system. All partner
contributions to the costs of operating and providing services within
the one-stop center system must be proportionate to the benefits
received and adhere to the partner program's Federal authorizing
statute, and to Federal cost principles requiring that costs are
reasonable, necessary and allocable. The proposed requirement in Sec.
678.420(e), to provide representation on State and Local Workforce
Development Boards, is new in WIOA and only required of core programs;
WIA only required one-stop partner representation on Local Boards, and
[[Page 20601]]
required it for all one-stop partner programs.
Sec. 678.425 What are the applicable career services that must be
provided through the one-stop delivery system by required one-stop
partners?
Sec. 678.430 What are career services?
WIOA requires one-stop partners to deliver career services
applicable to their specific program. This proposed regulation
clarifies that an applicable career service is a service identified in
Sec. 678.430 and is an authorized program activity. The TANF statute
does not include a definition for career services. Accordingly, the
TANF State grantees need to identify any employment services and
related supports being provided by the TANF program (within the
particular local area) that are comparable with the career services as
described in proposed Sec. 678.430. At a minimum, the TANF program
partner must provide intake services at the one-stop for TANF
assistance and non-assistance benefits via application processing and
initial eligibility determinations. These latter services comport with
proposed Sec. 678.420. The Departments seek specific comments about
our proposal regarding the identification and inclusion of TANF
employment, related support services and TANF intake functions as
``career services,'' that are required to be provided locally in one-
stop centers. Other program specific information about the
applicability of various career services is provided where needed in
subsequent sections of this proposed rule. Proposed Sec. 678.425
repeats the WIOA prohibition on one-stop partners requiring a
particular sequence of services. Seamless service delivery, which is
one of the underlying principles of the one-stop system, requires that
appropriate services be made available to individuals based on their
needs, and that multiple services can be provided simultaneously.
Career services are identified in sec. 134(c)(2) of WIOA. In
addition to replacing core and intensive services as they were
described in WIA, a number of new activities are included in the
definition of ``career services.'' This section organizes WIOA careers
services into three categories: (1) Career services that must be made
available to all participants; (2) career services that must be made
available if deemed appropriate and needed for an individual to obtain
or retain employment; and (3) follow-up activities. The proposed
regulation respectively designates these categories as: basic career
services; individualized career services; and follow-up services. The
activities included under these categories are identified in Sec. Sec.
678.430(a), 678.430(b), and 678.430(c), respectively.
The proposed regulation reiterates the list of services included in
the statute, and elaborates on some of the career services. Section
134(c)(2)(A)(x) of WIOA requires as a career service the provision of
both information and assistance to customers regarding filing an UI
claim. The proposed regulation at Sec. 678.430(a)(10) further provides
that such assistance must be meaningful and provided by staff who are
well trained in UC claims. This proposed paragraph reflects the
Departments' interpretation that the one-stop system established by
WIOA is intended to provide participants with a seamless, one-stop
experience that includes a professional level of service provided in a
timely manner. Specifically, the Departments have concluded that
individuals directly seeking career services from the one-stop system
should receive more robust or ``meaningful'' service beyond what they
could obtain on their own using self-service tools, such as public Web
sites and phone numbers; instead, the Departments intend for them to
receive meaningful staff assisted services if needed. In the context of
providing assistance with UI claims, the proposed rule defines
``meaningful assistance'' as having staff well-trained in UC claims
filing and the rights and responsibility of claimants available in the
one-stop centers to provide customers with assistance in filing a claim
if they request it or are identified as needing the service due to
barriers such as limited English proficiency or disabilities. This
staff can be UI staff placed in the one-stop or Wagner-Peyser or other
one-stop partner staff who have been properly cross-trained to provide
this service. Alternatively, meaningful assistance can also be provided
by phone or by means of other technology, including computer access, as
long as the assistance is provided by specifically identified staff and
within a reasonable time. This means that if the customer is referred
to a phone for UI claims assistance, it must be a phone line dedicated
to serving one-stop customers. It cannot be simply placing the customer
into the general State UI agency contact center's phone queue. If the
assistance is provided remotely using technology, it must be a
technology that enables trained staff to provide the assistance.
Examples of technology that enables remote assistance include live Web
chat applications, video conference applications, or other similar
technology. In addition to UI program funding, adult and dislocated
worker funds may be used for these services as allowed in WIOA sec.
134(c)(2)(A)(x); Wagner-Peyser funds may be used for the provision of
these services as allowed sec. 7(a)(3)(F) of the Wagner-Peyser Act; or
some combination of these three funding sources. It is important to
acknowledge that the vast majority of UI claims filing will continue to
be done remotely through self-service options. This proposed regulation
does not require that States actively promote in-person claims filing
through the one-stop centers. It does mean that assistance must be made
available to customers who come to the one-stop for assistance in
filing a UI claim and to customers that have been identified as having
barriers to filing a UI claim without assistance.
Sec. 678.435 What are the business services provided through the one-
stop delivery system, and how are they provided?
The one-stop system is intended to serve both job seekers and
businesses. Similar to job seekers, businesses should have access to a
truly one-stop experience in which high quality and professional
services are provided across partner programs in a seamless manner.
Labor markets are typically regional, but programs often design service
delivery strategies around State and local geographic boundaries.
Effective business services must be developed in a manner that supports
engagement of employers of all sizes in the context of both regional
and local economies, but should avoid burdening employers, for example
with multiple uncoordinated points of contact. Proposed Sec.
678.435(a) lists required business services. Proposed Sec. 678.435(b)
States that local areas have flexibility to provide services that meet
the needs of area businesses and must carry out these activities in
accordance with relevant statutory provisions.
Section 134(d)(1)(A)(ix)(I) of WIOA provides additional flexibility
to allow business-focused activities to be carried out by business
intermediaries working in conjunction with the Local Board. Such
activities can also be carried out through the use of economic
development, philanthropic, and other public and private resources in a
manner determined by the Local Board and in cooperation with the State.
Proposed Sec. 678.435(b) reiterates this flexibility.
Proposed Sec. 678.435(c) provides a non-exhaustive list of
allowable business activities. In addition to traditional
[[Page 20602]]
employer services, such as customized screening and referral of
candidates, this list includes activities specifically identified in
sec. 134(d)(1)(A) of WIOA that demonstrate WIOA's emphasis on
innovative and regional strategies, such as regional labor market
information, sector strategies, and development of career pathways.
This list reflects activities specifically identified in WIOA and
activities the Department had previously identified in administrative
guidance under WIA. Proposed Sec. 678.435(d) states that business
services and strategies must be reflected in the local plan.
Sec. 678.440 When may a fee be charged for the business services in 20
CFR 678.435?
Section 134(d)(1)(A)(ii) of WIOA allows customized employer-related
services to be provided on a fee-for-service basis. Proposed Sec.
678.440 clarifies that there is no requirement that a fee-for-service
be charged to employers. However, the Local Workforce Development
Boards should examine available resources and assets to determine an
appropriate cost structure. They may also provide such services for no
fee.
WIOA seeks to create a seamless service delivery system by linking
and aligning one-stop partners. However, as described in Sec.
678.425(a), eligibility and other requirements of one-stop partner
programs continue to apply. Proposed Sec. 678.425(b) clarifies that
resources of each partner may only be used to provide authorized
services to eligible individuals. It also clarifies that seamless
service delivery can still be provided through joint funding of shared
services based on the relative benefit received by each program. For
example, one-stop staff conducting intake for all programs could be a
shared cost. Joint funding must be in compliance with Federal cost
principles.
4. Subpart C--Memorandum of Understanding for the One-Stop Delivery
System
This subpart describes the requirements for the MOU between the
Local Board, CEO, and the one-stop partners relating to the operation
of the one-stop delivery system in the local area. The Local Board acts
as the convener of MOU negotiations and shaper of how local one-stop
services are delivered.
Sec. 678.500 What is the Memorandum of Understanding for the one-stop
delivery system and what must be included in the Memorandum of
Understanding?
Proposed Sec. 678.500 describes what must be included in the MOU
executed between the Local Board, with the agreement of the CEO, and
the one-stop partners relating to the operation of the one-stop
delivery system in the local area. Proposed Sec. 678.500(a)
establishes that two or more local areas in a region may develop a
single joint MOU when the areas submit a regional plan. The Departments
encourage regional planning, and allowing joint MOUs to support
regional planning, particularly where local areas have the same one-
stop operator, are providing business services at a regional level, or
have planned other joint activities typically discussed in an MOU.
The MOU must include the provisions described in paragraphs (b)
through (e) of the section, consistent with WIOA sec. 121(c)(2). As
stated in proposed Sec. 678.500(b), the MOU must include the final
plan, or an interim plan if needed, on how the costs of the services
and the operating costs of the one-stop system will be funded. Shared
operating costs may include shared costs of the Local Board, as stated
in proposed Sec. 678.760. The MOU must also contain all of the
information about infrastructure costs listed in proposed Sec.
678.755. When fully executed, the MOU must contain the signatures of
the Local Board, one-stop partners, the CEO(s), and the period in which
the agreement is effective, and the MOU must be periodically updated to
reflect any changes in the signatories or one-stop infrastructure
funding. Signatures to the MOU indicate that the MOU has been executed.
A lack of signatures for the MOU means that the Local Board has not
established an MOU.
Sec. 678.505 Is there a single Memorandum of Understanding for the
local area, or must there be separate Memoranda of Understanding
between the Local Board and each partner?
Proposed Sec. 678.505 establishes that a Local Board and one-stop
partners may develop a single ``umbrella'' MOU that applies to all
partners, or develop separate agreements between the Local Board and
each partner or groups of partners. Under either approach, the MOU
requirements described in Sec. 678.500 apply. The Departments
encourage States and local areas to use ``umbrella'' MOUs to facilitate
transparent, flexible agreements that are not burdensome, so that
partners may focus upon service delivery.
Sec. 678.510 How should the Memorandum of Understanding be negotiated?
Proposed Sec. 678.510 describes the collaborative and good-faith
approach Local Boards and partners are expected to use to negotiate
MOUs. ``Good faith'' may include fully and repeatedly engaging
partners, transparently sharing information, and maintaining a shared
focus on the needs of the customer. Proposed Sec. 678.510(a) allows
Local Boards, CEOs, and partners to request assistance from a State
agency responsible for the program, the Governor, State Board, or other
appropriate parties when negotiating the MOU. Proposed Sec. 678.510(b)
describes options for including the infrastructure cost plans in the
MOU; the MOU may include an interim infrastructure funding plan in the
MOU, as described in proposed Sec. 678.715(c). This may be
particularly needed if the local area uses the State infrastructure
cost funding mechanism, as described in proposed Sec. 678.730, to
enable the local area to move forward with implementing one-stop
service delivery in areas where there is agreement. The MOU must be
amended once a final infrastructure cost plan is determined. Proposed
Sec. 678.510(c) describes how to address MOU impasses. Consistent with
WIA regulations, any local area in which a Local Board has failed to
execute an MOU with all of the required partners is not eligible for
State incentive grants and these sanctions are in addition to, not in
lieu of, any other remedies that may be applicable to the Local Board
or to each partner for failure to comply with any statutory
requirements.
5. Subpart D--One-Stop Operators
This proposed subpart addresses the role and selection of one-stop
operators. Unlike the other subparts in this proposed rule, this
subpart is administered primarily by DOL. The DOL and ED agreed that
the subpart should remain in this part of the Joint Rule, so that all
of the subparts having to do with one-stop requirements are together.
However, unlike the rest of this proposed part, this portion of the
preamble refers mainly to DOL.
Under WIA, one-stop operators could be designated or certified
through a competitive process, or they could be ``grandfathered'' in
from JTPA. Section 121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA only allows for selection of a
one-stop operator through a competitive process. This proposed
regulation uses the term ``selection'' of one-stop operator through a
competitive process, rather than ``designation'' or ``certification''
to avoid confusion. The
[[Page 20603]]
competitive process established by this proposed subpart requires
States to follow the same policies and procedures they use for
procurement from non-Federal funds. All other non-Federal entities,
including subrecipients of a State (such as local areas), are required
to use a competitive process based on the principles of competitive
procurement in the Uniform Administrative Guidance set out at 2 CFR
200.318-200.326.
Unlike under WIA, there is no ``designation'' or ``certification''
of an entity as a one-stop operator, including a Local Board. Section
107(g)(2) of WIOA states that a Local Board may be designated or
certified as a one-stop operator only with the agreement of the CEO in
the local area and the Governor. The DOL interprets this provision to
create an additional check for situations where a Local Board is
selected to be one-stop operator through the competitive process as
required under WIOA sec. 121(d)(2)(A) and as described in this proposed
subpart at Sec. 678.605(d). In these situations, it is appropriate to
require that the Governor and chief local official to approve the
selection.
The DOL received many comments during consultations regarding the
impact of competition on local services. This proposed subpart seeks to
clarify and address those concerns. For example, some States shared
concerns that the outcome of such a competition may result in the
layoff of State merit staff. Proposed Sec. 678.635 clarifies that
merit staff may continue to work in the one-stop so long as a system
for management of merit staff in accordance with State policies and
procedures is established. This is consistent with how some local non-
governmental one-stop operators manage merit staff currently under WIA.
Local government staff may also work in the one-stop regardless of who
the operator is, if they are responsible for delivering a one-stop
partner program's services.
Additionally, Stakeholders have voiced concerns about the cost and
burden associated with running a competition, as well as situations
where there are a limited number of, or only one, possible provider(s).
While procurement can take time, Local Boards are encouraged to perform
extensive market research and prepare a thorough cost and price
analysis to best identify the type of procurement most appropriate to
minimize cost and burden of the competitive process. A Local Board has
the flexibility to identify and implement the options set forth in
proposed Sec. 678.605(d). This may include a limited competition where
a smaller number of providers, identified in market research, Requests
of Information (ROI), and/or the cost price analysis, are identified
and invited to apply. Sole source awards are allowable in only very
limited circumstances. For example, concern about the time associated
with competition or failure to plan sufficient time for a competition
does not constitute an ``unusual and compelling urgency'' as defined in
Sec. 678.605(d). Thus, Local Boards retain flexibility to reduce
burden while remaining consistent with the provisions of WIOA. WIOA
describes a more robust role for Local Boards and partners to jointly
develop local plans and one-stop MOUs, and the DOL and ED strongly
recommend that Local Boards align these activities with the one-stop
operator function and competitive process. Similarly, the competitive
process can and should provide for a transition time that minimizes or
eliminates disruption in services to participants. This can be achieved
in a variety of ways, including provisions in the competition to ensure
some staff continuity, transition time between operators, and requiring
robust standard operating procedures to be developed by one-stop
operators.
Finally, numerous States and local agencies have inquired as to
their eligibility to be a one-stop operator. There is nothing in the
statute or in these proposed regulations that would prevent a State
workforce agency or local agency from competing for and being selected
as a one-stop operator. Because Local Board structures vary across
State and local areas, in order to ensure there is no real or apparent
conflict of interest, Local Boards (or State Boards in the case of
single State areas) will need to have robust conflict of interest
policies, as well as firewalls in place to ensure that development and
conduct of the Board competition is kept separate and apart from the
State or local agency, particularly if that entity is the current one-
stop operator. Additionally, the firewalls and conflict of interest
policy must ensure that, if selected as operator, there are internal
controls to ensure that the agency, as operator, has oversight and
management from a source other than itself. Use of internal controls
and firewalls to avoid conflicts of interest are also addressed in
proposed Sec. 679.430.
In sum, this proposed regulation represents the most flexibility
that could be offered to Local Boards within the confines of the
statutory requirement that one-stop operators be selected through a
competitive process.
Sec. 678.600 Who may operate one-stop centers?
Proposed Sec. Sec. 678.600(a)-(d) describe who may operate a one-
stop center. As stated in paragraph (a), WIOA allows a one-stop
operator to be a single eligible entity or a consortium of one-stop
partners. Consortia, like single entities, must be selected through a
competitive process. Proposed paragraph (c) lists the types of entities
what may be selected to be the one-stop operator. These repeat the
eligible entities from sec. 121(d)(2)(B) of the statute, and also
clarify that a Local Board, with the approval of the chief local
elected official and the Governor, may serve as a one-stop operator, as
stated in proposed paragraph (c)(6), and that another interested
organization which is capable of carrying out the duties of one-stop
operator may serve as the operator, as stated in proposed paragraph
(c)(7). Proposed Sec. 678.600(d) repeats the requirement in sec.
121(d)(3) of WIOA that elementary schools and secondary schools are not
eligible to be one-stop operators; however, nontraditional public
secondary schools such as night schools, adult schools, or area career
and technical education schools are eligible to be operators.
Sec. 678.605 How is the one-stop operator selected?
Proposed Sec. 678.605 requires the one-stop operator to be
selected through a competitive process conducted not less than every 4
years. As discussed above, the Departments interpret sec. 121(d)(2)(A)
of WIOA to require a competition for selection of a one-stop operator.
Competition provides the best method of providing that Local Boards
examine operator effectiveness. Additionally, regular competition
allows Local Boards to make adjustments based on findings of the one-
stop certification process described in proposed subpart F of this
part, particularly to the role of the operator and other specifics that
may shift as one-stop partners and the Local Board update their MOUs.
The DOL received feedback that the burden of a competition every year
would be large, and the Departments preliminarily concur. In looking at
options, the Departments were concerned that a period of 3 years might
also be too short because if a Local Board were to conduct a full
competition with a Request for Proposals (RFP), it could take as long
as 18 months and would result in a Board preparing for the next RFP
before the current operator had an opportunity to demonstrate
performance. Durations of 5 years or
[[Page 20604]]
more presents a risk of having an ineffective operator in place for an
extended period. Therefore, proposed Sec. 678.605 settled on a time
period of 4 years to ensure that there is a solid period of performance
in which to evaluate effectiveness of the operator, including the
results of the one-stop certification. This proposed section also
provides flexibility to both States and to local areas to require or
implement competitions more frequently than every 4 years. The
Departments seeks comments regarding the length of time required
between competitions for operators.
Proposed Sec. Sec. 678.605(a), (b), and (c) require the one-stop
operator competition to be done through a competitive process. In most
cases, the entity conducting the competition to procure a one-stop
operator will be the Local Board, pursuant to its responsibility under
sec. 107(d)(10)(A) of WIOA to select the one-stop operators. However,
in some cases, such as when the one-stop is in a single State local
area, a State entity might conduct the competition. If a State conducts
the competition, the State must follow applicable State procurement
laws. Other entities, including subrecipients of a State (such as local
areas) must conduct the competition following the principles of
competitive procurement in the Uniform Administrative Guidance at
chapter II of 2 CFR.
This should simplify implementation for Local Boards. The
requirements of the competitive process identified in WIOA should be
consistent with the principles of competitive procurement in the
Uniform Administrative Guidance set out at 2 CFR parts 200 and 2900.
However, while the competitive process described in this proposed
subpart is consistent with the principles of competitive procurement in
the Uniform Administrative Guidance, not every particular requirement
or process of that Guidance is applicable. This proposed subpart seeks
to establish a particular competitive process that fulfills the
requirements of sec. 121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA for a competitive process,
while remaining consistent with the principles set forth in the Uniform
Administrative Guidance. The Departments want to make clear that the
specific requirements of the Uniform Guidance are only applicable where
the subpart specifically refers to it. This approach provides
sufficient flexibility to enable a range of operators, including
current one-stop operators, State agencies, or consortia of required
partners to compete for and be selected as one-stop operator. The
Departments seek comments regarding the nature and extent of the
competitive process outlined in the proposed regulations.
Proposed Sec. 678.605(d) states that non-Federal entities,
including subrecipients of a State (such as local areas) must first
determine the nature of the competitive process to be used. The
different processes that may be used are procurement by sealed bids or
procurement by competitive proposals. Procurement by sole-source is
permitted only under limited conditions. Because of the potential for
abuse of the sole source selection method, DOL intends to set a high
bar for justifying that there is only one possible operator. Local
Boards cannot use their past experience with an entity being the one-
stop operator or one response to Requests for Information (RFI) alone
as justification. Robust market research, combined with other methods,
including but not limited to an RFI and a detailed cost and price
analysis, will help a Local Board meet the burden of demonstrating they
meet the requirement of proposed Sec. 678.605(d)(3)(i) for utilizing
sole source selection. Additionally, the Local Board must comply with
its own procurement policies regarding sole source procurements.
There are two scenarios listed in proposed paragraph (d)(3)(i) that
justify the use of sole-source procurement, and as discussed the
Departments envision limited use of these options. These two scenarios
are consistent with the circumstances that justify sole source
selection under the Uniform Administrative Guidance at 2 CFR
200.320(f), with the important exception of 2 CFR 200.320(f)(3).
Governors may not approve a written request for sole source selection
of a Local Board unless it complies with Sec. 678.605(d)(3).
Proposed Sec. 678.605(e) requires maintenance records, which are
crucial to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this
subpart.
Sec. 678.610 How is sole source selection of one-stop operators
accomplished?
Proposed Sec. 678.610 explains how sole-source selection of one-
stop operators is accomplished. It includes requirements about
maintaining written documentation and developing appropriate conflict
of interest policies. It states that a Local Board can be selected as
one-stop operator through sole-source procurement only with the
agreement of the CEO in the local area and the Governor. The Governor
must approve the conflict of interest policies the Local Board has in
place when also serving as one-stop operator. This is consistent with
DOL's interpretation of sec. 107(g)(2) of WIOA--the section adds an
additional check in the situations where a Local Board is selected to
be operator.
Sec. 678.615 Can an entity serving as one-stop operator compete to be
a one-stop operator under the procurement requirements of this subpart?
Proposed Sec. 678.615(a) states that Local Boards may compete to
be selected as a one-stop operator only if appropriate firewalls and
conflict of interest policies and procedures are in place. The
Departments seek comments on whether and how a sufficient firewall
could be established in such a competition, whether alternate entities
could conduct the competition, and who those entities might be.
Proposed Sec. 678.615(b) allows State or local agencies to compete
for, and be selected as, one-stop operators. However, the proposed
paragraph recognizes that there would need to be strong firewalls,
internal controls, and conflict of interest policies and procedures in
place. There is precedent for State agencies applying and being
selected as one-stop operators under WIA. For example, in one multi-
county local area, the Local Board issued an RFP on a per county basis.
In one county, a community action program was selected as the operator.
In another county, the State workforce agency was selected as the
operator. In this scenario, State workforce agency staff provides both
WIA and Employment Services in the county where the agency was selected
as one-stop operator. In a second example under WIA, from a single area
State: the State Board (which also serves as the Local Board) issued an
RFP for the entire State for adult and dislocated workers and a
separate RFP for youth services. A non-profit entity was selected as
the operator for adult and dislocated worker services. That non-profit
then subcontracted with other non-profits to serve the different
geographic regions of the State. The staff of the State workforce
agency continues to provide the labor exchange services in the one-stop
career centers. A State agency was selected as the youth provider.
Additional sub-awards were made by that State agency to ensure that all
ten youth program elements were available.
However, in the above two scenarios and any scenario where the
State agency is competing to be the one-stop operator, there is a high
risk for conflict of interest, particularly in the case of single State
areas. Therefore, proposed Sec. 678.615(b) and (c) require robust
conflict of interest policies as well as internal firewalls within the
State agency to address the real and perceived conflicts of interest
that could arise for
[[Page 20605]]
a State or local agency applying to a competition run by a Local Board.
The DOL notes that this proposed section is relevant to the first
competitions that are conducted after these regulations are promulgated
for one-stop operators. With appropriate firewalls and conflict of
interest policies and procedures to provide a fair and open competitive
process, entities serving as one-stop operators at the time these
regulations are promulgated, including Local Boards and other current
one-stop operators, may compete and be selected as operator under the
competition requirements in this proposed subpart. However, like the
entities specifically mentioned in this proposed section, appropriate
firewalls must be in place to provide that the current operator is not
involved in conducting the competitive process, as that would be an
inherent conflict of interest.
Sec. 678.620 What is the one-stop operator's role?
Proposed Sec. 678.620(a) describes the role of the one-stop
operator without prescribing a specific and uniform role across the
system. The proposed minimum role that an operator must perform is
coordination across one-stop partners and service providers.
Additionally, the proposed paragraph (b) prohibits one-stop operators
from assuming functions that are inherently the responsibility of the
Local Board under proposed Sec. 679.370. The DOL seeks comments as to
whether all of the functions listed in proposed paragraph (b) are
accurately described as inherent to the responsibility of a Local
Board. As the one-stop system evolved under WIA, some of the Local
Board responsibilities may have changed or been devolved to the
operator or fiscal agent as well.
Sec. 678.625 Can a one-stop operator also be a service provider?
Proposed Sec. 678.625 allows a one-stop operator to also be a
service provider. However, the section clarifies that there must be
firewalls in place to ensure that the operator is not conducting
oversight of itself as service provider. There also must be proper
internal controls and firewalls in place to ensure that the entity, in
its role as operator, does not conflict with its role of service
provider. This is consistent with the firewall and internal control
provisions in proposed Sec. 679.430.
Sec. 678.630 Can State merit staff still work in a one-stop where the
operator is not a governmental entity?
Proposed Sec. 678.630 addresses the concern about whether State
merit staff can continue to work in a one-stop where the operator is an
entity other than the State. State merit staff support numerous
programs at the one-stop career center, including Wagner-Peyser,
Vocational Rehabilitation, UI, and the JVSG program. Some States have
shared concerns that competition may result in the layoff of State
merit staff. Proposed Sec. 678.630 clarifies that State merit staff
may continue to work in the one-stop so long as a system for management
of merit staff in accordance with State policies and procedures is
established. This is consistent with how some local non-governmental
one-stop operators manage merit staff currently under WIA. Local
government staff may also work in the one-stop regardless of who the
operator is, if they are responsible for delivering a one-stop partner
program's services. Nothing prohibits this from occurring, and there
are numerous examples under WIA where this is currently occurring,
including the above scenario of a single area State where the State
Board (which also serves as the Local Board) issued an RFP for the
entire State for adult and dislocated workers and a separate RFP for
youth services. A non-profit entity was selected as the operator for
adult and dislocated worker services. That non-profit then
subcontracted with other non-profits to serve the different geographic
regions of the State. The staff of the State workforce agency continues
to provide the labor exchange services in the one-stops due to the
merit staffing requirements. In another multi-county local area, the
Local Board issued an RFP for a single operator throughout the entire
local area. A large-scale non-profit was selected as the operator.
Under the arrangement, State merit staff still provided labor exchange
services because of the merit staffing requirement but under the
operational direction of the one-stop operator.
Similar to State merit staff, nothing would prevent local
government staff from being employees in the one-stop center, although
the Department recognizes that local government employees are not
equivalent to the State merit staff, because State merit staff are
governed by the requirements attached to specific programs that must be
in the one-stop regardless of operator.
Sec. 678.635 What is the effective date of the provisions of this
subpart?
To ensure an orderly transition, as authorized under sec. 503 of
WIOA, proposed Sec. 678.635(a) states that one-stop operators selected
through the competitive process described in this subpart need to be in
place no later than July 1, 2017. This lengthy transition period serves
several goals: (1) It allows sufficient time for State and local areas
to prepare to transition to a competitive process, including conducting
market research, RFIs, cost and price analysis, and competitions; (2)
it reduces or eliminates the likelihood of disruption in services to
participants as Local Boards have time to plan for and incorporate into
the competition a plan for transition to a new provider; and (3) it
allows State and local areas to have the WIOA Final Rule to use to
guide the implementation of a competitive process. It is important for
Local Boards to begin planning for competition immediately, and
therefore proposed Sec. 678.635(b) states that Local Boards must
engage in and be able to demonstrate they are planning for a
competition for one-stop operator in PY 2015 (July 1, 2015-June 30,
2016).
6. Subpart E--One-Stop Operating Costs
One-stop partner funding of infrastructure costs is intended to:
(1) Maintain the one-stop delivery system to meet the needs of the
local areas;
(2) Reduce duplication by improving program effectiveness through
the sharing of services, resources and technologies among partners;
(3) Reduce overhead by streamlining and sharing financial,
procurement, and facilities costs;
(4) Encourage efficient use of information technology to include
where possible the use of machine readable forms and shared management
systems; and
(5) Ensure that costs are appropriately shared by one-stop partners
by basing contributions on proportionate share of use, and requiring
that all funds are spent solely for allowable purposes in a manner
consistent with the applicable authorizing statute and all other
applicable legal requirements, including the Federal cost principles;
and
(6) Ensure that services provided by the one-stop partners to
reduce duplication or to increase financial efficiency at the one-stop
centers are allowable under the partner's program.
Sec. 678.700 What are one-stop infrastructure costs?
Proposed Sec. 678.700 provides the definition for infrastructure
costs based
[[Page 20606]]
on sec. 121(h)(4) of WIOA. In addition to those items, the section adds
common one-stop delivery system identifier costs. These costs are those
associated with signage and other expenses related to the one-stop
common identifier as required by sec. 121(e)(4) of WIOA. The
Departments seek comments as to other common identifier costs, or other
types of costs, to include in the definition of infrastructure costs.
Jointly funding services is a necessary foundation for an
integrated service delivery system. Proposed Sec. 678.700(c)
reiterates that all partner contributions to the costs of operating and
providing services within the one-stop center system must adhere to the
partner program's Federal authorizing statute, and to all other
applicable legal requirements, including the Federal cost principles
that require costs that are allowable, reasonable, necessary and
allocable. There are a variety of methods to allocate costs, for
instance: Based on proportion of a partner program's customers of all
customers coming to the one-stop, proportion of partner program's staff
among all staff at the one-stop, or based on a partner program's use of
a particular expense item such as certain equipment. The DOL's previous
Financial Management Technical Assistance Guide published for WIA
remains useful for cost allocation explanations. See https://www.doleta.gov/grants/pdf/TAG_PartI.pdf and https://www.doleta.gov/grants/pdf/TAG_PartII_July2011.pdf. The DOL and ED jointly will update
this guide and provide technical assistance on cost allocation.
Sec. 678.705 What guidance must the Governor issue regarding one-stop
infrastructure funding?
Proposed Sec. 678.705 addresses the requirement in sec.
121(h)(1)(B) of WIOA for the Governor to issue guidelines to State
programs and guidance to local areas regarding infrastructure funding.
The Departments have interpreted the statute also to require that the
local areas follow these guidelines, and to allow the State grantee to
monitor local areas for compliance with the Governor's guidance. The
proposed section includes certain requirements for the Governor's
guidance, including establishing roles, defining equitable and
efficient methods for negotiating around infrastructure costs, and
establishing timelines for local areas. These requirements are
essential to ensuring a consistent general approach to the Governors'
guidance across States, and appropriate timeframes which then allow for
one-stop certification, competition of one-stop operator, and inclusion
of funding agreement terms into the local State plan. The proposed rule
allows for different methods of reaching consensus, and different ways
for the Governor to interact with a local area during the consensus-
building process. The Departments seek comments about the types of
information or requirements local areas would like to see included in
guidance issued by the Governor.
Sec. 678.710 How are infrastructure costs funded?
Proposed Sec. 678.710 indicates that sec. 121(h)(1) of WIOA
establishes two methods for funding the infrastructure costs of one-
stop centers: A local one-stop funding mechanism and a State one-stop
funding mechanism. Both methods utilize the funds provided to one-stop
partners by their authorizing legislations. There is no separate
funding source for one-stop infrastructure costs.
Sec. 678.715 How are one-stop infrastructure costs funded in the local
funding mechanism?
Proposed Sec. 678.715 addresses the local funding mechanism. Local
Boards, in consultation with CEOs, should engage one-stop partners
early in discussions about one-stop center locations and other
services, so that decisions about physical locations and services are
cooperatively made, and can be financially supported by the partners
within the workforce system. Under the local mechanism, local partners
can contribute amounts in excess of the limitations contained under the
State funded infrastructure mechanism at sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(ii) of WIOA,
if the parties agree that is the proportionate share of their use for
reasonable one-stop infrastructure costs and it is consistent with the
Federal authorizing statute and other applicable legal requirements,
including Federal cost principles Under this proposed paragraph,
agreement is achieved when all of the one-stop partners sign the MOU
with the Local Board, which includes a final agreement regarding
funding of infrastructure that includes the elements listed in proposed
Sec. 678.755, or an interim funding agreement that includes as many of
these elements as possible.
Sec. 678.720 What funds are used to pay for infrastructure costs in
the local one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
Proposed Sec. 678.720 explains the funding that one-stop partners
can use to pay for infrastructure cost contributions. Partner programs
can determine the funds they will use, but these funds must still meet
the requirements of the program's relevant statutes and regulations.
Further, all one-stop partners must work together to administer the
partner programs and the one-stop and other activities of the core
programs under WIOA as efficiently and effectively as possible. This
will ensure that, as recipients and stewards of Federal funds for all
of these programs, the partners and their subrecipients administer
these programs and activities to meet all applicable legal requirements
and goals. Different Federal statutes and regulations define
administrative costs slightly differently. Some programs' statutes and
regulations define all of the infrastructure costs listed in Sec.
678.700 as administrative costs, some programs' statutes and
regulations define some of the infrastructure costs as administrative
costs, and some as program costs. Under this proposed paragraph, one-
stop partner programs must adhere to the administrative and program
cost limitations of their program's statutes and regulations.
Proposed Sec. 678.720(a) would give State agencies responsible for
title II of WIOA or the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education
Act of 2006 (Perkins Act) great flexibility in determining how to pay
for infrastructure costs under the local one-stop funding mechanism. It
would permit a State eligible agency under title II of WIOA to use
Federal funds that were available for State administration of title II
of WIOA. Similarly, proposed Sec. 678.720 would permit a State
eligible agency under the Perkins Act to use Federal funds that were
available for State administration of post-secondary level programs or
activities. Additionally, proposed Sec. 678.720 would permit a State
eligible agency under title II of WIOA or the Perkins Act to use non-
Federal funds that these State agencies contribute to meet these
programs' matching or maintenance of effort requirements in lieu of the
State's administrative funds from its Federal grants. Further, if a
State eligible agency were to delegate to a local entity or a
consortium of local entities the authority to serve as the local one-
stop partner pursuant to proposed Sec. 678.415(b) and (e), the entity
or consortium could contribute local administrative funds for title II
of WIOA or the Perkins Act, respectively, to the infrastructure costs
in lieu of a contribution from the State's administrative funds from
its Federal grants. The goal of providing the State agencies with this
flexibility is to enable them to meet their responsibilities for
[[Page 20607]]
paying one-stop infrastructure costs in a manner that best allows them
to meet their responsibilities as one-stop partners and grantees under
title II of WIOA or the Perkins Act. The Departments seek public
comment on whether the proposed regulation would achieve this goal.
Sec. 678.725 What happens if consensus on infrastructure funding is
not reached at the local level between the Local Board, chief elected
officials, and one-stop partners?
Proposed Sec. 678.725 states that failure to sign the MOU
containing the final infrastructure funding agreement or interim
agreement by the beginning of each PY would trigger the State one-stop
infrastructure funding mechanism. The proposed section states that
Local Boards must notify the State if they cannot reach consensus. This
notification policy must be included in the Governor's guidance, as
required by proposed Sec. 678.705(b)(3). The State monitors the local
areas to address violations of State guidance. The Governor's guidance
might establish an earlier date for notification to the State of
milestones or decision points in the negotiation process.
Sec. 678.730 What is the State one-stop infrastructure funding
mechanism?
Proposed Sec. 678.730 discusses the State infrastructure funding
mechanism. In establishing a State-funded alternative to the local one-
stop infrastructure funding mechanism, the statute ensures
infrastructure costs will still be funded if one-stop partners cannot
agree on their contribution amounts to fund the infrastructure of the
one-stop center. An important goal under both the local and State
funding mechanisms is to ensure that each one-stop partner contributes
its proportionate share to the funding of one-stop infrastructure
costs, consistent with the Federal cost principles. This is in
alignment with the requirements in the new Uniform Requirements, cost
principles and audit requirements issued on December 26, 2014 (2 CFR
part 200). In the State infrastructure funding mechanism, the Governor
determines how much each partner will contribute, as described in
proposed Sec. Sec. 678.735 and 678.740. The State Board determines how
the contributed funds will be allocated out to local areas, as
described in proposed Sec. 678.745.
Sec. 678.735 How are partner contributions determined in the State
one-stop funding mechanism?
In the State-funded option proposed in Sec. Sec. 678.735(a)-(b),
the Governor, after consultation with State and Local Boards and CEOs,
will determine the amount each partner must contribute to assist in
paying the infrastructure costs of one-stop centers. The Governor must
calculate amounts based on the proportionate use of the one-stop
centers by each partner and other factors stated in proposed Sec.
678.735(a). Proposed Sec. 678.735(b) clarifies that because Native
American Program grantees under part 684 of this proposed rule have a
government-to-government relationship, the Governor does not determine
the contribution amounts for infrastructure grants from these grantees.
The Native American Programs, as required one-stop partners, must
contribute to infrastructure funding, and must negotiate with the Local
Board on that contribution amount. The Local Board and Native American
Program grantee can ask for assistance from the State in negotiating
the MOU and infrastructure cost funding, and can also consult with DOL
to resolve any impasse.
Proposed Sec. 678.735(c) includes the limitation for one-stop
partners' contributions, based on a percentage of their funding
allocation, from sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(ii) of WIOA. These limitations do
not apply to the local one-stop funding mechanism. However, the use of
a program partner's funds must meet the requirements of the program's
authorizing statute, all other applicable legal requirements, and the
requirements in this subpart. Proposed Sec. 678.735(c)(1) states that
the cap on WIOA formula and Wagner-Peyser required contributions will
not exceed 3 percent of the amount of funds provided to carry out that
program for a PY. Although WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(ii)(I) refers to a
fiscal year, WIOA and Wagner-Peyser funds are provided on a PY basis
(which is from July 1 through June 30 of the following year).
Therefore, calculating on a fiscal year basis would cause numerous
administrative difficulties, because the WIOA and Wagner-Peyser formula
programs receive their appropriations at two different times during the
fiscal year. This interpretation is consistent with the statute because
under WIOA sec. 121(h)(1)(A)(ii) the determination of whether the State
infrastructure funding mechanism will apply occurs on July 1, at the
beginning of each PY.
Proposed Sec. 678.735(c)(2) includes a clarification that the 1.5
percent cap on contribution applies to the relevant education program
and employment and training program of a required one-stop partner. For
instance, States receive a large block grant for delivering TANF
services. The 1.5 percent cap on contributions applies to the
employment and training activities under that grant, not the entire
TANF grant. Proposed Sec. 678.735(c)(3) states that the entities
administering the Vocational Rehabilitation program must not be
required to contribute more than a specific cap each year. In States
where there are two Vocational Rehabilitation agencies (a general
agency and a blind agency), the combined contribution from these
programs cannot exceed the cap in the proposed rule, which is based on
the total allotment to the State.
Because there is a chance that the funding amount limitations would
prevent the allocation from being fully funded, proposed Sec.
678.735(d) allows the Governor to direct the local partners to reenter
negotiations to resolve the shortage in a manner that is consistent
with each partner's program's authorizing laws and regulations and all
other applicable legal requirements, including the Federal cost
principles, or to identify alternate infrastructure funding. When local
partners reenter negotiations in this situation, the new negotiations
should be conducted according to the same procedure as negotiations are
conducted under the local funding mechanism, as discussed in proposed
Sec. 678.715. The limitations for one-stop partners' contributions
discussed in proposed Sec. 678.735(c) do not apply to the local
funding mechanism. If an agreement is still not reached, the Governor
will reduce the allocation for total one-stop infrastructure funding
for that local area to match the amount of available partner
contributions under the cap. In implementing a one-stop infrastructure
allocation by the Governor, although sec. 121(h)(3)(B) of WIOA refers
to the Governor allocating out to local areas the funds provided under
sec. 121(h)(1) of WIOA, which is the local funding allocation
mechanism, that section as enacted would also require the Governor to
allocate those funds to only the local areas that are not using the
local funding mechanism. This incongruity seems a clear scrivener's
error--sec. 121(h)(3)(B) was meant to instruct the Governor to apply
the allocation formula developed by the State Boards only to the local
areas that are not subject to an agreement under the local funding
mechanism. Proposed Sec. Sec. 678.730 through 678.745 reflect this
interpretation.
Sec. 678.740 What funds are used to pay for infrastructure costs in
the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
Proposed Sec. 678.740 describes the funds that one-stop partners
can use to pay for infrastructure costs. For some
[[Page 20608]]
partner programs, some infrastructure costs are classified as program
costs under the partners' authorizing statute or implementing
regulations, while other infrastructure costs are classified as
administrative costs. In other partner programs, all infrastructure
costs are classified as administrative costs. One-stop partner programs
must follow their own program's rules in classifying costs as program
or administrative costs, and must adhere to their program's
administrative cost limit.
Like proposed Sec. 678.720(a), proposed Sec. Sec. 678.740(c) and
(d) would give State eligible agencies responsible for title II of WIOA
and the Perkins Act great flexibility in determining how to pay for
infrastructure costs under the State one-stop funding mechanism. It
would enable these State agencies to use Federal funds that were
available for State administration of title II of WIOA or for the
administration of post-secondary level programs and activities under
the Perkins Act, as well as non-Federal funds that the partners
contribute to meet these programs' matching or maintenance of effort
requirements. Further, as with Sec. 678.720(a), if a State eligible
agency were to delegate to a local entity or a consortium of local
entities authority to serve as the local one-stop partner pursuant to
proposed Sec. Sec. 678.415(b) and (e), the entity or consortium could
contribute local administrative funds for title II of WIOA or the
Perkins Act, respectively, to the infrastructure costs in lieu of a
contribution from the State's administrative funds from its Federal
grants to be contributed to the one-stop infrastructure costs.
The goal of providing the State agencies with this flexibility is
to enable them to meet their responsibilities for paying one-stop
infrastructure costs in a manner that best allows them to meet their
responsibilities as one-stop partners and grantees under title II of
WIOA or the Perkins Act. The Departments seek public comment on whether
the proposed regulation would achieve this goal.
Sec. 678.745 How is the allocation formula used by the Governor
determined in the State one-stop funding mechanism?
Proposed Sec. 678.745 states that the State Board must establish
an allocation formula, taking into account several requirements from
WIOA 121(h)(3)(B), and the Governor will use the allocation formula to
distribute funds to local areas that are opting to use the State
infrastructure cost funding mechanism, so long as the distribution is
consistent with the Federal cost principles for each affected partner
program.
Sec. 678.750 When and how can a one-stop partner appeal a one-stop
infrastructure amount designated by the State under the State
infrastructure funding mechanism?
Proposed Sec. 678.750 requires an appeals process, as outlined in
WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(E), to be established by the Governor and proposes
similar principles regarding timely resolution as those seen under
other appeals processes, such as the WIA regulations at 20 CFR 661.280.
The Departments seek comments regarding the proposed State
infrastructure funding mechanism, and in how local areas with existing
successful infrastructure cost agreements have funded these costs and
what factors contributed to local areas' success.
Sec. 678.755 What are the required elements regarding infrastructure
funding that must be included in the one-stop Memorandum of
Understanding?
Proposed Sec. 678.755 explains what information the local areas
must include about operating costs in the one-stop MOU, described in
proposed Sec. 678.500. Under the State one-stop infrastructure funding
mechanism, the partner contributions will be required to be included in
the MOU. Once the State infrastructure funding mechanism is triggered,
and the Governor determines each partner's required funding
contribution, the partners must include these in, and sign, the MOU.
Sec. 678.760 How do one-stop partners jointly fund other shared costs
under the Memorandum of Understanding?
In addition to infrastructure, WIOA sec. 121(i)(1) requires that
one-stop partners must contribute jointly to fund the cost of career
services, and allows one-stop partners to jointly fund other shared
services, such as intake, assessment, skill appraisals, identification
of appropriate services, referrals, accommodations and other services,
including business services. Shared operating costs may also include
shared costs of the Local Board's functions. Under proposed Sec.
678.760, these costs must be determined as part of the MOU described in
proposed Sec. 678.500 and be comprised of cash and noncash resources.
Non-cash, or in-kind, contributions may be such resources as space,
equipment, staff to deliver shared services, and other examples. The
Departments expect one-stop partners to engage early with each other
and the Local Board to identify services that benefit multiple
populations and programs and could be jointly funded through the MOU.
Such agreements improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the one-
stop system, and benefit the system's customers. WIOA neither requires
programs to examine if other funds are available before using program
funds to pay for a service, nor does it establish requirements that any
program can only be a ``payer of last resort.'' One-stop partners may
jointly fund services in a manner of their choosing that meets the
requirements of this part, meets the Federal cost principles, and meets
the requirements of the programs' authorizing statutes and regulations.
The DOL published Financial Management Technical Assistance Guides
for use under WIA that are still useful in determining reasonable cost
allocation methodologies, and how to jointly fund shared activities and
services. See https://www.doleta.gov/grants/pdf/TAG_PartI.pdf and https://www.doleta.gov/grants/pdf/TAG_PartII_July2011.pdf. The DOL will
provide further technical assistance on this topic.
7. Subpart F--One-Stop Certification
Proposed part 678, subpart F implements the requirements in sec.
121(g) of WIOA that the Local Board certify the one-stop center every 3
years. The certification process is important to setting a minimum
level of quality and consistency of services in one-stop centers across
a State. The certification criteria allow States to set standard
expectations for customer-focused seamless services from a network of
employment, training, and related services that help individuals
overcome barriers to becoming and staying employed. The Departments
seek comments on how local areas can best measure the customer
satisfaction of individuals who utilize American Job Centers as an
aspect of effectiveness.
Sec. 678.800 How are one-stop centers and one-stop delivery systems
certified for effectiveness, physical and programmatic accessibility,
and continuous improvement?
Proposed Sec. 678.800(a) requires that State Boards establish
criteria and procedures for certification, and allows Local Boards to
use additional certification factors in order to respond to labor
market, economic, and demographic conditions and trends in the local
area. The criteria must assess the effectiveness, physical and
programmatic accessibility, and continuous improvement of one-stop
[[Page 20609]]
centers and the one-stop delivery systems.
Proposed Sec. 678.800(b) sets requirements for evaluations of
effectiveness, including those mandated by sec. 121(g)(2)(B)(ii) and
(iii) of WIOA. States may establish further effectiveness factors, and
set specific standards for program coordination or integration. Program
coordination standards might include customer-focused standards such
as: front desk and intake staff are trained to complete an initial
assessment of a participant's needs and inform participants of the
services available to them; intake forms and basic assessment tools and
processes are harmonized across programs to minimize customers filling
out multiple forms; and staff work in functional rather than program
teams. Program coordination standards might also include operational
standards such as: integrated resource teams such as those piloted in
the Disability Employment Initiative or other methods are used to
jointly fund services to meet the specific needs of individuals;
resource rooms include high-quality up-to-date information about the
services and supportive services available to individuals; Web sites
and materials for the one-stop provide information about the services
and supports of all partner programs; and business services teams
include representatives or otherwise integrate with key partner
programs and represent the center as a whole. This paragraph also
emphasizes the importance of maximizing access to services to all
customers, particularly outside regular business hours. Access to
services can be through a physical one-stop location, but can also be
through online or phone access as discussed in the Sec. 678.300(e)
definition of ``direct linkage,'' as long as services are equally
available to all customers, including those with disabilities. The
Departments seek input on other important factors in making one-stop
centers operate more efficiently and effectively, both for
consideration as one-stop certification criteria and for general
program implementation and management.
Proposed paragraph Sec. 678.800(c) describes evaluations of
continuous improvement, including those mandated by sec.
121(g)(2)(B)(i) of WIOA. Continuous improvement requires local areas
and one-stop centers to collect, analyze and use several types of data,
from customer satisfaction and feedback to program and performance
data. Professional development is a key feature of any continuous
improvement loop, in order to ensure that staff are aware of the
implications of recent evidence-based research, and can implement the
latest policies and procedures established at the local, State and
Federal levels.
Proposed Sec. 678.800(d) describes how Local Boards apply the
certification criteria, including that Local Boards must assess the
one-stop centers at least once every 3 years. This section also
requires that any additional local criteria be reviewed and updated as
part of the biennial review and modification process for updating local
plans. This provision also explains that this certification must be
completed for one-stop centers to be eligible to receive infrastructure
funds in the State infrastructure funding mechanism, as required by
sec. 121(g)(4) of WIOA.
Proposed Sec. 678.800(e) emphasizes that all one-stops must be
physically and programmatically accessible. The requirements related to
accessibility are set forth in the regulations implementing WIOA sec.
188, at 29 CFR part 37.
In addition to complying with the applicable architectural and
programmatic accessibility requirements of the proposed regulations,
one-stop centers and Boards may wish to consider the use of ``universal
design,'' which designs inclusive space and materials to be available
to individuals regardless of their range of abilities, mobility, age,
language, learning style, intelligence, or educational level. Improved
availability, a welcoming atmosphere, inclusive settings, and high
quality customer service benefit all customers. Extensive technical
assistance is available at www.ada.gov, and www.lep.gov. The
Departments recommend that State Boards and Local Boards engage early
with relevant Equal Opportunity officers in establishing the criteria
for determining compliance with accessibility standards and other
requirements related to providing equal opportunity, particularly for
persons with disabilities.
8. Subpart G--Common Identifier
The proposed regulation in subpart G promotes increased public
identification of the one-stop delivery system through use of a common
identifier across the nation, consistent with sec. 121(e)(4) of WIOA.
Sec. 678.900 What is the common identifier to be used by each one-stop
delivery system?
Proposed Sec. 678.900(a) designates the name ``American Job
Center'' as the common identifier for the one-stop delivery system.
This designation was made by the Secretaries after consulting with the
heads of other appropriate departments and agencies, representatives of
State Boards and Local Boards, and other stakeholders in the one-stop
delivery system. As part of this consultation process, DOL engaged in a
series of town hall meetings with State workforce agencies, and State
and Local Workforce Boards, conducted in September and October 2014, in
various cities across the country. In addition, two webinars were
conducted on November 14 and December 9 with various stakeholders,
including State agencies, State and Local Workforce Boards, and one-
stop partners, and were open to the public. The topic of the webinar
was dedicated solely to the topic of the common identifier for the one-
stop delivery system. The DOL has also consulted with other departments
and agencies, specifically ED and the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). The Departments also specifically request that the
public or any interested stakeholder provide feedback and input as
comments on the proposed ``American Job Center'' common identifier
designation.
``American Job Center'' is the common identifier that is currently
being used by several one-stop delivery systems; furthermore, it has
been promoted by the DOL and used by other Federal agencies since the
issuance of Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 36-11 on
June 14, 2012. Continued use of the identifier ``American Job Center''
will avoid the confusion of implementing a new common identifier; and
several State and Local Boards have already begun incorporating the
identifier in their products, materials, Web sites, and facilities. The
Departments continue to seek feedback on the name and associated logo
as part of the proposed rulemaking process.
Proposed Sec. 678.900(b) requires the use of ``American Job
Center'' or the tagline ``a proud partner of the American Job Center
network'' on all one-stop delivery system products, programs,
activities, services, facilities, and related property and materials to
help inform system users that the products, programs, activities,
services, facilities, and related property and materials are provided
by and through the publically funded one-stop delivery system. The
Departments will issue templates and designs of a logo, phrase, or
other material for the one-stop delivery system to use to associate
this common identifier with the system. Local Boards should immediately
start the process of incorporating the identifier on products,
programs, activities, services, and related and materials.
Incorporating the identifier on facilities and related
[[Page 20610]]
property may take time. Local Boards may start the process of
incorporating the identifier on facilities and property anytime, but
must start this process at the time these regulations are published as
a final rule, and fully implement the requirements listed in the final
rule within PY 2016.
Proposed paragraph Sec. 678.900(c) allows the use of additional
identifiers, per sec. 121(e)(4) of WIOA.
V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563: Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 directs agencies, in deciding whether
and how to regulate, to assess all costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating.
E.O. 13563 is supplemental to and reaffirms E.O. 12866. It emphasizes
the importance of quantifying present and future benefits and costs;
directs that regulations be adopted with public participation; and,
where relevant and feasible, directs that regulatory approaches be
considered that reduce burdens, harmonize rules across agencies, and
maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. Costs and
benefits are to include both quantifiable measures and qualitative
assessments of possible impacts that are difficult to quantify. If
regulation is necessary, agencies should select regulatory approaches
that maximize net benefits. OMB determines whether a regulatory action
is significant and, therefore, subject to review.
Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a ``significant regulatory
action'' as any action that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising from legal mandates,
the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in E.O. 12866.
Summary of the analysis. The Departments provide the following
summary of the regulatory impact analysis:
(1) The proposed joint rule is a ``significant regulatory action''
under section 3(f)(4) of E.O. 12866 and accordingly, OMB has reviewed
the proposed rule.
(2) The proposed joint rule would have no cost impact on small
entities.
(3) The proposed joint rule would not impose an unfunded mandate on
Federal, State, local, or tribal governments as defined by the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
In total, the Departments estimate that this joint NPRM would have
an average annual cost of $147,128,434 and a total 10-year cost of
$1,154,622,032 (with 7-percent discounting). The largest contributor to
the cost is the requirement related to evaluation of State programs,
followed by the development of strategies to align technology and data
systems across one-stop partner programs.
The Departments were unable to quantify estimates of several
important benefits to society due to data limitations or lack of
existing data or evaluation findings on particular items. Based on a
review of empirical studies (primarily studies published in peer-
reviewed academic publications and studies sponsored by the
Departments), the Departments identified a variety of societal
benefits: (1) Training services increase job placement rates; (2)
participants in occupational training experience higher reemployment
rates; (3) training is associated with higher earnings; and (4) State
performance accountability measures, in combination with the Board
membership provision requiring employer/business representation, can be
expected to improve the quality of the training and, ultimately, the
number and caliber of job placements. The Departments identified
several channels through which these benefits might be achieved,
including: (1) Better information about training providers will enable
workers to make better-informed choices about programs to pursue; and
(2) enhanced services for dislocated workers, self-employed
individuals, and workers with disabilities will lead to the benefits
discussed above.
The Departments request comment on the costs and benefits of this
NPRM with the goal of ensuring a thorough consideration and discussion
at the final rule stage.
1. Need for Regulation
Section 503(f)(1) of WIOA requires publication of proposed
implementation regulations. Implementing regulations are necessary in
order for WIOA to be efficiently and effectively operated and such
regulations will provide Congress and others with uniform information
necessary to evaluate the outcomes of the new workforce law.
2. Alternatives in Light of the Required Publication of Proposed
Regulations
OMB Circular A-4, which outlines best practices in regulatory
analysis, directs agencies to analyze alternatives outside the scope of
their current legal authority if such alternatives best satisfy the
philosophy and principles of E.O. 12866. While WIOA provides little
regulatory discretion, the Departments assessed, to the extent
feasible, alternatives to the proposed regulations.
In this NPRM, the Departments considered significant alternatives
to accomplish the stated objectives of WIOA while also attempting to
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities. This analysis considered the extent to which WIOA's
prescriptive language presented any regulatory options that also would
allow for achieving the statute's articulated programmatic goals. In
many instances, the Departments have reiterated WIOA's language in the
regulatory text and expansions are offered for clarification and
guidance to the regulated community. The additional regulatory guidance
should create more efficient administration of the program by reducing
ambiguities and subsequent State and local revisions as a result of
unclear statutory language.
In addition, the Departments considered and, where feasible,
proposed to issue sub-regulatory guidance in lieu of additional
regulatory requirements. This policy option has two primary benefits to
small entities. First, guidance will be issued following publication of
the rules, thereby allowing States, local areas, and small entities
additional time to prepare their compliance efforts. Second, this level
of guidance is more flexible in nature allowing for faster
modifications and any subsequent issuances, as necessary.
The Departments considered three possible alternatives:
(1) To implement the legislative changes prescribed in WIOA, as
noted in this NPRM, thereby satisfying the legislative mandate; or
(2) To take no action, that is, to attempt to implement WIOA
utilizing existing Workforce Investment Act (WIA) regulations; or
(3) To not publish any regulation and rescind existing WIA
regulations, thereby ignoring the WIOA statutory requirement to publish
implementing regulations and, thus forcing the regulated community to
follow statutory language for implementation and compliance purposes.
[[Page 20611]]
The Departments considered these three options in accordance with
the provisions of E.O. 12866 and chose to publish the WIOA NPRM, i.e.,
the first alternative. The Departments considered the second
alternative, i.e., retain existing WIA regulations as the guide for
WIOA implementation, but WIOA has changed WIA's requirements
substantially enough that new implementing regulations are necessary in
order for the workforce system to achieve compliance. The Departments
considered the third alternative, i.e., to not publish an implementing
regulation and rescind existing WIA regulations, but rejected it
because this option, in and of itself, does not provide sufficient
detailed guidance to effectively implement the statutory requirements.
Thus, regulations are necessary to achieve program compliance.
In addition to the regulatory alternatives noted above, the
Departments also considered whether certain aspects of WIOA could be
phased-in over a prescribed period of time (different compliance
dates), thereby allowing States and localities additional time for
planning and successful implementation. As a policy option, this
alternative appears appealing in a broad theoretical sense and, where
feasible, the Departments have recognized and made allowances for
different schedules of implementation. However, upon further discussion
and in order to begin to achieve the intended legislative benefits of
WIOA, additional implementation delays beyond those noted in this NPRM
may create potentially more issues than the benefit of alternative
starting dates. Specifically, many critical WIOA elements follow upon
the implementation of other provisions and, therefore, discussions
around delaying aspects became quite complicated. The interrelatedness
of WIOA's requirements suggested that the alternative of delaying
aspects was not operationally feasible.
Furthermore, the data necessary to fully review this option does
not yet exist and will not until Local Workforce Development Boards
(WDBs) conduct procurements and announce awards. Similarly, performance
standards will be negotiated at a future time and based on a variety of
factors including State and local economic conditions, resources, and
priorities. Establishing proposed standards in advance of this
statutorily-defined process may not be an efficient or effective
action. The enforcement methods described in the proposed joint rule
are a reflection of prescribed WIOA requirements and entity size should
not in and of itself create alternative methods for compliance or
different time periods for achieving compliance. Although the
Departments have not determined sufficiently valid reasons for altering
compliance timeframes in addition to those described in the proposed
rule for small entities, we seek comment on this issue.
The Departments' initial impact analysis has concluded that by
virtue of WIOA's prescriptive language, particularly the requirement to
publish implementing regulations within 180 days, there are no viable
regulatory alternatives available other than those discussed above.
The Departments request comment on these or other alternatives,
including alternatives on the specific proposed provisions contained in
this NPRM, with the goal of ensuring a thorough consideration and
discussion at the final rule stage.
3. Analysis Considerations
The Departments derived their estimates by comparing the existing
baseline, i.e., the benefits and costs associated with current
practices, which at a minimum, must comply with the 2000 WIA Final Rule
(65 FR 49294, Aug. 11, 2000), against the additional benefits and costs
associated with implementation of the provisions contained in this
WIOA-required joint NPRM.
For a proper evaluation of the additional benefits and costs of
this NPRM, the Departments explain how the required actions of States,
WDBs, employers and training entities, government agencies, and other
related entities are linked to the expected benefits and estimated
costs. The Departments also considered, when appropriate, the
unintended consequences of the proposed regulations introduced by this
NPRM. The Departments make every effort, when feasible, to quantify and
monetize the benefits and costs of the joint NPRM. The Departments were
unable to quantify the benefits associated with the proposed rule
because of data limitations and a lack of operational data or
evaluation findings on the provisions of the proposed rule or WIOA in
general. Therefore, the Departments describe the benefits
qualitatively. The Departments followed the same approach when we were
unable to quantify the costs.
Throughout the benefit-cost analysis, the Departments made every
effort to identify and quantify all potential incremental costs
associated with the implementation of WIOA as distinct from what
already exists under WIA, WIOA's predecessor statute. Despite our best
estimation efforts, however, the Departments might be double-counting
some activities that are already happening under WIA. Thus, the costs
itemized below represent an upper bound of the potential cost of
implementing the statute. The Departments request comment on our cost
estimates, specifically in terms of whether we have accurately captured
the additional costs associated with implementation of WIOA.
In addition to this joint NPRM, the Departments plan to propose
separate NPRMs to implement program-specific requirements of WIOA that
fall under each Department's purview; see the Executive Summary section
of this NPRM for details. While the Departments acknowledge that these
proposed rules and their associated impacts are not wholly independent
from one another, we are unaware of any reliable method of quantifying
the effects of this interdependence. Therefore, this analysis does not
capture the correlated impacts of the benefits and costs of this
proposed joint rule and those associated with the other NPRMs. The
Departments have made an effort to ensure there are no duplication of
costs and benefits between this and the other NPRMs. We request
comments from the public about the appropriateness of this assumption.
In accordance with the regulatory analysis guidance contained in
OMB Circular A-4 and consistent with the Departments' practices in
previous rulemakings, this regulatory analysis focuses on the likely
consequences (benefits and costs that accrue to citizens and residents
of the United States) of this WIOA-required NPRM. The analysis covers
10 years (2015 through 2024) to ensure it captures major additional
benefits and costs that accrue over time. The Departments express all
quantifiable impacts in 2013 dollars and use 3-percent and 7-percent
discounting following OMB Circular A-4.
Exhibit 1 presents the estimated number of entities expected to
[[Page 20612]]
experience an increase in level of effort (workload) due to the
proposed regulations contained in this joint NPRM. These estimates are
provided by the Departments and are used extensively throughout this
analysis to calculate the estimated cost of each proposed provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Based on internal Department of Education data. This figure
includes the 50 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa,
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and Palau.
\2\ Based on internal Department of Labor data. This figure
includes the 50 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa,
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
\3\ Pursuant to sec. 7(34) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended, this figure includes the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Twenty-four States have two designated
State agencies for the VR program; therefore, there are a total of
80 VR agencies. The Departments note particularly that we have
sought to avoid duplication of costs, given the fact that some
States have two VR agencies.
Exhibit 1--Number of Affected Entities by Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Entity type entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
States impacted by Adult Education and Family Literacy \1\ 57
Act (AEFLA) program requirements.......................
States impacted by DOL program requirements............. \2\ 56
States impacted by Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) \3\ 56
program requirements...................................
States that need to develop and disseminate best 40
practices..............................................
States that need low effort to implement software/IT 20
systems................................................
States that need high effort to implement software/IT 15
systems................................................
Workforce Development Boards............................ 580
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfer Payments
The Departments provide an assessment of transfer payments
associated with transitioning the nation's public workforce system from
the requirements of WIA to new requirements imposed by WIOA. In
accordance with OMB Circular A-4, the Departments consider transfer
payments as payments from one group to another that do not affect total
resources available to society. For example, under both WIA and WIOA,
financial transfers via formula grants will be made from the Federal
government to the States and from the States to Local WDBs, as
appropriate. In accordance with the State allotment provisions required
by WIOA sec. 127, the interstate funding formula methodology is not
significantly different than that utilized for the distribution of
funds under WIA.\4\ Final program year grant allocations will reflect
WIOA requirements and are under development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ States may elect to change the distribution of funds at the
local level and appropriately document such changes in the State
plans. However, as small entities are fully funded by the States,
which are not small entities, the Departments do not anticipate any
significant impact on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One example of where impacts are discussed qualitatively, rather
than quantified, concerns the expectation that available U.S. workers
trained and hired who were previously unemployed will no longer need to
seek new or continued unemployment insurance benefits. Assuming other
factors remain constant, the Departments expect State unemployment
insurance expenditures to decline because of the hiring of U.S. workers
following WIOA implementation. The Departments, however, cannot
quantify these transfer payments due to a lack of adequate data.
In the subject-by-subject analysis, the Departments present the
additional labor and other costs associated with the implementation of
each of the proposed provisions in this NPRM. Exhibit 2 presents the
compensation rates for the occupational categories expected to
experience an increase in level of effort (workload) due to the
proposed rule. The Departments used wage rates from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics' Mean Hourly Wage Rate for private and State and local
employees.\5\ The Departments also used wage rates from the Office of
Personnel Management's Salary Table for the 2013 General Schedule for
Federal employees.\6\ The Departments adjusted the wage rates using a
loaded wage factor to reflect total compensation, which includes health
and retirement benefits. For the State and local sectors, the
Departments used a loaded wage factor of 1.55, which represents the
ratio of total compensation \7\ to wages.\8\ For Federal employees, we
used a loaded wage factor of 1.69 based on internal data from DOL. The
Departments then multiplied the loaded wage factor by each occupational
category's wage rate to calculate an hourly compensation rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 2013, National Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates, retrieved from: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.
\6\ The wage rate for Federal employees is based on Step 5 of
the General Schedule (source: OPM, 2013, Salary Table for the 2013
General Schedule, retrieved from: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2013/general-schedule/gs_h.pdf).
\7\ BLS Employment Cost Index, 2013 Average Series ID
CMU3010000000000D, CMU3010000000000P (source: Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2013 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, retrieved
from: https://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/ecec_nr.htm).
\8\ The State and local loaded wage factor was applied to all
non-Federal employees. Discerning the number of State and local-
sector employees and private-sector employees at the local level is
difficult; therefore, the Departments used the State and local-
sector loaded wage factor (1.55) instead of the private-sector wage
factor (1.42) for all non-Federal employees to avoid underestimating
the costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Departments invite comments regarding the assumptions used to
estimate the level of additional effort required for the various
proposed new activities, as well as data sources for the wages and the
loaded wage factors that reflect employee benefits used in the
analysis.
The Departments use the hourly compensation rates presented in
Exhibit 2 throughout this analysis to estimate additional labor costs
for each proposed provision.
[[Page 20613]]
Exhibit 2--Calculation of Hourly Compensation Rates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hourly
Position Grade Average Loaded wage compensation
level hourly wage factor rate
a B c = a x b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and Local Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative staff \9\............................ N/A $17.96 1.55 $27.84
Board staff \10\.................................... .......... 45.32 1.55 70.25
Legal counsel/staff \11\............................ .......... 40.68 1.55 63.05
Local stakeholders \12\............................. .......... 44.52 1.55 69.01
Managers \11\....................................... .......... 45.32 1.55 70.25
Technical staff \13\................................ .......... 43.38 1.55 67.24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal positions................................... GS-13 38.92 1.69 65.77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The section-by-section analysis presents the total incremental
cost of the proposed joint rule relative to the baseline, i.e., the
current practice under WIA. At a minimum, all affected entities are
currently required to comply with the 2000 WIA Final Rule (65 FR 49294,
Aug. 11, 2000); however, some affected entities may already be in
compliance with aspects of the proposed joint rule. This analysis
estimates the incremental cost that would be incurred by affected
entities that are not yet in compliance with the proposed rule. The
equation below shows the method by which the Departments calculated the
incremental total cost for each provision over the 10-year analysis
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ BLS OES, May 2013, 44-0000 Office and Administrative Support
Occupations (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/999201.htm#43-0000).
\10\ BLS OES, May 2013, 11-1021 General and Operations Managers
(https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/999201.htm#11-0000).
\11\ BLS OES, May 2013, 23-10111 Lawyers (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/999201.htm#23-0000).
\12\ BLS OES, May 2013, 11-0000 Management Occupations (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/999201.htm#11-0000).
\13\ BLS OES, May 2013, average for the following occupational
categories weighted by the number of employees in State government:
15-1131 Computer Programmers (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/999201.htm#15-0000); 15-1132 Software Developers, Applications
(https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/999201.htm#15-0000); 15-1133
Software Developers, Systems Software (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/999201.htm#15-0000); and 15-1134 Web Developers (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/999201.htm#15-0000).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16AP15.001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where,
Al = Number of affected entities that would incur labor
costs,
Ni = Number of staff of labor type i,
Hi = Hours required per staff of labor type i,
Wi = Mean hourly wage of staff of labor type i,
Li = Loaded wage factor of staff of labor type i,
Aj = Number of affected entities incurring non-labor
costs of type j,
Cj = Non-labor cost of type j,
i = Staff type,
n = Number of staff types,
j = Non-labor cost type,
m = Number of non-labor cost types,
T = Year.
The total cost of each provision is calculated as the sum of the
total labor cost and total non-labor cost incurred each year over the
10-year period (see Exhibit 3 for a summary of the 10-year cost of the
proposed joint rule by provision). The total labor cost is the sum of
the labor costs for each labor type i (e.g., administrative staff,
counsel staff, and managers) multiplied by the number of affected
entities that will incur labor costs, Al. The labor cost for
each labor type i is calculated by multiplying the number of staff
required to perform the proposed activity, Ni; the hours
required per staff member to perform the proposed activity,
Hi; the mean hourly wage of staff of labor type i,
Wi; and the loaded wage factor of staff of labor type i,
Li. The total non-labor cost is the sum of the non-labor
costs for each non-labor cost type j (e.g., consulting costs)
multiplied by the number of affected entities that will incur non-labor
costs, Aj.
4. Subject-by-Subject Benefit-Cost Analysis
The Departments' analysis below covers the expected impacts of the
following proposed provisions of the WIOA joint NPRM against the
baseline of the current practice under WIA: (a) Time to Review the New
Rule; (b) New Elements to State and Local Plans; (c) Development and
Updating of State Performance Accountability Measures; (d)
Identification and Dissemination of Best Practices; (e) Development of
Strategies for Aligning Technology and Data Systems across One-stop
Partner Programs to Enhance Service Delivery and Improve Efficiencies;
(f) Unified or Combined State Plan; (g) Local Plan Revisions; (h) State
Performance Accountability Measures; (i) Performance Reports; and (j)
Evaluation of State Programs.
The Departments emphasize that many of the proposed provisions in
this WIOA-required joint NPRM are also existing requirements under WIA.
For example, the requirement that States ``prepare performance
reports'' is a current requirement under WIA that States routinely
undertake. Accordingly, our regulatory analysis focuses on ``new''
benefits and costs that can be attributed exclusively to new
requirements under WIOA, as addressed in this joint NPRM. Much of WIA's
infrastructure and operations are carried
[[Page 20614]]
forward under WIOA and, therefore, are not considered ``new'' cost
burdens under this NPRM.
a. Time To Review the New Rule
Upon publication of this joint NPRM, the regulated community would
need to learn about the new WIOA requirements, including the proposed
regulations, and plan for compliance.
Costs
At the State level for DOL programs, the Departments estimated this
labor cost by multiplying the estimated average number of managers per
State (2) by the time required to read and review the new rule (20
hours), and then by the applicable hourly compensation rate. We
multiplied this product ($8,189) by the number of States (56) to
estimate this one-time cost of $458,582.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The cost estimates in this analysis could be a little bit
off due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the State level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
this labor cost by multiplying the estimated average number of managers
per State (5) by the time required to read and review the new rule (40
hours) and then by the applicable hourly compensation rate. We
performed the same calculation for the following occupational
categories: counsel staff (1 legal counsel for 40 hours), technical
staff (2 staff for 40 hours), and administrative staff (5 staff for 40
hours). We summed the labor cost for all four categories ($27,518) and
multiplied the result by the number of States (57) to estimate this
one-time cost of $1,568,531.
At the local level for the AEFLA program, the Departments
multiplied the estimated average number of managers for all local
entities within a State (40) by the time required to read and review
the new rule (40 hours) and then by the hourly compensation rate. We
repeated the calculation for the technical (40 staff for 40 hours) and
administrative staff (40 staff for 40 hours). We did not estimate legal
counsel hours for local level AEFLA programs as our experience
indicates that this labor category is typically engaged only at the
State level. We summed the labor cost for all three categories of
personnel ($264,517) and multiplied the result by the number of States
(57). This calculation yields a total of $15,077,458 in labor costs in
the first year of the rule.
For State VR agencies, the Departments multiplied the estimated
number of managers per VR agency (3) by the time required to read and
review the new rule (20 hours) and then by the hourly compensation
rate. We performed the same calculation for the counsel (1 staff for 40
hours) and technical staff (1 staff for 20 hours). We summed the labor
cost for all three categories ($6,821) and multiplied the result by the
number of VR agencies (80). The one-time cost is estimated to be
$545,650.
The sum of these costs yields a total one-time cost of $17,650,220
for individuals from State-level DOL programs, State and local level
AEFLA programs, and State VR agencies to read and review the proposed
new rule. Over the 10-year period of analysis these one-time costs
result in an average annual cost of $1,765,022.
b. New Elements to State and Local Plans
WIOA sec. 102(b) establishes new major content areas of the Unified
or Combined State Plan, which include strategic and operational
planning elements. Strategic planning elements include State analyses
of economic and workforce factors, an assessment of workforce
development activities, and formulation of the State's vision and goals
for preparing an educated and skilled workforce that meets the needs of
employers and a strategy to achieve the vision and goals. Operational
planning elements include State strategy implementation, State
operating systems and policies, program-specific requirements,
assurances, and additional requirements imposed by the Secretaries of
Labor or Education, or other Secretaries, as appropriate. WIOA sec.
108(b) establishes strategic planning and operational elements for
local plans. These requirements set the foundation for WIOA principles
by fostering strategic alignment, improving service integration, and
ensuring that the workforce system is industry-relevant, responding to
the economic needs of the local workforce development area, and
matching employers with skilled workers.
Costs
At the State level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
this labor cost by multiplying the estimated average number of managers
per State (5) by the time required to develop, review, and revise the
State Plan (40 hours) and the hourly compensation rate. We performed
the same calculation for the following occupational categories: counsel
staff (1 staff for 20 hours), technical staff (2 staff for 40 hours),
and administrative staff (5 staff for 20 hours). We summed the labor
cost for all four categories ($23,473) and multiplied the result by the
number of States (57) to estimate this biennial cost of $1,337,972.
Over the 10-year period, this calculation yields an average annual cost
of $668,986.
The Departments estimated the consultant costs for the State-level
AEFLA program by multiplying the consultant costs per State ($25,000)
by the number of States (57). This calculation yields a biennial cost
of $1,425,000. Over the 10-year period, this results in an average
annual cost of $712,500.
At the local level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
this cost by multiplying the estimated average number of managers for
all local entities within a State (40) by the time required to develop,
review, and revise the local plan (40 hours) and the hourly
compensation rate. We repeated the calculation for the administrative
staff (40 staff for 20 hours). We did not estimate any legal counsel or
technical staff hours for local level AEFLA programs as our experience
indicates that these labor categories are typically engaged only at the
State level. We summed the labor cost for the two occupational
categories ($134,664) and multiplied the result by the number of States
(57). The biennial cost at the local level for the AEFLA program is
estimated to be $7,675,848, which would result in an average annual
cost of $3,837,924 over the 10-year period.
For State VR agencies, the Departments estimated this cost by first
multiplying the estimated number of managers per VR agency (1) by the
time required to review and revise the State Plan (5 hours) and the
hourly compensation rate. We performed the same calculation for the
technical staff (1 staff for 5 hours). Summing the labor cost for both
categories ($687) and multiplying the result by the number of VR
agencies (80) results in a biennial cost of $54,994 for State VR
agencies. Over the 10-year period, this calculation yields an average
annual cost of $27,497.
For State Boards, DOL estimates that there will be costs associated
with State planning attributed to the extra effort to coordinate and
develop a plan between the six core programs administered by the
Departments of Education and Labor, respectively, which is a new
requirement under WIOA. The Departments estimate the costs for this new
requirement to coordinate among the six core programs in the State plan
under (f) Unified or Combined State Plan and (g) Local Plan Revisions.
WIOA requires more substantial labor market information (LMI) data be
included in the State Plan than was required under WIA. This is a cost
that
[[Page 20615]]
DOL estimates will impact the State level DOL core programs because the
State typically provides the LMI data to local areas for the
formulation of the local plan. Furthermore, WIOA will allow States to
use existing data for their initial State Plan, so the additional cost
will be offset substantially for the first State Plan required. For the
required modification of State Plans and any subsequent State Plan
under WIOA, the State will incur this cost to include substantial LMI
data.
For State-level DOL programs, the Departments estimated this cost
by first multiplying the estimated number of technical staff per State
(2) by the time required to review and revise the State Plan (16 hours)
and the hourly compensation rate. We performed the same calculation for
administrative staff (1 staff for 16 hours). Summing the labor cost for
both categories ($2,597) and multiplying the result by the number of
States (56) results in an annual cost of $145,435.
The sum of these costs yields a total 10-year cost of $53,923,423,
or an average annual cost of $5,392,342, for individuals from the State
and local level for all core programs to review and revise State and
local plans to ensure they include the new elements.
c. Development and Updating of State Performance Accountability
Measures
WIOA sec. 116 establishes performance accountability indicators and
performance reporting requirements to assess the effectiveness of
States and local areas in achieving positive outcomes for individuals
served by the core programs. The core programs are defined in WIOA sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(ii) to include the adult, dislocated worker, and youth
programs under title I of WIOA, the AEFLA program under WIOA title II,
the Wagner-Peyser program under the Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by
WIOA title III, and the VR program under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
as amended by WIOA title IV. With a few exceptions, including the local
accountability system under WIOA sec. 116(c), the performance
accountability requirements apply across all the core programs.
Costs
At the State level for DOL programs, the Departments estimated this
labor cost by first multiplying the estimated average number of
managers per State (1) by the time required to develop and update
metrics and other accountability measures (32 hours) and the hourly
compensation rate. We performed the same calculation for the technical
(3 staff for 80 hours) and administrative staff (1 staff for 32 hours).
We summed the labor cost for all three categories ($19,276) and
multiplied the result by the number of States to estimate this annual
cost of $1,079,459, or a total cost of $10,794,587 over the 10-year
period.
The Departments estimated the software and IT system cost for
State-level DOL programs by multiplying the software and IT system cost
($100,000) by the number of States. This calculation yields an annual
cost of $5,600,000 or a total cost of $56,000,000 over the 10-year
period.
The Departments estimated the licensing fee costs for State-level
DOL programs by multiplying the licensing fee costs ($50,000) by the
number of States. This calculation yields an annual cost of $2,800,000
or a total cost of $28,000,000 over the 10-year period.
The Departments estimated the consultant cost for State-level DOL
programs by multiplying the consultant cost ($75,000) by the number of
States. This calculation yields a one-time cost of $4,200,000,
representing an average annual cost of $420,000 over the 10-year
period.
At the State level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
this labor cost by first multiplying the estimated average number of
managers per State (5) by the time required to develop and update
metrics and other accountability measures (80 hours) and the hourly
compensation rate. We repeated the calculation for the technical staff
(2 staff for 80 hours) and administrative staff (5 staff for 80 hours).
We summed the labor cost for all three categories ($49,992) and
multiplied the result by the number of States to estimate this one-time
cost of $2,849,535. Over the 10-year period, this calculation yields an
average annual cost of $284,954.
The Departments estimated the consultant cost for the State-level
AEFLA program by multiplying the consulting costs per State ($25,000)
by the number of States. This calculation yields a one-time cost of
$1,425,000. Over the 10-year period, this calculation yields an average
annual cost of $142,500.
At the local level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
this cost by first multiplying the estimated average number of managers
for all local entities within a State (40) by the time required to
participate in statewide stakeholder meetings and other activities to
provide input for the development and updating of metrics and other
accountability measures (80 hours) and the hourly compensation rate. We
performed the same calculation for the technical staff (40 staff for 80
hours). We summed the labor cost for the two occupational categories
($439,952) and multiplied the result by the number of States to
estimate this one-time cost of $25,077,264. Over the 10-year period,
this calculation yields an average annual cost of $2,507,726.
For State VR agencies, the Departments estimated this cost by first
multiplying the estimated number of managers per VR agency (6) by the
time required to develop and update metrics and other accountability
measures (10 hours) and the hourly compensation rate. We repeated the
calculation for the technical staff (4 staff for 10 hours). We summed
the labor cost for both categories ($6,904) and multiplied the result
by the number of VR agencies to estimate this one-time cost as
$552,346.
The sum of these calculations yields a total first year costs of
$43,583,603 and a subsequent annual cost of $9,479,459 for individuals
from the State and local level for all core programs to develop and
update metrics and other accountability measures to assess the
effectiveness of the core programs in the State. The estimated total
10-year cost of developing and updating State performance
accountability measures is $128,898,731, resulting in average annual
cost of $12,889,873.
d. Identification and Dissemination of Best Practices
Under WIOA sec. 101(d)(5), State Boards must assist Governors in
the identification and dissemination of best practices, including
practices for the effective operation of one-stop centers; the
development of effective Local Boards; and the development of effective
training programs that respond to real-time labor market analysis and
support efficient placement of individuals into employment or career
pathways.
Costs
The Departments estimated the labor cost for State WDB staff by
multiplying the estimated average number of managers per State (1) by
the time required to identify and disseminate information (20 hours)
and the hourly compensation rate. We performed the same calculation for
the technical staff (2 staff for 40 hours) and administrative staff (1
staff for 20 hours). We summed the labor cost for all three categories
($7,341) and multiplied the result by the number of States that need to
develop and disseminate best practices (40) to estimate an average
annual cost of $293,632.
This cost is likely a lower bound estimate because we did not
include the
[[Page 20616]]
effort required for the entities that receive the best practices to
implement them. The Departments did not have adequate data to estimate
this implementation cost and invites the public to submit data sources
or estimates for consideration during the final rule stage.
e. Development of Strategies for Aligning Technology and Data Systems
Across One-Stop Partner Programs To Enhance Service Delivery and
Improve Efficiencies
Under WIOA sec. 101(d)(8), State Boards must assist Governors in
the development of strategies for aligning technology and data systems
across one-stop partner programs to enhance service delivery and
improve efficiencies in reporting on performance accountability
measures, including design implementation of common intake, data
collection, case management information, and performance accountability
measurement and reporting processes and the incorporation of local
input into such design and implementation to improve coordination of
services across one-stop partner programs.
Costs
At the State level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
this labor cost by first multiplying the estimated average number of
managers per State (5) by the time required to develop strategies (40
hours) and the hourly compensation rate. We performed the same
calculation for the technical staff (2 staff for 120 hours) and
administrative staff (5 staff for 40 hours). We summed the labor cost
for all three categories ($35,754) and multiplied the result by the
number of States to estimate a recurring annual cost of $2,037,987.
The Departments estimated the software and IT systems cost for the
State-level AEFLA program by multiplying the software and IT systems
costs per State ($150,000) by the number of States. This calculation
yields an estimated recurring annual cost of $8,550,000.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The Departments estimated the annual software and IT
systems cost of this provision at the State level for the AEFLA
program by multiplying the software and IT systems cost per State by
the number of States ($150,000 x 57). This yields an average annual
cost of $8,550,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the local level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
this cost by first multiplying the estimated average number of managers
for all local entities within a State (40) by the time required to
develop strategies (40 hours) and the hourly compensation rate. We
performed the same calculation for the technical staff (40 staff for
120 hours). We summed the labor cost for the two occupational
categories ($435,141) and multiplied the result by the number of States
to estimate a recurring annual cost of $24,803,026.
For State VR agencies, the Departments estimated this cost by first
multiplying the estimated number of managers per VR agency (1) by the
time required to develop strategies (8 hours) and the hourly
compensation rate. We repeated the calculation for the legal staff (1
staff for 4 hours) and technical staff (1 staff for 16 hours). We
summed the labor cost for the two categories ($1,890) and multiplied
the result by the number of VR agencies to estimate a recurring annual
cost of $151,201.
The Departments estimated the labor cost that State WDBs would
incur by multiplying the estimated average number of WDB staff per
State (1) by the time required to develop strategies (80 hours) and the
hourly compensation rate. We repeated the calculation for the technical
staff (2 staff for 120 hours). We summed the labor cost for both
categories ($21,757) and multiplied the result by the number of States
to estimate this one-time cost of $1,218,394.
The sum of these calculations yields a first year cost of
$36,760,608 with subsequent annual costs of $35,542,213 for individuals
from the State and local level for all core programs to develop
strategies for aligning technology and data systems across one-stop
partner programs. The estimated total 10-year cost of developing and
updating State performance accountability measures is $356,640,528,
resulting in average annual cost of $35,664,053.
f. Unified or Combined State Plan
WIOA sec. 102 requires the Governor of each State to submit a
Unified or Combined State Plan to the Secretary of the Department of
Labor that outlines a 4-year strategy for the State's workforce
development system. States must have approved State Plans in place to
receive funding for the six core programs under WIOA--the adult,
dislocated worker, and youth programs (title I of WIOA); the AEFLA
program (title II of WIOA); the Wagner-Peyser Employment Service
(Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by title III of WIOA); and the VR program
under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (as amended by title IV
of WIOA). At a minimum, States must submit a Unified State Plan, which
encompasses these six core programs. Although each of the core programs
was required to submit State Plans under WIA and, thus, the submission
of the plans does not represent an added cost under WIOA, some programs
may experience additional costs related to the planning requirements
unique to becoming part of a Unified or Combined State Plan under WIOA.
As stated above, WIOA sec. 102 requires, at a minimum, States to
submit a Unified State Plan, which encompasses the six core programs
under WIOA. Under WIOA sec. 103, States may submit, in the alternative,
a Combined State Plan, which includes the six core programs of the
Unified State Plan, plus one or more of the optional Combined State
Plan programs described in WIOA sec. 103(a)(2).
Costs
At the State level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
this labor cost by first multiplying the estimated average number of
managers per State (5) by the time required to participate in statewide
stakeholder meetings and other activities to develop, review, and
revise the State Plan (24 hours) and the hourly compensation rate. We
repeated the calculation for the following occupational categories:
counsel staff (1 staff for 8 hours), technical staff (2 staff for 24
hours), and administrative staff (5 staff for 16 hours). We summed the
labor cost for all four categories ($14,388) and multiplied the result
by the number of States to estimate this one-time cost of $820,142.
The Departments estimated the consultant costs for the State-level
AEFLA program by multiplying the consultant costs per State ($25,000)
by the number of States. This calculation yields a one-time cost of
$1,425,000.
At the local level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
this cost by first multiplying the estimated average number of managers
for all local entities within a State (40) by the time required to
participate in statewide stakeholder meetings and other activities to
develop, review, and revise a Unified or Combined State plan (24 hours)
and the hourly compensation rate. We repeated the calculation for the
following occupational categories: counsel staff (3 staff for 8 hours),
technical staff (40 staff for 24 hours), administrative staff (40 staff
for 16 hours), and local stakeholders (100 stakeholders for 8 hours).
We summed the labor cost for the five occupational categories
($217,221) and multiplied the result by the number of States to
estimate this one-time cost of $12,381,609.
For DOL's State-level program costs associated with State WDBs, the
Departments estimated this labor cost by first multiplying the
estimated average
[[Page 20617]]
number of managers per State (2) by the time required to submit a
Unified and Combined State Plan (20 hours) and the hourly compensation
rate. We performed the same calculation for the following occupational
categories: counsel staff (1 staff for 8 hours), technical staff (4
staff for 20 hours), and administrative staff (1 staff for 8 hours). We
summed the labor cost for all four categories ($8,916) and multiplied
the result by the number of States to estimate this cost of $499,301
that occurs in 2016 and 2020.
For State VR agencies, the Departments estimated this cost by
multiplying the estimated number of managers per VR agency (2) by the
time required to engage in the planning process for Unified or Combined
State Plans (7 hours) and the hourly compensation rate. We performed
the same calculation for the technical staff (2 staff for 7 hours). We
summed the labor cost for the two categories ($1,925) and multiplied
the result by the number of VR agencies to estimate a recurring annual
cost of $153,983.
There is no additional cost to DOL State or local programs
associated with this provision because these programs currently submit
Unified or Combined State Plans under WIA.
The sum of these calculations yields first year costs of
$14,780,735 for individuals from the State and local level for all core
programs to comply with this provision, subsequent annual costs of
$153,983 for VR State agencies, and a total cost of $998,603 associated
with State WDBs for years 2016 and 2020. The estimated total 10-year
cost of activities related to the submission of the States Unified or
Combined State Plan is $17,165,187, resulting in average annual cost of
$1,716,519.
g. Local Plan Revisions
WIOA sec. 108(b) establishes strategic planning and operational
elements for local plans. These requirements set the foundation for
WIOA principles, by fostering strategic alignment, improving service
integration, and ensuring that the workforce system is industry-
relevant, responding to the economic needs of the local workforce
development area, and matching employers with skilled workers. The
previously developed local plans under WIA will have to be revised to
address new issues and submitted every 4 years.
Costs
For DOL's local-level program costs associated with local WDBs, the
Departments estimated this cost by first multiplying the estimated
average number of managers per local WDB (2) by the time required to
revise and submit an updated local plan (20) and the hourly
compensation rate. We performed the same calculation for the following
occupational categories: counsel staff (1 staff for 8 hours), technical
staff (4 staff for 20 hours), and administrative staff (1 staff for 8
hours). We summed the labor cost for all four categories ($8,916) and
multiplied the result by the number of local WDBs (580) to estimate
this cost of $5,171,336, which occurs twice during the analysis period
(2016 and 2020).
At the local level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
this cost by first multiplying the estimated average number of managers
for all local entities within a State (40) by the time required to
develop, review, revise, and submit an updated local plan (24 hours)
and the hourly compensation rate. We performed the same calculation for
the following occupational categories: technical staff (40 staff for 24
hours), administrative staff (40 staff for 16 hours), and local
stakeholders (100 stakeholders for 8 hours). We summed the labor cost
for all four categories ($215,708) and multiplied the result by the
number of States to estimate this one-time cost as $12,295,351.
These particular projected costs pertain solely to locally-
administered programs and do not impact the core programs at the State
level.
The sum of these calculations yields a total 10-year cost of
$22,638,023, which results in an average annual cost of $2,263,802 for
individuals from the local WDBs and the local AEFLA programs to revise
and submit updated local plans.
h. State Performance Accountability Measures
WIOA sec. 116(b) establishes performance accountability indicators
and performance reporting requirements to assess the effectiveness of
States and local areas in achieving positive outcomes for individuals
served by the core programs. Under that provision, States must include
primary indicators of performance in their Unified or Combined State
Plans, and may identify additional indicators of performance for the
six core programs. These indicators must be included in the Unified or
Combined State Plan.
Costs
At the State level for DOL programs, the Departments estimated this
labor cost by first multiplying the estimated average number of
managers per State (1) by the time required to comply with increased
data collection and processing requirements (32 hours) and the hourly
compensation rate. We performed the same calculation for the technical
staff (3 staff for 80 hours) and administrative staff (1 staff for 32
hours). We summed the labor cost for all three categories ($19,276) and
multiplied the result by the number of States to estimate this annual
cost of $96,380.
The Departments estimated the software and IT system cost for
State-level DOL programs by multiplying the software and IT system cost
($100,000) by the number of States expected to submit data (5). This
calculation yields an annual cost of $500,000.
The Departments estimated the licensing fee costs for State-level
DOL programs by multiplying the licensing fee costs ($50,000) by the
number of States expected to submit data (5). This calculation yields
an annual cost of $250,000.
The Departments estimated the consultant cost for State-level DOL
programs by multiplying the consultant cost ($75,000) by the number of
States expected to submit data. This calculation yields a one-time cost
of $375,000.
At the State level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
this labor cost by first multiplying the estimated average number of
managers per State (5) by the time required to obtain these data (7
hours) and the hourly compensation rate. We performed the same
calculation for technical staff (2 staff for 7 hours) and
administrative staff (5 staff for 7 hours). We summed the labor cost
for all three categories ($4,374) and multiplied the result by the
number of States expected to submit additional data to estimate this
one-time cost as $21,871.
For State VR agencies, the Departments estimated the cost to obtain
quarterly State unemployment insurance wage data by first multiplying
the estimated number of managers per VR agency (2) by the time required
to obtain these data (20 hours) and the hourly compensation rate. We
performed the same calculation for the counsel staff (1 staff for 20
hours) and technical staff (2 staff for 20 hours). We summed the labor
cost for all three categories ($6,760) and multiplied the result by the
number of VR agencies expected to provide additional information (7) to
estimate this one-time cost as $47,323.
For State VR agencies, the Departments estimated the cost to obtain
additional information for new data fields by multiplying the estimated
number of technical staff per VR agency (60) by the time required to
obtain these data (9 hours) and the hourly compensation rate. We
multiplied the
[[Page 20618]]
result ($36,309) by the number of VR agencies expected to provide
additional information to estimate this annual cost as $254,163.
The Departments estimated the software and IT costs for State VR
agencies to obtain additional information for new data fields by
multiplying the software and IT costs ($5,000) by the number of VR
agencies expected to provide additional information. This calculation
yields a one-time cost of $35,000.
At the local level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
this labor cost by multiplying the estimated average number of managers
for all local entities within a State (40) by the time required to
obtain additional information (7 hours) and the hourly compensation
rate. We performed the same calculation for technical staff (40 staff
for 7 hours). We summed the labor cost for these categories ($38,496)
and multiplied the number of States expected to provide additional
information (5) to estimate this one-time cost of $192,479.
The sum of these calculations yields a total 10-year cost of
$11,677,110, which results in an average annual cost of $1,167,711 for
individuals from the State and local levels for core programs to comply
with increased data collection and processing requirements.
i. Performance Reports
Under WIOA sec. 116(d), States must make available performance
reports for local areas and for ETPs under title I of the WIOA. WIOA
also requires that States cooperate in evaluations of State programs
overseen by the Departments of Labor and Education. Section 116(d)(1)
of WIOA requires the Departments to provide a performance reporting
template for the performance reports required in WIOA secs. 116(d)(2)-
(4).
Costs
At the Federal level, the Departments estimated this labor cost by
first multiplying the estimated average number of GS-13 Step 5 managers
(1) by the time required to develop the reporting template (60 hours)
and the hourly compensation rate. We performed the same calculation for
the Federal staff labor category (10 staff for 120 hours). We summed
the labor cost of these two categories to estimate this one-time cost
of $82,870.
At the State level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
this labor cost by first multiplying the estimated average number of
managers per State (5) by the time required to develop the reporting
template (40 hours) and the hourly compensation rate. We performed the
same calculation for the technical staff (2 staff for 40 hours) and
administrative staff (5 staff for 40 hours). We summed the labor cost
for all three categories ($24,996) and multiplied the result by the
number of States to estimate this one-time cost of $1,399,772.
The Departments estimated the software and IT system cost for the
State-level AEFLA programs by multiplying the software and IT system
cost ($1,750,000) by the number of States. This calculation yields a
one-time cost of $99,750,000, resulting in an average annual cost of
$9,975,000 over a 10-year period.
The Departments estimated the licensing fees for the State-level
AEFLA programs by multiplying the per-State licensing fees ($25,000) by
the number of States. This calculation yields a recurring annual cost
of $1,425,000.
At the local level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
this labor cost by multiplying the estimated average number of managers
for all local entities within a State (40) by the time required to
participate in statewide stakeholder meetings and other activities to
develop, review, and revise the reporting template (40 hours) and the
hourly compensation rate. We multiplied the product by the number of
States to estimate this one-time cost of $6,406,435.
The sum of these calculations yields a total one-time cost of
$107,639,077 for individuals from the Federal, State, and local levels
to develop the reporting templates and an annual cost of $1,425,000 for
licensing fees. The 10-year total costs result in an average annualized
cost of $12,188,908.
j. Evaluation of State Programs
WIOA sec. 116(e)(1) requires States to conduct ongoing evaluations
of activities carried out in the State under the core programs. To
comply with WIOA sec. 116(e)(4), States must, to the extent
practicable, cooperate in the conduct of evaluations (including related
research projects) provided for by the Secretary of Labor or the
Secretary of Education under the provisions of Federal law identified
in WIOA sec. 116(e)(1); WIOA secs. 169 and 242(c)(2)(D); secs.
12(a)(5), 14, and sec. 107 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
709(a)(5), 711, 727) (applied with respect to programs carried out
under title I of that Act (29 U.S.C. 720 et seq.)); and the
investigations provided for by the Secretary of Labor under sec. 10(b)
of the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49i(b)).
Costs
At the State level for DOL programs, the Departments estimated this
labor cost by first multiplying the estimated average number of
managers per State (1) by the time required to evaluate ongoing program
activities (20 hours) and the hourly compensation rate. We performed
the same calculation for the technical staff (2 staff for 20 hours) and
administrative staff (1 staff for 10 hours). We summed the labor cost
for all three categories ($4,373) and multiplied the result by the
number of States to estimate this annual cost of $244,880.
At the State level for DOL programs, the Departments estimated the
software, IT system, and consultant costs for both ``low-effort''
States, those with either smaller populations or more robust existing
IT system infrastructure, and for ``high-effort'' States with larger
populations or limited IT system infrastructure. We first multiplied
the software, IT system, and consultant costs for low-effort States
($200,000) by the number of low-effort States (20). We performed the
same calculation for high-effort States (15 States at $1,000,000 each).
We summed these costs for both State categories to estimate an annual
cost of $19,000,000.\16\ This estimate represents the cost associated
with the proposed joint rule beyond the IT expenditures currently
incurred by State workforce agencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ To estimate the software, IT, and consultant cost of this
provision at the State-level for DOL programs, the Departments first
estimated the software, IT, and consultant cost for low-effort
States by multiplying the non-labor cost per low-effort State by the
number of low-effort States ($200,000 x 20 = $4,000,000). We
estimated the software, IT, and consultant program cost for high-
effort States by multiplying the non-labor cost per high-effort
State by the number of high-effort States ($1,000,000 x 15 =
$15,000,000). We summed these non-labor costs for low- and high-
effort States ($4,000,000 + $15,000,000), yielding an estimated
annual software, IT, and consultant cost of $19,000,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the State level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
the labor cost by first multiplying the estimated average number of
managers per State (5) by the time required to evaluate ongoing program
activities (120 hours) and the hourly compensation rate. We performed
the same calculation for the technical staff (2 staff for 80 hours) and
administrative staff (5 staff for 80 hours). We summed the labor cost
for all three categories ($64,041) and multiplied the result by the
number of States to estimate an annual cost of $3,650,339.
At the State level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
the software and IT system costs by
[[Page 20619]]
multiplying the software and IT system costs ($250,000) by the number
of States. This calculation yields an annual cost of $14,250,000.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ To estimate the software and IT system cost of this
provision at the State-level for the AEFLA program, the Departments
multiplied the software and IT system cost per State by the number
of States ($250,000 x 57). This yields an annual software and IT
system cost of $14,250,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the local level for the AEFLA program, the Departments estimated
this labor cost by first multiplying the estimated average number of
managers for all local entities within a State (40) by the time
estimated to collect, review, and revise data provided for the
evaluation of ongoing program activities (120 hours) and the hourly
compensation rate. We performed the same calculation for the technical
staff (40 staff for 80 hours) and administrative staff (40 staff for 80
hours). We summed the labor cost for all three categories ($641,427)
and multiplied the result by the number of States to estimate an annual
cost of $36,561,350.
For State VR agencies, the Departments estimated this labor cost by
first multiplying the estimated average number of managers per VR
agency (1) by the time estimated to evaluate ongoing program activities
(1 hour) and the hourly compensation rate. We performed the same
calculation for the technical staff (1 staff for 13 hours) and
administrative staff (1 staff for 2 hours). We summed the labor cost
for all three categories ($1,000) and multiplied the result by the
number of VR agencies to estimate an annual cost of $80,002.
The sum of these calculations yields a total annual cost of
$73,786,572, resulting in a total cost over the 10-year period of
$737,865,722, for individuals from the State and local levels for all
core programs to evaluate ongoing program activities.
5. Summary of Analysis
Exhibit 3 summarizes the annual and total costs of the proposed
joint rule. The exhibit provides the total 10-year costs and the
average annualized costs for each provision of the proposed joint rule.
The exhibit also presents a high-level description of the benefits
resulting from full WIOA implementation for each rule provision. These
qualitative forecasts are predicated on program experience and are
outcomes for which data will become available only after
implementation. The Departments estimate the average annual cost of the
proposed joint rule over the 10-year period of analysis at $147.1
million. The largest contributor to this cost is the provision related
to the evaluation of State programs, which is estimated at $73.8
million per year. The next largest cost results from the development of
strategies for aligning technology and data systems across one-stop
partner programs at an estimated $35.7 million per year, followed by
the average cost of developing and updating State performance
accountability measures at an estimated $12.9 million per year.
Exhibit 3--Cost of the Proposed Departments of Education and Labor Joint Rule by Provision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 10-year Average annual
cost cost Percent of Qualitative benefit
(undiscounted) (undiscounted) total cost highlights
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Time to Review the New Rule...... $17,650,220 $1,765,022 1.20 General requirement.
(b) New Elements to State and Local 53,923,423 5,392,342 3.67 Enhanced data for
Plans. management decision-
making and policy
integration.
(c) Development and Updating of State 128,898,731 12,889,873 8.76 Clear articulation of
Performance Accountability Measures. expectations and
outcomes for
evaluation and
accountability
purposes.
(d) Identification and Dissemination 2,936,320 293,632 0.20 Mission clarification
of Best Practices. and system building.
(e) Development of Strategies for 356,640,528 35,664,053 24.24 More efficient use of
Aligning Technology and Data Systems public resources;
across One-stop Partner Programs to enhanced customer
Enhance Service Delivery and Improve service; improved
Efficiencies. program management
based on actual client
data.
(f) Unified or Combined State Plan... 17,165,187 1,716,519 1.17 Avoided program service
duplication; enhanced
internal State
planning; avoided
``silos'' and service
duplications; more
efficient use of
public resources.
(g) Local Plan Revisions............. 22,638,023 2,263,802 1.54 Continued
accountability and
linkage to outcomes
and customer service.
(h) State Performance Accountability 11,677,110 1,167,711 0.79 Improved policy and
Measures. management decision-
making from measure
data.
(i) Performance Reports.............. 121,889,077 12,188,908 8.28 Better management and
policy decisions using
outcome data; improved
service and
placements; more
accountability.
(j) Evaluation of State Programs..... 737,865,722 73,786,572 50.15 Improved service
delivery and customer
service; enhanced
policy-making and
system building; more
accountability.
--------------------------------------------------
Total............................ 1,471,284,341 147,128,434 100.00 .......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals might not sum due to rounding.
Exhibit 4 summarizes the first-year cost for each provision of the
proposed joint rule. The Departments estimate the total first-year cost
of the proposed joint rule at $320.6 million. The largest contributor
to the first-year cost is the provision related to performance report
development at $109.1 million. The next largest first-year cost results
from evaluating State programs, amounting to $73.8 million, followed by
the cost of developing and updating State performance accountability
measures at $43.6 million.
[[Page 20620]]
Exhibit 4--First-Year Cost of the Proposed Joint Rule by Provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Total first- total first-
year cost year cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Time to Review the New Rule......... $17,650,220 5.50
(b) New Elements to State and Local 10,639,250 3.32
Plans..................................
(c) Development and Updating of State 43,583,603 13.59
Performance Accountability Measures....
(d) Identification and Dissemination of 293,632 0.09
Best Practices.........................
(e) Development of Strategies for 36,760,608 11.47
Aligning Technology and Data Systems
across One-stop Partner Programs to
Enhance Service Delivery and Improve
Efficiencies...........................
(f) Unified or Combined State Plan...... 14,780,735 4.61
(g) Local Plan Revisions................ 12,295,351 3.83
(h) State Performance Accountability 1,772,217 0.55
Measures...............................
(i) Performance Reports................. 109,064,077 34.02
(j) Evaluation of State Programs........ 73,786,572 23.01
-------------------------------
Total............................... 320,626,265 100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals might not sum due to rounding.
Exhibit 5 summarizes the annual and total costs of the proposed
joint Departments of Labor and Education rule. The total (undiscounted)
cost of the rule sums to $1.5 billion over the 10-year analysis period,
which amounts to an average annual cost of $147.1 million per year. In
total, the 10-year discounted costs of the proposed rule range from
$1.2 billion to $1.3 billion (with 7- and 3-percent discounting,
respectively).
To contextualize the cost of the proposed joint rule, the average
annual budget for WIA implementation over the past three years for the
Departments of Labor and Education combined was $6.4 billion. Thus, the
annual additional cost of implementing this proposed rule is between
2.6 percent and 2.7 percent of the current WIA budget (with 3 percent
and 7 percent discounting, respectively).
Exhibit 5--Monetized Costs of Departments of Labor and Education
Proposed Joint Rule (2013 dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Total costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015.................................................... $320,626,265
2016.................................................... 127,597,475
2017.................................................... 132,420,653
2018.................................................... 121,926,838
2019.................................................... 132,420,653
2020.................................................... 127,597,475
2021.................................................... 132,420,653
2022.................................................... 121,926,838
2023.................................................... 132,420,653
2024.................................................... 121,926,838
Undiscounted 10-year Total.............................. 1,471,284,341
10-year Total with 3% Discounting....................... 1,316,646,285
10-year Total with 7% Discounting....................... 1,154,622,032
10-year Average......................................... 147,128,434
Annualized with 3% Discounting.......................... 154,351,111
Annualized with 7% Discounting.......................... 164,392,201
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals might not sum due to rounding.
Benefits
The Departments were unable to quantify the benefits associated
with the proposed joint rule because of data limitations and a lack of
operational (WIOA) data or evaluation findings on the provisions of the
proposed joint rule. Thus, the Departments cannot provide monetary
estimates of several important benefits to society, including the
increased employment opportunities for unemployed or under-employed
U.S. workers, enhanced ETP process, and evaluation of State programs.
In support of a State's strategic plan and goals, State-conducted
evaluation and research of programs would enable each State to test
various interventions geared toward State conditions and opportunities.
Results from such evaluation and research, if used by States, could
improve service quality and effectiveness and, thus, potentially lead
to higher employment rates and earnings among participants.
Implementing various innovations that have been tested and found
effective could also lead to lower unit costs and increased numbers of
individuals served within a State. Sharing the findings nationally
could lead to new service or management practices that other States
could adopt and use to improve participant results, lower unit costs,
or increase the number served.
The Departments invite comments regarding possible data sources or
methodologies for estimating these benefits. In addition, the
Departments invite comments regarding other benefits that might arise
from the proposed joint rule and how these benefits could be estimated.
The Departments provide a qualitative description of the
anticipated WIOA benefits below. These qualitative forecasts are
predicated on program experience and are outcomes for which data will
only become available after implementation. Although these studies are
largely based on programs and their existing requirements under WIA,
they capture the essence of the societal benefits that can be expected
from this proposed joint rule.
Training's impact on placement. A recent study found that flexible
and innovative training that is closely related to a real and in-demand
occupation is associated with better labor market outcomes for training
participants. Youth disconnected from work and school can benefit from
comprehensive and integrated models of training that combine education,
occupational skills, and support services.\18\ However, the study noted
that evidence for effective employment and training-related programs
for youth is less extensive than for adults, and that there are fewer
positive findings from evaluations.\19\ The WIA youth program remains
largely untested.\20\ One study found that WIA training services
increase placement rates by 4.4 percent among adults and by 5.9 percent
among dislocated workers,\21\ while another study concluded that
placement rates are 3 to 5 percent higher among all training
recipients.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Department of Labor et. al. ``What Works In Job Training: A
Synthesis of the Evidence.'' July 2014.
\19\ Ibid.
\20\ Decker, Paul T. and Jillian A. Berk. 2011. ``Ten Years of
the Workforce Investment Act (WIA): Interpreting the Research on WIA
and Related Programs.'' Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 30
(4): 906-926.
\21\ Hollenbeck, Kevin, Daniel Schroeder, Christopher T. King,
and Wei-Jang Huang. ``Net Impact Estimates for Services Provided
through the Workforce Investment Act.'' Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor, 2005. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_puListingDetails&pub_id=2367&mp=y&start=81&sort=7.
\22\ Heinrich, Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser, and Kenneth R.
Troske. ``Workforce Investment Act Non-Experimental Net Impact
Evaluation.'' Columbia, MD: IMPAQ International, LLC, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 20621]]
Participants in occupational training had a ``5 percentage points
higher reemployment rate than those who received no training, and
reemployment rates were highest among recipients of on-the-job
training, a difference of 10 to 11 percentage points.'' \23\ However,
the study found that training did not correspond to higher employment
retention or earnings.\24\ A Youth Opportunity Grant Initiative study
found that Youth Opportunity was successful at improving outcomes for
high-poverty youth. Youth Opportunity also increased the labor-force
participation rate overall and for subgroups, including 16- to 19-year-
old adolescents, women, African Americans, and in-school youth.\25\
DOL-sponsored research found that participants who received core
services (often funded by Employment Services) and other services in
American Job Centers were more likely to enter and retain
employment.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Park, Jooyoun. ``Does Occupational Training by the Trade
Adjustment Assistance Program Really Help Reemployment? Success
Measured as Matching.'' Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration, 2011.
\24\ Ibid.
\25\ Jackson, Russell H., Jamie Diamandopoulos, Carol Pistorino,
Paul Zador, John Lopdell, Juanita Lucas-McLean, and Lee Bruno.
``Youth Opportunity Grant Initiative (YO).'' Houston, TX: Decision
Information Resources, Inc., 2008. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/YO%20Impact%20and%20Synthesis%20Report.pdf.
\26\ Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. Department
of Labor. ``Five-Year Research and Evaluation Strategic Plan Program
Years 2012-2017.'' May 2013. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_resultDetails&pub_id=2516&mp=y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Training's impact on wages. Before enactment of WIA, Job Training
Partnership Act services had a modest but statistically significant
impact on the earnings of adult participants.\27\ WIA training
increased participants' quarterly earnings by $660; these impacts
persisted beyond 2 years and were largest among women.\28\ WIA adult
program participants who received core services (e.g., skill
assessment, labor market information) or intensive services (e.g.,
specialized assessments, counseling) earned up to $200 more per quarter
than non-WIA participants. Participants who received training services
in addition to core and intensive services initially earned less but
caught up within 10 quarters with the earnings of participants who only
received core or intensive services; marginal benefits of training
could exceed $400 per quarter. Earnings progressions were similar for
WIA adult program participants and users of the labor exchange
only.\29\ WIA training services also improved participants' long-term
wage rates, doubling earnings after 10 quarters over those not
receiving training services.\30\ However, WIA participants who did not
receive training earned $550 to $700 more in the first quarter after
placement. The study also noted that individuals who did not receive
training received effective short-term counseling that enabled them to
gain an immediate advantage in the labor market.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Barnow, Burt, and Daniel Gubits. ``Review of Recent Pilot,
Demonstration, Research, and Evaluation Initiatives to Assist in the
Implementation of Programs under the Workforce Investment Act.''
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, 2003. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_puListingDetails&pub_id=2365&mp=y&start=81&sort=7.
\28\ Ibid.
\29\ Earnings Progression among Workforce Development
Participants: Evidence from Washington State.'' Eugene, OR:
University of Oregon, 2011. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_puListingDetails&pub_id=2468&mp=y&start=1&sort=7.
\30\ Heinrich, Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser, and Kenneth R.
Troske. ``Workforce Investment Act Non-Experimental Net Impact
Evaluation.'' Columbia, MD: IMPAQ International, LLC, 2009.
\31\ Heinrich, Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser, and Kenneth R.
Troske. ``Workforce Investment Act Non-Experimental Net Impact
Evaluation.'' Columbia, MD: IMPAQ International, LLC, 2009.
Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/Workforce%20Investment%20Act%20Non-Experimental%20Net%20Impact%20Evaluation%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another DOL program, the Job Corps program for disadvantaged youth
and young adults, produced sustained increases in earnings for
participants in their early twenties. Students who completed Job Corps
vocational training experienced average earnings increases by the
fourth follow-up year over the comparison group, whereas those who did
not complete training experienced no increase.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Gritz, Mark, and Terry Johnson. ``National Job Corps Study:
Assessing Program Effects on Earnings for Students Achieving Key
Program Milestones.'' Seattle, WA: Battelle Memorial Institute,
2001. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_puListingDetails&pub_id=2257&mp=y&start=141&sort=7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another publication also noted that on average, adults experienced
a $743 quarterly post-exit earnings boost.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Hollenbeck, Kevin, Daniel Schroeder, Christopher T. King,
and Wei-Jang Huang. ``Net Impact Estimates for Services Provided
through the Workforce Investment Act.'' Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor, 2005. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/Net%20Impact%20Estimates%20for%20Services%20Provided%20through%20the%20Workforce%20Investment%20Act-%20Final%20Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who completed training experienced a 15-percent increase in
employment rates and an increase in hourly wages of $1.21 relative to
participants without training.\34\ Participation in WIA training also
had a distinct positive, but smaller, impact on employment and
earnings, with employment 4.4 percentage points higher and quarterly
earnings $660 higher than comparison group members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Needels, Karen, Jeanne Bellotti, Mina Dadgar, and Walter
Nicholson. ``Evaluation of the Military Base National Emergency
Grants: Final Report.'' Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research,
2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National and international studies provided strong evidence for the
need for and economic value of adult basic skills. One study shows that
not only do individuals who participate in adult basic skills training
programs have higher future earnings, but income premiums are higher
with more intensive participation. At 100 hours or more, the average
treatment effect corresponded to $9,621 in 2013 dollars.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Reder, Stephen. Portland State University. 2013. Briefs
available at https://LINCS.ed.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vocational and adult literacy's education impact. Vocational
managers indicate that closely aligning service offerings with labor
market reports improves the likelihood that participants will learn
applicable skills. The lengthy and involved process of implementing
changes to existing programs and developing new programs, however,
might delay the benefits derived from improved labor market data.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Johnson, Terry, Mark Gritz, Russell Jackson, John
Burghardt, Carol Boussy, Jan Leonard, and Carlyn Orians. ``National
Job Corps Study: Report on the Process Analysis.'' Princeton, NJ:
Mathematica Policy Research, 1999. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_puListingDetails&pub_id=2213&mp=y&start=201&sort=7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies examining the impact of participation on literacy
proficiency determined that individuals who participated in adult basic
skills programs tended to have higher levels of future literacy
proficiency.\37\ Additional studies examined the impact of
participation in adult basic skills training on General Education
Development credential attainment and concluded that rates were
elevated by 0.20 and 0.32 by adult basic skills program
participation.\38\ Another study found a robust impact of adult basic
skills program participation on engagement in post-secondary education.
The findings show that the programs increase adult basic skills
students' success in the early stages of post-secondary engagement and
serve as
[[Page 20622]]
effective tools for nontraditional student populations.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Reder, Stephen. Portland State University. 2013. Briefs
available at https://LINCS.ed.gov.
\38\ Ibid.
\39\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following are channels through which these benefits might be
achieved:
Better information for workers. The accountability measures would
provide workers with higher-quality information about potential
training program providers and enable them to make better-informed
choices about which programs to pursue. The information analyzed and
published by the WDBs about local labor markets also would help
trainees and providers target their efforts and develop reasonable
expectations about outcomes.
Consumers of educational services, including disadvantaged and
displaced workers, require reliable information on the value of
different training options to make informed choices. Displaced workers
tend to be farther removed from schooling and lack information about
available courses and the fields with the highest economic return.\40\
Given these information gaps and financial pressures, it is important
that displaced workers learn of the economic returns to various
training plans.\41\ Still, one study determined that the cost-
effectiveness of WIA job training for disadvantaged workers is
``modestly positive'' due to the limited sample of States on which the
research was based.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Greenstone, Michael, and Adam Looney. ``Building America's
Job Skills with Effective Workforce Programs: A Training Strategy to
Raise Wages and Increase Work Opportunities.'' Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution, 2011.
\41\ Jacobson, Louis, Robert LaLonde, and Daniel Sullivan.
``Policies to reduce high-tenured displaced workers' earnings losses
through retraining.'' Discussion Paper 2011-11, The Hamilton
Project, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 2011.
\42\ Heinrich, Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser, Kenneth R. Troske,
Kyung-Seong Jeon, Daver C. Kahvecioglu. 2009 (November). ``New
Estimates of Public Employment and Training Program Net Impacts: A
Nonexperimental Evaluation of the Workforce Investment Act
Program.'' Discussion Paper 4569, Institute for the Study of Labor
(IZA), Bonn, Germany.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State performance accountability measures. This requirement would
include significant data collection for Local Boards to address
performance measures for the core programs in their jurisdictions. This
data collection would permit the State WDBs to assess performance
across each State. Training providers would be required to provide data
to Local Boards, which would represent a cost in the form of increased
data collection and processing. Employers and employees also would have
to provide information to the training providers, which would take
time. This provision, in combination with the Board membership
provision requiring employer/business representation, is expected to
improve the quality of local training and, ultimately, the number and
caliber of job placements.
Implementation of follow-up measures, rather than termination-based
measures, might improve long-term labor market outcomes, although some
could divert resources from training activities.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Courty, Pascal, and Gerald Marschke. ``Making Government
Accountable: Lessons from a Federal Job Training Program.'' Public
Administration Review 67.5 (2007): 904-916.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before-after earning metrics capture the contribution of training
to earnings potential and minimize incentives to select only training
participants with high initial earnings.\44\ The study found that value
added net of social cost is one objective that is too difficult to
measure on a regular basis. With the exception of programs in a few
States, current incentives do not reward enrollment of the least
advantaged.\45\ In addition, the study noted evidence that the
performance-standards can be ``gamed'' in an attempt to maximize their
centers' measured performance.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Heckman, James J., Carolyn Heinrich, and Jeffrey A. Smith.
1997. ``Assessing the Performance of Performance Standards in Public
Bureaucracies.'' American Economic Review 87(2): 389-95.
\45\ Ibid.
\46\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pressure to meet performance levels could lead providers to focus
on offering services to participants most likely to succeed. For
example, current accountability measures might create incentives for
training providers to screen participants for motivation, delay
participation for those needing significant improvement, or discourage
participation by those with high existing wages.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Dunham, Kate, Melissa Mack, Jeff Salzman, and Andrew
Wiegand. ``Evaluation of the WIA Performance Measurement System:
Survey Report.'' Oakland, CA: SPR Associates, 2005. Available at
https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_puListingDetails&pub_id=2408&mp=y&start=41&sort=7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following subsections present additional channels by which
economic benefits may be associated with various aspects of the
proposed joint rule.
Dislocated workers. A study found that for dislocated workers,
receiving WIA services significantly increased employment rates by 13.5
percent and boosted post-exit quarterly earnings by $951.\48\ However,
another study found that training in the WIA dislocated worker program
had a net benefit close to zero or even negative.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Hollenbeck, Kevin, Daniel Schroeder, Christopher T. King,
and Wei-Jang Huang. ``Net Impact Estimates for Services Provided
through the Workforce Investment Act.'' Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor, 2005. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/Net%20Impact%20Estimates%20for%20Services%20Provided%20through%20the%20Workforce%20Investment%20Act-%20Final%20Report.pdf.
\49\ Heinrich, Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser, and Kenneth R.
Troske. ``Workforce Investment Act Non-Experimental Net Impact
Evaluation.'' Columbia, MD: IMPAQ International, LLC, 2009.
Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_puListingDetails&pub_id=2419&mp=y&start=41&sort=7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-employed individuals. Job seekers who received self-employment
services started businesses sooner and had longer lasting businesses
than nonparticipants. Self-employment assistance participants were 19
times more likely to be self-employed than nonparticipants and
expressed high levels of satisfaction with self-employment. A study of
Maine, New Jersey, and New York programs found that participants were
four times more likely to obtain employment of any kind than
nonparticipants.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Kosanovich, William, Heather Fleck, Berwood Yost, Wendy
Armon, and Sandra Siliezar. ``Comprehensive Assessment of Self-
Employment Assistance Programs.'' Arlington, VA: DTI Associates,
2002. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_puListingDetails&pub_id=2293&mp=y&start=121&sort=7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Workers with disabilities. A study of individuals with disabilities
enrolled in training for a broad array of occupations (including
wastewater treatment, auto body repair, meat cutter/wrapper, clerical
support staff, surgical tools technician, and veterinary assistant)
found that the mean hourly wage and hours worked per quarter for
program graduates were higher than for individuals who did not complete
the program.
In conclusion, after a review of the quantitative and qualitative
analysis of the impacts of this NPRM, the Departments have determined
that the societal benefits justify the anticipated costs.
Transfers
The Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment program was effective
in assisting claimants to exit the unemployment insurance program and
avoid exhausting regular unemployment insurance benefits in Florida,
Idaho, and Nevada. By avoiding unemployment insurance benefit
exhaustion, the program led to reductions in the likelihood of
receiving Extended Unemployment Compensation benefits. There exists
notable evidence that the Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment
program is cost-effective.\51\
[[Page 20623]]
The program reduced unemployment insurance payments and increased tax
revenue resulting from increased worker earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Poe-Yamagata, Eileen, Jacob Benus, Nicholas Bill, Hugh
Carrington, Marios Michaelides, and Ted Shen. ``Impact of the
Reemployment and Eligibility Assessment (REA) Initiative.'' IMPAQ
International, 2011. Available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_puListingDetails&pub_id=2487&mp=y&start=21&sort=7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, requires
agencies to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis to determine
whether a regulation will have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Section 605 of the RFA allows an
agency to certify a rule in lieu of preparing an analysis if the
regulation is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Further, under the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 (SBREFA), an
agency is required to produce compliance guidance for small entities if
the rule has a significant economic impact.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a small business as
one that is ``independently owned and operated and which is not
dominant in its field of operation.'' The definition of small business
varies from industry to industry to the extent necessary to reflect
industry size differences properly. An agency must either use the SBA
definition for a small entity or establish an alternative definition,
in this instance, for the workforce industry. The Departments have
adopted the SBA definition for purposes of this certification.
The Departments have notified the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA,
under the RFA at 5 U.S.C. 605(b), and proposes to certify that this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This finding is supported, in very large
measure, by the fact that small entities are already receiving
financial assistance under the WIA program and will likely continue to
do so under the WIOA program as articulated in this NPRM.
Affected Small Entities
The proposed rule can be expected to impact small one-stop center
operators. One-stop operators can be a single entity (public, private,
or nonprofit) or a consortium of entities. The types of entities that
might be a one-stop operator include: (1) An institution of higher
education; (2) an employment service State agency established under the
Wagner-Peyser Act; (3) a community-based organization, nonprofit
organization, or workforce intermediary; (4) a private for-profit
entity; (5) a government agency; (6) a Local Board, with the approval
of the chief local elected official and the Governor; or (7) another
interested organization or entity that can carry out the duties of the
one-stop operator. Examples include a local chamber of commerce or
other business organization, or a labor organization.
The proposed joint rule can also be expected to impact a variety of
AEFLA local providers: (1) Local education agencies; (2) community-
based organizations; (3) faith-based organizations; (4) libraries;
community, junior, and technical colleges; (5) 4-year colleges and
universities; (6) correctional institutions; and (7) other
institutions, such as medical and special institutions not designed for
criminal offenders.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ In terms of VR grantees, they are State government entities
and, by definition, are not small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact on Small Entities
The Departments indicate that transfer payments are a significant
aspect of this analysis in that the majority of WIOA program cost
burdens on State and Local WDBs will be fully financed through Federal
transfer payments to States. The Departments have highlighted costs
that are new to WIOA implementation and this NPRM. Therefore, the
Departments expect that the WIOA joint NPRM will have no cost impact on
small entities.
C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
The Departments have determined that this proposed joint rulemaking
does not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities under the RFA; therefore, the Departments are not
required to produce any Compliance Guides for Small Entities, as
mandated by the SBREFA.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
The purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., include minimizing the paperwork burden on
affected entities. The PRA requires certain actions before an agency
can adopt or revise a collection of information, including publishing
for public comment a summary of the collection of information and a
brief description of the need for and proposed use of the information.
As part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Departments conduct preclearance consultation activities to
provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to
comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in
accordance with the PRA. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A). This activity
helps to ensure that: (1) The public understands the collection
instructions; (2) respondents can provide the requested data in the
desired format; (3) reporting burden (time and financial resources) is
minimized; (4) respondents clearly understand the collection
instruments; and (5) the Departments can properly assess the impact of
collection requirements on respondents. Furthermore, the PRA requires
all Federal agencies to analyze proposed regulations for potential time
burdens on the regulated community created by provisions in the
proposed regulations, which require the submission of information. The
information collection requirements must also be submitted to the OMB
for approval.
The Departments note that a Federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor a collection of information unless it is approved by the OMB
under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. The
public is also not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition,
notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person will be subject
to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if
the collection of information does not display a currently valid OMB
Control Number (44 U.S.C. 3512).
The information collections in this joint NPRM are summarized in
the section-by-section discussion of this NPRM, Section IV. The table
below captures the current and proposed burden hours associated with
the information collections.
[[Page 20624]]
Current and Proposed Information Collection Burdens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual burden
Annual burden hours proposed
OMB Approval No. hours currently for new Change
approved requirements
under WIOA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1205-0420--WIOA Common Performance Management and 0 2,351,905 * 2,351,905
Information and Reporting for Core Programs...........
1205-4NEW--Required Elements for Submission of the 0 3,279 ** 3,279
Unified or Combined State Plan and Plan Modifications
under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act....
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 0 2,355,184 2,355,184
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* OMB 1205-0420 will be the information collection for the common performance accountability data collected
under sec. 116 of WIOA. Hours associated with this information collection represent the burden associated with
reporting the new common performance data elements by the core programs. Burden hours associated with program-
specific reporting for each of the core programs, which are currently approved and will continue in addition
to the common performance reporting, will be reported and summarized in other NPRMs published elsewhere in
this Federal Register. The currently-approved program-specific data reporting that will continue, as
applicable, for the core programs include:
Control Number 1205-0420, Workforce Investment Act Management Information and Reporting System, with an
annual burden of 508,589;
Control Number 1205-0240, Labor Exchange Reporting System, with an annual burden of 568,192;
Control Number 1830-0027, Measures and Methods for the National Reporting System for Adult Education,
with an annual burden of 5,700; and
Control Number 1820-0508, RSA-911 Case Service Report, with an annual burden of 6,500.
The Departments anticipate that the above collections may be phased out or modified, as appropriate, as the WIOA
performance measures are fully implemented.
The above-described currently-approved reporting burdens are presented here in order to provide respondents full
transparency of the complete reporting burden that is imposed by WIOA, both in terms of the new common
performance data elements as well as program-specific reporting requirements. However, to be clear, the net
new burden as listed in the table above only reflects the additional burden imposed by the new common
performance reporting requirements, set forth at sec. 116 of WIOA, that are applicable to all core programs.
** OMB 1205-4NEW is the information collection for the submission of the Unified or Combined State Plan under
secs. 102 and 103 of WIOA, which will replace the following currently-approved State Plan collections for the
core programs:
Control Number 1205-0398, Planning Guidance and Instructions for Submission of the Strategic State Plan
and Plan Modifications for Title I of the Workforce Investment Act and Wagner-Peyser Act, with an annual
burden of 2,280;
Control Number 1830-0026, Adult Education and Family Literacy Act State Plan, with an annual burden of
2,565; and
Control Number 1820-0500, 1820-0500, State Plan for the Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program and
Supplement for the Supported Employment Services Program (now referred under WIOA as the VR services portion
of the Unified or Combined State Plan), with an annual burden of 2,000.
In an effort to give full meaning to the requirement that States
submit a Unified or Combined State Plan, the Departments propose to
consolidate all currently-approved program-specific State Plan
submissions for each of the core programs into one information
collection instrument. To that end, the total burden hours associated
with this proposed new consolidated information collection is the sum
of the additional burden required to satisfy the integrated strategic
and operational planning requirements (see table above) plus the
currently-approved requirements (see bullets above). However, to be
clear, the net additional burden to respondents is only that associated
with the new planning requirements.
Agency: DOL-ETA.
Title of Collection: WIOA Common Performance Management and
Information and Reporting for Core Programs
OMB Control Number: 1205-0420.
Description: This new information collection will collect common
performance data required under sec. 116 of WIOA from all core
programs, including WIOA adult and dislocated workers, youth, Wagner-
Peyser, Adult Education and Literacy, Eligible Training Providers, and
Vocational Rehabilitation Services programs. The Departments of
Education and Labor will use a common approach to standardize the
quarterly, as appropriate, and annual reporting of common data elements
for all core programs and Eligible Training Providers. These data are
in addition to other performance data reported by each of the core
programs under current and proposed regulations discussed in program-
specific NPRMs available elsewhere in this Federal Register.
Affected Public: State, local and tribal governments, private
sector.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits (WIOA
sec. 116).
Total Estimated Number of Respondents Annually: 53 for DOL
programs, 80 for RSA, 57 for OCTAE (no additional respondents resulting
from this proposed rulemaking).
Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 722--each DOL and RSA
respondent reports 5 times per year (quarterly plus annually); and each
OCTAE respondent reports only annually (no additional responses
resulting from this proposed rulemaking).
Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 2,351,905 hours. This includes
hours estimated for both collecting the information and reporting.
Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0 (no change as a
result of this proposed rulemaking).
Proposed Regulations Containing Information Collections Approved
Under this Control Number: 20 CFR part 680 (Adult, Dislocated Workers,
and Eligible Training Providers); 20 CFR part 681 (Youth); 20 CFR part
652 (Wagner-Peyser); 34 CFR parts 462 and 463 (Office of Career,
Technical, and Adult Education); and 34 CFR part 361 (Rehabilitation
Services Administration).
Title of Collection: Required Elements for Submission of the
Unified or Combined State Plan and Plan Modifications under the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act: Wagner-Peyser and WIOA Title
I programs (Department of Labor) and Vocational Rehabilitation and
Adult Education programs (Department of Education).
OMB Control Number: 1205-4NEW.
Description: The proposed rule would require each State (which
includes applicable outlying areas) to submit a Unified or Combined
State Plan that fosters strategic alignment of the core programs, which
include the title I adult, dislocated worker, and youth
[[Page 20625]]
programs; title II adult education and literacy programs; the Wagner-
Peyser program as amended by title III of WIOA; and the title IV
Vocational Rehabilitation program. The Unified or Combined State Plan
requirements improve service integration and ensure that the workforce
system is industry-relevant and responds to the economic needs of the
State and matches employers with skilled workers. The Unified or
Combined State Plan would describe how the State will develop and
implement a unified, integrated service delivery system rather than
separately discuss the State's approach to operating each core program
individually. This consolidated information collection implements secs.
102 and 103 of WIOA. The Unified or Combined State Plan would replace
the planning requirements collected under the currently-approved
program-specific State Plan information collections.
While each State, at a minimum, must submit a Unified State Plan
covering all core programs, sec. 103 of WIOA permits a State to submit
a Combined State Plan that would include the core programs plus one or
more additional Federal programs listed in sec. 103(b). If the State
chooses to include these programs, the Combined Plan will include all
of the common planning elements included in the Unified State Plan, and
an additional element describing how the State will coordinate the
additional programs with the core programs (WIOA sec. 103(b)(3)).
As with the Unified State Plan collection for the core programs
described above, the total burden associated with the Combined State
Plan would represent the total burden for the new (additional) WIOA
planning requirements (as described in the table above), plus an
additional 0.25 hours per Combined State Plan to account for the one
additional new question that will be included in Combined State Plans.
The burden required for fulfilling the program-specific State Plan
requirements (for the non-core additional programs that may be included
in the Combined State Plan) will continue to be separately accounted
for under the non-core programs' existing, approved Information
Collections. Those existing Information Collections are described in
the table below for reference:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approved
Additional program control No. burden
hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Number 1830-0029, Carl D. Perkins Career and 2,240
Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-270)
State Plan Guide..........................................
Control Number 0970-0145, Temporary Assistance for Needy 594
Families (TANF) State Plan Guidance.......................
Control Number 0584-0083, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 1431
Program Operating Guidelines, Forms, and Waivers, Program
and Budget Summary Statement..............................
Control Number 1225-0086, Grant Application Requirements 1620
for the Jobs for Veteran State Grants Program.............
Control Number 1205-0132, Unemployment Insurance State 1530
Quality Service Plan Planning and Reporting Guidelines....
Control Number 1205-0040, Senior Community Service 406
Employment Program Performance Measurement System.........
Control Number 0970-0382, Community Services Block Grant 112
(CSBG) Program Model Plan Applications....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The table does not include the additional programs that may be part
of a Combined State Plan but do not have currently-approved planning
requirements of their own, such as the Housing and Urban Development
Employment and Training Programs and the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Program. Because these programs do not have currently-approved planning
collections, the additional burden hours would be the total additional
burden associated with the new unified planning requirements set forth
in the table above that would be true for any program included in the
Unified or Combined State Plan.
Affected Public: State, local and tribal governments.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or maintain benefits
(WIOA, secs. 102 and 103).
Total Estimated Number of Respondents Annually: 38. (This is the
annualized number of respondents.) Fifty-seven jurisdictions submit a
plan the first year and all 57 are required to submit an update in the
third year of the planning cycle. No submissions are required the
second year. This is the same as the current planning documents. (No
additional respondents resulting from this proposed rulemaking.)
Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 38 (Annualized as
described above; no additional responses resulting from this proposed
rulemaking).
Total Estimated Annual Time Burden: 3,279. This number includes the
hours for all the jurisdictions to submit a Unified State Plan, plus an
additional 0.25 hours for each respondent submitting a Combined State
Plan. We estimate that 10 respondents will submit a Combined State
Plan. It also includes the estimate that all respondents will submit an
update in the third planning year, which is estimated to require a
third of the hours compared to submitting the initial plan. Then the
number has been annualized over 3 years.
Total Estimated Annual Other Costs Burden: $0 (no change as a
result of this proposed rulemaking).
Proposed Regulations Containing Information Collections Approved
Under this Control Number: DOL programs--20 CFR 652.211, 653.107(d),
653.109(d), 676.105, 676.110, 676.115, 676.120, 676.135, 676,140,
676.145, 677.230, 678.310, 678.405, 678.750(a), 681.400(a)(1),
681.410(b)(2), 682.100, 683.115. Department of Education programs--34
CFR parts 361, 462 and 463.
Interested parties may obtain a copy free of charge of one or more
of the information collection requests submitted to the OMB on the
reginfo.gov Web site at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. From
the Information Collection Review tab, select Information Collection
Review. Then select the applicable Department (e.g., Department of
Education or Department of Labor) from the Currently Under Review
dropdown menu, and lookup the Control Number. A free copy of the
requests may also be obtained by contacting the person named in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
As noted in the ADDRESSES section of this joint NPRM, interested
parties may send comments about the information collections to the
applicable Department throughout the 60-day comment period and/or to
the OMB within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. In order to help ensure appropriate consideration, comments
should mention the applicable OMB Control Number(s). The Departments
and OMB are particularly interested in comments that:
Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Departments, including whether the information will have practical
utility;
[[Page 20626]]
Evaluate the accuracy of the Departments' estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
Minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
The Departments note that in order to meet WIOA requirements, the
information collections mentioned in this NPRM need to be in place
prior to the final rule taking effect. The Departments will follow PRA
requirements in clearing the collections (emergency procedures, as
appropriate), including providing appropriate public engagement and
taking into account the comments received as part of this rulemaking.
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
E.O. 13132 requires Federal agencies to ensure that the principles
of Federalism established by the Framers of our Constitution guide the
executive departments and agencies in the formulation and
implementation of policies and to further the policies of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act. Further, agencies must strictly adhere to
constitutional principles. Agencies must closely examine the
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would
limit the policy-making discretion of the States and they must
carefully assess the necessity for any such action. To the extent
practicable, State and local officials must be consulted before any
such action is implemented. Section 3(b) of the E.O. further provides
that Federal agencies must implement regulations that have a
substantial direct effect only if statutory authority permits the
regulation and it is of national significance. The Departments have
reviewed the WIOA joint NPRM in light of these requirements and have
determined that, with the enactment of WIOA and its clear requirement
to publish national implementing regulations, E.O. sec. 3(b) has been
fully reviewed and its requirement satisfied.
Accordingly, the Departments have reviewed this WIOA-required joint
NPRM and have determined that the proposed rulemaking has no Federalism
implications. The proposed joint rule, as noted above, has no
substantial direct effects on States, on the relationships between the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government as described by E.O. 13132. Therefore, the
Departments have determined that this proposed rule does not have a
sufficient Federalism implication to warrant the preparation of a
summary impact statement.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This Act directs agencies to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and the
private sector. A Federal mandate is any provision in a regulation that
imposes an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,
or imposes a duty upon the private sector that is not voluntary.
WIOA contains specific language supporting employment and training
activities for Indian, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian individuals.
These program requirements are supported, as is the WIOA workforce
development system generally, by Federal formula grant funds and are
accordingly not considered unfunded mandates. Similarly, Migrant and
Seasonal Farmworker activities are authorized and funded under the WIOA
program as is currently done under the WIA program. The States are
mandated to perform certain activities for the Federal government under
WIOA and will be reimbursed (grant funding) for the resources required
to perform those activities. The same process and grant relationship
exists between States and Local WDBs under the WIA program and must
continue under the WIOA program as identified in this NPRM.
WIOA contains language establishing procedures regarding the
eligibility of training providers to receive funds under the WIOA
program and also contains clear State information collection
requirements for training entities (e.g., submission of appropriate,
accurate, and timely information). A decision by a private training
entity to participate as a provider under the WIOA program is purely
voluntary and, therefore, information collection burdens do not impose
a duty on the private sector that is not voluntarily assumed.
The Departments following consideration of these factors have
determined that this proposed joint rule contains no unfunded Federal
mandates, which are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(6) to include either a
``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' or a ``Federal private sector
mandate.''
G. Plain Language
The Departments drafted this joint NPRM in plain language.
H. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat.
2681) requires the assessment of the impact of this proposed rule on
family well-being. A rule that is determined to have a negative effect
on families must be supported with an adequate rationale. The
Departments have assessed this proposed joint rule in light of this
requirement and determined that the joint NPRM would not have a
negative effect on families.
I. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
The Departments reviewed this proposed joint rule under the terms
of E.O. 13175 and have determined it would have no tribal implications
in addition to those created through the reimbursement of WIA and
future WIOA program expenses via Federally disbursed formula grant
funds. However, the proposed joint rule would have substantial direct
effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes.
As a result, a tribal summary impact statement has been prepared.
Prior to developing the proposed joint rule, the Department of
Labor held three events to talk with the tribal institutions about
their concerns about the current state of Indian and Native American
Programs (INAP) as well as what concerns they see in the future. These
three events consisted of a consultation webinar and two in-person town
hall meetings. The consultation webinar, entitled ``Listening session
on Indian and Native American Programs,'' occurred on September 15,
2014. Two other consultations were held, including an October 21, 2014,
town hall meeting with Indian and Native American (INA) leaders and
membership organizations serving Indians and Native Americans,
Hawaiians, and Alaskan Natives, and a formal consultation December 17,
2014, with members of the Native American Employment and Training
Advisory Council to the Secretary of Labor.
The Department of Labor received feedback from the INA community
and the public that established several areas
[[Page 20627]]
of interest concerning the Department of Labor's relationship with INA
Tribes and tribal governments. These areas of interest are summarized
below.
Services Received in American Job Centers
Specifically, the INA community expressed interest in learning how
American Job Centers will account for the use of their INA funding
dollars and how to ensure that the funds intended for the INA
population will be dedicated to that population. In addition, several
individuals expressed concerns that INA individuals that enter an
American Job Center may not get the general assistance that is intended
for all people that seek assistance. In other words, several commenters
wanted to ensure that INA individuals should receive assistance
intended for other populations for which they may qualify when seeking
service. Finally, several commenters were interested in learning more
about how INA programs may be required to contribute to American Job
Center infrastructure funding and how American Job Centers will account
for INA members served to ensure that the American Job Center network
is responding to the relevant INA population needs.
Funding per Participant was Low for INA Programs Especially When
Compared to Other Job Training Programs
Many commenters expressed concern that the funds made available on
a per-participant basis for INA programs were not sufficient to meet
the needs of the populations being served. Specifically, many
commenters stated that funds available for INA youth are inadequate to
fully meet their needs. In addition, commenters felt that more funds
were needed for INA job training programs to ensure that career pathway
training could be carried out. Several commenters compared the cost per
participant funding for other programs, such as Job Corps, as evidence
of the lack of funding for INA programs. The commenters went on to
request a comparison of other WIA-funded programs and the INA programs.
Finally, one commenter felt that because of the lack of funds, INA
youth were being served instead of INA adults.
The majority of comments focused on the use of new funding streams
and the requirements attached to those funds. Commenters expressed
concern about the issue of using and transferring WIOA funding to
support activities under Indian Employment, Training, and Related
Services Demonstration Act of 1992, as amended (Pub. L. 102-477).
Specifically, commenters talked about the importance of flexibility in
adherence to the requirements because Pub. L. 102-477 programs are
tribal programs, may be located in rural areas, and have been
effectively and efficiently reporting through existing processes,
including a single reporting feature in the annual report.
Additionally, commenters suggested that vocational rehabilitation,
adult education reentry, and other applicable job/education-related
program funding also should be allowed to support Pub. L. 102-477
programs. Clarity around which funding streams are allowable also was
suggested. Commenters also expressed hope that the Department of
Education will integrate Carl D. Perkins funding under Pub. L. 102-477
which allows Federally-recognized Tribes and Alaska Native entities to
combine formula-funded Federal grant funds administered by the
Department of Interior, which are employment and training-related into
a single plan with a single budget and a single reporting system.
Commenters noted that the Native American Career and Technical
Education Program (NACTEP) is a required partner and that NACTEP has
limited the partner funds available to fund supportive services and
work experiences. One commenter asked if statutory language regarding
key investments in vulnerable populations would result in an increase
in funding for Division of Indian and Native American Programs (DINAP)
programs. Lastly, it was suggested that the 166 Advisory Council
continue, and DINAP programs continue to be staffed with Native
Americans and Native American Chiefs.
Concerns About the Effects of the New Performance Reporting
Requirements Established in WIOA on the INA Community
Many commenters expressed concern that INA programs would not be
able to meet the performance reporting requirements established by WIOA
for several reasons, including limited funds to train individuals for
the new performance standards and the need to purchase new technology
and equipment to meet the reporting requirements. In addition, several
commenters said that INA programs will have to be more selective in
determining eligibility for training programs because of insufficient
funding and the increased focus on performance outcomes.
Lack of Funding To Hire and Effectively Train Staff and Ensuring Policy
is Responsive to INA Community Needs
Commenters stated concerns that INA programs will not be able to
achieve expected performance levels because they lacked funding to
adequately staff programs. Several commenters stated concerns about the
limited number of staff, increased training needs for staff, and the
need to ensure that technical assistance is made available to staff.
Specifically, commenters are concerned that INA programs may transition
slower than States to the new WIOA requirements because of funding and
staff needs. In addition, they stated that INA programs need more funds
to implement new administrative tasks as well as provide services to
the INA community.
Working With States and Other Programs
Commenters expressed concerns about States' accountability to the
INA community and how to make other training programs administered by
the State work comprehensively with INA programs. Others encouraged
flexibility and freedom in funding in working with these same entities
and lauded this flexibility as a way to get more out of funds.
Furthermore, the commenters emphasized how important it is for INA
leaders to have a voice in the policy and guidance formulation process
so that policy is directly responsive to the needs and funding has to
go hand in hand with the needs identified. Some commenters suggested an
ongoing dialogue between INA leaders, Workforce Investment Boards,
local and State agencies, and the American Job Centers to discuss
training and education that leads to jobs. Some commenters asserted
that State-run programs need to be more accountable for how they
interact with INA populations. Other commenters expressed frustration
that some State programs do not see a need to work with INA programs
because the States think that the INA programs get money from other
sources, such as casinos. Many of the commenters said that they wanted
better collaboration with State-run programs and increased networking
among INA programs and State agencies. Finally, one commenter stated
that collaboration between INA programs and the State-run training
systems would make services to individuals more efficient because it
would prevent ``double-dipping'' in programs. The Department invites
public comment about what can be done to address the areas summarized
above.
[[Page 20628]]
J. Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and Interference With
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights)
The Departments have determined that this joint NPRM is not subject
to E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, because it does not involve
implementation of a policy with takings implications.
K. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This WIOA joint NPRM was drafted and reviewed in accordance with
E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and the Departments have determined
that the proposed rule will not unduly burden the Federal court system.
The proposed WIOA regulations were written to minimize litigation and
to the extent feasible, provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct, and have been reviewed carefully to eliminate drafting errors
and ambiguities.
L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply)
This joint NPRM was drafted and reviewed in accordance with E.O.
13211, Energy Supply. The Departments have determined the joint NPRM
will not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution,
or use of energy and is not subject to E.O. 13211.
List of Subjects
20 CFR Parts 676, 677, and 678
Employment, Grant programs--labor.
34 CFR Part 361
Administrative practice and procedure, Grant programs--education,
Grant programs--social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Vocational rehabilitation.
34 CFR Part 463
Adult education, Grant programs--education, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Department of Labor
Employment and Training Administration
20 CFR Chapter V
For the reasons stated in the preamble, ETA proposes to amend 20
CFR chapter V as follows:
0
1. Add part 676 to read as follows:
PART 676--UNIFIED AND COMBINED STATE PLANS UNDER TITLE I OF THE
WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITY ACT
Sec.
676.100 What is the purpose of the Unified and Combined State Plans?
676.105 What are the general requirements for the Unified State
Plan?
676.110 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the adult, dislocated worker, and youth workforce
investment activities in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
title I?
676.115 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the Adult Education and Literacy Program in Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act title II?
676.120 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service programs in
title III of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
676.125 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the State Vocational Rehabilitation program in
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title IV?
676.130 What is the submission and approval process of the Unified
State Plan?
676.135 What are the requirements for modification of the Unified
State Plan?
676.140 What are the general requirements for submitting a Combined
State Plan?
676.143 What is the submission and approval process of the Combined
State Plan?
676.145 What are the requirements for modifications of the Combined
State Plan?
Authority: Secs. 503, 102, 103, Pub. L. 113-128, 128 Stat. 1425
(Jul. 22, 2014).
Sec. 676.100 What is the purpose of the Unified and Combined State
Plans?
(a) The Unified and Combined State Plans provide the framework for
States to outline a strategic vision of, and goals for, how their
workforce development systems will achieve the purposes of Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).
(b) The Unified and Combined State Plans serve as 4-year action
plans to develop, align, and integrate the State's systems and provide
a platform to achieve the State's vision and strategic and operational
goals. A Unified or Combined State Plan is intended to:
(1) Align, in strategic coordination, the six core programs
required in the Unified State Plan pursuant to Sec. 676.105(b), and
additional optional programs that may be part of the Combined State
Plan pursuant to Sec. 676.140;
(2) Direct investments in economic, education, and workforce
training programs to focus on providing relevant education and training
to ensure that individuals, including youth and individuals with
barriers to employment, have the skills to compete in the job market
and that employers have a ready supply of skilled workers;
(3) Apply strategies for job-driven training consistently across
Federal programs, and;
(4) Enable economic, education, and workforce partners to build a
skilled workforce through innovation in, and alignment of, employment,
training, and education programs.
Sec. 676.105 What are the general requirements for the Unified State
Plan?
(a) The Unified State Plan must be submitted in accordance with
Sec. 676.130 and joint planning guidelines issued by the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Education.
(b) The Governor of each State must submit, in accordance with
Sec. 676.130, a Unified or Combined State Plan to the Secretary of
Labor to be eligible to receive funding for the workforce development
system's six core programs:
(1) The adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs authorized
under subtitle B of title I of WIOA and administered by the U.S.
Department of Labor;
(2) The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) program
authorized under title II of WIOA and administered by the U.S.
Department of Education;
(3) The Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Services programs amended by
title III of WIOA and administered by the U.S. Department of Labor; and
(4) The State Vocational Rehabilitation program amended by title IV
of WIOA and administered by the U.S. Department of Education.
(c) The Unified State Plan must outline the State's 4-year strategy
for the core programs described in paragraph (b) of this section and
meet the requirements of sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as explained in the joint
planning guidance issued by the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Education.
(d) The Unified State Plan must include strategic and operational
planning elements to facilitate the development of an aligned,
coordinated, and comprehensive workforce development system. The
Unified State Plan must include:
(1) Strategic planning elements that describe the State's strategic
vision and goals for preparing an educated and skilled workforce under
sec. 102(b)(1) of WIOA. The strategic planning elements must be
informed by and include an analysis of the State's economic conditions
and employer and workforce needs, including education and skill needs.
[[Page 20629]]
(2) Strategies for aligning the core programs and optional
programs, as well as other resources available to the State, to achieve
the strategic vision and goals in accordance with sec. 102(b)(1)(E) of
WIOA.
(3) Operational planning elements in accordance with sec. 102(b)(2)
of WIOA that support the strategies for aligning the core programs and
other resources available to the State to achieve the State's vision
and goals and a description of how the State Workforce Development
Board will implement its functions, in accordance with sec. 101(d) of
WIOA. Operational planning elements must include:
(i) A description of how the State strategy will be implemented by
each core program's lead State agency;
(ii) State operating systems, including data systems, and policies
that will support the implementation of the State's strategy identified
in paragraph (d)(1) of this section;
(iii) Program-specific requirements for the core programs required
by WIOA sec. 102(b)(2)(D);
(iv) Assurances required by sec. 102(b)(2)(E) of WIOA and others
deemed necessary by the Secretaries of Labor and Education under sec.
102(b)(2)(E)(x) of WIOA; and
(v) Any additional operational planning requirements imposed by the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of Education under sec.
102(b)(2)(C)(viii) of WIOA.
Sec. 676.110 What are the program-specific requirements in the
Unified State Plan for the adult, dislocated worker, and youth
workforce investment activities in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act title I?
The program-specific requirements for the adult, dislocated worker,
and youth workforce investment activities that must be included in the
Unified State Plan are described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D) of WIOA.
Additional planning requirements may be required by the Secretary of
Labor or the Secretary of Education in accordance with joint planning
guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Education.
Sec. 676.115 What are the program-specific requirements in the
Unified State Plan for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act
program in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title II?
The program-specific requirements for the AEFLA program in title II
that must be included in the Unified State Plan are described in secs.
102(b)(2)(D)(ii) and 102(b)(2)(C) of WIOA.
(a) With regard to the description required in sec.
102(b)(2)(D)(ii)(I) of WIOA pertaining to content standards, the
Unified State Plan must describe how the eligible agency will, by July
1, 2016, align its content standards for adult education with State-
adopted challenging academic content standards under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
(b) With regard to the description required in sec.
102(b)(2)(C)(iv) of WIOA pertaining to the methods and factors the
State will use to distribute funds under the core programs, for title
II of WIOA, the Unified State Plan must include--
(1) How the eligible agency will award multi-year grants on a
competitive basis to eligible providers in the State; and
(2) How the eligible agency will provide direct and equitable
access to funds using the same grant or contract announcement and
application procedure.
(c) With regard to the description required under sec.
102(b)(2)(C)(v)(I) of WIOA pertaining to the integration of workforce
and education data on core programs, unemployment insurance programs,
and education through post-secondary education, for title II of WIOA,
the Unified State Plan must include how the State will ensure
interoperability of data systems in the reporting on core indicators of
performance and performance reports required to be submitted by the
State.
Sec. 676.120 What are the program-specific requirements in the
Unified State Plan for Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service programs in
title III of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Services programs amended by title III
are subject to requirements in sec. 102(b) of WIOA and any additional
requirements imposed by the Secretary of Labor under sec.
102(b)(2)(C)(viii) of WIOA, in accordance with joint planning
guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Education.
Sec. 676.125 What are the program-specific requirements in the
Unified State Plan for the State Vocational Rehabilitation program in
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title IV?
The program specific requirements for the vocational rehabilitation
services portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan are set forth in
sec. 101(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. All
submission requirements of the Vocational Rehabilitation Services
portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan are in addition to the
jointly developed strategic and operational content requirements
prescribed by secs. 102(b) and 103 of WIOA.
Sec. 676.130 What is the submission and approval process of the
Unified State Plan?
(a) The Unified State Plan described in Sec. 676.105 must be
submitted in accordance with planning guidelines issued jointly by the
Secretaries of Labor and Education which explain the submission and
approval process in WIOA sec. 102(c).
(b) A State must submit its Unified State Plan to the Secretary of
Labor pursuant to a process identified by the Secretary.
(1) The initial Unified State Plan must be submitted no later than
120 days prior to the commencement of the second full program year of
WIOA.
(2) The subsequent Unified State Plan must be submitted no later
than 120 days prior to the end of the 4-year period described in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, ``program year''
means July 1 through June 30 of any year.
(c) The State must provide an opportunity for public comment on and
input into the development of the Unified State Plan prior to its
submission.
(1) The opportunity for public comment must include an opportunity
for comment by representatives of Local Boards and chief elected
officials, businesses, representatives of labor organizations,
community-based organizations, adult education providers, institutions
of higher education, other stakeholders with an interest in the
services provided by the six core programs, and the general public,
including individuals with disabilities.
(2) Consistent with the ``Sunshine Provision'' of WIOA in sec.
101(g), the State Board must make information regarding the Unified
State Plan available to the public through electronic means and
regularly occurring open meetings in accordance with State law. The
Unified State Plan must describe the State's process and timeline for
ensuring a meaningful opportunity for public comment.
(d) Upon receipt of the Unified State Plan from the State, the
Secretary of Labor will ensure that the entire Unified State Plan is
submitted to the Secretary of Education pursuant to a process developed
by the Secretaries.
(e) The Unified State Plan is subject to the approval of both the
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education.
(f) Before the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education
approve the Unified State Plan, the vocational
[[Page 20630]]
rehabilitation portion of the Unified State Plan described in WIOA sec.
102(b)(2)(D)(iii) must be approved by the Commissioner of the
Rehabilitation Services Administration.
(g) The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education will
review and approve the Unified State Plan within 90 days of receipt by
the appropriate Secretary, unless the Secretary of Labor or the
Secretary of Education determines in writing within that period that:
(1) The plan is inconsistent with a core program's requirements;
(2) The Unified State Plan is inconsistent with any requirement of
sec. 102 of WIOA; or
(3) The plan is incomplete or otherwise insufficient to determine
whether it is consistent with a core program's requirements or other
requirements of WIOA.
(h) If neither the Secretary of Labor nor the Secretary of
Education makes the written determination described in paragraph (g) of
this section within 90 days of the receipt by the Secretaries, the
Unified State Plan will be considered approved.
Sec. 676.135 What are the requirements for modification of the
Unified State Plan?
(a) In addition to the required modification review set forth in
paragraph (b) of this section, a Governor may submit a modification of
its Unified State Plan at any time during the 4-year period of the
plan.
(b) Modifications are required, at a minimum:
(1) At the end of the first 2-year period of any 4-year State Plan,
wherein the State Board must review the Unified State Plan, and the
Governor must submit modifications to the plan to reflect changes in
labor market and economic conditions or other factors affecting the
implementation of the Unified State Plan;
(2) When changes in Federal or State law or policy substantially
affect the strategies, goals, and priorities upon which the Unified
State Plan is based;
(3) When there are changes in the statewide vision, strategies,
policies, State adjusted levels of performance, the methodology used to
determine local allocation of funds, reorganizations which change the
working relationship with system employees, changes in organizational
responsibilities, changes to the membership structure of the State
Board or alternative entity, and similar substantial changes to the
State's workforce investment system.
(c) Modifications to the Unified State Plan are subject to the same
public review and comment requirements in Sec. 676.130(c) that apply
to the development of the original Unified State Plan.
(d) Unified State Plan modifications must be approved by the
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education, based on the
approval standards applicable to the original Unified State Plan under
Sec. 676.130. This approval must come after the approval of the
Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration for
modification of any portion of the plan described in sec.
102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA.
Sec. 676.140 What are the general requirements for submitting a
Combined State Plan?
(a) A State may choose to develop and submit a 4-year Combined
State Plan in lieu of the Unified State Plan described in Sec.
676.105.
(b) A State that submits a Combined State Plan covering an activity
or program described in paragraph (d) of this section that is approved
under WIOA sec. 103(c) or determined complete under the law relating to
the program will not be required to submit any other plan or
application in order to receive Federal funds to carry out the core
programs or the program or activities described under paragraph (d) of
this section that are covered by the Combined State Plan.
(c) If a State develops a Combined State Plan, it must be submitted
in accordance with the process described in Sec. 676.143.
(d) If a State chooses to submit a Combined State Plan, the Plan
must include the six core programs and one or more of the optional
programs and activities described in sec. 103(a)(2) of WIOA. The
optional programs and activities that may be included in the Combined
State Plan are:
(1) Career and technical education programs authorized under the
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C.
2301 et seq.);
(2) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF, authorized
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.);
(3) Employment and training programs authorized under sec. 6(d)(4)
of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4));
(4) Work programs authorized under sec. 6(o) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o));
(5) Trade adjustment assistance activities under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.);
(6) Services for veterans authorized under chapter 41 of title 38
United States Code;
(7) Programs authorized under State unemployment compensation laws
(in accordance with applicable Federal law);
(8) Senior Community Service Employment Programs under title V of
the Older Americans Act of 1956 (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.);
(9) Employment and training activities carried out by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(10) Employment and training activities carried out under the
Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.); and
(11) Reintegration of offenders programs authorized under sec. 212
of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17532).
(e) A Combined State Plan must contain:
(1) For the core programs, the information required by sec. 102(b)
of WIOA and Sec. 676.105, as explained in the joint planning guidance
issued by the Secretaries;
(2) For the optional programs, except as described in paragraph (h)
of this section, the information required by the law authorizing and
governing that program to be submitted to the appropriate Secretary,
any other applicable legal requirements, and any common planning
requirements described in sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as explained in the
joint planning guidance issued by the Secretaries;
(3) A description of joint planning methods across all programs
included in the Combined State Plan; and
(4) An assurance that all of the entities responsible for planning
or administering the programs described in the Combined State Plan have
had a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on all portions of
the Plan.
(f) Each optional program included in the Combined State Plan
remains subject to the applicable program-specific requirements of the
Federal law and regulations, and any other applicable legal or program
requirements, governing the implementation and operation of that
program.
(g) For purposes of Sec. Sec. 676.140 through 676.145 the term
``appropriate Secretary'' means the head of the Federal agency who
exercises either plan or application approval authority for the program
or activity under the Federal law authorizing the program or activity
or, if there are no planning or application requirements, who exercises
administrative authority over the program or activity under that
Federal law.
(h) States that include employment and training activities carried
out under
[[Page 20631]]
the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.)
under a Combined State Plan would submit all other required elements of
a complete CSBG State Plan directly to the Federal agency that
administers the program, according to the requirements of Federal law
and regulations.
Sec. 676.143 What is the submission and approval process of the
Combined State Plan?
(a) For purposes of Sec. 676.140(a), if a State chooses to develop
a Combined State Plan it must submit the Combined State Plan in
accordance with the requirements described below and the joint planning
guidelines, which will further explain the submission and approval
procedures for the Combined State Plan, issued by the Secretaries.
(b) The State must submit to the Secretaries of Labor and Education
and to the Secretary of the agency with responsibility for approving
the program's plan or determining it complete under the law governing
the program, as part of its Combined State Plan, any plan, application,
form, or any other similar document that is required as a condition for
the approval of Federal funding under the applicable program or
activity. Such submission must occur in accordance with a process
identified by the relevant Secretaries in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(c) The Combined State Plan will be approved or disapproved in
accordance with the requirements of sec. 103(c) of WIOA.
(1) The portion of the Combined State Plan covering programs
administered by the Departments of Labor and Education must be
reviewed, and approved or disapproved, by the appropriate Secretary
within 90 days beginning on the day the plan is received by the
appropriate Secretary from the State, except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(2) If an appropriate Secretary other than the Secretary of Labor
or the Secretary of Education has authority to approve or determine
complete a portion of the Combined State Plan for a program or activity
described in Sec. 676.140(d), that portion of the plan must be
reviewed, and approved, disapproved, or have a determination of
completeness, by the appropriate Secretary within 120 days beginning on
the day the plan is received by the appropriate Secretary from the
State except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.
(d) The review and determination of approval or disapproval, or
determination of completeness, of the relevant portion of the Combined
State Plan must occur within 90 days for all Department of Labor and
Education programs included in the State Plan and within 120 days for
the programs administered by other Federal Agencies unless the
appropriate Secretary determines in writing within that period that:
(1) The Plan is inconsistent with the requirements of the six core
programs or the Federal laws authorizing or applicable to the program
or activity involved, including the criteria for approval of a plan or
application, or determining the plan's completeness, if any, under such
law;
(2) The portion of the Plan describing the six core programs or the
program or activity described in paragraph (a) of this section involved
does not satisfy the criteria as provided in sec. 102 or 103 of WIOA,
as applicable; or
(3) The Plan is incomplete, or otherwise insufficient to determine
whether it is consistent with a core program's requirements, other
requirements of WIOA, or the Federal laws authorizing, or applicable
to, the program or activity described in Sec. 676.140(d), including
the criteria for approval of a plan or application, if any, under such
law.
(e) If the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, or the
appropriate Secretary does not make the written determination described
in paragraph (d) of this section within the relevant period of time
after submission of the Plan, that portion of the Combined State Plan
over which the Secretary has jurisdiction will be considered approved.
(f) Special rule. In paragraphs (d)(1) and (3) of this section, the
term ``criteria for approval of a plan or application,'' with respect
to a State or a core program or a program under the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.),
includes a requirement for agreement between the State and the
appropriate Secretaries regarding State performance measures or State
performance accountability measures, as the case may be, including
levels of performance.
Sec. 676.145 What are the requirements for modifications of the
Combined State Plan?
(a) For the core program portions of the Combined State Plan,
modifications are required at the end of the first 2-year period of any
4-year Combined State Plan. The State Board must review the Combined
State Plan, and the Governor must submit a modification of the Combined
State Plan to reflect changes in labor market and economic conditions
or in other factors affecting the implementation of the Combined State
Plan.
(b) In addition to the required modification review described in
paragraph (a) of this section, a State may submit a modification of its
Combined State Plan at any time during the 4-year period of the plan.
(c) For any programs and activities described in Sec. 676.140(d)
that are included in a State's Combined State Plan, the State--
(1) May decide if the modification requirements under WIOA sec.
102(c)(3) that apply to the core programs will apply to the optional
programs or activities described in Sec. 676.140(d) that are included
in the Combined State Plan or may comply with the procedures and
requirements applicable to only the particular optional program or
activity; and
(2) Must submit, in accordance with the procedure described in
Sec. 676.143, any other modification, amendment, or revision required
by the Federal law authorizing, or applicable to, the program or
activity described in Sec. 676.140(d). If the underlying programmatic
requirements change for Federal laws authorizing such programs, a State
must either modify its Combined State Plan or submit a separate plan to
the appropriate Federal agency in accordance with the new Federal law
authorizing the optional program or activity and other legal
requirements applicable to such program or activity. A State also may
amend its Combined State Plan to add an optional program or activity
described in Sec. 676.140(d).
(d) Modifications of the Combined State Plan are subject to the
same public review and comment requirements that apply to the
development of the original Combined State Plan as described in Sec.
676.130(c) except that, if the modification, amendment, or revision
affects the administration of a particular optional program and has no
impact on the Combined State Plan as a whole or the integration and
administration of the core and optional programs at the State level, a
State may comply instead with the procedures and requirements
applicable to the particular optional program.
(e) Modifications for the core program portions of the Combined
State Plan must be approved by the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary
of Education, based on the approval standards applicable to the
original Combined State Plan under Sec. 676.143. This approval must
come after the approval of the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration for modification of any portion of the
[[Page 20632]]
Combined State Plan described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA.
(f) Modifications for the portions of the Combined State Plan for
any optional program or activity described in Sec. 676.140(d) must be
submitted for approval by only the appropriate Secretary, based on the
approval standards applicable to the original Combined State Plan under
Sec. 676.143, if the State elects, or in accordance with the
procedures and requirements applicable to the particular optional
program if the modification, amendment, or revision affects the
administration of only that particular optional program and has no
impact on the Combined State Plan as a whole or the integration and
administration of the core and optional programs at the State level.
0
2. Add part 677 to read as follows:
PART 677--PERFORMANCE ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER TITLE I OF THE WORKFORCE
INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITY ACT
Sec.
677.150 What definitions apply to Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act performance measurement and reporting requirements?
Subpart A--State Indicators of Performance for Core Programs
677.155 What are the primary indicators of performance under the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
677.160 What information is required for State performance reports?
677.165 May a State require additional indicators of performance?
677.170 How are State adjusted levels of performance for primary
indicators established?
677.175 What responsibility do States have to use quarterly wage
record information for performance accountability?
Subpart B--Sanctions for State Performance and the Provision of
Technical Assistance
677.180 What State actions are subject to a financial sanction under
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
677.185 When are sanctions applied for failure to report?
677.190 When are sanctions applied for failure to achieve adjusted
levels of performance?
677.195 What should States expect when a sanction is applied to the
Governor's Reserve Allotment?
677.200 What other administrative actions will be applied to States'
performance requirements?
Subpart C--Local Performance Accountability for Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act Title I Programs
677.205 What performance indicators apply to local areas?
677.210 How are local performance levels established?
Subpart D--Incentives and Sanctions for Local Performance for Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I Programs
677.215 Under what circumstances are local areas eligible for State
Incentive Grants?
677.220 Under what circumstances may a corrective action or sanction
be applied to local areas for poor performance?
677.225 Under what circumstances may local areas appeal a
reorganization plan?
Subpart E--Eligible Training Provider Performance for Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I Programs
677.230 What information is required for the eligible training
provider performance reports?
Subpart F--Performance Reporting Administrative Requirements
677.235 What are the reporting requirements for individual records
for core Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title I, III, and
IV programs?
677.240 What are the requirements for data validation of State
annual performance reports?
Authority: Secs. 503, 116, 189, Pub. L. 113-128, 128 Stat. 1425
(Jul. 22, 2014).
Sec. 677.150 What definitions apply to Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act performance measurement and reporting requirements?
(a) Participant. A reportable individual who has received staff-
assisted services after satisfying all applicable programmatic
requirements for the provision of services, such as eligibility
determination.
(1) For the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program, a Participant
is an individual who has an approved and signed Individualized Plan for
Employment (IPE) and has begun to receive services.
(2) The following individuals are not Participants:
(i) Individuals who have not completed at least 12 contact hours in
the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) program;
(ii) Individuals who only use the self-service system; and
(iii) Individuals who only receive information services or
activities.
(3) Programs must include participants in their performance
calculations.
(b) Reportable individual. An individual who has taken action that
demonstrates an intent to use program services and who meets specific
reporting criteria of the core program, including:
(1) Individuals who provide identifying information;
(2) Individuals who only use the self-service system; and
(3) Individuals who only receive information on services or
activities.
(c) Exit. As defined for the purpose of performance calculations,
exit is the point after which an individual who has received services
through any program meets the following criteria:
(1) For the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs under
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) title I, the AEFLA
program under WIOA title II, and the Employment Services authorized by
the Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by WIOA title III, exit date is the
last date of service:
(i) The exit date cannot be determined until 90 days of no services
has elapsed. At that point the exit date is applied retroactively to
the last date of service.
(A) Ninety days of no service does not include self-service or
information-only activities or follow-up services and
(B) There are no future services planned, excluding follow-up
services.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2)(i) For the VR program as amended by WIOA title IV:
(A) The participant's record of service is closed in accordance
with 34 CFR 361.56 because the participant has achieved an employment
outcome; or
(B) The participant's service record is closed because the
individual has not achieved an employment outcome or the individual has
been determined ineligible after receiving services in accordance with
34 CFR 361.43.
(ii) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a
participant will not be considered as meeting the definition of exit
from the Vocational Rehabilitation program if the individual's service
record is closed because the individual has achieved a supported
employment outcome in an integrated setting but not in competitive
integrated employment.
Subpart A--State Indicators of Performance for Core Programs
Sec. 677.155 What are the primary indicators of performance under the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
(a) All States submitting either a Unified or Combined State Plan
under Sec. Sec. 676.130 and 676.143 of this chapter, must propose
expected levels of performance for each of the primary indicators of
performance for the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs under
title I of WIOA, the AEFLA program under title II of WIOA, the Wagner-
Peyser Act as amended by title III of WIOA, and the VR program as
amended by WIOA.
[[Page 20633]]
(1) The six primary indicators for performance are:
(i) The percentage of participants, who are in unsubsidized
employment during the second quarter after exit from the program;
(ii) The percentage of participants, who are in unsubsidized
employment during the fourth quarter after exit from the program;
(iii) Median earnings of participants, who are in unsubsidized
employment during the second quarter after exit from the program;
(iv) The percentage of participants who obtained a recognized post-
secondary credential or a secondary school diploma, or its recognized
equivalent during participation in or within 1 year after exit from the
program. A participant who has obtained a secondary school diploma or
its recognized equivalent is only included in this measure if the
participant is also employed or is enrolled in an education or training
program leading to a recognized post-secondary credential within 1 year
from program exit;
(v) The percentage of participants who during a program year, are
in an education or training program that leads to a recognized post-
secondary credential or employment and who are achieving measurable
skill gains, defined as documented academic, technical, occupational or
other forms of progress, towards such a credential or employment.
(vi) Effectiveness in serving employers, based on indicators
developed as required by sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(iv) of WIOA.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) The indicators in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (vi) of this
section apply to the adult, dislocated worker, AEFLA and VR programs.
(c) The indicators in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (vi)
of this section apply to the Employment Services.
(d) For the youth program under title I of WIOA, the indicators
are:
(1) Percentage of participants who are in education or training
activities, or in unsubsidized employment, during the second quarter
after exit from the program;
(2) Percentage of participants in education or training activities,
or in unsubsidized employment, during the fourth quarter after exit
from the program;
(3) Median earnings of participants who are in unsubsidized
employment during the second quarter after exit from the program;
(4) The percentage of participants who obtained a recognized post-
secondary credential or a secondary school diploma, or its recognized
equivalent, during participation or up to 1 year after exit. A
participant who has obtained a secondary school diploma or its
recognized equivalent is only included in this measure if the
participant is also employed or is enrolled in an education or training
program leading to a recognized post-secondary credential within 1 year
from program exit;
(5) The percentage of participants who during a program year, are
in an education or training program that leads to a recognized post-
secondary credential or employment and who are achieving measurable
skill gains, defined as documented academic, technical, occupational or
other forms of progress towards such a credential or employment;
(6) Effectiveness in serving employers, based on indicators
developed as required by sec. 116(b)(2)(iv) of WIOA.
Sec. 677.160 What information is required for State performance
reports?
(a) Section 116(d)(2) of WIOA requires States to submit a State
performance report. The State performance report must be submitted
annually using a template the Departments will disseminate and must
provide, at a minimum, information on the actual performance levels
achieved consistent with Sec. 677.175 with respect to:
(1) The total number of participants served, and the total number
of participants who exited each of the core programs identified in sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA, including disaggregated counts of those who
participated in and exited a core program, by:
(i) Individuals with barriers to employment as defined in WIOA sec.
3(24); and
(ii) Co-enrollment in any of the programs in WIOA sec
116(b)(3)(A)(ii).
(2) Information on the performance levels achieved for the primary
indicators for all of the core programs identified in Sec. 677.155
including disaggregated levels for:
(i) Individuals with barriers to employment as defined in WIOA sec.
3(24);
(ii) Age;
(iii) Sex; and
(iv) Race and ethnicity.
(3) The total number of participants and exiters who received
career and training services for the most recent program year and the
three preceding program years, as applicable to the program;
(4) Information on the performance levels achieved for the primary
indicators consistent with Sec. 677.155 for career and training
services for the most recent program year and the 3 preceding program
years, as applicable to the program;
(5) The percentage of participants in a program who obtained
unsubsidized employment related to the training received (often
referred to as training-related employment) through WIOA title I-B
programs;
(6) The amount of funds spent on each type of career and training
service for the most recent program year and the 3 preceding program
years, as applicable to the program;
(7) The average cost per participant for those participants who
received career and training services, respectively, during the most
recent program year and the 3 preceding program years for, as
applicable to the program;
(8) The percentage of a State's annual allotment under WIOA sec.
132(b) that the State spent on administrative costs; and
(9) Information that facilitates comparisons of programs with
programs in other States.
(10) For WIOA title I programs, a State performance narrative,
which, for States in which a local area is implementing a pay-for-
performance contracting strategy, at a minimum provides:
(i) A description of pay-for-performance contract strategies being
used for programs;
(ii) The performance of service providers entering into contracts
for such strategies, measured against the levels of performance
specified in the contracts for such strategies; and
(iii) An evaluation of the design of the programs and performance
strategies and, when available, the satisfaction of employers and
participants who received services under such strategies.
(b) The disaggregation of data for the State performance report
must be done in compliance with WIOA sec. 116(d)(6)(C).
(c) The State performance reports must include a mechanism of
electronic access to the State's local area and ETP performance
reports.
(d) States must comply with these requirements from sec. 116 of
WIOA as explained in joint guidance issued by the Departments of
Education and Labor, which may include information on reportable
individuals as determined by the Secretaries.
Sec. 677.165 May a State require additional indicators of
performance?
States may identify additional indicators of performance for the
six
[[Page 20634]]
core programs. These indicators must be included in the Unified or
Combined State Plan.
Sec. 677.170 How are State adjusted levels of performance for primary
indicators established?
(a) A State must submit in the State Plan expected levels of
performance on the primary indicators for each core program as required
by sec. 116(b)(iv) of WIOA as explained in joint guidance issued by the
Secretaries of Education and Labor.
(1) The initial State Plan submitted under WIOA must contain
expected levels of performance for the first 2 years of the State Plan
period.
(2) States must submit expected levels of performance for the third
and fourth year of the State Plan before the third program year
consistent with Sec. Sec. 676.135 and 676.145 of this chapter.
(b) The State must reach agreement on levels of performance with
the Secretaries of Education and Labor for each of the core programs
based on the following factors:
(1) How the levels of performance compare with State adjusted
levels of performance established for other States;
(2) The application of an objective statistical model established
by the Secretaries of Education and Labor, subject to paragraph (d) of
this section;
(3) How the levels promote continuous improvement in performance
based on the primary indicators and ensure optimal return on investment
of Federal funds; and
(4) The extent to which the levels assist the State in meeting the
performance goals established by the Secretaries of Education and Labor
for the core programs in accordance with the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, and its amendments.
(c) An objective statistical adjustment model will be developed and
disseminated by the Secretaries. The model will be based on:
(1) Differences among States in actual economic conditions,
including unemployment rates and job losses or gains in particular
industries; and
(2) The characteristics of participants, including:
(i) Indicators of poor work history;
(ii) Lack of work experience;
(iii) Lack of educational or occupational skills attainment;
(iv) Dislocation from high-wage and high-benefit employment;
(v) Low levels of literacy;
(vi) Low levels of English proficiency;
(vii) Disability status;
(viii) Homelessness;
(ix) Ex-offender status; and
(x) Welfare dependency.
(d) The objective statistical adjustment model developed under
paragraph (c) of this section will be:
(1) Applied to the core programs' primary indicators upon
availability of data which is necessary to populate the model and apply
it to the programs;
(2) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, used before the
beginning of a program year in order to establish State performance
targets for the upcoming program year; and
(3) subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, used to revise
performance levels at the end of a program year based on actual
circumstances, consistent with sec. 116(b)(3)(vii) of WIOA.
(e) States must comply with these requirements from sec. 116 of
WIOA as explained in joint guidance issued by the Departments of
Education and Labor.
Sec. 677.175 What responsibility do States have to use quarterly wage
record information for performance accountability?
(a) States must, consistent with State laws, use quarterly wage
record information in measuring the progress on State adjusted levels
of performance for the primary indicators outlined in Sec. 677.155 and
local performance indicators identified in Sec. 677.205. The use of
social security numbers from participants and such other information as
is necessary to measure the progress of those participants through
quarterly wage record information is authorized.
(b) ``Quarterly wage record information'' means intrastate and
interstate wages paid to an individual, the social security number (or
numbers, if more than one) of the individual and the name, address,
State, and the Federal employer identification number of the employer
paying the wages to the individual.
(c) The Governor may designate a State agency [or appropriate State
entity] to assist in carrying out the performance reporting
requirements for WIOA core programs and eligible training providers.
The Governor or such agency [or appropriate State entity] is
responsible for:
(1) Facilitating data matches; and
(2) Data quality reliability, protection against disaggregation
that would violate privacy.
Subpart B--Sanctions for State Performance and the Provision of
Technical Assistance
Sec. 677.180 What State actions are subject to a financial sanction
under Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
The following failures by a State are subject to financial sanction
under WIOA sec. 116(d):
(a) The failure by a State to submit the State annual performance
report required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2); or
(b) The failure by a State to meet adjusted levels of performance
for the primary indicators of performance in accordance with sec.
116(f) of WIOA.
Sec. 677.185 When are sanctions applied for failure to report?
(a) Sanctions will be applied when a State fails to submit the
State annual performance reports required under sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA.
It is a failure to report if the State either:
(1) Does not submit a State annual performance report by the date
for timely submission set in performance reporting guidance; or
(2) Submits a State annual performance report by the date for
timely submission, but the report is incomplete.
(b) Sanctions will not be assessed if the reporting failure is due
to exceptional circumstances outside of the State's control.
Exceptional circumstances may include, but are not limited to:
(1) Natural disasters;
(2) Unexpected personnel transitions; and
(3) Unexpected technology related impacts.
(c) In the event that a State may not be able to submit a complete
and accurate performance report by the deadline for timely reporting:
(1) The State must notify the Secretary of Labor or Secretary of
Education as soon as possible of a potential impact on the ability to
submit their State annual performance reports by no later than 30 days
prior to the established deadline in order to not be considered failing
to report.
(2) In circumstances where unexpected events occur within the 30-
day period before the deadline for submission of the State annual
performance reports, the Secretary of Labor and Secretary of Education
will review requests for extending the reporting deadline in accordance
with the Departments' procedures explained in guidance on reporting
timelines.
[[Page 20635]]
Sec. 677.190 When are sanctions applied for failure to achieve
adjusted levels of performance?
(a) States' negotiated levels of performance will be adjusted
through the application of the statistical adjustment model established
under Sec. 677.170 to account for actual conditions experienced during
a program year and characteristics of participants, annually at the
close of each program year.
(b) States that fail to meet adjusted levels of performance for the
primary indicators of performance outlined in Sec. 677.155 for any
year will receive technical assistance, including assistance in the
development of a performance improvement plan provided by the Secretary
of Labor or Secretary of Education.
(c) State failure to meet adjusted levels of performance will be
determined through three criteria:
(1) Overall State program scores, based on the percent achieved by
a program on each of the six primary indicators compared to the
adjusted goal for each primary indicator. The average of the percentage
of the adjusted goal achieved for each primary indicator will
constitute the overall program score for the State;
(2) Overall State indicator scores, based on the percent achieved
by each program on each of the individual primary indicators compared
to the adjusted goal. The average of the percentage of the adjusted
goal achieved for each of the six core programs' will constitute an
overall indicator score for the State; and
(3) Individual indicator scores, based on the percent achieved by
each program on each of the individual primary indicators compared to
the adjusted goals.
(d) A performance failure occurs when:
(1) Any overall State program score or overall State indicator
score falls below 90 percent for the program year; or
(2) Any of the States' individual indicator scores fall below 50
percent for the program year.
(e) Sanctions based on performance failure will be applied to
States if, for 2 consecutive years, the State fails to meet 90 percent
of the overall State program score, 90 percent of the overall State
indicator score, or 50 percent on any individual indicator score for
the same program or indicator.
Sec. 677.195 What should States expect when a sanction is applied to
the Governor's Reserve Allotment?
(a) The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education will
reduce the Governor's Reserve Allotment by 5 percent of the maximum
available amount for the immediately succeeding program year if:
(1) The State fails to submit the State annual performance reports
as required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2), as defined in Sec. 677.185; or
(2) The State fails to meet State adjusted levels of performance
for the same primary performance indicator(s) under either Sec.
677.190(d)(1) or Sec. 677.190(d)(2) for the second consecutive year as
defined in Sec. 677.190.
(b) If the State fails under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section in the same program year, the Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Education will reduce the Governor's Reserve Allotment by
10 percent of the maximum available amount for the immediately
succeeding program year.
(c) If a State's Governor's Reserve Allotment is reduced:
(1) The reduced amount will not be returned to the State in the
event that the State later improves performance or submits its annual
performance report; and
(2) The Governor's reserve will continue to be set at the reduced
level in each subsequent year until the Secretary of Labor or the
Secretary of Education, dependent upon the impacted program, determines
that the State met the State adjusted levels of performance for the
applicable primary performance indicators and has submitted all of the
required performance reports.
(d) A State may request review of a sanction the U.S. Department of
Labor imposes in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 683.800 of
this chapter.
Sec. 677.200 What other administrative actions will be applied to
States' performance requirements?
(a) In addition to sanctions for failure to report or failure to
meet adjusted levels of performance, States will be subject to
administrative actions in the case of poor performance.
(b) States' performance achievement on the individual primary
indicators will be assessed in addition to the overall program score
and overall indicator score. Based on this assessment, as clarified and
explained in guidance, for performance on any individual primary
indicator, the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of Education will
require the State to establish a performance risk plan to address
continuous improvement on the individual primary indicator.
Subpart C--Local Performance Accountability for Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I Programs
Sec. 677.205 What performance indicators apply to local areas?
(a) Each local workforce investment area in a State under title I
of WIOA is subject to the same primary indicators of performance for
the core programs for WIOA title I under Sec. 677.155(a)(1) and (d)
that apply to the State.
(b) In addition to the indicators described in paragraph (a) of
this section, under Sec. 677.165, the Governor may apply additional
indicators of performance to local areas in the State.
(c) States must annually make local area performance reports
available to the public using a template that the Departments will
disseminate in guidance, including by electronic means. The State must
provide electronic access to the public local area performance report
in its annual State performance report.
(d) The local area performance report must provide information on
the actual performance levels for the local area based on quarterly
wage records consistent with the requirements for States under Sec.
677.175.
(e) The local area performance report must include:
(1) Performance levels achieved by the local area for the
indicators for the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs under
title I of WIOA in Sec. 677.155(a)(1) and (3);
(2) Performance levels achieved by the local area for the adult,
dislocated worker, and youth programs under title I of WIOA in Sec.
677.160(a);
(3) The percentage of a local area's allotment under WIOA sec.
128(b) and sec. 133(b) that the local area spent on administrative
costs; and
(4) Other information that facilitates comparisons of programs with
programs in other local areas (or planning regions if the local area is
part of a planning region).
(f) States must comply with any requirements from sec. 116(d)(3) of
WIOA as explained in guidance, including the use of the performance
reporting template, issued by the Department of Labor.
Sec. 677.210 How are local performance levels established?
(a) The objective statistical adjustment model required under sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(viii) of WIOA and described in the Sec. 677.170 must be:
(1) Used to establish local performance targets for the upcoming
program year; and
[[Page 20636]]
(2) Used to revise performance levels at the end of a program year
based on actual circumstances, consistent with WIOA sec. 116(c)(3).
(b) The Governor, Local Board, and chief elected official must
reach agreement on local targets and levels based on a negotiations
process before the start of a program year with the use of the
objective statistical model described in paragraph (a) of this section.
The negotiations will include a discussion of circumstances not
accounted for in the model and will take into account the extent to
which the levels promote continuous improvement. The objective
statistical model will be applied at the end of the program year based
on actual conditions experienced.
(c) The negotiations process described in paragraph (b) of this
section must be developed by the Governor and disseminated to all Local
Boards and chief elected officials.
(d) The Local Boards may apply performance measures to service
providers that differ from the performance measures that apply to the
local area. These performance measures should be established after
considering:
(1) The established local performance levels;
(2) The services provided by each provider; and
(3) The populations the service providers are intended to serve.
Subpart D--Incentives and Sanctions for Local Performance for
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I Programs
Sec. 677.215 Under what circumstances are local areas eligible for
State Incentive Grants?
(a) The Governor is not required to award local incentive funds.
The Governor may use non-Federal funds to create incentives for Local
Boards to implement pay-for-performance contract strategies for the
delivery of training services described in WIOA sec. 134(c)(3) or
activities described in WIOA sec. 129(c)(2) in the local areas served
by the Local Boards.
(b) Pay-for-performance contract strategies must be implemented in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 683.500 through 683.530 of this chapter and
Sec. 677.160.
Sec. 677.220 Under what circumstances may a corrective action or
sanction be applied to local areas for poor performance?
(a) If a local area fails to meet the levels of performance agreed
to under Sec. 677.210 for the primary indicators of performance in the
adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs authorized under WIOA
title I in any program year, technical assistance must be provided by
the Governor or, upon the Governor's request, by the Secretary of
Labor.
(1) A State must establish the threshold for failure in meeting
levels of performance for a local area before negotiating the adjusted
levels of performance for the local area.
(2) The technical assistance may include:
(i) Assistance in the development of a performance improvement
plan;
(ii) The development of a modified local or regional plan; or
(iii) Other actions designed to assist the local area in improving
performance.
(b) If a local area fails to meet the levels of performance agreed
to under Sec. 677.210 for the primary indicators of performance for
the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs authorized under WIOA
title I for a third consecutive program year, the Governor must take
corrective actions. The corrective actions must include the development
of a reorganization plan under which the Governor:
(1) Requires the appointment and certification of a new Local
Board, consistent with the criteria established under Sec. 679.350 of
this chapter;
(2) Prohibits the use of eligible providers and one-stop partners
that have been identified as achieving poor levels of performance; or
(3) Takes such other significant actions as the Governor determines
are appropriate.
Sec. 677.225 Under what circumstances may local areas appeal a
reorganization plan?
(a) The Local Board and chief elected official for a local area
that is subject to a reorganization plan under WIOA sec. 116(g)(2)(A)
may appeal to the Governor to rescind or revise the reorganization plan
not later than 30 days after receiving notice of the reorganization
plan. The Governor must make a final decision within 30 days after
receipt of the appeal.
(b) The Local Board and chief elected official may appeal the final
decision of the Governor to the Secretary of Labor not later than 30
days after receiving the decision from the Governor. Any appeal of the
Governor's final decision must be:
(1) Appealed jointly by the Local Board and chief elected official
to the Secretary under Sec. 683.650 of this chapter; and
(2) Must be submitted by certified mail, return receipt requested,
to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington DC 20210, Attention: ASET. A copy of the appeal must be
simultaneously provided to the Governor.
(c) Upon receipt of the joint appeal from the Local Board and chief
elected official, the Secretary must make a final decision within 30
days. In making this determination the Secretary may consider any
comments submitted by the Governor in response to the appeals.
(d) The decision by the Governor to impose a reorganization plan
becomes effective at the time it is issued and remains effective unless
the Secretary of Labor rescinds or revises the reorganization plan
under WIOA sec. 116(g)(2)(B)(ii).
Subpart E--Eligible Training Provider Performance for Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act Title I Programs
Sec. 677.230 What information is required for the eligible training
provider performance reports?
(a) States are required to make available, and publish, annually
using a template the Departments will disseminate including through
electronic means, the eligible training provider performance reports
for eligible training providers who provide services under sec. 122 of
WIOA that are described in Sec. Sec. 680.400 through 680.530 of this
chapter. These reports at a minimum must include, consistent with Sec.
677.175 and with respect to each program of study that is eligible to
receive funds under WIOA:
(1) The total number of participants who received training services
under the adult and dislocated worker programs authorized under WIOA
title I for the most recent year and the 3 preceding program years,
including:
(i) The number of participants under the adult and dislocated
worker programs disaggregated by barriers to employment;
(ii) The number of participants under the adult and dislocated
worker programs disaggregated by race, ethnicity, sex, and age;
(iii) The number of participants under the adult and dislocated
worker programs disaggregated by the type of training entity for the
most recent program year and the 3 preceding program years;
(2) The total number of participants who exit a program of study or
its equivalent, including disaggregate counts by the type of training
entity during the most recent program year and the 3 preceding program
years;
(3) The average cost-per-participant for participants who received
training services for the most recent program year and the 3 preceding
program years disaggregated by type of training entity;
(4) The total number of individuals exiting from the program of
study (or the equivalent); and
[[Page 20637]]
(5) The levels of performance achieved for the primary indicators
of performance identified in Sec. Sec. 677.155(a)(1)(i) through (iv)
with respect to all individuals in a program of study (or the
equivalent).
(b) Registered apprenticeship programs are not required to submit
performance information. See Sec. 680.470 of this chapter. If a
registered apprenticeship program voluntarily submits performance
information to a State, the State must include this information in the
report.
(c) The State must provide electronic access to the public eligible
training provider performance report in its annual State performance
report.
(d) States must comply with any requirements from sec. 116(d)(4) of
WIOA as explained in guidance issued by the Department of Labor.
(e) The Governor may designate one or more State agencies such as a
State education agency or State educational authority to assist in
overseeing eligible training provider performance and facilitating the
production and dissemination of eligible training provider performance
reports. These agencies may be the same agencies that are designated as
responsible for administering the eligible training providers list as
provided under Sec. 680.500 of this chapter. The Governor or such
agencies, or authorities, is responsible for:
(1) Facilitating data matches between ETP records and UI wage data
in order to produce the report;
(2) The creation and dissemination of the reports as described in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section;
(3) Coordinating the dissemination of the performance reports with
the eligible training provider list and the information required to
accompany the list, as provided in Sec. 680.500 of this chapter.
Subpart F--Performance Reporting Administrative Requirements
Sec. 677.235 What are the reporting requirements for individual
records for core Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title I, III,
and IV programs?
(a) On a quarterly basis, each State must submit to the Secretary
of Labor or Secretary of Education, as appropriate, individual records
that include demographic information, information on services received,
and information on resulting outcomes, as appropriate, for each
reportable individual in a core program administered by the Secretary
of Labor or Education. Such records submitted to the Department of
Labor must be submitted in one record that is integrated across all
core Department of Labor programs.
(b) For individual records submitted to the Secretary of Labor,
records must be integrated across all core programs administered by the
Secretary of Labor in one single file.
(c) States must comply with any other requirements from sec.
116(d)(2) of WIOA as explained in guidance issued by the Department of
Labor.
Sec. 677.240 What are the requirements for data validation of State
annual performance reports?
(a) States must establish procedures, consistent with guidelines
issued by the Secretary of Education or Secretary of Labor, to submit
complete annual performance reports that contain information that is
valid and reliable.
(b) If a State fails to meet standards in paragraph (a) of this
section as determined by the Secretary of Labor or Secretary of
Education, the appropriate Secretary will provide technical assistance
and may require the State to develop and implement corrective actions,
which may require the State to provide training for its subrecipients.
(c) The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education will
provide training and technical assistance to States in order to
implement this section.
0
3. Add part 678 to read as follows:
PART 678--DESCRIPTION OF THE ONE-STOP SYSTEM UNDER TITLE I OF THE
WORKFORCE INNOVATION AND OPPORTUNITY ACT
Subpart A--General Description of the One-Stop Delivery System
Sec.
678.300 What is the one-stop delivery system?
678.305 What is a comprehensive one-stop center and what must be
provided there?
678.310 What is an affiliated site and what must be provided there?
678.315 Can a stand-alone Wagner-Peyser employment service office be
designated as an affiliated one-stop site?
678.320 Are there any requirements for networks of eligible one-stop
partners or specialized centers?
Subpart B--One-Stop Partners and the Responsibilities of Partners
678.400 Who are the required one-stop partners?
678.405 Is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families a required one-
stop partner?
678.410 What other entities may serve as one-stop partners?
678.415 What entity serves as the one-stop partner for a particular
program in the local area?
678.420 What are the roles and responsibilities of the required one-
stop partners?
678.425 What are the applicable career services that must be
provided through the one-stop delivery system by required one-stop
partners?
678.430 What are career services?
678.435 What are the business services provided through the one-stop
delivery system, and how are they provided?
678.440 When may a fee be charged for the business services in this
subpart?
Subpart C--Memorandum of Understanding for the One-Stop Delivery System
678.500 What is the Memorandum of Understanding for the one-stop
delivery system and what must be included in the Memorandum of
Understanding?
678.505 Is there a single Memorandum of Understanding for the local
area, or must there be separate Memoranda of Understanding between
the Local Board and each partner?
678.510 How should the Memorandum of Understanding be negotiated?
Subpart D--One-Stop Operators
678.600 Who may operate one-stop centers?
678.605 How is the one-stop operator selected?
678.610 How is sole source selection of one-stop operators
accomplished?
678.615 Can an entity serving as one-stop operator compete to be a
one-stop operator under the procurement requirements of this
subpart?
678.620 What is the one-stop operator's role?
678.625 Can a one-stop operator also be a service provider?
678.630 Can State merit staff still work in a one-stop where the
operator is not a governmental entity?
678.635 What is the effective date of the provisions of this
subpart?
Subpart E--One-Stop Operating Costs
678.700 What are one-stop infrastructure costs?
678.705 What guidance must the Governor issue regarding one-stop
infrastructure funding?
678.710 How are infrastructure costs funded?
678.715 How are one-stop infrastructure costs funded in the local
funding mechanism?
678.720 What funds are used to pay for infrastructure costs in the
local one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
678.725 What happens if consensus on infrastructure funding is not
reached at the local level between the Local Board, chief elected
officials, and one-stop partners?
678.730 What is the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
678.735 How are partner contributions determined in the State one-
stop funding mechanism?
678.740 What funds are used to pay for infrastructure costs in the
State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
678.745 How is the allocation formula used by the Governor
determined in the State one-stop funding mechanism?
678.750 When and how can a one-stop partner appeal a one-stop
infrastructure
[[Page 20638]]
amount designated by the State under the State infrastructure
funding mechanism?
678.755 What are the required elements regarding infrastructure
funding that must be included in the one-stop Memorandum of
Understanding?
678.760 How do one-stop partners jointly fund other shared costs
under the Memorandum of Understanding?
Subpart F--One-Stop Certification
678.800 How are one-stop centers and one-stop delivery systems
certified for effectiveness, physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous improvement?
Subpart G--Common Identifier
678.900 What is the common identifier to be used by each one-stop
delivery system?
Authority: Secs. 503, 107, 121, 134, 189, Pub. L. 113-128, 128
Stat. 1425 (Jul. 22, 2014).
Subpart A--General Description of the One-Stop Delivery System
Sec. 678.300 What is the one-stop delivery system?
(a) The one-stop delivery system brings together workforce
development, educational, and other human resource services in a
seamless customer-focused service delivery network that enhances access
to the programs' services and improves long-term employment outcomes
for individuals receiving assistance. One-stop partners administer
separately funded programs as a set of integrated streamlined services
to customers.
(b) Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
assigns responsibilities at the local, State, and Federal level to
ensure the creation and maintenance of a one-stop delivery system that
enhances the range and quality of education and workforce development
services that business and individual customers can access.
(c) The system must include at least one comprehensive physical
center in each local area as described in Sec. 678.305.
(d) The system may also have additional arrangements to supplement
the comprehensive center. These arrangements include:
(1) An affiliated site or a network of affiliated sites, where one
or more partners make programs, services, and activities available, as
described in Sec. 678.310;
(2) A network of eligible one-stop partners, as described in
Sec. Sec. 678.400 through 678.410, through which each partner provides
one or more of the programs, services, and activities that are linked,
physically or technologically, to an affiliated site or access point
that assures customers are provided information on the availability of
career services, as well as other program services and activities,
regardless of where they initially enter the workforce system in the
local area; and
(3) Specialized centers that address specific needs, including
those of dislocated workers, youth, or key industry sectors, or
clusters.
(e) Required one-stop partner programs must provide access to
programs, services, and activities through electronic means if
applicable and practicable. This is in addition to providing access to
services through the mandatory comprehensive physical one-stop center
and any affiliated sites or specialized centers. The provision of
programs and services by electronic methods such as Web sites,
telephones, or other means must improve the efficiency, coordination,
and quality of one-stop partner services. Electronic delivery must not
replace access to such services at a comprehensive one-stop center or
be a substitute to making services available at an affiliated site if
the partner is participating in an affiliated site. Electronic delivery
systems must be in compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal
opportunity provisions of WIOA in sec. 188 and its implementing
regulations at 29 CFR part 37.
(f) The design of the local area's one-stop delivery system must be
described in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed with the
one-stop partners, described in Sec. 678.500.
Sec. 678.305 What is a comprehensive one-stop center and what must be
provided there?
(a) A comprehensive one-stop center is a physical location where
jobseeker and employer customers can access the programs, services, and
activities of all required one-stop partners. A comprehensive one-stop
center must have at least one title I staff person physically present.
(b) The comprehensive one-stop center must provide:
(1) Career services, described in Sec. 678.430;
(2) Access to training services described in Sec. 680.200 of this
chapter;
(3) Access to any employment and training activities carried out
under sec. 134(d) of WIOA;
(4) Access to programs and activities carried out by one-stop
partners listed in Sec. Sec. 678.400 through 678.410, including
Wagner-Peyser employment services; and
(5) Workforce and labor market information.
(c) Customers must have access to these programs, services, and
activities during regular business days at a comprehensive one-stop
center. The Local Board may establish other service hours at other
times to accommodate the schedules of individuals who work on regular
business days. The State Board will evaluate the hours of access to
service as part of the evaluation of effectiveness in the one-stop
certification process described in Sec. 678.800(b).
(d) ``Access'' to programs and services means having either:
Program staff physically present at the location; having partner
program staff physically present at the one-stop appropriately trained
to provide information to customers about the programs, services, and
activities available through partner programs; or providing direct
linkage through technology to program staff who can provide meaningful
information or services.
(1) A ``direct linkage'' means providing direct connection at the
one-stop, within a reasonable time, by phone or through a real-time
Web-based communication to a program staff member who can provide
program information or services to the customer.
(2) A ``direct linkage'' does not include providing a phone number
or computer Web site that can be used at an individual's home;
providing information, pamphlets, or materials; or making arrangements
for the customer to receive services at a later time or on a different
day.
(e) All comprehensive one-stop centers must be physically and
programmatically accessible to individuals with disabilities, as
described in Sec. 678.800.
Sec. 678.310 What is an affiliated site and what must be provided
there?
(a) An affiliated site, or affiliate one-stop center, is a site
that makes available to jobseeker and employer customers one or more of
the one-stop partners' programs, services, and activities. An
affiliated site does not need to provide access to every required one-
stop partner program. The frequency of program staff's physical
presence in the affiliated site will be determined at the local level.
Affiliated sites are access points in addition to the Comprehensive
one-stop center(s) in each local area. If used by local areas as a part
of the service delivery strategy, affiliate sites should be implemented
in a manner that supplements and enhances customer access to services.
[[Page 20639]]
(b) As described in Sec. 678.315, Wagner-Peyser employment
services cannot be a stand-alone affiliated site.
(c) States, in conjunction with the Local Workforce Development
Boards, must examine lease agreements and property holdings throughout
the one-stop delivery system in order to use property in an efficient
and effective way. Where necessary and appropriate, States and Local
Boards must take expeditious steps to align lease expiration dates with
efforts to consolidate one-stop operations into service points where
Wagner-Peyser employment services are collocated as soon as reasonably
possible. These steps must be included in the State Plan.
(d) All affiliated sites must be physically and programmatically
accessible to individuals with disabilities, as described in Sec.
678.800.
Sec. 678.315 Can a stand-alone Wagner-Peyser employment service
office be designated as an affiliated one-stop site?
(a) Separate stand-alone Wagner-Peyser employment services offices
are not permitted under WIOA, as also described in Sec. 652.202 of
this chapter.
(b) If Wagner-Peyser employment services are provided at an
affiliated site, there must be at least one other partner in the
affiliated site with staff physically present more than 50 percent of
the time the center is open. Additionally, the other partner must not
be the partner administering local veterans' employment
representatives, disabled veterans' outreach program specialists, or
unemployment compensation programs. If Wagner-Peyser employment
services and any of these three programs are provided at an affiliated
site, an additional partner must have staff present in the center more
than 50 percent of the time the center is open.
Sec. 678.320 Are there any requirements for networks of eligible one-
stop partners or specialized centers?
Any network of one-stop partners or specialized centers must be
connected to, such as having processes in place to make referrals to,
the comprehensive and any appropriate affiliate one-stop centers.
Wagner-Peyser employment services cannot stand alone in a specialized
center. Just as described in Sec. 678.315 for an affiliated site, a
specialized center must include other programs besides Wagner-Peyser
employment services, local veterans' employment representatives,
disabled veterans' outreach program specialists, and unemployment
compensation.
Subpart B--One-Stop Partners and the Responsibilities of Partners
Sec. 678.400 Who are the required one-stop partners?
(a) Section 121(b)(1)(B) of WIOA identifies the entities that are
required partners in the local one-stop systems.
(b) The required partners are the entities responsible for
administering the following programs and activities in the local area:
(1) Programs authorized under title I of WIOA, including:
(i) Adults;
(ii) Dislocated workers;
(iii) Youth;
(iv) Job Corps;
(v) YouthBuild;
(vi) Native American programs; and
(vii) Migrant and seasonal farmworker programs;
(2) Employment services authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29
U.S.C. 49 et seq.);
(3) Adult education and literacy activities authorized under title
II of WIOA;
(4) The Vocational Rehabilitation program authorized under title I
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 720 et seq.);
(5) The Senior Community Service Employment Program authorized
under title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056 et
seq.);
(6) Career and technical education programs at the post-secondary
level authorized under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.);
(7) Trade Adjustment Assistance activities authorized under chapter
2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.);
(8) Jobs for Veterans State Grants programs authorized under
chapter 41 of title 38, U.S.C.;
(9) Employment and training activities carried out under the
Community Services Block Grant (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.);
(10) Employment and training activities carried out by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(11) Programs authorized under State unemployment compensation laws
(in accordance with applicable Federal law);
(12) Programs authorized under sec. 212 of the Second Chance Act of
2007 (42 U.S.C. 17532); and
(13) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) authorized
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), unless exempted by the Governor under Sec. 678.405(b).
Sec. 678.405 Is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families a required
one-stop partner?
(a) Yes, TANF, authorized under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), is a required partner. (WIOA sec.
121(b)(1)(B)(xiii)).
(b) The Governor may determine that TANF will not be a required
partner in the State, or within some specific local areas in the State.
In this instance, the Governor must notify the Secretaries of the U.S.
Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services in writing of this
determination.
(c) In States, or local areas within a State, where the Governor
has determined that TANF is not required to be a partner, local TANF
programs may still opt to be a one-stop partner, or to work in
collaboration with the one-stop center.
Sec. 678.410 What other entities may serve as one-stop partners?
(a) Other entities that carry out a workforce development program,
including Federal, State, or local programs and programs in the private
sector, may serve as additional partners in the one-stop system if the
Local Board and chief elected official(s) approve the entity's
participation.
(b) Additional partners may include:
(1) Employment and training programs administered by the Social
Security Administration, including the Ticket to Work and Self-
Sufficiency Program established under sec. 1148 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-19);
(2) Employment and training programs carried out by the Small
Business Administration;
(3) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) employment and
training programs, authorized under secs. 6(d)(4) and 6(o) of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4));
(4) Client Assistance Program authorized under sec. 112 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 732);
(5) Programs authorized under the National and Community Service
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.); and
(6) Other appropriate Federal, State or local programs, including
employment, education, and training programs provided by public
libraries or in the private sector.
Sec. 678.415 What entity serves as the one-stop partner for a
particular program in the local area?
(a) The entity that carries out the program and activities listed
in Sec. 678.400 or Sec. 678.405, and therefore
[[Page 20640]]
serves as the one-stop partner, is the grant recipient, administrative
entity, or organization responsible for administering the funds of the
specified program in the local area. The term ``entity'' does not
include the service providers that contract with, or are subrecipients
of, the local administrative entity. For programs that do not include
local administrative entities, the responsible State agency should be
the partner. Specific entities for particular programs are identified
in paragraph (b) of this section. If a program or activity listed in
Sec. 678.400 is not carried out in a local area, the requirements
relating to a required one-stop partner are not applicable to such
program or activity in that local one-stop system.
(b) For title II of WIOA, the entity that carries out the program
for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section is the sole entity or
agency in the State or outlying area responsible for administering or
supervising policy for adult education and literacy activities in the
State or outlying area. The State eligible entity may delegate its
responsibilities under paragraph (a) of this section to one or more
eligible providers or consortium of eligible providers.
(c) For the Vocational Rehabilitation program, authorized under
title I of the Rehabilitation Act, the entity that carries out the
program for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section is the
designated State agencies or designated State units specified under
sec. 101(a)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act that is primarily concerned
with vocational rehabilitation, or vocational and other rehabilitation,
of individuals with disabilities.
(d) Under WIOA, the national programs, including Job Corps, the
Native American program, YouthBuild, and Migrant and Seasonal
Farmworker programs are required one-stop partners. The entity for the
Native American program and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker programs is
the grantee of those respective programs. The entity for Job Corps is
the Job Corps center.
(e) For the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of
2006, the entity that carries out the program for the purposes of
paragraph (a) of this section is the State eligible agency. The State
eligible agency may delegate its responsibilities under paragraph (a)
of this section to one or more State agencies, eligible recipients at
the post-secondary level, or consortia of eligible recipients at the
post-secondary level.
Sec. 678.420 What are the roles and responsibilities of the required
one-stop partners?
Each required partner must:
(a) Provide access to its programs or activities through the one-
stop delivery system, in addition to any other appropriate locations;
(WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(A)(i).)
(b) Use a portion of funds made available to the partner's program,
to the extent consistent with the Federal law authorizing the partner's
program and with Federal cost principles in 2 CFR parts 200 and 2900
(requiring, among other things, that costs are allowable, reasonable,
necessary, and allocable), to:
(1) Provide applicable career services; and
(2) Work collaboratively with the State and Local Boards to
establish and maintain the one-stop delivery system. This includes
jointly funding the one-stop infrastructure through partner
contributions that are based upon:
(i) A reasonable cost allocation methodology by which
infrastructure costs are charged to each partner in proportion to the
relative benefits;
(ii) Federal cost principles; and
(iii) Any local administrative cost requirements in the Federal law
authorizing the partner's program. (This is further described in Sec.
678.700). (WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(A)(ii).)
(c) Enter into an MOU with the Local Board relating to the
operation of the one-stop system that meets the requirements of Sec.
678.500(d);
(d) Participate in the operation of the one-stop system consistent
with the terms of the MOU, requirements of authorizing laws, the
Federal cost principles, and all other applicable legal requirements;
(WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(A)(iv)); and
(e) Provide representation on the State and Local Workforce
Development Boards as required and participate in Board committees as
needed. (WIOA secs. 101(b)(iii) and 107(b)(2)(C) and (D))
Sec. 678.425 What are the applicable career services that must be
provided through the one-stop delivery system by required one-stop
partners?
(a) The applicable career services to be delivered by required one-
stop partners are those services listed in Sec. 678.430 that are
authorized to be provided under each partner's program.
(b) One-stop centers provide services to individual customers based
on individual needs, including the seamless delivery of multiple
services to individual customers. There is no required sequence of
services. (WIOA sec. 121(e)(1)(A).)
Sec. 678.430 What are career services?
Career services, as identified in sec. 134(c)(2) of WIOA, consist
of three types:
(a) Basic career services must be made available and, at a minimum,
must include the following services, as consistent with allowable
program activities and Federal cost principles:
(1) Determinations of whether the individual is eligible to receive
assistance from the adult, dislocated worker, or youth programs;
(2) Outreach, intake (including worker profiling), and orientation
to information and other services available through the one-stop
delivery system;
(3) Initial assessment of skill levels including literacy,
numeracy, and English language proficiency, as well as aptitudes,
abilities (including skills gaps), and supportive services needs;
(4) Labor exchange services, including--
(i) Job search and placement assistance, and, when needed by an
individual, career counseling, including--
(A) Provision of information on in-demand industry sectors and
occupations (as defined in sec. 3(23) of WIOA); and
(B) Provision of information on nontraditional employment; and
(ii) Appropriate recruitment and other business services on behalf
of employers, including information and referrals to specialized
business services other than those traditionally offered through the
one-stop delivery system;
(5) Provision of referrals to and coordination of activities with
other programs and services, including programs and services within the
one-stop delivery system and, when appropriate, other workforce
development programs;
(6) Provision of workforce and labor market employment statistics
information, including the provision of accurate information relating
to local, regional, and national labor market areas, including--
(i) Job vacancy listings in labor market areas;
(ii) Information on job skills necessary to obtain the vacant jobs
listed; and
(iii) Information relating to local occupations in demand and the
earnings, skill requirements, and opportunities for advancement for
those jobs;
(7) Provision of performance information and program cost
information on eligible providers of training services by program and
type of providers;
(8) Provision of information, in usable and understandable formats
and
[[Page 20641]]
languages, about how the local area is performing on local performance
accountability measures, as well as any additional performance
information relating to the area's one-stop delivery system;
(9) Provision of information, in usable and understandable formats
and languages, relating to the availability of supportive services or
assistance, and appropriate referrals to those services and assistance,
including: child care; child support; medical or child health
assistance available through the State's Medicaid program and
Children's Health Insurance Program; benefits under SNAP; assistance
through the earned income tax credit; and assistance under a State
program for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and other
supportive services and transportation provided through that program;
(10) Provision of information and assistance regarding filing
claims for unemployment compensation, by which the one-stop must
provide meaningful assistance to individuals seeking assistance in
filing a claim for unemployment compensation.
(i) ``Meaningful assistance'' means:
(A) Providing assistance on-site using staff who are well-trained
in unemployment compensation claims filing and the rights and
responsibilities of claimants; or
(B) Providing assistance by phone or via other technology, as long
as the assistance is provided by trained and available staff and within
a reasonable time.
(ii) The costs associated in providing this assistance may be paid
for by the State's unemployment insurance program, or the WIOA adult or
dislocated worker programs, or some combination thereof.
(11) Assistance in establishing eligibility for programs of
financial aid assistance for training and education programs not
provided under WIOA.
(b) Individualized career services must be made available if
determined to be appropriate in order for an individual to obtain or
retain employment. These services include the following services, as
consistent with program requirements and Federal cost principles:
(1) Comprehensive and specialized assessments of the skill levels
and service needs of adults and dislocated workers, which may include--
(i) Diagnostic testing and use of other assessment tools; and
(ii) In-depth interviewing and evaluation to identify employment
barriers and appropriate employment goals;
(2) Development of an individual employment plan, to identify the
employment goals, appropriate achievement objectives, and appropriate
combination of services for the participant to achieve his or her
employment goals, including the list of, and information about, the
eligible training providers (as described in Sec. 680.180 of this
chapter);
(3) Group counseling;
(4) Individual counseling;
(5) Career planning;
(6) Short-term pre-vocational services including development of
learning skills, communication skills, interviewing skills,
punctuality, personal maintenance skills, and professional conduct
services to prepare individuals for unsubsidized employment or
training;
(7) Internships and work experiences that are linked to careers (as
described in Sec. 680.170 of this chapter);
(8) Workforce preparation activities;
(9) Financial literacy services as described in sec. 129(b)(2)(D)
of WIOA and Sec. 681.500 of this chapter;
(10) Out-of-area job search assistance and relocation assistance;
and
(11) English language acquisition and integrated education and
training programs.
(c) Follow-up services must be provided, as appropriate, including:
counseling regarding the workplace, for participants in adult or
dislocated worker workforce investment activities who are placed in
unsubsidized employment, for up to 12 months after the first day of
employment.
Sec. 678.435 What are the business services provided through the one-
stop delivery system, and how are they provided?
(a) Certain career services must be made available to local
businesses, specifically labor exchange activities and labor market
information described in Sec. Sec. 678.430(a)(4)(ii) and
678.430(a)(6). Local areas must establish and develop relationships and
networks with large and small employers and their intermediaries. (WIOA
sec. 134(c)(1)(A)(iv).) Local areas also must develop, convene, or
implement industry or sector partnerships. (WIOA sec. 134(c)(1)(A)(v).)
(b) Customized business services may be provided to employers,
employer associations, or other such organizations (WIOA sec.
134(d)(1)(A)(ii)). These services are tailored for specific employers
and may include:
(1) Customized screening and referral of qualified participants in
training services to employers;
(2) Customized services to employers, employer associations, or
other such organizations, on employment-related issues;
(3) Customized recruitment events and related services for
employers including targeted job fairs;
(4) Human resource consultation services, including but not limited
to assistance with:
(i) Writing/reviewing job descriptions and employee handbooks;
(ii) Developing performance evaluation and personnel policies;
(iii) Creating orientation sessions for new workers;
(iv) Honing job interview techniques for efficiency and compliance;
(v) Analyzing employee turnover; or
(vi) Explaining labor laws to help employers comply with wage/hour
and safety/health regulations;
(5) Customized labor market information for specific employers,
sectors, industries or clusters; and
(6) Other similar customized services.
(c) Local areas may also provide other business services and
strategies that meet the workforce investment needs of area employers,
in accordance with partner programs' statutory requirements and
consistent with Federal cost principles. These business services may be
provided through effective business intermediaries working in
conjunction with the Local Board, or through the use of economic
development, philanthropic, and other public and private resources in a
manner determined appropriate by the Local Board and in cooperation
with the State. Allowable activities, consistent with each partner's
authorized activities, include, but are not limited to:
(1) Developing and implementing industry sector strategies
(including strategies involving industry partnerships, regional skills
alliances, industry skill panels, and sectoral skills partnerships);
(2) Customized assistance or referral for assistance in the
development of a registered apprenticeship program;
(3) Developing and delivering innovative workforce investment
services and strategies for area employers, which may include career
pathways, skills upgrading, skill standard development and
certification for recognized post-secondary credential or other
employer use, and other effective initiatives for meeting the workforce
investment needs of area employers and workers;
(4) Assistance to area employers in managing reductions in force in
coordination with rapid response activities and with strategies for the
aversion of layoffs, which may include strategies such as early
identification of
[[Page 20642]]
firms at risk of layoffs, use of feasibility studies to assess the
needs of and options for at-risk firms, and the delivery of employment
and training activities to address risk factors;
(5) The marketing of business services to appropriate area
employers, including small and mid-sized employers; and
(6) Assisting employers with accessing local, State, and Federal
tax credits.
(d) All business services and strategies must be reflected in the
local plan, described in Sec. 679.560(b)(3) of this chapter.
Sec. 678.440 When may a fee be charged for the business services in
this subpart?
(a) There is no requirement that a fee-for-service be charged to
employers.
(b) No fee may be charged for services provided in Sec.
678.435(a).
(c) A fee may be charged for services provided under Sec. Sec.
678.435(b) and (c). Services provided under Sec. 678.435(c) may be
provided through effective business intermediaries working in
conjunction with the Local Board and may also be provided on a fee-for-
service basis or through the leveraging of economic development,
philanthropic, and other public and private resources in a manner
determined appropriate by the Local Board. The Local Workforce
Development Board may examine the services provided compared with the
assets and resources available within the local one-stop delivery
system and through its partners to determine an appropriate cost
structure for services, if any.
Subpart C--Memorandum of Understanding for the One-Stop Delivery
System
Sec. 678.500 What is the Memorandum of Understanding for the one-stop
delivery system and what must be included in the Memorandum of
Understanding?
(a) The MOU is the product of local discussion and negotiation, and
is an agreement developed and executed between the Local Board, with
the agreement of the chief elected official and the one-stop partners,
relating to the operation of the one-stop delivery system in the local
area. Two or more local areas in a region may develop a single joint
MOU, if they are in a region that has submitted a regional plan under
sec. 106 of WIOA.
(b) The MOU must include:
(1) A description of services to be provided through the one-stop
delivery system, including the manner in which the services will be
coordinated and delivered through the system;
(2) A final plan, or an interim plan if needed, on how the costs of
the services and the operating costs of the system will be funded,
including:
(i) Funding of infrastructure costs of one-stop centers in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 678.700 through 678.755; and
(ii) Funding of the shared services and operating costs of the one-
stop delivery system described in Sec. 678.760;
(3) Methods for referring individuals between the one-stop
operators and partners for appropriate services and activities;
(4) Methods to ensure that the needs of workers, youth, and
individuals with barriers to employment, including individuals with
disabilities, are addressed in providing access to services, including
access to technology and materials that are available through the one-
stop delivery system;
(5) The duration of the MOU and procedures for amending it; and
(6) Assurances that each MOU will be reviewed, and if substantial
changes have occurred, renewed, not less than once every 3-year period
to ensure appropriate funding and delivery of services.
(c) The MOU may contain any other provisions agreed to by the
parties that are consistent with WIOA title I, the authorizing statutes
and regulations of one-stop partner programs, and the WIOA regulations.
(WIOA sec. 121(c).)
(d) When fully executed, the MOU must contain the signatures of the
Local Board, one-stop partners, the chief elected official(s), and the
time period in which the agreement is effective. The MOU must be
updated not less than every 3 years to reflect any changes in the
signatory official of the Board, one-stop partners, and chief elected
officials, or one-stop infrastructure funding.
(e) If a one-stop partner appeal to the State regarding
infrastructure costs, using the process described in Sec. 678.750,
results in a change to the one-stop partner's infrastructure cost
contributions, the MOU must be updated to reflect the final one-stop
partner infrastructure cost contributions.
Sec. 678.505 Is there a single Memorandum of Understanding for the
local area, or must there be separate Memoranda of Understanding
between the Local Board and each partner?
(a) A single ``umbrella'' MOU may be developed that addresses the
issues relating to the local one-stop delivery system for the Local
Board, chief elected official and all partners. Alternatively, the
Local Board (with agreement of chief elected official) may enter into
separate agreements between each partner or groups of partners.
(b) Under either approach, the requirements described in Sec.
678.500 apply. Since funds are generally appropriated annually, the
Local Board may negotiate financial agreements with each partner
annually to update funding of services and operating costs of the
system under the MOU.
Sec. 678.510 How should the Memorandum of Understanding be
negotiated?
(a) WIOA emphasizes full and effective partnerships between Local
Boards, chief elected officials, and one-stop partners. Local Boards
and partners must enter into good-faith negotiations. Local Boards,
chief elected officials, and one-stop partners may also request
assistance from a State agency responsible for administering the
partner program, the Governor, State Board, or other appropriate
parties on other aspects of the MOU.
(b) Local Boards and one-stop partners must establish, in the MOU,
a final plan for how the Local Board and programs will fund the
infrastructure costs of the one-stop centers. If a final plan regarding
infrastructure costs is not complete when other sections of the MOU are
ready, an interim infrastructure cost plan may be included instead, as
described in Sec. 678.715(c). Once the final infrastructure cost plan
is approved, the Local Board and one-stop partners must amend the MOU
to include the final plan for funding infrastructure costs of the one-
stop centers, including a description of the funding mechanism
established by the Governor relevant to the local area. Infrastructure
cost funding is described in detail in subpart E of this part. (WIOA
sec. 121(h)(2).)
(c) The Local Board must report to the State Board, Governor, and
relevant State agency when MOU negotiations with one-stop partners have
reached an impasse.
(1) The Local Board and partners must document the negotiations and
efforts that have taken place in the MOU. The State Board, one-stop
partner programs, and the Governor may consult with the appropriate
Federal agencies to address impasse situations related to issues other
than infrastructure funding after attempting to address the impasse.
Impasses related to infrastructure cost funding must be resolved using
the State infrastructure cost funding mechanism described in Sec.
678.730.
(2) The Local Board must report failure to execute an MOU with a
required partner to the Governor, State Board, and the State agency
responsible for administering the partner's program. Additionally, if
the State cannot assist the Local Board in resolving the
[[Page 20643]]
impasse, the Governor or the State Board must report the failure to the
Secretary of Labor and to the head of any other Federal agency with
responsibility for oversight of a partner's program.
Subpart D--One-Stop Operators
Sec. 678.600 Who may operate one-stop centers?
(a) One-stop operators may be a single entity (public, private, or
nonprofit) or a consortium of entities. If the consortium of entities
is one of one-stop partners, it must include a minimum of three of the
one-stop partners described in Sec. 678.400.
(b) The one-stop operator may operate one or more one-stop centers.
There may be more than one one-stop operator in a local area.
(c) The types of entities that may be a one-stop operator include:
(1) An institution of higher education;
(2) An Employment Service State agency established under the
Wagner-Peyser Act;
(3) A community-based organization, nonprofit organization, or
workforce intermediary;
(4) A private for-profit entity;
(5) A government agency;
(6) A Local Board, with the approval of the chief local elected
official and the Governor; or
(7) Another interested organization or entity, which is capable of
carrying out the duties of the one-stop operator. Examples may include
a local chamber of commerce or other business organization, or a labor
organization.
(d) Elementary schools and secondary schools are not eligible as
one-stop operators, except that a nontraditional public secondary
school such as a night school, adult school, or an area career and
technical education school may be selected.
(e) The State and Local Boards must ensure that, in carrying out
WIOA programs and activities, one-stop operators:
(1) Disclose any potential conflicts of interest arising from the
relationships of the operators with particular training service
providers or other service providers (further discussed in Sec.
679.430 of this chapter);
(2) Do not establish practices that create disincentives to
providing services to individuals with barriers to employment who may
require longer-term career and training services; and
(3) Comply with Federal regulations and procurement policies
relating to the calculation and use of profits, including those at
Sec. 683.295 of this chapter, the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR chapter
II, and other applicable regulations and policies.
Sec. 678.605 How is the one-stop operator selected?
(a) Consistent with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the
Local Board must select the one-stop operator through a competitive
process, as required by sec. 121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA, at least once every
4 years. A State may require, or a Local Board may choose to implement,
a competitive selection process more than once every 4 years.
(b) In instances in which a State is conducting the competitive
process described in paragraph (a) of this section, the State must
follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurement with
non-Federal funds.
(c) All other non-Federal entities, including subrecipients of a
State (such as local areas), must use a competitive process based on
the principles of competitive procurement in the Uniform Administrative
Guidance set out at 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326.
(d) Entities described in paragraph (c) of this section must first
determine the nature of the process to be used to comply with sec.
121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA. The acceptable processes are:
(1) Procurement by sealed bids;
(2) Procurement by competitive proposals; or
(3) Procurement by sole source, permitted only if:
(i) Analysis of market conditions and other factors lead to a
determination that it is necessary to use sole-source procurement
because:
(A) There is only one entity that could serve as an operator; or
(B) Unusual and compelling urgency will not permit a delay
resulting from competitive solicitation; or
(ii) Results of the competition conducted under paragraphs (d)(1)
or (2) of this section were determined to be inadequate.
(e) Entities must prepare written documentation explaining the
determination concerning the nature of the competitive process to be
followed in selecting a one-stop operator.
Sec. 678.610 How is sole source selection of one-stop operators
accomplished?
(a) As set forth in Sec. 678.605(d)(3), under certain conditions,
sole source procurement is an allowable method of procurement.
(b) In the event that sole source procurement is determined
necessary and reasonable, in accordance with Sec. 678.605(d)(3),
written documentation must be prepared and maintained concerning the
entire process of making such a selection.
(c) Such sole source procurement must include appropriate conflict
of interest policies and procedures. These policies and procedures must
conform to the specifications in Sec. 679.430 of this chapter for
demonstrating internal controls and preventing conflict of interest.
(d) A Local Board can be selected as a one-stop operator through
sole source procurement only with agreement of the chief elected
official in the local area and the Governor. The Local Board must
establish sufficient conflict of interest policies and procedures and
they must be approved by the Governor.
Sec. 678.615 Can an entity serving as one-stop operator compete to be
a one-stop operator under the procurement requirements of this subpart?
(a) Local Boards can compete for and be selected as one-stop
operators, as long as appropriate firewalls and conflict of interest
policies and procedures are in place. These policies and procedures
must conform to the specifications in Sec. 679.430 of this chapter for
demonstrating internal controls and preventing conflict of interest.
(b) State and local agencies can compete for and be selected as
one-stop operators by the Local Board, as long as appropriate firewalls
and conflict of interest policies and procedures are in place. These
policies and procedures must conform to the specifications in Sec.
679.430 of this chapter for demonstrating internal controls and
preventing conflict of interest.
(c) In the case of single State areas where the State Board serves
as the Local Board, the State agency is eligible to compete for and be
selected as operator as long as appropriate firewalls and conflict of
interest policies are in place and followed for the competition. These
policies and procedures must conform to the specifications in Sec.
679.430 of this chapter for demonstrating internal controls and
preventing conflict of interest.
Sec. 678.620 What is the one-stop operator's role?
(a) At a minimum, the one-stop operator must coordinate the service
delivery of required one-stop partners and service providers. Local
Boards may establish additional roles of one-stop operator, including,
but not limited to: Coordinating service providers within the center
and across the one-stop system, being the primary provider of services
within the center, providing some of the services within the center, or
coordinating service delivery in a multi-center area. The competition
for a
[[Page 20644]]
one-stop operator must clearly articulate the role of the one-stop
operator.
(b) A one-stop operator may not perform the following functions:
convene system stakeholders to assist in the development of the local
plan; prepare and submit local plans (as required under sec. 107 of
WIOA); be responsible for oversight of itself; manage or significantly
participate in the competitive selection process for one-stop
operators; select or terminate one-stop operators, career services, and
youth providers; negotiate local performance accountability measures;
and develop and submit budget for activities of the Local Board in the
local area. An entity serving as a one-stop operator may perform some
or all of these functions if it also serves in another capacity, if it
has established sufficient firewalls and conflict of interest policies.
The policies must conform to the specifications in Sec. 679.430 of
this chapter for demonstrating internal controls and preventing
conflict of interest.
Sec. 678.625 Can a one-stop operator also be a service provider?
Yes, but there must be appropriate firewalls in place in regards to
the competition, and subsequent oversight, monitoring, and evaluation
of performance of the service provider. The operator cannot develop,
manage or conduct the competition of a service provider in which it
intends to compete. In cases where an operator is also a service
provider, there must be firewalls and internal controls within the
operator-service provider entity, as well as specific policies and
procedures at the Local Board level regarding oversight, monitoring,
and evaluation of performance of the service provider. The firewalls
must conform to the specifications in Sec. 679.430 of this chapter for
demonstrating internal controls and preventing conflict of interest.
Sec. 678.630 Can State merit staff still work in a one-stop where the
operator is not a governmental entity?
Yes. State merit staff can continue to perform functions and
activities in the one-stop career center. The Local Board and one-stop
operator must establish a system for management of merit staff in
accordance with State policies and procedures. Continued use of State
merit staff may be included in the competition for and final contract
with the one-stop operator.
Sec. 678.635 What is the effective date of the provisions of this
subpart?
(a) No later than June 30, 2017, one-stop operators selected under
the competitive process described in this subpart must be in place and
operating the one-stop.
(b) By June 30, 2016, every Local Board must demonstrate it is
taking steps to prepare for competition of its one-stop operator. This
demonstration may include, but is not limited to, market research,
requests for information, and conducting a cost and price analysis.
Subpart E--One-Stop Operating Costs
Sec. 678.700 What are one-stop infrastructure costs?
(a) Infrastructure costs of one-stop centers are nonpersonnel costs
that are necessary for the general operation of the one-stop center,
including:
(1) Rental of the facilities;
(2) Utilities and maintenance;
(3) Equipment (including assessment-related products and assistive
technology for individuals with disabilities); and
(4) Technology to facilitate access to the one-stop center,
including technology used for the center's planning and outreach
activities.
(b) Local Boards may consider common identifier costs as costs of
one-stop infrastructure.
(c) Each entity that carries out a program or activities in a local
one-stop center, described in Sec. Sec. 678.400 through 678.410, must
use a portion of the funds available for the program and activities to
maintain the one-stop delivery system, including payment of the
infrastructure costs of one-stop centers. These payments must be in
accordance with this subpart; Federal cost principles, which require
that all costs must be allowable, reasonable, necessary, and allocable
to the program; and all other applicable legal requirements.
Sec. 678.705 What guidance must the Governor issue regarding one-stop
infrastructure funding?
(a) The Governor, after consultation with chief elected officials,
the State Board, and Local Boards, and consistent with guidance and
policies provided by the State Board, must develop and issue guidance
for use by local areas, specifically:
(1) Guidelines for State-administered one-stop partner programs for
determining such programs' contributions to a one-stop delivery system,
based on such programs' proportionate use of such system consistent
with Office of Management and Budget Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards in 2 CFR part 200, including determining funding for the costs
of infrastructure; and
(2) Guidance to assist Local Boards, chief elected officials, and
one-stop partners in local areas in determining equitable and stable
methods of funding the costs of infrastructure at one-stop centers
based on proportionate benefits received, and consistent with Federal
cost principles.
(b) The guidance must include:
(1) The appropriate roles of the one-stop partner programs in
identifying one-stop infrastructure costs;
(2) Approaches to facilitate equitable and efficient cost
allocation that results in a reasonable cost allocation methodology
where infrastructure costs are charged to each partner in proportion to
relative benefits received, consistent with Federal cost principles;
and
(3) The timelines regarding notification to the Governor for not
reaching local agreement and triggering the State-funded infrastructure
mechanism described in Sec. 678.730, and timelines for a one-stop
partner to submit an appeal in the State-funded infrastructure
mechanism.
Sec. 678.710 How are infrastructure costs funded?
Infrastructure costs are funded either through the local funding
mechanism described in Sec. 678.715 or through the State funding
mechanism described in Sec. 678.730.
Sec. 678.715 How are one-stop infrastructure costs funded in the
local funding mechanism?
(a) In the local funding mechanism, the Local Board, chief elected
officials, and one-stop partners agree to amounts and methods of
calculating amounts each partner will contribute for one-stop
infrastructure funding, include the infrastructure funding terms in the
MOU, and sign the MOU. The local one-stop funding mechanism must meet
all of the following requirements:
(1) The infrastructure costs are funded through cash and fairly
evaluated in-kind partner contributions and include any funding from
philanthropic organizations or other private entities, or through other
alternative financing options, to provide a stable and equitable
funding stream for ongoing one-stop delivery system operations;
(2) Contributions must be negotiated between one-stop partners,
chief elected officials, and the Local Board and the amount to be
contributed must be included in the MOU;
(3) The one-stop partner program's proportionate share of funding
must be calculated in accordance with the
[[Page 20645]]
Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200 based upon a
reasonable cost allocation methodology whereby infrastructure costs are
charged to each partner in proportion to relative benefits received,
and must be allowable, reasonable, necessary, and allocable;
(4) Partner shares must be periodically reviewed and reconciled
against actual costs incurred, and adjusted to ensure that actual costs
charged to any one-stop partners are proportionate and equitable to the
benefit received by the one-stop partners and their respective programs
or activities.
(b) In developing the section of the MOU on one-stop infrastructure
funding fully described in Sec. 678.755, the Local Board and chief
elected officials will:
(1) Ensure that the one-stop partners adhere to the guidance
identified in Sec. 678.705 on one-stop delivery system infrastructure
costs.
(2) Work with one-stop partners to achieve consensus and informally
mediate any possible conflicts or disagreements among one-stop
partners.
(3) Provide technical assistance to new one-stop partners and local
grant recipients to ensure that those entities are informed and
knowledgeable of the elements contained in the MOU and the one-stop
infrastructure costs arrangement.
(c) The MOU may include an interim infrastructure funding
agreement, including as much detail as the Local Board has negotiated
with one-stop partners, if all other parts of the MOU have been
negotiated, in order to allow the partner programs to operate in the
one-stop centers. The interim infrastructure agreement must be
finalized within 6 months of when the MOU is signed. If the
infrastructure interim infrastructure agreement is not finalized within
that timeframe, the Local Board must notify the Governor, as described
in Sec. 678.725.
Sec. 678.720 What funds are used to pay for infrastructure costs in
the local one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) In the local one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism, one-
stop partner programs can determine what funds they will use to fund
infrastructure costs. The use of these funds must be in accordance with
the requirements in this subpart, and with the relevant partner's
authorizing statutes and regulations, including, for example,
prohibitions against supplanting non-Federal resources, statutory
limitations on administrative costs, and all other applicable legal
requirements. In the case of partners administering adult education and
literacy programs authorized by title II of WIOA or the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, these funds may include
Federal funds that are available for State administration of adult
education and literacy programs authorized by title II of WIOA or for
State administration of post-secondary level programs and activities
under the Perkins Act, and non-Federal funds that the partners
contribute to meet these programs' matching or maintenance of effort
requirements. These funds also may include local administrative funds
available to local entities or consortia of local entities that have
been delegated authority to serve as one-stop local partners by a State
eligible agency as permitted by Sec. 678.415(b) and (e).
(b) There are no specific caps on the amount or percent of overall
funding a one-stop partner may contribute to fund infrastructure costs
under the local one-stop funding mechanism, except that contributions
for administrative costs may not exceed the amount available for
administrative costs under the authorizing statute of the partner
program. However, amounts contributed for infrastructure costs must be
allowable and based on proportionate use by or benefit to the partner
program, taking into account the total cost of the one-stop
infrastructure as well as alternate financing options, and must be
consistent with 2 CFR chapter II, including the Federal cost
principles.
Sec. 678.725 What happens if consensus on infrastructure funding is
not reached at the local level between the Local Board, chief elected
officials, and one-stop partners?
If, after July 1, 2016, and each subsequent July 1, the Local
Board, chief elected officials, and one-stop partners do not reach
consensus on methods of sufficiently funding local infrastructure
through the local infrastructure cost funding mechanism, and include
that consensus agreement in the signed MOU, then the Local Board must
notify the Governor and the Governor must administer funding through
the State one-stop funding mechanism, as described in Sec. 678.730.
(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2))
Sec. 678.730 What is the State one-stop infrastructure funding
mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism, the
Governor, after consultation with the chief elected officials, Local
Boards, and the State Board, determines one-stop partner contributions,
based upon a methodology where infrastructure costs are charged to each
partner in proportion to relative benefits received and consistent with
the partner program's authorizing laws and regulations, 2 CFR chapter
II, including the Federal cost principles, and other applicable legal
requirements described in Sec. 678.735(a).
(b) The State Board develops an allocation formula to allocate
funds to local areas to support the infrastructure costs for local area
one-stop centers for all local areas that did not use the local funding
mechanism, and the Governor uses that formula to allocate the funds.
This is described in detail in Sec. 678.745.
Sec. 678.735 How are partner contributions determined in the State
one-stop funding mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop funding mechanism, the Governor, after
consultation with State and Local Boards and chief elected officials,
will determine the amount each partner must contribute to assist in
paying the infrastructure costs of one-stop centers. The Governor must
calculate amounts based on the proportionate use of the one-stop
centers by each partner, consistent with chapter II of title 2, Code of
Federal Regulations (or any corresponding similar regulation or
ruling), taking into account the costs of administration of the one-
stop delivery system for purposes not related to one-stop centers for
each partner such as costs associated with maintaining the Local Board,
or information technology systems. The Governor will also take into
account the statutory requirements for each partner program, all other
applicable legal requirements, and the partner program's ability to
fulfill such requirements.
(b) In certain situations, the Governor does not determine the
infrastructure cost contributions for one-stop partner programs.
(1) The Governor will not determine the contribution amounts for
infrastructure funds for Native American grantees described in 20 CFR
part 684. (WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(iii).) The appropriate portion of
funds to be provided by Native American grantees to pay for one-stop
infrastructure must be determined as part of the development of the MOU
described in Sec. 678.500 and specified in that MOU.
(2) In a State in which the State constitution or a State statute
places policy-making authority that is independent of the authority of
the Governor in an entity or official with respect to the funds
provided for adult education and literacy activities, post-secondary
career and technical education activities, or vocational rehabilitation
services, the chief officer
[[Page 20646]]
of that entity or the official must determine the contribution amounts
for infrastructure funds in consultation with the Governor. (WIOA sec.
121(h)(2)(C)(ii).)
(c) Limitations. Per WIOA sec. 122(h)(2)(D), the amount established
by the Governor under paragraph (a) of this section may not exceed the
following caps:
(1) WIOA formula programs and employment service. The portion of
funds required to be contributed under the WIOA youth, adult, or
dislocated worker programs, or under the Wagner- Peyser Act (29 U.S.C.
49 et seq.) must not exceed 3 percent of the amount of Federal funds
provided to carry out that program in the State for a program year.
(2) Other one-stop partners. The portion of funds required to be
contributed must not exceed 1.5 percent of the amount of Federal funds
provided to carry out that education program or employment and training
program in the State for a fiscal year. For purposes of Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, the cap on contributions is
determined based on the funds made available for State administration
of post-secondary level programs and activities.
(3) Vocational rehabilitation. Within a State, the entity or
entities administering the programs described in WIOA sec.
121(b)(1)(B)(iv) the allotment is based on the one State allotment,
even in instances where that allotment is shared between two State
agencies, and will not be required to provide from that program a
cumulative portion that exceeds--
(i) 0.75 percent of the amount of Federal funds provided to carry
out such program in the State for Fiscal Year 2016;
(ii) 1.0 percent of the amount provided to carry out such program
in the State for Fiscal Year 2017;
(iii) 1.25 percent of the amount provided to carry out such program
in the State for Fiscal Year 2018; and
(iv) 1.5 percent of the amount provided to carry out such program
in the State for Fiscal Year 2019 and following years.
(4) Federal direct spending programs. For local areas that have not
reached a one-stop infrastructure funding agreement by consensus, an
entity administering a program funded with direct spending as defined
in sec. 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985, as in effect on February 15, 2014 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)(8)),
must not be required to provide more for infrastructure costs than the
amount that the Governor determined (as described in Sec. 678.735(a)).
(d) If the above limitations result in funding less than each
partner's proportionate share and contribute to inadequate funding of
the allocation amount determined under Sec. 678.745(b), the Governor
may direct the Local Board, chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners to reenter negotiations to reduce the infrastructure costs to
reflect the amount of funds that are available for such costs, discuss
proportionate share of each one-stop partner, or to identify
alternative sources of financing for one-stop infrastructure funding,
but, in any event, a partner will only be required to pay an amount
that is consistent with the proportionate benefit received by the
partner, the program's authorizing laws and regulations, the Federal
cost principles, and other applicable legal requirements.
(1) The Local Board, chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners, after renegotiation, may come to agreement and sign an MOU
and proceed under the local one-stop funding mechanism.
(2) If after renegotiation, agreement amongst partners still cannot
be reached or alternate financing identified, the Governor may adjust
the specified allocation, in accordance with the amounts available and
the limitations described in Sec. 678.735(c).
Sec. 678.740 What funds are used to pay for infrastructure costs in
the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism,
infrastructure costs for WIOA title I programs, including Native
American Programs described in 20 CFR part 684, can be paid using
program funds, administrative funds, or both. Infrastructure costs for
the Senior Community Service Employment Program under title V of the
Older Americans Act (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) can also be paid using
program funds, administrative funds, or both. (WIOA sec.
121(h)(2)(D)(i)(II).)
(b) In the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism,
infrastructure costs for other required one-stop partner programs
(listed in Sec. Sec. 678.400 through 678.410) are limited to the
program's administrative funds, as appropriate. (WIOA sec.
121(h)(2)(D)(i)(I).)
(c) In the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism,
infrastructure costs for the adult education program authorized by
title II of WIOA must be paid from the funds that are available for
State administration or from non-Federal funds that the partner
contributes to meet the program's matching or maintenance of effort
requirement. Infrastructure costs for title II of WIOA may also be paid
from funds available for local administration of programs and
activities to eligible providers or consortia of eligible providers
delegated responsibilities to act as a local one-stop partner pursuant
to Sec. 678.415(b).
(d) In the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism,
infrastructure costs for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006 must be paid from the Federal funds that are
available for State administration of post-secondary level programs and
activities under the Perkins Act, or from non-Federal funds that the
partner contributes to meet the program's matching or maintenance of
effort requirement. Infrastructure costs for the Carl D. Perkins Career
and Technical Education Act of 2006 may also be paid from funds
available for local administration of post-secondary level programs and
activities to eligible recipients or consortia of eligible recipients
delegated responsibilities to act as a local one-stop partner pursuant
to Sec. 678.415(e).
Sec. 678.745 How is the allocation formula used by the Governor
determined in the State one-stop funding mechanism?
(a) The State Board must develop an allocation formula to be used
by the Governor to allocate funds to the local areas that did not
successfully use the local funding mechanism. The allocation formula
must take into account the number of one-stop centers in a local area,
the population served by such centers, the services provided by such
centers, and other factors relating to the performance of such centers
that the State Board determines are appropriate and that are consistent
with Federal cost principles. (WIOA sec. 121(h)(3)(B).)
(b) Using the funds contributed by the one-stop partners described
in Sec. 678.735, the Governor will then use this formula to allocate
funds to the local areas that did not use the local funding mechanism
to fund one-stop center infrastructure costs, so long as that funding
distribution is consistent with Federal cost principles for each of the
affected one-stop partners.
Sec. 678.750 When and how can a one-stop partner appeal a one-stop
infrastructure amount designated by the State under the State
infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) The Governor must establish a process, described under sec.
121(h)(2)(E) of WIOA, for a one-stop partner administering a program
described in Sec. Sec. 678.400 through 678.410 to appeal the
Governor's determination regarding the one-stop partner's portion of
funds to be provided for one-stop
[[Page 20647]]
infrastructure costs. This appeal process must be described in the
Unified State Plan. (WIOA secs. 121(h)(2)(E) and 102(b)(2)(D)(i)(IV).)
(b) The appeal may be made on the ground that the Governor's
determination is inconsistent with proportionate share requirements in
Sec. 678.735(a), the cost contribution limitations in Sec.
678.735(b), or the cost contribution caps in Sec. 678.735(c).
(c) The process must ensure prompt resolution of the appeal in
order to ensure the funds are distributed in a timely manner,
consistent with the requirements of Sec. 683.630 of this chapter.
(d) The one-stop partner must submit an appeal in accordance with
State's deadlines for appeals specified in the guidance issued under
Sec. 678.705(b)(3), or if the State has not set a deadline, within 21
days from the Governor's determination.
Sec. 678.755 What are the required elements regarding infrastructure
funding that must be included in the one-stop Memorandum of
Understanding?
The MOU, fully described in Sec. 678.500, must contain the
following information whether the local areas use either the local one-
stop or the State one-stop infrastructure funding method:
(a) The period of time in which this infrastructure funding
agreement is effective. This may be a different time period than the
duration of the MOU.
(b) Identification of an infrastructure and shared services budget
that will be periodically reconciled against actual costs incurred and
adjusted accordingly to ensure that it reflects a cost allocation
methodology that demonstrates how infrastructure costs are charged to
each partner in proportion to relative benefits received, and that
complies with chapter II of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling).
(c) Identification of all one-stop partners, chief elected
officials, and Local Board participating in the infrastructure funding
arrangement.
(d) Steps the Local Board, chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners used to reach consensus or an assurance that the local area
followed the guidance for the State one-stop infrastructure funding
process.
(e) Description of the process to be used between partners to
resolve issues during the MOU duration period when consensus cannot be
reached.
(f) Description of the periodic modification and review process to
ensure equitable benefit among one-stop partners.
Sec. 678.760 How do one-stop partners jointly fund other shared costs
under the Memorandum of Understanding?
(a) In addition to jointly funding infrastructure costs, one-stop
partners listed in Sec. Sec. 678.400 through 678.410 must use a
portion of funds made available under their programs' authorizing
Federal law (or fairly evaluated in-kind contributions) to pay the
additional costs relating to the operation of the one-stop delivery
system, which must include applicable career services.
(b) Additionally, one-stop partners may jointly fund shared
services to the extent consistent with their programs' Federal
authorizing statutes and other applicable legal requirements. Shared
services' costs may include the costs of shared services that are
authorized for and may be commonly provided through the one-stop
partner programs to any individual, such as initial intake, assessment
of needs, appraisal of basic skills, identification of appropriate
services to meet such needs, referrals to other one-stop partners, and
business services. Shared operating costs may also include shared costs
of the Local Board's functions.
(c) These shared costs must be allocated according to the
proportion of benefit received by each of the partners, consistent with
the Federal law authorizing the partner's program, and consistent with
all other applicable legal requirements, including Federal cost
principles in chapter II of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling) requiring that
costs are reasonable, necessary, and allocable.
(d) Any shared costs agreed upon by the one-stop partners must be
included in the MOU.
Subpart F--One-Stop Certification
Sec. 678.800 How are one-stop centers and one-stop delivery systems
certified for effectiveness, physical and programmatic accessibility,
and continuous improvement?
(a) The State Board, in consultation with chief elected officials
and Local Boards, must establish objective criteria and procedures for
Local Boards to use when certifying one-stop centers.
(1) The State Board must review and update the criteria every 2
years as part of the review and modification of State Plans pursuant to
Sec. 676.135 of this chapter.
(2) The criteria must be consistent with the Governor's and State
Board's guidelines, guidance and policies on infrastructure funding
decisions, described in Sec. 678.705. The criteria must evaluate the
one-stop centers and one-stop delivery system for effectiveness,
including customer satisfaction, physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous improvement.
(3) When the Local Board is the one-stop operator as described in
Sec. 679.410 of this chapter, the State Board must certify the one-
stop center.
(b) Evaluations of effectiveness must include how well the one-stop
center integrates available services for participants and businesses,
meets the workforce development needs of participants and the
employment needs of local employers, operates in a cost-efficient
manner, coordinates services among the one-stop partner programs, and
provides maximum access to partner program services even outside
regular business hours. These evaluations must take into account
feedback from one-stop customers. They must also include evaluations of
how well the one-stop center ensures equal opportunity for individuals
with disabilities to participate in or benefit from one-stop center
services. These evaluations must include criteria evaluating how well
the centers and delivery systems take actions to comply with the
disability-related regulations implementing WIOA sec. 188, set forth at
29 CFR part 37. Such actions include, but are not limited to:
(1) Providing reasonable accommodations for individuals with
disabilities;
(2) Making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and
procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination against persons with
disabilities;
(3) Administering programs in the most integrated setting
appropriate;
(4) Communicating with persons with disabilities as effectively as
with others; and
(5) Providing appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including
assistive technology devices and services, where necessary to afford
individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in,
and enjoy the benefits of, the program or activity.
(c) Evaluations of continuous improvement must include how well the
one-stop center supports the achievement of the negotiated local levels
of performance for the indicators of performance for the local area
described in sec. 116(b)(2) of WIOA and 20 CFR part 677. Other
continuous improvement factors may include a regular process for
identifying and responding to technical assistance needs, a regular
system of continuing professional staff development, and having systems
in place to capture and respond to specific customer feedback.
[[Page 20648]]
(d) Local Boards must assess at least once every 3 years the
effectiveness, physical and programmatic accessibility, and continuous
improvement of one-stop centers and the one-stop delivery systems using
the criteria and procedures developed by the State Board. The Local
Board may establish additional criteria, or set higher standards for
service coordination, than those set by the State criteria. Local
Boards must review and update the criteria every 2 years as part of the
Local Plan update process described in Sec. 676.580 of this chapter.
Local Boards must certify one-stop centers in order to be eligible to
receive infrastructure funds in the State infrastructure funding
mechanism described in Sec. 678.730.
(e) All one-stop centers must comply with applicable physical
accessibility requirements, as set forth in 29 CFR part 37.
Subpart G--Common Identifier
Sec. 678.900 What is the common identifier to be used by each one-
stop delivery system?
(a) The common one-stop delivery system identifier is ``American
Job Center.''
(b) As of July 1, 2016, each one-stop delivery system must include
the ``American Job Center'' identifier or ``a proud partner of the
American Job Center network'' on all products, programs, activities,
services, facilities, and related property and materials used in the
one-stop system.
(c) One-stop partners, States or local areas may use additional
identifiers on their products, programs, activities, services,
facilities, and related property and materials.
Department of Education
34 CFR Chapters III and IV
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Education
proposes to amend 34 CFR chapters III and IV as follows:
PART 361--STATE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION SERVICES PROGRAM
0
4. The authority citation for part 361 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 709(c), unless otherwise noted.
0
5. Add subpart D of part 361 to read as follows:
Subpart D--Unified and Combined State Plans Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec.
361.100 What is the purpose of the Unified and Combined State Plans?
361.105 What are the general requirements for the Unified State
Plan?
361.110 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the adult, dislocated worker, and youth workforce
investment activities in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
title I?
361.115 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act program
in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title II?
361.120 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service programs in
title III of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
361.125 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the State Vocational Rehabilitation program in
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title IV?
361.130 What is the submission and approval process of the Unified
State Plan?
361.135 What are the requirements for modification of the Unified
State Plan?
361.140 What are the general requirements for submitting a Combined
State Plan?
361.143 What is the submission and approval process of the Combined
State Plan?
361.145 What are the requirements for modifications of the Combined
State Plan?
Subpart D--Unified and Combined State Plans Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec. 361.100 What is the purpose of the Unified and Combined State
Plans?
(a) The Unified and Combined State Plans provide the framework for
States to outline a strategic vision of, and goals for, how their
workforce development systems will achieve the purposes of Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).
(b) The Unified and Combined State Plans serve as 4-year action
plans to develop, align, and integrate the State's systems and provide
a platform to achieve the State's vision and strategic and operational
goals. A Unified or Combined State Plan is intended to:
(1) Align, in strategic coordination, the six core programs
required in the Unified State Plan pursuant to Sec. 361.105(b), and
additional optional programs that may be part of the Combined State
Plan pursuant to Sec. 361.140;
(2) Direct investments in economic, education, and workforce
training programs to focus on providing relevant education and training
to ensure that individuals, including youth and individuals with
barriers to employment, have the skills to compete in the job market
and that employers have a ready supply of skilled workers;
(3) Apply strategies for job-driven training consistently across
Federal programs, and;
(4) Enable economic, education, and workforce partners to build a
skilled workforce through innovation in, and alignment of, employment,
training, and education programs.
Sec. 361.105 What are the general requirements for the Unified State
Plan?
(a) The Unified State Plan must be submitted in accordance with
Sec. 361.130 and joint planning guidelines issued by the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Education.
(b) The Governor of each State must submit, in accordance with
Sec. 361.130, a Unified or Combined State Plan to the Secretary of
Labor to be eligible to receive funding for the workforce development
system's six core programs:
(1) The adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs authorized
under subtitle B of title I of WIOA and administered by the U.S.
Department of Labor;
(2) The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) program
authorized under title II of WIOA and administered by the U.S.
Department of Education;
(3) The Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Services programs amended by
title III of WIOA and administered by the U.S. Department of Labor; and
(4) The State Vocational Rehabilitation program amended by title IV
of WIOA and administered by the U.S. Department of Education.
(c) The Unified State Plan must outline the State's 4-year strategy
for the core programs described in paragraph (b) of this section and
meet the requirements of sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as explained in the joint
planning guidance issued by the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Education.
(d) The Unified State Plan must include strategic and operational
planning elements to facilitate the development of an aligned,
coordinated, and comprehensive workforce development system. The
Unified State Plan must include:
(1) Strategic planning elements that describe the State's strategic
vision and goals for preparing an educated and skilled workforce under
sec. 102(b)(1) of WIOA. The strategic planning elements must be
informed by and include an analysis of the State's economic conditions
and employer and workforce needs, including education and skill needs.
[[Page 20649]]
(2) Strategies for aligning the core programs and optional
programs, as well as other resources available to the State, to achieve
the strategic vision and goals in accordance with sec. 102(b)(1)(E) of
WIOA.
(3) Operational planning elements in accordance with sec. 102(b)(2)
of WIOA that support the strategies for aligning the core programs and
other resources available to the State to achieve the State's vision
and goals and a description of how the State Workforce Development
Board will implement its functions, in accordance with sec. 101(d) of
WIOA. Operational planning elements must include:
(i) A description of how the State strategy will be implemented by
each core program's lead State agency;
(ii) State operating systems, including data systems, and policies
that will support the implementation of the State's strategy identified
in paragraph (d)(1) of this section;
(iii) Program-specific requirements for the core programs required
by WIOA sec. 102(b)(2)(D);
(iv) Assurances required by sec. 102(b)(2)(E) of WIOA and others
deemed necessary by the Secretaries of Labor and Education under sec.
102(b)(2)(E)(x) of WIOA; and
(v) Any additional operational planning requirements imposed by the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of Education under sec.
102(b)(2)(C)(viii) of WIOA.
Sec. 361.110 What are the program-specific requirements in the
Unified State Plan for the adult, dislocated worker, and youth
workforce investment activities in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act title I?
The program-specific requirements for the adult, dislocated worker,
and youth workforce investment activities that must be included in the
Unified State Plan are described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D) of WIOA.
Additional planning requirements may be required by the Secretary of
Labor or the Secretary of Education in accordance with joint planning
guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Education.
Sec. 361.115 What are the program-specific requirements in the
Unified State Plan for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act
program in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title II?
The program-specific requirements for the AEFLA program in title II
that must be included in the Unified State Plan are described in secs.
102(b)(2)(D)(ii) and 102(b)(2)(C) of WIOA.
(a) With regard to the description required in sec.
102(b)(2)(D)(ii)(I) of WIOA pertaining to content standards, the
Unified State Plan must describe how the eligible agency will, by July
1, 2016, align its content standards for adult education with State-
adopted challenging academic content standards under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
(b) With regard to the description required in sec.
102(b)(2)(C)(iv) of WIOA pertaining to the methods and factors the
State will use to distribute funds under the core programs, for title
II of WIOA, the Unified State Plan must include--
(1) How the eligible agency will award multi-year grants on a
competitive basis to eligible providers in the State; and
(2) How the eligible agency will provide direct and equitable
access to funds using the same grant or contract announcement and
application procedure.
(c) With regard to the description required under sec.
102(b)(2)(C)(v)(I) of WIOA pertaining to the integration of workforce
and education data on core programs, unemployment insurance programs,
and education through post-secondary education, for title II of WIOA,
the Unified State Plan must include how the State will ensure
interoperability of data systems in the reporting on core indicators of
performance and performance reports required to be submitted by the
State.
Sec. 361.120 What are the program-specific requirements in the
Unified State Plan for Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service programs in
title III of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Services programs amended by title III
are subject to requirements in sec. 102(b) of WIOA and any additional
requirements imposed by the Secretary of Labor under sec.
102(b)(2)(C)(viii) of WIOA, in accordance with joint planning
guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Education.
Sec. 361.125 What are the program-specific requirements in the
Unified State Plan for the State Vocational Rehabilitation program in
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title IV?
The program specific requirements for the vocational rehabilitation
services portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan are set forth in
sec. 101(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. All
submission requirements of the Vocational Rehabilitation Services
portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan are in addition to the
jointly developed strategic and operational content requirements
prescribed by secs. 102(b) and 103 of WIOA.
Sec. 361.130 What is the submission and approval process of the
Unified State Plan?
(a) The Unified State Plan described in Sec. 361.105 must be
submitted in accordance with planning guidelines issued jointly by the
Secretaries of Labor and Education which explain the submission and
approval process in WIOA sec. 102(c).
(b) A State must submit its Unified State Plan to the Secretary of
Labor pursuant to a process identified by the Secretary.
(1) The initial Unified State Plan must be submitted no later than
120 days prior to the commencement of the second full program year of
WIOA.
(2) The subsequent Unified State Plan must be submitted no later
than 120 days prior to the end of the 4-year period described in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, ``program year''
means July 1 through June 30 of any year.
(c) The State must provide an opportunity for public comment on and
input into the development of the Unified State Plan prior to its
submission.
(1) The opportunity for public comment must include an opportunity
for comment by representatives of Local Boards and chief elected
officials, businesses, representatives of labor organizations,
community-based organizations, adult education providers, institutions
of higher education, other stakeholders with an interest in the
services provided by the six core programs, and the general public,
including individuals with disabilities.
(2) Consistent with the ``Sunshine Provision'' of WIOA in sec.
101(g), the State Board must make information regarding the Unified
State Plan available to the public through electronic means and
regularly occurring open meetings in accordance with State law. The
Unified State Plan must describe the State's process and timeline for
ensuring a meaningful opportunity for public comment.
(d) Upon receipt of the Unified State Plan from the State, the
Secretary of Labor will ensure that the entire Unified State Plan is
submitted to the Secretary of Education pursuant to a process developed
by the Secretaries.
(e) The Unified State Plan is subject to the approval of both the
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education.
(f) Before the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education
approve the Unified State Plan, the vocational
[[Page 20650]]
rehabilitation portion of the Unified State Plan described in WIOA sec.
102(b)(2)(D)(iii) must be approved by the Commissioner of the
Rehabilitation Services Administration.
(g) The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education will
review and approve the Unified State Plan within 90 days of receipt by
the appropriate Secretary, unless the Secretary of Labor or the
Secretary of Education determines in writing within that period that:
(1) The plan is inconsistent with a core program's requirements;
(2) The Unified State Plan is inconsistent with any requirement of
sec. 102 of WIOA; or
(3) The plan is incomplete or otherwise insufficient to determine
whether it is consistent with a core program's requirements or other
requirements of WIOA.
(h) If neither the Secretary of Labor nor the Secretary of
Education makes the written determination described in paragraph (g) of
this section within 90 days of the receipt by the Secretaries, the
Unified State Plan will be considered approved.
Sec. 361.135 What are the requirements for modification of the
Unified State Plan?
(a) In addition to the required modification review set forth in
paragraph (b) of this section, a Governor may submit a modification of
its Unified State Plan at any time during the 4-year period of the
plan.
(b) Modifications are required, at a minimum:
(1) At the end of the first 2-year period of any 4-year State Plan,
wherein the State Board must review the Unified State Plan, and the
Governor must submit modifications to the plan to reflect changes in
labor market and economic conditions or other factors affecting the
implementation of the Unified State Plan;
(2) When changes in Federal or State law or policy substantially
affect the strategies, goals, and priorities upon which the Unified
State Plan is based;
(3) When there are changes in the statewide vision, strategies,
policies, State adjusted levels of performance, the methodology used to
determine local allocation of funds, reorganizations which change the
working relationship with system employees, changes in organizational
responsibilities, changes to the membership structure of the State
Board or alternative entity, and similar substantial changes to the
State's workforce investment system.
(c) Modifications to the Unified State Plan are subject to the same
public review and comment requirements in Sec. 361.130(c) that apply
to the development of the original Unified State Plan.
(d) Unified State Plan modifications must be approved by the
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education, based on the
approval standards applicable to the original Unified State Plan under
Sec. 361.130. This approval must come after the approval of the
Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration for
modification of any portion of the plan described in sec.
102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA.
Sec. 361.140 What are the general requirements for submitting a
Combined State Plan?
(a) A State may choose to develop and submit a 4-year Combined
State Plan in lieu of the Unified State Plan described in Sec.
361.105.
(b) A State that submits a Combined State Plan covering an activity
or program described in paragraph (d) of this section that is approved
under WIOA sec. 103(c) or determined complete under the law relating to
the program will not be required to submit any other plan or
application in order to receive Federal funds to carry out the core
programs or the program or activities described under paragraph (d) of
this section that are covered by the Combined State Plan.
(c) If a State develops a Combined State Plan, it must be submitted
in accordance with the process described in Sec. 361.143.
(d) If a State chooses to submit a Combined State Plan, the Plan
must include the six core programs and one or more of the optional
programs and activities described in sec. 103(a)(2) of WIOA. The
optional programs and activities that may be included in the Combined
State Plan are:
(1) Career and technical education programs authorized under the
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C.
2301 et seq.);
(2) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF, authorized
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.);
(3) Employment and training programs authorized under sec. 6(d)(4)
of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4));
(4) Work programs authorized under sec. 6(o) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o));
(5) Trade adjustment assistance activities under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.);
(6) Services for veterans authorized under chapter 41 of title 38,
United States Code;
(7) Programs authorized under State unemployment compensation laws
(in accordance with applicable Federal law);
(8) Senior Community Service Employment Programs under title V of
the Older Americans Act of 1956 (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.);
(9) Employment and training activities carried out by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(10) Employment and training activities carried out under the
Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.); and
(11) Reintegration of offenders programs authorized under sec. 212
of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17532).
(e) A Combined State Plan must contain:
(1) For the core programs, the information required by sec. 102(b)
of WIOA and Sec. 361.105, as explained in the joint planning guidance
issued by the Secretaries;
(2) For the optional programs, except as described in paragraph (h)
of this section, the information required by the law authorizing and
governing that program to be submitted to the appropriate Secretary,
any other applicable legal requirements, and any common planning
requirements described in sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as explained in the
joint planning guidance issued by the Secretaries;
(3) A description of joint planning methods across all programs
included in the Combined State Plan; and
(4) An assurance that all of the entities responsible for planning
or administering the programs described in the Combined State Plan have
had a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on all portions of
the Plan.
(f) Each optional program included in the Combined State Plan
remains subject to the applicable program-specific requirements of the
Federal law and regulations, and any other applicable legal or program
requirements, governing the implementation and operation of that
program.
(g) For purposes of Sec. Sec. 361.140 through 361.145 the term
``appropriate Secretary'' means the head of the Federal agency who
exercises either plan or application approval authority for the program
or activity under the Federal law authorizing the program or activity
or, if there are no planning or application requirements, who exercises
administrative authority over the program or activity under that
Federal law.
(h) States that include employment and training activities carried
out under
[[Page 20651]]
the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.)
under a Combined State Plan would submit all other required elements of
a complete CSBG State Plan directly to the Federal agency that
administers the program, according to the requirements of Federal law
and regulations.
Sec. 361.143 What is the submission and approval process of the
Combined State Plan?
(a) For purposes of Sec. 361.140(a), if a State chooses to develop
a Combined State Plan it must submit the Combined State Plan in
accordance with the requirements described below and the joint planning
guidelines, which will further explain the submission and approval
procedures for the Combined State Plan, issued by the Secretaries.
(b) The State must submit to the Secretaries of Labor and Education
and to the Secretary of the agency with responsibility for approving
the program's plan or determining it complete under the law governing
the program, as part of its Combined State Plan, any plan, application,
form, or any other similar document that is required as a condition for
the approval of Federal funding under the applicable program or
activity. Such submission must occur in accordance with a process
identified by the relevant Secretaries in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(c) The Combined State Plan will be approved or disapproved in
accordance with the requirements of sec. 103(c) of WIOA.
(1) The portion of the Combined State Plan covering programs
administered by the Departments of Labor and Education must be
reviewed, and approved or disapproved, by the appropriate Secretary
within 90 days beginning on the day the plan is received by the
appropriate Secretary from the State, except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(2) If an appropriate Secretary other than the Secretary of Labor
or the Secretary of Education has authority to approve or determine
complete a portion of the Combined State Plan for a program or activity
described in Sec. 361.140(d), that portion of the plan must be
reviewed, and approved, disapproved, or have a determination of
completeness, by the appropriate Secretary within 120 days beginning on
the day the plan is received by the appropriate Secretary from the
State except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.
(d) The review and determination of approval or disapproval, or
determination of completeness, of the relevant portion of the Combined
State Plan must occur within 90 days for all Department of Labor and
Education programs included in the State Plan and within 120 days for
the programs administered by other Federal Agencies unless the
appropriate Secretary determines in writing within that period that:
(1) The Plan is inconsistent with the requirements of the six core
programs or the Federal laws authorizing or applicable to the program
or activity involved, including the criteria for approval of a plan or
application, or determining the plan's completeness, if any, under such
law;
(2) The portion of the Plan describing the six core programs or the
program or activity described in paragraph (a) of this section involved
does not satisfy the criteria as provided in sec. 102 or 103 of WIOA,
as applicable; or
(3) The Plan is incomplete, or otherwise insufficient to determine
whether it is consistent with a core program's requirements, other
requirements of WIOA, or the Federal laws authorizing, or applicable
to, the program or activity described in Sec. 361.140(d), including
the criteria for approval of a plan or application, if any, under such
law.
(e) If the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, or the
appropriate Secretary does not make the written determination described
in paragraph (d) of this section within the relevant period of time
after submission of the Plan, that portion of the Combined State Plan
over which the Secretary has jurisdiction will be considered approved.
(f) Special rule. In paragraphs (d)(1) and (3) of this section, the
term ``criteria for approval of a plan or application,'' with respect
to a State or a core program or a program under the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.),
includes a requirement for agreement between the State and the
appropriate Secretaries regarding State performance measures or State
performance accountability measures, as the case may be, including
levels of performance.
Sec. 361.145 What are the requirements for modifications of the
Combined State Plan?
(a) For the core program portions of the Combined State Plan,
modifications are required at the end of the first 2-year period of any
4-year Combined State Plan. The State Board must review the Combined
State Plan, and the Governor must submit a modification of the Combined
State Plan to reflect changes in labor market and economic conditions
or in other factors affecting the implementation of the Combined State
Plan.
(b) In addition to the required modification review described in
paragraph (a) of this section, a State may submit a modification of its
Combined State Plan at any time during the 4-year period of the plan.
(c) For any programs and activities described in Sec. 361.140(d)
that are included in a State's Combined State Plan, the State--
(1) May decide if the modification requirements under WIOA sec.
102(c)(3) that apply to the core programs will apply to the optional
programs or activities described in Sec. 361.140(d) that are included
in the Combined State Plan or may comply with the procedures and
requirements applicable to only the particular optional program or
activity; and
(2) Must submit, in accordance with the procedure described in
Sec. 361.143, any other modification, amendment, or revision required
by the Federal law authorizing, or applicable to, the program or
activity described in Sec. 361.140(d). If the underlying programmatic
requirements change for Federal laws authorizing such programs, a State
must either modify its Combined State Plan or submit a separate plan to
the appropriate Federal agency in accordance with the new Federal law
authorizing the optional program or activity and other legal
requirements applicable to such program or activity. A State also may
amend its Combined State Plan to add an optional program or activity
described in Sec. 361.140(d).
(d) Modifications of the Combined State Plan are subject to the
same public review and comment requirements that apply to the
development of the original Combined State Plan as described in Sec.
361.130(c) except that, if the modification, amendment, or revision
affects the administration of a particular optional program and has no
impact on the Combined State Plan as a whole or the integration and
administration of the core and optional programs at the State level, a
State may comply instead with the procedures and requirements
applicable to the particular optional program.
(e) Modifications for the core program portions of the Combined
State Plan must be approved by the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary
of Education, based on the approval standards applicable to the
original Combined State Plan under Sec. 361.143. This approval must
come after the approval of the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration for modification of any portion of the
[[Page 20652]]
Combined State Plan described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA.
(f) Modifications for the portions of the Combined State Plan for
any optional program or activity described in Sec. 361.140(d) must be
submitted for approval by only the appropriate Secretary, based on the
approval standards applicable to the original Combined State Plan under
Sec. 361.143, if the State elects, or in accordance with the
procedures and requirements applicable to the particular optional
program if the modification, amendment, or revision affects the
administration of only that particular optional program and has no
impact on the Combined State Plan as a whole or the integration and
administration of the core and optional programs at the State level.
0
6. Revise subpart E of part 361 to read as follows:
Subpart E--Performance Accountability Under Title I of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec.
361.150 What definitions apply to Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act performance measurement and reporting requirements?
361.155 What are the primary indicators of performance under the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
361.160 What information is required for State performance reports?
361.165 May a State require additional indicators of performance?
361.170 How are State adjusted levels of performance for primary
indicators established?
361.175 What responsibility do States have to use quarterly wage
record information for performance accountability?
361.180 What State actions are subject to a financial sanction under
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
361.185 When are sanctions applied for failure to report?
361.190 When are sanctions applied for failure to achieve adjusted
levels of performance?
361.195 What should States expect when a sanction is applied to the
Governor's Reserve Allotment?
361.200 What other administrative actions will be applied to States'
performance requirements?
361.205 What performance indicators apply to local areas?
361.210 How are local performance levels established?
361.215 Under what circumstances are local areas eligible for State
Incentive Grants?
361.220 Under what circumstances may a corrective action or sanction
be applied to local areas for poor performance?
361.225 Under what circumstances may local areas appeal a
reorganization plan?
361.230 What information is required for the eligible training
provider performance reports?
361.235 What are the reporting requirements for individual records
for core Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title I, III, and
IV programs?
361.240 What are the requirements for data validation of State
annual performance reports?
Subpart E--Performance Accountability Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec. 361.150 What definitions apply to Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act performance measurement and reporting requirements?
(a) Participant. A reportable individual who has received staff-
assisted services after satisfying all applicable programmatic
requirements for the provision of services, such as eligibility
determination.
(1) For the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program, a Participant
is an individual who has an approved and signed Individualized Plan for
Employment (IPE) and has begun to receive services.
(2) The following individuals are not Participants:
(i) Individuals who have not completed at least 12 contact hours in
the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) program;
(ii) Individuals who only use the self-service system; and
(iii) Individuals who only receive information services or
activities.
(3) Programs must include participants in their performance
calculations.
(b) Reportable individual. An individual who has taken action that
demonstrates an intent to use program services and who meets specific
reporting criteria of the core program, including:
(1) Individuals who provide identifying information;
(2) Individuals who only use the self-service system; and
(3) Individuals who only receive information on services or
activities.
(c) Exit. As defined for the purpose of performance calculations,
exit is the point after which an individual who has received services
through any program meets the following criteria:
(1) For the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs under
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) title I, the AEFLA
program under WIOA title II, and the Employment Services authorized by
the Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by WIOA title III, exit date is the
last date of service:
(i) The exit date cannot be determined until 90 days of no services
has elapsed. At that point the exit date is applied retroactively to
the last date of service.
(A) Ninety days of no service does not include self-service or
information-only activities or follow-up services and
(B) There are no future services planned, excluding follow-up
services.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2)(i) For the VR program as amended by WIOA title IV:
(A) The participant's record of service is closed in accordance
with Sec. 361.56 because the participant has achieved an employment
outcome; or
(B) The participant's service record is closed because the
individual has not achieved an employment outcome or the individual has
been determined ineligible after receiving services in accordance with
Sec. 361.43.
(ii) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a
participant will not be considered as meeting the definition of exit
from the Vocational Rehabilitation program if the individual's service
record is closed because the individual has achieved a supported
employment outcome in an integrated setting but not in competitive
integrated employment.
Sec. 361.155 What are the primary indicators of performance under the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
(a) All States submitting either a Unified or Combined State Plan
under Sec. Sec. 361.130 and 361.143, must propose expected levels of
performance for each of the primary indicators of performance for the
adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs under title I of WIOA, the
AEFLA program under title II of WIOA, the Wagner-Peyser Act as amended
by title III of WIOA, and the VR program as amended by WIOA.
(1) The six primary indicators for performance are:
(i) The percentage of participants, who are in unsubsidized
employment during the second quarter after exit from the program;
(ii) The percentage of participants, who are in unsubsidized
employment during the fourth quarter after exit from the program;
(iii) Median earnings of participants, who are in unsubsidized
employment during the second quarter after exit from the program;
(iv) The percentage of participants who obtained a recognized post-
secondary credential or a secondary school diploma, or its recognized
equivalent during participation in or within 1 year after exit from the
program. A participant who has obtained a secondary school diploma or
its recognized equivalent is only included in this measure if the
[[Page 20653]]
participant is also employed or is enrolled in an education or training
program leading to a recognized post-secondary credential within 1 year
from program exit;
(v) The percentage of participants who during a program year, are
in an education or training program that leads to a recognized post-
secondary credential or employment and who are achieving measurable
skill gains, defined as documented academic, technical, occupational or
other forms of progress, towards such a credential or employment.
(vi) Effectiveness in serving employers, based on indicators
developed as required by sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(iv) of WIOA.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) The indicators in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (vi) of this
section apply to the adult, dislocated worker, AEFLA and VR programs.
(c) The indicators in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (vi)
of this section apply to the Employment Services.
(d) For the youth program under title I of WIOA, the indicators
are:
(1) Percentage of participants who are in education or training
activities, or in unsubsidized employment, during the second quarter
after exit from the program;
(2) Percentage of participants in education or training activities,
or in unsubsidized employment, during the fourth quarter after exit
from the program;
(3) Median earnings of participants who are in unsubsidized
employment during the second quarter after exit from the program;
(4) The percentage of participants who obtained a recognized post-
secondary credential or a secondary school diploma, or its recognized
equivalent, during participation or up to 1 year after exit. A
participant who has obtained a secondary school diploma or its
recognized equivalent is only included in this measure if the
participant is also employed or is enrolled in an education or training
program leading to a recognized post-secondary credential within 1 year
from program exit;
(5) The percentage of participants who during a program year, are
in an education or training program that leads to a recognized post-
secondary credential or employment and who are achieving measurable
skill gains, defined as documented academic, technical, occupational or
other forms of progress towards such a credential or employment;
(6) Effectiveness in serving employers, based on indicators
developed as required by sec. 116(b)(2)(iv) of WIOA.
Sec. 361.160 What information is required for State performance
reports?
(a) Section 116(d)(2) of WIOA requires States to submit a State
performance report. The State performance report must be submitted
annually using a template the Departments will disseminate and must
provide, at a minimum, information on the actual performance levels
achieved consistent with Sec. 361.175 with respect to:
(1) The total number of participants served, and the total number
of participants who exited each of the core programs identified in sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA, including disaggregated counts of those who
participated in and exited a core program, by:
(i) Individuals with barriers to employment as defined in WIOA sec.
3(24); and
(ii) Co-enrollment in any of the programs in WIOA sec
116(b)(3)(A)(ii).
(2) Information on the performance levels achieved for the primary
indicators for all of the core programs identified in Sec. 361.155
including disaggregated levels for:
(i) Individuals with barriers to employment as defined in WIOA sec.
3(24);
(ii) Age;
(iii) Sex; and
(iv) Race and ethnicity.
(3) The total number of participants and exiters who received
career and training services for the most recent program year and the
three preceding program years, as applicable to the program;
(4) Information on the performance levels achieved for the primary
indicators consistent with Sec. 361.155 for career and training
services for the most recent program year and the 3 preceding program
years, as applicable to the program;
(5) The percentage of participants in a program who obtained
unsubsidized employment related to the training received (often
referred to as training-related employment) through WIOA title I-B
programs;
(6) The amount of funds spent on each type of career and training
service for the most recent program year and the 3 preceding program
years, as applicable to the program;
(7) The average cost per participant for those participants who
received career and training services, respectively, during the most
recent program year and the 3 preceding program years for, as
applicable to the program;
(8) The percentage of a State's annual allotment under WIOA sec.
132(b) that the State spent on administrative costs; and
(9) information that facilitates comparisons of programs with
programs in other States.
(10) For WIOA title I programs, a State performance narrative,
which, for States in which a local area is implementing a pay-for-
performance contracting strategy, at a minimum provides:
(i) A description of pay-for-performance contract strategies being
used for programs;
(ii) The performance of service providers entering into contracts
for such strategies, measured against the levels of performance
specified in the contracts for such strategies; and
(iii) An evaluation of the design of the programs and performance
strategies and, when available, the satisfaction of employers and
participants who received services under such strategies.
(b) The disaggregation of data for the State performance report
must be done in compliance with WIOA sec. 116(d)(6)(C).
(c) The State performance reports must include a mechanism of
electronic access to the State's local area and ETP performance
reports.
(d) States must comply with these requirements from sec. 116 of
WIOA as explained in joint guidance issued by the Departments of
Education and Labor, which may include information on reportable
individuals as determined by the Secretaries.
Sec. 361.165 May a State require additional indicators of
performance?
States may identify additional indicators of performance for the
six core programs. These indicators must be included in the Unified or
Combined State Plan.
Sec. 361.170 How are State adjusted levels of performance for primary
indicators established?
(a) A State must submit in the State Plan expected levels of
performance on the primary indicators for each core program as required
by sec. 116(b)(iv) of WIOA as explained in joint guidance issued by the
Secretaries of Education and Labor.
(1) The initial State Plan submitted under WIOA must contain
expected levels of performance for the first 2 years of the State Plan
period.
(2) States must submit expected levels of performance for the third
and fourth year of the State Plan before the third program year
consistent with Sec. Sec. 361.135 and 361.145.
(b) The State must reach agreement on levels of performance with
the
[[Page 20654]]
Secretaries of Education and Labor for each of the core programs based
on the following factors:
(1) How the levels of performance compare with State adjusted
levels of performance established for other States;
(2) The application of an objective statistical model established
by the Secretaries of Education and Labor, subject to paragraph (d) of
this section;
(3) How the levels promote continuous improvement in performance
based on the primary indicators and ensure optimal return on investment
of Federal funds; and
(4) The extent to which the levels assist the State in meeting the
performance goals established by the Secretaries of Education and Labor
for the core programs in accordance with the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, and its amendments.
(c) An objective statistical adjustment model will be developed and
disseminated by the Secretaries. The model will be based on:
(1) Differences among States in actual economic conditions,
including unemployment rates and job losses or gains in particular
industries; and
(2) The characteristics of participants, including:
(i) Indicators of poor work history;
(ii) Lack of work experience;
(iii) Lack of educational or occupational skills attainment;
(iv) Dislocation from high-wage and high-benefit employment;
(v) Low levels of literacy;
(vi) Low levels of English proficiency;
(vii) Disability status;
(viii) Homelessness;
(ix) Ex-offender status; and
(x) Welfare dependency.
(d) The objective statistical adjustment model developed under
paragraph (c) of this section will be:
(1) Applied to the core programs' primary indicators upon
availability of data which is necessary to populate the model and apply
it to the programs;
(2) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, used before the
beginning of a program year in order to establish State performance
targets for the upcoming program year; and
(3) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, used to revise
performance levels at the end of a program year based on actual
circumstances, consistent with sec. 116(b)(3)(vii) of WIOA.
(e) States must comply with these requirements from sec. 116 of
WIOA as explained in joint guidance issued by the Departments of
Education and Labor.
Sec. 361.175 What responsibility do States have to use quarterly wage
record information for performance accountability?
(a) States must, consistent with State laws, use quarterly wage
record information in measuring the progress on State adjusted levels
of performance for the primary indicators outlined in Sec. 361.155 and
local performance indicators identified in Sec. 361.205. The use of
social security numbers from participants and such other information as
is necessary to measure the progress of those participants through
quarterly wage record information is authorized.
(b) ``Quarterly wage record information'' means intrastate and
interstate wages paid to an individual, the social security number (or
numbers, if more than one) of the individual and the name, address,
State, and the Federal employer identification number of the employer
paying the wages to the individual.
(c) The Governor may designate a State agency [or appropriate State
entity] to assist in carrying out the performance reporting
requirements for WIOA core programs and eligible training providers.
The Governor or such agency [or appropriate State entity] is
responsible for:
(1) Facilitating data matches;
(2) Data quality reliability, protection against disaggregation
that would violate privacy.
Sec. 361.180 What State actions are subject to a financial sanction
under Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
The following failures by a State are subject to financial sanction
under WIOA sec. 116(d):
(a) The failure by a State to submit the State annual performance
report required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2); or
(b) The failure by a State to meet adjusted levels of performance
for the primary indicators of performance in accordance with sec.
116(f) of WIOA.
Sec. 361.185 When are sanctions applied for failure to report?
(a) Sanctions will be applied when a State fails to submit the
State annual performance reports required under sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA.
It is a failure to report if the State either:
(1) Does not submit a State annual performance report by the date
for timely submission set in performance reporting guidance; or
(2) Submits a State annual performance report by the date for
timely submission, but the report is incomplete.
(b) Sanctions will not be assessed if the reporting failure is due
to exceptional circumstances outside of the State's control.
Exceptional circumstances may include, but are not limited to:
(1) Natural disasters;
(2) Unexpected personnel transitions; and
(3) Unexpected technology related impacts.
(c) In the event that a State may not be able to submit a complete
and accurate performance report by the deadline for timely reporting:
(1) The State must notify the Secretary of Labor or Secretary of
Education as soon as possible of a potential impact on the ability to
submit their State annual performance reports by no later than 30 days
prior to the established deadline in order to not be considered failing
to report.
(2) In circumstances where unexpected events occur within the 30-
day period before the deadline for submission of the State annual
performance reports, the Secretary of Labor and Secretary of Education
will review requests for extending the reporting deadline in accordance
with the Departments' procedures explained in guidance on reporting
timelines.
Sec. 361.190 When are sanctions applied for failure to achieve
adjusted levels of performance?
(a) States' negotiated levels of performance will be adjusted
through the application of the statistical adjustment model established
under Sec. 361.170 to account for actual conditions experienced during
a program year and characteristics of participants, annually at the
close of each program year.
(b) States that fail to meet adjusted levels of performance for the
primary indicators of performance outlined in Sec. 361.155 for any
year will receive technical assistance, including assistance in the
development of a performance improvement plan provided by the Secretary
of Labor or Secretary of Education.
(c) State failure to meet adjusted levels of performance will be
determined through three criteria:
(1) Overall State program scores, based on the percent achieved by
a program on each of the six primary indicators compared to the
adjusted goal for each primary indicator. The average of the percentage
of the adjusted goal achieved for each primary indicator will
constitute the overall program score for the State;
(2) Overall State indicator scores, based on the percent achieved
by each program on each of the individual primary indicators compared
to the adjusted goal. The average of the
[[Page 20655]]
percentage of the adjusted goal achieved for each of the six core
programs' will constitute an overall indicator score for the State; and
(3) Individual indicator scores, based on the percent achieved by
each program on each of the individual primary indicators compared to
the adjusted goals.
(d) A performance failure occurs when:
(1) Any overall State program score or overall State indicator
score falls below 90 percent for the program year; or
(2) Any of the States' individual indicator scores fall below 50
percent for the program year.
(e) Sanctions based on performance failure will be applied to
States if, for 2 consecutive years, the State fails to meet 90 percent
of the overall State program score, 90 percent of the overall State
indicator score, or 50 percent on any individual indicator score for
the same program or indicator.
Sec. 361.195 What should States expect when a sanction is applied to
the Governor's Reserve Allotment?
(a) The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education will
reduce the Governor's Reserve Allotment by 5 percent of the maximum
available amount for the immediately succeeding program year if:
(1) The State fails to submit the State annual performance reports
as required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2), as defined in Sec. 361.185; or
(2) The State fails to meet State adjusted levels of performance
for the same primary performance indicator(s) under either Sec.
361.190(d)(1) or (2) for the second consecutive year as defined in
Sec. 361.190.
(b) If the State fails under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section in the same program year, the Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Education will reduce the Governor's Reserve Allotment by
10 percent of the maximum available amount for the immediately
succeeding program year.
(c) If a State's Governor's Reserve Allotment is reduced:
(1) The reduced amount will not be returned to the State in the
event that the State later improves performance or submits its annual
performance report; and
(2) The Governor's reserve will continue to be set at the reduced
level in each subsequent year until the Secretary of Labor or the
Secretary of Education, dependent upon the impacted program, determines
that the State met the State adjusted levels of performance for the
applicable primary performance indicators and has submitted all of the
required performance reports.
(d) A State may request review of a sanction the U.S. Department of
Labor imposes in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 683.800 of
this chapter.
Sec. 361.200 What other administrative actions will be applied to
States' performance requirements?
(a) In addition to sanctions for failure to report or failure to
meet adjusted levels of performance, States will be subject to
administrative actions in the case of poor performance.
(b) States' performance achievement on the individual primary
indicators will be assessed in addition to the overall program score
and overall indicator score. Based on this assessment, as clarified and
explained in guidance, for performance on any individual primary
indicator, the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of Education will
require the State to establish a performance risk plan to address
continuous improvement on the individual primary indicator.
Sec. 361.205 What performance indicators apply to local areas?
(a) Each local workforce investment area in a State under title I
of WIOA is subject to the same primary indicators of performance for
the core programs for WIOA title I under Sec. 361.155(a)(1) and (d)
that apply to the State.
(b) In addition to the indicators described in paragraph (a) of
this section, under Sec. 361.165, the Governor may apply additional
indicators of performance to local areas in the State.
(c) States must annually make local area performance reports
available to the public using a template that the Departments will
disseminate in guidance, including by electronic means. The State must
provide electronic access to the public local area performance report
in its annual State performance report.
(d) The local area performance report must provide information on
the actual performance levels for the local area based on quarterly
wage records consistent with the requirements for States under Sec.
361.175.
(e) The local area performance report must include:
(1) Performance levels achieved by the local area for the
indicators for the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs under
title I of WIOA in Sec. 361.155(a)(1) and (3);
(2) Performance levels achieved by the local area for the adult,
dislocated worker, and youth programs under title I of WIOA in Sec.
361.160(a);
(3) The percentage of a local area's allotment under WIOA sec.
128(b) and sec. 133(b) that the local area spent on administrative
costs; and
(4) Other information that facilitates comparisons of programs with
programs in other local areas (or planning regions if the local area is
part of a planning region).
(f) States must comply with any requirements from sec. 116(d)(3) of
WIOA as explained in guidance, including the use of the performance
reporting template, issued by the Department of Labor.
Sec. 361.210 How are local performance levels established?
(a) The objective statistical adjustment model required under sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(viii) of WIOA and described in the Sec. 361.170 must be:
(1) Used to establish local performance targets for the upcoming
program year, and
(2) Used to revise performance levels at the end of a program year
based on actual circumstances, consistent with WIOA sec. 116(c)(3).
(b) The Governor, Local Board, and chief elected official must
reach agreement on local targets and levels based on a negotiations
process before the start of a program year with the use of the
objective statistical model described in paragraph (a) of this section.
The negotiations will include a discussion of circumstances not
accounted for in the model and will take into account the extent to
which the levels promote continuous improvement. The objective
statistical model will be applied at the end of the program year based
on actual conditions experienced.
(c) The negotiations process described in paragraph (b) of this
section must be developed by the Governor and disseminated to all Local
Boards and chief elected officials.
(d) The Local Boards may apply performance measures to service
providers that differ from the performance measures that apply to the
local area. These performance measures should be established after
considering:
(1) The established local performance levels,
(2) The services provided by each provider; and
(3) The populations the service providers are intended to serve.
Sec. 361.215 Under what circumstances are local areas eligible for
State Incentive Grants?
(a) The Governor is not required to award local incentive funds.
The Governor may use non-Federal funds to create incentives for Local
Boards to implement pay-for-performance contract
[[Page 20656]]
strategies for the delivery of training services described in WIOA sec.
134(c)(3) or activities described in WIOA sec. 129(c)(2) in the local
areas served by the Local Boards.
(b) Pay-for-performance contract strategies must be implemented in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 683.500 through 683.530 of this chapter and
Sec. 361.160.
Sec. 361.220 Under what circumstances may a corrective action or
sanction be applied to local areas for poor performance?
(a) If a local area fails to meet the levels of performance agreed
to under Sec. 361.210 for the primary indicators of performance in the
adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs authorized under WIOA
title I in any program year, technical assistance must be provided by
the Governor or, upon the Governor's request, by the Secretary of
Labor.
(1) A State must establish the threshold for failure in meeting
levels of performance for a local area before negotiating the adjusted
levels of performance for the local area.
(2) The technical assistance may include:
(i) Assistance in the development of a performance improvement
plan,
(ii) The development of a modified local or regional plan; or
(iii) Other actions designed to assist the local area in improving
performance.
(b) If a local area fails to meet the levels of performance agreed
to under Sec. 361.210 for the primary indicators of performance for
the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs authorized under WIOA
title I for a third consecutive program year, the Governor must take
corrective actions. The corrective actions must include the development
of a reorganization plan under which the Governor:
(1) Requires the appointment and certification of a new Local
Board, consistent with the criteria established under Sec. 679.350 of
this chapter;
(2) Prohibits the use of eligible providers and one-stop partners
that have been identified as achieving poor levels of performance; or
(3) Takes such other significant actions as the Governor determines
are appropriate.
Sec. 361.225 Under what circumstances may local areas appeal a
reorganization plan?
(a) The Local Board and chief elected official for a local area
that is subject to a reorganization plan under WIOA sec. 116(g)(2)(A)
may appeal to the Governor to rescind or revise the reorganization plan
not later than 30 days after receiving notice of the reorganization
plan. The Governor must make a final decision within 30 days after
receipt of the appeal.
(b) The Local Board and chief elected official may appeal the final
decision of the Governor to the Secretary of Labor not later than 30
days after receiving the decision from the Governor. Any appeal of the
Governor's final decision must be:
(1) Appealed jointly by the Local Board and chief elected official
to the Secretary under Sec. 683.650 of this chapter; and
(2) Must be submitted by certified mail, return receipt requested,
to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington DC 20210, Attention: ASET. A copy of the appeal must be
simultaneously provided to the Governor.
(c) Upon receipt of the joint appeal from the Local Board and chief
elected official, the Secretary must make a final decision within 30
days. In making this determination the Secretary may consider any
comments submitted by the Governor in response to the appeals.
(d) The decision by the Governor to impose a reorganization plan
becomes effective at the time it is issued and remains effective unless
the Secretary of Labor rescinds or revises the reorganization plan
under WIOA sec. 116(g)(2)(B)(ii).
Sec. 361.230 What information is required for the eligible training
provider performance reports?
(a) States are required to make available, and publish, annually
using a template the Departments will disseminate including through
electronic means, the eligible training provider performance reports
for eligible training providers who provide services under sec. 122 of
WIOA that are described in Sec. Sec. 680.400 through 680.530 of this
chapter. These reports at a minimum must include, consistent with Sec.
361.175 and with respect to each program of study that is eligible to
receive funds under WIOA:
(1) The total number of participants who received training services
under the adult and dislocated worker programs authorized under WIOA
title I for the most recent year and the 3 preceding program years,
including:
(i) The number of participants under the adult and dislocated
worker programs disaggregated by barriers to employment;
(ii) The number of participants under the adult and dislocated
worker programs disaggregated by race, ethnicity, sex, and age;
(iii) The number of participants under the adult and dislocated
worker programs disaggregated by the type of training entity for the
most recent program year and the 3 preceding program years;
(2) The total number of participants who exit a program of study or
its equivalent, including disaggregate counts by the type of training
entity during the most recent program year and the 3 preceding program
years;
(3) The average cost-per-participant for participants who received
training services for the most recent program year and the 3 preceding
program years disaggregated by type of training entity;
(4) The total number of individuals exiting from the program of
study (or the equivalent); and
(5) The levels of performance achieved for the primary indicators
of performance identified in Sec. Sec. 361.155(a)(1)(i) through (iv)
with respect to all individuals in a program of study (or the
equivalent).
(b) Registered apprenticeship programs are not required to submit
performance information. See Sec. 680.470 of this chapter. If a
registered apprenticeship program voluntarily submits performance
information to a State, the State must include this information in the
report.
(c) The State must provide electronic access to the public eligible
training provider performance report in its annual State performance
report.
(d) States must comply with any requirements from sec. 116(d)(4) of
WIOA as explained in guidance issued by the Department of Labor.
(e) The Governor may designate one or more State agencies such as a
State education agency or State educational authority to assist in
overseeing eligible training provider performance and facilitating the
production and dissemination of eligible training provider performance
reports. These agencies may be the same agencies that are designated as
responsible for administering the eligible training providers list as
provided under Sec. 680.500 of this chapter. The Governor or such
agencies, or authorities, is responsible for:
(1) Facilitating data matches between ETP records and UI wage data
in order to produce the report;
(2) The creation and dissemination of the reports as described in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section;
(3) Coordinating the dissemination of the performance reports with
the eligible training provider list and the information required to
accompany the list, as provided in Sec. 680.500 of this chapter.
[[Page 20657]]
Sec. 361.235 What are the reporting requirements for individual
records for core Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title I, III,
and IV programs?
(a) On a quarterly basis, each State must submit to the Secretary
of Labor or Secretary of Education, as appropriate, individual records
that include demographic information, information on services received,
and information on resulting outcomes, as appropriate, for each
reportable individual in a core program administered by the Secretary
of Labor or Education. Such records submitted to the Department of
Labor must be submitted in one record that is integrated across all
core Department of Labor programs.
(b) For individual records submitted to the Secretary of Labor,
records must be integrated across all core programs administered by the
Secretary of Labor in one single file.
(c) States must comply with any other requirements from sec.
116(d)(2) of WIOA as explained in guidance issued by the Department of
Labor.
Sec. 361.240 What are the requirements for data validation of State
annual performance reports?
(a) States must establish procedures, consistent with guidelines
issued by the Secretary of Education or Secretary of Labor, to submit
complete annual performance reports that contain information that is
valid and reliable.
(b) If a State fails to meet standards in paragraph (a) of this
section as determined by the Secretary of Labor or Secretary of
Education, the appropriate Secretary will provide technical assistance
and may require the State to develop and implement corrective actions,
which may require the State to provide training for its subrecipients.
(c) The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education will
provide training and technical assistance to States in order to
implement this section.
0
7. Add subpart F to part 361 to read as follows:
Subpart F--Description of the One-Stop System Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec.
361.300 What is the one-stop delivery system?
361.305 What is a comprehensive one-stop center and what must be
provided there?
361.310 What is an affiliated site and what must be provided there?
361.315 Can a stand-alone Wagner-Peyser employment service office be
designated as an affiliated one-stop site?
361.320 Are there any requirements for networks of eligible one-stop
partners or specialized centers?
361.400 Who are the required one-stop partners?
361.405 Is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families a required one-
stop partner?
361.410 What other entities may serve as one-stop partners?
361.415 What entity serves as the one-stop partner for a particular
program in the local area?
361.420 What are the roles and responsibilities of the required one-
stop partners?
361.425 What are the applicable career services that must be
provided through the one-stop delivery system by required one-stop
partners?
361.430 What are career services?
361.435 What are the business services provided through the one-stop
delivery system, and how are they provided?
361.440 When may a fee be charged for the business services in this
subpart?
361.500 What is the Memorandum of Understanding for the one-stop
delivery system and what must be included in the Memorandum of
Understanding?
361.505 Is there a single Memorandum of Understanding for the local
area, or must there be separate Memoranda of Understanding between
the Local Board and each partner?
361.510 How should the Memorandum of Understanding be negotiated?
361.600 Who may operate one-stop centers?
361.605 How is the one-stop operator selected?
361.610 How is sole source selection of one-stop operators
accomplished?
361.615 Can an entity serving as one-stop operator compete to be a
one-stop operator under the procurement requirements of this
subpart?
361.620 What is the one-stop operator's role?
361.625 Can a one-stop operator also be a service provider?
361.630 Can State merit staff still work in a one-stop where the
operator is not a governmental entity?
361.635 What is the effective date of the provisions of this
subpart?
361.700 What are one-stop infrastructure costs?
361.705 What guidance must the Governor issue regarding one-stop
infrastructure funding?
361.710 How are infrastructure costs funded?
361.715 How are one-stop infrastructure costs funded in the local
funding mechanism?
361.720 What funds are used to pay for infrastructure costs in the
local one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
361.725 What happens if consensus on infrastructure funding is not
reached at the local level between the Local Board, chief elected
officials, and one-stop partners?
361.730 What is the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
361.735 How are partner contributions determined in the State one-
stop funding mechanism?
361.740 What funds are used to pay for infrastructure costs in the
State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
361.745 How is the allocation formula used by the Governor
determined in the State one-stop funding mechanism?
361.750 When and how can a one-stop partner appeal a one-stop
infrastructure amount designated by the State under the State
infrastructure funding mechanism?
361.755 What are the required elements regarding infrastructure
funding that must be included in the one-stop Memorandum of
Understanding?
361.760 How do one-stop partners jointly fund other shared costs
under the Memorandum of Understanding?
361.800 How are one-stop centers and one-stop delivery systems
certified for effectiveness, physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous improvement?
361.900 What is the common identifier to be used by each one-stop
delivery system?
Subpart F--Description of the One-Stop System Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec. 361.300 What is the one-stop delivery system?
(a) The one-stop delivery system brings together workforce
development, educational, and other human resource services in a
seamless customer-focused service delivery network that enhances access
to the programs' services and improves long-term employment outcomes
for individuals receiving assistance. One-stop partners administer
separately funded programs as a set of integrated streamlined services
to customers.
(b) Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
assigns responsibilities at the local, State, and Federal level to
ensure the creation and maintenance of a one-stop delivery system that
enhances the range and quality of education and workforce development
services that business and individual customers can access.
(c) The system must include at least one comprehensive physical
center in each local area as described in Sec. 361.305.
(d) The system may also have additional arrangements to supplement
the comprehensive center. These arrangements include:
(1) An affiliated site or a network of affiliated sites, where one
or more partners make programs, services, and activities available, as
described in Sec. 361.310;
(2) A network of eligible one-stop partners, as described in
Sec. Sec. 361.400 through 361.410, through which each partner provides
one or more of the programs, services, and activities that are linked,
physically or
[[Page 20658]]
technologically, to an affiliated site or access point that assures
customers are provided information on the availability of career
services, as well as other program services and activities, regardless
of where they initially enter the workforce system in the local area;
and
(3) Specialized centers that address specific needs, including
those of dislocated workers, youth, or key industry sectors, or
clusters.
(e) Required one-stop partner programs must provide access to
programs, services, and activities through electronic means if
applicable and practicable. This is in addition to providing access to
services through the mandatory comprehensive physical one-stop center
and any affiliated sites or specialized centers. The provision of
programs and services by electronic methods such as Web sites,
telephones, or other means must improve the efficiency, coordination,
and quality of one-stop partner services. Electronic delivery must not
replace access to such services at a comprehensive one-stop center or
be a substitute to making services available at an affiliated site if
the partner is participating in an affiliated site. Electronic delivery
systems must be in compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal
opportunity provisions of WIOA in sec. 188 and its implementing
regulations at 29 CFR part 37.
(f) The design of the local area's one-stop delivery system must be
described in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed with the
one-stop partners, described in Sec. 361.500.
Sec. 361.305 What is a comprehensive one-stop center and what must be
provided there?
(a) A comprehensive one-stop center is a physical location where
jobseeker and employer customers can access the programs, services, and
activities of all required one-stop partners. A comprehensive one-stop
center must have at least one title I staff person physically present.
(b) The comprehensive one-stop center must provide:
(1) Career services, described in Sec. 361.430;
(2) Access to training services described in of this chapter;
(3) Access to any employment and training activities carried out
under sec. 134(d) of WIOA;
(4) Access to programs and activities carried out by one-stop
partners listed in Sec. Sec. 361.400 through 361.410, including
Wagner-Peyser employment services; and
(5) Workforce and labor market information.
(c) Customers must have access to these programs, services, and
activities during regular business days at a comprehensive one-stop
center. The Local Board may establish other service hours at other
times to accommodate the schedules of individuals who work on regular
business days. The State Board will evaluate the hours of access to
service as part of the evaluation of effectiveness in the one-stop
certification process described in Sec. 361.800(b).
(d) ``Access'' to programs and services means having either:
Program staff physically present at the location; having partner
program staff physically present at the one-stop appropriately trained
to provide information to customers about the programs, services, and
activities available through partner programs; or providing direct
linkage through technology to program staff who can provide meaningful
information or services.
(1) A ``direct linkage'' means providing direct connection at the
one-stop, within a reasonable time, by phone or through a real-time
Web-based communication to a program staff member who can provide
program information or services to the customer.
(2) A ``direct linkage'' does not include providing a phone number
or computer Web site that can be used at an individual's home;
providing information, pamphlets, or materials; or making arrangements
for the customer to receive services at a later time or on a different
day.
(e) All comprehensive one-stop centers must be physically and
programmatically accessible to individuals with disabilities, as
described in Sec. 361.800.
Sec. 361.310 What is an affiliated site and what must be provided
there?
(a) An affiliated site, or affiliate one-stop center, is a site
that makes available to jobseeker and employer customers one or more of
the one-stop partners' programs, services, and activities. An
affiliated site does not need to provide access to every required one-
stop partner program. The frequency of program staff's physical
presence in the affiliated site will be determined at the local level.
Affiliated sites are access points in addition to the Comprehensive
one-stop center(s) in each local area. If used by local areas as a part
of the service delivery strategy, affiliate sites should be implemented
in a manner that supplements and enhances customer access to services.
(b) As described in Sec. 361.315, Wagner-Peyser employment
services cannot be a stand-alone affiliated site.
(c) States, in conjunction with the Local Workforce Development
Boards, must examine lease agreements and property holdings throughout
the one-stop delivery system in order to use property in an efficient
and effective way. Where necessary and appropriate, States and Local
Boards must take expeditious steps to align lease expiration dates with
efforts to consolidate one-stop operations into service points where
Wagner-Peyser employment services are collocated as soon as reasonably
possible. These steps must be included in the State Plan.
(d) All affiliated sites must be physically and programmatically
accessible to individuals with disabilities, as described in Sec.
361.800.
Sec. 361.315 Can a stand-alone Wagner-Peyser employment service
office be designated as an affiliated one-stop site?
(a) Separate stand-alone Wagner-Peyser employment services offices
are not permitted under WIOA, as also described in.
(b) If Wagner-Peyser employment services are provided at an
affiliated site, there must be at least one other partner in the
affiliated site with staff physically present more than 50 percent of
the time the center is open. Additionally, the other partner must not
be the partner administering local veterans' employment
representatives, disabled veterans' outreach program specialists, or
unemployment compensation programs. If Wagner-Peyser employment
services and any of these three programs are provided at an affiliated
site, an additional partner must have staff present in the center more
than 50 percent of the time the center is open.
Sec. 361.320 Are there any requirements for networks of eligible one-
stop partners or specialized centers?
Any network of one-stop partners or specialized centers must be
connected to, such as having processes in place to make referrals to,
the comprehensive and any appropriate affiliate one-stop centers.
Wagner-Peyser employment services cannot stand alone in a specialized
center. Just as described in Sec. 361.315 for an affiliated site, a
specialized center must include other programs besides Wagner-Peyser
employment services, local veterans' employment representatives,
disabled veterans' outreach program specialists, and unemployment
compensation.
[[Page 20659]]
Sec. 361.400 Who are the required one-stop partners?
(a) Section 121(b)(1)(B) of WIOA identifies the entities that are
required partners in the local one-stop systems.
(b) The required partners are the entities responsible for
administering the following programs and activities in the local area:
(1) Programs authorized under title I of WIOA, including:
(i) Adults;
(ii) Dislocated workers;
(iii) Youth;
(iv) Job Corps;
(v) YouthBuild;
(vi) Native American programs; and
(vii) Migrant and seasonal farmworker programs;
(2) Employment services authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29
U.S.C. 49 et seq.);
(3) Adult education and literacy activities authorized under title
II of WIOA;
(4) The Vocational Rehabilitation program authorized under title I
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 720 et seq.);
(5) The Senior Community Service Employment Program authorized
under title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056 et
seq.);
(6) Career and technical education programs at the post-secondary
level authorized under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.);
(7) Trade Adjustment Assistance activities authorized under chapter
2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.);
(8) Jobs for Veterans State Grants programs authorized under
chapter 41 of title 38, U.S.C.;
(9) Employment and training activities carried out under the
Community Services Block Grant (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.);
(10) Employment and training activities carried out by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(11) Programs authorized under State unemployment compensation laws
(in accordance with applicable Federal law);
(12) Programs authorized under sec. 212 of the Second Chance Act of
2007 (42 U.S.C. 17532); and
(13) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) authorized
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), unless exempted by the Governor under Sec. 361.405(b).
Sec. 361.405 Is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families a required
one-stop partner?
(a) Yes, TANF, authorized under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), is a required partner. (WIOA sec.
121(b)(1)(B)(xiii)).
(b) The Governor may determine that TANF will not be a required
partner in the State, or within some specific local areas in the State.
In this instance, the Governor must notify the Secretaries of the U.S.
Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services in writing of this
determination.
(c) In States, or local areas within a State, where the Governor
has determined that TANF is not required to be a partner, local TANF
programs may still opt to be a one-stop partner, or to work in
collaboration with the one-stop center.
Sec. 361.410 What other entities may serve as one-stop partners?
(a) Other entities that carry out a workforce development program,
including Federal, State, or local programs and programs in the private
sector, may serve as additional partners in the one-stop system if the
Local Board and chief elected official(s) approve the entity's
participation.
(b) Additional partners may include:
(1) Employment and training programs administered by the Social
Security Administration, including the Ticket to Work and Self-
Sufficiency Program established under sec. 1148 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-19);
(2) Employment and training programs carried out by the Small
Business Administration;
(3) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) employment and
training programs, authorized under secs. 6(d)(4) and 6(o) of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4));
(4) Client Assistance Program authorized under sec. 112 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 732);
(5) Programs authorized under the National and Community Service
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.); and
(6) Other appropriate Federal, State or local programs, including
employment, education, and training programs provided by public
libraries or in the private sector.
Sec. 361.415 What entity serves as the one-stop partner for a
particular program in the local area?
(a) The entity that carries out the program and activities listed
in Sec. 361.400 or Sec. 361.405, and therefore serves as the one-stop
partner, is the grant recipient, administrative entity, or organization
responsible for administering the funds of the specified program in the
local area. The term ``entity'' does not include the service providers
that contract with, or are subrecipients of, the local administrative
entity. For programs that do not include local administrative entities,
the responsible State agency should be the partner. Specific entities
for particular programs are identified in paragraph (b) of this
section. If a program or activity listed in Sec. 361.400 is not
carried out in a local area, the requirements relating to a required
one-stop partner are not applicable to such program or activity in that
local one-stop system.
(b) For title II of WIOA, the entity that carries out the program
for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section is the sole entity or
agency in the State or outlying area responsible for administering or
supervising policy for adult education and literacy activities in the
State or outlying area. The State eligible entity may delegate its
responsibilities under paragraph (a) of this section to one or more
eligible providers or consortium of eligible providers.
(c) For the Vocational Rehabilitation program, authorized under
title I of the Rehabilitation Act, the entity that carries out the
program for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section is the
designated State agencies or designated State units specified under
sec. 101(a)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act that is primarily concerned
with vocational rehabilitation, or vocational and other rehabilitation,
of individuals with disabilities.
(d) Under WIOA, the national programs, including Job Corps, the
Native American program, YouthBuild, and Migrant and Seasonal
Farmworker programs are required one-stop partners. The entity for the
Native American program and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker programs is
the grantee of those respective programs. The entity for Job Corps is
the Job Corps center.
(e) For the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of
2006, the entity that carries out the program for the purposes of
paragraph (a) of this section is the State eligible agency. The State
eligible agency may delegate its responsibilities under paragraph (a)
of this section to one or more State agencies, eligible recipients at
the post-secondary level, or consortia of eligible recipients at the
post-secondary level.
Sec. 361.420 What are the roles and responsibilities of the required
one-stop partners?
Each required partner must:
(a) Provide access to its programs or activities through the one-
stop delivery system, in addition to any other
[[Page 20660]]
appropriate locations; (WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(A)(i).)
(b) Use a portion of funds made available to the partner's program,
to the extent consistent with the Federal law authorizing the partner's
program and with Federal cost principles in 2 CFR parts 200 and 3474
(requiring, among other things, that costs are allowable, reasonable,
necessary, and allocable), to:
(1) Provide applicable career services; and
(2) Work collaboratively with the State and Local Boards to
establish and maintain the one-stop delivery system. This includes
jointly funding the one-stop infrastructure through partner
contributions that are based upon:
(i) A reasonable cost allocation methodology by which
infrastructure costs are charged to each partner in proportion to the
relative benefits;
(ii) Federal cost principles; and
(iii) Any local administrative cost requirements in the Federal law
authorizing the partner's program. (This is further described in Sec.
361.700). (WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(A)(ii).)
(c) Enter into an MOU with the Local Board relating to the
operation of the one-stop system that meets the requirements of Sec.
361.500(d);
(d) Participate in the operation of the one-stop system consistent
with the terms of the MOU, requirements of authorizing laws, the
Federal cost principles, and all other applicable legal requirements;
(WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(A)(iv)) and
(e) Provide representation on the State and Local Workforce
Development Boards as required and participate in Board committees as
needed. (WIOA secs. 101(b)(iii) and 107(b)(2)(C) and (D))
Sec. 361.425 What are the applicable career services that must be
provided through the one-stop delivery system by required one-stop
partners?
(a) The applicable career services to be delivered by required one-
stop partners are those services listed in Sec. 361.430 that are
authorized to be provided under each partner's program.
(b) One-stop centers provide services to individual customers based
on individual needs, including the seamless delivery of multiple
services to individual customers. There is no required sequence of
services. (WIOA sec. 121(e)(1)(A).)
Sec. 361.430 What are career services?
Career services, as identified in sec. 134(c)(2) of WIOA, consist
of three types:
(a) Basic career services must be made available and, at a minimum,
must include the following services, as consistent with allowable
program activities and Federal cost principles:
(1) Determinations of whether the individual is eligible to receive
assistance from the adult, dislocated worker, or youth programs;
(2) Outreach, intake (including worker profiling), and orientation
to information and other services available through the one-stop
delivery system;
(3) Initial assessment of skill levels including literacy,
numeracy, and English language proficiency, as well as aptitudes,
abilities (including skills gaps), and supportive services needs;
(4) Labor exchange services, including--
(i) Job search and placement assistance, and, when needed by an
individual, career counseling, including--
(A) Provision of information on in-demand industry sectors and
occupations (as defined in sec. 3(23) of WIOA); and,
(B) Provision of information on nontraditional employment; and
(ii) Appropriate recruitment and other business services on behalf
of employers, including information and referrals to specialized
business services other than those traditionally offered through the
one-stop delivery system;
(5) Provision of referrals to and coordination of activities with
other programs and services, including programs and services within the
one-stop delivery system and, when appropriate, other workforce
development programs;
(6) Provision of workforce and labor market employment statistics
information, including the provision of accurate information relating
to local, regional, and national labor market areas, including--
(i) Job vacancy listings in labor market areas;
(ii) Information on job skills necessary to obtain the vacant jobs
listed; and
(iii) Information relating to local occupations in demand and the
earnings, skill requirements, and opportunities for advancement for
those jobs;
(7) Provision of performance information and program cost
information on eligible providers of training services by program and
type of providers;
(8) Provision of information, in usable and understandable formats
and languages, about how the local area is performing on local
performance accountability measures, as well as any additional
performance information relating to the area's one-stop delivery
system;
(9) Provision of information, in usable and understandable formats
and languages, relating to the availability of supportive services or
assistance, and appropriate referrals to those services and assistance,
including: Child care; child support; medical or child health
assistance available through the State's Medicaid program and
Children's Health Insurance Program; benefits under SNAP; assistance
through the earned income tax credit; and assistance under a State
program for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and other
supportive services and transportation provided through that program;
(10) Provision of information and assistance regarding filing
claims for unemployment compensation, by which the one-stop must
provide meaningful assistance to individuals seeking assistance in
filing a claim for unemployment compensation.
(i) ``Meaningful assistance'' means:
(A) Providing assistance on-site using staff who are well-trained
in unemployment compensation claims filing and the rights and
responsibilities of claimants, or
(B) Providing assistance by phone or via other technology, as long
as the assistance is provided by trained and available staff and within
a reasonable time.
(ii) The costs associated in providing this assistance may be paid
for by the State's unemployment insurance program, or the WIOA adult or
dislocated worker programs, or some combination thereof.
(11) Assistance in establishing eligibility for programs of
financial aid assistance for training and education programs not
provided under WIOA.
(b) Individualized career services must be made available if
determined to be appropriate in order for an individual to obtain or
retain employment. These services include the following services, as
consistent with program requirements and Federal cost principles:
(1) Comprehensive and specialized assessments of the skill levels
and service needs of adults and dislocated workers, which may include--
(i) Diagnostic testing and use of other assessment tools; and
(ii) In-depth interviewing and evaluation to identify employment
barriers and appropriate employment goals;
(2) Development of an individual employment plan, to identify the
employment goals, appropriate achievement objectives, and appropriate
combination of services for the participant to achieve his or her
[[Page 20661]]
employment goals, including the list of, and information about, the
eligible training providers (as described in);
(3) Group counseling;
(4) Individual counseling;
(5) Career planning;
(6) Short-term pre-vocational services including development of
learning skills, communication skills, interviewing skills,
punctuality, personal maintenance skills, and professional conduct
services to prepare individuals for unsubsidized employment or
training;
(7) Internships and work experiences that are linked to careers (as
described in);
(8) Workforce preparation activities;
(9) Financial literacy services as described in sec. 129(b)(2)(D)
of WIOA and Sec. 681.500 of this chapter;
(10) Out-of-area job search assistance and relocation assistance;
and
(11) English language acquisition and integrated education and
training programs.
(c) Follow-up services must be provided, as appropriate, including:
Counseling regarding the workplace, for participants in adult or
dislocated worker workforce investment activities who are placed in
unsubsidized employment, for up to 12 months after the first day of
employment.
Sec. 361.435 What are the business services provided through the one-
stop delivery system, and how are they provided?
(a) Certain career services must be made available to local
businesses, specifically labor exchange activities and labor market
information described in Sec. 361.430(a)(4)(ii) and (a)(6). Local
areas must establish and develop relationships and networks with large
and small employers and their intermediaries. (WIOA sec.
134(c)(1)(A)(iv)). Local areas also must develop, convene, or implement
industry or sector partnerships. (WIOA sec. 134(c)(1)(A)(v)).
(b) Customized business services may be provided to employers,
employer associations, or other such organizations (WIOA sec.
134(d)(1)(A)(ii)). These services are tailored for specific employers
and may include:
(1) Customized screening and referral of qualified participants in
training services to employers;
(2) Customized services to employers, employer associations, or
other such organizations, on employment-related issues;
(3) Customized recruitment events and related services for
employers including targeted job fairs;
(4) Human resource consultation services, including but not limited
to assistance with:
(i) Writing/reviewing job descriptions and employee handbooks;
(ii) Developing performance evaluation and personnel policies;
(iii) Creating orientation sessions for new workers;
(iv) Honing job interview techniques for efficiency and compliance;
(v) Analyzing employee turnover; or
(vi) Explaining labor laws to help employers comply with wage/hour
and safety/health regulations;
(5) Customized labor market information for specific employers,
sectors, industries or clusters; and
(6) Other similar customized services.
(c) Local areas may also provide other business services and
strategies that meet the workforce investment needs of area employers,
in accordance with partner programs' statutory requirements and
consistent with Federal cost principles. These business services may be
provided through effective business intermediaries working in
conjunction with the Local Board, or through the use of economic
development, philanthropic, and other public and private resources in a
manner determined appropriate by the Local Board and in cooperation
with the State. Allowable activities, consistent with each partner's
authorized activities, include, but are not limited to:
(1) Developing and implementing industry sector strategies
(including strategies involving industry partnerships, regional skills
alliances, industry skill panels, and sectoral skills partnerships);
(2) Customized assistance or referral for assistance in the
development of a registered apprenticeship program;
(3) Developing and delivering innovative workforce investment
services and strategies for area employers, which may include career
pathways, skills upgrading, skill standard development and
certification for recognized post-secondary credential or other
employer use, and other effective initiatives for meeting the workforce
investment needs of area employers and workers;
(4) Assistance to area employers in managing reductions in force in
coordination with rapid response activities and with strategies for the
aversion of layoffs, which may include strategies such as early
identification of firms at risk of layoffs, use of feasibility studies
to assess the needs of and options for at-risk firms, and the delivery
of employment and training activities to address risk factors;
(5) The marketing of business services to appropriate area
employers, including small and mid-sized employers; and
(6) Assisting employers with accessing local, State, and Federal
tax credits.
(d) All business services and strategies must be reflected in the
local plan, described in Sec. 679.560(b)(3) of this chapter.
Sec. 361.440 When may a fee be charged for the business services in
this subpart?
(a) There is no requirement that a fee-for-service be charged to
employers.
(b) No fee may be charged for services provided in Sec.
361.435(a).
(c) A fee may be charged for services provided under Sec.
361.435(b) and (c). Services provided under Sec. 361.435(c) may be
provided through effective business intermediaries working in
conjunction with the Local Board and may also be provided on a fee-for-
service basis or through the leveraging of economic development,
philanthropic, and other public and private resources in a manner
determined appropriate by the Local Board. The Local Workforce
Development Board may examine the services provided compared with the
assets and resources available within the local one-stop delivery
system and through its partners to determine an appropriate cost
structure for services, if any.
Sec. 361.500 What is the Memorandum of Understanding for the one-stop
delivery system and what must be included in the Memorandum of
Understanding?
(a) The MOU is the product of local discussion and negotiation, and
is an agreement developed and executed between the Local Board, with
the agreement of the chief elected official and the one-stop partners,
relating to the operation of the one-stop delivery system in the local
area. Two or more local areas in a region may develop a single joint
MOU, if they are in a region that has submitted a regional plan under
sec. 106 of WIOA.
(b) The MOU must include:
(1) A description of services to be provided through the one-stop
delivery system, including the manner in which the services will be
coordinated and delivered through the system;
(2) A final plan, or an interim plan if needed, on how the costs of
the services and the operating costs of the system will be funded,
including:
(i) Funding of infrastructure costs of one-stop centers in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 361.700 through 361.755; and
(ii) Funding of the shared services and operating costs of the one-
stop delivery system described in Sec. 361.760;
[[Page 20662]]
(3) Methods for referring individuals between the one-stop
operators and partners for appropriate services and activities;
(4) Methods to ensure that the needs of workers, youth, and
individuals with barriers to employment, including individuals with
disabilities, are addressed in providing access to services, including
access to technology and materials that are available through the one-
stop delivery system;
(5) The duration of the MOU and procedures for amending it; and
(6) Assurances that each MOU will be reviewed, and if substantial
changes have occurred, renewed, not less than once every 3-year period
to ensure appropriate funding and delivery of services.
(c) The MOU may contain any other provisions agreed to by the
parties that are consistent with WIOA title I, the authorizing statutes
and regulations of one-stop partner programs, and the WIOA regulations.
(WIOA sec. 121(c).)
(d) When fully executed, the MOU must contain the signatures of the
Local Board, one-stop partners, the chief elected official(s), and the
time period in which the agreement is effective. The MOU must be
updated not less than every 3 years to reflect any changes in the
signatory official of the Board, one-stop partners, and chief elected
officials, or one-stop infrastructure funding.
(e) If a one-stop partner appeal to the State regarding
infrastructure costs, using the process described in Sec. 361.750,
results in a change to the one-stop partner's infrastructure cost
contributions, the MOU must be updated to reflect the final one-stop
partner infrastructure cost contributions.
Sec. 361.505 Is there a single Memorandum of Understanding for the
local area, or must there be separate Memoranda of Understanding
between the Local Board and each partner?
(a) A single ``umbrella'' MOU may be developed that addresses the
issues relating to the local one-stop delivery system for the Local
Board, chief elected official and all partners. Alternatively, the
Local Board (with agreement of chief elected official) may enter into
separate agreements between each partner or groups of partners.
(b) Under either approach, the requirements described in Sec.
361.500 apply. Since funds are generally appropriated annually, the
Local Board may negotiate financial agreements with each partner
annually to update funding of services and operating costs of the
system under the MOU.
Sec. 361.510 How should the Memorandum of Understanding be
negotiated?
(a) WIOA emphasizes full and effective partnerships between Local
Boards, chief elected officials, and one-stop partners. Local Boards
and partners must enter into good-faith negotiations. Local Boards,
chief elected officials, and one-stop partners may also request
assistance from a State agency responsible for administering the
partner program, the Governor, State Board, or other appropriate
parties on other aspects of the MOU.
(b) Local Boards and one-stop partners must establish, in the MOU,
a final plan for how the Local Board and programs will fund the
infrastructure costs of the one-stop centers. If a final plan regarding
infrastructure costs is not complete when other sections of the MOU are
ready, an interim infrastructure cost plan may be included instead, as
described in Sec. 361.715(c). Once the final infrastructure cost plan
is approved, the Local Board and one-stop partners must amend the MOU
to include the final plan for funding infrastructure costs of the one-
stop centers, including a description of the funding mechanism
established by the Governor relevant to the local area. Infrastructure
cost funding is described in detail in subpart E of this part. (WIOA
sec. 121(h)(2).)
(c) The Local Board must report to the State Board, Governor, and
relevant State agency when MOU negotiations with one-stop partners have
reached an impasse.
(1) The Local Board and partners must document the negotiations and
efforts that have taken place in the MOU. The State Board, one-stop
partner programs, and the Governor may consult with the appropriate
Federal agencies to address impasse situations related to issues other
than infrastructure funding after attempting to address the impasse.
Impasses related to infrastructure cost funding must be resolved using
the State infrastructure cost funding mechanism described in Sec.
361.730.
(2) The Local Board must report failure to execute an MOU with a
required partner to the Governor, State Board, and the State agency
responsible for administering the partner's program. Additionally, if
the State cannot assist the Local Board in resolving the impasse, the
Governor or the State Board must report the failure to the Secretary of
Labor and to the head of any other Federal agency with responsibility
for oversight of a partner's program.
Sec. 361.600 Who may operate one-stop centers?
(a) One-stop operators may be a single entity (public, private, or
nonprofit) or a consortium of entities. If the consortium of entities
is one of one-stop partners, it must include a minimum of three of the
one-stop partners described in Sec. 361.400.
(b) The one-stop operator may operate one or more one-stop centers.
There may be more than one one-stop operator in a local area.
(c) The types of entities that may be a one-stop operator include:
(1) An institution of higher education;
(2) An Employment Service State agency established under the
Wagner-Peyser Act;
(3) A community-based organization, nonprofit organization, or
workforce intermediary;
(4) A private for-profit entity;
(5) A government agency;
(6) A Local Board, with the approval of the chief local elected
official and the Governor; or
(7) Another interested organization or entity, which is capable of
carrying out the duties of the one-stop operator. Examples may include
a local chamber of commerce or other business organization, or a labor
organization.
(d) Elementary schools and secondary schools are not eligible as
one-stop operators, except that a nontraditional public secondary
school such as a night school, adult school, or an area career and
technical education school may be selected.
(e) The State and Local Boards must ensure that, in carrying out
WIOA programs and activities, one-stop operators:
(1) Disclose any potential conflicts of interest arising from the
relationships of the operators with particular training service
providers or other service providers (further discussed in);
(2) Do not establish practices that create disincentives to
providing services to individuals with barriers to employment who may
require longer-term career and training services; and
(3) Comply with Federal regulations and procurement policies
relating to the calculation and use of profits, including those at, the
Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR chapter II, and other applicable regulations
and policies.
Sec. 361.605 How is the one-stop operator selected?
(a) Consistent with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the
Local Board must select the one-stop operator through a competitive
process, as required by sec. 121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA, at least once every
4 years. A State may require, or
[[Page 20663]]
a Local Board may choose to implement, a competitive selection process
more than once every 4 years.
(b) In instances in which a State is conducting the competitive
process described in paragraph (a) of this section, the State must
follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurement with
non-Federal funds.
(c) All other non-Federal entities, including subrecipients of a
State (such as local areas), must use a competitive process based on
the principles of competitive procurement in the Uniform Administrative
Guidance set out at 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326.
(d) Entities described in paragraph (c) of this section must first
determine the nature of the process to be used to comply with sec.
121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA. The acceptable processes are:
(1) Procurement by sealed bids;
(2) Procurement by competitive proposals; or
(3) Procurement by sole source, permitted only if:
(i) Analysis of market conditions and other factors lead to a
determination that it is necessary to use sole-source procurement
because:
(A) There is only one entity that could serve as an operator; or
(B) Unusual and compelling urgency will not permit a delay
resulting from competitive solicitation; or
(ii) Results of the competition conducted under paragraphs (d)(1)
or (2) of this section were determined to be inadequate.
(e) Entities must prepare written documentation explaining the
determination concerning the nature of the competitive process to be
followed in selecting a one-stop operator.
Sec. 361.610 How is sole source selection of one-stop operators
accomplished?
(a) As set forth in Sec. 361.605(d)(3), under certain conditions,
sole source procurement is an allowable method of procurement.
(b) In the event that sole source procurement is determined
necessary and reasonable, in accordance with Sec. 361.605(d)(3) of
this section, written documentation must be prepared and maintained
concerning the entire process of making such a selection.
(c) Such sole source procurement must include appropriate conflict
of interest policies and procedures. These policies and procedures must
conform to the specifications in for demonstrating internal controls
and preventing conflict of interest.
(d) A Local Board can be selected as a one-stop operator through
sole source procurement only with agreement of the chief elected
official in the local area and the Governor. The Local Board must
establish sufficient conflict of interest policies and procedures and
they must be approved by the Governor.
Sec. 361.615 Can an entity serving as one-stop operator compete to be
a one-stop operator under the procurement requirements of this subpart?
(a) Local Boards can compete for and be selected as one-stop
operators, as long as appropriate firewalls and conflict of interest
policies and procedures are in place. These policies and procedures
must conform to the specifications in for demonstrating internal
controls and preventing conflict of interest.
(b) State and local agencies can compete for and be selected as
one-stop operators by the Local Board, as long as appropriate firewalls
and conflict of interest policies and procedures are in place. These
policies and procedures must conform to the specifications in for
demonstrating internal controls and preventing conflict of interest.
(c) In the case of single State areas where the State Board serves
as the Local Board, the State agency is eligible to compete for and be
selected as operator as long as appropriate firewalls and conflict of
interest policies are in place and followed for the competition. These
policies and procedures must conform to the specifications in for
demonstrating internal controls and preventing conflict of interest.
Sec. 361.620 What is the one-stop operator's role?
(a) At a minimum, the one-stop operator must coordinate the service
delivery of required one-stop partners and service providers. Local
Boards may establish additional roles of one-stop operator, including,
but not limited to: Coordinating service providers within the center
and across the one-stop system, being the primary provider of services
within the center, providing some of the services within the center, or
coordinating service delivery in a multi-center area. The competition
for a one-stop operator must clearly articulate the role of the one-
stop operator.
(b) A one-stop operator may not perform the following functions:
Convene system stakeholders to assist in the development of the local
plan; prepare and submit local plans (as required under sec. 107 of
WIOA); be responsible for oversight of itself; manage or significantly
participate in the competitive selection process for one-stop
operators; select or terminate one-stop operators, career services, and
youth providers; negotiate local performance accountability measures;
and develop and submit budget for activities of the Local Board in the
local area. An entity serving as a one-stop operator may perform some
or all of these functions if it also serves in another capacity, if it
has established sufficient firewalls and conflict of interest policies.
The policies must conform to the specifications in for demonstrating
internal controls and preventing conflict of interest.
Sec. 361.625 Can a one-stop operator also be a service provider?
Yes, but there must be appropriate firewalls in place in regards to
the competition, and subsequent oversight, monitoring, and evaluation
of performance of the service provider. The operator cannot develop,
manage or conduct the competition of a service provider in which it
intends to compete. In cases where an operator is also a service
provider, there must be firewalls and internal controls within the
operator-service provider entity, as well as specific policies and
procedures at the Local Board level regarding oversight, monitoring,
and evaluation of performance of the service provider. The firewalls
must conform to the specifications in for demonstrating internal
controls and preventing conflict of interest.
Sec. 361.630 Can State merit staff still work in a one-stop where the
operator is not a governmental entity?
Yes. State merit staff can continue to perform functions and
activities in the one-stop career center. The Local Board and one-stop
operator must establish a system for management of merit staff in
accordance with State policies and procedures. Continued use of State
merit staff may be included in the competition for and final contract
with the one-stop operator.
Sec. 361.635 What is the effective date of the provisions of this
subpart?
(a) No later than June 30, 2017, one-stop operators selected under
the competitive process described in this subpart must be in place and
operating the one-stop.
(b) By June 30, 2016, every Local Board must demonstrate it is
taking steps to prepare for competition of its one-stop operator. This
demonstration may include, but is not limited to, market research,
requests for information, and conducting a cost and price analysis.
Sec. 361.700 What are one-stop infrastructure costs?
(a) Infrastructure costs of one-stop centers are nonpersonnel costs
that are
[[Page 20664]]
necessary for the general operation of the one-stop center, including:
(1) Rental of the facilities;
(2) Utilities and maintenance;
(3) Equipment (including assessment-related products and assistive
technology for individuals with disabilities); and
(4) Technology to facilitate access to the one-stop center,
including technology used for the center's planning and outreach
activities.
(b) Local Boards may consider common identifier costs as costs of
one-stop infrastructure.
(c) Each entity that carries out a program or activities in a local
one-stop center, described in Sec. Sec. 361.400 through 361.410, must
use a portion of the funds available for the program and activities to
maintain the one-stop delivery system, including payment of the
infrastructure costs of one-stop centers. These payments must be in
accordance with this subpart; Federal cost principles, which require
that all costs must be allowable, reasonable, necessary, and allocable
to the program; and all other applicable legal requirements.
Sec. 361.705 What guidance must the Governor issue regarding one-stop
infrastructure funding?
(a) The Governor, after consultation with chief elected officials,
the State Board, and Local Boards, and consistent with guidance and
policies provided by the State Board, must develop and issue guidance
for use by local areas, specifically:
(1) Guidelines for State-administered one-stop partner programs for
determining such programs' contributions to a one-stop delivery system,
based on such programs' proportionate use of such system consistent
with Office of Management and Budget Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards in 2 CFR part 200, including determining funding for the costs
of infrastructure; and
(2) Guidance to assist Local Boards, chief elected officials, and
one-stop partners in local areas in determining equitable and stable
methods of funding the costs of infrastructure at one-stop centers
based on proportionate benefits received, and consistent with Federal
cost principles.
(b) The guidance must include:
(1) The appropriate roles of the one-stop partner programs in
identifying one-stop infrastructure costs;
(2) Approaches to facilitate equitable and efficient cost
allocation that results in a reasonable cost allocation methodology
where infrastructure costs are charged to each partner in proportion to
relative benefits received, consistent with Federal cost principles;
and
(3) The timelines regarding notification to the Governor for not
reaching local agreement and triggering the State-funded infrastructure
mechanism described in Sec. 361.730, and timelines for a one-stop
partner to submit an appeal in the State-funded infrastructure
mechanism.
Sec. 361.710 How are infrastructure costs funded?
Infrastructure costs are funded either through the local funding
mechanism described in Sec. 361.715 or through the State funding
mechanism described in Sec. 361.730.
Sec. 361.715 How are one-stop infrastructure costs funded in the
local funding mechanism?
(a) In the local funding mechanism, the Local Board, chief elected
officials, and one-stop partners agree to amounts and methods of
calculating amounts each partner will contribute for one-stop
infrastructure funding, include the infrastructure funding terms in the
MOU, and sign the MOU. The local one-stop funding mechanism must meet
all of the following requirements:
(1) The infrastructure costs are funded through cash and fairly
evaluated in-kind partner contributions and include any funding from
philanthropic organizations or other private entities, or through other
alternative financing options, to provide a stable and equitable
funding stream for ongoing one-stop delivery system operations;
(2) Contributions must be negotiated between one-stop partners,
chief elected officials, and the Local Board and the amount to be
contributed must be included in the MOU;
(3) The one-stop partner program's proportionate share of funding
must be calculated in accordance with the Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards in 2 CFR part 200 based upon a reasonable cost allocation
methodology whereby infrastructure costs are charged to each partner in
proportion to relative benefits received, and must be allowable,
reasonable, necessary, and allocable;
(4) Partner shares must be periodically reviewed and reconciled
against actual costs incurred, and adjusted to ensure that actual costs
charged to any one-stop partners are proportionate and equitable to the
benefit received by the one-stop partners and their respective programs
or activities.
(b) In developing the section of the MOU on one-stop infrastructure
funding fully described in Sec. 361.755, the Local Board and chief
elected officials will:
(1) Ensure that the one-stop partners adhere to the guidance
identified in Sec. 361.705 on one-stop delivery system infrastructure
costs.
(2) Work with one-stop partners to achieve consensus and informally
mediate any possible conflicts or disagreements among one-stop
partners.
(3) Provide technical assistance to new one-stop partners and local
grant recipients to ensure that those entities are informed and
knowledgeable of the elements contained in the MOU and the one-stop
infrastructure costs arrangement.
(c) The MOU may include an interim infrastructure funding
agreement, including as much detail as the Local Board has negotiated
with one-stop partners, if all other parts of the MOU have been
negotiated, in order to allow the partner programs to operate in the
one-stop centers. The interim infrastructure agreement must be
finalized within 6 months of when the MOU is signed. If the
infrastructure interim infrastructure agreement is not finalized within
that timeframe, the Local Board must notify the Governor, as described
in Sec. 361.725.
Sec. 361.720 What funds are used to pay for infrastructure costs in
the local one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) In the local one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism, one-
stop partner programs can determine what funds they will use to fund
infrastructure costs. The use of these funds must be in accordance with
the requirements in this subpart, and with the relevant partner's
authorizing statutes and regulations, including, for example,
prohibitions against supplanting non-Federal resources, statutory
limitations on administrative costs, and all other applicable legal
requirements. In the case of partners administering adult education and
literacy programs authorized by title II of WIOA or the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, these funds may include
Federal funds that are available for State administration of adult
education and literacy programs authorized by title II of WIOA or for
State administration of post-secondary level programs and activities
under the Perkins Act, and non-Federal funds that the partners
contribute to meet these programs' matching or maintenance of effort
requirements. These funds also may include local administrative funds
available to local entities or consortia of local entities that have
been delegated
[[Page 20665]]
authority to serve as one-stop local partners by a State eligible
agency as permitted by Sec. 361.415(b) and (e).
(b) There are no specific caps on the amount or percent of overall
funding a one-stop partner may contribute to fund infrastructure costs
under the local one-stop funding mechanism, except that contributions
for administrative costs may not exceed the amount available for
administrative costs under the authorizing statute of the partner
program. However, amounts contributed for infrastructure costs must be
allowable and based on proportionate use by or benefit to the partner
program, taking into account the total cost of the one-stop
infrastructure as well as alternate financing options, and must be
consistent with 2 CFR chapter II, including the Federal cost
principles.
Sec. 361.725 What happens if consensus on infrastructure funding is
not reached at the local level between the Local Board, chief elected
officials, and one-stop partners?
If, after July 1, 2016, and each subsequent July 1, the Local
Board, chief elected officials, and one-stop partners do not reach
consensus on methods of sufficiently funding local infrastructure
through the local infrastructure cost funding mechanism, and include
that consensus agreement in the signed MOU, then the Local Board must
notify the Governor and the Governor must administer funding through
the State one-stop funding mechanism, as described in Sec. 361.730.
(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2))
Sec. 361.730 What is the State one-stop infrastructure funding
mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism, the
Governor, after consultation with the chief elected officials, Local
Boards, and the State Board, determines one-stop partner contributions,
based upon a methodology where infrastructure costs are charged to each
partner in proportion to relative benefits received and consistent with
the partner program's authorizing laws and regulations, 2 CFR chapter
II, including the Federal cost principles, and other applicable legal
requirements described in Sec. 361.735(a).
(b) The State Board develops an allocation formula to allocate
funds to local areas to support the infrastructure costs for local area
one-stop centers for all local areas that did not use the local funding
mechanism, and the Governor uses that formula to allocate the funds.
This is described in detail in Sec. 361.745.
Sec. 361.735 How are partner contributions determined in the State
one-stop funding mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop funding mechanism, the Governor, after
consultation with State and Local Boards and chief elected officials,
will determine the amount each partner must contribute to assist in
paying the infrastructure costs of one-stop centers. The Governor must
calculate amounts based on the proportionate use of the one-stop
centers by each partner, consistent with chapter II of title 2, Code of
Federal Regulations (or any corresponding similar regulation or
ruling), taking into account the costs of administration of the one-
stop delivery system for purposes not related to one-stop centers for
each partner such as costs associated with maintaining the Local Board,
or information technology systems. The Governor will also take into
account the statutory requirements for each partner program, all other
applicable legal requirements, and the partner program's ability to
fulfill such requirements.
(b) In certain situations, the Governor does not determine the
infrastructure cost contributions for one-stop partner programs.
(1) The Governor will not determine the contribution amounts for
infrastructure funds for Native American grantees described in. (WIOA
sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(iii).) The appropriate portion of funds to be
provided by Native American grantees to pay for one-stop infrastructure
must be determined as part of the development of the MOU described in
Sec. 361.500 and specified in that MOU.
(2) In a State in which the State constitution or a State statute
places policy-making authority that is independent of the authority of
the Governor in an entity or official with respect to the funds
provided for adult education and literacy activities, post-secondary
career and technical education activities, or vocational rehabilitation
services, the chief officer of that entity or the official must
determine the contribution amounts for infrastructure funds in
consultation with the Governor. (WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(C)(ii).)
(c) Limitations. Per WIOA sec. 122(h)(2)(D), the amount established
by the Governor under paragraph (a) of this section may not exceed the
following caps:
(1) WIOA formula programs and employment service. The portion of
funds required to be contributed under the WIOA youth, adult, or
dislocated worker programs, or under the Wagner- Peyser Act (29 U.S.C.
49 et seq.) must not exceed 3 percent of the amount of Federal funds
provided to carry out that program in the State for a program year.
(2) Other one-stop partners. The portion of funds required to be
contributed must not exceed 1.5 percent of the amount of Federal funds
provided to carry out that education program or employment and training
program in the State for a fiscal year. For purposes of Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, the cap on contributions is
determined based on the funds made available for State administration
of post-secondary level programs and activities.
(3) Vocational rehabilitation. Within a State, the entity or
entities administering the programs described in WIOA sec.
121(b)(1)(B)(iv) the allotment is based on the one State allotment,
even in instances where that allotment is shared between two State
agencies, and will not be required to provide from that program a
cumulative portion that exceeds--
(i) 0.75 percent of the amount of Federal funds provided to carry
out such program in the State for Fiscal Year 2016;
(ii) 1.0 percent of the amount provided to carry out such program
in the State for Fiscal Year 2017;
(iii) 1.25 percent of the amount provided to carry out such program
in the State for Fiscal Year 2018; and
(iv) 1.5 percent of the amount provided to carry out such program
in the State for Fiscal Year 2019 and following years.
(4) Federal direct spending programs. For local areas that have not
reached a one-stop infrastructure funding agreement by consensus, an
entity administering a program funded with direct spending as defined
in sec. 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985, as in effect on February 15, 2014 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)(8)),
must not be required to provide more for infrastructure costs than the
amount that the Governor determined (as described in Sec. 361.735(a)).
(d) If the above limitations result in funding less than each
partner's proportionate share and contribute to inadequate funding of
the allocation amount determined under Sec. 361.745(b), the Governor
may direct the Local Board, chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners to reenter negotiations to reduce the infrastructure costs to
reflect the amount of funds that are available for such costs, discuss
proportionate share of each one-stop partner, or to identify
alternative sources of financing for one-stop infrastructure funding,
but, in any event, a partner will only be
[[Page 20666]]
required to pay an amount that is consistent with the proportionate
benefit received by the partner, the program's authorizing laws and
regulations, the Federal cost principles, and other applicable legal
requirements.
(1) The Local Board, chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners, after renegotiation, may come to agreement and sign an MOU
and proceed under the local one-stop funding mechanism.
(2) If after renegotiation, agreement amongst partners still cannot
be reached or alternate financing identified, the Governor may adjust
the specified allocation, in accordance with the amounts available and
the limitations described in Sec. 361.735(c).
Sec. 361.740 What funds are used to pay for infrastructure costs in
the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism,
infrastructure costs for WIOA title I programs, including Native
American Programs described in, can be paid using program funds,
administrative funds, or both. Infrastructure costs for the Senior
Community Service Employment Program under title V of the Older
Americans Act (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) can also be paid using program
funds, administrative funds, or both. (WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(i)(II).)
(b) In the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism,
infrastructure costs for other required one-stop partner programs
(listed in Sec. Sec. 361.400 through 361.410) are limited to the
program's administrative funds, as appropriate. (WIOA sec.
121(h)(2)(D)(i)(I).)
(c) In the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism,
infrastructure costs for the adult education program authorized by
title II of WIOA must be paid from the funds that are available for
State administration or from non-Federal funds that the partner
contributes to meet the program's matching or maintenance of effort
requirement. Infrastructure costs for title II of WIOA may also be paid
from funds available for local administration of programs and
activities to eligible providers or consortia of eligible providers
delegated responsibilities to act as a local one-stop partner pursuant
to Sec. 361.415(b).
(d) In the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism,
infrastructure costs for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006 must be paid from the Federal funds that are
available for State administration of post-secondary level programs and
activities under the Perkins Act, or from non-Federal funds that the
partner contributes to meet the program's matching or maintenance of
effort requirement. Infrastructure costs for the Carl D. Perkins Career
and Technical Education Act of 2006 may also be paid from funds
available for local administration of post-secondary level programs and
activities to eligible recipients or consortia of eligible recipients
delegated responsibilities to act as a local one-stop partner pursuant
to Sec. 361.415(e).
Sec. 361.745 How is the allocation formula used by the Governor
determined in the State one-stop funding mechanism?
(a) The State Board must develop an allocation formula to be used
by the Governor to allocate funds to the local areas that did not
successfully use the local funding mechanism. The allocation formula
must take into account the number of one-stop centers in a local area,
the population served by such centers, the services provided by such
centers, and other factors relating to the performance of such centers
that the State Board determines are appropriate and that are consistent
with Federal cost principles. (WIOA 121(h)(3)(B))
(b) Using the funds contributed by the one-stop partners described
in Sec. 361.735, the Governor will then use this formula to allocate
funds to the local areas that did not use the local funding mechanism
to fund one-stop center infrastructure costs, so long as that funding
distribution is consistent with Federal cost principles for each of the
affected one-stop partners.
Sec. 361.750 When and how can a one-stop partner appeal a one-stop
infrastructure amount designated by the State under the State
infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) The Governor must establish a process, described under sec.
121(h)(2)(E) of WIOA, for a one-stop partner administering a program
described in Sec. Sec. 361.400 through 361.410 to appeal the
Governor's determination regarding the one-stop partner's portion of
funds to be provided for one-stop infrastructure costs. This appeal
process must be described in the Unified State Plan. (WIOA secs.
121(h)(2)(E) and 102(b)(2)(D)(i)(IV).)
(b) The appeal may be made on the ground that the Governor's
determination is inconsistent with proportionate share requirements in
Sec. 361.735(a), the cost contribution limitations in Sec.
361.735(b), or the cost contribution caps in Sec. 361.735(c).
(c) The process must ensure prompt resolution of the appeal in
order to ensure the funds are distributed in a timely manner,
consistent with the requirements of.
(d) The one-stop partner must submit an appeal in accordance with
State's deadlines for appeals specified in the guidance issued under
Sec. 361.705(b)(3), or if the State has not set a deadline, within 21
days from the Governor's determination.
Sec. 361.755 What are the required elements regarding infrastructure
funding that must be included in the one-stop Memorandum of
Understanding?
The MOU, fully described in Sec. 361.500, must contain the
following information whether the local areas use either the local one-
stop or the State one-stop infrastructure funding method:
(a) The period of time in which this infrastructure funding
agreement is effective. This may be a different time period than the
duration of the MOU.
(b) Identification of an infrastructure and shared services budget
that will be periodically reconciled against actual costs incurred and
adjusted accordingly to ensure that it reflects a cost allocation
methodology that demonstrates how infrastructure costs are charged to
each partner in proportion to relative benefits received, and that
complies with chapter II of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling).
(c) Identification of all one-stop partners, chief elected
officials, and Local Board participating in the infrastructure funding
arrangement.
(d) Steps the Local Board, chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners used to reach consensus or an assurance that the local area
followed the guidance for the State one-stop infrastructure funding
process.
(e) Description of the process to be used between partners to
resolve issues during the MOU duration period when consensus cannot be
reached.
(f) Description of the periodic modification and review process to
ensure equitable benefit among one-stop partners.
Sec. 361.760 How do one-stop partners jointly fund other shared costs
under the Memorandum of Understanding?
(a) In addition to jointly funding infrastructure costs, one-stop
partners listed in Sec. Sec. 361.400 through 361.410 must use a
portion of funds made available under their programs' authorizing
Federal law (or fairly evaluated in-kind contributions) to pay the
additional costs relating to the operation of the one-stop delivery
system, which must include applicable career services.
(b) Additionally, one-stop partners may jointly fund shared
services to the extent consistent with their programs'
[[Page 20667]]
Federal authorizing statutes and other applicable legal requirements.
Shared services' costs may include the costs of shared services that
are authorized for and may be commonly provided through the one-stop
partner programs to any individual, such as initial intake, assessment
of needs, appraisal of basic skills, identification of appropriate
services to meet such needs, referrals to other one-stop partners, and
business services. Shared operating costs may also include shared costs
of the Local Board's functions.
(c) These shared costs must be allocated according to the
proportion of benefit received by each of the partners, consistent with
the Federal law authorizing the partner's program, and consistent with
all other applicable legal requirements, including Federal cost
principles in chapter II of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling) requiring that
costs are reasonable, necessary, and allocable.
(d) Any shared costs agreed upon by the one-stop partners must be
included in the MOU.
Sec. 361.800 How are one-stop centers and one-stop delivery systems
certified for effectiveness, physical and programmatic accessibility,
and continuous improvement?
(a) The State Board, in consultation with chief elected officials
and Local Boards, must establish objective criteria and procedures for
Local Boards to use when certifying one-stop centers.
(1) The State Board must review and update the criteria every 2
years as part of the review and modification of State Plans pursuant to
Sec. 361.135.
(2) The criteria must be consistent with the Governor's and State
Board's guidelines, guidance and policies on infrastructure funding
decisions, described in Sec. 361.705. The criteria must evaluate the
one-stop centers and one-stop delivery system for effectiveness,
including customer satisfaction, physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous improvement.
(3) When the Local Board is the one-stop operator as described in,
the State Board must certify the one-stop center.
(b) Evaluations of effectiveness must include how well the one-stop
center integrates available services for participants and businesses,
meets the workforce development needs of participants and the
employment needs of local employers, operates in a cost-efficient
manner, coordinates services among the one-stop partner programs, and
provides maximum access to partner program services even outside
regular business hours. These evaluations must take into account
feedback from one-stop customers. They must also include evaluations of
how well the one-stop center ensures equal opportunity for individuals
with disabilities to participate in or benefit from one-stop center
services. These evaluations must include criteria evaluating how well
the centers and delivery systems take actions to comply with the
disability-related regulations implementing WIOA sec. 188, set forth at
29 CFR part 37. Such actions include, but are not limited to:
(1) Providing reasonable accommodations for individuals with
disabilities;
(2) Making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and
procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination against persons with
disabilities;
(3) Administering programs in the most integrated setting
appropriate;
(4) Communicating with persons with disabilities as effectively as
with others; and
(5) Providing appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including
assistive technology devices and services, where necessary to afford
individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in,
and enjoy the benefits of, the program or activity.
(c) Evaluations of continuous improvement must include how well the
one-stop center supports the achievement of the negotiated local levels
of performance for the indicators of performance for the local area
described in sec. 116(b)(2) of WIOA and. Other continuous improvement
factors may include a regular process for identifying and responding to
technical assistance needs, a regular system of continuing professional
staff development, and having systems in place to capture and respond
to specific customer feedback.
(d) Local Boards must assess at least once every 3 years the
effectiveness, physical and programmatic accessibility, and continuous
improvement of one-stop centers and the one-stop delivery systems using
the criteria and procedures developed by the State Board. The Local
Board may establish additional criteria, or set higher standards for
service coordination, than those set by the State criteria. Local
Boards must review and update the criteria every 2 years as part of the
Local Plan update process described in Sec. 361.580. Local Boards must
certify one-stop centers in order to be eligible to receive
infrastructure funds in the State infrastructure funding mechanism
described in Sec. 361.730.
(e) All one-stop centers must comply with applicable physical
accessibility requirements, as set forth.
Sec. 361.900 What is the common identifier to be used by each one-
stop delivery system?
(a) The common one-stop delivery system identifier is ``American
Job Center.''
(b) As of July 1, 2016, each one-stop delivery system must include
the ``American Job Center'' identifier or ``a proud partner of the
American Job Center network'' on all products, programs, activities,
services, facilities, and related property and materials used in the
one-stop system.
(c) One-stop partners, States or local areas may use additional
identifiers on their products, programs, activities, services,
facilities, and related property and materials.
PART 463--ADULT EDUCATION AND FAMILY LITERACY ACT
0
8. The authority citation for part 463 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 29 U.S.C. 102 and 103, unless otherwise noted.
0
9. Add subpart H to part 463, as added elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, to read as follows:
Subpart H--Unified and Combined State Plans Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec.
463.100 What is the purpose of the Unified and Combined State Plans?
463.105 What are the general requirements for the Unified State
Plan?
463.110 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the adult, dislocated worker, and youth workforce
investment activities in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
title I?
463.115 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act program
in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title II?
463.120 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service programs in
title III of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
463.125 What are the program-specific requirements in the Unified
State Plan for the State Vocational Rehabilitation program in
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title IV?
463.130 What is the submission and approval process of the Unified
State Plan?
463.135 What are the requirements for modification of the Unified
State Plan?
463.140 What are the general requirements for submitting a Combined
State Plan?
463.143 What is the submission and approval process of the Combined
State Plan?
[[Page 20668]]
463.145 What are the requirements for modifications of the Combined
State Plan?
Subpart H--Unified and Combined State Plans Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec. 463.100 What is the purpose of the Unified and Combined State
Plans?
(a) The Unified and Combined State Plans provide the framework for
States to outline a strategic vision of, and goals for, how their
workforce development systems will achieve the purposes of Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).
(b) The Unified and Combined State Plans serve as 4-year action
plans to develop, align, and integrate the State's systems and provide
a platform to achieve the State's vision and strategic and operational
goals. A Unified or Combined State Plan is intended to:
(1) Align, in strategic coordination, the six core programs
required in the Unified State Plan pursuant to Sec. 463.105(b), and
additional optional programs that may be part of the Combined State
Plan pursuant to Sec. 463.140;
(2) Direct investments in economic, education, and workforce
training programs to focus on providing relevant education and training
to ensure that individuals, including youth and individuals with
barriers to employment, have the skills to compete in the job market
and that employers have a ready supply of skilled workers;
(3) Apply strategies for job-driven training consistently across
Federal programs, and;
(4) Enable economic, education, and workforce partners to build a
skilled workforce through innovation in, and alignment of, employment,
training, and education programs.
Sec. 463.105 What are the general requirements for the Unified State
Plan?
(a) The Unified State Plan must be submitted in accordance with
Sec. 463.130 and joint planning guidelines issued by the Secretary of
Labor and the Secretary of Education.
(b) The Governor of each State must submit, in accordance with
Sec. 463.130, a Unified or Combined State Plan to the Secretary of
Labor to be eligible to receive funding for the workforce development
system's six core programs:
(1) The adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs authorized
under subtitle B of title I of WIOA and administered by the U.S.
Department of Labor;
(2) The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) program
authorized under title II of WIOA and administered by the U.S.
Department of Education;
(3) The Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Services programs amended by
title III of WIOA and administered by the U.S. Department of Labor; and
(4) The State Vocational Rehabilitation program amended by title IV
of WIOA and administered by the U.S. Department of Education.
(c) The Unified State Plan must outline the State's 4-year strategy
for the core programs described in paragraph (b) of this section and
meet the requirements of sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as explained in the joint
planning guidance issued by the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Education.
(d) The Unified State Plan must include strategic and operational
planning elements to facilitate the development of an aligned,
coordinated, and comprehensive workforce development system. The
Unified State Plan must include:
(1) Strategic planning elements that describe the State's strategic
vision and goals for preparing an educated and skilled workforce under
sec. 102(b)(1) of WIOA. The strategic planning elements must be
informed by and include an analysis of the State's economic conditions
and employer and workforce needs, including education and skill needs.
(2) Strategies for aligning the core programs and optional
programs, as well as other resources available to the State, to achieve
the strategic vision and goals in accordance with sec. 102(b)(1)(E) of
WIOA.
(3) Operational planning elements in accordance with sec. 102(b)(2)
of WIOA that support the strategies for aligning the core programs and
other resources available to the State to achieve the State's vision
and goals and a description of how the State Workforce Development
Board will implement its functions, in accordance with sec. 101(d) of
WIOA. Operational planning elements must include:
(i) A description of how the State strategy will be implemented by
each core program's lead State agency;
(ii) State operating systems, including data systems, and policies
that will support the implementation of the State's strategy identified
in paragraph (d)(1) of this section;
(iii) Program-specific requirements for the core programs required
by WIOA sec. 102(b)(2)(D);
(iv) Assurances required by sec. 102(b)(2)(E) of WIOA and others
deemed necessary by the Secretaries of Labor and Education under sec.
102(b)(2)(E)(x) of WIOA; and
(v) Any additional operational planning requirements imposed by the
Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of Education under sec.
102(b)(2)(C)(viii) of WIOA.
Sec. 463.110 What are the program-specific requirements in the
Unified State Plan for the adult, dislocated worker, and youth
workforce investment activities in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act title I?
The program-specific requirements for the adult, dislocated worker,
and youth workforce investment activities that must be included in the
Unified State Plan are described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D) of WIOA.
Additional planning requirements may be required by the Secretary of
Labor or the Secretary of Education in accordance with joint planning
guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Education.
Sec. 463.115 What are the program-specific requirements in the
Unified State Plan for the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act
program in Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title II?
The program-specific requirements for the AEFLA program in title II
that must be included in the Unified State Plan are described in secs.
102(b)(2)(D)(ii) and 102(b)(2)(C) of WIOA.
(a) With regard to the description required in sec.
102(b)(2)(D)(ii)(I) of WIOA pertaining to content standards, the
Unified State Plan must describe how the eligible agency will, by July
1, 2016, align its content standards for adult education with State-
adopted challenging academic content standards under the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended.
(b) With regard to the description required in sec.
102(b)(2)(C)(iv) of WIOA pertaining to the methods and factors the
State will use to distribute funds under the core programs, for title
II of WIOA, the Unified State Plan must include--
(1) How the eligible agency will award multi-year grants on a
competitive basis to eligible providers in the State; and
(2) How the eligible agency will provide direct and equitable
access to funds using the same grant or contract announcement and
application procedure.
(c) With regard to the description required under sec.
102(b)(2)(C)(v)(I) of WIOA pertaining to the integration of workforce
and education data on core programs, unemployment insurance programs,
and education through post-
[[Page 20669]]
secondary education, for title II of WIOA, the Unified State Plan must
include how the State will ensure interoperability of data systems in
the reporting on core indicators of performance and performance reports
required to be submitted by the State.
Sec. 463.120 What are the program-specific requirements in the
Unified State Plan for Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service programs in
title III of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Services programs amended by title III
are subject to requirements in sec. 102(b) of WIOA and any additional
requirements imposed by the Secretary of Labor under sec.
102(b)(2)(C)(viii) of WIOA, in accordance with joint planning
guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of
Education.
Sec. 463.125 What are the program-specific requirements in the
Unified State Plan for the State Vocational Rehabilitation program in
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title IV?
The program specific requirements for the vocational rehabilitation
services portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan are set forth in
sec. 101(a) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. All
submission requirements of the Vocational Rehabilitation Services
portion of the Unified or Combined State Plan are in addition to the
jointly developed strategic and operational content requirements
prescribed by secs. 102(b) and 103 of WIOA.
Sec. 463.130 What is the submission and approval process of the
Unified State Plan?
(a) The Unified State Plan described in Sec. 463.105 must be
submitted in accordance with planning guidelines issued jointly by the
Secretaries of Labor and Education which explain the submission and
approval process in WIOA sec. 102(c).
(b) A State must submit its Unified State Plan to the Secretary of
Labor pursuant to a process identified by the Secretary.
(1) The initial Unified State Plan must be submitted no later than
120 days prior to the commencement of the second full program year of
WIOA.
(2) The subsequent Unified State Plan must be submitted no later
than 120 days prior to the end of the 4-year period described in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(3) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, ``program year''
means July 1 through June 30 of any year.
(c) The State must provide an opportunity for public comment on and
input into the development of the Unified State Plan prior to its
submission.
(1) The opportunity for public comment must include an opportunity
for comment by representatives of Local Boards and chief elected
officials, businesses, representatives of labor organizations,
community-based organizations, adult education providers, institutions
of higher education, other stakeholders with an interest in the
services provided by the six core programs, and the general public,
including individuals with disabilities.
(2) Consistent with the ``Sunshine Provision'' of WIOA in sec.
101(g), the State Board must make information regarding the Unified
State Plan available to the public through electronic means and
regularly occurring open meetings in accordance with State law. The
Unified State Plan must describe the State's process and timeline for
ensuring a meaningful opportunity for public comment.
(d) Upon receipt of the Unified State Plan from the State, the
Secretary of Labor will ensure that the entire Unified State Plan is
submitted to the Secretary of Education pursuant to a process developed
by the Secretaries.
(e) The Unified State Plan is subject to the approval of both the
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education.
(f) Before the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education
approve the Unified State Plan, the vocational rehabilitation portion
of the Unified State Plan described in WIOA sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) must
be approved by the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services
Administration.
(g) The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education will
review and approve the Unified State Plan within 90 days of receipt by
the appropriate Secretary, unless the Secretary of Labor or the
Secretary of Education determines in writing within that period that:
(1) The plan is inconsistent with a core program's requirements;
(2) The Unified State Plan is inconsistent with any requirement of
sec. 102 of WIOA; or
(3) The plan is incomplete or otherwise insufficient to determine
whether it is consistent with a core program's requirements or other
requirements of WIOA.
(h) If neither the Secretary of Labor nor the Secretary of
Education makes the written determination described in paragraph (g) of
this section within 90 days of the receipt by the Secretaries, the
Unified State Plan will be considered approved.
Sec. 463.135 What are the requirements for modification of the
Unified State Plan?
(a) In addition to the required modification review set forth in
paragraph (b) of this section, a Governor may submit a modification of
its Unified State Plan at any time during the 4-year period of the
plan.
(b) Modifications are required, at a minimum:
(1) At the end of the first 2-year period of any 4-year State Plan,
wherein the State Board must review the Unified State Plan, and the
Governor must submit modifications to the plan to reflect changes in
labor market and economic conditions or other factors affecting the
implementation of the Unified State Plan;
(2) When changes in Federal or State law or policy substantially
affect the strategies, goals, and priorities upon which the Unified
State Plan is based;
(3) When there are changes in the statewide vision, strategies,
policies, State adjusted levels of performance, the methodology used to
determine local allocation of funds, reorganizations which change the
working relationship with system employees, changes in organizational
responsibilities, changes to the membership structure of the State
Board or alternative entity, and similar substantial changes to the
State's workforce investment system.
(c) Modifications to the Unified State Plan are subject to the same
public review and comment requirements in Sec. 463.130(c) that apply
to the development of the original Unified State Plan.
(d) Unified State Plan modifications must be approved by the
Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education, based on the
approval standards applicable to the original Unified State Plan under
Sec. 463.130. This approval must come after the approval of the
Commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration for
modification of any portion of the plan described in sec.
102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA.
Sec. 463.140 What are the general requirements for submitting a
Combined State Plan?
(a) A State may choose to develop and submit a 4-year Combined
State Plan in lieu of the Unified State Plan described in Sec.
463.105.
(b) A State that submits a Combined State Plan covering an activity
or program described in paragraph (d) of this section that is approved
under WIOA sec. 103(c) or determined complete under the law relating to
the program will not be required to submit any other plan or
application in order to
[[Page 20670]]
receive Federal funds to carry out the core programs or the program or
activities described under paragraph (d) of this section that are
covered by the Combined State Plan.
(c) If a State develops a Combined State Plan, it must be submitted
in accordance with the process described in Sec. 463.143.
(d) If a State chooses to submit a Combined State Plan, the Plan
must include the six core programs and one or more of the optional
programs and activities described in sec. 103(a)(2) of WIOA. The
optional programs and activities that may be included in the Combined
State Plan are:
(1) Career and technical education programs authorized under the
Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C.
2301 et seq.);
(2) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF, authorized
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.);
(3) Employment and training programs authorized under sec. 6(d)(4)
of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4));
(4) Work programs authorized under sec. 6(o) of the Food and
Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(o));
(5) Trade adjustment assistance activities under chapter 2 of title
II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.);
(6) Services for veterans authorized under chapter 41 of title 38,
United States Code;
(7) Programs authorized under State unemployment compensation laws
(in accordance with applicable Federal law);
(8) Senior Community Service Employment Programs under title V of
the Older Americans Act of 1956 (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.);
(9) Employment and training activities carried out by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(10) Employment and training activities carried out under the
Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.); and
(11) Reintegration of offenders programs authorized under sec. 212
of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17532).
(e) A Combined State Plan must contain:
(1) For the core programs, the information required by sec. 102(b)
of WIOA and Sec. 463.105, as explained in the joint planning guidance
issued by the Secretaries;
(2) For the optional programs, except as described in paragraph (h)
of this section, the information required by the law authorizing and
governing that program to be submitted to the appropriate Secretary,
any other applicable legal requirements, and any common planning
requirements described in sec. 102(b) of WIOA, as explained in the
joint planning guidance issued by the Secretaries;
(3) A description of joint planning methods across all programs
included in the Combined State Plan; and
(4) An assurance that all of the entities responsible for planning
or administering the programs described in the Combined State Plan have
had a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on all portions of
the Plan.
(f) Each optional program included in the Combined State Plan
remains subject to the applicable program-specific requirements of the
Federal law and regulations, and any other applicable legal or program
requirements, governing the implementation and operation of that
program.
(g) For purposes of Sec. Sec. 463.140 through 463.145 the term
``appropriate Secretary'' means the head of the Federal agency who
exercises either plan or application approval authority for the program
or activity under the Federal law authorizing the program or activity
or, if there are no planning or application requirements, who exercises
administrative authority over the program or activity under that
Federal law.
(h) States that include employment and training activities carried
out under the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) Act (42 U.S.C. 9901
et seq.) under a Combined State Plan would submit all other required
elements of a complete CSBG State Plan directly to the Federal agency
that administers the program, according to the requirements of Federal
law and regulations.
Sec. 463.143 What is the submission and approval process of the
Combined State Plan?
(a) For purposes of Sec. 463.140(a), if a State chooses to develop
a Combined State Plan it must submit the Combined State Plan in
accordance with the requirements described below and the joint planning
guidelines, which will further explain the submission and approval
procedures for the Combined State Plan, issued by the Secretaries.
(b) The State must submit to the Secretaries of Labor and Education
and to the Secretary of the agency with responsibility for approving
the program's plan or determining it complete under the law governing
the program, as part of its Combined State Plan, any plan, application,
form, or any other similar document that is required as a condition for
the approval of Federal funding under the applicable program or
activity. Such submission must occur in accordance with a process
identified by the relevant Secretaries in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(c) The Combined State Plan will be approved or disapproved in
accordance with the requirements of sec. 103(c) of WIOA.
(1) The portion of the Combined State Plan covering programs
administered by the Departments of Labor and Education must be
reviewed, and approved or disapproved, by the appropriate Secretary
within 90 days beginning on the day the plan is received by the
appropriate Secretary from the State, except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(2) If an appropriate Secretary other than the Secretary of Labor
or the Secretary of Education has authority to approve or determine
complete a portion of the Combined State Plan for a program or activity
described in Sec. 463.140(d), that portion of the plan must be
reviewed, and approved, disapproved, or have a determination of
completeness, by the appropriate Secretary within 120 days beginning on
the day the plan is received by the appropriate Secretary from the
State except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.
(d) The review and determination of approval or disapproval, or
determination of completeness, of the relevant portion of the Combined
State Plan must occur within 90 days for all Department of Labor and
Education programs included in the State Plan and within 120 days for
the programs administered by other Federal Agencies unless the
appropriate Secretary determines in writing within that period that:
(1) The Plan is inconsistent with the requirements of the six core
programs or the Federal laws authorizing or applicable to the program
or activity involved, including the criteria for approval of a plan or
application, or determining the plan's completeness, if any, under such
law;
(2) The portion of the Plan describing the six core programs or the
program or activity described in paragraph (a) of this section involved
does not satisfy the criteria as provided in sec. 102 or 103 of WIOA,
as applicable; or
(3) The Plan is incomplete, or otherwise insufficient to determine
whether it is consistent with a core program's requirements, other
requirements of WIOA, or the Federal laws authorizing, or applicable
to, the program or activity described in Sec. 463.140(d), including
the criteria for
[[Page 20671]]
approval of a plan or application, if any, under such law.
(e) If the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, or the
appropriate Secretary does not make the written determination described
in paragraph (d) of this section within the relevant period of time
after submission of the Plan, that portion of the Combined State Plan
over which the Secretary has jurisdiction will be considered approved.
(f) Special rule. In paragraphs (d)(1) and (3) of this section, the
term ``criteria for approval of a plan or application,'' with respect
to a State or a core program or a program under the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.),
includes a requirement for agreement between the State and the
appropriate Secretaries regarding State performance measures or State
performance accountability measures, as the case may be, including
levels of performance.
Sec. 463.145 What are the requirements for modifications of the
Combined State Plan?
(a) For the core program portions of the Combined State Plan,
modifications are required at the end of the first 2-year period of any
4-year Combined State Plan. The State Board must review the Combined
State Plan, and the Governor must submit a modification of the Combined
State Plan to reflect changes in labor market and economic conditions
or in other factors affecting the implementation of the Combined State
Plan.
(b) In addition to the required modification review described in
paragraph (a) of this section, a State may submit a modification of its
Combined State Plan at any time during the 4-year period of the plan.
(c) For any programs and activities described in Sec. 463.140(d)
that are included in a State's Combined State Plan, the State--
(1) May decide if the modification requirements under WIOA sec.
102(c)(3) that apply to the core programs will apply to the optional
programs or activities described in Sec. 463.140(d) that are included
in the Combined State Plan or may comply with the procedures and
requirements applicable to only the particular optional program or
activity; and
(2) Must submit, in accordance with the procedure described in
Sec. 463.143, any other modification, amendment, or revision required
by the Federal law authorizing, or applicable to, the program or
activity described in Sec. 463.140(d). If the underlying programmatic
requirements change for Federal laws authorizing such programs, a State
must either modify its Combined State Plan or submit a separate plan to
the appropriate Federal agency in accordance with the new Federal law
authorizing the optional program or activity and other legal
requirements applicable to such program or activity. A State also may
amend its Combined State Plan to add an optional program or activity
described in Sec. 463.140(d).
(d) Modifications of the Combined State Plan are subject to the
same public review and comment requirements that apply to the
development of the original Combined State Plan as described in Sec.
463.130(c) except that, if the modification, amendment, or revision
affects the administration of a particular optional program and has no
impact on the Combined State Plan as a whole or the integration and
administration of the core and optional programs at the State level, a
State may comply instead with the procedures and requirements
applicable to the particular optional program.
(e) Modifications for the core program portions of the Combined
State Plan must be approved by the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary
of Education, based on the approval standards applicable to the
original Combined State Plan under Sec. 463.143. This approval must
come after the approval of the Commissioner of the Rehabilitation
Services Administration for modification of any portion of the Combined
State Plan described in sec. 102(b)(2)(D)(iii) of WIOA.
(f) Modifications for the portions of the Combined State Plan for
any optional program or activity described in Sec. 463.140(d) must be
submitted for approval by only the appropriate Secretary, based on the
approval standards applicable to the original Combined State Plan under
Sec. 463.143, if the State elects, or in accordance with the
procedures and requirements applicable to the particular optional
program if the modification, amendment, or revision affects the
administration of only that particular optional program and has no
impact on the Combined State Plan as a whole or the integration and
administration of the core and optional programs at the State level.
0
10. Add subpart I to part 463, as added elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, to read as follows:
Subpart I--Performance Accountability Under Title I of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec.
463.150 What definitions apply to Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act performance measurement and reporting requirements?
463.155 What are the primary indicators of performance under the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
463.160 What information is required for State performance reports?
463.165 May a State require additional indicators of performance?
463.170 How are State adjusted levels of performance for primary
indicators established?
463.175 What responsibility do States have to use quarterly wage
record information for performance accountability?
463.180 What State actions are subject to a financial sanction under
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
463.185 When are sanctions applied for failure to report?
463.190 When are sanctions applied for failure to achieve adjusted
levels of performance?
463.195 What should States expect when a sanction is applied to the
Governor's Reserve Allotment?
463.200 What other administrative actions will be applied to States'
performance requirements?
463.205 What performance indicators apply to local areas?
463.210 How are local performance levels established?
463.215 Under what circumstances are local areas eligible for State
Incentive Grants?
463.220 Under what circumstances may a corrective action or sanction
be applied to local areas for poor performance?
463.225 Under what circumstances may local areas appeal a
reorganization plan?
463.230 What information is required for the eligible training
provider performance reports?
463.235 What are the reporting requirements for individual records
for core Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title I, III, and
IV programs?
463.240 What are the requirements for data validation of State
annual performance reports?
Subpart I--Performance Accountability Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec. 463.150 What definitions apply to Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act performance measurement and reporting requirements?
(a) Participant. A reportable individual who has received staff-
assisted services after satisfying all applicable programmatic
requirements for the provision of services, such as eligibility
determination.
(1) For the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program, a Participant
is an individual who has an approved and signed Individualized Plan for
Employment (IPE) and has begun to receive services.
(2) The following individuals are not Participants:
(i) Individuals who have not completed at least 12 contact hours in
[[Page 20672]]
the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) program;
(ii) Individuals who only use the self-service system; and
(iii) Individuals who only receive information services or
activities.
(3) Programs must include participants in their performance
calculations.
(b) Reportable individual. An individual who has taken action that
demonstrates an intent to use program services and who meets specific
reporting criteria of the core program, including:
(1) Individuals who provide identifying information;
(2) Individuals who only use the self-service system; and
(3) Individuals who only receive information on services or
activities.
(c) Exit. As defined for the purpose of performance calculations,
exit is the point after which an individual who has received services
through any program meets the following criteria:
(1) For the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs under
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) title I, the AEFLA
program under WIOA title II, and the Employment Services authorized by
the Wagner-Peyser Act as amended by WIOA title III, exit date is the
last date of service:
(i) The exit date cannot be determined until 90 days of no services
has elapsed. At that point the exit date is applied retroactively to
the last date of service.
(A) Ninety days of no service does not include self-service or
information-only activities or follow-up services and
(B) There are no future services planned, excluding follow-up
services.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2)(i) For the VR program as amended by WIOA title IV:
(A) The participant's record of service is closed in accordance
with Sec. 463.56 because the participant has achieved an employment
outcome; or
(B) The participant's service record is closed because the
individual has not achieved an employment outcome or the individual has
been determined ineligible after receiving services in accordance with
Sec. 463.43.
(ii) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a
participant will not be considered as meeting the definition of exit
from the Vocational Rehabilitation program if the individual's service
record is closed because the individual has achieved a supported
employment outcome in an integrated setting but not in competitive
integrated employment.
Sec. 463.155 What are the primary indicators of performance under the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
(a) All States submitting either a Unified or Combined State Plan
under Sec. Sec. 463.130 and 676.143 of this chapter, must propose
expected levels of performance for each of the primary indicators of
performance for the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs under
title I of WIOA, the AEFLA program under title II of WIOA, the Wagner-
Peyser Act as amended by title III of WIOA, and the VR program as
amended by WIOA.
(1) The six primary indicators for performance are:
(i) The percentage of participants, who are in unsubsidized
employment during the second quarter after exit from the program;
(ii) The percentage of participants, who are in unsubsidized
employment during the fourth quarter after exit from the program;
(iii) Median earnings of participants, who are in unsubsidized
employment during the second quarter after exit from the program;
(iv) The percentage of participants who obtained a recognized post-
secondary credential or a secondary school diploma, or its recognized
equivalent during participation in or within 1 year after exit from the
program. A participant who has obtained a secondary school diploma or
its recognized equivalent is only included in this measure if the
participant is also employed or is enrolled in an education or training
program leading to a recognized post-secondary credential within 1 year
from program exit;
(v) The percentage of participants who during a program year, are
in an education or training program that leads to a recognized post-
secondary credential or employment and who are achieving measurable
skill gains, defined as documented academic, technical, occupational or
other forms of progress, towards such a credential or employment.
(vi) Effectiveness in serving employers, based on indicators
developed as required by sec. 116(b)(2)(A)(iv) of WIOA.
(2) [Reserved]
(b) The indicators in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (vi) of this
section apply to the adult, dislocated worker, AEFLA and VR programs.
(c) The indicators in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (vi)
of this section apply to the Employment Services.
(d) For the youth program under title I of WIOA, the indicators
are:
(1) Percentage of participants who are in education or training
activities, or in unsubsidized employment, during the second quarter
after exit from the program;
(2) Percentage of participants in education or training activities,
or in unsubsidized employment, during the fourth quarter after exit
from the program;
(3) Median earnings of participants who are in unsubsidized
employment during the second quarter after exit from the program;
(4) The percentage of participants who obtained a recognized post-
secondary credential or a secondary school diploma, or its recognized
equivalent, during participation or up to 1 year after exit. A
participant who has obtained a secondary school diploma or its
recognized equivalent is only included in this measure if the
participant is also employed or is enrolled in an education or training
program leading to a recognized post-secondary credential within 1 year
from program exit;
(5) The percentage of participants who during a program year, are
in an education or training program that leads to a recognized post-
secondary credential or employment and who are achieving measurable
skill gains, defined as documented academic, technical, occupational or
other forms of progress towards such a credential or employment;
(6) Effectiveness in serving employers, based on indicators
developed as required by sec. 116(b)(2)(iv) of WIOA.
Sec. 463.160 What information is required for State performance
reports?
(a) Section 116(d)(2) of WIOA requires States to submit a State
performance report. The State performance report must be submitted
annually using a template the Departments will disseminate and must
provide, at a minimum, information on the actual performance levels
achieved consistent with Sec. 463.175 with respect to:
(1) The total number of participants served, and the total number
of participants who exited each of the core programs identified in sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(ii) of WIOA, including disaggregated counts of those who
participated in and exited a core program, by:
(i) Individuals with barriers to employment as defined in WIOA sec.
3(24); and
(ii) Co-enrollment in any of the programs in WIOA sec
116(b)(3)(A)(ii).
(2) Information on the performance levels achieved for the primary
indicators for all of the core programs
[[Page 20673]]
identified in Sec. 463.155 including disaggregated levels for:
(i) Individuals with barriers to employment as defined in WIOA sec.
3(24);
(ii) Age;
(iii) Sex; and
(iv) Race and ethnicity.
(3) The total number of participants and exiters who received
career and training services for the most recent program year and the
three preceding program years, as applicable to the program;
(4) Information on the performance levels achieved for the primary
indicators consistent with Sec. 463.155 for career and training
services for the most recent program year and the 3 preceding program
years, as applicable to the program;
(5) The percentage of participants in a program who obtained
unsubsidized employment related to the training received (often
referred to as training-related employment) through WIOA title I-B
programs;
(6) The amount of funds spent on each type of career and training
service for the most recent program year and the 3 preceding program
years, as applicable to the program;
(7) The average cost per participant for those participants who
received career and training services, respectively, during the most
recent program year and the 3 preceding program years for, as
applicable to the program;
(8) The percentage of a State's annual allotment under WIOA sec.
132(b) that the State spent on administrative costs; and
(9) information that facilitates comparisons of programs with
programs in other States.
(10) For WIOA title I programs, a State performance narrative,
which, for States in which a local area is implementing a pay-for-
performance contracting strategy, at a minimum provides:
(i) A description of pay-for-performance contract strategies being
used for programs;
(ii) The performance of service providers entering into contracts
for such strategies, measured against the levels of performance
specified in the contracts for such strategies; and
(iii) An evaluation of the design of the programs and performance
strategies and, when available, the satisfaction of employers and
participants who received services under such strategies.
(b) The disaggregation of data for the State performance report
must be done in compliance with WIOA sec. 116(d)(6)(C).
(c) The State performance reports must include a mechanism of
electronic access to the State's local area and ETP performance
reports.
(d) States must comply with these requirements from sec. 116 of
WIOA as explained in joint guidance issued by the Departments of
Education and Labor, which may include information on reportable
individuals as determined by the Secretaries.
Sec. 463.165 May a State require additional indicators of
performance?
States may identify additional indicators of performance for the
six core programs. These indicators must be included in the Unified or
Combined State Plan.
Sec. 463.170 How are State adjusted levels of performance for primary
indicators established?
(a) A State must submit in the State Plan expected levels of
performance on the primary indicators for each core program as required
by sec. 116(b)(iv) of WIOA as explained in joint guidance issued by the
Secretaries of Education and Labor.
(1) The initial State Plan submitted under WIOA must contain
expected levels of performance for the first 2 years of the State Plan
period.
(2) States must submit expected levels of performance for the third
and fourth year of the State Plan before the third program year
consistent with Sec. Sec. 463.135 and 463.145.
(b) The State must reach agreement on levels of performance with
the Secretaries of Education and Labor for each of the core programs
based on the following factors:
(1) How the levels of performance compare with State adjusted
levels of performance established for other States;
(2) The application of an objective statistical model established
by the Secretaries of Education and Labor, subject to paragraph (d) of
this section;
(3) How the levels promote continuous improvement in performance
based on the primary indicators and ensure optimal return on investment
of Federal funds; and
(4) The extent to which the levels assist the State in meeting the
performance goals established by the Secretaries of Education and Labor
for the core programs in accordance with the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, and its amendments.
(c) An objective statistical adjustment model will be developed and
disseminated by the Secretaries. The model will be based on:
(1) Differences among States in actual economic conditions,
including unemployment rates and job losses or gains in particular
industries; and
(2) The characteristics of participants, including:
(i) Indicators of poor work history;
(ii) Lack of work experience;
(iii) Lack of educational or occupational skills attainment;
(iv) Dislocation from high-wage and high-benefit employment;
(v) Low levels of literacy;
(vi) Low levels of English proficiency;
(vii) Disability status;
(viii) Homelessness;
(ix) Ex-offender status; and
(x) Welfare dependency.
(d) The objective statistical adjustment model developed under
paragraph (c) of this section will be:
(1) Applied to the core programs' primary indicators upon
availability of data which is necessary to populate the model and apply
it to the programs;
(2) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, used before the
beginning of a program year in order to establish State performance
targets for the upcoming program year; and
(3) Subject to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, used to revise
performance levels at the end of a program year based on actual
circumstances, consistent with sec. 116(b)(3)(vii) of WIOA.
(e) States must comply with these requirements from sec. 116 of
WIOA as explained in joint guidance issued by the Departments of
Education and Labor.
Sec. 463.175 What responsibility do States have to use quarterly wage
record information for performance accountability?
(a) States must, consistent with State laws, use quarterly wage
record information in measuring the progress on State adjusted levels
of performance for the primary indicators outlined in Sec. 463.155 and
local performance indicators identified in Sec. 463.205. The use of
social security numbers from participants and such other information as
is necessary to measure the progress of those participants through
quarterly wage record information is authorized.
(b) ``Quarterly wage record information'' means intrastate and
interstate wages paid to an individual, the social security number (or
numbers, if more than one) of the individual and the name, address,
State, and the Federal employer identification number of the employer
paying the wages to the individual.
(c) The Governor may designate a State agency [or appropriate State
entity] to assist in carrying out the performance reporting
requirements for WIOA core programs and eligible
[[Page 20674]]
training providers. The Governor or such agency [or appropriate State
entity] is responsible for:
(1) Facilitating data matches;
(2) Data quality reliability, protection against disaggregation
that would violate privacy.
Sec. 463.180 What State actions are subject to a financial sanction
under Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act?
The following failures by a State are subject to financial sanction
under WIOA sec. 116(d):
(a) The failure by a State to submit the State annual performance
report required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2); or
(b) The failure by a State to meet adjusted levels of performance
for the primary indicators of performance in accordance with sec.
116(f) of WIOA.
Sec. 463.185 When are sanctions applied for failure to report?
(a) Sanctions will be applied when a State fails to submit the
State annual performance reports required under sec. 116(d)(2) of WIOA.
It is a failure to report if the State either:
(1) Does not submit a State annual performance report by the date
for timely submission set in performance reporting guidance; or
(2) Submits a State annual performance report by the date for
timely submission, but the report is incomplete.
(b) Sanctions will not be assessed if the reporting failure is due
to exceptional circumstances outside of the State's control.
Exceptional circumstances may include, but are not limited to:
(1) Natural disasters,
(2) Unexpected personnel transitions; and
(3) Unexpected technology related impacts.
(c) In the event that a State may not be able to submit a complete
and accurate performance report by the deadline for timely reporting:
(1) The State must notify the Secretary of Labor or Secretary of
Education as soon as possible of a potential impact on the ability to
submit their State annual performance reports by no later than 30 days
prior to the established deadline in order to not be considered failing
to report.
(2) In circumstances where unexpected events occur within the 30-
day period before the deadline for submission of the State annual
performance reports, the Secretary of Labor and Secretary of Education
will review requests for extending the reporting deadline in accordance
with the Departments' procedures explained in guidance on reporting
timelines.
Sec. 463.190 When are sanctions applied for failure to achieve
adjusted levels of performance?
(a) States' negotiated levels of performance will be adjusted
through the application of the statistical adjustment model established
under Sec. 463.170 to account for actual conditions experienced during
a program year and characteristics of participants, annually at the
close of each program year.
(b) States that fail to meet adjusted levels of performance for the
primary indicators of performance outlined in Sec. 463.155 for any
year will receive technical assistance, including assistance in the
development of a performance improvement plan provided by the Secretary
of Labor or Secretary of Education.
(c) State failure to meet adjusted levels of performance will be
determined through three criteria:
(1) Overall State program scores, based on the percent achieved by
a program on each of the six primary indicators compared to the
adjusted goal for each primary indicator. The average of the percentage
of the adjusted goal achieved for each primary indicator will
constitute the overall program score for the State;
(2) Overall State indicator scores, based on the percent achieved
by each program on each of the individual primary indicators compared
to the adjusted goal. The average of the percentage of the adjusted
goal achieved for each of the six core programs' will constitute an
overall indicator score for the State; and
(3) Individual indicator scores, based on the percent achieved by
each program on each of the individual primary indicators compared to
the adjusted goals.
(d) A performance failure occurs when:
(1) Any overall State program score or overall State indicator
score falls below 90 percent for the program year; or
(2) Any of the States' individual indicator scores fall below 50
percent for the program year.
(e) Sanctions based on performance failure will be applied to
States if, for 2 consecutive years, the State fails to meet 90 percent
of the overall State program score, 90 percent of the overall State
indicator score, or 50 percent on any individual indicator score for
the same program or indicator.
Sec. 463.195 What should States expect when a sanction is applied to
the Governor's Reserve Allotment?
(a) The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education will
reduce the Governor's Reserve Allotment by 5 percent of the maximum
available amount for the immediately succeeding program year if:
(1) The State fails to submit the State annual performance reports
as required under WIOA sec. 116(d)(2), as defined in Sec. 463.185; or
(2) The State fails to meet State adjusted levels of performance
for the same primary performance indicator(s) under either Sec.
463.190(d)(1) or (2) for the second consecutive year as defined in
Sec. 463.190.
(b) If the State fails under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section in the same program year, the Secretary of Labor and the
Secretary of Education will reduce the Governor's Reserve Allotment by
10 percent of the maximum available amount for the immediately
succeeding program year.
(c) If a State's Governor's Reserve Allotment is reduced:
(1) The reduced amount will not be returned to the State in the
event that the State later improves performance or submits its annual
performance report; and
(2) The Governor's reserve will continue to be set at the reduced
level in each subsequent year until the Secretary of Labor or the
Secretary of Education, dependent upon the impacted program, determines
that the State met the State adjusted levels of performance for the
applicable primary performance indicators and has submitted all of the
required performance reports.
(d) A State may request review of a sanction the U.S. Department of
Labor imposes in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 683.800 of
this chapter.
Sec. 463.200 What other administrative actions will be applied to
States' performance requirements?
(a) In addition to sanctions for failure to report or failure to
meet adjusted levels of performance, States will be subject to
administrative actions in the case of poor performance.
(b) States' performance achievement on the individual primary
indicators will be assessed in addition to the overall program score
and overall indicator score. Based on this assessment, as clarified and
explained in guidance, for performance on any individual primary
indicator, the Secretary of Labor or the Secretary of Education will
require the State to establish a performance risk plan to address
continuous improvement on the individual primary indicator.
[[Page 20675]]
Sec. 463.205 What performance indicators apply to local areas?
(a) Each local workforce investment area in a State under title I
of WIOA is subject to the same primary indicators of performance for
the core programs for WIOA title I under Sec. 463.155(a)(1) and (d)
that apply to the State.
(b) In addition to the indicators described in paragraph (a) of
this section, under Sec. 463.165, the Governor may apply additional
indicators of performance to local areas in the State.
(c) States must annually make local area performance reports
available to the public using a template that the Departments will
disseminate in guidance, including by electronic means. The State must
provide electronic access to the public local area performance report
in its annual State performance report.
(d) The local area performance report must provide information on
the actual performance levels for the local area based on quarterly
wage records consistent with the requirements for States under Sec.
463.175.
(e) The local area performance report must include:
(1) Performance levels achieved by the local area for the
indicators for the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs under
title I of WIOA in Sec. 463.155(a)(1) and (3);
(2) Performance levels achieved by the local area for the adult,
dislocated worker, and youth programs under title I of WIOA in Sec.
463.160(a);
(3) The percentage of a local area's allotment under WIOA sec.
128(b) and sec. 133(b) that the local area spent on administrative
costs; and
(4) Other information that facilitates comparisons of programs with
programs in other local areas (or planning regions if the local area is
part of a planning region).
(f) States must comply with any requirements from sec. 116(d)(3) of
WIOA as explained in guidance, including the use of the performance
reporting template, issued by the Department of Labor.
Sec. 463.210 How are local performance levels established?
(a) The objective statistical adjustment model required under sec.
116(b)(3)(A)(viii) of WIOA and described in the Sec. 463.170 must be:
(1) Used to establish local performance targets for the upcoming
program year, and
(2) Used to revise performance levels at the end of a program year
based on actual circumstances, consistent with WIOA sec. 116(c)(3).
(b) The Governor, Local Board, and chief elected official must
reach agreement on local targets and levels based on a negotiations
process before the start of a program year with the use of the
objective statistical model described in paragraph (a) of this section.
The negotiations will include a discussion of circumstances not
accounted for in the model and will take into account the extent to
which the levels promote continuous improvement. The objective
statistical model will be applied at the end of the program year based
on actual conditions experienced.
(c) The negotiations process described in paragraph (b) of this
section must be developed by the Governor and disseminated to all Local
Boards and chief elected officials.
(d) The Local Boards may apply performance measures to service
providers that differ from the performance measures that apply to the
local area. These performance measures should be established after
considering:
(1) The established local performance levels,
(2) The services provided by each provider; and
(3) The populations the service providers are intended to serve.
Sec. 463.215 Under what circumstances are local areas eligible for
State Incentive Grants?
(a) The Governor is not required to award local incentive funds.
The Governor may use non-Federal funds to create incentives for Local
Boards to implement pay-for-performance contract strategies for the
delivery of training services described in WIOA sec. 134(c)(3) or
activities described in WIOA sec. 129(c)(2) in the local areas served
by the Local Boards.
(b) Pay-for-performance contract strategies must be implemented in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 683.500 through 683.530 of this chapter and
Sec. 463.160.
Sec. 463.220 Under what circumstances may a corrective action or
sanction be applied to local areas for poor performance?
(a) If a local area fails to meet the levels of performance agreed
to under Sec. 463.210 for the primary indicators of performance in the
adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs authorized under WIOA
title I in any program year, technical assistance must be provided by
the Governor or, upon the Governor's request, by the Secretary of
Labor.
(1) A State must establish the threshold for failure in meeting
levels of performance for a local area before negotiating the adjusted
levels of performance for the local area.
(2) The technical assistance may include:
(i) Assistance in the development of a performance improvement
plan,
(ii) The development of a modified local or regional plan; or
(iii) Other actions designed to assist the local area in improving
performance.
(b) If a local area fails to meet the levels of performance agreed
to under Sec. 463.210 for the primary indicators of performance for
the adult, dislocated worker, and youth programs authorized under WIOA
title I for a third consecutive program year, the Governor must take
corrective actions. The corrective actions must include the development
of a reorganization plan under which the Governor:
(1) Requires the appointment and certification of a new Local
Board, consistent with the criteria established under Sec. 679.350 of
this chapter;
(2) Prohibits the use of eligible providers and one-stop partners
that have been identified as achieving poor levels of performance; or
(3) Takes such other significant actions as the Governor determines
are appropriate.
Sec. 463.225 Under what circumstances may local areas appeal a
reorganization plan?
(a) The Local Board and chief elected official for a local area
that is subject to a reorganization plan under WIOA sec. 116(g)(2)(A)
may appeal to the Governor to rescind or revise the reorganization plan
not later than 30 days after receiving notice of the reorganization
plan. The Governor must make a final decision within 30 days after
receipt of the appeal.
(b) The Local Board and chief elected official may appeal the final
decision of the Governor to the Secretary of Labor not later than 30
days after receiving the decision from the Governor. Any appeal of the
Governor's final decision must be:
(1) Appealed jointly by the Local Board and chief elected official
to the Secretary under Sec. 683.650 of this chapter; and
(2) Must be submitted by certified mail, return receipt requested,
to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington DC 20210, Attention: ASET. A copy of the appeal must be
simultaneously provided to the Governor.
(c) Upon receipt of the joint appeal from the Local Board and chief
elected official, the Secretary must make a final decision within 30
days. In making this determination the Secretary may consider any
comments submitted by the Governor in response to the appeals.
(d) The decision by the Governor to impose a reorganization plan
becomes effective at the time it is issued and
[[Page 20676]]
remains effective unless the Secretary of Labor rescinds or revises the
reorganization plan under WIOA sec. 116(g)(2)(B)(ii).
Sec. 463.230 What information is required for the eligible training
provider performance reports?
(a) States are required to make available, and publish, annually
using a template the Departments will disseminate including through
electronic means, the eligible training provider performance reports
for eligible training providers who provide services under sec. 122 of
WIOA that are described in Sec. Sec. 680.400 through 680.530 of this
chapter. These reports at a minimum must include, consistent with Sec.
463.175 and with respect to each program of study that is eligible to
receive funds under WIOA:
(1) The total number of participants who received training services
under the adult and dislocated worker programs authorized under WIOA
title I for the most recent year and the 3 preceding program years,
including:
(i) The number of participants under the adult and dislocated
worker programs disaggregated by barriers to employment;
(ii) The number of participants under the adult and dislocated
worker programs disaggregated by race, ethnicity, sex, and age;
(iii) The number of participants under the adult and dislocated
worker programs disaggregated by the type of training entity for the
most recent program year and the 3 preceding program years;
(2) The total number of participants who exit a program of study or
its equivalent, including disaggregate counts by the type of training
entity during the most recent program year and the 3 preceding program
years;
(3) The average cost-per-participant for participants who received
training services for the most recent program year and the 3 preceding
program years disaggregated by type of training entity;
(4) The total number of individuals exiting from the program of
study (or the equivalent); and
(5) The levels of performance achieved for the primary indicators
of performance identified in Sec. 463.155(a)(1)(i) through (iv) with
respect to all individuals in a program of study (or the equivalent).
(b) Registered apprenticeship programs are not required to submit
performance information. See Sec. 680.470 of this chapter. If a
registered apprenticeship program voluntarily submits performance
information to a State, the State must include this information in the
report.
(c) The State must provide electronic access to the public eligible
training provider performance report in its annual State performance
report.
(d) States must comply with any requirements from sec. 116(d)(4) of
WIOA as explained in guidance issued by the Department of Labor.
(e) The Governor may designate one or more State agencies such as a
State education agency or State educational authority to assist in
overseeing eligible training provider performance and facilitating the
production and dissemination of eligible training provider performance
reports. These agencies may be the same agencies that are designated as
responsible for administering the eligible training providers list as
provided under Sec. 680.500 of this chapter. The Governor or such
agencies, or authorities, is responsible for:
(1) Facilitating data matches between ETP records and UI wage data
in order to produce the report;
(2) The creation and dissemination of the reports as described in
paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section;
(3) Coordinating the dissemination of the performance reports with
the eligible training provider list and the information required to
accompany the list, as provided in Sec. 680.500 of this chapter.
Sec. 463.235 What are the reporting requirements for individual
records for core Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act title I, III,
and IV programs?
(a) On a quarterly basis, each State must submit to the Secretary
of Labor or Secretary of Education, as appropriate, individual records
that include demographic information, information on services received,
and information on resulting outcomes, as appropriate, for each
reportable individual in a core program administered by the Secretary
of Labor or Education. Such records submitted to the Department of
Labor must be submitted in one record that is integrated across all
core Department of Labor programs.
(b) For individual records submitted to the Secretary of Labor,
records must be integrated across all core programs administered by the
Secretary of Labor in one single file.
(c) States must comply with any other requirements from sec.
116(d)(2) of WIOA as explained in guidance issued by the Department of
Labor.
Sec. 463.240 What are the requirements for data validation of State
annual performance reports?
(a) States must establish procedures, consistent with guidelines
issued by the Secretary of Education or Secretary of Labor, to submit
complete annual performance reports that contain information that is
valid and reliable.
(b) If a State fails to meet standards in paragraph (a) of this
section as determined by the Secretary of Labor or Secretary of
Education, the appropriate Secretary will provide technical assistance
and may require the State to develop and implement corrective actions,
which may require the State to provide training for its subrecipients.
(c) The Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education will
provide training and technical assistance to States in order to
implement this section.
0
11. Add subpart J to part 463, as added elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, to read as follows:
Subpart J--Description of the One-Stop System Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec.
463.300 What is the one-stop delivery system?
463.305 What is a comprehensive one-stop center and what must be
provided there?
463.310 What is an affiliated site and what must be provided there?
463.315 Can a stand-alone Wagner-Peyser employment service office be
designated as an affiliated one-stop site?
463.320 Are there any requirements for networks of eligible one-stop
partners or specialized centers?
463.400 Who are the required one-stop partners?
463.405 Is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families a required one-
stop partner?
463.410 What other entities may serve as one-stop partners?
463.415 What entity serves as the one-stop partner for a particular
program in the local area?
463.420 What are the roles and responsibilities of the required one-
stop partners?
463.425 What are the applicable career services that must be
provided through the one-stop delivery system by required one-stop
partners?
463.430 What are career services?
463.435 What are the business services provided through the one-stop
delivery system, and how are they provided?
463.440 When may a fee be charged for the business services in this
subpart?
463.500 What is the Memorandum of Understanding for the one-stop
delivery system and what must be included in the Memorandum of
Understanding?
463.505 Is there a single Memorandum of Understanding for the local
area, or must there be separate Memoranda of Understanding between
the Local Board and each partner?
[[Page 20677]]
463.510 How should the Memorandum of Understanding be negotiated?
463.600 Who may operate one-stop centers?
463.605 How is the one-stop operator selected?
463.610 How is sole source selection of one-stop operators
accomplished?
463.615 Can an entity serving as one-stop operator compete to be a
one-stop operator under the procurement requirements of this
subpart?
463.620 What is the one-stop operator's role?
463.625 Can a one-stop operator also be a service provider?
463.630 Can State merit staff still work in a one-stop where the
operator is not a governmental entity?
463.635 What is the effective date of the provisions of this
subpart?
463.700 What are one-stop infrastructure costs?
463.705 What guidance must the Governor issue regarding one-stop
infrastructure funding?
463.710 How are infrastructure costs funded?
463.715 How are one-stop infrastructure costs funded in the local
funding mechanism?
463.720 What funds are used to pay for infrastructure costs in the
local one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
463.725 What happens if consensus on infrastructure funding is not
reached at the local level between the Local Board, chief elected
officials, and one-stop partners?
463.730 What is the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
463.735 How are partner contributions determined in the State one-
stop funding mechanism?
463.740 What funds are used to pay for infrastructure costs in the
State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
463.745 How is the allocation formula used by the Governor
determined in the State one-stop funding mechanism?
463.750 When and how can a one-stop partner appeal a one-stop
infrastructure amount designated by the State under the State
infrastructure funding mechanism?
463.755 What are the required elements regarding infrastructure
funding that must be included in the one-stop Memorandum of
Understanding?
361.760 How do one-stop partners jointly fund other shared costs
under the Memorandum of Understanding?
463.800 How are one-stop centers and one-stop delivery systems
certified for effectiveness, physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous improvement?
463.900 What is the common identifier to be used by each one-stop
delivery system?
Subpart J--Description of the One-Stop System Under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
Sec. 463.300 What is the one-stop delivery system?
(a) The one-stop delivery system brings together workforce
development, educational, and other human resource services in a
seamless customer-focused service delivery network that enhances access
to the programs' services and improves long-term employment outcomes
for individuals receiving assistance. One-stop partners administer
separately funded programs as a set of integrated streamlined services
to customers.
(b) Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)
assigns responsibilities at the local, State, and Federal level to
ensure the creation and maintenance of a one-stop delivery system that
enhances the range and quality of education and workforce development
services that business and individual customers can access.
(c) The system must include at least one comprehensive physical
center in each local area as described in Sec. 463.305.
(d) The system may also have additional arrangements to supplement
the comprehensive center. These arrangements include:
(1) An affiliated site or a network of affiliated sites, where one
or more partners make programs, services, and activities available, as
described in Sec. 463.310;
(2) A network of eligible one-stop partners, as described in
Sec. Sec. 463.400 through 463.410, through which each partner provides
one or more of the programs, services, and activities that are linked,
physically or technologically, to an affiliated site or access point
that assures customers are provided information on the availability of
career services, as well as other program services and activities,
regardless of where they initially enter the workforce system in the
local area; and
(3) Specialized centers that address specific needs, including
those of dislocated workers, youth, or key industry sectors, or
clusters.
(e) Required one-stop partner programs must provide access to
programs, services, and activities through electronic means if
applicable and practicable. This is in addition to providing access to
services through the mandatory comprehensive physical one-stop center
and any affiliated sites or specialized centers. The provision of
programs and services by electronic methods such as Web sites,
telephones, or other means must improve the efficiency, coordination,
and quality of one-stop partner services. Electronic delivery must not
replace access to such services at a comprehensive one-stop center or
be a substitute to making services available at an affiliated site if
the partner is participating in an affiliated site. Electronic delivery
systems must be in compliance with the nondiscrimination and equal
opportunity provisions of WIOA in sec. 188 and its implementing
regulations at 29 CFR part 37.
(f) The design of the local area's one-stop delivery system must be
described in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) executed with the
one-stop partners, described in Sec. 463.500.
Sec. 463.305 What is a comprehensive one-stop center and what must be
provided there?
(a) A comprehensive one-stop center is a physical location where
jobseeker and employer customers can access the programs, services, and
activities of all required one-stop partners. A comprehensive one-stop
center must have at least one title I staff person physically present.
(b) The comprehensive one-stop center must provide:
(1) Career services, described in Sec. 463.430;
(2) Access to training services described in Sec. 680.200 of this
chapter;
(3) Access to any employment and training activities carried out
under sec. 134(d) of WIOA;
(4) Access to programs and activities carried out by one-stop
partners listed in Sec. Sec. 463.400 through 463.410, including
Wagner-Peyser employment services; and
(5) Workforce and labor market information.
(c) Customers must have access to these programs, services, and
activities during regular business days at a comprehensive one-stop
center. The Local Board may establish other service hours at other
times to accommodate the schedules of individuals who work on regular
business days. The State Board will evaluate the hours of access to
service as part of the evaluation of effectiveness in the one-stop
certification process described in Sec. 463.800(b).
(d) ``Access'' to programs and services means having either:
Program staff physically present at the location; having partner
program staff physically present at the one-stop appropriately trained
to provide information to customers about the programs, services, and
activities available through partner
[[Page 20678]]
programs; or providing direct linkage through technology to program
staff who can provide meaningful information or services.
(1) A ``direct linkage'' means providing direct connection at the
one-stop, within a reasonable time, by phone or through a real-time
Web-based communication to a program staff member who can provide
program information or services to the customer.
(2) A ``direct linkage'' does not include providing a phone number
or computer Web site that can be used at an individual's home;
providing information, pamphlets, or materials; or making arrangements
for the customer to receive services at a later time or on a different
day.
(e) All comprehensive one-stop centers must be physically and
programmatically accessible to individuals with disabilities, as
described in Sec. 463.800.
Sec. 463.310 What is an affiliated site and what must be provided
there?
(a) An affiliated site, or affiliate one-stop center, is a site
that makes available to jobseeker and employer customers one or more of
the one-stop partners' programs, services, and activities. An
affiliated site does not need to provide access to every required one-
stop partner program. The frequency of program staff's physical
presence in the affiliated site will be determined at the local level.
Affiliated sites are access points in addition to the Comprehensive
one-stop center(s) in each local area. If used by local areas as a part
of the service delivery strategy, affiliate sites should be implemented
in a manner that supplements and enhances customer access to services.
(b) As described in Sec. 463.315, Wagner-Peyser employment
services cannot be a stand-alone affiliated site.
(c) States, in conjunction with the Local Workforce Development
Boards, must examine lease agreements and property holdings throughout
the one-stop delivery system in order to use property in an efficient
and effective way. Where necessary and appropriate, States and Local
Boards must take expeditious steps to align lease expiration dates with
efforts to consolidate one-stop operations into service points where
Wagner-Peyser employment services are collocated as soon as reasonably
possible. These steps must be included in the State Plan.
(d) All affiliated sites must be physically and programmatically
accessible to individuals with disabilities, as described in Sec.
463.800.
Sec. 463.315 Can a stand-alone Wagner-Peyser employment service
office be designated as an affiliated one-stop site?
(a) Separate stand-alone Wagner-Peyser employment services offices
are not permitted under WIOA, as also described in Sec. 652.202 of
this chapter.
(b) If Wagner-Peyser employment services are provided at an
affiliated site, there must be at least one other partner in the
affiliated site with staff physically present more than 50 percent of
the time the center is open. Additionally, the other partner must not
be the partner administering local veterans' employment
representatives, disabled veterans' outreach program specialists, or
unemployment compensation programs. If Wagner-Peyser employment
services and any of these three programs are provided at an affiliated
site, an additional partner must have staff present in the center more
than 50 percent of the time the center is open.
Sec. 463.320 Are there any requirements for networks of eligible one-
stop partners or specialized centers?
Any network of one-stop partners or specialized centers must be
connected to, such as having processes in place to make referrals to,
the comprehensive and any appropriate affiliate one-stop centers.
Wagner-Peyser employment services cannot stand alone in a specialized
center. Just as described in Sec. 463.315 for an affiliated site, a
specialized center must include other programs besides Wagner-Peyser
employment services, local veterans' employment representatives,
disabled veterans' outreach program specialists, and unemployment
compensation.
Sec. 463.400 Who are the required one-stop partners?
(a) Section 121(b)(1)(B) of WIOA identifies the entities that are
required partners in the local one-stop systems.
(b) The required partners are the entities responsible for
administering the following programs and activities in the local area:
(1) Programs authorized under title I of WIOA, including:
(i) Adults;
(ii) Dislocated workers;
(iii) Youth;
(iv) Job Corps;
(v) YouthBuild;
(vi) Native American programs; and
(vii) Migrant and seasonal farmworker programs;
(2) Employment services authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29
U.S.C. 49 et seq.);
(3) Adult education and literacy activities authorized under title
II of WIOA;
(4) The Vocational Rehabilitation program authorized under title I
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 720 et seq.);
(5) The Senior Community Service Employment Program authorized
under title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056 et
seq.);
(6) Career and technical education programs at the post-secondary
level authorized under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.);
(7) Trade Adjustment Assistance activities authorized under chapter
2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 et seq.);
(8) Jobs for Veterans State Grants programs authorized under
chapter 41 of title 38, U.S.C.;
(9) Employment and training activities carried out under the
Community Services Block Grant (42 U.S.C. 9901 et seq.);
(10) Employment and training activities carried out by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(11) Programs authorized under State unemployment compensation laws
(in accordance with applicable Federal law);
(12) Programs authorized under sec. 212 of the Second Chance Act of
2007 (42 U.S.C. 17532); and
(13) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) authorized
under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), unless exempted by the Governor under Sec. 463.405(b).
Sec. 463.405 Is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families a required
one-stop partner?
(a) Yes, TANF, authorized under part A of title IV of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), is a required partner. (WIOA sec.
121(b)(1)(B)(xiii)).
(b) The Governor may determine that TANF will not be a required
partner in the State, or within some specific local areas in the State.
In this instance, the Governor must notify the Secretaries of the U.S.
Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services in writing of this
determination.
(c) In States, or local areas within a State, where the Governor
has determined that TANF is not required to be a partner, local TANF
programs may still opt to be a one-stop partner, or to work in
collaboration with the one-stop center.
Sec. 463.410 What other entities may serve as one-stop partners?
(a) Other entities that carry out a workforce development program,
including Federal, State, or local programs and programs in the private
[[Page 20679]]
sector, may serve as additional partners in the one-stop system if the
Local Board and chief elected official(s) approve the entity's
participation.
(b) Additional partners may include:
(1) Employment and training programs administered by the Social
Security Administration, including the Ticket to Work and Self-
Sufficiency Program established under sec. 1148 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320b-19);
(2) Employment and training programs carried out by the Small
Business Administration;
(3) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) employment and
training programs, authorized under secs. 6(d)(4) and 6(o) of the Food
and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2015(d)(4));
(4) Client Assistance Program authorized under sec. 112 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 732);
(5) Programs authorized under the National and Community Service
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq.); and
(6) Other appropriate Federal, State or local programs, including
employment, education, and training programs provided by public
libraries or in the private sector.
Sec. 463.415 What entity serves as the one-stop partner for a
particular program in the local area?
(a) The entity that carries out the program and activities listed
in Sec. 463.400 or Sec. 463.405, and therefore serves as the one-stop
partner, is the grant recipient, administrative entity, or organization
responsible for administering the funds of the specified program in the
local area. The term ``entity'' does not include the service providers
that contract with, or are subrecipients of, the local administrative
entity. For programs that do not include local administrative entities,
the responsible State agency should be the partner. Specific entities
for particular programs are identified in paragraph (b) of this
section. If a program or activity listed in Sec. 463.400 is not
carried out in a local area, the requirements relating to a required
one-stop partner are not applicable to such program or activity in that
local one-stop system.
(b) For title II of WIOA, the entity that carries out the program
for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section is the sole entity or
agency in the State or outlying area responsible for administering or
supervising policy for adult education and literacy activities in the
State or outlying area. The State eligible entity may delegate its
responsibilities under paragraph (a) of this section to one or more
eligible providers or consortium of eligible providers.
(c) For the Vocational Rehabilitation program, authorized under
title I of the Rehabilitation Act, the entity that carries out the
program for the purposes of paragraph (a) of this section is the
designated State agencies or designated State units specified under
sec. 101(a)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act that is primarily concerned
with vocational rehabilitation, or vocational and other rehabilitation,
of individuals with disabilities.
(d) Under WIOA, the national programs, including Job Corps, the
Native American program, YouthBuild, and Migrant and Seasonal
Farmworker programs are required one-stop partners. The entity for the
Native American program and Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker programs is
the grantee of those respective programs. The entity for Job Corps is
the Job Corps center.
(e) For the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of
2006, the entity that carries out the program for the purposes of
paragraph (a) of this section is the State eligible agency. The State
eligible agency may delegate its responsibilities under paragraph (a)
of this section to one or more State agencies, eligible recipients at
the post-secondary level, or consortia of eligible recipients at the
post-secondary level.
Sec. 463.420 What are the roles and responsibilities of the required
one-stop partners?
Each required partner must:
(a) Provide access to its programs or activities through the one-
stop delivery system, in addition to any other appropriate locations;
(WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(A)(i).)
(b) Use a portion of funds made available to the partner's program,
to the extent consistent with the Federal law authorizing the partner's
program and with Federal cost principles in 2 CFR parts 200 and 3474
(requiring, among other things, that costs are allowable, reasonable,
necessary, and allocable), to:
(1) Provide applicable career services; and
(2) Work collaboratively with the State and Local Boards to
establish and maintain the one-stop delivery system. This includes
jointly funding the one-stop infrastructure through partner
contributions that are based upon:
(i) A reasonable cost allocation methodology by which
infrastructure costs are charged to each partner in proportion to the
relative benefits;
(ii) Federal cost principles; and
(iii) Any local administrative cost requirements in the Federal law
authorizing the partner's program. (This is further described in Sec.
463.700). (WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(A)(ii).)
(c) Enter into an MOU with the Local Board relating to the
operation of the one-stop system that meets the requirements of Sec.
463.500(d);
(d) Participate in the operation of the one-stop system consistent
with the terms of the MOU, requirements of authorizing laws, the
Federal cost principles, and all other applicable legal requirements;
(WIOA sec. 121(b)(1)(A)(iv)) and
(e) Provide representation on the State and Local Workforce
Development Boards as required and participate in Board committees as
needed. (WIOA secs. 101(b)(iii) and 107(b)(2)(C) and (D))
Sec. 463.425 What are the applicable career services that must be
provided through the one-stop delivery system by required one-stop
partners?
(a) The applicable career services to be delivered by required one-
stop partners are those services listed in Sec. 463.430 that are
authorized to be provided under each partner's program.
(b) One-stop centers provide services to individual customers based
on individual needs, including the seamless delivery of multiple
services to individual customers. There is no required sequence of
services. (WIOA sec. 121(e)(1)(A).)
Sec. 463.430 What are career services?
Career services, as identified in sec. 134(c)(2) of WIOA, consist
of three types:
(a) Basic career services must be made available and, at a minimum,
must include the following services, as consistent with allowable
program activities and Federal cost principles:
(1) Determinations of whether the individual is eligible to receive
assistance from the adult, dislocated worker, or youth programs;
(2) Outreach, intake (including worker profiling), and orientation
to information and other services available through the one-stop
delivery system;
(3) Initial assessment of skill levels including literacy,
numeracy, and English language proficiency, as well as aptitudes,
abilities (including skills gaps), and supportive services needs;
(4) Labor exchange services, including--
(i) Job search and placement assistance, and, when needed by an
individual, career counseling, including--
(A) Provision of information on in-demand industry sectors and
occupations (as defined in sec. 3(23) of WIOA); and,
[[Page 20680]]
(B) Provision of information on nontraditional employment; and
(ii) Appropriate recruitment and other business services on behalf
of employers, including information and referrals to specialized
business services other than those traditionally offered through the
one-stop delivery system;
(5) Provision of referrals to and coordination of activities with
other programs and services, including programs and services within the
one-stop delivery system and, when appropriate, other workforce
development programs;
(6) Provision of workforce and labor market employment statistics
information, including the provision of accurate information relating
to local, regional, and national labor market areas, including--
(i) Job vacancy listings in labor market areas;
(ii) Information on job skills necessary to obtain the vacant jobs
listed; and
(iii) Information relating to local occupations in demand and the
earnings, skill requirements, and opportunities for advancement for
those jobs;
(7) Provision of performance information and program cost
information on eligible providers of training services by program and
type of providers;
(8) Provision of information, in usable and understandable formats
and languages, about how the local area is performing on local
performance accountability measures, as well as any additional
performance information relating to the area's one-stop delivery
system;
(9) Provision of information, in usable and understandable formats
and languages, relating to the availability of supportive services or
assistance, and appropriate referrals to those services and assistance,
including: Child care; child support; medical or child health
assistance available through the State's Medicaid program and
Children's Health Insurance Program; benefits under SNAP; assistance
through the earned income tax credit; and assistance under a State
program for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and other
supportive services and transportation provided through that program;
(10) Provision of information and assistance regarding filing
claims for unemployment compensation, by which the one-stop must
provide meaningful assistance to individuals seeking assistance in
filing a claim for unemployment compensation.
(i) ``Meaningful assistance'' means:
(A) Providing assistance on-site using staff who are well-trained
in unemployment compensation claims filing and the rights and
responsibilities of claimants, or
(B) Providing assistance by phone or via other technology, as long
as the assistance is provided by trained and available staff and within
a reasonable time.
(ii) The costs associated in providing this assistance may be paid
for by the State's unemployment insurance program, or the WIOA adult or
dislocated worker programs, or some combination thereof.
(11) Assistance in establishing eligibility for programs of
financial aid assistance for training and education programs not
provided under WIOA.
(b) Individualized career services must be made available if
determined to be appropriate in order for an individual to obtain or
retain employment. These services include the following services, as
consistent with program requirements and Federal cost principles:
(1) Comprehensive and specialized assessments of the skill levels
and service needs of adults and dislocated workers, which may include--
(i) Diagnostic testing and use of other assessment tools; and
(ii) In-depth interviewing and evaluation to identify employment
barriers and appropriate employment goals;
(2) Development of an individual employment plan, to identify the
employment goals, appropriate achievement objectives, and appropriate
combination of services for the participant to achieve his or her
employment goals, including the list of, and information about, the
eligible training providers (as described in Sec. 680.180 of this
chapter);
(3) Group counseling;
(4) Individual counseling;
(5) Career planning;
(6) Short-term pre-vocational services including development of
learning skills, communication skills, interviewing skills,
punctuality, personal maintenance skills, and professional conduct
services to prepare individuals for unsubsidized employment or
training;
(7) Internships and work experiences that are linked to careers (as
described in Sec. 680.170 of this chapter);
(8) Workforce preparation activities;
(9) Financial literacy services as described in sec. 129(b)(2)(D)
of WIOA and Sec. 681.500 of this chapter;
(10) Out-of-area job search assistance and relocation assistance;
and
(11) English language acquisition and integrated education and
training programs.
(c) Follow-up services must be provided, as appropriate, including:
Counseling regarding the workplace, for participants in adult or
dislocated worker workforce investment activities who are placed in
unsubsidized employment, for up to 12 months after the first day of
employment.
Sec. 463.435 What are the business services provided through the one-
stop delivery system, and how are they provided?
(a) Certain career services must be made available to local
businesses, specifically labor exchange activities and labor market
information described in Sec. Sec. 463.430(a)(4)(ii) and (a)(6). Local
areas must establish and develop relationships and networks with large
and small employers and their intermediaries. (WIOA sec.
134(c)(1)(A)(iv)). Local areas also must develop, convene, or implement
industry or sector partnerships. (WIOA sec. 134(c)(1)(A)(v)).
(b) Customized business services may be provided to employers,
employer associations, or other such organizations (WIOA sec.
134(d)(1)(A)(ii)). These services are tailored for specific employers
and may include:
(1) Customized screening and referral of qualified participants in
training services to employers;
(2) Customized services to employers, employer associations, or
other such organizations, on employment-related issues;
(3) Customized recruitment events and related services for
employers including targeted job fairs;
(4) Human resource consultation services, including but not limited
to assistance with:
(i) Writing/reviewing job descriptions and employee handbooks;
(ii) Developing performance evaluation and personnel policies;
(iii) Creating orientation sessions for new workers;
(iv) Honing job interview techniques for efficiency and compliance;
(v) Analyzing employee turnover; or
(vi) Explaining labor laws to help employers comply with wage/hour
and safety/health regulations;
(5) Customized labor market information for specific employers,
sectors, industries or clusters; and
(6) Other similar customized services.
(c) Local areas may also provide other business services and
strategies that meet the workforce investment needs of area employers,
in accordance with partner programs' statutory requirements and
consistent with
[[Page 20681]]
Federal cost principles. These business services may be provided
through effective business intermediaries working in conjunction with
the Local Board, or through the use of economic development,
philanthropic, and other public and private resources in a manner
determined appropriate by the Local Board and in cooperation with the
State. Allowable activities, consistent with each partner's authorized
activities, include, but are not limited to:
(1) Developing and implementing industry sector strategies
(including strategies involving industry partnerships, regional skills
alliances, industry skill panels, and sectoral skills partnerships);
(2) Customized assistance or referral for assistance in the
development of a registered apprenticeship program;
(3) Developing and delivering innovative workforce investment
services and strategies for area employers, which may include career
pathways, skills upgrading, skill standard development and
certification for recognized post-secondary credential or other
employer use, and other effective initiatives for meeting the workforce
investment needs of area employers and workers;
(4) Assistance to area employers in managing reductions in force in
coordination with rapid response activities and with strategies for the
aversion of layoffs, which may include strategies such as early
identification of firms at risk of layoffs, use of feasibility studies
to assess the needs of and options for at-risk firms, and the delivery
of employment and training activities to address risk factors;
(5) The marketing of business services to appropriate area
employers, including small and mid-sized employers; and
(6) Assisting employers with accessing local, State, and Federal
tax credits.
(d) All business services and strategies must be reflected in the
local plan, described in Sec. 679.560(b)(3) of this chapter.
Sec. 463.440 When may a fee be charged for the business services in
this subpart?
(a) There is no requirement that a fee-for-service be charged to
employers.
(b) No fee may be charged for services provided in Sec.
463.435(a).
(c) A fee may be charged for services provided under Sec.
463.435(b) and (c). Services provided under Sec. 463.435(c) may be
provided through effective business intermediaries working in
conjunction with the Local Board and may also be provided on a fee-for-
service basis or through the leveraging of economic development,
philanthropic, and other public and private resources in a manner
determined appropriate by the Local Board. The Local Workforce
Development Board may examine the services provided compared with the
assets and resources available within the local one-stop delivery
system and through its partners to determine an appropriate cost
structure for services, if any.
Sec. 463.500 What is the Memorandum of Understanding for the one-stop
delivery system and what must be included in the Memorandum of
Understanding ?
(a) The MOU is the product of local discussion and negotiation, and
is an agreement developed and executed between the Local Board, with
the agreement of the chief elected official and the one-stop partners,
relating to the operation of the one-stop delivery system in the local
area. Two or more local areas in a region may develop a single joint
MOU, if they are in a region that has submitted a regional plan under
sec. 106 of WIOA.
(b) The MOU must include:
(1) A description of services to be provided through the one-stop
delivery system, including the manner in which the services will be
coordinated and delivered through the system;
(2) A final plan, or an interim plan if needed, on how the costs of
the services and the operating costs of the system will be funded,
including:
(i) Funding of infrastructure costs of one-stop centers in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 463.700 through 463.755; and
(ii) Funding of the shared services and operating costs of the one-
stop delivery system described in Sec. 463.760;
(3) Methods for referring individuals between the one-stop
operators and partners for appropriate services and activities;
(4) Methods to ensure that the needs of workers, youth, and
individuals with barriers to employment, including individuals with
disabilities, are addressed in providing access to services, including
access to technology and materials that are available through the one-
stop delivery system;
(5) The duration of the MOU and procedures for amending it; and
(6) Assurances that each MOU will be reviewed, and if substantial
changes have occurred, renewed, not less than once every 3-year period
to ensure appropriate funding and delivery of services.
(c) The MOU may contain any other provisions agreed to by the
parties that are consistent with WIOA title I, the authorizing statutes
and regulations of one-stop partner programs, and the WIOA regulations.
(WIOA sec. 121(c).)
(d) When fully executed, the MOU must contain the signatures of the
Local Board, one-stop partners, the chief elected official(s), and the
time period in which the agreement is effective. The MOU must be
updated not less than every 3 years to reflect any changes in the
signatory official of the Board, one-stop partners, and chief elected
officials, or one-stop infrastructure funding.
(e) If a one-stop partner appeal to the State regarding
infrastructure costs, using the process described in Sec. 463.750,
results in a change to the one-stop partner's infrastructure cost
contributions, the MOU must be updated to reflect the final one-stop
partner infrastructure cost contributions.
Sec. 463.505 Is there a single Memorandum of Understanding for the
local area, or must there be separate Memoranda of Understanding
between the Local Board and each partner?
(a) A single ``umbrella'' MOU may be developed that addresses the
issues relating to the local one-stop delivery system for the Local
Board, chief elected official and all partners. Alternatively, the
Local Board (with agreement of chief elected official) may enter into
separate agreements between each partner or groups of partners.
(b) Under either approach, the requirements described in Sec.
463.500 apply. Since funds are generally appropriated annually, the
Local Board may negotiate financial agreements with each partner
annually to update funding of services and operating costs of the
system under the MOU.
Sec. 463.510 How should the Memorandum of Understanding be
negotiated?
(a) WIOA emphasizes full and effective partnerships between Local
Boards, chief elected officials, and one-stop partners. Local Boards
and partners must enter into good-faith negotiations. Local Boards,
chief elected officials, and one-stop partners may also request
assistance from a State agency responsible for administering the
partner program, the Governor, State Board, or other appropriate
parties on other aspects of the MOU.
(b) Local Boards and one-stop partners must establish, in the MOU,
a final plan for how the Local Board and programs will fund the
infrastructure costs of the one-stop centers. If a final plan regarding
infrastructure costs is not complete when other sections of the MOU are
ready, an interim infrastructure cost plan may be included instead, as
described in Sec. 463.715(c).
[[Page 20682]]
Once the final infrastructure cost plan is approved, the Local Board
and one-stop partners must amend the MOU to include the final plan for
funding infrastructure costs of the one-stop centers, including a
description of the funding mechanism established by the Governor
relevant to the local area. Infrastructure cost funding is described in
detail in subpart E of this part. (WIOA sec. 121(h)(2).)
(c) The Local Board must report to the State Board, Governor, and
relevant State agency when MOU negotiations with one-stop partners have
reached an impasse.
(1) The Local Board and partners must document the negotiations and
efforts that have taken place in the MOU. The State Board, one-stop
partner programs, and the Governor may consult with the appropriate
Federal agencies to address impasse situations related to issues other
than infrastructure funding after attempting to address the impasse.
Impasses related to infrastructure cost funding must be resolved using
the State infrastructure cost funding mechanism described in Sec.
463.730.
(2) The Local Board must report failure to execute an MOU with a
required partner to the Governor, State Board, and the State agency
responsible for administering the partner's program. Additionally, if
the State cannot assist the Local Board in resolving the impasse, the
Governor or the State Board must report the failure to the Secretary of
Labor and to the head of any other Federal agency with responsibility
for oversight of a partner's program.
Sec. 463.600 Who may operate one-stop centers?
(a) One-stop operators may be a single entity (public, private, or
nonprofit) or a consortium of entities. If the consortium of entities
is one of one-stop partners, it must include a minimum of three of the
one-stop partners described in Sec. 463.400.
(b) The one-stop operator may operate one or more one-stop centers.
There may be more than one one-stop operator in a local area.
(c) The types of entities that may be a one-stop operator include:
(1) An institution of higher education;
(2) An Employment Service State agency established under the
Wagner-Peyser Act;
(3) A community-based organization, nonprofit organization, or
workforce intermediary;
(4) A private for-profit entity;
(5) A government agency;
(6) A Local Board, with the approval of the chief local elected
official and the Governor; or
(7) Another interested organization or entity, which is capable of
carrying out the duties of the one-stop operator. Examples may include
a local chamber of commerce or other business organization, or a labor
organization.
(d) Elementary schools and secondary schools are not eligible as
one-stop operators, except that a nontraditional public secondary
school such as a night school, adult school, or an area career and
technical education school may be selected.
(e) The State and Local Boards must ensure that, in carrying out
WIOA programs and activities, one-stop operators:
(1) Disclose any potential conflicts of interest arising from the
relationships of the operators with particular training service
providers or other service providers (further discussed in Sec.
679.430 of this chapter);
(2) Do not establish practices that create disincentives to
providing services to individuals with barriers to employment who may
require longer-term career and training services; and
(3) Comply with Federal regulations and procurement policies
relating to the calculation and use of profits, including those at
Sec. 683.295 of this chapter, the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR chapter
II, and other applicable regulations and policies.
Sec. 463.605 How is the one-stop operator selected?
(a) Consistent with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the
Local Board must select the one-stop operator through a competitive
process, as required by sec. 121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA, at least once every
4 years. A State may require, or a Local Board may choose to implement,
a competitive selection process more than once every 4 years.
(b) In instances in which a State is conducting the competitive
process described in paragraph (a) of this section, the State must
follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurement with
non-Federal funds.
(c) All other non-Federal entities, including subrecipients of a
State (such as local areas), must use a competitive process based on
the principles of competitive procurement in the Uniform Administrative
Guidance set out at 2 CFR 200.318 through 200.326.
(d) Entities described in paragraph (c) of this section must first
determine the nature of the process to be used to comply with sec.
121(d)(2)(A) of WIOA. The acceptable processes are:
(1) Procurement by sealed bids;
(2) Procurement by competitive proposals; or
(3) Procurement by sole source, permitted only if:
(i) Analysis of market conditions and other factors lead to a
determination that it is necessary to use sole-source procurement
because:
(A) There is only one entity that could serve as an operator; or
(B) Unusual and compelling urgency will not permit a delay
resulting from competitive solicitation; or
(ii) Results of the competition conducted under paragraphs (d)(1)
or (2) of this section were determined to be inadequate.
(e) Entities must prepare written documentation explaining the
determination concerning the nature of the competitive process to be
followed in selecting a one-stop operator.
Sec. 463.610 How is sole source selection of one-stop operators
accomplished?
(a) As set forth in Sec. 463.605(d)(3), under certain conditions,
sole source procurement is an allowable method of procurement.
(b) In the event that sole source procurement is determined
necessary and reasonable, in accordance with Sec. 463.605(d)(3),
written documentation must be prepared and maintained concerning the
entire process of making such a selection.
(c) Such sole source procurement must include appropriate conflict
of interest policies and procedures. These policies and procedures must
conform to the specifications in Sec. 679.430 of this chapter for
demonstrating internal controls and preventing conflict of interest.
(d) A Local Board can be selected as a one-stop operator through
sole source procurement only with agreement of the chief elected
official in the local area and the Governor. The Local Board must
establish sufficient conflict of interest policies and procedures and
they must be approved by the Governor.
Sec. 463.615 Can an entity serving as one-stop operator compete to be
a one-stop operator under the procurement requirements of this subpart?
(a) Local Boards can compete for and be selected as one-stop
operators, as long as appropriate firewalls and conflict of interest
policies and procedures are in place. These policies and procedures
must conform to the specifications in Sec. 679.430 of this chapter for
demonstrating internal controls and preventing conflict of interest.
(b) State and local agencies can compete for and be selected as
one-stop operators by the Local Board, as long as appropriate firewalls
and conflict of interest policies and procedures are in place. These
policies and procedures
[[Page 20683]]
must conform to the specifications in Sec. 679.430 of this chapter for
demonstrating internal controls and preventing conflict of interest.
(c) In the case of single State areas where the State Board serves
as the Local Board, the State agency is eligible to compete for and be
selected as operator as long as appropriate firewalls and conflict of
interest policies are in place and followed for the competition. These
policies and procedures must conform to the specifications in Sec.
679.430 of this chapter for demonstrating internal controls and
preventing conflict of interest.
Sec. 463.620 What is the one-stop operator's role?
(a) At a minimum, the one-stop operator must coordinate the service
delivery of required one-stop partners and service providers. Local
Boards may establish additional roles of one-stop operator, including,
but not limited to: Coordinating service providers within the center
and across the one-stop system, being the primary provider of services
within the center, providing some of the services within the center, or
coordinating service delivery in a multi-center area. The competition
for a one-stop operator must clearly articulate the role of the one-
stop operator.
(b) A one-stop operator may not perform the following functions:
Convene system stakeholders to assist in the development of the local
plan; prepare and submit local plans (as required under sec. 107 of
WIOA); be responsible for oversight of itself; manage or significantly
participate in the competitive selection process for one-stop
operators; select or terminate one-stop operators, career services, and
youth providers; negotiate local performance accountability measures;
and develop and submit budget for activities of the Local Board in the
local area. An entity serving as a one-stop operator may perform some
or all of these functions if it also serves in another capacity, if it
has established sufficient firewalls and conflict of interest policies.
The policies must conform to the specifications in Sec. 679.430 of
this chapter for demonstrating internal controls and preventing
conflict of interest.
Sec. 463.625 Can a one-stop operator also be a service provider?
Yes, but there must be appropriate firewalls in place in regards to
the competition, and subsequent oversight, monitoring, and evaluation
of performance of the service provider. The operator cannot develop,
manage or conduct the competition of a service provider in which it
intends to compete. In cases where an operator is also a service
provider, there must be firewalls and internal controls within the
operator-service provider entity, as well as specific policies and
procedures at the Local Board level regarding oversight, monitoring,
and evaluation of performance of the service provider. The firewalls
must conform to the specifications in Sec. 679.430 of this chapter for
demonstrating internal controls and preventing conflict of interest.
Sec. 463.630 Can State merit staff still work in a one-stop where the
operator is not a governmental entity?
Yes. State merit staff can continue to perform functions and
activities in the one-stop career center. The Local Board and one-stop
operator must establish a system for management of merit staff in
accordance with State policies and procedures. Continued use of State
merit staff may be included in the competition for and final contract
with the one-stop operator.
Sec. 463.635 What is the effective date of the provisions of this
subpart?
(a) No later than June 30, 2017, one-stop operators selected under
the competitive process described in this subpart must be in place and
operating the one-stop.
(b) By June 30, 2016, every Local Board must demonstrate it is
taking steps to prepare for competition of its one-stop operator. This
demonstration may include, but is not limited to, market research,
requests for information, and conducting a cost and price analysis.
Sec. 463.700 What are one-stop infrastructure costs?
(a) Infrastructure costs of one-stop centers are nonpersonnel costs
that are necessary for the general operation of the one-stop center,
including:
(1) Rental of the facilities;
(2) Utilities and maintenance;
(3) Equipment (including assessment-related products and assistive
technology for individuals with disabilities); and
(4) Technology to facilitate access to the one-stop center,
including technology used for the center's planning and outreach
activities.
(b) Local Boards may consider common identifier costs as costs of
one-stop infrastructure.
(c) Each entity that carries out a program or activities in a local
one-stop center, described in Sec. Sec. 463.400 through 463.410, must
use a portion of the funds available for the program and activities to
maintain the one-stop delivery system, including payment of the
infrastructure costs of one-stop centers. These payments must be in
accordance with this subpart; Federal cost principles, which require
that all costs must be allowable, reasonable, necessary, and allocable
to the program; and all other applicable legal requirements.
Sec. 463.705 What guidance must the Governor issue regarding one-stop
infrastructure funding?
(a) The Governor, after consultation with chief elected officials,
the State Board, and Local Boards, and consistent with guidance and
policies provided by the State Board, must develop and issue guidance
for use by local areas, specifically:
(1) Guidelines for State-administered one-stop partner programs for
determining such programs' contributions to a one-stop delivery system,
based on such programs' proportionate use of such system consistent
with Office of Management and Budget Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards in 2 CFR part 200, including determining funding for the costs
of infrastructure; and
(2) Guidance to assist Local Boards, chief elected officials, and
one-stop partners in local areas in determining equitable and stable
methods of funding the costs of infrastructure at one-stop centers
based on proportionate benefits received, and consistent with Federal
cost principles.
(b) The guidance must include:
(1) The appropriate roles of the one-stop partner programs in
identifying one-stop infrastructure costs;
(2) Approaches to facilitate equitable and efficient cost
allocation that results in a reasonable cost allocation methodology
where infrastructure costs are charged to each partner in proportion to
relative benefits received, consistent with Federal cost principles;
and
(3) The timelines regarding notification to the Governor for not
reaching local agreement and triggering the State-funded infrastructure
mechanism described in Sec. 463.730, and timelines for a one-stop
partner to submit an appeal in the State-funded infrastructure
mechanism.
Sec. 463.710 How are infrastructure costs funded?
Infrastructure costs are funded either through the local funding
mechanism described in Sec. 463.715 or through the State funding
mechanism described in Sec. 463.730.
[[Page 20684]]
Sec. 463.715 How are one-stop infrastructure costs funded in the
local funding mechanism?
(a) In the local funding mechanism, the Local Board, chief elected
officials, and one-stop partners agree to amounts and methods of
calculating amounts each partner will contribute for one-stop
infrastructure funding, include the infrastructure funding terms in the
MOU, and sign the MOU. The local one-stop funding mechanism must meet
all of the following requirements:
(1) The infrastructure costs are funded through cash and fairly
evaluated in-kind partner contributions and include any funding from
philanthropic organizations or other private entities, or through other
alternative financing options, to provide a stable and equitable
funding stream for ongoing one-stop delivery system operations;
(2) Contributions must be negotiated between one-stop partners,
chief elected officials, and the Local Board and the amount to be
contributed must be included in the MOU;
(3) The one-stop partner program's proportionate share of funding
must be calculated in accordance with the Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards in 2 CFR part 200 based upon a reasonable cost allocation
methodology whereby infrastructure costs are charged to each partner in
proportion to relative benefits received, and must be allowable,
reasonable, necessary, and allocable;
(4) Partner shares must be periodically reviewed and reconciled
against actual costs incurred, and adjusted to ensure that actual costs
charged to any one-stop partners are proportionate and equitable to the
benefit received by the one-stop partners and their respective programs
or activities.
(b) In developing the section of the MOU on one-stop infrastructure
funding fully described in Sec. 463.755, the Local Board and chief
elected officials will:
(1) Ensure that the one-stop partners adhere to the guidance
identified in Sec. 463.705 on one-stop delivery system infrastructure
costs.
(2) Work with one-stop partners to achieve consensus and informally
mediate any possible conflicts or disagreements among one-stop
partners.
(3) Provide technical assistance to new one-stop partners and local
grant recipients to ensure that those entities are informed and
knowledgeable of the elements contained in the MOU and the one-stop
infrastructure costs arrangement.
(c) The MOU may include an interim infrastructure funding
agreement, including as much detail as the Local Board has negotiated
with one-stop partners, if all other parts of the MOU have been
negotiated, in order to allow the partner programs to operate in the
one-stop centers. The interim infrastructure agreement must be
finalized within 6 months of when the MOU is signed. If the
infrastructure interim infrastructure agreement is not finalized within
that timeframe, the Local Board must notify the Governor, as described
in Sec. 463.725.
Sec. 463.720 What funds are used to pay for infrastructure costs in
the local one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) In the local one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism, one-
stop partner programs can determine what funds they will use to fund
infrastructure costs. The use of these funds must be in accordance with
the requirements in this subpart, and with the relevant partner's
authorizing statutes and regulations, including, for example,
prohibitions against supplanting non-Federal resources, statutory
limitations on administrative costs, and all other applicable legal
requirements. In the case of partners administering adult education and
literacy programs authorized by title II of WIOA or the Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, these funds may include
Federal funds that are available for State administration of adult
education and literacy programs authorized by title II of WIOA or for
State administration of post-secondary level programs and activities
under the Perkins Act, and non-Federal funds that the partners
contribute to meet these programs' matching or maintenance of effort
requirements. These funds also may include local administrative funds
available to local entities or consortia of local entities that have
been delegated authority to serve as one-stop local partners by a State
eligible agency as permitted by Sec. Sec. 463.415(b) and (e).
(b) There are no specific caps on the amount or percent of overall
funding a one-stop partner may contribute to fund infrastructure costs
under the local one-stop funding mechanism, except that contributions
for administrative costs may not exceed the amount available for
administrative costs under the authorizing statute of the partner
program. However, amounts contributed for infrastructure costs must be
allowable and based on proportionate use by or benefit to the partner
program, taking into account the total cost of the one-stop
infrastructure as well as alternate financing options, and must be
consistent with 2 CFR chapter II, including the Federal cost
principles.
Sec. 463.725 What happens if consensus on infrastructure funding is
not reached at the local level between the Local Board, chief elected
officials, and one-stop partners?
If, after July 1, 2016, and each subsequent July 1, the Local
Board, chief elected officials, and one-stop partners do not reach
consensus on methods of sufficiently funding local infrastructure
through the local infrastructure cost funding mechanism, and include
that consensus agreement in the signed MOU, then the Local Board must
notify the Governor and the Governor must administer funding through
the State one-stop funding mechanism, as described in Sec. 463.730.
(WIOA sec. 121(h)(2))
Sec. 463.730 What is the State one-stop infrastructure funding
mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism, the
Governor, after consultation with the chief elected officials, Local
Boards, and the State Board, determines one-stop partner contributions,
based upon a methodology where infrastructure costs are charged to each
partner in proportion to relative benefits received and consistent with
the partner program's authorizing laws and regulations, 2 CFR chapter
II, including the Federal cost principles, and other applicable legal
requirements described in Sec. 463.735(a).
(b) The State Board develops an allocation formula to allocate
funds to local areas to support the infrastructure costs for local area
one-stop centers for all local areas that did not use the local funding
mechanism, and the Governor uses that formula to allocate the funds.
This is described in detail in Sec. 463.745.
Sec. 463.735 How are partner contributions determined in the State
one-stop funding mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop funding mechanism, the Governor, after
consultation with State and Local Boards and chief elected officials,
will determine the amount each partner must contribute to assist in
paying the infrastructure costs of one-stop centers. The Governor must
calculate amounts based on the proportionate use of the one-stop
centers by each partner, consistent with chapter II of title 2, Code of
Federal Regulations (or any corresponding similar regulation or
ruling), taking into account the costs of administration of the one-
stop delivery system for purposes not related to one-stop centers for
each partner such as costs associated with maintaining the Local Board,
or information technology systems. The Governor will also take into
account the statutory requirements for each partner program, all other
[[Page 20685]]
applicable legal requirements, and the partner program's ability to
fulfill such requirements.
(b) In certain situations, the Governor does not determine the
infrastructure cost contributions for one-stop partner programs.
(1) The Governor will not determine the contribution amounts for
infrastructure funds for Native American grantees described in 20 CFR
part 684. (WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(D)(iii).) The appropriate portion of
funds to be provided by Native American grantees to pay for one-stop
infrastructure must be determined as part of the development of the MOU
described in Sec. 463.500 and specified in that MOU.
(2) In a State in which the State constitution or a State statute
places policy-making authority that is independent of the authority of
the Governor in an entity or official with respect to the funds
provided for adult education and literacy activities, post-secondary
career and technical education activities, or vocational rehabilitation
services, the chief officer of that entity or the official must
determine the contribution amounts for infrastructure funds in
consultation with the Governor. (WIOA sec. 121(h)(2)(C)(ii).)
(c) Limitations. Per WIOA sec. 122(h)(2)(D), the amount established
by the Governor under paragraph (a) of this section may not exceed the
following caps:
(1) WIOA Formula programs and employment service. The portion of
funds required to be contributed under the WIOA youth, adult, or
dislocated worker programs, or under the Wagner- Peyser Act (29 U.S.C.
49 et seq.) must not exceed 3 percent of the amount of Federal funds
provided to carry out that program in the State for a program year.
(2) Other one-stop partners. The portion of funds required to be
contributed must not exceed 1.5 percent of the amount of Federal funds
provided to carry out that education program or employment and training
program in the State for a fiscal year. For purposes of Carl D. Perkins
Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, the cap on contributions is
determined based on the funds made available for State administration
of post-secondary level programs and activities.
(3) Vocational rehabilitation. Within a State, the entity or
entities administering the programs described in WIOA sec.
121(b)(1)(B)(iv) the allotment is based on the one State allotment,
even in instances where that allotment is shared between two State
agencies, and will not be required to provide from that program a
cumulative portion that exceeds--
(i) 0.75 percent of the amount of Federal funds provided to carry
out such program in the State for Fiscal Year 2016;
(ii) 1.0 percent of the amount provided to carry out such program
in the State for Fiscal Year 2017;
(iii) 1.25 percent of the amount provided to carry out such program
in the State for Fiscal Year 2018; and
(iv) 1.5 percent of the amount provided to carry out such program
in the State for Fiscal Year 2019 and following years.
(4) Federal direct spending programs. For local areas that have not
reached a one-stop infrastructure funding agreement by consensus, an
entity administering a program funded with direct spending as defined
in sec. 250(c)(8) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control
Act of 1985, as in effect on February 15, 2014 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)(8)),
must not be required to provide more for infrastructure costs than the
amount that the Governor determined (as described in Sec. 463.735(a)).
(d) If the above limitations result in funding less than each
partner's proportionate share and contribute to inadequate funding of
the allocation amount determined under Sec. 463.745(b), the Governor
may direct the Local Board, chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners to reenter negotiations to reduce the infrastructure costs to
reflect the amount of funds that are available for such costs, discuss
proportionate share of each one-stop partner, or to identify
alternative sources of financing for one-stop infrastructure funding,
but, in any event, a partner will only be required to pay an amount
that is consistent with the proportionate benefit received by the
partner, the program's authorizing laws and regulations, the Federal
cost principles, and other applicable legal requirements.
(1) The Local Board, chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners, after renegotiation, may come to agreement and sign an MOU
and proceed under the local one-stop funding mechanism.
(2) If after renegotiation, agreement amongst partners still cannot
be reached or alternate financing identified, the Governor may adjust
the specified allocation, in accordance with the amounts available and
the limitations described in Sec. 463.735(c).
Sec. 463.740 What funds are used to pay for infrastructure costs in
the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) In the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism,
infrastructure costs for WIOA title I programs, including Native
American Programs described in 20 CFR part 684, can be paid using
program funds, administrative funds, or both. Infrastructure costs for
the Senior Community Service Employment Program under title V of the
Older Americans Act (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.) can also be paid using
program funds, administrative funds, or both. (WIOA sec.
121(h)(2)(D)(i)(II).)
(b) In the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism,
infrastructure costs for other required one-stop partner programs
(listed in Sec. Sec. 463.400 through 463.410) are limited to the
program's administrative funds, as appropriate. (WIOA sec.
121(h)(2)(D)(i)(I).)
(c) In the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism,
infrastructure costs for the adult education program authorized by
title II of WIOA must be paid from the funds that are available for
State administration or from non-Federal funds that the partner
contributes to meet the program's matching or maintenance of effort
requirement. Infrastructure costs for title II of WIOA may also be paid
from funds available for local administration of programs and
activities to eligible providers or consortia of eligible providers
delegated responsibilities to act as a local one-stop partner pursuant
to Sec. 463.415(b).
(d) In the State one-stop infrastructure funding mechanism,
infrastructure costs for the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical
Education Act of 2006 must be paid from the Federal funds that are
available for State administration of post-secondary level programs and
activities under the Perkins Act, or from non-Federal funds that the
partner contributes to meet the program's matching or maintenance of
effort requirement. Infrastructure costs for the Carl D. Perkins Career
and Technical Education Act of 2006 may also be paid from funds
available for local administration of post-secondary level programs and
activities to eligible recipients or consortia of eligible recipients
delegated responsibilities to act as a local one-stop partner pursuant
to Sec. 463.415(e).
Sec. 463.745 How is the allocation formula used by the Governor
determined in the State one-stop funding mechanism?
(a) The State Board must develop an allocation formula to be used
by the Governor to allocate funds to the local areas that did not
successfully use the local funding mechanism. The allocation formula
must take into account the number of one-stop centers in a local area,
the population served by such centers, the services provided by
[[Page 20686]]
such centers, and other factors relating to the performance of such
centers that the State Board determines are appropriate and that are
consistent with Federal cost principles. (WIOA 121(h)(3)(B))
(b) Using the funds contributed by the one-stop partners described
in Sec. 463.735, the Governor will then use this formula to allocate
funds to the local areas that did not use the local funding mechanism
to fund one-stop center infrastructure costs, so long as that funding
distribution is consistent with Federal cost principles for each of the
affected one-stop partners.
Sec. 463.750 When and how can a one-stop partner appeal a one-stop
infrastructure amount designated by the State under the State
infrastructure funding mechanism?
(a) The Governor must establish a process, described under sec.
121(h)(2)(E) of WIOA, for a one-stop partner administering a program
described in Sec. Sec. 463.400 through 463.410 to appeal the
Governor's determination regarding the one-stop partner's portion of
funds to be provided for one-stop infrastructure costs. This appeal
process must be described in the Unified State Plan. (WIOA secs.
121(h)(2)(E) and 102(b)(2)(D)(i)(IV).)
(b) The appeal may be made on the ground that the Governor's
determination is inconsistent with proportionate share requirements in
Sec. 463.735(a), the cost contribution limitations in Sec.
463.735(b), or the cost contribution caps in Sec. 463.735(c).
(c) The process must ensure prompt resolution of the appeal in
order to ensure the funds are distributed in a timely manner,
consistent with the requirements of Sec. 683.630 of this chapter.
(d) The one-stop partner must submit an appeal in accordance with
State's deadlines for appeals specified in the guidance issued under
Sec. 463.705(b)(3), or if the State has not set a deadline, within 21
days from the Governor's determination.
Sec. 463.755 What are the required elements regarding infrastructure
funding that must be included in the one-stop Memorandum of
Understanding?
The MOU, fully described in Sec. 463.500, must contain the
following information whether the local areas use either the local one-
stop or the State one-stop infrastructure funding method:
(a) The period of time in which this infrastructure funding
agreement is effective. This may be a different time period than the
duration of the MOU.
(b) Identification of an infrastructure and shared services budget
that will be periodically reconciled against actual costs incurred and
adjusted accordingly to ensure that it reflects a cost allocation
methodology that demonstrates how infrastructure costs are charged to
each partner in proportion to relative benefits received, and that
complies with chapter II of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling).
(c) Identification of all one-stop partners, chief elected
officials, and Local Board participating in the infrastructure funding
arrangement.
(d) Steps the Local Board, chief elected officials, and one-stop
partners used to reach consensus or an assurance that the local area
followed the guidance for the State one-stop infrastructure funding
process.
(e) Description of the process to be used between partners to
resolve issues during the MOU duration period when consensus cannot be
reached.
(f) Description of the periodic modification and review process to
ensure equitable benefit among one-stop partners.
Sec. 463.760 How do one-stop partners jointly fund other shared costs
under the Memorandum of Understanding?
(a) In addition to jointly funding infrastructure costs, one-stop
partners listed in Sec. Sec. 463.400 through 463.410 must use a
portion of funds made available under their programs' authorizing
Federal law (or fairly evaluated in-kind contributions) to pay the
additional costs relating to the operation of the one-stop delivery
system, which must include applicable career services.
(b) Additionally, one-stop partners may jointly fund shared
services to the extent consistent with their programs' Federal
authorizing statutes and other applicable legal requirements. Shared
services' costs may include the costs of shared services that are
authorized for and may be commonly provided through the one-stop
partner programs to any individual, such as initial intake, assessment
of needs, appraisal of basic skills, identification of appropriate
services to meet such needs, referrals to other one-stop partners, and
business services. Shared operating costs may also include shared costs
of the Local Board's functions.
(c) These shared costs must be allocated according to the
proportion of benefit received by each of the partners, consistent with
the Federal law authorizing the partner's program, and consistent with
all other applicable legal requirements, including Federal cost
principles in chapter II of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(or any corresponding similar regulation or ruling) requiring that
costs are reasonable, necessary, and allocable.
(d) Any shared costs agreed upon by the one-stop partners must be
included in the MOU.
Sec. 463.800 How are one-stop centers and one-stop delivery systems
certified for effectiveness, physical and programmatic accessibility,
and continuous improvement?
(a) The State Board, in consultation with chief elected officials
and Local Boards, must establish objective criteria and procedures for
Local Boards to use when certifying one-stop centers.
(1) The State Board must review and update the criteria every 2
years as part of the review and modification of State Plans pursuant to
Sec. 463.135.
(2) The criteria must be consistent with the Governor's and State
Board's guidelines, guidance and policies on infrastructure funding
decisions, described in Sec. 463.705. The criteria must evaluate the
one-stop centers and one-stop delivery system for effectiveness,
including customer satisfaction, physical and programmatic
accessibility, and continuous improvement.
(3) When the Local Board is the one-stop operator as described in
Sec. 679.410 of this chapter, the State Board must certify the one-
stop center.
(b) Evaluations of effectiveness must include how well the one-stop
center integrates available services for participants and businesses,
meets the workforce development needs of participants and the
employment needs of local employers, operates in a cost-efficient
manner, coordinates services among the one-stop partner programs, and
provides maximum access to partner program services even outside
regular business hours. These evaluations must take into account
feedback from one-stop customers. They must also include evaluations of
how well the one-stop center ensures equal opportunity for individuals
with disabilities to participate in or benefit from one-stop center
services. These evaluations must include criteria evaluating how well
the centers and delivery systems take actions to comply with the
disability-related regulations implementing WIOA sec. 188, set forth at
29 CFR part 37. Such actions include, but are not limited to:
(1) Providing reasonable accommodations for individuals with
disabilities;
(2) Making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and
procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination against persons with
disabilities;
[[Page 20687]]
(3) Administering programs in the most integrated setting
appropriate;
(4) Communicating with persons with disabilities as effectively as
with others; and
(5) Providing appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including
assistive technology devices and services, where necessary to afford
individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in,
and enjoy the benefits of, the program or activity.
(c) Evaluations of continuous improvement must include how well the
one-stop center supports the achievement of the negotiated local levels
of performance for the indicators of performance for the local area
described in sec. 116(b)(2) of WIOA and 20 CFR part 677. Other
continuous improvement factors may include a regular process for
identifying and responding to technical assistance needs, a regular
system of continuing professional staff development, and having systems
in place to capture and respond to specific customer feedback.
(d) Local Boards must assess at least once every 3 years the
effectiveness, physical and programmatic accessibility, and continuous
improvement of one-stop centers and the one-stop delivery systems using
the criteria and procedures developed by the State Board. The Local
Board may establish additional criteria, or set higher standards for
service coordination, than those set by the State criteria. Local
Boards must review and update the criteria every 2 years as part of the
Local Plan update process described in Sec. 463.580. Local Boards must
certify one-stop centers in order to be eligible to receive
infrastructure funds in the State infrastructure funding mechanism
described in Sec. 463.730.
(e) All one-stop centers must comply with applicable physical
accessibility requirements, as set forth in 29 CFR part 37.
Sec. 463.900 What is the common identifier to be used by each one-
stop delivery system?
(a) The common one-stop delivery system identifier is ``American
Job Center.''
(b) As of July 1, 2016, each one-stop delivery system must include
the ``American Job Center'' identifier or ``a proud partner of the
American Job Center network'' on all products, programs, activities,
services, facilities, and related property and materials used in the
one-stop system.
(c) One-stop partners, States or local areas may use additional
identifiers on their products, programs, activities, services,
facilities, and related property and materials.
Thomas E. Perez,
Secretary of Labor.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2015-05528 Filed 4-2-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P; 4510-FN-P; 4510-FT-P
