How are building resources used by non-WIOA staff accounted for in the one-stop operating budget spreadsheet?
These resources are not relevant to the MOU negotiations or agreed upon MOU. Costs to be allocated among required partners in a local area only consist of those costs which are incurred to provide federally funded workforce programs and services under WIOA.
How should one-stop operator costs be recorded on the one-stop operating budget spreadsheet?
New line items were inserted into the one-stop operating budget spreadsheet to identify the cost of the one-stop operator for PY18. The One-Stop Operator model must be selected in line 70 (single entity, consortium or other). If one-stop operator costs are allocated to all partners for the respective center, the cost should be entered into row 80. If the one-stop operator costs are allocated to only some partners, the cost should be entered into row 82. If costs are only allocated to some partners, an explanation must be included in the “notes” section of the one-stop operating budget spreadsheet and the MOU narrative, Section 12 (Governor’s Guidelines, Supplemental Guidance for Program Year 2018 (SFY 2019)).
Is a personnel contribution allowed as a shared delivery system cost?
required partner’s contribution to shared costs to operate the local delivery
system can be made through cash, non-cash, or third-party in-kind
An example of a non-cash
contribution is in-kind staffing.
with the description of each contribution type in § 678.720, a contribution of
personnel may be considered a non-cash service contributed by a required
partner and used by the local one-stop delivery system as long as the following
conditions are met, according to the Governor’s Guidelines – Revision 2,
Section 3, Item 3:
- The contribution is recognized and accepted by all other partners,
- The contribution has the effect of offsetting a cash contribution toward local one-stop delivery system costs that would otherwise be due from the partner making the non-cash contribution, and
- The contribution is valued consistent with 2 CFR part 200.306 to ensure the contribution is fairly evaluated and meets the contribution partner’s proportionate share.
- Contributions of personnel time as non-cash contributions are not permissible contributions for infrastructure costs
Is providing sign language interpreters in the comprehensive one-stop center considered a shared cost?
There are several considerations to take into account. If the accommodation is for a participant in one program, the costs go to that program only. If the accommodation is for a participant of multiple programs, it should be split among the applicable programs. If the accommodation is a standby resource that all partners desire, then the cost would be shared among all partners (subject to local agreement).
Is the local area bound to the numbers calculated on the one-stop operating budget spreadsheet as long as everyone is in agreement with the partner contributions?
The expectation is that each partner will be bound by its contribution commitments as reflected in the agreed-upon final budget. Partners will need to periodically reconcile budgeted costs with actual costs (§ 678.715(a)(4)). Federal guidance requires that the “one-stop operating budget must be periodically reconciled against actual costs incurred and adjusted accordingly” to ensure the budget reflects a cost allocation methodology that demonstrated how infrastructure costs and shared service delivery system costs are charged to each partner in proportion to the partner’s use of the one-stop center and relative to the benefit received (TEGL 17-16, page 3).
Should the one-stop operating budget spreadsheet and the MOU include organizations located outside of the comprehensive one-stop center?
The MOU and one-stop operating budget spreadsheet shall include all partners in the one-stop delivery system. The local area has discretion as to the “local delivery system” (e.g., affiliate center, specialized center, or corporation). In the absence of a state policy, if a local workforce board designates a service location as an affiliate or specialized center, then required partners who choose to make their programs and services available in that affiliate or specialized center must contribute a proportionate share of the infrastructure costs for that center (Governor’s Guidelines, Supplemental Guidance for Program Year 2018 (SFY 2019)).
Some local partners claim that they are only the funder of last resort. Is this true?
§678.760 states “WIOA neither requires programs to examine if other funds are available before using program funds to pay for a service, nor does it establish a requirement that any program can only be a ‘payer of last resort.’”
What are the requirements in Illinois for reconciling budgeted versus actual shared costs among required partners?
1) Reconciliation must occur at least semi-annually.
The Governor’s Guidelines, Supplemental Guidance for Program Year 2018 (SFY 2019) and Additional Guidance for Reconciliation of Budgeted to Actual Shared Costs for PY 2017 (SFY 2018) provides additional direction and guidance for the requirement to reconcile budgeted to actual costs and to adjust each partner’s contribution toward shared infrastructure costs and shared service delivery system costs:
2) Reconciliation of budgeted to actual shared costs is based on actual costs incurred compared with budgeted amounts of each line item.
Further details are available in the Governor’s Guidelines, Supplemental Guidance for Reconciliation of Budgeted to Actual Shared Costs for PY 2017 (SFY 2018) and the Handbook for Conducting Periodic Reconciliation.
What does impartial individual mean for negotiation of the one-stop operating budget?
The Governor’s Guidelines – Revision 2 state that the chair will designate a private sector member of the board, or other impartial individual, as having lead responsibility for negotiation of comprehensive one-stop center infrastructure and local service delivery system costs. The impartial individual may not be a local core or required partner. Furthermore, each local board is responsible for identifying the lead MOU and budget negotiators, as well as to document the appointments. If any questions are raised about the impartiality of the individual appointed to lead budget negotiations, then the local board is also responsible for justifying how its appointment complies with the direction provided in the Governor’s Guidelines. Local boards should document their justification at a minimum in board meeting minutes.
What if a single required partner does not agree to the one-stop operating budget?
Where can I find the most up-to-date version of the one-stop operating budget spreadsheet?
Who is responsible for approving the draft one-stop operating budget prior to submission to the State?
As described in the Governor’s Guidelines - Revision 2 - March 2016, at the second MOU negotiation meeting, the required partners will review the draft budget and make all agreed-upon revisions. The chair of the Local Workforce Innovation Board (LWIB), is to submit the final budget with the signed MOU.
Are FTEs determined based on shared delivery system costs, infrastructure or both?
The number of FTEs is based on the number of staff the required partner is committing to provide services under WIOA in the comprehensive one-stop center. The FTE commitment then serves as the cost allocation methodology that carries through the one-stop operating budget spreadsheet to calculate each partner’s proportionate share of infrastructure costs, as well as local service delivery system costs.
Are FTEs the required method of allocating costs?
No, not under the local funding mechanism when all partners agree. However, other methods are strongly discouraged. FTEs is the required cost allocation methodology under the state funding mechanism when required partners have reached a budget impasse (Governor’s Guidelines – Revision 2, Section 2).
Can an LWIB require core and required partners to commit a minimum of one FTE at a comprehensive one-stop center?
No. Under WIOA law and final regulations each core and required partner has flexibility to determine how it will meet WIOA service access requirements. Onsite staff, contractor staff, staff cross-training and technology meeting the “direct linkage” requirements described in proposed regulation § 678.305 are all options available to most required partners (Wagner-Peyser and Title IB partners must be physically present at a comprehensive one-stop center).
Each partner’s determination of the method of service delivery must assure that all one-stop center customers can access information and services on demand. Depending on known or anticipated demand for services at a comprehensive on-stop center, this may or may not require a partner to commit one FTE to a comprehensive one-stop center.
The specific services each required partner will provide at a comprehensive one-stop center, the methods of service delivery that will be used to provide these services and the cost implications associated with these decisions are all encompassed by MOU negotiations involved local boards, chief elected officials and required partners.
The Governor’s Guidelines, Supplemental Guidance for PY 2018 (SFY 2019) affirm that the minimum FTE requirement for a required partner is .25.
Does having a fractional FTE mean services can only be available a fraction of the time at a comprehensive one-stop center?
No. Required partners under WIOA must make their applicable services available in a comprehensive one-stop center during all regular business hours. A required partner’s FTE commitments should be based on demand for services in that local area. However, every required partner is expected to make its services available and accessible on demand to customers who enter a comprehensive one-stop center during regular business hours through onsite staff, cross-trained staff or direct linkage technology.
Doesn’t WIOA require that each program commit a minimum of one full-time equivalent (FTE) since services have to be available at comprehensive one-stop centers during normal business hours?
No, WIOA does not require that each program commit a minimum of one full-time equivalent. Each required partner—some of which administer multiple required programs— must provide staffing sufficient to ensure required services are available during all normal business hours. Staff can be onsite at the one-stop center or available via technology satisfying the “direct linkage” requirement in WIOA (Illinois has implemented further direct linkage requirements). Depending on the actual demand for program services and the geographic scope of responsibility for staff providing services (e.g., responsibility for all LWIAs in a region), a partner’s minimum staff contribution may be less than, equal to, or more than one full FTE for each comprehensive one-stop center (the minimum FTE is .25 per the Governor’s Guidelines, Supplemental Guidance for Program Year 2018 (SFY 2019)). The number of FTES that each required partner commits is to be agreed upon during negotiations of local memoranda of understanding (MOUs). Partners with responsibility for multiple programs (e.g. ICCB which is responsible for Adult Education and Postsecondary career education programs can meet the service access requirements with an individual or individuals as long as the staff providing services are trained and able to provide services under multiple programs).
How will the reconciled costs be collected from all partners?
The Handbook for Conducting Periodic Reconciliation sets out a general process for reconciliation. The Local Workforce Innovation Board (LWIB) Chair determines the frequency at which the local area will reconcile budgeted to actual costs. The LWIB Chair also identifies the individual who will be responsible for both leading the reconciliation process and performing the reconciliation. The individual responsible for reconciliation develops a process for identifying actual costs at the end of each reconciliation period.
If a required partner has a staff person that is providing career services at an affiliate or an office outside the comprehensive one-stop center, should that person be counted as an FTE?
Yes, individuals who are providing WIOA-related services at an affiliate or specialized center should be included if the local workforce board designates the service location as an affiliate or specialized center.
Is each partner required to commit at least one FTE to every comprehensive one-stop center?
No. The minimum each partner is required to commit is .25 FTEs (Governor’sGuidelines, Supplemental Guidance for Program Year 2018 (SFY 2019)). If local partners agree to accept less than .25 FTEs, the local partners risk being out of compliance with the Governor’s Guidelines.
What if one required partner will not agree to commit .25 FTEs?
Local areas are responsible for meeting all cost allocation requirements under WIOA and the “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.” It is incumbent on local partners to document at the local level the rationale and approval of alternative cost allocation methodologies for shared costs.
When multiple contractors administer a required program in an LWIA, is each entity responsible for the required minimum .25 FTE or is this a “collective responsibility.”
The required partner as a whole is required to commit at a minimum .25 FTE to each comprehensive one-stop center. The .25 can be made up of several entities, but it must reach .25.
From TEGL No. 17-16: “Partner Programs with Multiple Grant Recipients. Partner programs and additional partners that carry out a program in the local area are required to share infrastructure costs and certain additional costs (20 CFR 678.700(c)), 34 CFR 361.700(c), and 34 CFR 463.700(c)). When two or more grant recipients or contractors of a required partner program carry out a program in a local area, these entities are considered one-stop partners and must reach out to the Local WDB and carry out the roles and responsibilities of one-stop partners, including negotiating their share of infrastructure costs. For instance, there may be multiple YouthBuild and SCSEP grant recipients along with a few Job Corps contractors in a local area. In this situation, each grant or contract recipient carrying out the program in that local area must contribute towards infrastructure costs, and those contributions must be based on the proportionate use and relative benefits received by those partners from the one-stop centers.”
Are individuals responsible for reconciliation required to submit the completed Reconciliation Spreadsheet or Matrix of Benefits Received by Partner?
The “Handbook for Conducting Periodic Reconciliation” in PY 2017 provides guidance that if any local area needs to request technical assistance or cannot reach agreement under the process agreed upon in Section 13 of the local MOU, then the individual responsible for reconciliation should provide to Michael Baker at Commerce, firstname.lastname@example.org, a report signed by the local workforce board chair with justification for non-payment or disagreement.
Does a one-stop operator consortium need to approve the person identified by the local workforce board chair as the individual responsible for reconciliation?
No. It is recommended that the local workforce board chair work in consultation with the one-stop operator consortium.
Does the threshold for whether a line-item variance warrants an MOU/budget amendment apply to both when actual costs significantly exceed budgeted costs and when actual costs are significantly less than budgeted?
No. The threshold for whether a significant line item variance warrants a full MOU/budget agreement only applies when actual costs exceed the budgeted amount by 15% and account for 10% of the total budget.
If actual costs are significantly less than budgeted, then an MOU/budget amendment is not required. Partners can simply receive a credit as part of the reconciliation process.
Even if the one-stop operator invoices required partners for actual costs as they come in, does the one-stop operator also need to complete the “Matrix of Benefits Received by Partner?” What is the purpose of the “Matrix of Benefits..."?
The reconciliation process is intended to ensure partners’ share of the costs of the one-stop center is proportionate to the benefit they receive by providing services in that service location. Even if the reconciliation is not performed because actual costs are billed to partners as costs are incurred, required partners still need to demonstrate that their share of the costs are proportionate to the benefit they receive. The Sample Matrix of Benefits Received by Partner is one way to demonstrate each partner’s benefits received. The local area may identify other ways to demonstrate that costs are shared proportionately to the benefits received by partner, but it should be documented.
If the one-stop operator invoices required partners for actual costs as bills come in, does the local area still need to perform the periodic reconciliation using the Reconciliation Spreadsheet?
If actual costs are billed to required partners as costs are incurred throughout the program year, then the process of reconciling budgeted to actual cost would not be necessary. The invoices of actual amounts already account for any variances between budgeted and actual costs shared among partners.
What documentation is required to verify actual costs or to include in a Final Notice about additional amounts owed?
The “Handbook for Conducting Periodic Reconciliation” in PY 2017 does not require specific documentation. The individual responsible for performing reconciliation in the local area should develop the local process and documentation needed to verify actual costs in collaboration with the required partners that actually incur the expense of each line item in the budget.
What is the difference between the reconciliation period and the reconciliation process?
The reconciliation period is the time between the one-stop operating budget’s effective date and the identification of actual costs at a minimum of every six months. In a semi-annual reconciliation for PY 2017:
- Reconciliation Period 1 incurs costs between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017.
- Reconciliation Period 2 incurs costs between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2018.
The process of reconciliation occurs after the reconciliation period ends. In general, required partners will make payments of any additional amounts owed within 60 calendar days from the end of the reconciliation period.
When are payments of additional amounts owed due?
The “Handbook for Conducting Periodic Reconciliation” in PY 2017 suggests, generally, payments of additional amounts owed as a result of reconciliation should be paid within 60 calendar days of the end of the reconciliation period. The sample timeline on page 2 of the “Handbook for Conducting Periodic Reconciliation” provides specific examples of dates for each step of the reconciliation process.
Are all partners aware that they are to participate in good faith negotiations?
The Governor’s Guidelines – Revision 4 (Section 1, Item 6) states that all individuals participating in the development and negotiation of local MOUs will negotiate as equals and in good faith to reach an agreement and to bring about a unified vision for the local one-stop delivery system. This includes participating in required partner meetings from the beginning of each negotiation period and addressing issues or requests for changes during each step of the development and approval of the MOU and one-stop operating budget.
Through indicating on the Pre-Program Year Planning Form, local areas can ensure the State is aware of any staff or partner programs new to the WIOA implementation process in Illinois that would benefit from a WIOA orientation.
Can comprehensive one-stop center staff and core and required partners be cross-trained to provide services for multiple programs?
Yes. Local comprehensive one-stop center partners can cross-train staff so they are able to provide services in multiple programs. The extent to which staff are cross-trained and the impact this has on each partner’s FTE commitment will be part of local MOU negotiations regarding both the method of service delivery and each partner’s share of delivery system costs.
Can fair share or proportionate share be based on the number of clients served by each agency in the one-stop center?
Can only minor, technical changes be made to an MOU each program year an MOU Amendment is submitted to the State for approval, or can substantive changes be submitted for approval?
On each occasion that an MOU or MOU Amendment and one-stop budget are submitted, the documents are reviewed in their entirety to ensure that all aspects and sections of the submittal comply with State guidance and WIOA statute. Any required revisions to the MOU, MOU Amendment or one-stop budget to incorporate required revisions for compliance purposes must be performed by the local area before approval is granted (§678.505).
Can required programs designate multiple individuals to negotiate local MOUs?
Ideally, each required program should identify one individual to negotiate local MOUs on behalf of the program representatives in each local area. However, that may not always be feasible or preferable for every program in every local area. As these individuals are identified they are included on the updated “Summary of Individuals to Negotiate MOUs” document on the WIOA Implementation portal.
Can the State require a local area to provide a call-in option for MOU and budget negotiations to avoid potential scheduling conflicts?
According to the Final Rule, the MOU is a product of local discussion and negotiation (§678.500). Local workforce boards and partners must enter into good-faith negotiations as well (§678.510), though there is no stipulation as to how these meetings must occur. In Illinois, the scheduling of meetings during MOU and budget negotiations is up to local discretion, ensuring that all partners have ample opportunities to participate.
Do physical and programmatic accessibility apply to all service locations or just designated service sites?
Physical and programmatic accessibility requirements under WIOA ((Sec. 121 (c)(2)(iv)) do apply to all service locations, regardless of designation status. The MOU only concerns designated comprehensive one-stop centers, affiliate sites, and specialized centers; therefore, only the physical and programmatic accessibility of designated service locations must be described in the MOU narrative.
Does Revision 2 of the Governor’s Guidelines replace all previous versions?
Yes, Governor’s Guidelines – Revision 2 replaces all other versions. Please note that Supplemental Guidance to the Governor’s Guidelines for PY 18 (SFY 19) was issued in the Spring of 2018.
Does the one-stop operator model selected by the local area (i.e., consortium, single entity) affect the activities that are prohibited from being performed by the one-stop operator?
No. The prohibited functions of the one-stop operator are not contingent upon the type of one-stop operator model selected by the local area.
How does a local area manage required partners who are engaged in local negotiations about services, but not shared costs?
The expectation is that local partners will be engaged in negotiations about both services and costs. If this is not happening, contact should be made with your respective liaison at the state-level.
If the consortium model is selected as the one-stop operator model, is the local workforce innovation board responsible for convening system stakeholders for local planning?
According to 20 CFR §679.370(d), the local workforce innovation board must “convene local workforce development system stakeholders to assist in the development of the local plan under §679.550 and in identifying non-Federal expertise and resources to leverage support for workforce development activities. Such stakeholders may assist the Local WDB and standing committees in carrying out convening, brokering, and leveraging functions at the direction of the Local WDB.” This is applicable regardless of the one-stop operator model selected.
Is there a requirement that an LWIA provide physical space in the comprehensive one-stop center for a required partner?
If a partner chooses to make services accessible at a comprehensive one-stop center with onsite staff, then the local area should make every effort to provide space. The individual partner decides how it will make its services accessible at a comprehensive one-stop center. Staffing is an option, but so is direct linkage. All of this is part of local negotiations, including raising issues as needed about the adequacy of the size of space available.
Should non-designated service connection (access) sites be listed in Section 6: “Name and Location of All Service Locations” of the MOU?
No. Non-designated connection (access) sites are only required to be listed in the Pre-Program Year Planning Form (Appendix C to the Governor’s Guidelines – Revision 4).
Under what circumstances are abbreviations and acronyms prohibited in the MOU?
The use of acronyms and abbreviations is prohibited on all signature pages, as required by the Office of the Illinois Comptroller for purposes of using the MOU as a contract for payment. Please ensure that any abbreviations or acronyms used in any other section of the MOU, such as Section 1: “Parties to the MOU,” are accurate and up to date.
What are the proscribed functions the one-stop operator may not perform?
The list of proscribed functions is included as part of Section 10: “Procurement of One-Stop Operator” of the MOU Template and 20 CFR §678.620. The local area must affirm that none of the proscribed functions will be performed by marking the checkboxes.
What if a comprehensive one-stop center has empty desks? Is this “idle capacity,” and would it be considered a disallowed cost for other federally funded programs to pay for this space?
Idle capacity is generally unallowable. However, it may be allowable to the extent that it is necessary to meet fluctuating workload requirements, it was previously necessary and is now temporarily idle, or it is a normal cost of doing business. Refer to the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200.446 for more information.
What if a required partner does not attend MOU negotiation meetings?
If a required partner is absent from MOU negotiation meetings, the local area should reach out to their state-level liaison as soon as possible.
What is the definition of “fair share?”
What is the definition of “proportionate share?”
The determination or each partner’s proportionate share is a specific requirement incumbent upon the Governor. Proportionate share is the Governor’s Guidelines, Revision 2, Appendix Item 1, as “an amount determined by the Governor that represents a required partner’s portion of comprehensive one-stop infrastructure costs State-wide for purposes of the State infrastructure funding mechanism. This amount is determined through a reasonable cost allocation methodology that assigns costs to required partners in proportion to relative benefits received.”
What is the MOU submittal due date?
Agreed upon and signed MOUs, including the one-stop operating budget are due to the State of Illinois by June 30, 2019. MOUs must be submitted to Michael Baker at email@example.com.
When revising the MOU for a specific program year after its initial submission to the State, does the submittal of the revised MOU require new signatures from required partners?
No. The letter from the LWIB Chair to the individual designated by the Governor (included as Appendix L to the Governor’s Guidelines – Revision 4) affirms that all parties to the MOU and the LWIB have agreed to the revisions included in the submitted revised MOU. This affirmation is important as the MOU and, in some cases, the one-stop operating budget has undergone changes since the parties to the MOU last reviewed it.
It is encouraged that this affirmation is received through an in-person meeting, but the method through which the local area ultimately gathers this affirmation is determined at the local level (i.e., in-person meeting, phone, email, etc.). It is only required that the letter from the LWIB Chair to the individual designated by the Governor (affirming that the LWIB and all parties to the MOU affirm the required revisions made) be submitted within 5 days of the LWIB meeting immediately following the submission of revisions.
Which partners are responsible for providing follow-up services for youth?
As described in WIOA Sec. 129(c)(2)(I), program partners providing career services to youth (as described in WIOA Sec. 129(c)(1)) must provide follow-up services for youth placed in employment for no less than 12 months.
Who in the negotiations process is responsible for overseeing the negotiations process in regard to formal partner cross-training arrangements and fulfillment of these commitments?
The one-stop operator may be a source that ensures that cross-training between partners occurs in a compliant manner, in alignment with the MOU and one-stop operating budget. Ultimately, the successful cross-training of partner staff to provide services is contingent upon the partners involved.
Who is the party to the MOU for SCSEP?
Authorized by the Older Americans Act, the Senior Community Service Employment Program is a community service and work-based job training program for older Americans, including through the American Job Centers. SCSEP in Illinois is administered by the Illinois Department on Aging (State) sub-grantees namely the Area Agencies on Aging, a community action agency, and an agency that focuses on senior employment, as well as by seven national contractors. In Chicago the Senior Services Area Agency on Aging is based at the Chicago Department of Family and Support Services, with other State sub-grantee and other national contractors providing services throughout Cook and surrounding counties, as well.
Based on recent federal guidance issued in TEGL 17-16, required partners with two or more grant recipients or contractors that carry out a program in a local area must each contribute towards infrastructure costs based on a proportionate use and relative benefits received by each.
That means that if multiple SCSEP providers in any given area administer the program, both entities (the State sub-grantees and the national contractors) are parties to the MOU and must participate in negotiations of service delivery and cost sharing.
Why is the “subject to the availability of funds” language only applicable to state agency partners?
This language is required under the State Finance Act (30 ILCS 105/30) and applies to State agencies only. This language is a technical change to the MOU intended solely to meet the requirements of State law. The workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) does not allow core or required partners to opt out of their responsibility to share infrastructure and other costs due to insufficient funding. The Interagency Technical Assistance Team will not approve an MOU expanding the “subject to the availability of funds” language to a required partner that is not a State agency.