WIOA Frequently Asked Questions

Click here and submit your question +

Audience

Subjects

Affiliate Sites

  1. If there is a policy change regarding the affiliate sites, would the change be delayed until PY 18 (SFY 19), or is there a possibility that it would take effect during PY17 (SFY 18)?

    ​The Illinois Workforce Innovation Board (IWIB) Policy Work Group will develop any needed policy related to the affiliates after further federal guidance is provided.  Policy coming from the work group will be presented to the IWIB and issued sometime during PY 17.

  2. What constitutes an affiliate site?

    ​An affiliate site is defined in the Illinois workNet glossary as “a location that makes available one or more of the required or optional programs, services, and activities to individuals.”  However, in Illinois the definition varies by local area.  A survey was recently distributed to each LWIA to determine their definition of affiliate site.  This information will be presented to the Illinois Workforce Innovation Board Policy Work Group.

Annual Budget (Infrastructure Funding Agreement)

  1. How are building resources used by non-WIOA staff accounted for in the 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.

  2. How should one-stop operator costs be recorded on the budget spreadsheet?

    ​One-stop operator costs shall not be recorded as an infrastructure cost because infrastructure costs are defined as nonpersonnel costs (§ 678.700). Local partners can decide whether to consider the one-stop operator costs as an additional shared cost to allocate fairly among required partners in the local area. If partners do agree to share the cost of the one-stop operator as an additional shared cost, then that cost should be entered into the master budget spreadsheet in the line item designated for “other: one-stop operator.”

  3. Is a personnel contribution allowed as a shared local one-stop delivery system cost?

    ​Each 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 contributions. Consistent 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.
  4. 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).

  5. Is the local area bound to the numbers calculated on the 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)).

  6. Should the preliminary budget and the MOU include organizations located outside of the comprehensive one-stop center?

    ​The MOU should include all partners in the one-stop delivery system. The local area has discretion as to the “local delivery system” (e.g., affiliated center, specialized center, or corporation). Infrastructure costs should include only the partners in the comprehensive one-stop center, and shared costs apply to all required partners that are part of the local delivery system. New policy needs related to the definition, designation and service standards for affiliates are being addressed under the direction of the Illinois Workforce Innovation Board (IWIB). Outcomes from this assessment and additional policies that stem from it are expected to result in additional guidance related to affiliates for PY 18/SFY 19.

  7. 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.’”

  8. What are the requirements in Illinois for reconciling budgeted versus actual shared costs among required partners?

    ​The process and standards for reconciling actual costs based on the “relative benefit received” have not yet been specified because Program Year 2017 (PY17) is the first year for which a reconciliation of actual costs to relative benefits received will be required. Additional guidance will be issued in advance of the end of PY17.

  9. What does impartial individual mean for budget negotiations?

    ​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. 

  10. What if a single required partner does not agree to the Infrastructure Funding Agreement (i.e., annual budget)?

    If a single required partner does not agree to approve the local budget after a 30-day remediation period, then the infrastructure costs allocated to that required partner under the local infrastructure funding agreement will be determined by the Governor using the proportion of each required partner’s FTE staffing (Governor’s Guidelines – Revision 2, Section 2, Items 13, 17, 20 and 21).

  11. Where can I find the most up-to-date version of the budget (Infrastructure Funding Agreement)?

    ​The most current version of the local Infrastructure Funding Agreement spreadsheet (Appendix Items 8 and 9) is available on the WIOA Implementation Portal.

  12. Who is responsible for approving the draft 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 (Infrastructure Funding Agreement) and make all agreed-upon revisions. The chair of the Local Workforce Innovation Board (LWIB), is to submit the final budget (Infrastructure Funding Agreement) with the signed MOU.

Data Sharing

  1. Can you provide further guidance on data sharing and protecting personally identifiable information for the MOU submittal?

    State-level partners are continuing to explore best practices and are in the process of considering the development of policy to guide data sharing and protection of personally identifiable information.​

  2. Data sharing and having a common database is one major cost that is necessary to make the one-stop center successful. Will that cost be subsidized by the State?

    ​Ongoing conversations are taking place at the State level and there is a desire to streamline data collection and availability while ensuring appropriate levels of privacy and security. Work enabling movement in that direction is underway.

  3. Is there a state level data sharing agreement? Is there an established mechanism for each state partner to provide information on what local partners can legally share at the local level?

    ​Currently data sharing agreements exist between several core and required partners.

  4. Will data sharing agreements just be the agreements through the State level or will local level areas have to create their own data sharing agreement?

    ​A hybrid approach is needed. Data sharing arrangements will be handled simultaneously at the State and local levels.

Direct Linkage

  1. Is direct linkage required to be provided through video?

    ​Illinois has established additional requirements to provide services via “direct linkage” technology in the Governor’s Guidelines – Revision 2, Appendix Item 4. Direct linkage can be provided via phone or web-based communication. The requirements for providing direct linkage by phone include: a specific dedicated phone number, phone coverage during normal business hours on all normal business days and voicemail or other capability enabling customers to leave a message if access to services via phone is unavailable at the time of contact. All voicemails must be returned in a “reasonable period of time,” which is defined within 24 business hours.

FTEs

  1. Are FTEs determined based on system costs, infrastructure costs 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 Infrastructure Funding Agreement spreadsheet to calculate each partner’s proportionate share of infrastructure costs, as well as local service delivery system costs.

  2. Are FTEs the required method of allocating costs in PY17/SFY18?

    ​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 an impasse on infrastructure funding agreements (Governor’s Guidelines – Revision 2, Section 2).

  3. 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 one-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 involving local boards, chief elected officials and required partners.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 Revision 2, Appendix Item 9). The number of FTEs that each required partner commits is to be agreed upon during negotiations of local memoranda of understandings (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).

  6. How will the FTE cost shares be collected from all partners?

    ​This will depend on the type of costs being shared. For infrastructure costs, this will generally be the leaseholder. It could be another entity, such as the LWIB for other types of shared system costs.

  7. If an agency 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?

    ​The Interagency Work Group is currently seeking clarification on recent TEGL guidance issued on this matter.

  8. 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’s Guidelines – Revision 2, Appendix Item 9). If local partners agree to accept less than .25 FTEs, the local partners risk being out of compliance with the Governor’s Guidelines.

  9. 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’s Guidelines – Revision 2, Appendix Item 9). If local partners agree to accept less than .25 FTEs, the local partners risk being out of compliance with the Governor’s Guidelines.

  10. What if one required partner will not agree to commit .25 FTEs?

    ​Required partners in a local area must negotiate how they will provide services.  If partners in the local area agree to accept a required partner’s commitment of less than the minimum .25 FTEs, then the local area risks being out of compliance with the Governor’s Guidelines – Revision 2.

    For purposes of the “Report of Outcomes” (Appendix Item 10 to the Governor’s Guidelines – Revision 2), due April 15, 2017, if all required partners in a local area agree to accept a partner’s fractional FTE commitment that is less than the minimum .25 FTE, then the local area marks the first box indicating “local partners in this local area have reached agreement on a memorandum of understanding (MOU), including how comprehensive one-stop center infrastructure costs will be funded for the year beginning on July 1, 2017.”

    The Governor, then, will determine whether an exception to the .25 minimum FTE requirement is warranted. Required partners in the local area can anticipate additional requirements for documentation and rationale for the local decision.

  11. 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.”

Infrastructure Costs

  1. Can you provide an example of how infrastructure costs would be treated if 25 of the 50 total onsite staff are directly involved with WIOA services?

    ​The 25 employees that are directly involved in providing services authorized under WIOA would be counted towards FTEs in the budget spreadsheet.

  2. Is it acceptable to use Federal and State grant dollars to pay infrastructure costs to a for-profit company?

    ​Yes. The allowability of infrastructure costs is not contingent on the type of entity.

  3. What is the state funding mechanism?

    ​From the Governor’s Guidelines – Revision 2 glossary on page 18, the state one-stop infrastructure cost funding mechanism is “the method used to cover infrastructure costs of the comprehensive one-stop center(s) in a local area when required partners are unable to agree on how to share those costs.  The amount that each required partner can contribute to one-stop infrastructure costs is capped under the State funding mechanism.  Funding under the State infrastructure funding mechanism is available only to certified comprehensive one-stop centers in local areas that cannot reach agreement on an MOU at the end of a 30-day remediation period.”

Local Service Matrix

  1. What information is required for “service delivery method” in the Local Service Matrix for Comprehensive One-Stop Centers in the MOU template?

    Examples of service delivery methods include dedicated telephone line(s) with answering service if the phone cannot be answered (phone calls must be returned within 24 business hours) and Skype.​

  2. What is considered an “other program and activity” in the Local Service Matrix for Comprehensive One-Stop Centers in the MOU template?

    ​Other programs and activities are any value-added service provided to participants. Examples include a mobile workforce center, apprenticeship information and referral, resume writing and interview skills training and sector based job fairs.

Negotiation of MOUs

  1. 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.

  2. Can fair share or proportionate share be based on the number of clients served by each agency in the one-stop center?

    ​Yes. Although FTEs are the preferred method to be used at the local level to determine proportionate share, and are the basis the Governor will use to make the required determination of proportionate share at the State level, local areas can choose any methodology that is in compliance with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards.

  3. 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.

  4. 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 17 (SFY 18) was effective March 6, 2017.

  5. 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 STAT team leader.

  6. If the partners have already reached agreement on their cost allocation, will they be required to reopen their memorandum of understanding once new guidance is finalized?

    ​The WIOA Interagency Work Group in February 2017 requested additional federal clarification in a letter to U.S. Department of Labor Region V regarding a number of concerns in response to the Training and Employment Guidance Letters (TEGLs) issued in January. Any Federal clarification received in response to this letter will dictate next steps for Program Year 2017 (PY17) / State Fiscal Year 2018 (SFY18).

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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 as soon as possible to their STAT team leader.

  10. 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.”

  11. What is the definition or calculation of “fair share?”

    ​Fair share is a complex determination that is made locally. It is rooted in federal cost allocation principles (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards). The One-Stop Financial Management TAG is a good resource for determining fair share.

  12. What is the MOU submittal due date?

    ​Signed MOUs, including an agreed upon final local service delivery system budget (Infrastructure Funding Agreement), are required to be submitted by July 1 to wioaplans-mous@illinoisworknet.com.

  13. What steps have been taken to resolve the signature snags of the past?

    ​Members of the State WIOA Interagency Work Group that operate State administered programs have expressed their commitment to timely and expedited signatures on MOUs. This group continues to convene regularly and will address any issues with obtaining the necessary signatures on MOUs as identified by local areas. Local areas are encouraged to communicate any issues pertaining to obtaining necessary signatures to the respective STAT team leader, who will raise the issue for the Interagency Work Group to address.

  14. 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 another State sub-grantee (National Able) and other national contractors providing services throughout Cook and surrounding counties, as well. A list of all SCSEP providers can be found by clicking here.

    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.

  15. 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 Work Group will not approve an MOU expanding the “subject to the availability of funds” language to a required partner that is not a State agency.

One-Stop Delivery System

  1. Is a personnel contribution allowed as a shared local one-stop delivery system cost?

    ​Each 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 contributions. Consistent 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.
  2. Is the one-stop operator a shared cost?

    ​The competitive procurement of a one-stop operator may constitute a shared cost if all required partners agree and proportionately share the cost based on the benefit received. Required partners must share costs to pay additional costs relating to the operation of the local one-stop delivery system (§ 678.760(a)). Shared costs of the local one-stop delivery system are determined locally and must be agreed upon by all required partners in the local area.

  3. Who is responsible for collecting all the shared costs?

    ​Ultimately the LWIB is responsible for submitting a complete MOU. However, collection of specific costs will depend on the type of costs being shared. For infrastructure costs, this will generally be the leaseholder. It could be another entity, such as the LWIB for other types of shared system costs.

One-Stop Operator

  1. Is the one-stop operator a shared cost?

    ​The competitive procurement of a one-stop operator may constitute a shared cost if all required partners agree and proportionately share the cost based on the benefit received. Required partners must share costs to pay additional costs relating to the operation of the local one-stop delivery system (§ 678.760(a)). Shared costs of the local one-stop delivery system are determined locally and must be agreed upon by all required partners in the local area. 

Program Specific

  1. Can an LWIB use Title IB funds to contract with a service provider to meet the requirement that adult education services under Title II or WIOA be accessible at a comprehensive one-stop center?

    ​No. The Title II provider must have an approved contract or grant with the Illinois Community College Board for Adult Education/Title II services.

  2. Is the Second Chance Program a required partner in Illinois?

    ​Recidivism programs funded by a Second Chance grant in Illinois are administered by the Illinois Department of Corrections and funded through a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, not the U.S. Department of Labor. Only U.S. Department of Labor grantees under Section 212 of the Second Chance Act of 2007 are required partners under WIOA. Because Illinois’ Second Chance grant was awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Second Chance grantee in Illinois is not a required partner under WIOA.

    Local workforce boards and partners may decide to include the Second Chance grantee as an additional partner in one-stop centers.

  3. What is the difference between the National Farmworker Job Program and the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Program, and how should their FTEs be accounted for?

    ​The Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) administers the Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker program, which is a required program under WIOA. The Illinois Migrant Council administers the National Farmworker Jobs Program, which is a separate program under Title I of WIOA. Each required partner enters its own and separate FTE commitments.

Regional and Local Plans

  1. Do CEOs have to approve WIOA Regional and Local plan modifications before submittal?

    ​Yes. The standard cover letter must be signed by the LWIB Chair and CEO(s) indicating their approval of the plan. CEOs that already have agreements on file to designate a lead CEO authorized to sign on behalf of all CEO’s in the area may continue that practice under WIOA. (Source: WIOA Notice No. 15-NOT-07, page 3, Part 1. B. 1)

  2. Do Regional and Local Plans for FY 17 (SFY 18) need to be submitted in track changes mode?

    ​Regional and Local Plans for FY 17 (SFY 18) need to be submitted in final form. However, it is suggested to maintain a track changes version for internal record keeping purposes.

  3. How does the MOU tie into the Regional and Local Plans?

    ​There should be a correlation between all three documents. The regional plans set the overarching priorities and strategies. The local plans describe how the partners in each local workforce area will address the regional priorities and strategies. The MOUs further refine this planning by specifically describing how the required partners agree to provide services and fund the one-stops. Local boards will want to ensure that their local implementation plan and MOUs include investments in activities that support the regional plan. We are looking for alignment between the regional plan, local plan and MOU.

  4. If we need to make changes to our WIOA Regional and Local plans after they are out for public comment, do the plans need to be posted a second time for public comment?

    ​No. There is no requirement for second public comment period.

  5. Should all of the core partners’ program-specific plans be submitted within the Local Plan?

    ​Core partner programs are required by their authorizing statute to complete program-specific plans, which are different than the WIOA-required Local Plans. Per WIOA, local boards and partners must jointly develop the Local Plan. The WIOA Local Plan is intended to incorporate information about how all of the required partners under WIOA will provide services and how those services will be coordinated and integrated. Local Plans should be developed in close consultation to the “Regional and Local Planning Process Guide – Updated December 2016,” which will serve as the basis against which Local Plans are assessed for state approval.

  6. What is meant by “Local Plans?”

    ​WIOA-required Local Plans apply to all required partners under WIOA in the local area. Detailed requirements for Local Plans can be found in final regulation (§ 6769.550, § 679.560, § 679.570)). Instructions for Local Plans have been provided in the “Regional and Local Planning Process Guide – Updated December 2016”. There is one WIOA Local Plan in each LWIA. This one WIOA plan should include information on all required partner programs and how they will be integrated and aligned to provide services in the area.

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA)

  1. How do we find out who is on our STAT team?

    ​STAT teams were announced after a training this January. To find out who is on the STAT designated for your region, please consult the “WIOA State Technical Assistance Teams – Initial Team Leaders” document on Illinois workNet.

  2. What is WIOA?

    ​Public Law 113-128, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), will replace the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 to authorize the federal workforce programs in 2015.
    The WIOA will modernize the nation’s workforce system and emphasizes the demand-driven approach that Illinois has developed over the past several years. The Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity will coordinate with state and local workforce and economic development partners to implement the requirements associated with the two-year implementation of WIOA in coordination with the Illinois Economic Development Plan (published by Commerce in July 2014).
    WIOA requires the strategic coordination of four core programs:

    1. Employment and training services for adults, dislocated workers and youth,
    2. Wagner-Peyser employment services,
    3. Adult education and literacy programs, and
    4. Vocational Rehabilitation programs serving individuals with disabilities in obtaining employment.
  3. Where can I find out more?

    ​The WIOA Implementation Portal is a resource with up-to-date information about the workforce system innovations in Illinois and the impact of those workforce innovations on our state.

    The WIOA Resources page also provides material from the State and Federal workforce agencies.

    The U.S. DOL’s website for the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act offers many related guidelines and technical assistance tools.

    The WIOA Public Law is here.

    STAT leaders can be found here.