WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
This document reflects the Department of Labor's current thinking in relation to key policy issues that have been identified in the development of the Workforce Investment Act PY 2000 Planning Guidance. It is a work in progress and does not reflect final Administration policy or the concurrence of Federal partners. It is intended solely as policy guidance to inform our partners and stakeholders about policy issues that have been identified and to engage the system in discussions around those issues. Not all issues have been fully resolved, some issues have not been addressed, and the policy positions set forth in this document are subject to revision. December 8, 1999 |
December 8, 1999 - Policy positions set forth in this document are subject to change.
I.Title I/WP Planning Guidance
The following is a preview summary of changes that are expected to be incorporated into the PY 2000 Planning Guidance for WIA Title I and Wagner-Peyser programs that are not submitted as a part of a Unified State Plan, (note: Separate Unified Planning Guidance is covered later in this paper.). The Department suggests however, that these guidelines be considered when drafting the Title I/W-P portion of the Unified Plan as well.
Since the Interim Final Regulations were published after the February 1999 Planning Guidance, some planning requirements were added to the Regulations that did not appear in the original Guidance. This will require changing the Planning Guidance or the Regulations so that the two are consistent. In addition, proposed changes were made to incorporate feed-back after the review of early State Plan submissions during the Transition to full WIA implementation.
As in other modified WIA policy documents the changes were kept to a minimum, except to delete those questions or requirements which were not explicitly stated in the statute, or information that did not seem to contribute to the overall quality of the Strategic Plan review. The rationale for changes will be provided in the Introductory language, and reference will also be make regarding additional policies that have emerged during the Transition period, such as the Youth Planning guidelines.
Process
In August, the Planning Team solicited comments from ETA plan reviewers in the regions and national office. Based on their experience in reviewing the early Plans, they were asked to make suggestions consistent with the criteria outlined above.
The following general guidelines were used.
Summary of Substantive Changes
II. A. The question asking the State to identify its broad strategic and workforce development goals (since it is not specifically required in the Act and reviewers felt it did not add value) was eliminated.
II.B.The several dot points on what the State's vision "should address" were eliminated and changed to say that States "should consider" certain questions when developing their vision statements. Early implementing States interpreted the "should address" language as requiring them to answer all of the dot points (which were meant to be suggestive), not requirements. Reviewers also felt that the number of dot points (7) was too high to be covered in a succinct vision statement and that the level of detail they suggested was inappropriate.
III.A.1. The question, "What data sources support the State's market analysis?" was eliminated since it did not yield information that assisted in the assessment of the State Plans compliance with WIA.
III.A.3. The question "Who are the customers of the State's workforce investment system?" was eliminated since some States questioned the value of this question and it was not a specific requirement of the Act. To reinforce the idea that States should focus on their customers, we modified the following question to ask States to identify their projected skill development needs "by key customer segments."
III.B.1.Access The question of how the Board will ensure that the public has access to Board meetings and plan information was replaced with an assurance, to be consistent with the Unified Planning Guidance.
III.B.1. Alternative Entities There was a question added related to local boards, as required in the regulations: "If the Governor certifies an alternative entity to perform the functions of a Local Board, demonstrate that the alternative entity meets the requirements of WIA section 117(i)."
III.B.1. Funding Formula A requirement from the regulations related to the dislocated worker state formula: "Provide an explanation if the State opted to use other information sources to omit any of the information sources in section 133(b)(2)(B)(ii) [the information sources required in the Act], was added.
III.B.1. State Policies A section on State policies that must be included in the Plan was added and the list of examples that may be included in the Plan was pared down. A requirement that the Plan include the State's definition of "deficient in basic literacy skills" for the purpose of youth eligibility was added, to be consistent with the regulations. The questions about how consultation occurred, and whether the State has any policies or requirements that would act as obstacles to system building were eliminated. The latter question is not specifically required in the Act and the first question is answered elsewhere.
III.B.3. Regional Planning The requirement that States discuss the purpose of any regional designations was eliminated, since it is not specifically required in the Act.
III. B.3. ITAs The requirement that the Plan contain an appeals process for providers removed from the list of eligible training providers was added.
III.B.3. Eligible Youth Providers The requirement that the Plan "Describe your State's capacity to disseminate a list of eligible providers of youth activities." was added.
IV.B.5. Multiple Barriers The question was reworded to make it consistent with the requirements for serving individuals with multiple barriers to employment in the Act at 112(b)(17). Thus, the following groups were removed from the list: women and minorities (they fit into all other groups), migrants and veterans (they get their own targeted questions at IV.B.9.,10. and 11.). The last part of the question ("How will the State ensure nondiscrimination and equal opportunity") was made into an assurance.
IV.B.7. Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services. Additional questions were included to get more detailed Plans for Worker Profiling (e.g, "the extent to which claimant participation in services will be reviewed during the claims cycle; consequences for claimants who do not report for services or cooperate with their individual service plan; and strategies the State will use to increase the number of WPRS claimants who receive services").
IV.B.11. Agricultural Services A note clarifying that answering this question does not substitute for the submission of the annual State Plan for Agricultural Services was added.
IV.B.16. Youth Services. An additional question "Describe the State's strategies to provide additional assistance to local areas that have high concentrations of eligible youth." was included.
Other changes in Assurances:
4.The State assures that veterans workforce investment programs funded under WIA, section 168 will be carried out in accordance with that section.
12.The State assures that veterans and other preference-eligible persons will be afforded a priority service, in accordance with the requirements of chapter 41 of title 38 and 20 CFR 1001, in the One-Stop system for the provision of labor exchange services funded under the Wagner-Peyser Act.
17.The State assures that the State workforce investment system and entities carrying out activities in the community who are recipients of assistance from the system or the system partners will comply with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968.
20.The State assures that it will include State and local EO officers and advocates for groups protected from discrimination under WIA section 188 in the planning process in a meaningful way, beginning with the earliest stages.
21.The State certifies that, in providing an opportunity for public comment and input into the development of the Plan, the State consulted with persons of disabilities and has provided information regarding the Plan and planning process, including the Plan and supporting documents, in alternative formats when requested. (�112(b)(9).)
22.If you submit your Plan by posting it on an Internet website, the State certifies that the content of the submitted Plan will not be changed after it is submitted, except with Department of Labor approval.
Time frame for Revised Guidance Publication
The Revised Planning Guidance is expected to be published before the end of December and no later than mid-January, 2000.
II.Unified Planning Guidance
Guidance for submission of a Unified Plan was included in the Planning Guidance that was published on February 25, 1999 as the fourth Option for Plan submittal. Guidance established that States had the option of submitting the Title I/W-P plan as part of a Unified Plan, in accordance with WIA section 501.
Since that publication, a workgroup made up of representatives from the federal partner agencies worked on developing Proposed Guidance for Unified Planning. That guidance was published in the Federal Register on October 6, 1999, and was also posted on the website. The public comment period on the Proposed Guidance ended December 6, 1999 and the comments are currently being analyzed. The Department encourages Unified Planning while emphasizing that the WIA TitleI/W-P section of a Unified Plan will benefit from using the stand alone 5 year Strategic Planning Guidelines for that portion of the Plan.
Timeline for Publication of Unified Planning Guidance
The Department anticipates publication of the finalized Unified Planning Guidance in January 2000.