Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Wisconsin

State Abbreviation
WI
Area
Region
State Flag
Wisconsin Flag
State Capital
Madison

Finding

Module
Module 4 - Competitions and Monitoring Locals
Finding

Finding 11:  WTCS did not properly identify State-imposed requirements in its grant application.

Discussion

When a State adds a requirement based on a State rule or policy that is not imposed under federal law or regulation, it must identify the rule or policy as being imposed by the State.  In the PY 2021 grant application, WTCS included several State-specific requirements in the grant application materials and identified them as such.  However, there were instances in which WTCS did not correctly apply the requirement.  The State restricted services to students who live in Wisconsin and must label this as a State-imposed requirement, so that it is clear that it is not a federally imposed requirement.  The State also restricted an eligible individual to a person who is 18 years of age and older.  In discussion with the State, it was shared that this is a requirement based in State policy.  In addition, WTCS required eligible providers to complete a program self-assessment within the four-year grant cycle.  WTCS must label these, and other non-federally imposed requirements, as State-imposed requirements.

WTCS must revise its application materials to clearly and consistently identify State-imposed requirements that are based on the State’s rules or policies.

State
Fiscal year
2024
Monitoring Review Type
Virtual Targeted
Relevant sections of law and regulation

Section 223(c) of WIOA

Finding

Module
Module 4 - Competitions and Monitoring Locals
Finding

Finding 10:  WTCS did not require applicants to describe how they would meet the requirements of section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA).

Discussion

GEPA requires local applicants, in their applications to the State for funding, to provide a description of how the local applicant will ensure equitable access to, and participation in, its federally assisted program for students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries with special needs.  In WTCS’ PY 2021 competition, the State agency did not require local applicants to provide a statement describing how they would meet GEPA requirements in their applications.  In WTCS’ PY 2025 competition, the State agency must include a requirement that local applicants include a description of how they plan to meet the GEPA requirements and explain that the State will review the statements to determine if they are sufficient.

State
Fiscal year
2024
Monitoring Review Type
Virtual Targeted
Relevant sections of law and regulation

Section 427 of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1228a(b)

Finding

Module
Module 4 - Competitions and Monitoring Locals
Finding

Finding 9:  WTCS did not issue grant award documentation to subrecipients in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance.

Discussion

State agencies are required to include specific information in the grant award notifications issued to AEFLA subrecipients.  WTCS provided each AEFLA subrecipient with a letter of the award notification and contract, which included the terms and conditions for receiving federal funds.  However, WTCS did not include all elements required by the Uniform Guidance on the subaward.  Specifically, the AEFLA award letter and contract did not identify the period of performance, total federal amount, and indirect cost rates for the State agency and local provider.  WTCS must include all the required elements on their grant documents for PY 2024 continuation awards and subsequent AEFLA awards.

State
Fiscal year
2024
Monitoring Review Type
Virtual Targeted
Relevant sections of law and regulation

Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.332(a)

Finding

Module
Module 4 - Competitions and Monitoring Locals
Finding

Finding 8:  WTCS did not establish the same application process for all applicants.

Discussion

States must ensure the same application review process is used for all eligible providers who apply for funds.  The WTCS grant guidelines for PY 2021 included a disclaimer that states, “WTCS may conduct pre-award on-site visits to verify information submitted in the application and to determine if the eligible provider’s facilities are appropriate for the program/services intended.”  Proposing select site visits for making funding decisions violates the requirement of using the same application processes for all applicants.

Additionally, WTCS’ grant guidelines states, “Wisconsin is obligated to maintain a proportional state and local effort in order to continue to receive federal adult education funds.  If the applicant is a consortium, it is expected that other partners contribute resources to the consortium (in-kind, cash, etc.).  Lead applicants must meet a local minimum Maintenance of Effort (MOE) level (required by WTCS for a college applicant (see Attachment 3 - Maintenance of Effort) or provide 25 percent cost sharing (for non-college applicants) for the project.”  Requiring college applicants and non-college applicants to provide a different percent cost sharing violates the requirement of using the same application process for all applicants.

WTCS must establish the same process for all applicants related to grant requirements.

State
Fiscal year
2024
Monitoring Review Type
Virtual Targeted
Relevant sections of law and regulation

Section 231(c)(2) of WIOA; 34 CFR § 463.20(c)(2)

Finding

Module
Module 4 - Competitions and Monitoring Locals
Finding

Finding 7:  WTCS did not follow federal requirements for indirect cost rates and agreements when awarding grants to local providers.

Discussion

States are required to allow local providers to charge indirect costs as part of local administrative costs.  AEFLA is a program that provides federal funding to "supplement and not supplant" other State or local funding; therefore, local providers must use a negotiated restricted indirect cost rate if they choose to charge indirect costs.  WTCS incorrectly prohibited local providers from charging indirect costs on federal funds, which does not comply with the Uniform Guidance or EDGAR.  As part of the State’s grant award notifications, WTCS stated, “Indirect Cost are excluded from this grant, only direct cost should be charged.”

WTCS must revise and issue its indirect cost policy to inform local providers about the allowability of charging indirect costs, using a restricted indirect cost rate.

State
Fiscal year
2024
Monitoring Review Type
Virtual Targeted
Relevant sections of law and regulation

Section 241 of WIOA; Uniform Guidance 2 CFR §§ 200.1, 200.332(a)(4), and 200.414(c)(1-4); Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) 34 CFR §§ 76.563-564

Finding

Module
Module 4 - Competitions and Monitoring Locals
Finding

Finding 6:  WTCS did not identify all of the information to be addressed by applicants in its application materials, specifically how eligible providers will fulfill their one-stop partner roles and responsibilities.

Discussion

AEFLA requires eligible providers to include in their applications information and assurances that describe how they will fulfill, as appropriate, their one-stop partner responsibilities, which include:  providing access to adult education and literacy through the one-stop delivery system; using funds available under WIOA to maintain the one-stop delivery system, including payment of infrastructure costs; entering into memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with local workforce boards, relating to the operations of the one-stop system; participating in the operations of the one-stops, consistent with the MOUs; and providing representation to the State board.

WTCS did not include in its application materials a requirement for applicants to provide this information, as appropriate, in their applications.  While WTCS excelled in describing local providers’ alignment with local workforce boards’ development plans, it did not solicit a response to the five required activities for operating the one-stops.  In discussions with the State staff, the review team determined that all local providers have been delegated the one-stop roles and responsibilities from the State.  WTCS must ensure that local providers with delegated responsibilities for the one-stop include the description of how they plan to address all five responsibilities, as appropriate, in their applications.

State
Fiscal year
2024
Monitoring Review Type
Virtual Targeted
Relevant sections of law and regulation

Section 232 of WIOA; 34 CFR § 463.22

Finding

Module
Module 4 - Competitions and Monitoring Locals
Finding

Finding 5:  WTCS used an incorrect definition of eligible individual, adult, and basic skills deficient in their competition materials.

Discussion

Section 203(4) of WIOA defines eligible individual as an individual “who has attained 16 years of age; who is not enrolled or required to be enrolled in secondary school under State law; and who is basic skills deficient; who does not have a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent and has not achieved an equivalent level of education; or is an English language learner.”  Moreover, section 3(5) of WIOA defines “basic skills deficient” to mean, with respect to an individual “who is a youth, that the individual has English reading, writing, or computing skills at or below the 8th grade level on a generally accepted standardized test; or who is a youth or adult, that the individual is unable to compute or solve problems, or read, write, or speak English, at a level necessary to function on the job, in the individual’s family, or in society.”

WTCS’ grant guidelines states, “An eligible individual is a person who (3) has basic skills deficiencies (including adults with a high school diploma or any other credential  who are determined to have deficiencies by a Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) pre- and/or post-test; an adult who does not have a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent, and has not achieved an equivalent level of education based on the TABE 11/12, CASAS; or an adult who is an English language learner (based on TABE CLAS- E, CASAS, the BEST and/or BEST Plus assessment).”  WTCS limited who may be eligible for AEFLA services based on the State’s eligibility criteria – i.e., specifically by applying a definition of “basic skills deficient” that seems to include only those individuals who have been tested using certain testing instruments.  WTCS cannot change the WIOA definition of eligible individual by defining “basic skills deficient” in a manner different from how it is defined in WIOA.  WTCS must issue guidance to current providers clarifying the terms “eligible individual” and “basic skill deficient” as these terms are defined in WIOA, which will help ensure that it is properly identifying all who may be eligible for AEFLA services.

Both terms, “adult” and “eligible individual,” are separately defined in WIOA.  The term adult is defined in WIOA section 3(2) as “an individual who is age 18 years or older.” The term “eligible individual” is defined in WIOA section 203(4) as discussed and set forth above.  The State also defines both terms separately in the PY 2021 grant guidelines.  The definitions used should be that in section 3(2) of WIOA, which does not include language about where an individual lives.  Further, WTCS should not use the defined terms “adult” and “eligible individual” interchangeably with respect to AEFLA implementation.  WTCS must include in its grant guidelines the WIOA definitions for the terms “adult” and “eligible individual”.  When addressing issues involving AEFLA participants or potential AEFLA participants, the State should be using the defined term “eligible individual”, not “adult”.

State
Fiscal year
2024
Monitoring Review Type
Virtual Targeted
Relevant sections of law and regulation

Sections 3(2), 3(4), 3(5), and 203(4) of WIOA

Finding

Module
Module 4 - Competitions and Monitoring Locals
Finding

Finding 4:  WTCS failed to provide direct and equitable access and the same application process to eligible providers who applied for 231 funds for both adult basic education and correctional education activities under section 225, versus those who applied only for 231 funds for correctional education activities under section 225.

Discussion

A State eligible agency must ensure that all eligible providers have direct and equitable access to apply for funds.  A minimum of 82.5 percent of grant funds under section 211(b) must be used to carry out adult basic education activities under section 231, as well as correctional education activities listed in section 225.  Up to 20 percent of section 231 funds may be used to support the correctional education activities listed in section 225, commonly referred to as section 225 funds.  WTCS ran five competitions for AEFLA, two being for section 231 funds and section 225.  WTCS’ grant guidelines states, “Any provider planning to serve correctional students should apply under the Corrections category.  Based on federal guidance, Wisconsin may not exceed the allowable threshold of AEFLA funding used for corrections education, and this category will be the source of funds for this purpose.  An eligible provider who is awarded a Comprehensive Grant but does not apply for or receive a separate Corrections Education grant may request to make a revision of their Comprehensive grant to address corrections education/re-entry.”

There is a direct and equitable access violation related to applicants that applied for section 231 and section 225 funds and applicants that only applied for section 225 funds.  WTCS’ grant process does not allow unsuccessful applicants who only applied for section 225 funds any other way to access AEFLA funds for corrections activities listed in section 225.  However, applicants who applied for both section 231 funds as well as section 225 funds who were successful in being awarded section 231 funds are able to use AEFLA funds for section 225 corrections activities.  This is an issue of equitable access because applicants who applied for funds for both section 231 and section 225 funds, and who successfully competed for section 231 funds but were not successful in competing for 225 funds, receive what is effectively another chance to be considered for funding for correctional activities listed in section 225.  On the other hand, those who applied only for section 225 funds and were not successful, do not receive that second chance.

In addition, as also required by section 231(c), the same grant process must be used for all eligible providers when competing AEFLA funds in a State.  WTCS’ current grant process violates the same process requirement because there are different processes for applicants that applied for section 231 funds and section 225 funds, versus those who applied only for section 225 funds.  There is also concern that allowing an applicant who applied for both section 231 and section 225 funds who was not successful in the corrections competition to revise their 231 adult basic education budget to carve out funds to be used for correctional education activities listed in section 225 could mean changes in the scope of the project.  Depending on the State’s procedures for competitive processes, this could also be an issue.

WTCS must change its process so that applicants who were successful in being awarded section 231 funds but not section 225 funds do not receive this exclusive opportunity to re-program some of their section 231 funds for correctional education activities.

State
Fiscal year
2024
Monitoring Review Type
Virtual Targeted
Relevant sections of law and regulation

Sections 231(a) and (c)(1) of WIOA; 34 CFR §§ 463.20(a) and 463.20(c)(1)

Finding

Module
Module 4 - Competitions and Monitoring Locals
Finding

Finding 3:  WTCS did not follow federal statutory requirements when competing Section 243 Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education (IELCE) funding.

Discussion

From funds made available under WIOA section 243, States are required to carry out integrated English literacy and civics education in combination with IET activities.  In WTCS’ PY 2021 competition, the State agency did not require section 243 IELCE applicants to provide an IET in combination with IELCE.  Specifically, WTCS’ grant guidelines states, “An eligible provider who receives funds through the IELCE program may choose to incorporate IET if they wish by...”  In WTCS’ PY 2025 competition, the State agency must include a requirement that eligible providers that receive funds through the section 243 IELCE program meet the requirement to offer section 243 IELCE in combination with IET activities, which may be done through partnerships with local training providers, delivered online, or through other means of leveraging access to training opportunities funded by other entities.  During conversation with WTCS, State staff mentioned that offering an IET was currently a requirement for eligible providers receiving funds through the IELCE program, even though that requirement was not listed in the PY 2021 competition materials.

WTCS must develop a plan to ensure that all section 243 IELCE subrecipients are trained and carrying out the requirements of the program and monitor them to ensure that the section 243 IELCE program requirements are being implemented.  Monitoring section 243 IELCE subrecipients on this requirement will allow WTCS to plan and deliver technical assistance, as well as ensure compliance by following up with corrective actions.

State
Fiscal year
2024
Monitoring Review Type
Virtual Targeted
Relevant sections of law and regulation

Section 243 of WIOA; 34 CFR Part 463, Subpart G

Finding

Module
Module 4 - Competitions and Monitoring Locals
Finding

Finding 2:  WTCS limited the percentage of AEFLA administrative costs that local providers could negotiate with the State.

Discussion

If the administrative cost limit described in 233(a)(2) is too restrictive to allow for the activities described in that subsection, eligible providers shall negotiate with a State agency to determine an adequate level of funds to be used for local administrative costs.  A review of the State’s application materials revealed that WTCS correctly identified this requirement; however, it imposed a 12 percent cap on the negotiated local administrative cost limit.  Specifically, WTCS’ grant guidelines states, “Not more than 5 percent of an award can be expended to administer a grant or contract under Title II.  In cases where 5 percent is too restrictive to allow for administration activities, the eligible provider must negotiate with the WTCS ABE staff to determine if an increase can be allowed.  In addition, federal AEFLA rules allow for additional costs up to 12 percent total based on the Administrative Costs definition in the glossary.” There are no AEFLA rules that limit local administrative costs to up to 12 percent.

During negotiations with a local provider, the State should ensure that administrative costs are allowable, reasonable, and necessary, thus preventing excessive expenditures.  The State must ensure that its policies for negotiating administrative cost percentages are consistent with the statute and the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) 2 CFR Part 200.

State
Fiscal year
2024
Monitoring Review Type
Virtual Targeted
Relevant sections of law and regulation

Sections 233(a)(2) and (b) of WIOA

Subscribe to Wisconsin