Narrative Report | National Reporting System

State Leadership Funds (Adult education and family literacy act Section 223 (AEFLA))

Describe how the State has used funds made available under section 223 (State Leadership activities) for each the following:

AEFLA Section 223(1)(a)

Alignment of adult education and literacy activities with other one-stop required partners to implement the strategies in the Unified or Combined State Plan as described in section 223(1)(a)

In FY22, OSSE AFE worked with the Workforce Investment Council (WIC), America Works (the District’s One Stop Operator), the Department of Employment Services (DOES), the Department on Disability Services (DDS), the Department of Human Services (DHS), the University of the District of Columbia (UDC) and other key partners to achieve the strategic objectives outlined in the District of Columbia’s WIOA Unified State Plan, including the alignment of adult education and literacy activities with the other one-stop required partner activities. Additionally, OSSE AFE, in collaboration with these agencies, expanded the district’s efforts to create uniformity in intake, assessment, and program referral practices across DC government agencies via Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS) eTest implementation, screening of adults for learning disabilities, and DC Data Vault implementation.

AEFLA Section 223(1)(b)

Establishment or operation of a high-quality professional development programs as described in section 223(1)(b)

In FY22, OSSE AFE, in collaboration with the University of the District of Columbia (UDC) and other partners, offered professional development workshops and technical assistance on WIOA, Integrated Education and Training (IE&T), program design, and strategic leadership to sub-grantees to increase their capacity to offer high-quality IE&T and supportive and transition services to District residents. Additionally, OSSE AFE, in collaboration with UDC, hosted three mini-professional development institutes that focused on Accessible Online Tools for Contextualizing Learning for Older Youth & Adults (Fall 2021), Building Blocks for Education, Training and Workforce Providers - Strengthening the College and Career Readiness Aspects of Your Program (Spring 2022), and Help Students Succeed and Get the Outcomes You Need: Managing the Learning Environment for Student Persistence in Education, Training and Workforce Programs (Summer 2022). Other professional development offerings included CASAS Implementation, CASAS eTest Coordinator and Proctor Training, DC CASAS Remote Testing Implementation, TOPSpro and CASAS bi-monthly check-in sessions, Literacy Adult and Community Education System (LACES) Beginner and Intermediate training, LACES monthly check-in sessions, and other related trainings.

In FY22, OSSE AFE continued its partnership with UDC to offer the Graduate Certificate in Adult Education Program (GCP) to 11 adult educators to prepare them for certification and/or state licensure in Adult Education. The GCP provides adult educators with an opportunity to engage in either one or two three-credit course(s) over a 15- to 24-month period for a total of 24 credits. Three adult educators completed the program and earned a graduate certificate and 11 continued their studies in pursuit of the certificate. UDC also offers the Master of Art (MA) in adult education program, for which the graduate certificate program is aligned, and credits may be applied. Two adult educators enrolled in the MA program in FY21, and one student who enrolled in the program in FY20 earned an MA degree in FY22.

AEFLA Section 223(1)(c)

Provision of technical assistance to funded eligible providers as described in section 223(1)(c)

OSSE AFE provided technical assistance to sub-grantees and local program providers via check-in meetings, webinars, telephone calls and emails. Technical assistance topics included 1) program design, implementation and evaluation; 2) intake and assessment; 3) curriculum and instruction; 4) student recruitment, retention and persistence; 5) student progress and outcomes; 6) data collection and management; 7) budget and finance; and 8) accountability and reporting as well as other related topics. Additionally, the AFE team provided technical assistance to sub-grantees to support their implementation of recommendations for continuous improvement in the areas of 1) student recruitment, retention, progress and involvement; 2) instructional models and methods; 3) program management and leadership; and 4) data collection and reporting.

AEFLA Section 223(1)(d)

Monitoring and evaluation of the quality and improvement of adult education activities as described in section 223(1)(d)

OSSE AFE monitors sub-grantees to evaluate local program performance via quarterly monitoring reviews, monthly and/or quarterly check-in meetings, desk reviews and final annual monitoring. Additionally, the AFE team conducts classroom observations, folder samplings, and fiscal monitoring verifications. Local program providers are required to submit quarterly statistical and narrative reports with evidence that includes student roster reports, National Reporting System (NRS) fundable Student Roster Report, NRS Tables, CASAS Current Year Pre- and Post-test Assessment Report, student core goal attainment reports, and other related documents. Local program participation in an annual final monitoring review and the development and implementation of a continuous improvement plan are also required. The OSSE AFE Quarterly Reports, Continuous Improvement Plans, Final Monitoring Tool, classroom observation tool, and student surveys, as applicable, continue to be used to assess the effectiveness of local programs and the improvement of adult education activities, as described in section 223(1)(d). The state also uses the performance data from local program providers via the monitoring process to address the specific professional development, technical assistance, and/or resource allocation needs of local program providers and to work with local program providers to develop and implement plans for continuous improvement.

AEFLA Section 223(a)(2)

As applicable, describe how the State has used funds for additional permissible activities described in section 223(a)(2)

In FY22, OSSE AFE worked with its providers and partners to help strengthen the alignment between adult education, postsecondary education, and employers. OSSE AFE staff and sub-grantees participated in the adult education workgroup meeting, professional development workshops, and other meetings with the WIC, WIOA partner agencies and key stakeholders to identify potential partnerships that can assist the state and local program providers in offering high-quality Integrated Education and Training services to District residents.

Performance Data Analysis

Describe how the adult education program performed in the overall assessment of core programs based on the core indicators of performance. Discuss how the assessment was used to improve quality and effectiveness of the funded eligible providers and any plans to further increase performance in future reporting years.

In FY22, OSSE AFE awarded continuation funding to 12 sub-grantees to implement Integrated Education and Training service models introduced in the FY17 grant competition and continued in the FY21 grant competition. The models include providing adult education and literacy, workforce preparation, and training services for a specific occupation or occupational cluster to 1,000 District residents for education and career advancement. In total, 1,122 adult learners received services in OSSE AFE-funded programs in FY22. Of this number, 1,080 learners met the National Reporting System (NRS) guidelines of having a valid assessment and 12 or more instructional hours in the program year to be reportable to the US Department of Education per NRS Table 4. The remaining 42 adult learners engaged in one to 11 instructional hours per NRS Table 2A.

DC FY22 Participants by Gender (NRS Table 2)

In FY22, female learners represented 62 percent (n = 674) and male learners represented 38 percent (n = 406) of the total number of students served (n = 1,080).

DC FY22 Participants by Ethnicity (NRS Table 2)

At 66 percent (n = 712 of 1,080 students), black or African American participants comprised the single largest ethnic group of learners served; Hispanic or Latino students followed at 29 percent (n = 314 of 1,080 students). The percentage of American Indian or Alaskan, Asian, or white participants and persons of Two or More Races was 5 percent (n = 54 of 1,080 students).

DC FY22 Participants by Age

Consistent with past years, the largest single group of learners served were between ages 25 and 44 (49 percent/n = 538 of 1,080 students). The second largest group of learners served were between 19 and 24 years of age (26 percent/n = 283 of 1,080 students), followed by learners between the ages of 45 and 54 (10 percent/n = 112 of 1,080 students). The smallest groups of learners served were at opposite ends of the age continuum and included students ages 60 and older (4 percent/n = 48 of 1,080 students), 55-59 years of age (4 percent/n = 44 of 1,080 students), and 16 to 18 years of

age (7 percent/n = 55 of 1,080 students).

DC FY22 Participants by Program Type (NRS Table 3)

In FY22, of the total number of learners (n = 1,080) who met the NRS guidelines, students in Adult Basic Education (ABE)/Integrated Education and Training (IE&T) Programs comprised the single largest group by program type (56 percent/n = 607 of 1,080 students). The second and third largest groups by program type were Adult Secondary Education (ASE)/IE&T Programs (24 percent/n = 259 of 1,080 students), followed by Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education/IE&T Programs (12 percent/n=131 of 1,080 students). The fourth and smallest program type was English Language Acquisition/IE&T Programs (8 percent/n = 83 of 1,080 students).

DC FY22 Measurable Skills Gains by Entry Level (NRS Table 4)

Adult Basic Education (ABE) Participants by Entry Educational Functioning Levels

Of the total number of ABE participants, the most significant number of students entered at ABE Level 4 (33 percent/n = 306 of 917 students), followed by ABE Level 3 (24 percent/n = 223 of 917 students) level. The smallest number of participants entered at ABE Level 1 (.02 percent/n = 22 of 917 students).

English as a Second Language (ESL) Participants by Entry Educational Functioning Levels

Of the total number of ESL participants, the largest number of participants entered at ESL Level 5 at (29 percent/n = 47 of 163 students), followed by the second largest number of participants who entered ESL Level 6 (27 percent/n = 44 of 163 students). The smallest number of ESL participants entered in ESL Level 2 (.06 percent/n = 9 of 163 students).

Measurable Skills Gains by Entry Level

For FY22, OSSE AFE negotiated a measurable skill gains performance target of 47 percent for all ABE and ESL Educational Functioning Levels (EFLs). This target represents the proposed percentage of adult learners making a measurable skill gain (e.g., achieving an educational functioning level gain, acquiring a secondary school diploma or its equivalent, exiting a program below the Postsecondary level and enrolling in postsecondary education and training during the program year, attaining a postsecondary or secondary transcript, making progress towards milestones, or passing a technical/occupational skills exam). OSSE AFE exceeded its target of 47 percent, with 58.46 percent of students enrolled in an OSSE AFE-funded program achieving a gain. This reflects a 2.83-point increase in the percentage of students with measurable skill gains in FY21 – (55.63 percent).

The chart below reflects the percentage of adult learners who made measurable skills gains. Students at ABE Level 5 had the highest rate of measurable gains at 58.52 percent, followed by students at ABE Level 4 (58.06 percent) and ABE Level 3 (57.96 percent). Students at ESL Level 3 had the highest percentage of measurable gains at 93.33 percent, followed by students at ESL Level 2 (88.89 percent) and ESL Level 5 (70.83 percent).

DC FY22 Core Outcome Follow-up Achievement (NRS Table 5)

For FY22, OSSE AFE negotiated targets for the core follow-up outcome measures on NRS Table 5 as follows:

Employment (2nd quarter after exit) – OSSE AFE’s federally negotiated target for this metric during this reporting period was 21 percent. OSSE exceeded this target in FY22. The state’s performance was 38.36 percent which reflects an increase of 23.24 percentage points in FY22 compared to 15.12 percent in FY21.

Employment (4th quarter after exit) – OSSE AFE’s federally negotiated target for this metric during this reporting period was 23.0 percent. OSSE exceeded this target in FY22. The state’s performance was 26.65 percent, which reflects an increase of 14.63 percentage points in FY22 compared to 12.02 percent in FY21.

Median Earnings (2nd quarter after exit) – OSSE AFE’s federally negotiated target for this metric during this reporting period was $8,000. OSSE achieved 98 percent of this target in FY22. The state’s performance was $7,800, which reflects an increase of $910 in FY22 compared to $6,890 in FY21.

All employment and wage data are collected through follow-up surveys with program exiters. Where possible, data match with DOES’s Unemployment Insurance wage data and the State Wage Interchange System (SWIS).

However, matching against the DOES UI wage data and SWIS wage data requires a social security number which we do not require for enrollment in AFE programming and for which only a fraction of our learners voluntarily provide. We know that this leads to an under-representation of our learners’ employment and wage data.

Credential Attainment (Unduplicated) – OSSE AFE’s federally negotiated target for this metric during this reporting period was 48 percent. OSSE AFE achieved 69 percent of this target. The state’s performance was 33.08 percent which reflects a decrease of 11.79 percentage points compared to 44.87 percent in FY21. Because the credential attainment rate is a lagging post-exit measure based on survey responses, the FY22 outcome data for credential attainment rate focusses on students who exited the program during Jan. 1 2020 through Dec. 31 2020 which was the first year of the pandemic when much of the city had shut down. This had a direct impact on a student’s ability to test or get their practicum hours associated with their certifications. Therefore, the drop in FY21-22 for credential attainment was significantly impacted by the effects of the pandemic.

Attainment of a Secondary School Diploma/Recognized Equivalent

From July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022:

169 District residents passed all four components of the GED Exam and earned a DC State Diploma.
37 DC residents completed the National External Diploma Program and earned a DC Public School, DC Public Charter School, or DC State Diploma

Integration with One-stop Partners

Describe how the State eligible agency, as the entity responsible for meeting one-stop requirements under 34 CFR part 463, subpart J, carries out or delegates its required one-stop roles to eligible providers. Describe the applicable career services that are provided in the one-stop system. Describe how infrastructure costs are supported through State and local options.

OSSE AFE recognizes that relationships with WIOA partners are pivotal in delivering learner-centered integrated services to District residents. In FY22, the OSSE AFE continued its efforts to collaborate with the District’s WIC, America Works (the District’s One-Stop Operator), DOES, DHS, DDS/RSA, UDC-CC, and other partners to fulfill its one-stop responsibilities. This included working with partners to establish uniform intake, assessment, and program referral practices and working collaboratively to support learners’ academic achievement and success while engaged in workforce readiness, job training, and postsecondary education transition activities. Additionally, OSSE staff serve on the District’s WIC and attend WIOA Workgroup Meetings, and American Job Center/One-Stop Operator meetings to strategize ways to develop a more cohesive and collaborative workforce development/career pathways system in the District of Columbia that aligns with the mandates of WIOA and the District’s approved WIOA State Unified Plan.

OSSE AFE has been partnering with DOES since 1998 to support the integration of adult education, career development, and employment and training activities for District residents. OSSE AFE continues to use its funding to support the one-stop system by providing DOES AJC staff and other WIOA partners with professional development (CASAS Implementation Training, CASAS eTest Coordinator and Proctor certification preparation training, and DC CASAS Remote Testing Training), technical assistance (DC CASAS State Trainers, OSSE AFE staff, and CASAS National Office) and resources (CASAS eTest units) to build AJC staff’s capacity to provide assessment and screening services to DC residents. Additionally, OSSE AFE providers are required to enroll all students in DC networks (the District’s Virtual One Stop System) and to serve District residents referred through the one-stop system.

OSSE AFE entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the District’s WIC and DOES in FY17 that is modified annually. The MOU specifies the responsibilities that OSSE will fulfill as a one-stop partner. OSSE provides local funding via the MOU to DOES to support the one-stop infrastructure costs and activities. OSSE also contributes to the one-stop system by funding 12 OSSE AFE that offers Integrated Education and Training to District residents. Additionally, OSSE AFE provides CASAS Implementation, CASAS eTest Coordinator and Proctor, and DC CASAS Remote Testing Implementation training; CASAS web-test units to one-stop partners; and funding to the WIC to help offset the costs of hosting and maintaining the DC Data Vault, in collaboration with PAIRIN, for use by one-stop partners.

Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education

Describe how the state is using funds under Section 243 to support the following activities under the IELCE program:

IELCE Funds and grants

Describe when your State held a competition [the latest competition] for IELCE program funds and the number of grants awarded by your State to support IELCE programs.

OSSE AFE, in collaboration with the DC WIC, held the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) and WIC Career Pathways grant competition in FY21. Four of 12 eligible providers were selected to provide Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education (IELCE) and Training to District residents in FY21 and received continuation funding in FY22.

Training activity

Describe your State efforts in meeting the requirement to provide IELCE services in combination with integrated education and training activities;

OSSE AFE is funding four eligible providers to develop and implement innovative program models that include the provision of IELCE concurrently and contextually with workforce preparation activities and workforce training for a specific occupation or occupational cluster to English learners (ELs) for educational and career advancement. Program models include 1) services to professionals with degrees and credentials in their native countries; 2) services that enable adult learners to achieve competency in the English language and acquire the basic and more advanced skills needed to function effectively as parents, workers, and citizens in the United States; and 3) the provision of career pathway mapping, workforce preparation and workforce training including career awareness, career exploration, and career planning services appropriate for ELs. Students participate in EL/civics activities that focus on civic engagement, American history and government, American culture and values, and paths to naturalization while also engaging in occupational skills training that prepares them to pursue their desired career path.

IELCE Section 243(c)(1)

Describe how the State is progressing towards program goals of preparing and placing IELCE program participants in unsubsidized employment in in-demand industries and occupations that lead to economic self-sufficiency as described in section 243(c)(1) and discuss any performance results, challenges, and lessons learned from implementing those program goals; and

OSSE AFE continues to work with its four IELCE and Training sub-grantees, its WIOA core partner agencies, and/other key stakeholders to identify opportunities for students to participate in unsubsidized employment in the district’s high-demand industries. Each sub-grantee has employer partners that provide work-based learning, internships, and/or externships to students, sometimes leading to unsubsidized employment. OSSE AFE expects that the provision of integrated English Literacy, Civics Education, workforce preparation, and workforce training will enhance the likelihood that English learners will be afforded to opportunity to pursue occupations that lead to economic self-sufficiency.

IELCE Section 243(c)(2)

Describe how the State is progressing towards program goals of ensuring that IELCE program activities are integrated with the local workforce development system and its functions as described in section 243(c)(2) and discuss any performance results, challenges, and lessons learned from implementing those program goals.

OSSE AFE works closely with the District’s WIC to ensure that the adult education and literacy activities are aligned with the District’s WIOA State Plan, career pathways initiative, and local workforce development system.

Adult Education Standards

If your State has adopted new challenging K-12 standards under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, describe how your Adult Education content standards are aligned with those K-12 standards.

In FY22, OSSE AFE staff and local providers continued to increase their understanding of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), College and Career Readiness Standards (CCRS), CASAS competencies, and basic skills content standards and their implications for adult education and training. As such, OSSE AFE staff and its professional development partners continue to identify strategies to assist local program staff via professional development, technical assistance, and resources to employ a standards-based approach to teaching adult learners in Integrated Education and Training Programs more succinctly and comprehensively.

Optional – Describe implementation efforts, challenges, and any lessons learned

OSSE AFE recognizes that it takes time to increase local programs’ understanding and integration of standards. In its FY20 AFE Consolidated Competitive Grant Application, the OSSE AFE required local programs to specify which standards (CCSS, CCRS, CASAS, workforce preparation, and workforce training) will be reflected in their program designs. OSSE AFE will continue to use this and other related information to provide additional professional development, technical assistance and resources to local program providers and to monitor and evaluate their efforts to integrate relevant standards incrementally into their program designs.

Programs for Corrections Education (AEFLA Section 225)

What was the relative rate of recidivism for criminal offenders served? Please describe the methods and factors used in calculating the rate for this reporting period.

Due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, there was a significant reduction in the number of students participating in correctional education in FY22. Students previously receiving correctional education services resided in halfway houses in the city. However, due to increased health concerns about the number of residents contracting COVID-19, the declining state of the residences, and the inability of contracted service providers to meet the diverse needs of returning citizens during the pandemic, District residents were relocated to facilities outside of the city. Additionally, in FY22, state staff searched the Federal Bureau of Prison (FBOP) Inmate Locator, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (MD PSCS) Inmate Locator, and the Virginia Department of Corrections Inmate (VA DOC) Locator to find out whether any of the students who exited the program during the reporting period had recidivated. None of the students appeared in the Inmate Locator search results.

Therefore, based on the reduced number of District residents receiving correctional education in FY22 and the fact that none of the students who exited the program appeared in the search results for the FBOP, MD PSCS, and VA DOC, OSSE AFE estimates that the relative rate of recidivism is 0 percent for offenders served.

The methods and factors used in calculating the rate for the reporting period include the following:

Methods - An analysis of 1) students populating NRS Table 10 – Outcome Achievement for Adults in Correctional Education; 2) employment and/or wage data via student follow-up survey data in the Literacy Adult and Community Education System (LACES), the state’s management information system; and 3) student enrollment data and instructional hours in FY22 in LACES. - A search for students who exited the program during the reporting period in the Federal Bureau of Prison (FBOP) Inmate Locator, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (MD PSCS) Inmate Locator, and the Virginia Department of Corrections Inmate (VA DOC) Locator.

Factors - 1) The total number of students served in FY22 was 18 per NRS Table 10 – Outcome Achievement for Adults in Correctional Education. 2) Of the 18 students, 14 exited, achieving an outcome or median earning value in FY22 (based on aligned survey and data matching results). 3) Of the 18 students, the four students who did not exit from the program in FY22, re-enrolled and have instructional hours in FY23. 4) 14 + 4 (re-enrolled students with instructional hours) = 18 students that did not recidivate. 5) 18/18 = 100 percent of students did not recidivate. 6) 100 percent minus 100 percent = 0 percent (n = 0) of students recidivated. Additionally, none of the students appeared in the Inmate Locator search results.

There are several variables that may confound the validity of the recidivism rate when relevant data sets are missing.

Narrative Report for District of Columbia 2021