Massachusetts

Finding 5: ESE did not properly apply equitable access and same application process provisions for all eligible providers.

Relevant sections of law and regulation: WIOA section 231(c), 34 CFR §463.20(c)

Discussion: A review of the RFP revealed that ESE treated different applicants differently in the application process. Specifically, the application provided an opportunity for eligible providers whose primary mission is to serve homeless populations to submit a letter requesting a waiver of the 50-student minimum requirement in the program design portion of the grant application. The application also included the same waiver opportunity for these eligible providers when submitting data used to determine demonstrated effectiveness. (As discussed above in Finding 1, ESE improperly required that applicants have served at least 50 students in order to be considered an organization of demonstrated effectiveness.) The availability of a waiver for some eligible providers to serve a smaller number of participants (here, only providers serving homeless populations), but not for other providers who may also have a smaller number of participants, limits equitable access to AEFLA funds. It also results in a different application process for differently-situated applicants. Therefore, the design and implementation of ESE’s RFP is a violation of WIOA section 231(c).

Finding 4: ESE did not properly identify State imposed requirements in its RFP.

Relevant sections of law and regulation: WIOA section 223(c)

Discussion: ESE created State requirements in its adult education programs through its RFP. WIOA section 223(c) requires that whenever a State implements any rule or policy that has the effect of imposing a requirement that is not imposed under Federal law, it must identify the rule or policy as being imposed by the State. While some State-imposed policies were identified, others were not. Examples of State-imposed rules and policies that were not identified include the following: 1) an eligible provider must serve at least 50 students; and 2) Integrated Education and Training programs must lead to a recognized credential.

Finding 3: ESE did not properly apply the provisions related to local administrative costs.

Relevant sections of law and regulation: WIOA section 233, 34 CFR §463.25

Discussion: In both the RFP and FY2019 Massachusetts Policies for Effective Adult Education in Community Adult Learning Centers and Correctional Institutions, ESE requires its eligible providers to use at least 75% of its AEFLA grant for instructional costs, and allows up to 25% of its grant for administrative costs. WIOA section 233 stipulates that not less than 95% of local grants be used for adult education and literacy activities and that an amount not to exceed 5% is used for planning, administration, professional development, and certain one-stop partner responsibilities. It also provides that if the 5% administrative cost limits are too restrictive, the eligible provider may negotiate with an eligible agency in order to determine an adequate level of funds to be used for non-instructional purposes. ESE’s uniform policy of allowing up to 25% of funds to be used for administration, without a negotiation that determines an adequate level of funds to be used for non-instructional costs, is inconsistent with statutory requirements. Further, ESE defines administrative costs as expenses incurred in the day-to-day operations of an organization that are not directly tied to a specific function and are linked to the organization as a whole, as opposed to costs related to activities described in section 233(a)(2) – planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local plan, and one-stop partner responsibilities.

Finding 2: ESE improperly applied Federal eligibility criteria for individuals eligible for services under AEFLA.

Relevant sections of law and regulation: WIOA section 203(4)

Discussion: A review of both the RFP and FY2019 Massachusetts Policies for Effective Adult Education in Community Adult Learning Centers and Correctional Institutions revealed that ESE improperly applied the definition of an eligible individual established in section 203(4) of WIOA. ESE policies limit eligibility of a participant who has a high school diploma to those who assess at or below 10.9 grade level equivalent (GLE) in reading, writing, or math, and who seek to maintain work certification and/or pursue postsecondary education or training. Section 203(4) provides that, in addition to certain other criteria related to age and secondary school enrollment, an adult who is basic skills deficient is an eligible adult. An adult who is basic skills deficient is statutorily defined as an individual who 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. Additional criteria imposed by ESE on adults who hold a high school diploma or its equivalent, but who meet the definition of basic skills deficient, limits participant eligibility established in the Federal statute.

Finding 1: ESE improperly applied the requirement for demonstrated effectiveness in determining an applicant’s eligibility.

Relevant sections of law and regulation: WIOA sections 203(5), 34 CFR §463.23-463.24

Required Action 1(c): In its next AEFLA grant competition, ESE must properly apply the requirement that an eligible provider be of “demonstrated effectiveness,” consistent with the requirement to do so in 34 CFR §463.24.

Discussion: ESE conducted an AEFLA grant competition to award grants on July 1, 2018. The request for proposal (RFP) properly notified eligible providers that the application would be reviewed to determine if the organization was of demonstrated effectiveness prior to the application being accepted for review. The RFP included a form that required the applicant to provide two years of information on demonstrated effectiveness. The review protocols indicated that reviewers confirmed such information was submitted prior to scoring the application. In identifying the requirements for demonstrated effectiveness, ESE did not properly apply the Federal requirement in 34 CFR §463.24 describing how a State determines demonstrated effectiveness. Specifically, ESE required that an applicant provide data demonstrating that it had served at least 50 students per year for the past two years. The requirement to have served at least 50 students in order to be considered an organization of demonstrated effectiveness limited the eligibility of applicants beyond that established in 34 CFR §463.24. Further, ESE improperly applied the requirement for how it would determine demonstrated effectiveness by requiring the applicant to submit data in the areas of ABE, ASE, and ESL, rather than in the content domains of reading, mathematics and English language acquisition, and did not request required data on the organization’s record for obtaining employment and transitioning to post-secondary education.

The state submitted a state plan extension in April 2004, which indicatedthat it would extend its current grants for July 2005 program year. However, instead of a non-competing continuation of funds to local entities, the state competed its AEFLA funds in March 2004, and awarded grants in July 2005.

MA is not evaluating the effectiveness of local programs in conformance with Sections 224 (b)(3) of AEFLA;