Utah

Discussion:  GEPA requires State agencies to describe how they will ensure equitable access to, and participation in, its federally assisted program for students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries with special needs with their federal funds reserved for State-level uses.  Additionally, GEPA requires that local applicants provide this description in their applications to the State for funding.  The State has discretion in developing the required description.  The statute highlights six types of barriers that can impede equitable access or participation: gender, race, national origin, color, disability, or age.  In USBE’s PY 2021 competition, the State agency did not include the requirement that local applicants describe how they proposed to meet the GEPA provisions in their applications for AEFLA funds.  In USBE’s PY 2023 competition, USBE must include the requirement that applicants must describe how they will meet GEPA requirements.

Discussion:  State agencies and subrecipients of federal awards are required to retain all records pertaining to the federal award for a period of three years.  In the grant procedures manual, USBE incorrectly stated the retention policy.  First, USBE stated that any records associated with State funding need to be retained for one year.  However, any records associated with State funding used as matching funds must follow the same records policy as records associated with federal funding.  Second, the policy for federal records incorrectly identified when the records retention period begins.  The manual stated that the three-year records retention begins on the first day of the next fiscal year.  However, the federal records retention requirement is from the date of submission of the final expenditure report.  Furthermore, if there are any pending investigations, relevant records must be kept until the investigations have been concluded.  USBE must revise the records retention policy guidance for subrecipients to correctly state the Uniform Guidance requirement.

Discussion:  State agencies are required to consider each of the 13 considerations found in section 231(e) of WIOA when awarding grants or contracts for AEFLA funds.  While the grant application required eligible providers to address some of the 13 required considerations, not all considerations were included in the selection criteria and evaluation rubric.  One consideration was omitted.  USBE did not require in the grant application that applicants indicate whether the eligible provider maintains a high-quality information management system that has the capacity to report measurable participant outcomes (consistent with section 116 of WIOA) and to monitor program performance.  In USBE’s PY 2023 competition, USBE must include the omitted consideration.

Discussion: A non-federal entity's financial management system must be able to sufficiently permit the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the federal award.  Additionally, the financial management system must be able to allow staff to compare expenditures to budgets for each award.  Currently, USBE does not consistently track expenditures against WIOA requirements.  WIOA requires that federal funds be used for each of the four required State leadership activities in section 223(a)(1).  Based on interviews with the adult education and fiscal staff, USBE could not confirm expenditures spent for the four required activities.  Furthermore, budgets for State administration, State leadership, and IELCE (section 243) administrative purposes for PYs 2018, 2019, and 2020 were not created.  Because there were no budgets developed for those program years, USBE is not able to compare the expenditures to the budgeted amounts.  USBE must develop budgets at a level detailed enough to ensure compliance with WIOA requirements and have a policy to compare expenditures to those budgets.

Discussion:  States are required to report valid and reliable data on the primary indicators of performance, which includes the credential attainment rate.  A review of USBE’s data revealed that the State has been in the first quartile for credential rate indicators for the past three years with low outcomes each year (13.18% in PY 2018, 9.37% in PY 2019, and 8.15% in PY 2020).  The rates are well below the national average for those years (24.91% in PY 2018, 24.03% in PY 2019, and 25.88% in PY 2020).  A review of secondary credential data from NRS Table 4 during similar time frames revealed a discrepancy in the data.  USBE has reported very few secondary credential successes towards the credential rate indicator (PY 2018 = 483, PY 2019 = 113, PY 2020 = 267) while NRS Table 4 data for the similar time frames show many more participants achieving secondary credentials (PY 2018 = 1,847, PY 2019 = 1,177, PY 2020 = 1,673).  Although the credential rate indicator is much more restrictive in cohort requirements and qualifying actions (entry into postsecondary or employment within one year of exit) to report success, these conditions would be unlikely to negate 70% to 90% of the credentials achieved in the State.  Discussions with USBE staff indicated a concern that the MIS may not be accurately tracking the high school equivalencies achieved in the State.  USBE should further investigate the disparity and update the MIS to accurately reflect the value that should be reported.

Discussion:  States are required to report valid and reliable data on the primary indicators of performance, which includes the measurable skill gains indicator.  During a demonstration of the State’s MIS, the review team noted that the MIS is not restricting data entry for scale scores based on the test level.  Specifically, TABE has two versions 11 and 12, but there are multiple test levels (L, E, M, D, and A).  The valid scale score ranges for these tests vary, and each test can only measure a specific range of educational functioning levels (EFLs).  During the MIS review, the team was asked to enter a scale score of 800 for a TABE E level test.  This should have resulted in an error since that is not a valid score for a level E test, but the MIS accepted the score and assigned an EFL level.  USBE must update its MIS to ensure the assessment data are limited to valid score entries.