Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act FAQs


If you are looking for specific information about the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), please choose a frequently asked question (FAQ) topic below.

Memorandums of Understanding

Yes. The U.S. Department of Labor released Infrastructure Costs FAQs on December 27, 2016. These FAQs stated that affiliate AJCC locations must also negotiate infrastructure funding agreements (IFA) with colocated partners. However, due the lateness of this information, local partnerships can decide the appropriate schedule for also completing IFA agreements with affiliate or specialty AJCCs. Local Workforce Development Areas and local partners may decide to combine the affiliate and comprehensive centers into a network IFA and network other systems cost budget. Further state guidance regarding affiliate centers will be forthcoming.

According to the WIOA Joint Final Rule Section 678.415, program responsibility lies with the grant recipient and any local administrative entities, but does not extend to local entity’s Memorandumss or subcontractors. This means it’s the local administrative entity’s responsibility to sign and negotiate the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and infrastructure funding agreement (IFA). This responsibility cannot be delegated to the local entity’s subrecipient or subcontractor. If a subrecipient or subcontractor of the local entity has a physical presence in an America’s Job Center of CaliforniaSM (AJCC) location then the local administrative entity is considered colocated and must pay its proportionate share of infrastructure costs. It is up to the local administrative entity and their subcontractor to determine how the proportionate share of the IFA is paid – either directly by the entity or by funds allocated to their subcontractor.

Example: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) – In California, the TANF program is referred to as CalWORKs. CalWORKs uses county welfare departments (CWD) throughout the state as their local administrative entities. In local negotiations, the CWD will negotiate and sign the MOU. If the CWD has contracted with a service provider and that provider is colocated within the AJCC, TANF and the CWD are considered a colocated partner and must either directly pay the IFA proportionate share or direct their service provider to use their funds to pay the IFA proportionate share.

No. The Local Workforce Development Board and its partners should continue negotiations and determine a cost allocation methodology that is agreeable to all partners regardless of the AJCC’s ultimate location. Specific partner contributions will have to be determined after the selection of the new AJCC location but negotiations and agreement on an appropriate cost allocation methodology determinations should not be put on hold.

Yes. If a partner operates multiple programs they have two negotiation options. They can either segment the various program’s responsibilities as individual program parts of the Memorandum of Understanding, or they can represent all their programs as a whole, and make whatever internal determinations they need to make to finance the various parts as one lump sum.  Under the latter option, the infrastructure funding agreement will show the entity (noting the partner programs under it) as the one obligated to share and pay.

Example: The Employment Development Department (EDD) may operate Title III Wagner-Peyser, Trade Adjustment Assistance Act, and Jobs for Veterans’ State Grants programs within an America’s Job Center of CaliforniaSM (AJCC) location and/or network. As the administrative entity for all of these programs, the EDD could negotiate, sign, and pay a lump sum for all of these partner programs that are located within that AJCC center and/or network. The EDD would then internally allocate individual program costs as determined appropriate.

Partners, whether colocated or non-colocated, must include the funds received from their authorizing federal statute. They may choose to include any additional funds but it is not required. If the partner does not spend any federal funds, their budget would be reported as “$0.00” on the partner matrix for the Required Consolidated Budget for the Delivery of Applicable Career Services.

Example: A local community college may have state funds as well as federal Carl Perkins Career and Technical Education funds for career services. Only the federal funds are required to be included in this estimate.

Applicable career services are services delivered by partners as authorized under their programs (WIOA Section 134[c][2]). Not all services of every partner will be included in the list of applicable career services.

Example: The basic career service of initial assessment is applicable to the Title II Adult Education and Literacy Program Partner, but classroom instruction for the attainment of High School Equivalency is not defined as a career service in WIOA and will not be included in the list of applicable career services.

Unlike Infrastructure Costs, this budget includes all costs, including personnel, related to the administration and delivery of these services.

A separate line item is not required for each of the applicable basic or individualized career services. The estimated or actual funds budgeted for applicable career services are divided into two categories: The total for all applicable basic career services and the total for all applicable individualized career services.

Once all partners have identified the actual or estimated budget for the delivery of their applicable career services within the Local Workforce Development Area, all partner budgets will then be totaled and displayed.

If a partner does not have specific dollar amounts available, they may report a reasonable estimate. Partners will be deemed in compliance with this requirement as long they provide a reasonable dollar amount and can determine an estimated amount for the Required Consolidated Budget for the Delivery of Applicable Career Services.

Under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, all program partners must contribute towards infrastructure costs of the America’s Job Center of CaliforniaSM (AJCC) system based on their proportionate use and benefit. However, since California does not have a statewide tracking system in place that can provide accurate and reliable data for allocating the benefit received by non-colocated partners, the current policy limits this requirement to only partners who are physically colocated within an AJCC.

Once there is a method in place that allows non-colocated partners to calculate their use and benefit of the AJCC system, they will also be required to participate in the negotiation process and contribute their proportionate share. Until then, non-colocated partners will not be required to pay nor will they be required to retroactively pay for previous program years once a method is established. However, non-payment for Program Year 2017-18 does not waive the requirement of partner signatures, which is why non-colocated partners must still sign an assurance that indicates they are aware that when the system is in place, they will be expected to participate in the negotiation process and contribute accordingly.

Once the statewide system is in place, guidance will be issued on how to collect, interpret, and utilize data across programs. At that time, all colocated and non colocated partners will have to re-negotiate their proportionate share with the Local Workforce Development Board.

No. The only required component of the other systems cost budget is the applicable career services and all partners, regardless of being colocated or non-colocated, are required to report that cost. Any additional shared costs are optional and will be determined by the Local Workforce Development Board (Local Board) and its partners. If a non-colocated partner can determine an allocable benefit from any other shared cost, they should participate in the cost sharing negotiations for that specific cost. All optional shared costs are at the discretion of the Local Board and its partners to determine and monitor; there is no state funding mechanism that will be triggered due to failed negotiations related to shared costs.

No. At this time, all partners are only required to submit either actual costs or a reasonable estimate of the costs for applicable career services either within the America’s Job Center of CaliforniaSM location or network. The non-colocated partners are not required to participate in any other shared costs within the other system costs budget unless they determine that they receive a proportionate benefit from those shared services and costs.

No. Each partner must pay its proportionate share based on its use and benefit of the America’s Job Center of CaliforniaSM location or network. In the WIOA Joint Final Rule’s preamble, page 55912, the Departments state that each program may contribute only an amount that does not exceed its proportionate share in accordance with the Uniform Guidance set forth in part 200 and an agreed-upon cost allocation methodology developed by the one-stop partners. As the WIOA Joint Final Rules and Uniform Guidance are only applicable to federal funding, it is important to note that if a partner has non-federal funding available, they may use those funds to pay above their proportionate share, if it is allowable under the respective funding authority.

Yes. If a partner provides AJCC space, they may apply the value of this space toward their proportionate share of infrastructure funding agreement costs. However, if a third-party, non-partner entity provides the space, no individual partner can count the value toward its proportionate share. In the latter scenario, the value is applied to the budget prior to cost allocation methodology being applied, lowering the proportionate share for all partners.

Colocation is determined by having a physical presence. Only when a staff member whose salary is paid by the UI program is physically located in the America’s Job Center of CaliforniaSM location on either a full-time or part-time basis are they considered a colocated partner; a dedicated phone line to a UI call center does not establish colocation.

The SCSEP is a colocated partner when there is program personnel that administers the program working in the America’s Job Center of CaliforniaSM (AJCC) location on either a full-time or part-time basis. If an AJCC hosts a SCSEP program participant, it does not mean that the SCSEP partner is colocated.

Example: An AJCC has an SCSEP work experience participant who serves the AJCC as a part time receptionist but there are no SCSEP personnel who administer the program within the AJCC. The participant would not be considered as program personnel and the program would not be a colocated partner.

An intermittent partner is one who may have an occasional physical presence in the center but does not have a dedicated workspace that is not also used by other partners. If the cost allocation methodology allows for a proportionate benefit to be determined for intermittent partners, they may be included in the infrastructure funding agreement.

No. The governmental agency must look back in their historical records for when they acquired the building and determine what non-federal funds were used for that acquisition. Governmental agencies are allowed to charge intra-governmental use fees on a straight-line depreciation base over the expected useful life of the property. Any portion of the acquisition that was paid with federal funds must be excluded from the calculations. The federal government will not pay rent for a building they already paid for via the acquisition. Please consult Office of Management and Budget’s Uniform Guidance Title 2 Part 200, Subpart D with emphasis on Section 200.436 (depreciation) and Section 200.465 (rental costs).

No, in the context of the MOUs. All costs within the infrastructure funding agreements must be allowable according to the partner program’s statutory, regulatory, and policy frameworks – which includes the Office of Management and Budget’s Uniform Guidance. According to Uniform Guidance Title 2 Section 200.465(c), the cost of real property must be based on historical cost, or a rental price where there is a genuine “arm’s length” agreement. As governmental entities of the same level are related and of the same governance structure, they are unable to execute an arm’s length rental agreement, and rent must be based on historical cost and depreciation.

Yes, if the building is owned and the space cost is calculated by a depreciation method those costs of improvements should be added to the overall cost of the property and depreciated over their expected life. If the building is leased or rented from an independent third party, the improvements were negotiated as an offset to fees, and those improvements were financed with non-federal funds, they can be added to the cost of occupancy.

Improvement costs cannot be included to the cost base if they were financed by federal funds (either through a one-time direct grant or through periodic federal program charges).

No, the Other Systems Costs budget may include costs that are only applicable to certain partners. In those cases, only the applicable partners need to negotiate and agree on the sharing of those identified costs. For example, if a center receptionist is included in the Other System Costs budget, it may be decided that the associated costs are only shared by partners who are colocated in the AJCC where the receptionist is located. However, even if certain line items are only paid by some partners, all partners must agree to and sign the entire Other Systems Cost budget as there must be a consensus between all partners and the Local Workforce Development Board on the MOU Phase II (WIOA Joint Final Rule Section 678.715).

The Required Consolidated System Budget for the Delivery of Applicable Career Services is the total amount budgeted by AJCC partners for the delivery of the career services that are applicable to their programs. It includes all partners (colocated, non-colocated, and intermittent) and is a system-wide budget for the Local Workforce Development Area that is not tied to any specific comprehensive, affiliate, or specialized AJCC.

Partners do not negotiate this consolidated budget, it is simply compiled by collecting the budget information from each partner and displaying the aggregate sum. These are not shared costs as they are specific to the federal funding each partner receives (if no federal funding is received, it is not required for the partner to display a cost).

Applicable career services are reported as a system-wide budget throughout a Local Area and are not tied to a specific comprehensive or affiliate AJCC.

If there are multiple comprehensive AJCCs within one Local Area and the partners have decided to conduct individual negotiations for each AJCC, each partner can report the same number for each AJCC Other System Costs budget with an asterisk explaining the amount is the Local Area total and not AJCC specific. If the partners have agreed to network negotiations, then the partner’s applicable career services can be reported for all AJCCs within the network. For affiliate and specialized AJCCs, the partner can either report the same amount as the comprehensive(s) with an asterisk explanation as detailed above or report “$0.00” with an asterisk explaining the amount has already been reported.

Example: A partner receives $50,000 in federal funding for their applicable career services within the Local Area. The Local Area has two comprehensive AJCCs and two affiliate AJCCs. If the partners decide to have individual Other System Costs budgets for each AJCC, then the partner could report $50,000.00* in the appropriate place and provide an explanation such as: *budgeted amount for the entire Local Area.

If the partners decide to have a network Other System Costs budget, they could report $50,000.00 for the network/Local Area and no further explanation would be necessary. If the network budget does not include (or does not yet include) any of the affiliates, then when those budgets are developed, the partner could report either the same $50,000.00* or $0.00* with an explanation.

Subrecipient Agreements/Contracts

Yes, per DOL ETA TEGL 38-14, subgrantee agreements/contracts will be updated to reflect the WIOA statute and the Operations Guidance Training and Employment Guidance Letters issued regarding WIOA implementation. In addition, the Employment Development Department will unilaterally modify all subgrantee agreements/contracts with new WIOA general provisions and standards of conduct which will apply to any unobligated PY 2013 and PY 2014 WIA funds, as of June 30, 2015, that are carried into PY 2015 (e.g. “carry-in” funds).

All contracts must be amended to the extent possible in order to ensure that enrollment using WIOA requirements begins July 1, 2015 (and that enrollment for WIA program services ends on June 30, 2015). Local Areas were not required to automatically end contracts on July 1, 2015 and have options on how to handle current contracts.

First, Local Areas may terminate current contracts and then complete a new contract under WIOA assuming the current contract permits this action.

Second, Local Areas may consider modifications to current contracts. This can be done if the contract contains specific language that allows changes in order to conform to new laws or regulations, such as WIOA.

Third, if the current contract includes multiple or option of years, then WIOA requirements must be incorporated by amending or modifying the option of years in the contract

Please refer to TEGL 38-14, Section 8 for additional guidance.