Administrators

Leadership isn’t about a title. It’s about impact, influence and inspiration.

–Susan Lytle Gilmore, Ph.D., Director of Adult Education, Sacramento City Unified School District

AEP Questions and Answers

This is a collection of questions that are most frequently asked of the AEP Office. They are organized by topic area and will be updated as needed.

Budgets

Yes, at this time, there is no change but we are proposing improvements (quarterly, biannual or even annual distributions) to the legislators in order to streamline the process of use of funds and implementation of efforts.

Nothing in the bill says you cannot do a pass-through model on a quarterly basis. However, please refer to the next question.

Yes, pursuant to the LEA’s approved indirect cost rate.

It is in the online system under the Budget Change feature, just like it was under AB86. Please note, the June 20th due date for misweb budget revision is for your AEP budget changes prior to the expense report due in July. If you have made changes, you will need to update your misweb budget.

The online system expenditures must reflect actual amounts for each 6 month reporting period (it’s a cumulative reporting system).

There is no portal for budget revisions. We use the Online Financial System (misweb), which is based on the CC Chancellor’s Office system. Contact Neil if you have trouble getting into the Online Financial System. We can put a link to the Online Financial System from the portal. We intend to move to a single system eventually, but we are not there yet.

Yes. You can carryover 15/16 funding into 17/18.  Activities must end (for 15/16) BY 12/31/17.

It depends. There are many levels of transfers (see previous questions). For carry over funds, please check with your local accounting office if you wish to carry over funding into the next year. The State does not need to approve carry over funding into the next year, however 15-16 annual plans for those funds must be current.

Such program changes need to be documented in a plan revision as an amendment to your plan, as well as a budget revision. As you point out, this is not only a question of accounting, but also of intent.

No, nothing more as long as the budget change does not necessitate a plan change.

Yes, the bottom lines for Program Area, Objective, and Object Code should all be the same.  However, the online misweb financial system does not track by objectives - just object codes.

Reports of Expenditures, by Program Area and Objective, should include indirect / administration fees charged and / or anticipated. In general, Member agencies whose districts have elected to levy indirect fees against AEP allocations should spread these costs proportionally across Program Areas and Objectives, as appropriate. Consortium administration costs (subject to the 5% cap) may be reflected in a number of different ways. It is the responsibility of each Consortium to ensure the numbers submitted are an accurate and equitable reflection of the costs to administer AEP programs and services for both Members and the Consortium as a whole.

Yes, the bottom lines for Program Area, Objective, and Object Code should all be the same amounts.

MOE budgets are entered into the CDE system (SACS), and Consortium Allocations through the AEP system. Regardless of the fund name, all activities supported by AEP funds (MOE and Consortium Funds) are required to be addressed in the Three Year Plan and the Annual Plans.

Yes - even though your data and accountability work plan and budget were approved by the AEP Office - you still must enter the budget into the online miswebex system (and have it certified).

For the remaining 15-16 carry over funds - use the online expense and reporting system to revise your budget going into next year, and update your 15-16 annual plan to reflect how those funds will be spent.

Yes, fiscal agents are allowed to take a 5% indirect for consortium level activities. And yes, that 5% does include all consortium level administrative costs. Administrative costs are generally fiscal in nature.

The new fiscal system roll out will be over the course of October. You can learn about it through this webinar scheduled for October 20. 17/18 budgets won’t be due until early December. Your members will have a few months to get used to the new system. Because of the new system – we will not enforce 10/31 deadline.

We are excited to announce the soft launch of NOVA, the new platform we will use to manage the AEP fund. The AEP Office's Neil Kelly will walk through the fiscal-management system during a webinar on Oct. 20, from noon to 1 p.m. This is the registration link: https://register.aebg.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail&id=110

Learning how to use NOVA is critical because this is the system that each consortium member that receives AEP funds will be required to use to submit the 2017-18 budget, due in early December, provide member updates to the AEP database, and starting next year, allow members and consortia to enter and certify quarterly expense reporting. This new system, once it's up and running, will replace the AEP portal. NOVA is an end-to-end platform designed to manage state funding streams.

A team of beta users have received an email announcing the soft launch. Those of you who are not part of the test group will receive an email at the end of October, when the system officially launches, providing you with access. The following release of functionality will be AEP fiscal reporting and CFAD management, making NOVA the centralized platform for all things AEP.

Please note: AEP 2015-16 implementation funding, 95 percent of which has been spent, will be closed out in the old system in January/February 2018. AEP data and accountability funding will also remain in the old system and will be closed out in January/February 2019.

Here is the response from CDE Fiscal…..

There are no statutory provisions preventing an LEA from carrying over funds, however, a consortium may change the amount of adult education funds available in future years based on actual prior fiscal year spending.

https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/ca/adultedbgfaq.asp

This means that can hold on to the MOE portion of the AEP funds (and carry them over), per CDE, but when the State AEP Office looks at SACS to see if MOE funding has been spent in order to allocate additional funds, the consortium may be penalized for not spending.

BTW – the 15/16 AEBG implementation funds (Consortia Funds) need to be spend down by 12/31/17 – this cannot be carried over. A final report is due by 1/31/18 and the close out report by 2/25/18.

The Data and Accountability funding has been extended to 12/31/18 – with a final report due by 1/31/19 and a close out by 2/25/19. There is a midterm expense report due 1/31/18.

In NOVA, only members report their indirect. If a fiscal agent is performing activities of a fiscal nature for the consortium, those expenses can be added to the member’s indirect line item.

So if the consortium is the fiscal agent, and is also a member – then the consortium would enter their program budget 1000s to 6000s – along with their member indirect. In addition, if the consortium is also paying for the consortium fiscal activities – then you would include that budgeted item under indirect as well.

In addition, if the consortium is also paying for consortium programmatic activities – they should be budgeting in the 1000s – 6000s of the member budget. Same would hold if another member is also paying for consortium level activities.

For validating a district’s expenses – please use the agreed upon district accounting process under the Budget & Accounting Manual for community colleges.

At the consortium level – the members must develop an agreed upon consortium oversight process for certifying the member’s budget & expenses to the state.

Suggestion:

Hire an outside auditor
Have a fiscal agent
Have a peer to peer review
Look at other options

But it has to be a member agreed upon process and if audited, you will have to show how the consortium is following their agreed upon process.

In November, the AEP Office will host a webinar on the topic.

Can these funds be carried over?

There are no statutory provisions preventing an LEA from carrying over funds, however, the state or the consortium may change the amount of adult education funds available in future years based on actual prior fiscal year spending.

https://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/ca/adultedbgfaq.asp

This means that can hold on to the MOE portion of the AEP funds (and carry them over), per CDE, but when the State AEP Office looks at SACS to see if MOE funding has been spent in order to allocate additional funds, the consortium may be penalized for not spending.

BTW – the 15/16 AEP implementation funds (Consortia Funds) need to be spend down by 12/31/17 – this cannot be carried over. A final report is due by 1/31/18 and the close out report by 2/25/18.

The Data and Accountability funding has been extended to 12/31/18 – with a final report due by 1/31/19 and a close out by 2/25/19. There is a midterm expense report due 1/31/18.

Last year’s trailer bill language said that all funds must be pass through to members within 45 days. You cannot use sub agreements unless you are a member that received their pass through and is contracting with another provider. The fiscal agent should not be holding any sub agreements. The chancellor’s office issued the following memo on how to pass through funds to members.

http://aebg.cccco.edu/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Cw-O6gUujhQ%3d&portalid=1

The legislation states that each member gets no less than the prior year. In the legislation, we release a two year budget – one for the fiscal year, and a preliminary projection for the next year. In the 17-18 & 18-19 AEBG budget, the amount for 17/18 & 18/19 were the same amount for each year.

  1. The chancellor and the Superintendent shall, when approving a schedule of allocations for a fiscal year, also present preliminary projections for the amounts that would be allocated in the subsequent two fiscal years. This preliminary presentation shall not constitute a binding commitment of funds.

If you have any 15-16 funding that is unspent – you will still need to work with your consortium lead on any budget revisions.

For 16-17 carry over and 17-18 new funds in the AEP NOVA system, we are still working on the policy for budget changes that would allow members to do without consortium approval, and budget changes that would require consortium level approval. We are looking at various cut offs / percentages of the change as we decide on the policy. Guidance will be released soon.

Yes – your consortium will be scheduled for targeted technical assistance if you miss any deadlines this year. The 12/15/17 deadline, the 1/15/18 deadline, and any other deadlines. The legislature wants us to have more accountability in the program, especially with reporting student enrollment data, financial reporting, outcomes, and cost per student.

We have had hundreds of webinar participates these past few months – more so than ever before – as we provide plenty of TA to get everyone on board. Now that we have AEP TAP– targeted TA can go forward – and the State can act on AB104 legislation if members or consortia become ineffective. I would strongly suggest to your members that they attend the various webinars or listen to the ones from the prior months, lest they get caught up missing deadlines and scheduled for targeted TA.

I would advise you use an allocation process based on some time of verifiable information from a neutral source - such as: census data, American community survey data, TOPSPro student data, MIS student data, Launchboard data (when available), EDD labor market information, etc.

The models that people used last year did not use reliable data. Some used self-reported data that caused many problems.

We have recommended an incentive funding formula to the legislature in our recent preliminary report – you may want to look at that also.

Create a $30 million performance-based incentive fund for adult education consortia:

The CDE and the CCCCO recommend that the Legislature allocate an additional $30 million for adult education to administer a performance-based incentive fund. This funding would not impact the $500 million AEP baseline investment. This strategy was a recommendation posited in the study by the Center for Law and Social Policy entitled Prosperity Through Partnership. It specifically recommends a “targeted performance bonus system to give consortia incentives to improve services to their community of need.” Although consortia are actively investing in and implementing new strategies that target their core communities, as illustrated by some of the innovations referenced earlier in this report, they face challenges with balancing investments in new programs with the need to maintain baseline levels of service in a reduced-funding environment. An incentive fund would accelerate the adoption of new integrated pathway models, support service strategies, and greater support for transition of adult education students into postsecondary education and the workforce. To support this, the AEP Office would explore and create analytics for distribution of incentive funding to consortia based on how services are targeted to a community of need and outcomes are improved. The definition of this community of need could be based on (a) combination of the traditional adult education target population definition (unemployed, no diploma, impoverished, lack of English language fluency) and (b) population barriers to employment in the WIOA (long-term unemployed, formerly incarcerated, within two years of exhausting Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, etc.). The CDE has had in place a method for determining incentives for performance since 1999 for agencies making positive progress on outcomes related to federal targets. The CCCCO recently embarked upon a field committee process to define the performance-based criteria, for the 17 percent funding, under the Strong Workforce Initiative. As a result, the AEP Office would use the same process to analyze and build the metrics for this fund.

This is still in development phase – so until we have better student data & outcomes – I can’t give you a definitive answer. Check back next summer – by then will have two quarters of data match and better idea of tools to use for your 3 year planning process.

Link to information:

http://aebg.cccco.edu/Resources/FAQ-Funding-LEA

http://aebg.cccco.edu/Portals/1/docs/Guidance%20and%20Instructions/AEBG%20Fiscal%20Management%20Guide%20112917%20FINAL.pdf

……see Section 12 – page 21

The amount that is reported as 16-17 carryover in NOVA should match what was reported in the old MIS system as of the June 30, 2017 report. You should adjust your expenditure report accordingly. In NOVA, the expenditure report for the period of July 1, 2017 – December 31, 2017 will be due on March 1, 2018. Consortium leads will need to certify by March 31, 2018.

Feel free to submit a budget change to correct 16/17 Q2 that was reported in July 2017.

The carry over amount has to match the July 2017 report for 16-17 (remaining balance).

We are not accounting year 1, year 2, year 3 anymore.

As we move to NOVA – we will have prior year carry over, and current year in one budget, one expenses report (for each quarter), and one work plan for each member for the program year in addition to the annual plan.

If your July 2017 16/17 expense report remaining balance doesn’t match the carryover of the consortium members in total – we will not approve it.

You will need to enter your entire budget, which includes your 16-17 carryover funds as well as your 17-18 allocation.

In NOVA, only members report their indirect. If a fiscal agent is performing activities of a fiscal nature for the consortium, those expenses can be added to the member’s indirect line item.

So if the consortium is the fiscal agent, and is also a member – then the State Center CCD would enter their program budget 1000s to 6000s – along with their member indirect. In addition, if State Center CCD is also paying for the consortium fiscal activities – then you would include that budgeted item under indirect as well.

In addition, if State Center CCD is also paying for consortium programmatic activities – they should be budgeting in the 1000s – 6000s of the member (State Center CCD) budget. Same would hold if another member is also paying for consortium level activities.

You will not be able to certify the member budget until the member agency submits it. Only member agency level contacts will be able to access the submit button for their agency’s workplan and budget. The member agency submits their budget and workplan, and the consortium primary contact certifies the budget and workplan (consortium primary contacts are the only users that have the ability to certify the workplans and budgets). The member agency will see the un-submit button (only after they click on submit). The consortium primary contact will only see the certify button, which will not be available until the member submits their workplan and budget.

Although we have yet to program NOVA for the end of the year exercise related to other fund sources (which includes fees), the plan is to have all members for their final NOVA expense report (Q4) – estimate the amount of funds leveraged from other adult ed related fund sources (WIOA II, CalWORKs, Perkins, Apportionment, etc.) by AEP program area. There will also be a section for fees collected in the various program areas. That’s about the extent of the discussion so far.

Members must use the indirect line item in NOVA – not object code 7000 for reporting indirect. This allows the state to calculate if the member is using the appropriate indirect rate.