| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 8 | Enter the text of your question below: | Response: | |||||
2 | 4/26/2024 12:04:54 | How do I enter the budget information into GAINS? I uploaded the budget template to GAINS but it has not entered any information. I cannot enter information into GAINS on the budget page. | For questions regarding GAINS functionality, please contact the GAINS support email. | |||||
3 | 4/27/2024 7:30:29 | We are applying for funds in more than one Local Workforce Area. In the Budget section of GAINS, are we required to choose a Local Workforce Area tag for each expense? | Applicants will select a LWDA for each of their budget line items in GAINS. | |||||
4 | 4/29/2024 7:24:35 | If we are applying for funds in more than one LWDA, and a staff person/expense will support services in more than one LWDA, do those line items need to be split up? If so, how would we know the % for each? | LWDA funds must be used to support services only in that LWDA. Funds from one LWDA cannot be used to support services in other LWDAs. Each payroll (or benefits, or supplies, etc.) will need a separate line item for each LWDA they will be used in. Percentages of time in each LWDA should reflect actual workload (or amount of supplies) for each LWDA. For example, if you have a full time employee who teaches 4 classes, three in Denver and one in Pueblo, you would charge 75% of their salary and benefits to Denver and 25% to Pueblo. If the staff person will only be teaching classes in one LWDA, their total salary and benefits should be charged to that LWDA only. If throughout the fiscal year their work shifts to more or less in another LWDA, the budget will need to be revised to reflect this. | |||||
5 | 4/29/2024 8:36:26 | Our infrastructure costs are 0, it won't let me submit at 0. Is it okay to put in $1? | We apologize that it is not possible to report $0 in infrastructure costs in the budget in GAINS. Please include $0 infrastructure costs in the match template you will upload with your application once that template is available. | |||||
6 | 4/29/2024 8:43:11 | In Section G: Budget and Financials, question 1c address an Attachment insert letter. What is this? | In Part B, Section G, Budget and Financials the application does not include a question 1.c. Question 3.c in Part B Section G asks, "c. If any single staff person fills more than one of the required grantee contacts (see Appendix D), describe how those staff will be provided resources proportional to the number of roles they will fill. *" Question 1 in that section asks, "1. If the applicant is a public or private non-profit agency, submit proof of non-profit status (from the Internal Revenue Service). *" | |||||
7 | 4/29/2024 9:14:03 | I haven't received anything that has a matching grant report form- is it possible to resent to everyone? | AEI is working on a match report to submit and will share that communication with applicants as it is ready. | |||||
8 | 4/29/2024 13:04:09 | For Section F Question 3 in the rubric asks for a number or percentage of adult education participants who will be co-enrolled in other WIOA programs. However, in GAINS, this question says it must be the number of individuals. Will this become difficult for reviewers to compare Workforce Development Board recommendations and comments on the application's alignment with the local area plan? | In Part B, section F, question 3 (a-f) the question asks, "3. Based on the plans for Adult Education and Literacy services within the one-stop delivery system, including access at the comprehensive one-stop center, identify the anticipated number of participants co-enrolled in any of the one-stop's WIOA Core programs in the first year 2024-2025 of the grant cycle. Select all programs and partnerships that apply: a. Title III Wagner-Peyser b. Title I Adult c. Title I Dislocated Worker d. Title I Youth e. Title IV Vocational Rehabilitation f. Other WIOA partnerships (such as Career and technical education programs, jobs for veterans, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, etc.)" Part B, section F, question 3 does not reference a percentage of co-enrolled participants in either the RFA Planning Document or the GAINS application. Individuals from a Local Workforce Development Board completing their review of applications in their Local Workforce Development Areas will see the question as written in GAINS with the response each applicant provided in GAINS. Local Workforce Development Board review criteria can be located on page 63 in the RFA Planning Document. | |||||
9 | 4/29/2024 15:04:57 | The question numbers in the evaluation rubric starting on page 46 in the RFA don't exactly align with the question numbers in GAINS. Will the reviewers be looking at the RFA, or a PDF of all of what is in GAINS? Are adding numbers to my responses in the boxes in GAINS necessary? | Reviewers will be provided with a PDF of GAINS responses and will also participate in training that will highlight any numbering differences between the rubric and the GAINS application. It is unnecessary to add numbers to your repsonses in GAINS. | |||||
10 | 4/29/2024 15:47:31 | This is a request for permission to submit our own version of a matching budget template if we are ready earlier than you have selected a template for us to use. I see that when we upload our own version the error message goes away. Can we go ahead and submit today or tomorrow with that method and then if you need us to upload something else after the fact do so then? It would be nice to submit early and know if there are any glitches that we need to handle before closing date. Especially since I am an administrator who will be away around May 10th. | Yes, applicants may use the original budget available in the planning documents posted on AEI's Prospective Grantees site to document their match budget line items and any $0.00 infrastructure costs. | |||||
11 | 4/29/2024 16:41:23 | Can you let us know if there is an allowable place to upload a letter of support? a search for "letter" turns up no guidance in the RFA. | The application does not ask for letters of support or any additional attachments beyond the Proof Of Non-Profit Status, Proof of Financial Stability, and Match reporting template. Other additional documents should not be attached to the application as they cannnot be reviewed or scored. | |||||
12 | 4/30/2024 7:59:47 | When is the grant due? I've seen 12pm (noon) and 11:59pm, just want to make sure it's in on time. | Applications are due Wednesday, May 1, 2024, by 11:59 pm MT. | |||||
13 | 4/30/2024 8:00:33 | When will the Budget Match form be ready? | Applicants may use the original budget available in the planning documents posted on AEI's Prospective Grantees site to document their match budget line items and any $0.00 infrastructure costs. | |||||
14 | 4/30/2024 11:18:55 | On the Budget Template, on the cover page in cell c29, a number is showing up that looks like it is from the FY2023-2024 grant cycle. Can I override the formula and put in the fund amount I'm asking for? | In the PY 24-25 AEFLA Budget Worksheet (Excel) template provided in the grant application materials cell C29 on the cover page tab/sheet is labelled FY24-25 Allocation. The amount in this cell cannot be determined until after grant application scoring and awards are made, and as such should not be completed by the applicant. Once scoring and award decisions are made a funded applicant’s “allocation” will be listed in their budget in GAINS. Please also note that the Excel templates are for planning purposes and budget line items must be reported in GAINS rather than in the template with the exception of Match contribution and any $0.00 infrastructure funding agreements with Local Workforce Development Boards which should be listed in the Excel templates and uploaded as budget attachments. | |||||
15 | 4/30/2024 12:58:31 | "Please also note that the Excel templates are for planning purposes and budget line items must be reported in GAINS rather than in the template with the exception of Match contribution and any $0.00 infrastructure funding agreements with Local Workforce Development Boards which should be listed in the Excel templates and uploaded as budget attachments." Cell C29 does not come up as 0, it is autopopulating with a number. | If your budget is not appearing as expected when completing the budget fields in GAINS, please contact the GAINS support email. In regards to seeing values in the cover page tab/sheet in the Excel budget planning document, please note that this Excel spreadsheet will not be submitted in GAINS (with the exception of tracking Match and $0.00 infrastructure funding agreements which are not dependent on the cover page tab in the Excel template). | |||||
16 | 4/30/2024 13:08:42 | It is not Gains - it is the Budget Template that is autopopulating with FY2023-2024 budget amount. It is not zero. | The budget planning documents in Excel are not a part of ap applicant's official grant application. They are not submitted to CDE or the review team and will not be score. They are for planning purposes only. Once an applicant has used the Excel budget planning document to prepare their anticipated budget they may save that for their records, but it will not be included in the application officially submitted in GAINS. Any issues with the Excel planning documents are not relevant to the submission of the budget in GAINS as it is a planning document only. Applicants will type in their individual budget items into the fields available in the budget section of the application in GAINS. | |||||
17 | 4/30/2024 13:14:15 | Isn't the Budget Template what we are supposed to enter into GAINS because the Match form wasn't completed? | No. Non-match budget line items are submitted in the budget fields in GAINS. Match line items and any $0.00 line item for infrastructure funding agreements is to be reported in the Excel budget planning template. That should be reported on the sheet/tab in the template called "Budget AFR Detail" other tabs in the planning document when submitted to document Match and any $0.00 line item for infrastructure funding agreements will not be reviewed. | |||||
18 | 4/30/2024 13:16:04 | AEI apologizes that the match reporting template has not yet been provided. Applicants should use the PY 24-25 AEFLA Budget Worksheet (Excel) and PY 24-25 IELCE Budget Worksheet (if applicable; Excel) templates available on the Prospective Grantees site to report their Match contributions and any $0.00 infrastructure funding agreements in place with Local Workforce Development Boards. | We are unable to locate your question in this statement. Please clarfy what question is being asked. | |||||
19 | 4/30/2024 14:13:15 | Can you please clarify the requirement for the match form? In some Q&A responses it is noted that the template has not yet been provided. In others, it indicates that applicants could use the budget planning excel document for the match form and submit. The "related documents' section under the AEFLA budget is GAINS is requiring a document upload for the match form - otherwise it gives an error message and will not let you proceed with submission. Should applicants wait on CDE to provide a match template or add match only to the budget planning excel doc? Please give clear and specific instructions so that all applicants can address this requirement in the same way. | AEI apologizes for the confusion. A new template for reporting Match will not be provided. Applicants will use the PY 24-25 AEFLA Budget Worksheet (Excel) and PY 24-25 IELCE Budget Worksheet (if applicable; Excel) templates available on the Prospective Grantees site to report their Match contributions and any $0.00 infrastructure funding agreements in place with Local Workforce Development Boards. This will be uploaded in the budget section as an attachment in GAINS. These should include only Match and $0.00 infrastructure cost line items. Any other budget data included in this attachment will not be reviewed as the remainder of the budget must be submitted in the budget fields in GAINS. All applicants have been emailed this information via GAINS. | |||||
20 | 4/30/2024 16:14:00 | In Section B: Demonstrated Effectiveness in the Scoring rubric, are 3 and 4 the same thing? | Yes. Question 3 is listed correctly in the rubric but is listed again in duplicate in the rubric as question 4. This places the numbering off in Part B, Section B in the rubric by one number when compared to the narrative questions for Part B, Section B. For this section: • Question 4's rubric scoring can be found as question 5 in the associated section of the rubric. • Question 5's rubric scoring can be found as question 6 in the associated section of the rubric. • Question 6's rubric scoring can be found as question 7 in the associated section of the rubric. • Question 7's rubric scoring can be found as question 8 in the associated section of the rubric. • Question 8's rubric scoring can be found as question 9 in the associated section of the rubric. Grant readers will be instructed to ignore the duplicate question (question 4) in this section of the scoring rubric and the numbering on their scoring sheets will be updated to reflect the correct alignment between question and scoring rubric. AEI apologizes for this duplication in the scoring rubric. | |||||
21 | 5/1/2024 9:47:00 | In GAINS in the budget detail section, there is a total allocation box. Currently, it shows $0 and then shows a negative number in the remaining total based on what I have input for the budget items. There also is a section in the application called "Allocations" that also shows the allocation for AEFLA as $0. Is this something that we have to input somewhere in the application to populate the field with the allocated amount? | Allocation fields in GAINS will not population unless or until an application has been approved for funding. Applicants do not need to enter any data or reponses into the allocation fields in the budget section in GAINS. | |||||
22 | 5/1/2024 10:17:23 | We are applying as a community based entity. We are requesting the 10% de minimus indirect rate per the guidance in the RFP and have entered the requested amount in the 'indirect' section in the budget in GAIN. However, in GAINS we are getting an error message that "The total Indirect Cost budget amount may not exceed the maximum amount of $0". Can you clarify how to address this? We have also submitted this question to the GAINS helpdesk. | We have let the staff responding to GAINS support emails know that your question is awaiting a response. They have confirmed they are looking into it and will reply to the pending support email requests. | |||||
23 | 5/1/2024 10:23:03 | Will there be any notification to applicants that their submissions have been received? We submitted ours late yesterday afternoon but haven't been notified yet that it was received. Thanks. | If an application's status reads "LEA Authorized Representative Approved" in GAINS byt 11:59 p.m. MT on 5/1/24, it has been submitted to CDE. Per the RFA documents, "Applicants will receive their scores, review team comments, and notice of award or notice of not being awarded funds on Monday, June 3, 2024." Additional details around the application process and timeline can be located on pages 10 - 12 of the RFA Planning Document. | |||||
24 | 5/1/2024 10:31:53 | Per a Q&A Response, the deadline is 11:59pm. The GAINS portal is still showing a deadline of 12pm. Can you confirm if the GAINS portal will close at noon today or will grantees be able to continue to submit applications until the indicated deadline of 11:59pm tonight? | The Competitive Grants and Awards team has updated the application in GAINS to close at the time indicated on the first page of the RFA for 11:59 p.m. on 5/1/24. | |||||
25 | 5/1/2024 13:57:32 | I submitted a question earlier regarding an error with the Indirect in our budget. I have still not heard back from the GAINS helpdesk. In reviewing the budget training videos, it appears that there should have been an allowable indirect rate associated with this funding opportunity that auto-populates into the table in the budget that drives the amount of allowable indirect. Is it correct that there should be a 10% de minimus indirect allowed for community based organizations and is entered as a separate category? Or is indirect supposed to be included as part of our administrative costs? If we do not receive a response from GAINs by the time the CDE office closes (I assume at 5pm) is there any guidance on how we should submit our application? | To report de minimus indirect costs without an approved rate, please add an administrative line item to the budget with 10% of the overall total. Add a note in the notes section indicating that the line item is the indirect de minimus rate. | |||||
26 | 5/1/2024 16:14:32 | Is Evidence of Financial Stability required for entities that are not nonprofits? | Page 38 of the RFA Planning Document says, "1. If the applicant is a public or private non-profit agency, submit proof of non-profit status (from the Internal Revenue Service). *" | |||||
27 | 4/30/24 | Can you let me know if any of the assurances are new compared to previous RFAs?” I know the structure has changed from how they are displayed but am unsure of changes. | It each applicant’s responsibility to review the assurances documents published with the application materials on our Prospective Grantees site before responding to the Section M: Local Assurances Acknowledgment questions in the application in GAINS. | |||||
28 | Fiscal Questions | |||||||
29 | 4/30/24 | I am trying to upload the budget to the AEFLA application and cannot figure out how to do that. In the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act section I tried to upload budget data but it did not like that. Could you let me know how to get this file submitted? | The Budget template (excel sheet) should not be uploaded into GAINS. Each budget line item and it's corresponding information should be input into the Budget and Budget Overview section of the GAINS application. Proof of Non-profit status and Financial Stability should be uploaded in the Related Documents section, but not the excel template. If you're having trouble accessing those sections in GAINS, please send an email to GAINS@cde.state.co.us | |||||
30 | 4/19/2024 17:42:34 | Will we be attaching the match information as an excel form somewhere in GAINS? | AEI is working on a match report to submit and will share that communication with applicants as it is ready. | |||||
31 | 4/22/2024 12:04:26 | Showing Match in the Application: Is there a template for showing match somewhere in the application since there isn't a space for it in the Budget section in GAINS? Thanks. | AEI is working on a match report to submit and will share that communication with applicants as it is ready. | |||||
32 | 4/22/2024 12:16:15 | On the lead application it asks for a total request. if we are requesting AEFLA and IELCE dollars, do we indicate what we are requesting for each there? Or do we just put the total for both on the lead application under "total request"? | The Total Funding Requested field in the Lead Applicant Information section should reflect the total AEFLA and/or IELCE funds that will be requested. | |||||
33 | 4/17/24 | Do we need to do anything with CDE, etc. to update our expired UEI #? | The UEI# itself does not expire, but the SAM.gov registration expires. CDE’s Grants Fiscal Management Unit (GFMU) explained that as a subrecipient of federal funds, your entity does not need to reach out to SAM.gov to renew its registration. GFMU currently maintains UEIs and SAM.gov registration and reaches out to those entities for whom registration is expiring. | |||||
34 | 4/9/2024 | Is the allocation cell in the Budget template editable on the applicant end? It seems that the budget worksheets only ask for about the first year of the proposal even though we are designing a 4 year plan? | The budget workbook is only a template to practice what you wish to submit in the GAINS system and the allocations are based on previous years (so you can ignore that in the Excel sheet). The official budget will be submitted in GAINs and is not an excel template. The only thing to be excluded in GAINS will be the match. AEI and Grants Fiscal is working to create a “match” budget that will submitted separately. This means only federally funded budget line items should be included in GAINS. You will submit budgets every year during the grant cycle and each year we assume level-funding unless otherwise informed by the Federal grant award notification. | |||||
35 | 4/9/2024 | The RFA notes that both of the following are true. I wanted to ask how one can pursue option a without being penalized by point b. Point a. From p. 8: of the RFA: However, applicants will be given the opportunity to negotiate a higher local administrative cost with CDE (WIOA §233(b)) in the budget portion of the application. Point b. From p.38: If the percentage of administration costs budgeted for year one exceeds 10.0%, provide a written description justifying the additional administrative costs (if the budgeted administration percentage is at 10.0% or lower, reviewers will score this rubric item with the full 6 points). * Does this mean that we have a chance of earning the full 6 points if our justification is good enough? What kinds of justifications are more respected? For example our federally negotiated indirect cost rate is 33% and our OSRP office does not have funds for matching, so the matching will come from elsewhere. (Also if our office is willing to reduce our IDC can we treat that as matching?) | You may request additional administrative funds with explanation in the notes on the GAINS budget. Your justification for the admin overage will be scored based on the reasonableness of the justification. If you are under 10%, then no justification is necessary and all points will be automatically awarded. Reducing your IDC will not count as match, as the maximum indirect amount is 10% (which is the de minimus). Reasonability will depend on how the funds are being used for admin costs and how those costs relate to the goals of the grant. | |||||
36 | 3/29/2024 13:23:27 | What is the rationale for including planning and professional development as part of local administrative costs which are described as "expenditures incurred by local grant recipients in the performance of administrative functions and in carrying out activities under WIOA Title II that are not related to the direct provision of adult education and literacy activities"?Professional development and particularly planning are directly related to the direct provision of adult education and literacy activities. Having to include teacher planning time in administrative costs, which are capped at 10%, makes it very difficult to give teachers adequate time to plan while maintaining the imposed cap. | Planning as part of the Local Administrative Costs under Allowable Use of Funds in the RFA planning document, refers to the larger programmatic design plan of an Adult Education provider. It does not refer to the costs related to direct work with learners engaged in programming such as class planning, curriculum development, or instructional hours. Staff professional development and learning, which are separate from instructional planning, are considered administrative costs. An opportunity to negotiate an administrative cost rate higher than 10% (if needed)can be found in the budget section of the application. Please see the definitions tab of the Budget templates for AEFLA and IELCE for more details. | |||||
37 | 3/5/2024 9:57:39 | Are indirect costs allowed at negotiated rate? | If the applicant is a Local Education Agency (LEA), documentation from the agency’s cognizant Federal Office approving a restricted indirect cost rate must be submitted to the Grants Fiscal Management Unit at CDE. If the applicant is a non-profit, the de minimis rate can be utilized upon review and approval of the Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) documentation submitted to Grants Fiscal Management Unit at CDE (per §200.414 (f)). Where applicable, indirect cost rates will need to be included and described in the budget portion of any submitted application. Applicants can also elect to charge a maximum of 10% administrative costs in lieu of indirect costs upon approval by CDE. | |||||
38 | 3/1/2024 9:30:59 | Is the funding amount for each county the total amount you are funding or the max each organization can request? | The funding amounts distributed to each Local Workforce Development Area (LWDA) reflect the total amount of funding available to all applicants within that particular LWDA. There is not a cap on the amount of funding an applicant can request within an LWDA. As stated in the RFA, in local areas and sub-areas where there are multiple applications that have demonstrated effectiveness and have met the minimum point threshold, and the requested amount of funds exceeds the amount of available funds, AEI will attempt to award as many applicants within the same LWDA or Sub-Area as possible. | |||||
39 | 2/29/2024 13:51:00 | What is a UEI number and how do I get one? If I am a current grantee, where can I find my UEI number? | The Unique Entity ID (UEI) number is the primary means of entity identification for Federal awards government-wide. UEIs are required in accordance with 2 CFR Part 25 and are issued by the Federal Government in SAM.gov. Entities that do not have a UEI or are unsure if their UEI is active may visit SAM.gov. Current AEFLA grantees and/or state-funded AELA grantees who received federal funding can locate their UEI on the cover page of their most current budget. | |||||
40 | 2/29/2024 9:08:00 | If I am a current AEFLA grantee and want to request a larger sum of funds than what my program currently receives, how will the funding distribution impact my application? | The approximate $5.1 million available in AEFLA grant funding is distributed to Local Workforce Development Area (LWDA) using the Funding Distribution Calculations outlined in Appendix F of the RFA. The maximum funding amounts distributed to each LWDA are found in the Available Funds section of the RFA. When creating budgets, applicants are advised to review the funding maximums in each LWDA in which they are applying to provide services. In local areas and sub-areas where there are multiple applications that have demonstrated effectiveness and have met the minimum point threshold, and the requested amount of funds exceeds the amount of available funds, AEI will attempt to award as many applicants within the same LWDA or Sub-Area as possible. Having been previously funded by AEFLA grant funds does not guarantee continued funding as this is a competitive process. Regarding future funding, as stated in the RFA, funding in subsequent years is contingent upon federal appropriations and upon grantees meeting all grant, fiscal and reporting requirements. | |||||
41 | 2/28/2024 9:49:44 | My question is about the 35% matching requirements. Can the 35% match be in-kind or is it some other form of match? | Per page 5 of the RFA, "Applicants must demonstrate a funding match of 35% for the funds requested. * Per 2 CFR Part 200.306(b)(2), federal funds may not be used for matching funds. Matching funds may include both in-kind and cash matches (2 CFR Part 200.306(b)) and must be identified as such on the yearly budget for federal reporting purposes. Grantees will be required to submit annual valuation for all in-kind as well as funding sources for cash donations. The matching funds can come from other state dollars (not Adult Education and Literacy Act grant funds*), local government dollars, private dollars, or in-kind support (WIOA §222(b))." | |||||
42 | 3/21/2024 15:13:48 | We are an AEFLA funded program that offers ESL and ABE services. In addition, we offer family literacy programming which is paid for with alternative funds. Our family literacy adult students attend ESL and ABE classes (funded with AEFLA and IELCE), however, district dollars pay for the other 3 aspects of our family program. Are we required to apply for this service type because we offer Family Lit? | Family Literacy is not a required activity under the AEFLA adult education grant. It is an allowable activity for applicants to apply for if they meet the 40% MSG rate three-year average requirement described in the RFA (based on data submitted in the demonstrated effectiveness portion of the application). Additionally, applicants wishing to apply for Family Literacy services will also be required to complete the questions located in Part B, Section K in order to apply to offer these services and will be required to sign the Family Literacy Assurances included in the application materials if awarded funding through the grant competition. Funded applicants who do not apply for Family Literacy through the grant competition but who wish to offer supports which focus on serving families may do so with any funds outside the programmatic scope of the AEFLA grant. Funds within the programmatic scope of the AEFLA grant program are those which are distributed by AEI, funds grantees use to meet the match requirement on the grant, and any funds used to provide a required activity for AEFLA reportable individuals or AEFLA participants being served in the grantee’s adult education program. When outside funds are used to provide services outside of the scope of AEFLA funded adult education program, those programs are not subject to programmatic or fiscal reporting to AEI. Grantees electing to do this will need to ensure they can demonstrate through their fiscal records that AEFLA funds (including match) are not expended on those additional services outside the scope of their AEFLA grant program and must not use the LACES data system to track such services. | |||||
43 | 3/21/2024 15:20:12 | For family literacy service type, in the data assurances it states, "only classes approved for Family Literacy by AEI may be assigned this program type. All AEI approved Family Literacy classes must have this program type. All learners enrolled in classes with this program type must also have a learner record program type of 'Family Literacy". Does this mean ONLY family lit parents can be in a class funded by AEFLA family lit dollars? Or does this mean everyone in the class (regardless if they are a family literacy adult or not) would be a identified as Family Literacy? | Applicants who are approved through the grant competition to offer Family Literacy services will be required to sign the Family Literacy Assurances included in the RFA materials. All adult learners receiving the combination of services described in the Family Literacy Assurances will be considered participants in that program and must have a “program type” selection in their student record in the LACES data system of “Family Literacy.” Additionally, all adult learners receiving the combination of services described in the Family Literacy Assurances must have one or more of the Family Literacy goals outlined in both the Family Literacy and Data Assurances set annually in the Outcomes section of their student record in the LACES data system and grantees will be required to track adult learner progress toward meeting those goals. And, all Family Literacy participants, if they attend any instruction, must be enrolled in both a class record in LACES with the class program type of “Family Literacy” as well as a workshop record in LACES with the workshop program type of “PACT Family Literacy.” The class record in which the learners are enrolled should meet the “Parent or family adult education and literacy activities that lead to readiness for postsecondary education or training, career advancement, and economic self-sufficiency” required component of the Family Literacy program. The workshop record in which the learners are enrolled should meet the “Interactive literacy activities between parents or family members and their children (Parent and Child Together time)” required component of the Family Literacy program. The “Training for parents or family members regarding how to be the primary teacher for their children and full partners in the education of their children” required component of the Family Literacy program must be offered but may be provided under either the class or workshop record (whichever best fits with the program’s design). The “age-appropriate education to prepare children for success in school and life experiences” required component of the Family Literacy program must be offered but does not have to be tracked in LACES. The Family Literacy Assurances outline recommendation around data collection for this required component of the program. The only adults eligible to enroll in an AEFLA Family Literacy program are those with children (or youth for whose care they are responsible) who will be participating in the “Interactive literacy activities between parents or family members and their children (Parent and Child Together time)” and “age-appropriate education to prepare children for success in school and life experiences” required components of the Family Literacy program. Adults without children (or youth for whose care they are responsible) or without any children/youth who will not be participating in the “Interactive literacy activities between parents or family members and their children (Parent and Child Together time)” and “age-appropriate education to prepare children for success in school and life experiences” required are not eligible to be served in the Family Literacy program but would not be precluded from other services provided under the grant program. There are no specific AEFLA Family Literacy dollars set aside or earmarked for such services in the funding distribution formula in this RFA. Applicants interested in and eligible to apply for Family Literacy services should closely consider the required components in the Family Literacy Assurances and budget for those services in the fiscal sections of the application. All adult learner records in the LACES data system with a program type of “Family Literacy” must be enrolled in both the class and workshop records described above. If the adult learner is not able or willing to enroll in both, they cannot not be considered a Family Literacy participant and must not have that program type in their student record in LACES. They may be enrolled in other classes and workshops (where applicable) funded by the grant program and tracked in LACES, but they should not have the student program type of “Family Literacy.” Likewise, only learners with the “Family Literacy” program type may be enrolled in class records in LACES with the “Family Literacy” class program type and in workshop records in LACES with the workshop program type of “PACT Family Literacy.” | |||||
44 | 3/27/2024 9:16:57 | Follow up question to the 3/21 question re Family Literacy: So to check understanding, our adult learners who access Family Literacy programming can count as AEFLA students in LACES (since our ELA and ABE classes are AEFLA funded) but their children and any hours tied to their family programming would NOT be in LACES since they are funded by alternative funding and are not match. Lastly, if we do not apply for Family Service type, we do not have to sign the Family Lit assurances BUT we can still count the adults under AEFLA for their adult learning piece. Is our understanding correct? | That understanding is correct. Adult learners only participating in AEFLA-funded ELA and/or ABE classes must be reported in LACES as ELA or ABE learners. As stated in the 3/21 response, funded applicants who do not apply for Family Literacy through the grant competition but who wish to offer supports which focus on serving families may do so with any funds outside the programmatic scope of the AEFLA grant. Funds within the programmatic scope of the AEFLA grant program are those which are distributed by AEI, funds grantees use to meet the match requirement on the grant, and any funds used to provide a required activity for AEFLA reportable individuals or AEFLA participants being served in the grantee’s adult education program. When outside funds are used to provide services outside of the scope of AEFLA funded adult education program, those programs are not subject to programmatic or fiscal reporting to AEI. Grantees electing to do this will need to ensure they can demonstrate through their fiscal records that AEFLA funds (including match) are not expended on those additional services outside the scope of their AEFLA grant program and must not use the LACES data system to track such services or those participating in them. However, if the learners will be participating in AEFLA Family Literacy programming, then all components, whether funded by AEFLA or not, must be reported in LACES. | |||||
45 | 3/27/2024 9:45:43 | On page 6 of the AEFLA planning tool under "allowable use of funds" there are two sections that have almost the same title but different qualifiers. 1) Integrated English literacy and civics education 2) Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education (WIOA §243(a)). We understand the difference in the specified conditions or requirements. The question: in applying, is there a difference in how we approach programming or requesting funds based on the two different sections of IELCE? For example, does one fall under AELFA and the other one fall under IELCE funding? | The first activity listed on page 6 of the AEFLA RFA Planning Document should have been titled “Integrated Education and Training,” which is an allowable activity and falls under (WIOA §203(2)) funding. To apply for AELFLA IET services, applicants must meet a 50% threshold for their AEFLA IET three-year average (p. 30 of the RFA). Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education (WIOA §243(a)), which requires Integrated Education and Training services, is funded through WIOA Sec. 243. To apply for Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education (WIOA §243(a)), applicants must meet a demonstrated effectiveness threshold of 50% for their IELCE IET three-year average (p. 30 of the RFA). | |||||
46 | Definitions Questions | |||||||
47 | 4/22/2024 9:24:30 | Confirming: Section I: AEFLA Integrated Education and Training Program, should be used to draft the IELCE IET section? Wanted to make double sure that there is not another section to differentiate between AEFLA IET and IELCE IET. | That is incorrect. Section I: AEFLA Integrated Education and Training Program is intended for use by grantees who plan to apply to provide AEFLA IET services. Section I should not include responses related to IELCE IET services. IELCE IET narrative responses will be made in Section H: Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education Program. Applicants who met or exceeded the 50% demonstrated effectiveness threshold to apply for IET IELCE will check the box indicating they intend to apply for this service. Expanding the section by clicking on the icon of the plus sign (+) will provide the required questions for IELCE IET responses. | |||||
48 | 4/24/2024 11:21:43 | In the application process, if applying for multiple workforce regions, should we answer the grant questions by regions or collectively as an organization? Thank you! | If applying for multiple Local Workforce Development Areas (LWDA) applicants should answer questions based on planned services in all LWDAs. The application cover page asks applicants to detail which services they plan to deliver in each LWDA in which they are applying for funding. Applicants will select a LWDA for each of their budget line items in GAINS as well. | |||||
49 | 4/25/2024 11:29:44 | In Section G, question 1c. refers to Attachment insert letter - where is this found? | The RFA Planning Document question 1.c reads, "c. If any single staff person fills more than one of the required grantee contacts (see Appendix D), describe how those staff will be provided resources proportional to the number of roles they will fill. * " | |||||
50 | 4/19/2024 13:17:54 | Would it be possible to provide applicants with a guide for generating the data required for Leveraging Data section? I'm finding that the Q&A is hard to navigate and sometimes the responses to similar questions seem contradictory. I'm concerned that I might miss an answer and that others might be pulling data differently making the comparisons between applicants unequal. | It is not possible to provide a guide to generate data required for responses in the Leveraging Data section as applicants may be using disparate data systems. Applicants may submit questions regarding these and other questions in the Q&A. | |||||
51 | 4/19/2024 22:29:21 | Thank you for your earlier answer to the following question I posed: "Section D, Question 5: 'For MSG, describe the percentage of gains anticipated in each MSG type (post-test EFL gain, high school diploma or equivalent, exit with post-secondary entrance, technical or occupational skills exam (IET only), progress toward milestones (Workplace Literacy only)) for the first 2024-2025 year of the grant program.*" For 'high school diploma or equivalent', are we only considering students who are in an ABE/ASE course? In other words, will the MSG % involve determining the number of ABE/ASE learners who earn a high school diploma or equivalent divided by the total number of ABE/ASE learners (and changing that to a % of course)?" In Section D, Question 5, we are asked to "describe". In your earlier answer to me, you talked about "reporting" percentages. Does reporting percentages for this question count as "describing"? | In Part B, Section D, question 5, applicants are not submitting a percentage of learners who are earning a secondary school diploma or equivalent. Rather they are submitting the proportion of MSGs anticipated to be earned in the first year of the grant cycle that will be achieved through earning a secondary school diploma or equivalent. The numerator is the count of gains from secondary school diploma or equivalent and the denominator is the total count of all anticipated MSGs (regardless of type). The count of learners in ABE/ASE programming would not be included in this proportion. To understand how the response to this question will be scored, please refer to the scoring rubric on page 54 of the RFA planning document which says, “The narrative describes the percentage of gains anticipated in each MSG type (post-test EFL gain, high school diploma or equivalent, exit with post-secondary entrance, technical or occupational skills exam (IET only), progress toward milestones (Workplace Literacy only)) for the first 2024-2025 year of the grant program.” | |||||
52 | 4/21/2024 9:38:31 | Can you explain the difference in data between NRS Table 4 pulled from LACES and the Grant Cycle Data Report provided by AEI? Each number is slightly different between the denominator numbers provided in the report and what I'm seeing in LACES. Which report is more accurate? | The Grant Cycle Data Report spreadsheet shared with current AEFLA grantees is the data provided in Appendix H in the RFA Planning Document. If an applicant is seeing different data in the denominators of the data in the appendix and an NRS Table 4 in LACES, they should check to ensure that no filters have been applied prior to pulling the NRS Table 4 report and that no duplicate records have been merged since the NRS Table 4 report data was frozen during that year’s annual data freeze and rollover. If applicants have questions about individual denominator counts, they may contact the AEI Office. | |||||
53 | 4/22/2024 13:45:28 | For Part B, Section D, the word "describes" is used in the first sentence. We have read the rubric, but we don't know what is meant exactly by "describes". We know we need to report the percentages. Should we explain why we chose those percentages? | We are not able to provide additional guidance around scoring other than what has been listed in the scoring rubric. There is nothing within the GAINS system or the rubric description that would prevent an applicant from listing percentages or including narrative around such percentages. | |||||
54 | 4/24/2024 12:11:25 | Can you explain applying for workforce literacy and the higher threshold of points necessary if applying for this service? | Applicants may apply for one or more of the services described in the application narrative. Applicants must score no less than 70% of the total points possible from Part B sections A-G in order to be recommended for funding. If applying for any of the optional, additional services (IELCE IET, AEFLA IET, CE, FL and WPL) applicants must also score no less than 70% of the total points available in each additional section from Part B of the narrative (H-L) for which the applicant is applying. In addition to the minimum points requirements, all required elements of the application must be addressed in order to be recommended for funding. The points for each optional additional service/section of the Part B narrative are as follows: • H. Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education (if applicable) – 62 points • I. AEFLA Integrated Education and Training (if applicable) – 31 points • J. Corrections Education (if applicable) – 40 points • K. Family Literacy Program (if applicable) – 32 points • L. Workplace Literacy Program (if applicable) – 25 points | |||||
55 | 4/25/2024 9:23:41 | Leveraging Data Question: For MSG, describe the percentage of gains anticipated in each MSG type (post-test EFL gain, high school diploma or equivalent, exit with post-secondary entrance, technical or occupational skills exam (IET only), progress toward milestones (Workplace Literacy only)) for the first 2024-2025 year of the grant program.* Does this mean if there are 50 learners who achieve MSG, of the 50 what percentage will be in each type? Broken down like 25/50 50% Post Test Gain, 20/50 40% GED obtainment, 5/50 10% Post Secondary entrance? | Yes, that example is accurate. | |||||
56 | 4/26/2024 11:59:22 | For Part B, Section D, Question 5, could you please give me examples of "progress toward milestones" for Workplace Literacy? Because this question is dealing specifically with MSG, the progress towards milestones must consist of progress that counts as MSGs, right? | Information on progress toward milestones can be found on page 6 of the NRS Technical Assistance Guide and are defined as, “satisfactory or better progress report towards established milestones from an employer or training provider who is providing training (e.g., completion of on-the-job training (OJT), completion of one year of a registered apprenticeship program, etc.).” Yes, progress toward milestones are one of the types of measurable skill gains measured under WIOA Title II. In Colorado, this measurable skill gain type is only allowable for participants enrolled in a workplace literacy program approved by the AEI office. | |||||
57 | 4/23/24 | When reporting a learners Q2 Median Earnings, our program has a three-year average of $4292.24. Is that a monthly average amount? | The three-year average for Q2 Median Earnings is not a monthly average. The NRS TA Guide (p. E-31) defines Q2 Median Earnings as the midpoint between lowest and highest quarterly wage, in U.S. dollars, for the total number of participants who exited during the program year and who were employed in the second quarter after program exit, excluding participants who exited due to the exclusions listed in OCTAE Program Memorandum 17-2 Attachment 2: Table A or incarcerated individuals under section 225 who exited the AEFLA program but are still incarcerated. The value represents 3 months wages from either the learner's response to follow up survey, supplemental wage reporting documentation, or from data match. | |||||
58 | 4/18/2024 12:04:40 | Question D2 asks for an "exit rate" but later in the section it asks for predictions for "exit without completion rate". Should these be the same or are they really asking for two different things? | Yes, these are the same. Thank you for asking to be sure. | |||||
59 | 4/17/2024 14:49:46 | For Section D: Question 2; How does a program calculate exit rate? | For question 2 in Part B, Section D, Leveraging Data, exit rate is defined in part “a” of the question as “the percentage of learners exiting the program without completing.” Learners completing the program may be those who: • Earned a secondary school diploma or equivalent • Achieved “Completed ESL Level 6” • Completed an IET • Who exited and enter postsecondary education or training • Who were unemployed but completed the program by obtaining employment • Learners with an exit exclusion The exit rate would be calculated by dividing the number of learners who exited but did not complete the program by the total number of learners. As noted in previous responses in this Q&A, applicants using NRS data may exclude non-NRS participants from responses in question Part B, Section D, question 2. | |||||
60 | 4/17/2024 16:42:41 | Further clarification needed. Section D: 2a. states "Describe any trends (increases or decreases) in enrollment, the percentage of learners exiting the program without completing (e.g., not making a measurable skill gain), and the percentage of learners continuing from one year to the next." *This question indicates that making a measurable skill gain counts as "completing". The earlier response to calculating learner exits indicates that MSGs alone (without HSE, IET, Post-Secondary, or Employment gains) do not count towards "completing". We calculated our exit rate based on the earlier response. Does a level gain from Level 3 to Level 4 count as a completion? | Please note that Measurable Skill Gain (MSG) is not solely equivalent to an Educational Functioning Level (EFL) gain made by pre- and post-testing to advance a level. MSG as defined by the National Reporting System (NRS) includes all of the following: • Advancing an EFL through pre- and post-testing using a standardized assessment approved in the state assessment policy • Awarding of Carnegie Units for states that offer adult high school credit programs • Entry into a postsecondary education or training program after program exit and by the end of the program year • Attainment of a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent while enrolled or after exit, but by the end of the program year • Secondary or postsecondary transcript progress (IET and Workplace Literacy only) • Progress Toward Milestones (IET and Workplace Literacy only) • Passing technical/occupational knowledge-based exam (IET and Workplace Literacy only) Additional details on the definition of the various types of MSG can be found in the NRS Technical Assistance Guide. The Adult Education Initiatives (AEI) Office does not consider EFL gains made through post-testing as completing an adult education program with the exception of learners achieving “Completed ESL L6” on an NRS assessment which measures ESL levels. This is because under WIOA individuals with NRS test scores below the top range of the highest EFLs measured on the NRS tests are still considered basic skills deficient and remain eligible for adult education services under WIOA Title II. Applicants choosing to define completion as advancing an Educational Functioning Level below ESL L6 or ABE L6 may exclude such learners from the numerator of their exit rates, but if choosing to do so, should also exclude such learners from their retention rate calculations in Part B, Section D, question 2 as they were defined as “completers” and would not need to return to the adult education program the following year. | |||||
61 | 4/17/2024 13:06:43 | In Section B: Demonstrated Effectiveness, there are 7 "bonus" points available. However, these points are counted in the total points for the section. (There are 8 narrative sections with a total of 48 points available for those sections but the total for the section is 55.) Please explain how they are "bonus" points if they are considered part of the total for the section. If they are counted as part of the total for the section, they are part of the total points possible that programs have to score 70% of in order to be recommended. With the bonus points being counted as part of the total, it is not a "plus 1" if the program's effectiveness is above the percentage displayed, it is "minus 1" if the program's effectiveness is below the percentage displayed. Additionally, 3 of the "bonus" points can only be earned if you are applying to provide that service. In the last AEFLA grant there were bonus points available as well but they were not counted in the total points for that section so they were truly bonus points. | The bonus points available in Part B, Section B, Demonstrated Effectiveness are added for participants meeting the described thresholds which exceed the minimum thresholds in the demonstrated effectiveness portion of the application. These points are added to the application’s score without requiring a narrative response from the applicant. Applicants not meeting these thresholds are not awarded these points. As was the case with the demonstrated effectiveness portion of the application, points may be awarded if the applicant met the threshold but is not applying for such services through the full application. The points are added to the sub-total of points for the section as well as the applicant’s overall score. The minimum scoring threshold to be considered for funding depends on the number of services an applicant is applying for and increase as the number of services applied for increases. As described on pages 11-12 of the RFA Planning Document, “Applicants may apply for one or more of the services described in the application narrative. Applicants must score no less than 70% of the total points possible from Part B sections A-G in order to be recommended for funding. If applying for any of the optional, additional services (IELCE IET, AEFLA IET, CE, FL and WPL) applicants must also score no less than 70% of the total points available in each additional section from Part B of the narrative (H-L) for which the applicant is applying. In addition to the minimum points requirements, all required elements of the application must be addressed in order to be recommended for funding.” The bonus points in Part B, Section B, Demonstrated Effectiveness are included in the denominator of the minimum percentage needed for sections A-G in order to be to be considered for funding. If points are awarded based on data submitted in the demonstrated effectiveness application, they are then also included in the numerator of this rate to determine if the application passes the minimum percentage needed for sections A-G. Please note that meeting the minimum scoring threshold is not a guarantee of funding as this is a competitive process and there may be multiple applicants requesting funding in the same Local Workforce Development Area. | |||||
62 | 4/17/2024 14:15:58 | When using the All Hours Grid in LACES how can we isolate the first and last date of attendance in a year for each learner? | The All Hours Grid in LACES displays a list of attendance records grantee staff have entered into the data system. LACES automatically applies the “Current Fiscal Year” filter to this grid upon each new login. Each attendance record includes various data included the date of the attendance record and the LACES student ID associated with each attendance record. The student ID and date columns can be used to identify the first and last date of attendance for each learner in each program year. | |||||
63 | 4/17/2024 11:05:20 | In regard to section D leveraging data. Can AEI provide guidance on what formulas in Excel to utilize once the data has been exported. Many AEFLA organizations do not have staff members that are experts in statistical formulas for Excel. This direction was provided in order to gather data for the Demonstrated Effectiveness. | As there are numerous ways to identify averages for questions in section D, Part B of the application and applicants may be using disparate data systems, reports, and exports to complete their responses to these questions, no, the AEI Office is not able to provide step by step instructions for identifying these averages. Applicants using LACES data and exporting such data to Microsoft Excel may wish to look into how the following functions could be used: DAYS, MINIFS, MAXIFS AVERAGE, COUNTIFS, and SUMIFS. Please note that the application does not require use of Microsoft Excel to complete the questions in section D and methods for responding to those questions will vary depending on grantee records and systems. Applicants wishing to receive feedback on the process they are using to respond to these questions may request that feedback via the Q&A form. | |||||
64 | 4/16/2024 20:32:08 | Section D, Question 5: "For MSG, describe the percentage of gains anticipated in each MSG type (post-test EFL gain, high school diploma or equivalent, exit with post-secondary entrance, technical or occupational skills exam (IET only), progress toward milestones (Workplace Literacy only)) for the first 2024-2025 year of the grant program.*" For "high school diploma or equivalent", are we only considering students who are in an ABE/ASE course? In other words, will the MSG % involve determining the number of ABE/ASE learners who earn a high school diploma or equivalent divided by the total number of ABE/ASE learners (and changing that to a % of course)? | As noted in previous responses in this Q&A this question (Part B, Section D, questions 5) refers to the portion of the overall measurable skill gains (MSG) that will be comprised of each allowable MSG type. The types of MSG are listed in the question and are as follows: • post-test EFL gain • high school diploma or equivalent • exit with post-secondary entrance • technical or occupational skills exam (IET only) • progress toward milestones (Workplace Literacy only) In this question applicants are not reporting a percentage of learners making a gain, rather they are reporting the make-up, or composition, via percentages of the types of MSGs they anticipate will be achieved in the first year of the grant cycle. For example, if a grantee anticipates serving 100 learners in the first year of the grant cycle and expects that 45% of those learners will achieve at an MSG, that would be 45 MSGs achieved. If 45 total MSGs are expected to be achieved in the first year of the grant cycle, then, in response to this question, an applicant would indicate what portion of those total 45 MSGs will be made up of each of the allowable MSG types. The calculations for this may look something like: • post-test EFL gain: 30 of 45 MSGs (30/40 = 67%) • high school diploma or equivalent: 10 of 45 MSGs (10/45 = 22%) • exit with post-secondary entrance: 5 of 45 MSGs (5/45 = 11%) • technical or occupational skills exam (IET only): 0 of 45 MSGs (0/45 = 0%) • progress toward milestones (Workplace Literacy only): 0 of 45 MSGs (0/45 = 0%) In this example an applicant would complete their response indicating 67% of MSGs in the first year of the grant cycle are anticipated to come from post-test EFL gains, 22% from high school diplomas or equivalency diplomas, and 11% from learners exiting the adult education program and entering postsecondary education or training. The sum of the percentages indicated in response to this question should equal 100. In terms of the percentage of gains coming specifically from high school diplomas or equivalency diplomas, there is no requirement under the National Reporting System for MSG calculations on NRS Table 4 that only learners testing at the Adult Basic Education (ABE) or Adult Secondary Education (ASE) levels are the only learners eligible to earn this MSG type. Learners pretesting at any level are eligible to achieve the high school diploma or equivalency diploma MSG type. | |||||
65 | 4/16/2024 17:51:29 | I'm not clear on the "average length of time learners spent in your program over the last 3 years"(section D.3.C). If learners don't exit are they not included in this metric? So do we need to pull all exited or completed learners for a PY and then filter for first day of attendance and exit date? Where would that be in LACES. The All Hours grid does not contain this information. Does this include all reportable learners or all learners that are NRS participants? | For responses to question 3.c in section D of Part B of the application, no, non-exited learners should not be excluded from the averages. As noted in response to other questions in this Q&A, applicants using NRS data may exclude non-NRS participants from the rates in Part B, Section D, question 3. Yes, one way to calculate the average length of time learners spent in programming during each of the last three years is to isolate the first date of attendance in a year and the last date of attendance in a year to calculate the days or weeks between those two dates. Attendance hours can be found in multiple places in LACES. The All Hours grid in LACES is a dedicated screen which contains all attendance records for all learners which have been entered into the data system. Like all grids, or screens, in LACES the All Hours grid can be filtered to exclude non-NRS participants. Applicants using LACES may want to consider applying student ID searches for this purpose. The All Hours grid contains both the program year (in LACES called “Fiscal Year”) and date of each attendance record. As noted in previous responses to other questions in this Q&A, applicants may consider exporting the All Hours grid data into Microsoft Excel to take advantage of functions and formulas to more quickly facilitate the calculation of rates in the application. | |||||
66 | 4/15/2024 16:20:59 | Do we still provide quantitative data for the question about serving learners with disabilities if that number is small enough that those learners may be identifiable due to the small data set? | As indicated in the RFA Planning Document, "Documents submitted as part of the application must not contain any personally identifiable student or educator information including names, identification numbers, or anything that could identify an individual. All data should be referenced/included in the aggregate and the aggregate counts should be redacted to remove small numbers under n=16 for students or n=5 for educators." The question referred to here come from Part B, Section B, question #8 and says, "8. Provide evidence of your program’s ability to serve eligible learners with disabilities, including learning disabilities. Responses must include internal program data, both qualitative and quantitative and should give specific examples of processes, tools, and other resources provided to support learners with disabilities (e.g., assistive technology, following test publisher requirements around accommodations, how lesson plans or curriculum accommodate learners with a learning disability, how instructors are trained to work with learners with disabilities, etc.)." Please note the question asks for both qualitative and quantitative data. Applicants may consider using rates (percentages) rather than counts of participants when supressing numbers below 16 student and 5 educators. | |||||
67 | 04/17/2024 | Would a learner who completed level 6 in ESL but moved on to ABE be included or excluded from the numerator? | The numerator for retention rates may include learners who did not achieve an MSG in prior year and who continue into the next year as well as learners who did achieve an MSG in the prior year but who did not complete the adult education program. (Completing the adult education program may be achieved by testing into the EFL of “Completed ESL L6,” earning a secondary diploma or equivalent, entering postsecondary education, or entering employment). The numerator for retention rates should not include learners who exited the program in the prior year (regardless of MSG achievement or program completion) who did not return the next year. The denominator for retention rates should include any learners from the prior year who were eligible to return for services, meaning they either did not yet make an MSG in the prior year or they did but did not yet complete the program. So, a learner who completed ESL 6 and continued with ABE services in the next program year may be counted in the numerator. | |||||
68 | 4/12/2024 13:35:07 | Could the annual targets for the last three [2020-2021 through 2022-2023] years for the following be provided? - employment six months (the second quarter) - obtaining or maintaining a livable wages six months (the second quarter) - obtaining secondary and post-secondary credentials within a year after exiting | All targets and performance data are posted publicly for all states and outlying territories receiving AEFLA funds on the NRS' website: https://nrs.ed.gov/rt. Statewide Performance Report tables show targets and actual performance for all states. The most recent federally negoatiated targets are also available on AEI's website: https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeadult/grantees/laces-data-dictionary/performance-accountability-targets | |||||
69 | 4/5/2024 15:34:12 | Which group of learners are eligible to be counted on Table 5 as follow up to obtain a Postsecondary Credential while enrolled or within one year of exit? Why is this denominator different than the Q2 & Q4 learners? | NRS Table 5 definitions can be found in the NRS Technical Assistance Guide. The postsecondary credential attainment cohort denominator is defined as "total number of participants who during the program year were also enrolled in a postsecondary education or training program leading to a recognized postsecondary credential and exited that postsecondary training program, excluding participants who exited due to the exclusions listed in OCTAE Program Memorandum 17-2 Attachment 2: Table A or incarcerated individuals under section 225 who exited the AEFLA program but are still incarcerated.” The postsecondary credential attainment cohort numerator is defined as, participants who received “ a postsecondary credential while enrolled or within 1 year of exit.” The time periods for credential attainment reporting can be found in the NRS Technical Assistance Guide on pages C-1 through C-4. This cohort differs from both the secondary credential attainment cohorts and the employment in the 2nd and 4th quarter after exit cohort because that is how it is federally defined. | |||||
70 | 3/29/2024 13:22:39 | Why if the true purpose of AEI is expressed below (in the narrative taken from the AEFLA RFA) is there so much focus on workforce and post-secondary accomplishments and extremely little on what is stated as the purpose? 4) Assist immigrants and other individuals who are English language learners in A. Improving their: i. Reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension skills in English; and ii. Mathematical skills; and B. Acquiring an understanding of the American system of Government, individual freedom, and the responsibilities of citizenship. | The section quoted in this question can be found on page 3 of the RFA Planning Document. The full purpose statement reads: The purpose of the WIOA Title II Adult Education and Family Literacy grant program (WIOA §202(a)(1)) is to create a partnership among the federal government, states, and localities to provide adult education and literacy activities. Therefore, AEFLA grantees are required to expand and improve the current system of delivering adult education, literacy services, and workforce development through evidence-based practices, in order to: - Assist adults to become literate and obtain the knowledge and skills necessary for employment and economic self- sufficiency; - Assist adults who are parents or family members to obtain the education and skills that: - Are necessary to becoming full partners in the educational development of their children; and - Lead to sustainable improvements in the economic opportunities for their family; - Assist adults in attaining a secondary school diploma and in the transition to postsecondary education and training, including through career pathways; and - Assist immigrants and other individuals who are English language learners in - Improving their: - Reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension skills in English; and - Mathematical skills; and - Acquiring an understanding of the American system of Government, individual freedom, and the responsibilities of citizenship. These purposes refer specifically to the federal Adult Education and Family Literacy Act grant program which are described in WIOA §202(a)(1) and are federally defined. The Adult Education Initiatives Office at CDE does not have authority over the federal definitions which govern the purposes of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act grant program. Each of the purposes of the AEFLA grant program are addressed in various sections of the grant application. | |||||
71 | 3/29/2024 14:13:18 | In the grant application we are asked to select which of the following type of access we are providing at one-stop center: a. having Adult Education and Literacy staff member physically present at the one-stop center b. having staff from the one-stop center appropriately trained to provide information about Adult Education and Literacy programs, services, and activities c. having direct linkage through technology for meaningful information sharing between the one-stop center and Adult Education and Literacy program (which cannot be by only providing a phone number, access to a computer or website, or providing pamphlets). Our program's agreement with the Workforce center is to use method B as there is no available space within the one-stop center for our program to have a physical presence. We are then asked to "describe the anticipated days and times in which your program plans to offer access to Adult Education and Literacy services within the comprehensive one-stop center." Can you clarify what exactly this is asking? It sounds like we are being asked (as a requirement?) to be physically present at the one-stop center and to offer classes there. This is not a requirement of the State Plan. | All WIOA Title partners are required to have available access to their services by one of the means described in question 1 Part B, Section F. Applicants whose access is not by having Adult Education staff at the one-stop should describe the days and times access through the One-Stop center is secured, such as frequency of reviewing referral technology for new potential learners, how and how often workforce center staff are trained on the referral process to Title II, when workforce center staff shares information about Adult Education and Literacy or what their process is for offering equivalent access to Adult Education. For example, applicants who provide access to adult education services in the one-stop center by having staff from the one-stop center appropriately trained to provide information about Adult Education and Literacy programs, services, and activities should describe the anticipated days and times in which those one-stop center staff will be available to provide information about Adult Education and Literacy programs, services, and activities. They may also wish to describe the number of staff trained and how the applicant ensures one-stop center staff are actively sharing such information when eligible adult learners make inquiries about services at the one-stop center. | |||||
72 | 4/3/2024 10:40:27 | I know the total number of hours attended by the students is in Table 4 but does this also include the distance learning hours? Also, where do I find the number of days attended and the average length of time learners have spent in the program? I know how to find the averages, but I am unsure where to find the number of days attended and the length of time learners spent in the program. Thank you for your help! | NRS Table 4 definitions can be found in the NRS Technical Assistance Guide. Column D on Table 4 includes all instructional hours reported for participants, including hours reported as distance, in the program year indicated in the table. For applicants using the LACES data system, attendance data (such as hours attended, days attended, and first and last days of attendance) can be generated using the All Hours grid in LACES. Exporting the data from the All Hours grid may facilitate the calculation of yearly averages. For applicants not using the using the LACES data system, they will need to use whatever comparable data is available to them. Applicants may ask for additional feedback on the processes they are using to pull such data from their data systems. | |||||
73 | 3/29/2024 13:22:39 | Why if the true purpose of AEI is expressed below (in the narrative taken from the AEFLA RFA) is there so much focus on workforce and post-secondary accomplishments and extremely little on what is stated as the purpose? 4) Assist immigrants and other individuals who are English language learners in A. Improving their: i. Reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension skills in English; and ii. Mathematical skills; and B. Acquiring an understanding of the American system of Government, individual freedom, and the responsibilities of citizenship. | The section quoted in this question can be found on page 3 of the RFA Planning Document. The full purpose statement reads: The purpose of the WIOA Title II Adult Education and Family Literacy grant program (WIOA §202(a)(1)) is to create a partnership among the federal government, states, and localities to provide adult education and literacy activities. Therefore, AEFLA grantees are required to expand and improve the current system of delivering adult education, literacy services, and workforce development through evidence-based practices, in order to: - Assist adults to become literate and obtain the knowledge and skills necessary for employment and economic self- sufficiency; - Assist adults who are parents or family members to obtain the education and skills that: - Are necessary to becoming full partners in the educational development of their children; and - Lead to sustainable improvements in the economic opportunities for their family; - Assist adults in attaining a secondary school diploma and in the transition to postsecondary education and training, including through career pathways; and - Assist immigrants and other individuals who are English language learners in - Improving their: - Reading, writing, speaking, and comprehension skills in English; and - Mathematical skills; and - Acquiring an understanding of the American system of Government, individual freedom, and the responsibilities of citizenship. These purposes refer specifically to the federal Adult Education and Family Literacy Act grant program which are described in WIOA §202(a)(1) and are federally defined. The Adult Education Initiatives Office at CDE does not have authority over the federal definitions which govern the purposes of the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act grant program. Each of the purposes of the AEFLA grant program are addressed in various sections of the grant application. | |||||
74 | 4/1/2024 16:17:00 | The procedure here that I used to generate the data point for D2a and b. To calculate enrollment rate, create separate Excel spreadsheets for each PY listing student IDs from Table 4, columns E and I. This total constitutes the denominator. Combine each overlapping PY and use the Excel feature Conditional Formatting – Highlight Cells Rules – Duplicate Values. This process highlights the student IDs that are in adjoining PYs. This number constitutes the numerator. N / D = enrollment rate (from one year to the next) I was unable to find useful information on Tables 4B and 5. Can you confirm the accuracy of this process? What have I missed? | For the enrollment or enrollment rate boxes in question 2 (Part B Section D Leveraging Data in GAINS), you may either list the number enrolled or the rate of learners enrolled. • If listing the number of learners enrolled, the count of participants listed in column B of table 4 can be used. Columns E on table 4 shows learners making at least one MSG and should not be used as part of the enrollment count alone. Column I on Table 4 shows the number of learners remaining in programming who did not make a gain and should not be used as part of the enrollment count alone. • If listing the rate of learners enrolled, the numerator of such a rate may be the number of learners who became NRS participants in a year. The denominator may be the sum of both the number of learners who became NRS participants in a year and the number of learners who remained reportable only (which can be located on Table 2A). For the retention rate from year to year in question 2 (Part B Section D Leveraging Data in GAINS), you will need to isolate the participants who were eligible to return from the previous year (denominator) and the number of participants who returned to become NRS participants in the subsequent year (numerator). • For the denominator, you may exclude participants who completed the program by: o Earning a secondary school diploma or equivalent (column F, grand total row on Table 4) o Achieving “Completed ESL Level 6” (column E, ESL Level 6 row on Table 4) o Completing an IET (column G, grand total row on Table 4) o Learners who were unemployed but completed the program by obtaining employment (this depends on local tracking but may be found either in table 5 data for subsequent years or in exit reason tracking in student records in LACES). o Learners with an exit exclusion (column C, grand total row on Table 4) o For the numerator of the retention rate, yes you can use the exported student ID lists from LACES and Excel conditional formatting for duplicates to identify which learners in the denominator returned in the next year. • This can also be achieved by using the same filtered student ID list in LACES and adding the next year’s NRS Table 4 as a stacked search (“Add” rather than “Replace”) on top of that filtered student ID list in LACES. For the exit rate, yes, the same process above for the retention rate may be used. The denominator remains the participants who are eligible to return in the subsequent year. The numerator then becomes the denominator less the participants who returned in the subsequent year (e.g. the participants who were eligible to return but which did not do do). Data on Table 4b would not necessarily be needed, but could be used, if needed to isolate and exclude learners completing the program by achieving “Completed ESL Level 6” from the denominators of the exit and retention rate. Data on Table 5 can be used to isolate and exclude learners (in combination with entry employment status) who completed the program by obtaining employment. As always, applicants using LACES will need to remove the Current Fiscal Year filter from any screens before pulling prior year NRS Tables in the system. | |||||
75 | 4/3/2024 | Where will I find the projected target rates for the next four years? Like the MSG target, median wages etc? Thanks! | OCTAE reaches out to states in the spring every 2 years to establish a meeting to negotiate targets with the state offices managing the distribution of the federal AEFLA grant program. (If you want to read more into the details of that that process looks like OCTAE program memorandum 20-2). We have not begun that target negotiation process with OCTAE yet for targets in 2024-2025 or 2025-2026. They only set targets with the state in 2-year increments, so the targets for 2026-2027 and 2027-2028 will not be known until roughly the spring of 2026. Two years ago the target negotiation process started in the middle of April and concluded in May. Once we know our targets for the next two years they get published on the Performance Accountability Targets page on our website and are released in AEI Updates as well. | |||||
76 | 4/3/24 | I am figuring the average attendance hours per student. I see total attendance hours in table 4, 4B and 4C. Table 4 is the total hours, 4B is the student that have post-tested and 4C are the hours for those that made a gain. I assume that I only need to use the hours in table 4 but does that table also include distance learning hours? | Definitions for each of the NRS tables mentioned in your question can be found in the NRS Technical Assistance Guide. Table 4B is a subset of Table 4, meaning that all learners who are in Table 4b are also in Table 4, but not all learners in Table 4 are in Table 4b. Table 4b, titled,” Educational Functioning Level Gain and Attendance for Pre- and Post-tested Participants,” includes hours and testing data on just NRS participants who received at least one post-test in the program year. Table 4c, titled, “Measurable Skill Gains by Entry Level for Participants in Distance Education,” is also a subset of Table 4 (all learners in Table 4c are also in Table 4 but not all learners in Table 4 are in Table 4c). Table 4c includes hours and MSG data on just learners were primarily attending distance education. Learners are reported on Table 4c if 50% or more of their attendance hours for the year are coded in LACES with a distance hours type. Column D on Table 4 includes all instructional hours reported for participants, including hours reported as distance, in the program year indicated in the table. | |||||
77 | 3/28/24 | Question: Describe any trends (increases or decreases) in enrollment, the percentage of learners exiting the program without completing (e.g., not making a measurable skill gain), and the percentage of learners continuing from one year to the next. We reviewed the response included in the FAQ previously for this question. When I use Table 4 and designate 2019/2020, the list of learners includes students who are enrolled now. The date range extends far beyond the FY I asked for. Would you please clarify how to generate the percentage of learners continuing from one year to the next | The instructions provide in the Q&A are the ones that should be followed if using LACES to generate the rates requested in the referenced section of the RFA. Applicants using LACES to generate these rates will need to ensure that all filters have been removed from the Student screen/grid in LACES before accessing prior year NRS tables to record counts of learners served and generating lists of learners served, using the drill down counts in the NRS tables, to compare to subsequent years lists of learners served for continuing and non-continuing learners in those subsequent years. Additionally, it would be possible for learners in a Table 4 NRS participant count from 2019-2020 to be in a grantee’s current year, 2023-2024 NRS Table 4 participant count. For example, a learner could have enrolled in programming in 2019-2020, become an NRS participant, and then exited the program during COVID. Such a learner could then also return to start classes again in the 2023-2024 program year even if they did not continue attending in program years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. | |||||
78 | 3/28/2024 15:01:23 | How was the denominator determined for the credential attainment rate in Appendix H? | The credential attainment numerator and denominator are defined federally. Details can be found in the NRS Technical Assistance Guide. The definition of the credential attainment denominator can be found on page E-31 as, “Report in Column B (Attained any credential (unduplicated)) the unduplicated total number of participants who EITHER: (1) did not possess a secondary school credential or recognized equivalent and exited during the program year who entered at, or advanced into, a secondary school level program (9th grade equivalent or higher) OR (2) were co-enrolled in a postsecondary education or training program leading to a recognized postsecondary credential and exited that postsecondary training program; excluding participants who exited due to the exclusions listed in OCTAE Program Memorandum 17-2 Attachment 2: Table A or incarcerated individuals under section 225 who exited the AEFLA program but remain incarcerated. Participants who meet the requirements for inclusion in both the secondary and postsecondary credential cohorts would only be recorded once in Column B.” The guide additionally details that, “The credential attainment indicator consists of (1) postsecondary credential attainment for participants co-enrolled in adult and postsecondary education or (2) attainment of a recognized secondary school diploma, with employment or entry into a postsecondary education or training program within one year of exit, for participants enrolled at the secondary level who did not previously possess a secondary school diploma. Note: All shaded columns will be calculated automatically by OCTAE’s data system.” (p. 3) and “For the purposes of reporting on Employment 2nd Quarter, Employment 4th Quarter, Median Earnings, and the Credential Attainment indicators on Tables 5, 5A, 8, 9, 10, and 11 each program entry and exit per participant during the reporting period is considered a period of participation. Do not exclude participants because of missing Social Security numbers or other missing data.” (p. E-30). | |||||
79 | 3/28/2024 16:31:29 | I'm the person who just asked the question about the denominator used in the credential attainment rate calculation. If our ABE students who do not have a secondary credential or equivalency move up to NRS Level 5 during the year and thus become ASE students as they continue the year, it sounds like they would then count in the denominator for the credential attainment rate calculation. Is that correct? If not, could you please explain why not? | Yes, for NRS reporting, any learners who "did not possess a secondary school credential or recognized equivalent and exited during the program year who entered at, or advanced into, a secondary school level program (9th grade equivalent or higher) OR (2) were co-enrolled in a postsecondary education or training program leading to a recognized postsecondary credential and exited that postsecondary training program." So for learners with NRS tests those who pre-tested at ABE Levels 5 or 6 or who post-test into ABE Levels 5 or 6 in any subject area in the program year in which they exited are included in the credential attainment measure on Table 5. The only exception to this are the exit exclusionsdecribed on pages 14 and 15 of the NRS Technical Assistance Guide. Please note that the timeframes for measuring exits for credential attainment on NRS Table 5 are lagged and follow a calendar year schedule rather than a program year schedule. More details regarding this can be found on pages 41 and C-1 through C-4 of the NRS Technical Assistance Guide. | |||||
80 | 3/28/2024 | Does ABE go through NRS level 4 and ASE are levels 5 & 6? Also, when I look at table 4 it shows that our number of participants is only 7 for the year 20/21, 13 students for the year 21/22 and 22 students for the year 22/23. I know we had more students than that and I also know that we met our MSG requirements for all 3 years. Will you please remind me where to find the total number of students that we had in the ABE, ASE and ESL programs? I am unsure where you pulled the data that shows the numerators, denominators and percentage rate of MSG’s from for our demonstrated effectiveness. | Learners who are considered to have received Adult Secondary Education services are those whose NRS pre-test score resulted in an Educational Functioning Level (EFL) of ABE Level 5 or ABE Level 6. Learners who are considered to have received Adult Basic Education (ABE) services are those whose NRS pre-test score resulted in an Educational Functioning Level (EFL) of ABE Level 1, ABE Level 2, ABE Level 3, or ABE Level 4. Learners who are considered to have received English Language Acquisition services are those whose NRS pre-test score resulted in an Educational Functioning Level (EFL) of ESL Level 1, ESL Level 2, ESL Level 3, ESL Level 4, ESL Level 5, and ESL Level 6. Applicants with prior year AEFLA data may include NRS Table 4 participants when submitting these data in the application and may exclude learners who do not reach NRS participant status (those who remain only NRS reportable individuals). Applicants without prior year AEFLA data may use whatever comparable data is available to them. NRS Table 4 displays participants served under the AEFLA grant each year grouped by those entry EFLs. Each entry EFL is displayed in a separate row in NRS Table 4. Summing the rows for the relevant entry EFLs will provide counts for those Adult Secondary Education, Adult Basic Education, and English Language Acquisition service types described in the RFA. Additionally, if using LACES to access NRS Table 4 searches, the drill down counts available in those tables allow for lists of learners to be generated for those services for subsequent years so that these lists can be compared to each other year over year. Applicants using LACES to pull prior year NRS Tables should be mindful to remove any filters, including the Current Fiscal Year filter, from the Student screen/grid in LACES before attempting to access prior year data. | |||||
81 | 03/22/2024 | For MSG, describe the percentage of gains anticipated in each MSG type (post-test EFL gain, high school diploma or equivalent, exit with post-secondary entrance, technical or occupational skills exam (IET only), progress toward milestones (Workplace Literacy only) for the first 2024-2025 year of the grant program.* Could you please explain how we would calculate the MSG percentage for “high school diploma or equivalent”? More specifically, who would be considered a high school diploma student? Would the student need to have a certain ABE level (or have an ASE level) to be considered a high school diploma student? | This question refers to the portion of the overall MSG that will be made up of learners who attain a High School Equivalency or Diploma. This portion is made up of any learners, regardless of Educational Functioning Level, who earn a High School Equivalency or Diploma. For example if an applicant plans to serve 100 learners in year 1 of the grant with an anticipated 45% MSG rate, for a total of 45 individual MSGs; and the portion of HSE/D credentials was 15, the rate in this example would be 15/45 * 100 =33% of the overall MSG rate in year 1 will be from HSE/D. | |||||
82 | 3/14/24 | We're working on our AEFLA application and have a quick question on PACT time. We were curious if there is an age limit for PACT time. If we were to have an after-school program, would working with families of elementary and middle school students qualify as PACT time, or is it restricted to early childhood ages? | There is no age limit for PACT time. | |||||
83 | 2/23/2024 12:32:05 | In the eligibility requirements where are service types defined? What are the service types? | AEFLA service type refers to the Adult Education and Literacy programs and activites, both required and optional under WIOA Title II, including: Adult Basic Education, Adult Secondary Education, English Language Acquisition, Workplace Literacy, Family Literacy, Integrated English literacy and Civics Education, Integrated Education and Training, and Corrections Education. The RFA includes descriptions of each of the service types on page 5 under the section named Allowable Use of Funds. | |||||
84 | 3/20/2024 11:06:43 | What is the definition of learner retention for the purposes of this grant? For example, is this students exiting without making an MSG, students that complete a semester, or students who stay continually enrolled for a certain amount of time? Is there a formula to use for this? | There is no federal definition of learner retention under the AEFLA grant program, but the importance of retention for sufficient intensity and duration to achieve measures of interim progress (Measurable Skill Gains) and outcomes after exit (Employment, Wage, and Credential Attainment) are highlighted by both OCTAE and the NRS. There are two questions in the narrative portion of the RFA which ask applicants to address retention. The first is question number five of Part B, Section C which asks, “Describe the learner retention strategies you will use to keep learners engaged in programming through completion and the evidence, or research, basis for those strategies.*” In this question retention may be discussed more broadly, including both intensity and duration of learner attendance toward completion of any of the performance measures required under the grant (MSG, Employment, Wage, and Credential Attainment). The second is question number 2 in Part B, Section D which asks, “Provide your program’s adult education enrollment, exit rate, and retention rate over the past three years.” This is defined in sub questions 2.a as “the percentage of learners continuing from one year to the next.” The numerator of this value may include learners who did not achieve an MSG in prior year and who continue into the next year as well as learners who did achieve an MSG in the prior year but who did not complete the adult education program. (Completing the adult education program may be achieved by testing into the EFL of “Completed ESL L6,” earning a secondary diploma or equivalent, entering postsecondary education, or entering employment). The numerator of this value should not include learners who exited the program in the prior year (regardless of MSG achievement or program completion) who did not return the next year. The denominator of this value should include any learners from the prior year who were eligible to return for services, meaning they either did not yet make an MSG in the prior year or they did but did not yet complete the program. Applicants previously funded by the AEFLA grant may exclude non-NRS participants from the numerator and denominator of these rates. Non-previously funded AEFLA grantees may exclude similar groups of learners from the numerator and denominator of these rates if attendance and demographics data were collected on such learners and can be used to determine they did not meet NRS participant criteria. Applicants may consider the following as an illustrative “formula” for reporting these rates: Year 2022-2023: Numerator = Just participants from 2021-2022 who did not complete the program AND returned to become participants in 2022-2023 Denominator = All participants from 2021-2022 who did not complete the program Year 2021-2022 Numerator = Just participants from 2020-2021 who did not complete the program AND returned to become participants in 2021-2022 Denominator = All participants from 2020-2021 who did not complete the program Year 2020-2021 Numerator = Just participants from 2019-2020 who did not complete the program AND returned to become participants in 2020-2021 Denominator = All participants from 2019-2020 who did not complete the program Applicants previously funded by the AEFLA grant may use their NRS Table 4 searches in the LACES data system to generate counts of learners who were participants in the years described above. Additionally, they may stack those searches or compare lists of LACES student IDs by pear to determine the count of learners returning each year. These applicants may also use NRS Table 4, 4b, and 5 searches to determine the count of learners who completed the program each year. Applicants not previously funded by the AEFLA grant may use whatever comprable data is available to them. | |||||
85 | Demonstrated Effectiveness Questions | |||||||
86 | 3/19/24 | I went into the RFA to review the form requesting a review of our score. Unfortunately, the link informed me that I do not have permission to view or respond to the form. | Access to the 24-28 AEFLA Demonstrated Effectiveness Request to Reconsider form has been updated. | |||||
87 | 3/15/24 | If we apply for more services but score lower than the required points for that many services, are we approved for less services or just denied eligibility? | Applicants must attain the total points required for the number of services applied for to proceed to the full application. If an applicant applies for more services than they have enough total points to support, they will not be eligible for the application. | |||||
88 | 3/15/24 | Am I able to see direct feedback from the narrative response in Question 6 so I am able to revise? | Direct feedback on additional narrative response revisions is provided in the comment available in the GAINS History Log. | |||||
89 | 3/14/24 | Since 2023-24 is not included in the Demonstrated Effectiveness tables, how can we use data from this fiscal year to demonstrate effectiveness? | The narrative section in Question 6 of the Demonstrated Effectiveness application provides an opportunity for applicants to include additional data and other information regarding the effectiveness of programming. | |||||
90 | 3/14/24 | How will Question 6 of the Demonstrated Effectiveness Application be scored? | A rubric for Question 6 can be found on pages 25-26 of the AEFLA RFA and Narrative Planning Document. | |||||
91 | 3/13/2024 14:06:54 | If you have enough points to move ahead, do you need to add anything in Q6 if one area did not perform well? | Question 6 of the demonstrated effectiveness application is optional. Applicants are not required to complete the question but may do so to increase the points awarded in their application (as relevant). | |||||
92 | 3/13/24 | I have a question about how CDE found the denominators and numerators for their data since it doesn't seem to match my expectations. We're doing some good work collecting more data, but I'm struggling to see how it compares with the Appendix H data. | The data from Appendix H may look slightly different than LACES data because it includes counts from data match with CDLE, CDHE and DiplomaSender at the end of each program year. | |||||
93 | 3/11/24 | We have been collecting surveys under the follow-up survey program and want to use the results for reporting for Demonstrated Effectiveness. Can we do that? | Applicants may not use survey data for reporting in Questions 1-5 of the Demonstrated Effectiveness application. However, applicants may use Question 6 of the Demonstrated Effectiveness application to provide additional narrative around data they may have collected about learners served. Survey responses from the pilot program may be included there. | |||||
94 | 3/10/24 | I’m not sure if it is an error or actual limit, can you confirm if the demonstrated effective narrative questions 6a 6b 6c, each have a character limit of 1000? | The character limits for the questions in this section have been lifted. | |||||
95 | 3/7/24 | Our organization is a current AEFLA grantee considering pursuing Sec. 243 IELCE funding for this RFA. Are we eligible to apply for IELCE funding if the three-year MSG rate is less than 50%? Our organization does not currently receive Sec. 243 IELCE funding. | Eligibility to apply for Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education (IELCE) funding through Sec. 243 is dependent upon meeting a three-year MSG rate of 50% or higher in IELCE Integrated Education and Training (IET). Current AEFLA grantees who do not meet the IELCE IET threshold cannot apply for IELCE funding in Year 1 of the Grant Cycle. However, should the applicant be granted other AEFLA funds, they can use alternate funding to provide IET programming and use the data from the Year 1 programming in the continuation application for Year 2 to meet demonstrated effectiveness requirements and apply to provide Sec. 243 IELCE services. | |||||
96 | 3/6/24 | I am wondering if you can possibly clarify for us if the services that may be potentially rewarded will be by "region" or across the entire agency? For example, would the end result be our agency being able to offer select services differing by region or would the entire agency offer same services? | Demonstrated effectiveness percentages for currently funded AEFLA grantees are based on prior year data from all Local Workforce Development Areas (LWDA) where the grantee delivered services. Demonstrated Effectiveness does not include an LWDA component in that the thresholds are not based on the LWDAs where the applicant will apply for services but rather the full breadth of prior year data, regardless of location (county/LWDA). Entities who pass the Demonstrated Effectiveness portion of the application will have an opportunity to describe which services they will apply for in each LWDA in which they are seeking funding through the competition. This will be done on the cover page of the application (see p. 20 of the RFA). Applicants will not be required to offer identical services in every LWDA in which they are seeking funding; however, applicants are strongly encouraged to consider the service needs of the local community, their Local Workforce Development Plan, and their local Workforce Centers when choosing which services to apply for in each LWDA where they are seeking funding through this competition. | |||||
97 | 3/6/24 | Our agency has demonstrated effectiveness in a service type at more than 120% of the three-year statewide average, which equates to 2 points on the demonstrated effectiveness application. Can we apply to provide this service in the demonstrated effectiveness application to earn points and then decide not to apply to provide it through the narrative application? | If an applicant needs the additional points to demonstrate effectiveness for the number of services they intend to apply for, this is technically allowable. However, the ideal situation is that an applicant would apply to provide the same services on each of the applications. | |||||
98 | 3/5/24 | I am a current AEFLA grantee. To determine the numerators in my Demonstrated Effectiveness application should I add Columns E and F from NRS Table 4 in LACES to get the total MSG (Measurable Skill Gain)? | Current AEFLA grantees should use the Demonstrated Effectiveness charts provided in Appendix H of the RFA. Numerators and denominators are clearly indicated in Appendix H. If data in Appendix H displays an “X, ” applicants can locate the suppressed numbers via the NRS Table 4 and 5 shared with them for the 20-21, 21-22, and 22-23, program years, which includes data match not reported in LACES. For this reason, there is no need to utilize LACES data. If a current AEFLA grantee did not maintain the Table 4 and 5 records, they may reach out to AEI. | |||||
99 | 2/29/2024 16:03:50 | On the demonstration of effectiveness, the FAQ advises us to put a 0 if we have an NA on Table 4 or Table 5 in any of the 3 fiscal years. How does that impact our 3 year average? For example, if we have 100% in one fiscal year and NA in the other two fiscal years, what would be our average? Would it be 100% or 33%? | In this particular example, the average is 33% over three years. Applicants who do not meet the 3-year average for any particular outcome may use question 6 to describe their program’s circumstances. | |||||
100 | 2/28/2024 10:06:08 | Does the demonstrated effectiveness in providing adult education have to be specific to Colorado? We are a national organization opening a new program in Colorado and wondering if we are eligible to apply. | Applicants who have not offered adult education and literacy services before in Colorado are eligible to submit a demonstrated effectiveness application using the data that is available to them. For applicants offering adult education and literacy services nationally, the data submitted in the demonstrated effectiveness application either should come from one other state in which the applicant provides services, ideally similar in scope to the services the applicant plans to offer in Colorado, or should be aggregate data from all states in which the applicant provides services. Like applicants not previously funded by the AEFLA grant here in Colorado, applicants using data from another state, or states, in their demonstrated effectiveness application must provide a detailed narrative response in questions 1-5 describing the source, time period, and context for the data submitted. |