The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutM-02-0570SOUTH FLORIM EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD REPORTS REQUIRED BY OMB CIRCULAR A -T33 FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE(S) Independent Accountants' Report On Compliance And On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Based On An Audit of Financial Statements Performed In Accordance With Government Auditing Standards ............... 1-2 Independent Accountants' Report On Compliance With Requirements Applicable To Each Major Program And Internal Control Over Compliance In Accordance With OMB Circular A-133 ................................. 3-5 Schedule Of Findings And Questioned Costs ............................. 6-25 Schedule Of Expenditures Of Federal Awards .............................. 26 Notes To The Schedule Of Expenditures Of Federal Awards .................. 27 Management Responses To Findings ............................. Addendum 02- 570 ATI ACHMENT NO. 8C SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD REPORTS REQUIRED BY THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIRCULAR A-133 FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 02- 570 ` SHARPTON, BRUNSON & COMPANY, PA. - Certified PUb1ic Accountants & Business Consultants One So Utheast Tliiid .\venue. SUIle 21Cx) One East 13roward BOU1CW.1rd. Suite I 1 10 Miami. FL 33131 Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301 Tefepl lone: t305) 374:574 f PC51n)11C': (JUJI "172-8 I O 1 Telephone: (954) 467-�4W i Facsimile. 1954i 467-6184 E -Mill: info@sbccpa.com Independent Accountants' Report On Compliance And On Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Based On An Audit Of Financial Statements Performed In Accordance With Government Auditing Standards To the Board of Directors South Florida Employment and Training Consortium D/B/A South Florida Workforce Board We have audited the general-purpose financial statements of South Florida Employment and Training Consortium (SFETC), D/B/A South Florida Workforce Board (SFWB), as of June 30, 2001, and have issued our report thereon dated March 20, 2002. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Compliance As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether SFETC's financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards, and which are described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs as items 01-1, 01-2, 01-3, and 98-4. We also noted an immaterial instance of noncompliance that is described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs as item 01-4. 02-- 570 Internal Control Over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit, we considered SFETC's internal control over financial reporting in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control over financial reporting. However, we noted certain matters involving the internal control over financial reporting and its operation that we consider to be reportable conditions. Reportable conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control over financial reporting that, in our judgment, could adversely affect the SFETC's ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the general'purpose financial statements. Reportable conditions are described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs as items 01-5, 01-6, 01-7, 01-8, 01-9, 01-10, and 01-11. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements in amounts that would be material in relation to the general purpose financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. Our consideration of the internal control over financial reporting would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control that might be reportable conditions and, accordingly, would not necessarily disclose all reportable conditions that are also considered to be material weaknesses. However, of the reportable conditions described above, we consider items 01-5, 01-6, 01-7, and 01-8 to be material weaknesses. This report is intended for the information of the management, the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, the Florida Department of Children and Families Services and the United States Department of Labor. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. March 20, 2002 N A- 02-� 5"70 �Z Slkvpton, Brunson & Company, P.A. SHARPTON, BRUNSON & COMPANY, PA. y Certified Public Accountants & Business C-onsultants 01le S011thedst Third Acent.(r'. Suile 310(_) One East Broward Boulevard. Shite t t to Miami. FL 33131 Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301 leiephone: (305) 374-1574 / Fa(-Sirflile. 005! 372-81451 Te le pl (Une: 1954) 467-5490 / Facsimile: 19541 467-6184 E -,Mail: info@sbccpaxom Independent Accountants' Report On Compliance With Requirements Applicable To Each Major Program And internal Control Over Compliance In Accordance With OMB Circular A-133 To the Board of Directors South Florida Employment and Training Consortium D/B/A South Florida Workforce Board Compliance We have audited the compliance of South Florida Employment and Training Consortium (SFETC), D/B/A South Florida Workforce Board (SFWB), with the types of compliance requirements described in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A- 133 Compliance Supplement that are applicable to each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2001. SFETC's major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor's results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. Compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to each of its major federal programs is the responsibility of SFETC's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on SFETC's compliance based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non- profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a testkasis, evidence about SFETC's compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of SFETC's compliance with those requirements. 3 0 X70 As described -in items 01-1, 01-2, 01-3 and 98-4 in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs, SFETC did not comply with requirements regarding program performance measures; retention of records; documentation of welfare transition program participants sanctioned, and equipment and property management that are applicable to its Workforce Investment Act, Temporary Assistance to Needy Familiesmork and Gain Economic Self-sufficiency, Welfare to Work and Refugee and EntrantProg rams. Compliance with such requirements is necessary in our opinion, for SFETC to comply with requirements applicable to such programs. In our opinion, except for the noncompliance matters described in the preceding paragraph, SFETC complied, in all material respects, with the requirements referred to above that are applicable to each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2001. The results of our auditing procedures also disclosed an instance of noncompliance with those requirements, which are required to be reported in accordance with OMB Circular A-133 and which described in the accompanying "Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs" as item 01-4. Internal Control Over Compliance The management of SFETC is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to federal programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered SFETC's internal control over compliance with requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on the internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133. We noted certain matters involving the internal control over compliance and its operation that we consider to be reportable conditions. Reportable conditions involve matters coming to our attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control over compliance that, in our judgment, could adversely affect SFETC's ability to administera majorfederal program in accordance with the applicable requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants. Reportable conditions are described in the accompanying "Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs," as items 01-1, 01-2, 01-3, 01-4, and 98-4. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does -riot reduce to a relatively low level the risk that noncompliance with the applicable requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants that would be material in relation to a major federal program being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. 4 70 Sharpron. Brunson & Compony. P.A. j 1 Our consideration of the internal control over compliance would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control that might be reportable conditions and accordingly, would not necessarily disclose all reportable conditions that are also considered to be material weaknesses. However, of the reportable conditions described above, we consider items 01-1, 01-2, 01-3, and 98-4 to be material weaknesses. Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards We have audited the general-purpose financial statements of SFETC as of and for the year ended June 30, 2001, and have issued our report thereon dated March 20, 2002. Our auditwas performed forthe purpose of forming an opinion on the general-purpose financial statements taken as a whole. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by OMB CircularA-133 and is not a required part of the general-purpose financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of -the general-purpose financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the general-purpose financial statements taken as a whole. This report is intended for the information of the management, the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, the Florida Department of Children and Families Services and the United States Department of Labor. However, this report is a matter of public record and its distribution is not limited. March 20, 2002 sharpron. Br u65 _Awl otl & Company. P.A. Aar -1 _ 0 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 A. Summary of Audit Results Financial Statements Type of auditors' report issued: Internal control over financiai reporting: • Material weakness(es) identified? • Reportable condition(s) identified that are not considered to be material weaknesses? Noncompliance material to financial statements noted? Federal Awards Internal control over major programs: • Material weakness(es) identified? • Reportable condition(s) identified that are not considered to be material weaknesses? Type of auditors' report issued on compliance for major programs: Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with Section 510(a) Circular A-133? Identification of major programs: CFDA Numbers 17.255 17.253 93.558 93.584 Dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs: Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee? D Unqualified X Yes No X Yes None reported X Yes No X Yes No X Yes None reported Qualified X Yes No Name of Federal Proarams Workforce Investment Act Welfare To Work Temporary Assistance to Needy Families/ Work and Gain Economic Self -Sufficiency program Refugee and Entrant Programs $2,733,000 (3% of total federal expenditures) Yes X No ®2 __ 70 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAIN114G CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED -COSTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 Section II- Federal Award Findings And Questioned Costs Current Year Findings Material Weakness 01-1 Non -Compliance With State Performance Agreement Condition Workforce Florida, Inc.(WFI) is the State agency that has statutory responsibility to charter Regional Workforce Boards and approve local delivery structure. During WFI's September 2001 Board of Director meeting, WFI identified performance issues on the June 30, 2001 Red and Green Report that needed to be addressed by SFETC. The performance issues per the Red and Green Report were as follows: (a) Welfare Entered Employment Rate; (b) Welfare Entered Employment Wage Rate; (c) WIA Adult Wage Rate; (d) WIA Dislocated Worker Wage Rate; (e) WIA Overall Employment Rate; (f) WIA Youth Positive Outcome Rate; (g) Wagner-Peyser Entered Employment Rate; (h) Wagner-Peyser Wage Rate; (i) Unemployment Compensation Benefit Duration -in weeks. Per review of the December 31, 2001 Red and Green Report (the most recent quarterly report) the following performance measures met the state requirements: (a) WIA Overall Employment Rate; (b) WIA Youth Positive Outcome Rate; (c) Wagner-Peyser Entered Employment Rate. Other issues identified by the WFI were as follow: (a) a lack of focus on performance contracting; (b) lack of timely collection of data; (c) lack of sanctions and rewards in the Region's contracts with Service Providers; (d) lack of system manageability; and (e) governance. Questioned costs None Effect This condition could result in WFI requiring corrective actions, withholding funding or termination of the SFETC Board's charter. Recommendation We recommend that SFETC management continue monitoring the strategies implemented to improve the performance measures of the SFETC. 7 02-- 570 SOUTH FL(jKIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 Section II- Federal Award Findings And Questioned Costs Current Year Findings Material Weakness 01-2 Retention Of Records Condition Pursuant to the Office of Management and Budget Circular (OMB) A-110, Subpart C, paragraph 53(b), financial records, supporting documents and all other records pertinent to a federal award shall be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the quarterly or annual financial report. During our audit we reviewed a sample of 150 cash disbursements. Supporting documentation for 7 disbursements could not be located. Alternatively, SB&Co. reviewed the cancelled check for the 7 disbursements missing supporting documentation to ascertained that business expenses were incurred. We also noted several instances in which storage logs could not be located. Secondly, OMB Compliance Requirements related to reporting requires SFETC to complete accurate reports summarizing cash receipts drawdown from the grantor agency and cash disbursements for the reporting period. Such reports should be supported by the accounting records. These reports are required to be submitted on a quarterly, monthly, orweekly basis depending on the requirements of the grantor agency. We reviewed a sample of 60 reports submitted to grantor agencies during fiscal year 2001 and noted 18 instances whereby the supporting documentation could not be located. Questioned costs None Effect This condition results in non-compliance with program rules and regulations. Recommendation We recommend that management review its storage and retrieval procedures with staff. Storage logs, vendor invoices, service provider reimbursement, cost justification packages and other accounting records should be filed in a readily accessible manner. 8 ()2- 570 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAIN ING'CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30, 2001 Section II- Federal Award Findings And Questioned Costs Current Year Findings Material Weakness 01-3 Documentation Not Located For Certain Welfare Transition Program Participants Condition Pursuant to State Statute and SFETC's program directive, when a participate is non- compliant with program requirements, within two working days, the Case Manager should generate a Notice of Failure and Possible Sanction Form (form 2290) and mail it to the participant. The Case Manager should attempt to contact the participant by phone at least twice within a two week period in order to re-engage him/her in a work activity. If the participant does not respond to form 2290 within ten days, the Case Manager requests the appropriate level of sanction and generates a Notice of Failure to Meet Work Activity Requirement Form (form 2292) and mail to the participant. These procedures should be documented and placed in the participant's case file. SB&Co. selected a sample of 25 sanctioned participant case files, 7 could not be located. Additionally, 4 of the 18 case files reviewed did not contain the required documentation. Questioned costs None Effect This condition results in non-compliance with program rules and regulations. Recommendation We recommend that management through its program directives, training and monitoring of service providers, continue to communicate the importance of properly documenting participants' case files. 9 0- 570 SOUTH FLu iIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30, 2001 Section II- Federal Award Findings And Questioned Costs Current Year Findings Reportable Condition 01-4 Interest Earned on Advances Should Be Reported To Grantor Agency Condition SFETC is required to report interest income earned on receipts advanced from the grantor agency. During fiscal year 2001, SFETC earned approximately $8,300 of interest income on advances received from grantor agency. This interest income was not reported to the grantor agency. Questioned costs None Effect This condition results in non-compliance with program rules and regulations. Recommendation Interest income earned on receipts advanced from the grantor agency should be reported to the grantor agency in accordance with program rules and regulations. 10 02— 570 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONEQCOSTS JUNE 30, 2001 Section II- Federal Award Findings And Questioned Costs Prior Year Findings Other Matter 00-1. Subrecipient Monitoring Condition Pursuant to OMB Circular A-133, Subpart D, Section 401(d), a pass-through entity shall perform the following for the federal awards it makes: A. Advise subrecipients of requirements imposed on them by federal laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements as well as any supplemental requirements imposed by the pass-through entity. B. Monitor the activities of subrecipients as necessary. C. Ensure that the subrecipients have met the audit requirements of OMB Circular A-133. D. Issue a management decision on audit findings within six months after receipt of the subrecipient's audit report and ensure that the subrecipient takes appropriate and timely corrective action. During the course of our audit we noted the following: Program requirements were not always documented in writing and submitted to service providers in a timely basis. There were a number of instances in which program requirements were discussed orally with service providers and not documented. 2. Monitoring performed of service providers indicated a lack of consistent documentation of WAGES customers participation in the program. Corrective action plans were not obtained in most instances from the service providers. 3. Audit reports were not located for eight of the twenty-five service providers selected as required by OMB Circular A-133. Questioned costs None Effect Federal agencies hold the pass-through entity ultimately responsible for compliance at the subrecipient level. Noncompliance with program requirements may result in questioned costs. Status During our audit, we noted that monitoring was performed for all service providers. However, we noted 4 instances whereby corrective action plans were not obtained from the service providers. 11 02- 570 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30, 2001 Section II- Federal Award Findings And Questioned Costs Prior Year Findings Other Matter 00-2 Allowable Cost - Service Providers Billings for Training Benchmarks Condition During our review of select billings paid to service providers for the training benchmarks (50% and 100% completion of training) we noted that the provider's contract required the provider to maintain attendance records for training provided to customers and documentation of post tests completed by the customer at the end of the customer's training program. We noted that for 6 of the 60 customers selected, the State WAGES System did not indicate any training activity. Additionally, for six separate customers selected, we noted the Coalition paid the service providers twice for training benchmarks over a two-year period. Questioned costs $15,876 Effect This condition results in questioned costs. Status The condition has been corrected with the recovery of the questioned costs from the service providers. 570 12 � SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM DIB/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD _ SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30, 2001 Section II- Federal Award Findings And Questioned Costs Prior Year Findings Other Matter 00-3 Allowable Cost - Duplicate Billings Condition During the fiscal year the Coalition established a new billing code (z) to allow intensive Service Providers (ISP) to bill for customers that re -enrolled in the WAGES program but were served by a different ISP previously. During the course of our audit we noted that $33,375 appears to have been paid to certain ISPs for duplicate benchmarks. Questioned costs $33,375 Effect Erroneous payments results in questioned costs. Status The condition has been corrected with the recovery of the questioned costs from the service providers. 13 02- 570 SOUTH FLOa,,0A EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30, 2001 Section Il- Federal Award Findings And Questioned Costs Prior Year Findings Other Matter 99-2 Obtain Certification Forms From Service Providers Condition We noted that during fiscal year 1999, the Coalition executed contracts with four providers for Economic Development Projects. The contracts required that for contracts in excess of $100,000 the provider must, prior to the agreement execution, complete a certification regarding lobbying; debarment, suspension and other matters and a certification regarding a drug-free workplace must be obtained. The aforementioned certificates were obtained for only one of the providers. Questioned costs None Effect Payments made to service providers may be disallowed; if it is subsequently determined that such providers were suspended or debarred from entering into government contracts. Status Forms were obtained for two of the three service providers. 02- 570 14 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAININ-` CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD — SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED -COSTS JUNE 30, 2001 Section ll- Federal Award Findings And Questioned Costs Prior Year Findings Material Weakness 98-4 Equipment And Property Management Condition Pursuant to OMB Circular A-110, Property Standards, equipment records shall be maintained accurately and include a description of the equipment, acquisition date, original cost and an identification number. All equipment should be tagged and the tag number should be included on the property inventory listing. Effect Non-compliance with OMB Circular A-110 property standards. Status While we noted that an inventory of fixed assets was performed during fiscal year 2001, the following exceptions were noted: 1. The physical inventory of fixed assets was not reconciled to the trial balance. 2. The data base used to track fixed assets did not provide control totals with respect to total fixed assets, total addition of fixed assets for fiscal year 2001, and total deletions of fixed assets for the fiscal year 2001. 3. During our physical observation of fixed assets from the floor compared to the physical inventory listing submitted to the grantor agency, we noted certain items which were omitted from the grantor agency list. 02-- 570 15 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30, 2001 Section III- Financial Statement Findings Current Year Findings Material Weakness 01-5 Re-engineer The Reimbursement Cost System Condition Pursuant to OMB Circular A-110 recipients of federal awards should maintain a financial management system that include accounting records that are supported by source documentation. For three of the Service Providers, City of Hialeah, City of Miami, and Miami -Dade County, we noted that while these Service Providers submit reimbursement packages with supporting documentation for participant cost (i.e. tuition and other support services costs) only a copy of the Service Providers' general ledger is required for Service Provider costs such as salaries and fringe benefits, office space, equipment rental and other costs. SFETC did not require additional supporting documentation from these Service Providers as they relied on the audited financial statements and reports on internal controls and compliance with rules and regulations. Other Service Providers submit volumes of supporting documentation to justify their cost reimbursements. Processing this activity requires approximately 20 accounting staff members, yet continues to result in untimely processing of payments to Service Providers and subsequent recognition into SFETC's accounting system. Questioned costs None Effect Payments made to Service Providers may be disallowed if it is subsequently determined that proper documentation is not maintained at the Service Providers site. Recommendation Sharpton, Brunson & Company suggest that SFETC investigate the benefits of re- engineering the process assessing Service Provider costs. Increased emphasis should be placed on internal control structures, automation,.monitoring activities, communication among SFETC staff, risk assessment of Service Providers, etc. Decreased attention should be placed upon clerical functions, gathering supporting documents from Service Providers and Reimbursement packaging procedures. Reduced costs and operating efficiency can be obtained by re-engineering the reimbursement system. 16 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD _ SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30, 2001 Section III - Financial Statement Findings Current Year Findings Material Weakness 01-6 Expenditures Paid In Excess Of Original Contract Award Condition SFETC engaged 96 service providers to deliver job related services during fiscal year 2001. SB&Co. noted that approximately 32 service providers incurred actual expenditures that exceeded their original budget contract amount. The amount of the original contract variances ranged from $1,000 to $2.7 million. There was no evidence provided to Sharpton, Brunson & Company, which indicated that proper approvals or contract amendments were obtained prior to exceeding the original contract budget. However, the aggregate funding to SFETC during the fiscal year 2001 remained within grantor funding limits. Effect This condition could result in unauthorized expenditures and question costs. Recommendation SB&Co. suggest that management review reports detailing actual expenditures versus budgeted expenditures on a monthly basis to ensure expenditures incurred are within prescribed budgets. Additionally, contract amendments should be approved prior to actual expenditures exceeding the contract amount. 17 02- 570 SOUTH FLvRIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD _ SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED_ COSTS JUNE 30, 2001 Section III - Financial Statement Findings Current Year Findings Material Weakness 01-7 Timely Reconciliation of Accounting Records Condition Sharpton, Brunson & Company noted that the accounting records were not reconciled timely during the fiscal year. The following observations were noted: 1. The trial balance was not maintained during the fiscal year. The trial balance prepared for the year end did not reconcile to subsidiary accounting records such as cash receipts and cash disbursements maintained in Quickbooks. 2. Cost allocations did not reconcile to the trial balance. 3. There were two instances whereby the cash balance was not properly reconciled and as such the trial balance cash was improperly stated. 4. The physical inventory of fixed assets was not reconciled to the trial balance. 5. The prior year audit adjustments were not posted to the trial balance. Effect This condition could result in misstated amounts presented to management that may impact the programs and operations of SFETC. Recommendation We suggest that management develop procedures whereby the trial balance is prepared on a monthly basis and that reconciliations to the detail accounting records also be performed. 18 02`- 570 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD _ SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30, 2001 Section III - Financial Statement Findings Current Year Findings Material Weakness 01-8 Cost Allocation Plan Should Be Updated Condition Pursuant to OMB Circular A-87, a grantee agency should develop a cost allocation plan that distributes common or joint costs benefitting several programs in a manner that will produce an equitable result in consideration of relative benefits derived. While it is noted that SFETC has developed a cost allocation plan, the plan has not been updated for several years. With the merger of SFETC and the Miami -Dade WAGES Coalition and the changes in personnel and systems the cost allocation plan should be updated. Additionally, at June 30, 2001 SFETC had not allocated approximately $1,500,000 in indirect costs. Also, indirect costs of approximately $262,000 paid by various SFETC programs at June 30, 2001 were not recorded as a reduction of indirect costs by the WIA Adult Program until July 5, 2001. Effect This condition could result in an inequitable distribution of costs among programs and noncompliance with OMB Circular A-87. Recommendation The cost allocation plan should be updated to reflect the current distribution of services provided to the programs. Also, indirect costs should be allocated and recorded in the accounting records on a monthly basis. 19 02- 570 SOUTH FLG,.IDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30, 2001 Section III - Financial Statement Findings Current Year Findings Reportable Condition 01-9 Service Providers' Justification Packages Not Processed In A Timely Manner Condition During fiscal year 2001, the fiscal department of SFETD had approximately 20 accounting personnel processing service provider's expenditure reimbursement and expenditure justification packages for approximately 122 contracts awarded to 80 service providers. There are 32 service providers in which cash advances are processed every week on a rotating basis (i.e. a service provider is paid a cash advance every two weeks) and a justification package is duefrom the service provider 5 days after receipt of the cash advance. For the remaining 48 service providers expenditure reimbursement packages are generally submitted bi-weekly and processed within 30 days. The accountants also prepare monthly financial reports of cash receipts and cash disbursements for their assigned service providers. Given the assigned tasks of the accountants and the tedious tasks of reviewing expenditure reimbursement packages and expenditure justification packages to determine if any items should be disallowed, resulted in expenditure justification packages being processed in a time range of 30 days to 18 months after the service provider's receipt of a cash advance. Effect Thistondition could result in the understatement of expenditures and revenue as well as questioned costs. Recommendation SB&Co. suggest that management implement controls whereby justification packages are processed and approved within thirty days of receipt of the cash advance. 20 02— 570 SOUTH FLaRIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD _ SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNF 30, 2001 Section III - Financial Statement Findings Current Year Findings Reportable Condition 01-10 Develop Policy And Procedures Manual For The Fiscal Department Condition SFETC does not have a fiscal policy and procedures manual. The development and dissemination of such a manual would enable all personnel to more fully understand their duties and may potentially reduce start-up time associated with turnover of personnel. Effect Personnel may not fully understand their duties. In addition, the loss of key personnel in the absence of this manual could result in significant delays in the daily handling of operational tasks. Recommendation SB&Co. recommend that SFETC develop a policy and procedures manual for the fiscal department. 21 02- 570 SOUTH FL%aRIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD _ SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30, 2001 Section III - Financial Statement Findings Current Year Findings Reportable Condition 01-11 The General Ledger System Should Be Automated Condition A comprehensive integrated general ledger accounting software package should be implemented. It would provide management with timely, complete and in-depth financial information. It would enable management to generate a complete set of financial statements, comparisons of budgeted expenditures to actual results, computer generated checks, and other reports required by management. Effect This feature is a useful tool as it provides accounting management with the ability to perform detailed account activity analysis at any time during the accounting period. Recommendation SB&Co. recommend that management obtain an accounting software definition and needs analysis. Based on the results of such an analysis, management should consider the acquisition of such software to enhance the efficiency and productivity of the fiscal department's daily operations. o2_ 570 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD _ SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED -COSTS JUNE 30,210"01 Section Ili - Financial Statement Findings Current Year Findings Other Matter 01-12 Cash Management Condition SB&Co. noted that SFETC maintains an unrestricted cash account with a balance in excess of $500,000 at times in a non-interest bearing account. This unrestricted cash balance is used as working capital at times until reimbursements are received from the grantor agencies. Effect Maintaining unrestricted cash balances in a non-interest bearing account may result in lost revenue opportunities that may be used for the programs of SFETC. Recommendation Management should develop a written investment policy that considers safe investment options that may be utilized by SFETC. Such investment options may include overnight sweep accounts, money market accounts other short term government securities. 02- 570 SOUTH FLOr iDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD _ SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED. COSTS JUNE 30, 2001 Section III - Financial Statement Findings Current Year Findings Other Matter 01-13 Develop An EDP Disaster Recovery Plan Condition SB&Co. noted that SFETC does not have an EDP disaster recovery plan that provides for off -premises storage sufficient to recreate master files, transaction files, system programs, and related documentation. Effect This condition could result in unusual delays in recreating EDP files in the event of a disaster. Recommendation SB&Co. recommend that management update its EDP disaster recovery plan to provide for off -premises storage, sufficient to recreate the current master files, transaction files, systems, programs and the related documentation and for the periodic testing for adequacy in the event of a disaster. 02- 5'70 0 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM DIB/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS JUNE 30, 2001 Section III - Financial Statement Findings Current Year Findings Other Matter 01-14 Employment Development Contract Advances Uncollected Condition The South Florida Employment and Training Consortium assumed an advance that was made by the former Miami-Dade/Monroe WAGES Coalition of $341,875 to the Dolphin Mall Limited Partnership under a contract to place 500 Welfare Transition participants at the retail outlet of this mall in Miami Dade County. This contract expired on December 31, 2001 and is to be closed out by August 31, 2002: It appears that the Dolphin Mall Limited Partnership will not earn enough credit under their contract with the SFETC to repay the advance. The SFETC has received assurance from Workforce Florida, Inc. that if they have used due diligence in monitoring the contract with the Dolphin Mall Limited Partnership, they will be held harmless against any liabilities in collecting the advance. Effect Failure to use due diligence in monitoring the Dolphin Mall contract could result in liability to SFETC. Recommendation SB&Co. recommend that management have a cost/risk/benefit analysis performed to determine an estimate of the cost of litigation compared to the likelihood of success of collection, including an assessment of the defendant's available assets. If it is determined that the cost exceeds the risk and benefits of litigation, managE. gent should report there due diligence performed to Workforce Florida Inc.(WFI), the grantor agency. 02- 570 nr SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM — DIB/A/ SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 Federal Grantor/Pass-Through Grantor Federal Program Title CFDA Number Expenditures U. S. Department of Labor Passed through Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation Workforce Investment Act Youth 17.255 $ 6,817,223 Adults 17.255 9,291, 529 Dislocated Workers 17.255 8,051,570 Wagner- Peyser 17.207 474,187 Welfare to Work 17.253 3.252.547 Total U. S. Department of Labor 27.887.056 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed through Florida Department of Children and Families Refugee and Entrant Programs 93.584 LK027 6,304,220 MJ044 4.036,590 10.340.810 Passed through Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation/Temporary Assistance to Needy Families/Work and Gain Economic Self-sufficiency Program 93.558 61.010.137 Passed through Miami -Dade County Office of Economic Development Community Development Block Grant 14.218 140.133 Passed through Miami -Dade Empowerment Trust Empowerment Zone — 14.244 911,174 Total U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 62.061.444 Total Expenditures of Federal Awards $ 100,289.310 U2- 5d SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM DIB/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARDS NOTES TO THE SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS FOR THEY YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 Note 1 - Basis of Presentation The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards includes the federal grant activity of South Florida Employment and Training Consortium (SFETC), D/B/A as South Florida Workforce Board (SFWB), and is presented using the modified accrual basis of accounting, which is described in Note 2 to SFETC's general purpose financial statements. The information on this schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, -Local Governments, and Won -Profit Organizations. Therefore, some amounts presented in this schedule may differ from amounts presented in, or used in the preparation of, the general purpose financial statements. Note 2 - Subrecipients Of the federal expenditures presented in the schedule, SFETC provided federal awards to subrecipients as follows: Federal CFDA Amount Provided Program Title Number to Subrecipients Workforce Investment Act Adults 17.255 $ 8,379,431 Youth 17.255 4,834,523 Dislocated Workers 17.255 6,981,838 Welfare to Work 17.253 2,954,860 Wagner-Peyser 17.207 474,187 Refugee and Entrant Programs 93.584 9,110,087 Temporary Assistance to Needy Families/Work and Gain Economic Self-sufficiency Program 93.558 57,411,156 Office of Economic Development Community Development Block Grant 14.218 127,326 Empowerment Zone 14.244 827.755 $91.101.163 02- 570 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD MANAGEMENT RESPONSES TO FINDINGS ADDENDUM • 0 F 570 I14 of y Recommendation: r - ti y We suggest that SFETC management staff coordinate a meeting of contract managers and accountants to make certain that staff understand the importance of communication between the departments and that they are aware of the type of information that should be communicated in order to ensure the success of the contractor and the organization as a whole. i 2. The accounting department's process for payment to providers with cost - reimbursement contracts is unnecessarily burdensome and labor-intensive due to the cash advance system. Accountant's Worksheets are prepared to j track the initial advancement of funds until justification for the amount billed is received. Then, the 'accountant has to review the justification, j record the justified amount on the Accountant's Worksheet, and make an i adjustment to the next advance request for the difference between the amount advanced to -date and the amount justified to -date. Additionally, for FMTS reporting purposes, service providers are required to submit an estimate of expenditures incurred through the end of each month for inclusion in FMTS as a payable. I Recommendation: ' We suggest that cash advances be limited to a one -tithe advance at the beginning of the contract period for small service providers to cover initial J costs, which will be recovered over a specified period. All other payments d made to service providers will be made after justification is received and reviewed by the appropriate SFETC staff. As a result, the review process a J will be simplified and estimates of expenditures will not have to be submitted 3 by service providers on a monthly basis. 3---Currently,—advances-and--reimbursement 1ustification-are submitted directly — to the accountant -in -charge and are not reviewed by the contract manager. The accountant reviews the items submitted, compares line -item expenditures to -date to the contract budget, and updates the Accountant's Worksheet; however, neither the reimbursement justification nor the Accountant's Worksheet tracks the amount remaining in the contract by Iine-item. Furthermore, the contract manager does not obtain or review information regarding the amount of reimbursement justification received to -date, nor the amount of funds remaining in the contract by line -item. As a result, for one contract reviewed, the contract manager was not aware that two line - items of the contract had been exceeded. . 02-- 5'70 10 �I Recommendation: We suggest that the contract manager be included in the review process. The contract manager should perform a review of the reimbursement justification to ensure compliance with the contract requirements and to review any performance -related items. The justification will then be forwarded to the aecountant for a thorough financial review. We also suggest that the contractor be required to track the amount remaining by 1 line -item on the payment requests submitted and that SFETC staff develop = their own system for tracking the amount remaining in the contract by line - item that reflects any adjustments and the amounts actually paid. This information should be provided to the contract manager so that he/she is aware of how the contractor is performing in relation to the budget and that I he/she can communicate any related concerns to the contractor. Citv of Hialeah Findings: 1. Currently, City of Hialeah, as well as all other contracted governmental agencies, is not required to submit documentation to support payment requests. SFETC relies on its monitors to ensure the amounts billed agree with actual expenditures; however, no documentation is fetained to support the validity of payment requests submitted. Recommendation: We suggest that all governmental agencies be required to submit their general ledgers as support for the amounts billed. The SFETC accountants should ensure that general ledgers agree to the agencies' current month and year-to-date billings, and the monitor should be responsible for documenting that amounts included on the general ledgers are properly supported, allowable, reasonable, and necessary. 2. Expenditures are significantly under contract budget amounts due to untimely submission of payment requests. As a result, SFETC does not have the appropriate information to determine whether funds should be deobligated. The following table contains expenditure data for the contract period April 1, 2001, through March 31, 2002, as of our last day of fieldwork, January 11, 2002: 02-- 570 11 Program Contract Bud et Billings to -date Contract Balance S.Y.E.P S252,150.00 S20,633.73 $231,516.27 Youth Opportunity S 480,000.00 S 6,229.22 S 473,770.78 02-- 570 11 f Z — Recommendation: A policy has been implemented to impose a penalty for late submission of payment requests. We suggest that SFETC strictly enforce the penalty, continuously communicate with contractors regarding timely submission of payment requests, and emphasize the importance of accurate and timely 7 billings for use in planning at the Administrative Entity and Board level. Sullivan & Cogliano Training Centers, Inc. Findings: The accountant responsible for reviewing the payment requests and related allocations of costs did not have access to the cost allocation plan submitted by the service provider. The allocation plan was submitted to and retained by the contract manager. _ As_a result, the accountant was reviewing the payment request without verifying the allocation percentages. 7 2. The allocation percentages used in compiling the payment request agreed with the allocation plan submitted by the service provider; however, 1 documentation was not provided to substantiate the allocation percentages 7 and methodology used. Additionally, the contract manager did not know the cpethod used to calculate the percentages detailed in the allcication plan. 7 Recommendation: 7 We suggest that documentation substantiating allocation methodologies and calculations be obtained by SFETC prior to approving Allocation Plans. Contract managers should work with the appropriate SFETC accountant to review and approve Allocation Plans to ensure compliance with OMB —"--"- - - --- - Circular A-122 regarding proper allocation of costs.-" The Administrative Plan states that "all allocation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the contract manager and the SFETC accountant assigned to the service provider prior to expending of funds relative to those services." A system needs to be implemented that ensures proper communication between the contract manager and the accountant, and that provides the accountant with the most recent allocation plan for use when reviewing payment requests. For Sullivan & Cogliano, we suggest the appropriate documentation be requested from the service provider and reviewed by the appropriate SFETC staff. 02— 570 12 I �. We suggest that all training costs incurred by this and other similar contractors be reallocated based on the composition of customers who received training during the period. We also suggest that future monthly payment requests be allocated based on the customers who received training/benefits during the month. 02- 13 3. — The budgeted amounts have been exceeded for the line -items Membership and Training Supplies; however, the contractor received full payment and no costs were disallowed. The contract states, "the Service Provider may not incur any costs when reimbursement for such costs is subject to approval through a contract modification; until such time when written approval is provided by the SFETC. If such costs are incurred while approval of a x budget modification is pending, the costs shall be the responsibility of the Service Provider." The accountant was aware of the overspent line -items, x notified the service provider, and was waiting on the quarterly budget modification to substantiate previous payment of the items, even though the ' contract states that the costs should have been disallowed. The contract manager was neither aware nor notified of the overspent line -items and, when informed by us, stated the costs should have been disallowed. Recommendation: We suggest these overspent items be disallowed and future costs that either exceed the budget or are not allowed by the contract language be disallowed prior to reimbursement. Additionally, there needs to be communication between the accountant and the contract manager when a service provider submits a request for reimbursement for items that do not comply with the contract. 4. The contractor provides training to specific customers, of which some are carryover trainees from the prior year and others are new enrollees. The cost -reimbursement payment request was not allocated based on the number of trainees eligible as WIA Adult/Dislocated Worker, WTP and WtW customers; rather it was based on the Administrative Entity's regular allocation percentages. When compared to a January estimate of enrollees, the allocation used was not a fair representation of the customers who -- - —received the benefits: — Recommendation: �. We suggest that all training costs incurred by this and other similar contractors be reallocated based on the composition of customers who received training during the period. We also suggest that future monthly payment requests be allocated based on the customers who received training/benefits during the month. 02- 13 i ACS State & Local Solutions Findings: 1. For the period July 1, 2001, through January 11, 2002, reimbursements to ACS for customer -related costs based on the SFETC Accountant's 1 Worksheet were as follows: a. 3 3 Description Budget Expended Budget Budget % Amount To -Date Remaining Remainin ITA's $742,734.00 $567,817.48 $174,916.52 23.5% WIA Support $240,764.00 $197,600.73 $43,163.27 17.9% Services Welfare Transition $1,052,294.00 $686,061.08$366,232.92 34.8% Support Services As detailed in the table, less than 50% of the training and support services --" - - --- funds budgeted are available for the remaining six months of the contract. a Recommendation: We suggest that these line -items be monitored closely by SFETC staff to insure budgeted amounts are not exceeded. Additionally, we suggest that SFETC work with ACS, as well as other providers whose contracts include training and support service funds, to ensure that funds are prioritized to those customers who are most in need of these services. 2. The contract contains a breakdown of budgeted costs between One -Stop functions and One -Stop locations; however, expenditures to -date are not being tracked against this budget by SFETC or the contractor. Currently, --ACS provides- detailed justification -for personnel costs, but justification for --- ---- operating costs is only broken down by location. Since it appears that SFETC staff do not use this information, requiring the contractor to report all costs at this level of detail is an inefficient use of both the contractor and SFETC staffs time. Recommendation: We suggest that ACS only be required to submit documentation by line -item, as authorized in the contract budget, and that the contract be modified to include language indicating that the contractor is not required to report cost information by One -Stop function and location. 02- 5'70 14 rt fts 3 3. — The SFETC accountant responsible for reviewing justification submitted by ACS is behind in reviewing justification documentation. These expenditures are entered on the Accountant's Worksheet without verifying that all costs are allowable, and the amounts are not entered into the disallowed columns until the accountant is sure that the costs cannot be properly justified. As a result, the Accountant's Worksheet does not contain accurate data regarding 7 expenditures for the contractor. Recommendation: Since the Accountants' Worksheet is the tool for recording and reporting actual expenditures for the contractor and is essential in the current accounting system, we suggest that assistance be provided to the accountant when necessary to ensure that all information is accurate and up to -date. Additionally, SFE TC staff should work with the accountant and the 7 - contractor to come up with ways -to streamline the billing process. 4. For the justification packages reviewed, documentation was not provided or included with the contract to support several of the items billed. A summary of these findings can be found in the matrix provided as Attachment B. 3 Youth Co -On, Inc. Finding: 1. For staff whose time is allocated in part to this contract, the payroll register is coded to show the exact amount of wages attributable to this program; however, the contractor did not submit a salary allocation pian to support the percentages used, and timesheets were not provided to support the hours _ billed: Recommendation: We suggest that the contractor provide either a s212ry allocation plan detailing the percentages and the methodologies used for allocations of staff time or timesheets supporting the hours billed for these employees. J J a 02-_ 570 15 v-� lm`.Programmatic One-StoA System Structure We reviewed the WIA Five Year Plan (revised 9/28/01). We obtained a listing of service provider contracts detailing funding and type of contract. We met with operations (contract management), finance and monitoring/quality assurance staff to determine: How the departments are organized. Staff functions and responsibilities. Any recommendations.- - Findings: n- 570 16 1. For Program Year 2001, South Florida Workforce has 122 contracts with 72 service providers, and oversees 28 One -Stop Centers that are managed by 18 i One -Stop Operators. Approximately 150 WDB and $FETC staff are 6irrently on -board to support the One -Stop system, manage contracts and handle administrative and oversight functions. This complex structure is 3 difficult to manage and results in higher administrative and overhead costs, creates duplication of efforts, and hinders coordination and communication, 3 which has led to poor operating results. 3 Below are observations in three functional areas that we reviewed, as well as __. _..._-. —,_-.._—_observations on the One-Stop__Center structure. foil owed _ by our recommendations. 3 Operations/Contract Management 3 Eight contract managers are assigned to support the contracts. There appears to be no rationale to the assignment of contracts—three or more contract managers may be assigned to a single service provider. One contract manager had a total of 30 different contracts assigned. However, it is not entirely clear how -much "management" the contract managers are responsible for. The contracts are presently "boiler -plate" with many standardized performance requirements and budget line items. The contract managers are not currently monitoring performance or expenditures. There is very little coordination between contract management, finance and monitoring/quality assurance staff. According to the contract managers, an n- 570 16 1 — inordinate amount of time is spent on clerical functions, such as faxing memos to each of their assigne(I service providers. Finance Currently, SFETC has 20 accounting staff to fulfill the burdensome j requirements of the accounting process. Contractors are on the payment advance system, which requires the accountants to track and record advances and subsequent justification received. Additionally, since the ` accounting system is not automated, accountants or other staff are responsible for antiquated accounting procedures such as manually typing t checks and tracking costs on Excel spreadsheets. A service provider may have several different accountants assigned to individual contracts. Also, as noted above, there is little coordination with the contract managers assigned to the contracts. I . T Monitoring/Ouality Assurance SFETC's monitoring division (IMO) consists of six staff who are assigned various service providers to monitor. In addition, the Welfare Transition Quality Assurance department has six staff assigned to monitoring Welfare Transition contracts. The MIS and One -Stop System Support departments 1 also perform monitoring functions. It appears that dere is very little i coordination among the various departments performing monitoring functions. One -Stop Svstem As noted above, WDB has established 28 One -Stop Centers, operated by 18 different service providers. In addition to the high overhead cost of --operating so -many centers; it is difficult to maintain quality and ronsistenc-y with such a large number of operators. Currently, leases at One -Stops are retained by service providers. Many other Boards have elected to hold the leases for each One -Stop location to maintain control over the conditions of the One -Stop. Recommendations: _ We suggest that a simpler organizational structure, with clear lines of authority and responsibility, be developed and implemented as soon as possible. An overall assessment should be performed to determine whether staffing levels are appropriate (and not excessive) for the level of activity and whether individuals are appropriately assigned to duties based on their skills. In addition, we suggest that a simpler operating and contracting framework be established to reduce costs and streamline services. 02-- 5'70 17 More specifically, we suggest the following: a. Reduce the number of contracts and service providers. b. Reduce the number of One -Stop centers and operators. C. Reduce or eliminate direct training contracts. d. Develop a performance-based contracting system. e. Restructure the current contract management, finance and monitoring/quality assurance departments. f. Review the remaining functional areas and restructure as appropriate. g. Transfer One -Stop center ]cases and associated facilities costs (telecommunications and MIS/IT, etc.) to the Board. Additionally, implementation of an automated accounting system and limiting advances to a one-time payment at the beginning of the contract period would dramatically enhance the efficiency of operations in the accounting department, as well as reduce the amount of staff time needed. - --- Contract Review 1. We selected a sample of service provider contracts and performed the following: a. Reviewed the contract document including the scope of work and 'performance goals and outcomes. b. Reviewed current service provider performance. C. Determined whether there is a system in place to monitor progress toward negotiated performance goals. ---Findings:-- 1. --Findings:- 1. For PY 2001, SFFTC issued contracts totaling $6,570,932 to 19 direct training providers. The Workforce Investment Act specifies that training outside of the Individual Training Account (ITA) structure be provided by limited exception to community-based organizations with "demonstrated performance" in the delivery of services to hard to serve participant populations facing multiple barriers to employment. Each of these contracts were originally procured in PY 2000. The "demonstrated performance" evidence submitted as part of the original funding justification was limited, at best. When PY 2001 funding decisions were made on May 30, 2001, performance was not taken into account. Funding was awarded based simply on the annualized 12 -month equivalent of the PY 2000 9 -month contract. is 02— 570 3 3 1 _ Recommendation: We suggest that, in the future, training be provided primarily under the ITA structure. Direct training contracts should be provided only by very limited exception to only those providers operating programs of demonstrated (and clearly documented) effectiveness serving special participant populations facing multiple barriers to employment. 2. The direct training contracts we reviewed did not contain statements of work detailing the contractors' service delivery requirements. For example, in the Sullivan and Cogliano contract, the only requirement is that the contractor provide 367 "slots" in a variety of training programs. However, there is no definition of what a "slot" is, nor is it specified as to how many actual participants are to be served in each training program, nor is there any other description of services to be provided. Additionally, the performance measures section of the contracts is generic and lists performance measures (such as UC Benefit Duration) that are not related to contracted training - - provider services. We suggest that future contracts be structured as either_JIxed-unit price or cost -reimbursement with a significant performance holdback. Direct training contracts should be structured for payment on a per -participant basis, using a published or discounted tuition rate. In addition, performance hold -back or incentive payment guidelines should be specified in the contract. 02 570 19 Recommendation: We suggest that statement of work and performance measures sections of future contracts be customized to each provider. The statement of work sOhould clearly specify the contract deliverables, and the performance measures should relate to services provided by the contractor. 3. PY'00 and PY'01 consolidated WIA/Welfare Transition contracts (including the direct training contracts) are structured to pay providers on a cost reimbursement basis for 90% of their expenditures, with I0% to be withheld and allocated based on performance and another 10% to be paid for -- - - -- -- ---exceptional--performance--as--an--incentive.—The-90°x-cost-reimbursement----- portion has no tie to the number of participants served. Under this type of payment structure, the WDB is at risk of paying a relatively high cost per participant, with no guarantee of performance. Iu addition, the PY101 contracts did not contain any guidelines as to how the withheld amount or the additional incentives were to be earned. Recommendation: We suggest that future contracts be structured as either_JIxed-unit price or cost -reimbursement with a significant performance holdback. Direct training contracts should be structured for payment on a per -participant basis, using a published or discounted tuition rate. In addition, performance hold -back or incentive payment guidelines should be specified in the contract. 02 570 19 fl 4. — According to Article XV of the contract boilerplate, the Executive Director of the SFETC has the authority to approve and disapprove contract amendments. We found that on July 20, 2000, the Executive Director executed an amendment to the City of Hialeah to waive the performance benchmarks requirement for additional funding. As a result, the contract was increased by $72,315 to the maximum allocation. a Recommendation: In the future, we suggest that contract amendments that increase or decrease funding levels require approval by the ",DB. 5. In reviewing the procurement for the PY'00 and PY'01 consolidated WIA/Welfare Transition contracts, we noted that the reference checks for TTI America, Inc. were incomplete and non -positive. Staff noted that contact_ with several referenced programs was futile and that there were :3 inconsistencies with names and phone numbers provided. fine reference that was contacted did not wish to comment about the quality of the provider's administration, efficiency and effectiveness, and it was noted that the total budget of the program was inconsistent with the stated amount. Despite these issues with references, the provider was funded. Fecommendation: We suggest that, in the future, that specific justification be provided for funding for providers with non -positive or incomplete references, and that this justification be included in the procurement file. 6. As noted above, funding was awarded to the direct training providers without taking performance results into account. According to the --background information provided to- the Board with the -November 28, 2001, deobligation request, staff reported that the six-month period of performance under the previous contract "was not sufficient time to enroll participants, complete their training and place them in sufficient numbers to produce usable data" for funding decisions. Staff completed a performance analysis :3 approximately 11 months after the contracts began, found nine providers to be deficient, and recommended deobligation of the contracts. Recommendation: We concur with staffs recommendation to deobligate the non-performing contracts, and suggest that the Board reconsider the deebligation request at its next meeting. In the meantime,. we suggest that staff request an immediate Corrective Action Plan from each non-performing provider, detailing how the provider intends to meet the enrollment requirements of its contract and provide the required sen?ices. 02" 570 20 _ We also suggest that, in the future, staff review all service provider performance on a monthly basis. Although training completion and placement figures will not be available during the early months of the contract period, staff should be monitoring enrollments on a monthly basis to determine whether the providers are, at a minimum, meeting enrollment expectations. For the One -Stop operators, staff should be monitoring enrollments into WIA services, as well as the "red/green" outcome measures. If performance is reviewed on a monthly basis, corrective action plans can be requested from non-performing providers, and action to deobligate funding can be undertaken in a timelier manner. 7. The Performance Reports compiled to report Direct Training Performance Information (Attachments B and. C of November 28 agenda item 5.5) are confusing and unclear. The period of performance and the source of the data are not specified on either report. Without effective performance reporting, WDB is not able to adequately evaluate provider performance and may be funding providers without justification. Recommendation: =3 02-- 570 21 We suggest that the direct training provider performance report format be modified to include provider outcomes on all contractual performance measures and to clearly indicate whether contractual performance goals are I or missed. Monitorini,/Quality Assurance 1. We reviewed the SFETC's monitoring/quality assurance process by performing the following: --------------- _-Through inquiry of staff, we obtained an understanding of the current fiscal and programmatic monitoring/quality assurance process. b. We determined if regular monitoring visits of sub -recipients and contractors is conducted. C. We reviewed a sample of monitoring tools utilized. d. We reviewed a sample of monitoring flies and workpapers. e. We reviewed a sample of reports issued and corrective action plans received. f. We obtained and reviewed a copy of the most recent State Compliance Review. =3 02-- 570 21 F g. We reviewed a copy of the most recent audit report for findings and/or compliance issues. The following summarizes the concerns raised during our review: Area Concerns Fiscal review No evidence of fiscal review of payment requests Performance review Performance measures are not monitored Organizational Current organizational structure is complex structurelstaffing Lack of coordination among various departments performing monitoring activities Lack of accounting experience among staff performing fiscal monitoring Monitoring tools - • Cumbersome tools being utilized • Duplicative questions on tools Inade nate WT tools being utilized Workforce Development Lack of oversight of the Administrative Entity's programmatic Board Oversight and fiscal activities Audit and State Compliance No findings in reports Review Fiscal Review Findinog: 1. The monitoring files reviewed did not contain any evidence that a fiscal review (i.e. - payroll tied to payroll registers/timesheets, expenses supported by invoices, cancelled check or general ledger) of the service providers' payment requests had been performed. Recommendation.-- --- - --�— We suggest the monitoring files include workpapers supporting that a fiscal review was conducted of a sample of the service providers invoices. A copy of the invoice reviewed along with workpapers documenting specific supporting documentation reviewed should be included in the file. We suggest technical assistance be sought in this area. 22 02- 570 V ti Performance Review Finding: 1. Currently, the service providers' performance measures outlined in their contracts are not being monitored by IMO. Although, the monitoring instrument used contains questions relating to performance measures, the monitors do not complete this section. The monitoring files reviewed did not contain any evidence that performance had been reviewed. Per the IMO 3 chief, their department is not responsible for monitoring performance. Recommendation: We suggest that IMO review performance as part of the programmatic monitoring process. Each contractual performance goal should be reviewed by comparing _ actual- versus.- planned data.-, Documentation of this review _ should be included as a workpaper in the monitoring file. An integral part of this review should be communication between IMO and the contract manager. We suggest technical assistance be sought in the area of performance monitoring. Organizational Structure/Staffing R Findings: 1. The organizational structure related to monitoring/quality assurance seems complex. Each unit appears to be autonomous, thus possibly resulting in higher administrative costs (staffing and overhead costs), duplication of efforts, and lack of coordination and communication. SFETC's monitoring division (IMO) consists of six staff charged with monitoring various service _ providers/contractor-s. - However, -IMO, is -not,-the only department that performs monitoring; Welfare Transition, MIS and One -Stop staff also perform some monitoring functions. The Welfare Transition Quality Assurance department has six staff. 2. Currently, it appears that there is a lack of coordination among the various departments performing monitoring functions. The monitoring files reviewed did not contain evidence that reports/findings of other units were reviewed. 0`2 570 23 a — Upon review of the monitoring files for the WT and IMO units, we found that duplication of efforts regarding the review of VVT case files exists. Both the WT and IMO staff monitored WT case files during the same time period — utilizing different monitoring instruments that have some duplicity. Both : units monitored supportive services. Neither unit is utilizing the State's current Programmatic Review — Welfare Transition Tool, and thus not all items reviewed by the State are being monitored. 3 3. Staff with no accounting experience is responsible for performing fiscal : monitoring. One file reviewed contained a bank reconciliation as a workpaper that showed a negative cash balance. Additionally, a copy of the 3 bank statement was in the file that listed an overdraft charge. Nothing was documented in the file regarding the -negative cash balance or reason for 3 overdraft charges. ? - - - --- -- --- - 4. -The current service provider _tool_ utilized- is._very_lengthy and contains questions that would be difficult for personnel without an accounting background to answer. For example, the internal control fiscal review section requires a listing of staff by function and an assessment of whether the division of duties is adequate to safeguard assets. Recommendation: We suggest that consideration be given to restructure the current monitoring/quality assurance responsibilities into one department, thus providing uniformity and consistency. An overall assessment should be done to determine that staffing levels are appropriate (and not excessive) for the level of activity, and that individuals are appropriately assigned to duties based on their skills and are properly trained. Additionally, we suggest assistance be. obtained to streamline the monitoring process and instruments utilized, and that those responsible for fiscal monitoring be adequately trained. _Workforce Development Board Oversight Finding: 1. Currently, monitoring and continuous improvement reviews by the WDB of _ - the Administrative Entity's programmatic and fiscal activities are not being conducted. Additionally, monitoring of the Board's fiscal and procurement activities is not being conducted. 02-- 570 24 �_A _ Recommendation: We suggest the WDB develop internal monitoring and continuous improvement processes or contract with an independent agency for these :1 services. :3 Audit and State Compliance Review 3 Findings: 1. The audit report issued for the period ended June 30, 2000, was unqualified for both the financial statements and compliance for major programs. No material weaknesses- or reportable conditions in internal controls were identified. 2. The State's Compliance Review for the period July 1, 2000, through April 19, 2001, listed no concerns for the fiscal, procurement and programmatic areas reviewed. Additionally, under Discussion Issues the report erroneously stated: "Fiscal management review provided excellent examples of processes and procedures that can be shared with other regions to document and track funding stream." Recommendation: Because the State's oversight regarding such matters is ineffective, we strongly suggest that emphasis at the Board level be placed on accurate internal monitoring, continuous improvement and auditing services by qualified individuals/organizations. One -Stop Center Review 1. We conducted a site visit of the Hialeah Downtown One -Stop Center. Through observation and inquiry of service delivery personnel and customers, we observed the extent to which the center efficiently and effectively provided core services, access to intensive and training services, facilities and equipment for customers and staff, staff integration and training. While we did not conduct an in-depth review of the center due to time constraints, we did make the following observations. Findings: 1. The facility is neither easily visible nor accessible. The Center is located on �. the second floor of an older building. Core services and the resource room are located in one section of the building, while intensive services (case management) are located in a different section of the building with a separate entrance. Since there were two separate entrances, two receptionists were needed. Signage was not adequate. E1 3 3 2. — The staff seemed competent and provided good customer service to those customers entering the resource area. 3. Staff reported that they were often unclear as to whom to contact at SFETC for technical assistance. Staff also reported that standardized operating policies and procedures were needed. Recommendations: The Hialeah Center we visited is one of 28 One -Stop centers Iocated throughout the region. We suggest that the WDB determine the number, size and location of One -Stop centers needed region -wide and adopt a set of standards for One -Stop center facilities and service levels. We then suggest that the WDB conduct an independent evaluation of all current One -Stop centers. Finally, we suggest that One -Stop operating policies and procedures -- -- - - - - - be reviewed and updated as appropriate. Welfare Transition Program Review 1. We met with contractor's staff in the WT Quality Assurance (QA) and Independent Monitoring (IMO) units and discussed and/or reviewed the following: a. .WT processes. b. A sample of WT monitoring files and Corrective Action Plans (CAP's). C. OSST System on-line reports. d. Welfare Transition — Welfare to Work on-line Policies and Procedures Manual. -_- _-----_--_-- The following matrix summarizes our findings and recommendations: 02- 570 26 W W U_ 61 1A Id k1 id ki ij ti:l U Iii ]w Iii U, W U U. ii lu lu M W lu lu I "�'� h ✓-. , i: -.7 '.�' A -. ,'7. ' .i 'i:3 . Wf R i jzr !- y. h:�i t ^ v. - a: F _.! 7f .t .rya v. -1 ,c':; a. ..w i 1 rocesses !v t; F , ..... .. . 1.,.0 : Findings Recommendations 1. Due to incorrect TANF case closures by DCAF that negatively We suggest that the contractor and SFETC staff meet with impact the region's performance, a process was implemented DCAF administrators to communicate the importlnce' of whereby QA staff monitors all case closures. QA staff correct TANF closures. In addition, we suggest that case indicated that DCAF administrators and the contractor would closures continue to be tracked and all errors be meet in the near future to discuss these issues. communicated'to DCAF staff. 2. Contractor staff indicated they do not have access to OSST We suggest that appropriate staff acquire access and receive "Warehouse Data" and have not received training on training for obtaining relevant information in "Warehouse obtaining this Information. Data" to provide better direction for WT programmatic I ssues. 3. Contractor staff indicated information is reported from DCAF We suggest the contractor contact the appropriate DCAF staff by the region, rat4er than by unit. Staff indicated reports by to request reports by WT unit. WT unit would be more beneficial. 4. Per QA staff, case flies have not been reviewed since 5/01. Therefore, issues affecting performance are not being identified in a timely manner. -12 We suggest that WT case files be monitored utilizing the State's monitoring tool on a regular basis. We also suggest that a tool be ,developed and utilized to review regional policy and procedures, as well as additional issues that impact performance ;(i.e. number of days to confirm "To -Do's, appointments scheduled in a timely manner, timely penalty procedures, etc.). Additionally, we suggest that a process for self-monitoring case records and on-line reports be developed and implemented in each WT unit, utilizing consistent monitoring tools. We also suggest that WT supervisors at each One -Stop center review the completed self-monitoring tools and report results to a centralized unit so issues may be addressed. I • i ! 27 CJt ';� ; 28 a. ,'. ' WT Processescont:��a t H� �.,,,.:� .* ,>.�� {,P.t ,,. Y,JE�i V.. -,.,•,7 `? �1 ;. r� �� ,�, Z , ,r, rr � � ,t ; •F >>. .r. ;::;. r, ,Dc �v. ti a., � �# p3, 'xY<.; d ' J ;F a �. r)s ..._ .a..Y:,,: <,t,. ! - t -'S ,,� 1 x r , Findings Recommendations 5. QA staff indicated the most recent WT policy training received We suggest that all programmatic WT staff regularly receive was in 2000. training to ensure that current policy and procedures are i being followed. 6. There appears to be a process problem, related to seeking We feel it is imperative that correct and consistent guidance on policy questions. Ombudsmen indicated that they information be provided to all staff. Therefore, we suggest frequently addressed WT policy questions' posed by WT field that specific personnel be designated as "policy staff' and staff. Additionally, they indicated that questions they could they address all inquiries relating to policy. We also suggest not answer were forwarded to contract managers. QA staff that designated staff receive regular training on current indicted they referred policy questions to ' either the regional policies, procedures and OSST documentation and utilization. trainer or the supervisor of the QA unit. 'Staff at one Center All policy information should be made available to staff indicated QA staff frequently provided' conflicting policy online. Information. b. Sample of WT Monitoring files and CAP's 77. Findings Recommendations 1. Contractors did not submit CAP's in a timely manner. In We suggest that contractors be required to submit CAP's in a addition,there was no evidence that all CRP's were reviewed timely manner. We also suggest that a procedure for and/or accepted. reviewing all CAP's and documenting the outcomes be 1 established. ' 2. One monitoring report cited incorrect sanction procedures We suggest that all programmatic WT staff regularly receiv when, in fact, the sanction was processed correctly. training to ensure that current policy and procedures are being followed. ';� ; 28 t�f C. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Line Findings i Fifteen percent (1300) of the open WT cases (excluding transitional cases) were listed on the "No Recorded Activity Report." Of a sample of cases, we found a. Activities not assigned. b. Deferrals not documented. c. Incorrect activity documented in OSS system. d. To -Do's not confirmed in a timely manner. e. Incorrect case closures. I f. Delay in acknowledging/processing transferred cases. g. Cases transferred continually between units. h. Cases transferred incorrectly. i. Incorrect/untimely penalty procedures) j. No contact with customers. I, Frequently, there was an inequitable distribution of cases among case managers within several WT units. Many cases remained open as "transitional cases" without transitional services being provided for •extended periods of t(me; this created a distortion of caseload sizes. I Sixteen percent (1408) of the open WT cases, excluding transitional cases, were listed as being deferred. Occasionally, documentation in the OSST system indicated that customers were receiving TANF when, in fact, TANF had ended. Recommendations Currently, QA staff is reviewing this report. We suggest that a process be established and implemented that requires case managers to review this report weekly to ensure that cases are processed correctly and in a timely manner. By requiring this review at the case manager's level, a reduction in cases on this list will be facilitated and issues can be addressed in a more timely fashion. We suggest there be a more even distribution of WT cases among appropriate staff. This will facilitate more effective case management. We suggest that SFETC develop a policy requiring WT cases to be closed when customers do not access transitional services for 60 days. This will provide a more accurate accounting of open cases. We suggest the contractor evaluate the deferred cases and possibilities for assigning customers to countable work activities. We suggest that staff report these issues to the OSST help desk. y 29 li.l 7w1 iwi ;Y %A IWA W M I I t d. On-line SFW'Policles and Procedures Welfare Findings 1. SF,ETC's online Policies and Procedures Manual incorrectly refers to the case management tracking system as the "WAGES Information System" and "WIS." Information has not been updated to reflect OSST as the system utilized (OSSIT replaced WIS 7/9/01). Many policies and procedures were last updated 4/01. Many online forms have; not been updated to identify the current program as Welfare Transition. Several local and state forms on-line are outdated and of poor quality. I 2. Several staff indicated that all programmatic information regarding policies and procedures is not available on the Web site. Some staff indicated that information/directives are frequently distributed manually or via e-mail. i ransition and Welfare to Work . , Recommendations We suggest that SFETC conduct a complete review of the on- line WT and WtW Policies and Procedures Manual. Additionally, we suggest that all forms and informptloh be updated to include current and correct program information and forms. Current state forms (i.e. childcare authorization and termination forms) are available on-line at the myflorida.com Web site. We suggest that a uniform method of distributing policies and procedures information to staff be established. In addition, we suggest that all policies, procedures and directives be posted on the South Florida Workforce Web site to ensure that current, correct and consistent Information is accessible for staff. 30 a 2. We -selected a random sample of five customers who were active in the Welfare �{ Transition program during the period 9/1/01-12/31/01. We utilized the Programmatic Review —Welfare Transition viewed� h OSSTram tool csyst syd by the stem contractor's � ency for Workforce Innovation (.4WI), customer files for evidence of the following: a. Completion of required assessments (45 CFR Subpart A, § 261.11). b. Completion of required Individual Responsibility Plans (IRP's) (45 CFR Subpart A, § 261.12). � C. Cash assistance status. d. Sanctions (45 CFR Subpart A, § 261.13 — 261.16, 414.065 F.S.). - - -- ------ --e�- ------Discussion and _offer- of.. --Transitional Benefits, Relocation and Diversion Services. f. Correct assignment of work activities (45 CFR Subpart C. § 261.31 — 261.34, 445.024(2) F.S.). g• Documentation of participation hours. h. Compliance with work activity requirements. Findings: sted 1. Based upon our review of these .ase recordrecord, st is and/o evident i na timely mannerat items a -h lin o above are not consistently recorded properly the State system or case files. Recommendation: We suggest the contractor review the discrepancies specified in Attachment � C, makecorrections where possible, and heake futureps to ensure that such We suggest that the information is documented correctly contractors provide additional technical assistance to its case managers to ensure that cases are processed correctly and necessary documentation is maintained. 02- 57V 2. IRP's for several customers were incomplete, outdated, and contained +3 _ incorrect information. IRP's in the OSST system frequently differed from IRP's signed by customers in case files. It is evident that case managers do not have an understanding of the importance and use of the IRP as a tool for :3 guiding the customer to self-sufficiency; case managers appear to view the IRP as a task that must be completed within 30 days of referral to the WT program. Recommendation: We suggest that the contractors provide technical assistance to WTP staff on completing IRP's correctly. In addition, the contractors should emphasize that the IRP is an essential tool for assisting customers in becoming self- sufficient. d� Observations: 1. In the same sample of files reviewed, procedures and documentation were not consistently and/or correctly maintained in customer files and/or the OSST system for: a. Timely action on "To -Do's." b. Documentationitimely scheduling of appointments. C. Completed forms in case files. C. Documentation of Supportive/Transitional Services in system. d. Activities. 32 02_ 570 3. All files contained handwritten IRP's with information not being updated in the OSST system. - These IRP's were outdated and utilized prior. to. the on-.___._. line form available in the OSST system. 33 Recommendation: We suggest that WT staff utilize the on-line form in the OSST system for Z% initiating or updating all IRP's. 4. rPenalty procedures were not initiated in a timely manner and/or good cause not documented for one customer participating less than the required minimum hours of participation. M Recommendation: We suggest that case managers utilize "To Do's" to ensure that follow-up op ,_ cases occurs in a timely manner. Additionally, we suggest that case notes be y documented with time frames when good cause has been established. d� Observations: 1. In the same sample of files reviewed, procedures and documentation were not consistently and/or correctly maintained in customer files and/or the OSST system for: a. Timely action on "To -Do's." b. Documentationitimely scheduling of appointments. C. Completed forms in case files. C. Documentation of Supportive/Transitional Services in system. d. Activities. 32 02_ 570 Recommendation: 43 - We suggest the contractor review the discrepancies listed in Attachment D. Additionally, we suggest that the contractor continue to provide in-service training to staff to ensure that correct and complete information is maintained in the State system and customer files. 2. Incomplete job contacts were accepted as being completed for three customers. Recommendation: We suggest that contractors provide WTP staff with guidance on the importance of documenting complete information for both case files and follow-up by customers. In addition, we suggest that case managers review 13 job contacts to ensure that customers are searching for appropriate employment in an effective manner. - - - - --- - ----- 3. Frequently, outdated forms identifying the program as WAGES were being utilized. Recommendation: 'We suggest that contractors review all forms currently in use to ensure that the program is correctly identified as Welfare Transition. 4. Occasionally, incorrect anticipated and actual begin dates for activities were documented incorrectly in the OSST system. Incorrect system "To -Do's" were generated due to these errors. Recommendation:-_-__._ SI We suggest that the contractor provide technical assistance on documenting information correctly in the OSST system. This will enable WT staff to process cases in a correct and timely manner. 3. We reviewed the ODDS system to verify documentation of updated customer information and services provided for a sample of 20 customers. Yil Observation: 1. The contractor is correctly documenting information in the ODDS system allowing accurate obtained employment information to be captured for the region. 33 02-- �70 i Because of the nature and breadth of our findings, we are compelled to note that this report is very preliminary in terms of assessing systematic problems that may exist. Other areas suggested for immediate review include: Administration. Finance and Planning S • Procurement • Comprehensive fiscal review of service provider payment requests • Operating disbursements • Fixed assets Continuous Improvement Review of selected One -Stop Centers to assess the extent to which they efficiently and effectively provide core services, access to intensive and training services, ------- facilities and staff. In addition, we suggest technical assistance be obtained in the areas identified in this 1 report. i 34 02- 570 �i d ti d d d d d �t ;a a .d n u :u :u u u U u U tj N1 14 U� U U U Ia ATTACHMENT A iSAMPLE BUDGET VARIANCE REPORT WIA I WTP RITA WtW TOTALS TOTAL AVAILABILITY Administration Program ADULT DW YOUTH $ 135,000 $ 125,000 $; 90,000 $1,485,000 $1,239,350 $,907,500 TOTAL $ 350,000 $ 200,000 $3,631,850 $2,000,000 $3,981,850 $2,200,000 $ 15,000 $150,000 $165,000 $ 10,000 $1;200,000 $1,210,000 $ 575,000 $6,981,850 $7,556,850 NCE TOTAL $1,620,000 $10364,350 3997,500 EXPENDITURES '."�y`i`�1'.?4 r"R.'rt�Y"�`r' �" k•:4 ' ''`"IK ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET VARIAft Board Operating Costs ln�l'l" $ 75,025 $ 65,525 $ 48,450 $ 189,000 $ 250,800 $ 35,000 $ 109,000 $ 583,800 $ 882,000 $ 298,200 66% Payroll $ 42,000 $ 37,500 $t 30,000 $ 109,500 $ 200,000 $ 20,000 $ 78,000 $ 407,500 $ 650,000 $ 242,500 63% 73% Facilities $ 12,000 $ 10,000 $ 7,600 $ 29,600 $ 18,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 72,600 $ 100,000 $ 27,400 General & Administrative $ 13,500 $ 10,500 $ 7,000 $ 31,000 $ 20,000 $ 4,000 $ 6,000 $ 61,000 $ 32,650 $ 72,000 $ 45,000 $ 11,000 $ 12,350 85% 73% Equipment Purchases $ 6,025 $ 6,025 $i 2,600 $ 14,650 $ 4,250 $ 10,000 $ 2,800 $ $ 1,000 $ 8,000 $ `. 2,000 $ 10,050 $ 15,000 $ 4,950 67% Other $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1_250 Administrative Entity Costs $ 651,000 $ 608,000 $397,500 $1,656,500 $ 880,000 $ 28,700 $ 322,000 $2,887,200 $3,434,850 $ 547,650 84% Payroll $ 600,000 $ 6C0,000 $368,000 $1,568,000 $ 850,000 $ 26,000 $ . 267,000 $ 2,711,000 $ 3,100,000 $ 389,000 87% 67% $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $, 27,000 $ 31,000 $ 12,000 $ 1,000 $ 40,000 $ 84,000 $ 125,000 $ 41,000 Facilities General & Administrative $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $: 2,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,500 $ 1,200 $ 6,000 $ 15,700 $ 35,000 $ 19,300 $ 33,000 45% 69% Equipment Purchases $ 48,000 $ .5,000 $': 500 $ 53,500 $ 10,000 $ 500 $ $ 8,000 $ ' 1,000 $ 72,000 $ $ 105,000 $ 69,850 $ 64,150 8% Other $ 1,200 $' - $ 1,200 $ 3,500 - _5,700 $ 541,800 $ 470,200 $206,500 $1,218,500 $ 725,000 $ 60,000 $ 565,000 $2,568,500 $3,240,000 $ 671,500 79% Contracts $ 78,000 $ 78,000 $, 70,000 $ 234,000 $ 400,000 $ $ 125,OCO $ 759,000 $1,000,000 $ 241,000 76% Contractor $ 40,000 $ 34,250 $' 1,000 $ 75,250 $ 250,000 $ $ 375,000 $ 700,250 $ 850,000 $ 149,750 82% Contractor B Contractor C $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 46,000 $ 346,000 $ 30,000 $ - $ $ 376,000 $ 450,000 $ 74,000 $ 25,000 84% 72% Contractor D $ 65,000 $ - $` - $ 65,000 $ - $ $ - $ 48,000 $ - $ $ 65,000 $ 161,500 $ 90,000 $ 200,000 $ 38,500 81% Contractor E $ 32,000 $ 32,000 $: 49,500 $ 113,500 - $ $ - $ $ 13,650 $ 20,000 $ 6,350 68% Contractor F $ 11,000 $ $ 135,000 $ 2,650 $j - $ 13,650 135,000 $ 10,000 $ 280,000 - $ - $ 12,000 $ - $ 292,000 $ 325,000 $ 33,000 90% Contractor G Contractor H $ 22,000 $ 29,500 $ 22,000 $ 73,500 $ 45,000 $ - $ 65,000 $ 183,500 $ 275,000 $ 91,500 67% Contractor 1 $ 8,800 $ 8,800 $ - $ 17,600 1 $ - $ - $ - $ 17,600 $ 30,000 $ 12,400 59% Total Expenditures $1,267,825 $1,143,725 $652,450 1 $3,064,000 1 $10855,800 1 $123,700 1 $ 996,000 $6,039,500 $7,556,850 $1,517,350 80% i Balance Available $ 352,175 $ 220,625 $345,050 Fs 917,850 $ 344,200 $ 41,300 $ 214,000 $1,517,350 %of Funds Expended 78.26% 83.83% 65,41% 76.95% 4.35% 74.97% 82.31% 79.92% ATTACHMENT A SAMPLE BUDGET VARIANCE REPOR. PY'00-'01 REVENUE WIA ADULT TOTAL AVAILABILITY _ Administration $ 135,000 Program $ 1,485,000 TOTAL $ 1,620,000 P BUDGET % Board Operating Costs $ 100,000 ; $ 75,025 ; $ 24,975 75.03% Payroll $ 60,000 $ 42,000 $ 18,000 70.00% Facilities $ 15,000 $ 12,000 $ 3,000 80.00% General & Administrative $ 15,000 $ 13,500 $ 1,500 90.00% Equipment Purchases $ 8.000 ': $ 6,025 $ 1,975 75.31% Other $ 2,000 $ 1,500 $ 500 75.00% Administrative Entity Costs $ = 825,000 $ 651,000 $ 174,000 78.91% Payroll $ 750,000 7 $ 600,000 `' $ 150,000 80.00% Facilities $ 10,000 $ 2,000 $ 8,000 20.00% General &Administrative $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ 4,000 20.00% Equipment Purchases $ 60,000 $ 48,000 $ 12,000 80.00% Other Contracts $ 695,000 ' $ 541,800 $ 153,200 77.96% Contractor A $ 100,000: $ 78,000 .r $ 22,000 78.00% Contractor B $ 50,000: $ 40,000 ^ $ 10,000 80.00% Contractor C $ 200,000 $ 150,000: $ 50,000 75.00% Contract%D $ 60,000 $ 65,000 z $ (5,db0) 108.33% Contractor E $ 80,000 $ 32,000 " $ 48,000 40.00% Contractor F $ 15,000: $ 11,000 $ 4,000 73.33% Contractor G $ 150,000 $ 135,000: $ 15,000 90.00% Contractor H $ 30,000 $ 22,000 f: $ 8,000 73.33% Contractor 1 $ 10,000 $ 8,800 - $ 1,200 88.00% Total Expenditures $ 1,620,000 $ 1,267,825 Balance Available $ 352,175 of Funds Expended 78.26% 02- 570 ATTACHMENT A SAMPLE BUDGET VARIANCE REPORT PY'00= 01 REVENUE WIA DISLOCATED WORKER TOTAL AVAILABILITY Administration $ 125,000 Program $ 1,239,350 TOTAL $ 1,364,350 EXPENDITUF:ZESBUDGET A • Board Operating Costs $ 79,750 $ 65,525. $ 14,225 82.16% Payroll $ 46,000 $ 37,500 $ 10,500 78.13% Facilities $ 12,000. $ 10,000 $ 2,000 83.33% General & Administrative $ 11,500 $ 10,500 _ $ 1,000 91.30% Equipment Purchases $ 6,250 $ 6,025: $ 225 96.40% Other $ 2,000 $ 1,500: $ 500 75.00% Administrative Entity Costs $ 644,600 $ 608,000 '' $ 36,600 94.32% Payroll $ 627,000 ', $ 600,000 $ 27,000 95.69% Facilities $ 8,500 $ 2,000 ' $ 6,500 23.53% General & Administrative -- $ -- - 4,300 _. _ $ _ .1,000$ _ _ 3,300 23.26% Equipment Purchases $ 4,800 $ 5,000 $ (200) 104.17% Other $ 2,000 $ 1,200 $ 800 60.00% Contracts $ 640,000 $ 470,200 $ 169,800 73.47% Contractor A $ 82,000 $ 78,000 $ 4,000 95.12% Contractor B $ 40,000 $ 34,250 c $ 5,750 85.63% Contractor C $ 175,000 $ 150,000: $ 25,000 85.71% Contractor•D $ - $ - $ - #DIV/0! Contractor E $ 60,000 $ 32,000 $ 28,000 53.33% Contractor F $ 45,000 $ 2,650 $ 42.350 5.89% Contractor G $ 200,000 $ 135,000 $ 65,000 67.50% Contractor H $ 28,000 $ 29,500 ; $ (1,500) 105.36% Contractor 1 $ 10,000 $ 8,800 $ 1,200 88.00% Total Expenditures $ 1,364,350 $ 1,143,725 Balance Available _.._ ___3 % of Funds Expended 83.83% 02-- 570 ATTACHMENT A SAMPLE BUDGET VARIANCE REPOF Pr00= 01 REVENUE WIA YOUTH TOTAL AVAILABILITY Administration $ 90,000 Program $ 907,500 TOTAL $ 997,500 EXPENDITURES BUDGET ACTUAL BDG VAR. • Board Operating Costs $ 80,500 $ 48,450: $ 32,050 60.19% Payroll $ 60,000: $ 30,000 $ 30,000 50.00% Facilities $ 8,000 $ 7,600 $ 400 95.00% General & Administrative $ 7,500 • $ 7,000 $ 500 93.33% Equipment Purchases $ 3,000 $ 2,600 $ 400 86.67% Other $ 2,000 :: $ 1,250 = $ 750 62.50% Administrative Entity Costs $ 439,000 $ 397,500 $ 41,500 90.55% Payroll $ 400,000 $ 368,000 $ 32,000 92.00% Facilities $ 30,000: $ 27,000 $ 3,000 90.00% General & Administrative $ 7,500 $ 2,000 - $ 5,500 26.67% Equipment Purchases $ 1,500 $ 500 :` $ 1,000 33.33% Other $ 2,500 " $ - $ 2,500 --0.00%--- Contracts $ 478,000 ' $ 206,500 $ 271,500 43.20% Contractor A $ 250,000 $ 78,000: $ 172,000 31.20% Contractor B $ 12,000 $ 1,000 :: $ 11,000 8.33% Contractor C $ 43,000 $ 46,000 ,` $ (3,000) 106.98% Contractor D $ - $ - $ - Contractor E $ 100,000 $ 49,500 .' $ 50,580 49.50% Contractor $ - $ - $ - Contractor G $ 25,000 $ 10,000. $ 15,000 40.00% Contractor H $ 48,000 $ 22,000 $ 26,000 45.83% Contractor 1 $ - $ - $ - Total Expenditures $ 997,500 $ 652,450 Balance Available $ 345,050 %_ of Funds. Expended.- --.----___. _.._ . _... _.. 65.41% 02- 570 Ll Ll Ll u u U U U u [J U U U Liu ti Ll U iw U U UJ U U U ® 9 14 Q, U I S4 ATTACHMENT B ,JPECIFIC FINDINGS RELATED TO ACS STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS INVOICES Findings: Recommendations: 1. The contract budget specifies an overhead rate of 15% We suggest that the contractor provide supporting and profit of 5%; however, support for what comprises documentation for the costs that comprise the overhead rate the overhead rate and the nature of those costs notated in the contract budget. We also suggest that the (programmatic vs. administrative) was snot in the contract amounts invoiced 'to -date for overhead and profit be adjusted file. Additionally, the overhead and profit percentages ras necessary by SFETC to ensure that these line -items reflect I used on justification package #6 were bl th 10%.I the correct year-to-date totals and that costs were properly charged as either program or administration. 2. A separate component of the contracts set aside funding We suggest that the contractor include a list of the customers ($141,600.00) for 48 training slots to be filled by ACS. in training with each invoice submitted for the direct training ACS has been reimbursed for costs ( incurred to -date; portion of the contract. however, neither the SFETC accountant nor the contract manager could provide details as to how many customers have been enrolled into the training program. 3. The contractor calculated the amounts billed for health We suggest that the contractor provide supporting it and retirement based on the 'total gross pay for documentation for health insurance and retirement costs the month; however, five of the employees whose wages incurred on behalf of the part-time and temporary employees. were. included in the calculation were either approved A credit should be issued for costs billed to -date that cannot be part-ime or temporary employees and are most likely substantiated. not receiving health insurance and retirlement benefits. 4. The contractor requested a reimbursement of $126.33 for We suggest that the next invoice submitted by ACS be a payment made to AT&T (ck# 1710); however, the adjusted by the amount overbilled. amount billed was the previous billing period's balance paid. The total current charges per' the invoice were , $52.06. 9 4.1 116/ U61 M w .I ATTACHMENT B SPECIFIC FINDINGS RELATED TO ACS STATE & LOCAL SOLUTIONS INVOICES I Findings: I Recommendations: 5. Travel reimbursements were billed for Michael Wilson, We suggest that support be provided to indicate that the travel Ashica Penson, and Heather Spence; however, these billed for these employees was directly related to this program. employees were not included on the August payroll registers provided. I - 6. Bonuses of $250.00 and $500.00 were paid to Welfare We suggest that SFETC staff review the policy ACS has in Transition customers for job retention; however, the place for paying bonuses to customers and determine whether contract only allows training and support service costs the payments are appropriate under this contract. and does not specify that bonuses can be earned. Additionally, language describing the structure of bonus Currently, the contractor is submitting appropriate payments should be added to the contract. documentation to support job retention, as well of proof of payment to the customers. i Ir -r `a -r la -s trio w n,.e nra M Y .� _ei r i .�� 592AO-0287 Barthell _+ _a_ �_ �� — —•-- _'— -- - - - i I ATTACHMENT C: MATRIX i OF WTP CUSTOMER FILE REVIEW FINDINGS Melvin x x 4 470 1 e 025-60-2803 1 DeJesus tl° o dao RI 589-14-6111 Dixon e Cy t a - s o C it 2 o E e Q �} a ' „ er Lam' _E E a2, g p .04 �� ^E °u c 0. E °c BIP„ *0 E o ^ E 0 '8 o = e a ^ % cc o X 3 3 q o C qqCC K O C r 01 „?C9 C n Y C 06 7 O 3 Unit p I Case Mgr. SSA Last Name First Name rn !2 g — rn ° Comments 1 470 LV 592AO-0287 Barthell Yolanda x x x 2 470 0C 263-49.5581 Brown Betty x x 31 470 RI 589-14-6111 Davis Melvin x x 4 470 1 RI 025-60-2803 1 DeJesus Maria x x x 5 470 1 RI 589-14-6111 Dixon i Valeria x n o Incomplete handwritten IRP M case file dated I /Of; mkp specific goals. Incomplete IRP In OSST system; missing goats, alternative plan. Missin documentation indicating transitional benefss, relocation and diversion sk. 4s were otlered/discussed with customer.Missing documentation supporting 12/10101 JPR entry. Activity not assigned when deferral ended. Customer assigned to Work Experience with educational component; TABE documentation missing from case X x file. Handwritten IRP in case file dated 12/12101. Incomplete IRP In OSST system; incorrect educational goal identified ('Customer wants compute('). Incorrect begin dale for Job search. Case closed prior to TANF and date. Missing documentation X X supporting 12/10/01-12/31101 JPR entries. Incomplete handwritten IRP In case file; missing goal•., signatures and date. Incomplete IRP in OSST system; missing goals, work activities, dates for steps to self-sufficiency to be completed. Missing documentation supporting actual tours of participation for 11/5101.11/12101 Work Experience JPR's. Missing actual hours of participation for 1016/01.10129101 Employment Preparation JPR's. Missing documentation of actual hours of participation for 12/16/01.12131101 Employment JPR entries. 12/3/01 and 12/17/01 Employment JPR entries differ from pay stubs In x x case fie. Incomplete IRP In case No and OSST system. Sanction not requested In a timely manner. Missing documentation supporting actual hours of participation for 10129101, -x 11/26/01 JPR entries. _ Handwritten IRP In case file. Incomplete IRP to OSST system. Missiiij j documentation supporting actual hays of participation for 913101.9/2,1101 JPR entries. Missing documentation supporting actual hays of participation fr '117101 JPR entry. Employment Rotated Education assigned; missing documen of x X TABE resutls/assessment. AMY. MSL au uu acr rr eco ®[� ac c� ao ino ao U w w U u, I I ATTACHMENT D MATRIX OF WTP CUSTOMER FILE REVIEW OBSERVATIONS I E S a ° rcri, CE`oa°. CSC 2 € � � a � E M Z� a•,� E �� 8 s g oto ° u a! w Yr a a j; b £ w` a g E € w UnllIOL---jo z 06 Caa MSS N Last Name First Name < vS 11 € 1 03 ! a LV 470 OC 263-49-5581 Brown Betty x 470 RI 589-14-6111 Davis Melvin x 470 RI 025-60-2803 DeJesus Imaria I x • 470 RI 589-14-6111 i Dixon Lateria I x X 1 Incomplete job contacts In case file. Duplicate copies r is In case file. Incomplete job search form; missing appointment date. Incomplete job contacts In case file. Incorrect anticipated and actual start dates documented for orientation. Transitional X services provided prior to TANF end date. Incomplete General Release of Information form in case file. First use notes in OSST documented 1111/01; use opened 9125101. WAGES fortes utilized. Reopen —ro Do' posted 918101; tat use notes In OSST documented 10128101; use reopened 918101. Case closed with Intoned termination dale; date sanction alert posted should be X utilized as case termination date. WAGES forms utitzed. Incomplete job contacts In case life. Incorrect chldare service Information documented In OSST system: Tl clikkans - DO NOT USE' utiaed. 1st ase notes 10129101; ass opened 7101. A- -ACHMENT NO. 8A APR 0 9 2002 OFFM ts ay. ADDENDUM Management Responses To Findings Section II- Federal Award Findings And Questioned Costs Current Year Finding 01-1 Non -Compliance With State Performance Agreement Management Response The South Florida Workforce Board ("SFWB") was placed on a corrective action plan by Workforce Florida, Inc. in December 2001. The SFWB and SFETC have been monitoring the progress of the region, since being placed under corrective action, and to date the region has shown improvement in all performance measures. Management anticipates being removed from corrective action status in May 2002. Management will continue to review the region's performance on a regular basis after removal from the state's corrective action. Current Year Finding 01-2 Retention Of Records Management Response - Management will review its current system of logging and storing its financial records off site. Based on the results of our review adjustments will be made to the system as necessary. 02- 570 ADDENDUM Management Responses To Findings Section II- Federal Award Findings And Questioned Costs Current Year Finding 01-3 Documentation Not Located For Certain Welfare Transition Program Participants Management Response Management will provide additional training to the service providers regarding the sanctioning process and the required records retention. In addition procedures will put in place to identify the lack of documentation during the monitoring of the service provider. Current Year Finding 01-4 Interest Earned On Advances Should Be Reported To Grantor Agency Management Response Management will report the interest income earned on grant advances during fiscal year ended June 30, 2001 to the grantor agency in March 2002. In addition, cash management staff will be reminded that all interest income earned from grant advances by SFETC is to be reported to the grantor agency on a monthly basis. 02- 570 ADDENDUM Management Responses To Findings Section II- Federal Award Findings And Questioned Costs Prior Year Finding 00-1 Subrecipient Monitoring Management Response Management had implemented a system of reviewing corrective actions on a timely basis. However, during the program year, changes in management responsibilities created the four exceptions noted during the audit. Management will remind staff of the importance of insuring that all corrective action plans are received, reviewed and the results of the review are communicated to the service providers. Prior Year Finding 99-2 Obtain Certification Forms From Service Providers Management Response Management will create a checklist that identifies all forms required to enter into a contract with the SFETC. Management will insure that a contract is not issued without the appropriate forms. 02- 570 ADDENDUM Management Responses To Findings Section II- Federal Award Findings And Questioned Costs Prior Year Finding 98-4 Equipment And Property Management Management Response The Finance Department will reconcile the schedule of fixed assets to the trial balance on a quarterly basis. All discrepancies noted during the reconciliation process will be addressed by the Finance Department. Management will make sure that the new automated accounting system that will be purchased in the new fiscal year has a fixed assets component. All fixed assets that were not included in the report, submitted to the grantor agency, will be submitted in a corrected report before April 30, 2002. 0 � — - 7-.() ADDENDUM Management Responses To Findings Section Ill- Financial Statement Findings Current Year Finding 01-5 Re -Engineer The Reimbursement Cost System Management Response Management is in the process of re-engineering its contracting methodology for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2002. Any changes made to the method of contracting will take into consideration the applicable service provider invoicing requirements. In addition, teams of SFETC staff will be assigned to review service provider operations and finances related to SFETC contracts. Current Year Finding 01-6 Expenditures Paid In Excess Of Contract Award Management Response Management concurs with this finding. Management has implemented a monthly report that details actual expenditures vs. budgeted expenditures. The newly created.SF'W Finance Committee on a monthly basis is reviewing this report. Management will investigate all expenditures that exceed the budget on a monthly basis. 02- 570 ADDENDUM Management Responses To Findings Section 111- Financial Statement Findings Current Year Finding 01-7 Timely Reconciliation Of Accounting Records Management Response Management will procure an automated accounting system that will provide a monthly trial balance. Management will institute a procedure to reconcile all subsidiary records to the trial balance on a regular basis. Management is in the process of reviewing all cost allocation formulas and an adjustment will be made during the current fiscal year if it is material to the financial statements. Current Year Finding 01-8 Cost Allocation Plan Should Be Updated Management Response Management is in the process of updating its cost allocation plan. The updated plan, along with the resulting allocation amounts, should be completed by May 15, 2002. O- 570 ADDENDUM Management Responses To Findings Section III- Financial Statement Findings Current Year Finding 01-9 Service Providers' Justification Packages Not Processed In A Timely Manner Management Response Management will review the current process of contracting and paying service providers. Management understands that our current system is very labor intensive and requires too much administrative resources. Management will initiate a plan to process all outstanding reimbursement/justification packages. Current Year Finding 01-10 Develop Policy And Procedures Manual For The Fiscal Department Management Response Management will develop a policy and procedures manual for the fiscal department upon determining the contracting methodology for the new program year. o2— 570 ADDENDUM Management Responses To Findings Section III- Financial Statement Findings Current Year Finding 01-11 The General Ledger System Should Be Automated Management Response Management is in the process of procuring an automated general ledger system. Management anticipates having procured the system and trained all finance staff on its use by July 1, 2002. Current Year Finding 01-12 Cash Management Management Response Management will develop a written investment policy that considers achieving the maximum investment income to the organization while maintaining a low level of risk from the loss of the investment. Current Year Finding 01-13 Develop An EDP Disaster Recovery Plan Management Response Management is in the process of developing an'EDP Disaster Recovery Plan. The plan will be completed by the end of the current fiscal year. (Yw.. 570 ADDENDUM Management Responses To Findings Section III- Financial Statement Findings Current Year Finding 01-14 Employment Development Contract Advances Uncollected Management Response Management concurs with this finding and will perform a cost/risk/benefit analysis to determine that the stated cost of litigation compared to the likelihood of success of collection including an assessment of the defendant's available assets. Management will report its due diligence to Workforce Florida, Inc. 0- 570 ATTj- _.;HMENT NO. 8B SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2001 02-- 570 SOtJTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE(S) Independent Certified Public Accountants' Report ..............................1 General Purpose Financial Statements Combined Balance Sheet - Special Revenue Fund And Account Groups.....................................................2 Combined Statement Of Revenue, Expenditures And Changes In Fund Balance - Special Revenue Fund ............................ 3 Notes To Financial Statements ........................................... 4-13 02 570 SHARPTON, BRUNSON & COMPANY, PA. -Certified Public Accountants & Business Consultants One Southeast TI jird AN'tnue. Smile 2100 One East Froward Boulevard. Suite 1 110 :'Iiarn . FL 33 131 Fort Lauderdale. FL 33301 Telepl-wme: ,305) 374-157 ! Fa(snfl1c-: cx:):>i 161 TelephonC; (954) 467-3490 / FaCsinlile: (954) 467-6184 E -Mail: inf0@S1)Ccpa.c011) Independent Certified Public Accountants' Report To the Board of Directors South Florida Employment and Training Consortium D/B/A South Florida Workforce Board We have audited the accompanying general purpose financial statements of the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium (SFETC), D/B/A South Florida Workforce Board (SFWB), as of and for the year then ended, June 30, 2001, as listed in the table of contents. These general purpose financial statements are the responsibility of SFETC's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these general purpose financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the general purpose financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, the general purpose financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of SFETC as of June 30, 2001, and the results of its operations for the year then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. As discussed in Note 12 to the financial statements, SFETC failed to meet certain performance measures required pursuant to an agreement with Workforce Florida, Inc., a grantor agency. This condition could result in claims against SFETC for noncompliance with grantor restrictions. Corrective action has been presented and accepted by the grantor agency. In accordance with Government Auditingtandards, we have also issued our report dated March 20, 2002 on our consideration of SFETC's internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its' compliance with laws, regulations, contracts and grants. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be read in conjunction with this report in considerin the results of our audit. March 20, 2002 o2— 570 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM DIB/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD COMBINED BALANCE SHEET SPECIAL REVENUE FUND AND ACCOUNT GROUPS JUNE 30, 2001 Total assets and other debits Liabilities Accounts payable and accrued expenditures Deferred revenue Cash held in escrow Accrued compensated absences Total liabilities Fund Equity - Investment in fixed assets Fund balance Total fund equity Total liabilities and fund equity $20,085,846 $ 3.349.668 $18,906,765 383,540 96,040 19,386.345 699.501 699,501 $ 3,349,668 3,349.668 20$ .085.846 $ 3.349.668 $ 880,461 $24,315,975 $ 8,258,700 $ 880.461 880.461 $18,906,765 383,540 96,040 880.461 20.266,806 3,349,668 699,501 4,049.169 $ 880.461 $24, 315.975 $ 5,302,044 55,597 1,517 731.758 6,090.916 1,481,622 686,162 2,167,784 L8 258.700 _1 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 2 Account Groups Totals Special Revenue General General (Memorandum Only) Fund Fixed Assets Long -Term Debt 2001 2000 Assets And Other Debits Cash $3,733,320 $ 3,733,320 $ 1,222,953 Cash in escrow 96,040 96,040 1,517 Grants receivable 15,946,069 15,946,069 4,820,850 Other receivables 42,500 42,500 Fixed assets $ 3,349,668 3,349,668 1,481,622 Other assets 267,917 267,917 Amount to be provided for accrued compensated absences $ 880.461 680,461 731,758 Total assets and other debits Liabilities Accounts payable and accrued expenditures Deferred revenue Cash held in escrow Accrued compensated absences Total liabilities Fund Equity - Investment in fixed assets Fund balance Total fund equity Total liabilities and fund equity $20,085,846 $ 3.349.668 $18,906,765 383,540 96,040 19,386.345 699.501 699,501 $ 3,349,668 3,349.668 20$ .085.846 $ 3.349.668 $ 880,461 $24,315,975 $ 8,258,700 $ 880.461 880.461 $18,906,765 383,540 96,040 880.461 20.266,806 3,349,668 699,501 4,049.169 $ 880.461 $24, 315.975 $ 5,302,044 55,597 1,517 731.758 6,090.916 1,481,622 686,162 2,167,784 L8 258.700 _1 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 2 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 Revenue Government grants and contracts Interest Total revenue Expenditures Training Administration Total expenditures Excess of revenue over expenditures Fund balance at beginning of year Other changes TOTAL (Memorandum Only) AWI DCFS OTHER 2001 2000 $88,897,192 $ 10,340,810 $ 1,051,307 $100,289,309 $ 38,643,298 384 88,897,192 10,340,810 1,051,307 100,289,309 38,643,682 84,132,612 9,766,641 1,006,274 94,905,527 36,177,418 4,764,580 574,169 45,033 5,383,782 2,339,995 88,897,192 10,340,810 1,051,307 100,289,309 38,517,413 686,162 686,162 13.339 13,339 Fund balance at end of year $ $ $ 699,501 $ 699,501 126,269 559,893 $ 686,162 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 3 02— 570 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2001 Note 1 - General The South Florida Employment and Training Consortium (SFETC), D/B/A South Florida Workforce Board (SFWB), is a consortium of five local governmental jurisdictions and is organized pursuant to the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969 to facilitate the efficient and effective administration of federally funded job training programs. SFETC is governed by a Board consisting of representatives from Miami -Dade County, City of Hialeah, City of Miami, City of Miami Beach and Monroe County, Florida. SFETC operates a Service Delivery Area encompassing Miami -Dade and Monroe Counties. The State of Florida legislation Senate Bill 2050 required that all independent WAGES Coalitions be merged with the local Regional Workforce Development Board (RWDB). In region 23, the local RWDB is the South Florida Workforce Board (SFWB). Effective July 1, 2000 all assets, liabilities and contracts of the Miami-Dade/Monroe WAGES Coalition were transferred to the SFETC as the administrative entity for region 23. Therefore, the South Florida Workforce Board has assumed oversight responsibility for the former Miami- Dade/Monroe WAGES Coalition effective July 1, 2000. The impact of this merger has increased the operating budget of SFETC by approximately $62 million. Funding was received from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services through the Agency for Workforce Innovation for the purpose of providing employment and related services to those individuals who are current and former welfare recipients under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families Act, referred to as the Welfare Transition (WT) program, and are deemed eligible for the support by the State of Florida Department of Children and Families Services (DCFS). SFETC also received funding pursuant to the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) from the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, through the Agency for Workforce Innovation (AWI). The primary objective of WIA is to establish programs to prepare youth and unskilled adults for entry into the labor force and to afford job training to those economically disadvantaged individuals and other individuals facing serious barriers to employment. Additional funding was received from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, through the DCFS to provide job training and placement services to individuals with the immigration status of entrant and refugee. 4 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2001 Note 1 - General (contd.) SFETC Board is the administrative entity and custodian of WIA, WT and DCFS funds as the grant recipient under an agreement with the South Florida Workforce Board, a separate non-profit organization. Together, the SFETC and SFWB organize and plan programs funded under WIA and WT. SFETC contracts with various community based organizations, for profit and governmental organizations, to provide educational, training and placement services. Note 2 - Summary Of Significant Accounting Policies Basis of presentation The accompanying financial statements present the entity -wide financial operations of SFETC for the year ended June 30, 2001. Due to the nature of its organization and the substance of its operations, SFETC prepares its financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles as applied to governmental units. To ensure observance of limitations and restrictions placed on the use of resources available, the accounts of SFETC are presented on the basis of funds and account groups, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity as follows: Special revenue fund This fund includes all major federal and state grants and contracts and is used to account for the restricted and unrestricted resources of such grants. General fixed assets This group of accounts is used to establish accounting control and accountability for all fixed assets of SFETC.. - General long-term debt This group of accounts is used to account for long-term obligations of SFETC. 5 02- 570 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2001 Note 2 - Summary Of Significant Accounting Policies (Contd.) Memorandum only The total column on the Combined Balance Sheet is captioned " Memorandum Only" to indicate that it is presented only to facilitate financial analysis. Data in this column does not present financial position or results of operation in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Neither is such data comparable to a consolidation. Interfund eliminations have not been made in the aggregation of this data. Basis of accounting SFETC utilizes the modified accrual basis of accounting. Revenue is recognized in the period in which it becomes susceptible to accrual; that is, when it becomes measurable and available to pay liabilities of the current period. Grant receipts are deemed to be earned and reported as revenue when SFETC and its contracted service providers have incurred expenditures in accordance with specific grant requirements. Amounts received but not yet earned are reported as deferred revenues. Interest income is accrued as earned. Expenditures under the modified accrual basis of accounting are generally recognized when the related fund liability is incurred and expected to be liquidated with available resources, except for compensated absences which are recognized as expenditures when paid. In applying the susceptible to accrual concept to intergovernmental revenue, the legal and contractual requirements of the numerous individual programs are used as guidance. Funds must be expended on the specific purpose as defined in the grant line -item budget or agreement; therefore, revenue is recognized when the related expenditures are incurred. Other assets Other assets are comprised primarily of deposits paid for office rent and staff leasing. 6 102--- 570 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2001 Note 2 - Summary of Significant Accounting_ Policies (Contd.) Use of estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles require management to make estimates and assumptions that affectthe reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenditures during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Budgets Budgeted amounts for AWl funded programs represent the allocation of total WIA and WT funds awarded according to percentage limitations set forth in the Acts. Expenditures in the Administration category may not exceed such limitations; however, funds allocated to this category may be redirected toward and spent on Training. Total expenditure budgets for DCFS funded programs cannot be exceeded and the administration category of expenditures is subject to limitations set forth in the contract between SFETC and DCFS. Actual administrative costs are generally allocated between the AWI and DCFS programs based on the percentage of direct program costs. Final budget variances are determined upon closeout of the individual grants by program year. Note 3 - Cash Cash deposits are held by banks qualified as public depositories under Florida Statutes. All deposits are fully insured by federal insurance and by a multiple financial institution collateral pool required by Florida Statutes, Chapter 280, "The Florida Security for Public Deposits Act." _ Note 4 - Cash in Escrow An escrow account is maintained by SFETC's attorney to cover insurance deductibles on service providers' policies. The balance of this account was approximately $94,000 as of June 30, 2001. The remaining_balance of cash in escrow represent monies due to program participants for unclaimed wages of approximately $1,500 as of June 30, 2001. SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2001 Note 5 - Other Receivables Other receivables consist of cash advances made to service providers. The other receivables balance of approximately $42,500 as of June 30, 2001, is due from the following service providers: CAMACOL Commercial Jet, Inc. $ 20,000 22.500 $42,500 No allowance for doubtful accounts is provided as all accounts receivable are considered collectible. Note 6 - Fixed Assets Fixed assets are recorded at cost. The changes in fixed assets for the year ended June 30, 2001 are as follows: July 1, June 30, 2000 Additions Deletions 2001 Furniture and fixtures $ 16,550 $ 142,819 $ 159,369 Computer equipment 1,222,450 1,957,369 $ 317,162 2,862,657 Other equipment 242,622 154,329 98,033 298,918 Leasehold improvements 28.724 28.724 $ 1,481.622 $ 2.283.241 $ 415.195 $ 3.349.668 No depreciation is recorded with respect to general fixed assets. 02-- 570 0 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2001 Note 7 - Deferred Revenue As of June 30, 2001, deferred revenue consisted principally of grant monies received in advance of incurring the related expenditures. Deferred revenues are comprised of the following: Other receivables (see note 3) $ 42,500 Deposits - Staff Leasing 80,000 Deposits - Rent 67,745 Office of Community and Economic Development Grant 159,867 Johnson & Johnson Grant 33.428 $383,540 Note 8 - Compensated Absences Compensated absences principally consist of accumulated unpaid vacation and sick pay. Unused vacation time and sick leave is payable upon separation from service, subject to various limitations depending upon the employee's seniority. Accumulated unpaid compensated absences are recorded in the General Long -Term Debt Account Group. The amount expected to be liquidated with expendable available resources, which would be accrued in the Special Revenue Fund, is insignificant. The following is a summary of changes in the long-term liability for accrued compensated absences of SFETC for the year ended June 30, 2001: Balance at July 1, 2000 $ 731,758 Net Increase 148.703 Balar a'bt June 30, 2001 880 461 Note 9 - Other Change To Fund Balance The other change to fund balance during fiscal year 2001 is comprised of approximately $13,000 of cash transferred to SFETC pursuant to the merger with the Miami- Dade/Monroe WAGES Coalition discussed in Note 1. The $13,000 was obtained from private donations received by the Miami-Dade/Monroe WAGES Coalition. 9 02- 570 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM DIB/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2001 Note 10 - Related Party Transactions Contract Awards SFETC member jurisdictions and SFWB board members affiliations were allocated approximately $35,000,000 in contract awards for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. Services Miami -Dade County (County) provides payroll processing, procurement and other services for SFETC. The County did not charge for these services during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. Payroll All SFETC staff, except for the Executive Director, are employees of the County and are subject to its employment policies and procedures. All payroll costs are reimbursed to the County by SFETC. Retirement plan All SFETC staff are covered under Miami -Dade County's participation in the State of Florida Retirement System(FRS), a cost-sharing, multiple -employer Public Employee Retirement System(PERS). The FRS is noncontributory and is totally administered by the State of Florida. Benefits are computed on the basis of age, average final compensation, and service credit. Average final compensation is the average of the five highest fiscal years of earnings. The Florida Retirement System provides vesting of benefits after ten years of creditable service. Early retirement may be taken anytime after vesting; however, there is a 5% benefit reduction for each year prior to normal retirement age or date. The FRS also provides death and disability benefits. A State statute establishes benefits. FRS issues an annual financial report. A copy can be obtained by sending a written request to: Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 10 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS .TUNE 30, 2001 Note 10 - Related Party Transactions(contd.) Retirement plan (contd.) SFETC's required contribution rate is established by State statute, and was 10.15% of covered payroll for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001. The required contribution by SFETC to the FRS for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001 was approximately $398,000 compared to $338,000 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2000, and $554,000 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1999. This represents an average contribution of approximately 10.15% in fiscal year 2001, 10.15% in fiscal year 2000 and 16.45% in fiscal year 1999. SFETC has met all contribution requirements for the current year and the two preceding years. Deferred compensation plan SFETC staff are also eligible to participate in the County's employees' deferred compensation plan created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 457. The plan, available to all County employees, permits them to defer a portion of their salary until future years. The deferred compensation is notavailable to employees until termination, retirement, death, or unforeseeable emergency. In prior years the Internal Revenue Service specified that the Plan's assets were the property of the County until paid or made available to participants, subject only on an equal basis to the claims of the County's general creditors. Therefore, the Plan's assets were recorded in the Agency Fund of the County's financial statements. A 1996 federal law now requires all assets and income of the Internal Revenue Code Section 457 deferred compensation plans to be held in trust, custodial accounts, or annuity contracts for the exclusive benefit of the participants and their beneficiaries. Assets of the County's Plan are administered by private corporations under contract with the County. The Plan has been amended as to comply with the new federal law. Consequently the Plan's assets and liabilities have been removed from the County's financial statements. 02- 570 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2001 Note 11 - Commitments Lease Commitments SFETC is committed under certain facility lease agreements through March 31,2007. Rent expense for the year ended June 30, 2001 was approximately $1,529,000. Future minimum rental payments under these operating lease agreements for the years.ended June 30, are as follows: 2002 $1,161,109 2003 936,543 2004 552,992 2005 532,036 2006 398,352 thereafter 292.372 $3,873,404 Note 12 -Contingencies Compliance With State Performance Agreement Pursuant to a performance agreement between Workforce Florida, Inc. (WFI) and SFETC, SFETC is required to comply with fourteen performance measurements. As of June 30, 2001, SFETC failed to meet the following performance measurements: (a) Welfare Entered Employment Rate; (b) Welfare Entered Employment Wage Rate; (c) WIA Adult Wage Rate; (d) WIA Dislocated Worker Wage Rate; (e) WIA Overall Employment Rate; (f) WIA Youth Positive Outcome Rate; (g) Wagner-Peyser Entered Employment Rate; (h) Wagner- Peyser Wage Rate; (i) Unemployment Compensation Benefit Duration -in weeks. Management has implemented strategies to improve the performance measures. 12 02-- 570 SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM D/B/A SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE BOARD NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2001 Note 12-Contingencies(contd.) Dolphin Mall Employment Development Project The SFETC assumed an advance that was made by the former Miami-Dade/Monroe WAGES Coalition of $341,875 to the Dolphin Mail Limited Partnership under a contract to place 500 Welfare Transition participants at the retail outlet of this mall in Miami Dade County. This contract expired on December 31, 2001 and is to be closed out by August 31, 2002. It appears that the Dolphin Mall Limited Partnership will not earn enough credit under their contract with the SFETC to repay the advance. The SFETC has received assurance from Workforce Florida, Inc. that if they have used due diligence in monitoring the contract with the Dolphin Mall Limited Partnership, they will be held harmless against any liabilities in collecting the advance. Management is of the opinion that they have used due diligence in monitoring the contract and are therefore not liable for repayment of this advance. Therefore the advance has been written off as uncollectible as an expenditure in the accompanying financial statements. No liability to the State of Florida has been recorded in the accompanying financial statements. Litigation During the year ended June 30, 2001, SFETC was engaged in several lawsuits as a defendant. One lawsuit involves an employee alleging mistreatment by not being promoted. This matter was settled in February of 2002 for $60,000. Employee dismissal, layoff and/or suspension are frequently the source of litigation but, as of the date of the audit report,'management is not aware of any except the previously mentioned matter. There are two lawsuits involving former service providers claiming breach of contract. Another lawsuit relates to a landlord dispute. The maximum exposure of this lawsuit to SFETC is $230,000 plus interest, late fees, attorney's fees and costs. All of the outstanding lawsuits listed above are in the beginning stage and it is not possible to predict at this time SFETC's liability, if any. TERMS 01' CURRENT APPOINTEES STELL ACTIVE ON THE JEP BOARD JEP Member Andrews, John Auslander, Charles Carillo, Dania Fils-Aim, Daniel ✓ Gary, Howard Habif, Josefina Holloway, T. Wilbert Ivory, Willie Marx, Don May, Farides Masson, Donna Padron, Eduardo Riley, Bill Vega, Manuel CITY OF MIAMI Cateeory Date Term Expires CBO 6/01 C&F 6/01 Appo& menr Pending pz"' Business 6/01 Business 6/01 Business 6/01 CBO 6/00 ** Business 6/01 Business 6/00 ** Business 6/01 Senior Community Employment 6/01 Business 6/01 Education/Public 6/01 Labor 6/01 Business 6/01 02- 570 TERMS OF CURRENT APPOINTEES STILL ACTIVE ON -THE JEP BOARD JEP Member Blurton, Keith Crook, Bob Doyle, Jim Hernandez, Daniel Rodriguez, Nancy Rodriguez, Pedro Thompson, Ed CITY OF B IALEAH Cateeory Date Term Expires Business 6/00 ** Business 6/00 ** Business 6/01 Business 6/00 ** Other (Switch back to Educ/Pvt) 6/00 ** CBO 6/01 Business 6/00 ** 02- 570 TERMS OF CURRENT APPOINTEES STILL ACTIVE ON THE JEP BOARD JEP Member Adderly, T.C. Margolis, Ed Stokesberry, John CITY OF M A II BEACH Category LEO Business Elder Affairs Date Term Expires 6/00 6/00 6/01 02- 570 TERMS OF CURRENT APPOINTEES STILL ACTIVE ON THE JEP BOARD JEP Member Killion, Gale Lannon, Michael Malloch, Jim Ozegovich, Mike Seeker, William Waite, Bruce MONROE COUNTY Catnory Date Term Expires Business 6/01 Education/Public 6/00 ** LEO 6/01 Labor 6100 ** Education/Public 6/01 CBO 6/00 ** 02- �l Saved as S/ board packet format ion item format TTAC H M E N T NO. 5 Action Item Z - FUNDING DISTRIBUTION FY 2001-2002 • WORKFORCE FUNDING SOURCES i Memorandum dated May 7, 2001 from Mike Switzer to Curtis Austin Funding Streams ➢ Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Funds ➢ Wagner-Peyser Funds TANF Funds (Welfare Transition Programs) > Welfare -to -Work (WtW) Funds ➢ Food Stamp Employment and Training Program ➢ Unemployment Compensation Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Job Corps i- Local Veterans Employment Representative Program (LVER Program) Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) • WORKFORCE FUNDING RESOURCES 5= Regional Workforce Funding Allocations By Type PY 2001-2002 Florida Funding From WIA ➢ Florida Funding From TANF ➢ Florida Funding From WtW Florida Funding From Wagner-Peyser • WORKFORCE FUNDING DISTRIBUTION RECOMMENDATIONS ➢ Work Group Recommendations i Work Group Recommendation For Funding Allocation (Option A for Workload Determination) Additional Options for Workload Determination ➢ Allocation Comparison Summary 02- 570 • WORKFORCE FUNDING SOURCES ➢ Memorandum dated May 7, 2001 from Mike Switzer to Curtis Austin ➢ Funding Streams ➢ Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Funds ➢ Wagner-Peyser Funds `- TANF Funds (Welfare Transition Programs) Welfare -to -Work (WtW) Funds := Food Stamp Employment and Training Program Unemployment Compensation Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Job Corps ➢ Local Veterans Employment Representative Program (LVER Program) ➢ Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) 02' 570 MEMORANDUM DATE May 7, 2001 TO Curtis Austin, President, Workforce Florida FROM Mike Switzer SUBJECT Primary Workforce Funding Streams Under Authority of Workforce Florida, Inc. (WFI) As requested, I am providing a summary and analysis of the primary funding streams that are available in Florida to provide workforce services at the state and local levels, and which are under the planning, allocation and/or oversight authority of the Workforce Florida Board of Directors. This summary does not attempt to provide details on Board operating funds, funds over which WFI currently has minimal direct authority such as federal vocational education funds, or the limited state general revenue funds provided for specialized programs such as Quick Response Training. This summary focuses on the four primary federal funding streams: Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Wagner-Peyser (W -P), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF, or Welfare Transition), and Welfare -to -Work (WtW). Some of the lesser federal and state funding streams are also noted but not covered in detail. GENERAL FEDERAL LAW LIMITATIONS/REQUIREMENTS All the four primary funding streams and most other federal funds flowing to the states and localities have a number of basic requirements, limitations and expectations that constitute "strings" on the funds, with some of the more notable including: • obligation to report details regarding obligations, expenditures, and justification for all financial activity, including monitoring to verify compliance; • obligation to report and achieve specified participant service and outcome goals; general prohibition on using federal funds for purchase of real property, major construction or capital improvements; • obligation to comply with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cash management requirements such as limiting cash draw-down/state cash reserves and forbidding escrow/scholarship arrangements; and Page 1 of 4 02- 570 • obligation to use competitive procurement for purchases of goods or services above certain threshold limits, but allowing use of approved state and/or local competitive processes. GENERAL STATE LAW LIMITATIONS/REQUIREMENTS The Workforce Florida Act of 2000 and other substantive state law, rules and guidelines provide some additional limitations/requirements on use of workforce funds, including: • all expenditures of federal funds must be approved by the State Legislature as part of the annual General Appropriations Act, subject to any with any provisos or requirements of substantive state statutes and limitations on "carry -forward" of spending authority. • expenditures/distributions by/through the Agency for Workforce Innovation (AWI) must be approved by WFI as part of the annual administration/fiscal entity agreement between WTI and AWI or directed by vote of the WFI Board of Directors. [Section 20.50, Florida Statutes] • at least 90% of all workforce funding shall "...go into direct customer services costs." [Section 44 .004 (5)(a), F.S.] • WFI nd AWI are required to follow the general state procurement laws [Chapter 287, F.S.] t1° ut the Regional Workforce Boards (RWBs) may follow alternative but equivalent competitive procedures approved by WFI, such as County or Community College procedures used by RWBs. [Section 445.007(l 1), F.S.] • all contracts executed by WFI, AWI and RWBs must have specific performance expectations and deliverables. [Sections 445.004, 445.007, 445.009, etc., F.S.] • state-levelgrant awards projects are required to follow state Comptroller's requirements regarding ract terms, advances, documentation required for reimbursements or performance payments, contract extensions, etc. WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT (WIA) SPECIFICS BASIC PURPOSE AND ELIGIBILITY: Provides workforce core, intensive and training services to adults, youth and dislocated workers through a One -Stop delivery system; broad, nearly universal eligibility for low-cost core services (e.g. access to job listings), more restrictive eligibility for intensive and training services based on low-income, employment barriers and/or dislocation from employment. SPECIFIC MANDATES/LIMITATIONS: Multiple federal laws regulations governing use of funds, reporting, etc. State law mandates percentages of WIA funds be used for Individual Training Accounts (ITAs) at local and state levels. Senate Bill 1672 (passed by Legislature but not yet acted upon by Governor) mandates that 15% of WIA Youth funds "...shall be expended for after-school care programs, through contracts with qualified community-based organizations and faith -based organizations..." for eligible children ages 14 through 18, with TANF funds to be used for eligible children ages 6 through 13. DISTRIBUTION MECHANISMS: Federal law specifies formulas for distributing WIA among states and intra -state, primarily based upon relative shares of workforce, unemployment, and poverty factors. For adult and youth funds, 85% must be distributed to RWBs by formula, with 15% reserved at state level for state -level operational expenses, performance-based incentive payments to RWBs, oversight of RWBs, technical assistance and training, incumbent worker training and demonstrations/pilots, or Page 2 of 4 Board -authorized initiatives. Dislocated worker funds also contribute 15% to the state -level "pool," with another 25% set aside for rapid response assistance to dislocated workers, including emergency supplements to-RWBs, in addition to the 60% distributed up -front based on a formula emphasizing relative unemployment factors, including plant closings. WAGNER-PEYSER (W -P) SPECIFICS BASIC PURPOSE AND ELIGIBILITY: Wagner-Peyser (named after the original US Senate sponsors) is the traditional source of funds for operating the Florida Employment Service or Job Service for the primary purpose of serving as the "basic labor exchange" linking employers who post job listings with job seekers through job development, referral and similar services. Eligibility for basic W -P services is practically universal, with some specialized services limited to specialized needs (e.g. migrant and seasonal farm workers, ex -offenders, etc.). SPECIFIC MANDATES/LIMITATIONS: W -P funds cannot be used for training and staff paid with W -P funds to provide W -P services are required by current federal regulations to be "state merit service" employees. DISTRIBUTION MECHANISMS: W -P funds are distributed among the states by formula using relative shares of civilian workforce and unemployment levels. There is no federal or state law mandate regarding sub -state distribution mechanisms. Historically the Florida Department of Labor and AWI have deployed W -P staff and associated expense money to offices around the state based on factors such as workload, position vacancies, location of available work sites, and new service strategies such as "hubbing" and call centers. TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) SPECIFICS BASIC PURPOSE AND ELIGIBILITY: TANF replaces the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and serves very low-income families with children, including two-parent families. TANF, however, strongly emphasizes a "Work First" philosophy, combining time limits and sanctions with added assistance in obtaining needed training, starting work, receiving childcare, transportation and transitional supports to retain work, advance and become self-sufficient. SPECIFIC MANDATES/LIMITATIONS: Monetary eligibility limits for receiving cash benefits are fairly complex and rigid (e.g. income under 70% of federal poverty levels). Assistance in the form of one-time payments, job placement assistance, diversion and transitional support services can be more broadly extended to "needy families" (set at 200% of poverty level in Florida) along with other programs calculated to reduce dependency, such as teen pregnancy prevention programs, Pre -Paid Scholarships for dependent children, and Responsible Fatherhood programs. Florida is required to providing matching state general revenue funds to satisfy the federal "maintenance of effort" (MOE). TANF funds cannot be used for medical expenses or to serve certain teen parents, undocumented immigrants or convicted felons. TANF funds which are unspent at the local level within specified time limits are restricted to "benefits only" and can no longer be used for other purposes such as workforce and support services. In order to prevent unspent funds in the past from shifting to the "benefits only" category, Florida executed a contract committing to provide specified levels of funds annually to the 24 RWBs through June 30, 2002, with the total amount committed for FY 2001-2002 Fiscal Year set at approximately $131 million. Page 3 of 4 02- 570 DISTRIBUTION MECHANISMS: TANF funds are provided to the states by block grants through September 30, 2002, with some special supplements provided to Florida and other states through September 30, ?001. The block grant mechanisms and amounts will need to be reauthorized by Congress. There are no federally established formulas for sub -state distribution of TANF funds, noting that TANF administration in most states is state or county -based, with no decentralized governance/delivery structures similar to Florida's RWBs. A sub -state distribution formula based on current, past and potential workload was recommended and discussed at the March, WFI Board meeting but not formally acted on. The General Appropriations Act adopted by the 2001 the Florida Legislature includes Specific Appropriation 2145 which appropriates $163,234,917 as "Grants and Aids" to the 24 RWBs but also includes the proviso that "... a minimum of $153,234,917 shall be distributed to Regional Workforce Boards effective July 1, 2001, in accordance with workload -based formula approved by the Board of Directors of Workforce Florida, Inc." WELFARE -TO -WORK (WtW) SPECIFICS BASIC PURPOSE AND ELIGIBILITY: The WtW program was established by Congress after TANF for the express purpose of providing additional resources to assist the hardest -to -employ TANF recipients and to improve job retention, skills upgrades, career advancement and earnings gain. Eligibility is narrower than for TANF, with 70% of funds to be used for long-term TANF recipients, with 30% allowed to be used for other TANF participants with specified barriers and certain non- custodial parents. SPECIFIC MANDATES/LIMITATIONS: WtW is administered through the US Department of Labor (USDOL) and has fairly narrow eligibility definitions, tight limits on use of funds, and a 50% matching requirement ($1 of non-federal funds to be spent on WtW clients for every $2 of federal WtW funds). Other federal hinds cannot be used for the match. No more than six (6) months of vocational training can be provided. Initially the funds were to be fully expended by September 30, 2001. Based on recent Congressional action some of the limitations on eligibility and use of funds were relaxed and states have been given the option of requesting two (2) more years to use the funds and provide the required match. Application for extension can be filed by September 30, 2001 for a period not to exceed two (2) years. DISTRIBUTION MECHANISMS: WtW funds for provided for two Federal Fiscal Years (FFY), 1998 and 1999 (10/1/97-9/30/1999) with funds allocated among the states by USDOL based on relative shares of poverty and unemployment. Based on the current WtW Grant Agreement between USDOL and Florida, 85% of the funds were allocated to the 24 RWBs based on relative shares of poverty, unemployment and targeted hard -to -employ populations, with each RWB receiving a minimum allocation of $100,000. USDOL has taken the position that the allocations to the RWBs cannot be altered or deobligated/reallocated, even by modification of the state's WtW Plan. All 24 regions received allocation (these allocations are included in the following section (Workforce Funding Resources) that details available workforce resources. Page 4of4 02-- 570 WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT (WIA) FUNDS �— Once funds are allocated to RWB's, the funds are considered `formula' or local funds, and Funding eligibility parameters are modified. Purpose To focus on meeting the needs of businesses for skilled workers and the training, education and employment needs of individuals. State 15% Set -Aside States may merge the 15% set -asides for statewide activities from the three separate funding streams to increase services to one of the three groups. Statewide activities include: incumbent worker training projects, authorized youth and adult activities. Florida law authorizes $2 million of the set-aside for the state Incumbent Worker Training program. RWB Formula Funds Adults: Core Services – available to all adults regardless of income/standing. Examples of services include job search & placement help, career counseling, labor market information, initial assessment of skills and needs, information about available services. Intensive Services – available to unemployed individuals who cannot find a job through core services alone; and employed workers who need more help to find/keep a job. Examples are comprehensive assessments, individual employment plans, group/individual counseling, case management, short-term pre -vocational services. Training Services – if a job cannot be found after intensive services, or if employed, aperson needs training to reach self-sufficiency, training linked to job opportunities in the local area are available. The definition of self-sufficiency may vary region to region, but is usually considered up to 200% of the poverty level. Examples include skills training, OJT, skill Eligibility upgrading, adult education / literacy services. Note: If adult funds are limited in an area, priority is given to love -income persons. Funding for support services (e.g., transportation) may also be provided to allow persons to remain in training. Youth: must be ages 14-21, low-income, and face at least one of six specific barriers to employment: 1. high school drop-out; 2. literacy deficiency; 3. homeless, runaway, foster child; 4. pregnant or a parent; 5. an offender; or 6. help needed to complete an educational program or to hold a job. (Up to 5% non -low-income may be served, if they face one of the above barriers to school completion/employment). At least 30% of local youth funds must help out-of-school youth. Service providers must have strong ties to employers. Service examples: tutoring, study skills training (including drop-out prevention), alternative school services, mentoring, paid/unpaid work experiences, occupational skills training, leadership development, support services. Dislocated Workers: Similar to Adult eligibility standards. Note: Local areas may transfer 20 percent between adult and dislocated worker funding streams if necessary. ITA's: Training can only be provided with the use of ITA's (three exceptions where contract CAN for training instead of ITA use are: OJT training, customized training, or an insufficient number of providers). CANNOT No construction or purchase of buildings 02- 570 WAGNER PEYSER FUNDS _ Funding is allocated through the United States Employment Service, through grant agreements with the States. The Agency for Workforce Innovation is the designated Funding recipient for all of these funds. There is no required federal or state formula to distribute funds below the state -level. Florida uses the federal funding formula to distribute current year dollars to the regional workforce boards. Establishes a nationwide system of One Stop Centers and supports the system to serve persons seeking or needing employment and employers seeking workers in include employer services, services to Migrant & Seasonal Farm Workers (MSFW) and services to Veterans. Funds are allocated to each State to plan and administer a labor exchange program that most effectively responds to the needs of the State's employers and job seekers Ninety percent of the sums allotted to each State may be used-- • for job search and placement services to job seekers including counseling, testing, occupational and labor market information, assessment, and referral to employers; • for appropriate recruitment services and special technical services for employers; • evaluation of programs; • developing linkages between services funded under this Act and related Federal or State legislation, including the provision of labor exchange services at educational Purpose sites; •providing services for workers who have received notice of permanent layoff or impending layoff, or workers in occupations which are experiencing limited demand due to technological change, impact of imports, or plant closures; • developing and providing labor market and occupational information; • developing a management information system and compiling and analyzing reports and • administering the work test for the State unemployment compensation system and providing job finding and placement services for unemployment insurance claimants. Section 7(b) requires for 10% of all W -P funds be used for • incentive awards for local performance, • demonstration job placement projects • special job placement assistance for job placement. • services for groups with special needs Staff paid under W -P are covered under State Merit Service Payroll. Federal law specifies a funding formula that distributes two-thirds of the available funds Eligibility among the states based on each state's relative share of the civilian labor force and one- third of the available funds based on each state's relative share of unemployed persons. • Focuses on providing job finding, workshops, referral and placement services to job Examples of seekers Uses • Re-employment services to unemployment insurance claimants • Recruitment services to employers with job vacancies Linking employers who post job listings with job seekers through job development, CAN referral and similar services Cannot be used for training, construction, purchase of real property, or capital CANNOT improvements 02-Y 570 TANF FUNDS Welfare Transition Programs Funding Allocated by legislature: 1. Provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; 2. End the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job Purpose preparation, work, and marriage; 3. Prevent and reduce the incidence of out -of -wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and 4. Encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Needy families can be served by all four purposes (see above). A needy family must meet the income and/or resource standards established by the state in Eligibility its TANF plan. The state of Florida's TANF plan defines needy as having income below 200% of the federal poverty level. Allowable expenditures for particular activities, benefits, or services consist of those that are "in any manner reasonably calculated to accomplish" any one of the four purposes of the TANF program. Activities, benefits, or services that are reasonably calculated to accomplish a TANF purpose are those that directly lead to (or can be expected to lead to) achievement of TANF purpose. This language includes all activities that are obviously related to a purpose. It also includes activities whose relationship to a purpose may not be obvious, but for which there is evidence that it achieves a purpose. For example, there is a clear statistical relationship between staying in school and lower teen pregnancy rates. Thus, we would conclude that special initiatives to keep teens in school are reasonably related to the third purpose of TANF—to reduce out -of -wedlock pregnancies. Purpose 1: Examples of use include cash assistance, childcare, and support services (i.e., transportation, ancillary expenses), needed to complete work activities. Purpose 2: Under this purpose, a State could help any needy parent, including a non- custodial parent or a working parent, by providing employment, job preparation, or Examples of training services. Examples of potential services include job or career advancement Use activities, marriage counseling, childcare services, and employment services designed to increase the non-custodial parent's ability to pay child support. Activities that promote any one of the three objectives job preparation, work, and marriage -would be consistent with this purpose. Purpose 3. Potential activities would include abstinence programs, and programs and services for youth such as counseling, teen pregnancy prevention campaigns, and after- school programs that provide supervision when schools are not in session. Media campaign for the general population on abstinence or preventing out -of -wedlock childbearing can also be funded. Purpose 4: A significant share of TANF families consists of unmarried mothers with low skills who live with their children apart from low -skilled, underemployed fathers. Many of these fathers are involved in the lives of their children and provide some financial support, but would like to do much more. Historically, however, the fathers have found limited employment opportunities, and welfare rules have worked to discourage family formation 02- 570 02- 570 and fuller involvement of these fathers in the lives of their children. Potential activities for addressing these issues might include: parenting skills training, premarital and marriage counseling, and mediation services; activities to promote parental access and vis:`aLion; Examples of job placement and training services for non-custodial parents; initiatives to promote Use responsible fatherhood and increase the capacity of fathers to provide emotional and (continued) financial support for their children; and crisis or intervention services. Purposes 3 & 4 are not limited to the needy. The state may use federal TANF funds to serve non -needy families or individuals for either of these two purposes as long as the state has established objective criteria for the delivery ofservice to the non -needy. Training and Education (RITA) Support services for work related activities. Program Employment preparation and placement Services Transitional Benefits Diversion Services Services to non-custodial parents Other services as listed in the Categorization of Work Programs When planning for the provision of new or expanded services, supports, and activities, States must be aware of certain statutory requirements, restrictions, and cost principles that apply to the use of Federal TANF funds. The general prohibitions and restrictions include Prohibitions restrictions on providing "assistance" to certain teen parents, convicted felons, and individuals convicted of fraud; a prohibition on expending Federal TANF funds on medical services (except pre -pregnancy family planning); and a 15% cap on administrative expenditures. 02- 570 - ELFARE TO WORK (WtW) FUND,, 02-- 570 A State is allowed to retain 15 percent of the money for Welfare -to -Work projects of its — choice. The States must provide one dollar of non-federal funding match for every two dollars of federal funding provided under the formula. Sub -state Allocations: Funds are distributed to local areas by a formula. At least half of Funding the fiinds passed through to local workforce boards (or alternate administering agencies) must be distributed to each region based on a poverty formula. Not more than half of the funds may be distributed based on two additional factors: (1) the number of adults receiving TANF assistance for 30 months or more and (2) the number of unemployed in the region. Moving people from welfare to work is the primary goal of federal welfare policy, including creating additional job opportunities for the hardest -to -employ recipients of TANF. These grants will provide welfare recipients with job placement services, Purpose transitional employment, and other support services they need to make the successful progression into long-term unsubsidized employment. To serve both long-term welfare recipients and non custodial parents of low-income children At least 70% of grant funds must be expended to provide services to long-term TANF recipients. TANF recipients are eligible if they have received assistance for at least 30 months, if they are within 12 months of reaching their TANF time limit, or if they have exhausted their receipt of TANF due to time limits. In addition, non-custodial parents are eligible if they meet all 3; 1) are unemployed, underemployed, or having difficulty making child support payments. 2) their minor children are eligible for, or receiving, TANF benefits (with a priority for parents with children who are long-term TANF recipients); received TANF benefits during the preceding year, or are eligible for, or receiving, assistance under the Food Stamps Eligibility program, the Supplemental Security Income program, Medicaid, or the Children's Health Insurance Program. 3) they enter into a personal responsibility contract under which they commit to cooperate in establishing paternity, paying child support, and participating in services to increase their employment and earnings to enable them to support their children. Projects may also spend up to 30 percent of grant funds on TANF recipients who have characteristics associated with long-term dependency. Also youth who have formerly received foster care services, custodial parents with incomes below the poverty line, and TANF recipients who face barriers to self-sufficiency under criteria established by the local workforce investment board or private industry council. Funds may be used to help move eligible individuals into long-term unsubsidized jobs using strategies such as: job creation through short-term public or private sector wage subsidies; on-the-job training; contracts with public or private providers of job readiness, Examples of job placement, and post -employment services; job vouchers for similar services (except Uses for grantees which are not Workforce Investment Boards, which may provide these services directly); community service or work experience; job retention and supportive services (if such services are not otherwise available); or six months of pre-employment job training or vocational educational training. CAN Conduct community service or work experience programs, job creation, OJT, provide transportation, basic education skills training. CANNOT No construction or purchase of buildings, no medical expenses. 02-- 570 Food amp Employment and Training Ps ogram _ 445.004 F.S. and the Food Stamp Act of 1977, U.S.C., ss. 2011-2032, The Food Authority Security Act of 1988, Pub. Law No.99-198, and the Hunger Prevention Act, Pub. Law No. 100-435. The mission of the Food Stamp Employment and Training Program (FSET) is Brief Program register eligible able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) for work and Description: require that those individuals participate in FSET employment and training activities that will enable them to become self-supporting. Description of how the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) federal funds and state general revenue State and Agency funds are appropriated to the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF). Receives its DCF transfers the funds to the Agency for Workforce Innovation by means of an Allotment: Interagency Agreement. Methodology to distribute funds among Funds are distributed based upon the FSET caseload. Caseload is defined as those the regional workforce individuals receiving food stamps and meets the criteria of an ABAWD. boards 02.4 570 Unemployment Compensation 02- 570 Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 501- 504, 1101-1109; Trade Act of 1974, as amended, Public Law 93-618, 88 Stat. 2024, 19 U.S.C. 2311; Federal Authority Unemployment Tax Act, as amended, 26 U.S.C. 3404 note; Federal Employees and Ex -Service Members, 5 U.S.C. 8501 and 8521; Robert.T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended, Public Law 100-707, 88 Stat. 153, 42 U.S.C. 5171. The States have the direct responsibility for establishing and operating their own unemployment insurance programs, while the Federal Government finances the cost of administration. State unemployment insurance tax collections are used solely for the payment of benefits. Federal unemployment insurance tax collections are used to finance expenses deemed necessary for proper and efficient Brief Program administration of the State unemployment insurance laws; to reimburse State funds Description: for one-half the costs of extended benefits paid under the provisions of State laws which conform to the provisions of the Social Security Act and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act; and to make repayable advances to States when needed to pay benefit costs. Most of the available funds are used by the Agency for Workforce Innovation for the direct administration and operation of the program. Some of the funds are distributed to the regional workforce boards for UC eligibility reviews and re-employment services for claimants. The state must apply to the regional office of the Employment and Training Administration, for a grant based on target performance levels issued to the States Description of how through ETA regional offices pursuant to a nationally developed workload the State and Agency estimate. All plans are constructed in terms of selected workloads to be undertaken Receives its and the resources and numbers of employees needed to accomplish them. For the Allotment: year beginning July 1, 2001 the state will also receive an additional $967,082 in funds to support re-employment services. These additional funds will be added to the state's regular Wagner-Peyser grant. Methodology to distribute funds There is no established formula for the distribution of funds available for eligibility among the regional reviews and re-employment assistance. These funds are distributed to the regional workforce boards workforce boards to help support one-stop activities. 02- 570 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Job Corps Authority Workforce Investment Act of 1998; Public Law 105-220 Job Corps is the nation's largest residential education and training program for low- income youth. To be eligible for Job Corps, participants must be between 16-24 years of age; be economically disadvantaged; be a legal U.S. resident; be high Brief Program school dropouts or in need of additional education or training; not on probation or Description: parole; be free of behavioral problems and be willing to abide by Job Corps rules and regulations. The Job Corps Mission is to help low-income youth become responsible, employable and productive citizens by providing training that will assist participants access the technologies and developing skills needed for successful participation in the 215` century workplace. Description of how This is the third year of a five-year contract between USDOL, Region III, Office of the State and Agency Youth Services/Job Corps and Florida's Agency for Workforce Innovation. The Receives its Agency negotiates the amount of funds awarded to the state during the contract Allotment: development process. Methodology to The location and number of positions statewide were negotiated two years ago and distribute funds are included in the five-year contract. The Job corps program pays all among the regional expenditures/costs incurred by and associated with each position. Funds are workforce boards distributed throughout the state based on estimated workload. i V,1- 570 Local Veterans' Employment Representative Program (LVER PROGRAM) 02- 570 Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, Title IV, Section 602, Public Laws 92 - Authority 502, 92-540, 94-502, 94-606, 100-323, 102- 76, and 102-83, 38 U.S.C. 4104 and FY2001 DVOP/LVER Grant Award Agreement. The LVER program provides job development, placement, and support services directly to veterans and ensures that there is local supervision of State Employment Service/Job Service compliance with Federal regulations, performance standards, and grant agreement provisions in carrying out requirements of 38 U.S.C. 4104 in Brief Program providing veterans with maximum employment and training opportunities. The Description: Program involves the provision of workforce services to veteran customers in the one-stop career centers through the funding of LVER staff who provide and facilitate these services. LVERs are primarily responsible for the functional oversight of the local Veterans' Program, ensuring that mandated priority services for veterans are provided by all staff in the one-stop career centers. 38 U.S.C. 4104 states that, as nearly as practicable each State has: (1) one full-time LVER assigned to each local ES office with 1,100 or more registered veterans, (2) Description of how one additional full-time LVER may be assigned to each local ES office for each the State and Agency 1,500 registered veterans above 1,100, and (3) one half-time LVER assigned to Receives its each local ES office with at least 350 but less than 1,100 registered veterans. The Allotment: Agency for Workforce Innovation (AWI) applies for LVER grant funding with an official application submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, Veterans' Employment and Training Service. The current FY2001 LVER grant is a five-year grant, however funding is awarded on a fiscal year (FY) basis. Methodology to distribute funds The assignment of LVER positions to each Regional Workforce Board (RWB) is among the regional based on authorized LVER positions according to the federally prescribed formula. workforce boards 02- 570 — Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program (DVOP) 02- 570 Veterans' Rehabilitation and Education Amendments of 1980; Public Laws 96-466, Authority 100-323, 102-83, 102-501, 102-503; Public Law 102-568, 38 U.S.C. 4103A and FY2001 DVOP/LVER Grant Award Agreement. To provide jobs and job training opportunities for disabled and other veterans through contacts with employers; promote and develop on-the-job training and apprenticeship and other on-the-job training positions within Federal job training (e.g. VWIP, VA programs); provide outreach to veterans through all community Brief Program agencies and organizations; provide assistance to community-based groups and Description: organizations and appropriate grantees under other Federal and federally -funded employment and training programs; develop linkages with other agencies to promote maximum employment opportunities for veterans; and to provide job placement, counseling, testing, job referral to eligible veterans, especially disabled veterans of the Vietnam era, utilizing a case -management approach to services, wherever applicable. 38 U.S.C. 4103A (a)(1) specifies that one DVOP specialist shall be assigned for Description of how each 7,400 veterans who are between the ages of 20 and 64 residing in the State. the State and Agency The Agency for Workforce Innovation (AWI) applies for DVOP grant funding with Receives its an official application submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, Veterans' Allotment: Employment and Training Service. The current FY2001 DVOP grant is a five-year grant, however funding is awarded on a fiscal year (FY) basis_ Methodology to distribute funds The assignment of DVOP positions to each Regional Workforce Board (RWB) is among the regional based on authorized DVOP positions according to the federally prescribed formula. workforce boards 02- 570 • WORKFORCE FUNDING RESOURCES ➢ Regional Workforce Funding Allocations By Type PY 2001-2002 Florida Funding From WIA ➢ Florida Funding From TANF Florida Funding From WtW Florida Funding From Wagner-Peyser 02- 570 REGIONAL WORKFORCE FUNDING ALLOCATIONS BY TYPE PY 2001.02 Welfare to Region WIA Allocations, TANF2 Work, Wagner-Peyser4 Other Funds$ TOTALS Adult Youth Dislocated 1 $ 677,555 $ 997,391 $ 612,991 $ 3,548,259 $ 2,651,807 $ 698,086 $ 1,817,160 $ 11,003,249 2 $ 234,619 $ 265,793 $ 237,040 $ 1,335,315 $ 726,580 $ 374,259 $ 554,196 $ 3,727,802 3 $ 369,625 $ 499,445 $ 138,144 $ 1,577,172 $ 1,054,789 $ 174,069 $ 472,700 $ 4,285,943 4 $ 628,452 $ 939,813 $ 318,176 $ 2,586,224 $ 1,096,565 $ 366,589 $ 1,005,080 $ 6,940,898 5 $ 516,594 $ 615,234 $ 289,338 $ 4,194,955 $ 2,534,285 $ 570,542 $ 1,252,184 $ 9,973,132 6 $ 310927 $ 419835 $ 175,926 $ 2,206,034 $ 1,113,172 $ 161,655 $ 691,791 $ 5,079,340 7 $ 271,177 $ 111 382646 -147,215 $ 116891 $ 2,589,974 $ 1,014,196 $ $ 369,920 $ 4,892,019 8 $ 1,709,951 $ 1,940,890 $ 1,429,978 $ 8,063,552 $ 5,149,083 $ 2,166,890 $ 4,111,704 $ 24,572,048 9 $ 377,109 $ 553,985 $ 162,944 $ 4,098,702 $ 2,504,365 $ 386,844 $ 770,506 $ 8,854,455 10 $ 750,130 $ 722,224 $ 562,812 $ 5,531,130 $ 2,086,309 $ 585,015 $ 1,313,972 $ 11,551,591 11 $ 633,347 $ 720,037 $ 470,311 $ 3,331,579 $ 2,106,809 $ 697,112 $ 1,268,224 $ 9,227,419 12 $ 1,265,497 $ 1,457 806 $ 1,902,046 $ 9,308,398 $ 5,503,097 $ 3,228,213 $ 4,794,280 $ 27,459,338 13 $ 611,161 $ 704,518 $ 576,552 $ 3,201,413 $ 1,425,907 $ 812,129 $ 1,888,068 $ 9,219,748 14 $ 1,100,053 $ 713,346 $ 1,034,889 $ 6,670,831 $ 3,072,552 $ 1,693,204 $ 3,005,628 $ 17,290,503 15 $ 1,361,621 $ 1,505,833 $ 1,262,247 $ 8,906,662 $ 5,050,689 $ 1,977,222 $ 3,320,155 $ 23,384,429 16 $ 528,882 $ 423,599 $ 490,185 $ 2,992,747 $ 1,763,331 $ 693,265 $ 1,351,120 $ 8,243,130 17 $ 1,374,910 $ 1,575,506 $ 987,870 $ 4,188,283 $ 2,714,110 $ 862,696 $ 2,235,793 $ 13,939,159 18 $ 418,921 $ 308,955 $ 696,637 $ 2,638,251 $ 1,155,362 $ 940,272 $ 1,632,957 $ 7,791,355 19 $ 581,345 $ 634,454 $ 242,322 $ 1,483,142 $ 947,166 $ 214,228 $ 498,506 $ 4,601,163 20 $ 1,847,024 $ 2,260,946 $ 1,215,855 $ 3,981,562 $ 2,273,314 $ 955,263 $ 2,063,817 $ 14,597,780 21 $ 2,896,872 $ 2,690,820 $ 2,325,338 $ 5,858,519 $ 4,001,110 $ 2,183,557 $ 4,453,345 $ 24,409,561 22 $ 3,032,516 $ 2,464,214 $ 2,390,293 $ 8,846,499 $ 5,584,597 $ 3,031,502 $ 5,261,995 $ 30,611,616 23 $ 9,338,630 $ 10,267,188 $ 4,828,271 $ 51,344,743 $ 25,664,898 $ 4,889,329 $ 12,518,001 $ 118,851,059 24 $ 1,260 661 $ 1,164,692 $ 1,119,795 $ 4,750,970 $ 2,250,875 $ 1,313,248 $ 2,198,180 $ 14,058,621 O 426,993,844 REGIONAL TOTALS $ 32,097,576 $ 34,229 371 $ 23,586 850 $ 153,234,917 $ 83,444,968 $ 29,122,404 $ $ 382,709,930 SIAN LML AuocArq $ 5,664,278 $ 6,040,477 $ 5,896,713 $ 34,033,330 $ 14,725,583 $ 7,050,918 $ 13,295,918 $86,707,217 TOTAL $ 37,761,854 $ 40,269,848 $ 29,483,563 $ 187,268,247 $ 98,170,551 $36,173,322 $ 40,289,762 $469,417,147 1: PY 2001 Allocation only, not Including carry -forward. 2: Shows recommended PY 2001 Allocations to Regions & AWI/OLES only. 4: Based upon tentative WFI proposal dated 5/1101 which distributes approx. $0% to regions using W -P formula, level costs and 10% 7(b) for incentives, demonstration Q special placement services. retains 10% for slate S: Combined FY 98 d 99 grants without expenditures deducted. 5: Includes t1C, LVER, OVOP, FSET,JC, NAFTA7TAA, WOTC,LMSdamonstration 8 special placement services. Estimates based on current year totals and local deployments. WFI 5/4/01 FLORIDA FUNDING FROM WIA Funding from USDOL PY 01-02 (Initial Allotment) $117,343.119 Total 15% = 5,664,278 15 % = 6 040 477 15 % = 5,896,713 15% STATEWIDE ACTIVITIES ($17,601,467 TOTAL) FOR: !NCENTIVES TECIINICAL ASSISTANCE R TRAINING (TAT), ADMINISTRATION, COMPLIANCE, WFI STATE BOARD, INCUMBENT WORKER TRAINING, DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AND OTHER STATEWIDE. PROJECTS 25% = 9,827,854 FOR RAPID RESPONSE/ DISLOCATED WORKER ASSISTANCE REGIONAL ALLOCATIONS TOTAL $89.,913,797 85 % _ $ 32,097,576 85 % _ $ 34, 229, 371 60% _ $ 23,586,850 ADULT SERVICES YOUTH SERVICES DISLOCATED WORKER SERVICES INCLUDING REGIONAL WORKFORCE BOARD OVERSIGHT, CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS, ETC. QJt WFI 5/1/01 FLORIDA FUNDING FROM TANF FFY 01 HIGH PERFORMANCE GRANT $20,853,991 NOT YET APPROPRIATED DCF $4o7,os9,7s8 (69.9% OBLIGATED FOR: CHILD CARE SERVICE$, CHILD, PROTECTION, OTHER SUPPORTIVE SERVICES TO STRENGTHEN FAMILIES AND THE WORKING POOR ADMINISTERED BY DCF, DOH, AND DMA, DCF ADMINISTRATION, AND REQUIRED STATE RESERVE.* •Client welfare payments are not included in this amount. These are funded by maintenance of general revenue, which totals $237,731,499 for PY01-02. Funding from HHS PY 01-02 GRANT FUNDS (Base Block Grant, & Supplemental) $ 582,665,035 Total AWI 175,575,247 (28.2% $12,340,330 (2.0%)- FOR: 2.0%)FOR: ADMINISTRATION, COMPLIANCE, TIM WFI STATE BOARD AND OTHER MANDATED STATEWIDE ACTIVITIES $10,000,000 (1.6%) I FOR: SPECIAL PROJECTS & SERVICES REGIONAL ALLOCATIONS TOTAL $153,234,917 (25.6 %). FORMULA DISTRIBUTION FOR THE WELFARE TRANSITION PROGRAM WF15/4/01 FLORIDA FUNDING FROM WtW Funding from USDOL PY 98 & 99 (Continuing Allotments) $ 98,170,551 Total 15 % = $ 14,725,583 FOR: ADMINISTRATION AND STATEWIDE ACTIVITIES REGIONAL ALLOCATIONS TOTAL $831444,968 (85%) FLORIDA FUNDING FROM WAGNER-PEYSER Funding from USDOL PY 0l -02 (Preliminary) $36,221,676, Total 10% = 3,525,459 10% GOVERNOR'S 78 DISCRETIONARY FUNDS FOR: INCENTIVES, EXEMPLARY MODELS, GROUPS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS 10 % = 3,525,459 FOR: ADMINISTRATION AND STATEWIDE ACTIVITIES W FI 5/10/01 NEW FEDERAL PROJECT DESIGNED TO ASSIST THE UNEMPLOYED FIND REEMPLOYMENT 5% $48,354 FOR: ADMINISTRATION AND STATEWIDE ACTIVITIES RESOURCES AT REGIONAL LEVEL TOTAL "$22,9,1224041 80% = $28,2039676 BASIC LABOR EXCHANGE 95% = $ 918,728 REEMPLOYMENT SERVICES • WORKFORCE FUNDING DISTRIBUTION RECOMMENDATIONS ➢ Work Group Recommendations ➢ Work Group Recommendation For Funding Allocation (Option A for Workload Determination) ➢ Additional Options for Workload Determination ➢ Allocation Comparison Summary 02- 570 A. Action Item 2 FUNDING DISTRIBUTION FY 2001-2002 Use of State Level Funds While it will not be clear exactly what funds will be available for next year's programs (we know what has been appropriated, but have not negotiated contracts with AWI or EFI) staff have made a determination that the following minimal funding allocations can be determined: TANF Funds: $12,300,000 WIA Funds: 9,800,000 Wagner Peyser 7B 3,400.000 $25,500,000 Staff Recommendations Based upon last year's allocation approved by the board, staff is recommending the following distributions: Funds be to reserved for Performance Awards: Amount of TANF Incentive Funds $ 2,300,000 Amount of WIA Incentive Funds: 1,800,000 Amount of W -P Incentive Funds 1,700,000 w TNF $5,800,000 = g t 3 '� Funds to be reserved for Council Priorities: Amount of TANF Funds: $10,000,000 -. p Amount of WIA Funds: 8,000,000 Wagner Peyser 7B Funds: 1.700,000 C $19,700,000 02- 570 B. Distribution of TANF Funds to Regional Boards During the March 22nd board meeting, there was discussion of reserving'a portion of the TANF appropriation for priorities of the Councils. The General Appropriations act contains proviso language requiring that of the $163,234,917 appropriated in Specific Appropriation 2145, "...a minimum of $153,234,917 shall be distributed to Regional Workforce Boards effective July 1, 2001 based in accordance with a workload -based formula approved by [WFI 1.11 This language effectively requires the funds to be distributed to the regional boards. It does not limit the ability of the state board to require use of funds in a specific way, nor does the language direct the board as to the factors that should be considered in determining "workload." The March 22nd staff recommendation uses an "adjusted base allocation" as a starting point for discussion. The former State WAGES Board allocated resources in two categories. The first was known as the "base" and was tied to the number of cash assistance TANF recipients that the region was serving. The second category was entitled "special projects" and was designed to allow regions that had successfully reduced their cash assistance rolls, by serving those former TANF recipients in achieving self-sufficiency. An examination by staff of the use of funds in these categories, indicates that the distinctions are sometimes difficult to ascertain. For instance, some regions had all of their training money in the base allocation. Others had it in the "special projects" category. The result was that some regions had 100% of their funds in the "base" category while others had as little as 53% in the base. A working group of state board, regional board, and AWI staff created an "adjusted base allocation" by creating a formula to determine those funds that had been treated as "base funds," and those that should have been "special projects." The work group then suggested that the "base TANF allocation" for each region should be calculated on as a percentage of $128,959,997, as determined by the use of these funds since 1996. Rather than approve every special project for the additional $24+ million, the work group suggested that the funds be distributed based upon workload. One measure of workload was the number of current cash assistance recipients. This measure benefited those regions who still have significant numbers who have not found work to replace dependence on TANF. Those favoring this allocation mechanism argue that the first responsibility for use of TANF funds should be to assist in the transition away from welfare. Another option of determining workload is to look at relative poverty rates. The best indicator available, as determined by the work group, was current usage of the food stamp program. Those who advocated this measure, felt that it more accurately reflected the change in direction signaled by passage of the Workforce Innovation Act of 2000 to provided assistance 02- 570 in reaching self-sufficiency to former TANF recipients and the working poor. They also felt it sent the wrong signals to "reward" those regions who failed to reduce the TANF caseload in the previous 5 years. The work group chose to recommend the base funding as historically used and then split all "special project" funds between the two measures (cash assistance case load and food stamp usage). The resulting allocation was preferred by most of the work group, but not all. It had an added benefit in that it prevented wide swings in resources from the current allocation. No region gained more than 10% and none lost more than 10%. The determination of workload also must include a discussion of ability to "ramp up" or "ramp down" a program. When the WAGES coalitions were first created, they returned significant amounts of money to the state because of the lead time required in putting a system in place to deliver services and monitor the provision of those services. All indications are that this year, the system may actually come close to spending its allocation. For consideration of the workload determination, staff have included a copy of the March 22nd Recommendation (Option A). Additionally, staff has provided optional allocation formulas, including an allocation based on food stamp usage as.a measure of poverty (Option B); an allocation formula based upon cash assistance caseload (Option C); and an allocation formula base 50% on food stamp usage and 50% on cash assistance caseload (Option D). There is also a comparative summary with current TANF funding for each region included. Staff Recommendations At the March meeting staff recommended that the workload be calculated by a combination of factors. Those factors include traditional workload as reflected in the adjusted base allocation; 50% of all other TANF allocations to the regional board based on food stamp eligible population and 50% of the other funds distributed on cash assistance caseload as of January 2001. If the board chooses to limit the use of funds at the regional level, staff recommends that the limitations, at lease by dollar amount, be identified at this meeting, so that budgetary obligations can begin promptly July 1, 2001. C. Application for Performance Bonus Funds The Legislature did not appropriate the $20.8 million TANF High -Performance bonus awarded to Florida. These funds can be accessed by the process of a budget amendment. In discussion with the Governor's budget office, it was determined that the Board could request these funds. Use of these funds would have to be coordinated with the Department of Children and Families. 02-- 570 Additionally, Florida's success at meeting its federal performance as an early WIA implementation state has enabled the state to access $2.6 million. Application for the funds must be done -in conjunction with the Department of Education. Application must take place by June 15, 2001 and must outline the use of the funds. Staff Recommendations 1. Staff should, in conjunction with the Department of Education, apply for the WIA Performance Bonus and should ensure that the application be submitted to the Executive Committee on June 13, 2001 for approval. Staff should be directed to insure that the application include priorities established in the Strategic Plan. 2. Staff should proceed to coordinate with the Department of Children and Families to prepare a budget amendment for consideration at the August board meeting, requesting use of the TANF Performance Bonus. 02r. -070 9 WORKGROUP RECOMMENDATION FOR FUNDING ALLOCATION OPTION A 50% of Other 50% of other ercen ase n Using Food Stamp Percent Using Caseload Percent Total Adjusted j Difference From FY 00- Difference From FY 00- h1a ,646 $433,569,030 $385,620 Allocation $3,559,835 01 $292,677 01 9.0%$114,707 $138,934 $149,956 $1,339,671 $45,001 3.5%,778 $203,258 $102,583 $150,611 $1,582,317 $2,594,661 ($2,928 ) ($76,615) 0.2 /° _ °,792 -2.9% 6 ,336 $1,873,541 $316,610 $377,693 $4,208,640 $19,156 0.5% 7 $2,304,167 $157,838 $131,988 $181,852 $162,268 $2,213,231_ ($20,241) ° 0.9 /° 8 $6,844,454 $759,998 $485,406 $2,598,423 $8,089,858 ($148,403) ($69,501) -5.4% -0.9% 9 10 $3,581,032 $4,879,456 $269,920 $363,367 $261,121 $4,112,074 ($156,919) -3.7% 11 $2,7191199 $348,605 $306,351 $274,644 $5,549,174 $3,342,448 ($267,686) $100,857 -4.6% 3.1% 12 13 $7,304,349 $2,686,492 $997,857 $1,036,559 $9,338,765 $631,159 ° 7.2 /° 14 $5,447,827 $288,957 $502,435 $236,408 $742,331 $3,211,857 $6,692,593 $9,256 $198,170 0.3% 3.1 15 16 $7,576,975 $2,399,978 $868,674 $490,069 $8,935,718 ($96,888) -1.110 17 $3,294,380 $324,158 $500,031 $278,374 $407,536 $3,002,510 $4,201,947 $141,466 4.9% 18 19 $2,275,480 $223,564 $147,813 $2,646,858 $274,675 ($65,770) 7.0% -2.4% 20 $1,229,777 $3,398,542 $150,490 $326,028 $107,713 $1,487,980 $21, 947 ° 1./° 5 21 $4,904,288 $511,252 $269,981 $462,092 $3,994,551 $5,877,632 ($56,893) $31,169 -1.4% 0.5% 22 23$847,246 $7,321,084 $43,761,700 $707,030 $3,372,100 $8,875,360 $147,804 1.7% 24 $4,245,692 $340,790 $4,378,446 $179,987 $51,512,246 $4,766,469 ($656,622) ($294,873) -1.3% -5.8%- Total $128,959,997 $12,387,412 $12,387,412 $153,734,820 ADDITIONAL OPTIONS FOR WORKLOAD DETERMINATION 94f9 Region OPTION B OPTION C OPTION D Food Stamp Regional Allocation % Food Stamp Allocation Funding Caseload Regional Allocation % Caseload Allocation Funding Average Food Funding for Stamp and Food Stamp and Caseload Caseload Allocation % Average 1 3.5% $ 5,380,839 3.1% $ 4,785,767 3.3% $ 5,083,303 2 1.1% $ 1,724,256 0.9% $ 1,423,578 1.0% $ 1,573,917 3 1.2% $ 1,861,036 0.8% $ 1,273,118 1.0% $ 1,567,077 4 1.6% $ 2,522,553 1.2% $ 1,869,169 1.4% $ 2,195,861 5 2.6% $ 3,929,314 3.0% $ 4,687,390 2.8% $ 4,308,352 6 1.3% $ 1,958,854 1.5% $ 2,256,892 1.4% $ 2,107,873 7 1.1% $ 1,638,043 1.3% $ 2,013,842 1.2% $ 1,825,942- 8 6.1% $ 9,432,011 3.9% $ 6,024,164 5.0% $ 7,728,088 9 2.2% $ 3,349,864 2.1% $ 3,240,665 2.1% $ 3,295,265 10- 2.9% $ 4,509,592 2.5% $ 3,801,994 2.7% $ 4,155,793 11 2.8% $ 4,326,390 2.2% $ 3,408,485 2.5% $ 3,867,437 12 8.1% $ 12,383,970 8.4% $ 12,864,282 8.2% $ 12,624,126 13 2.3% $ 3,586,121 1.9% $ 2,933,959 2.1% $ 3,260,040 14 4.1% $ 6,235,506 6.0% $ 9,212,747 5.0% $ 7,724,126 15 7.0% $ 10,780,744 4.0% $ 6,082,033 5.5% $ 8,431,389 16 2.6% $ 4,022,987 2.2% $ 3,454,780 2.4% $ 3,738,884 17 4.0% $ 6,205,663 3.3% $ 5,057,752 3.7% $ 5,631,707 18 1.8% $ 2,774,560 1.2% $ 1,834,448 1.5% $ 2,304,504 19 1.2% $ 1,867,668 0.9% $ 1,336,774 1.0% $ 1,602,221 20 2.6% $ 4,046,199 2.2% $ 3,350,616 2.4% $ 3,698,407 21 4.1% $ 6,344,930 3.7% $ 5,734,819 3.9% $ 6,039,875 22 5.7% $ 8,774,639 6.8% $ 10,514,800 6.3% $ 9,644,719 23 27.2% $ 41,849,680 35.3% $ 54,339,003 31.3% $ 48,094,341 24 2.8% $ 4,229,401 1.5% $ 2,233,744 2.1% $ 3,231,572 Total 100.0% $ 153,734,820 100.0% $ 153,734,820 100.0% $ 153,734,820 a ATTACHMENT NO.6 FUNDING CHART OF SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE CITY OF MIAMI (Funded Inside Boundaries of City of Miami) FUNDING AMOUNT SERVICE PROVIDER SERVICE LOCATION ZIP CODES 0710101.000102 04/01/0~ -03x311102 10/01101.0213Df02 SERVICE SERVED CONSOLIDATED YOUTH RETP OTHER Jobs For _Miami - - 7900 N.E. 2nd Avenue_ _ 33138, 33150_ $ 2,691,404 s - 610,785: $ 279,000 7901 N.E. 2nd Avenue _ Jobs For Miami 33138 & others 3 S 122,5004 Tutoring Jobs For Miami _ _- _ _ 7901 N.E. 2nd Avenue 33138 &otherstri '. $ 44,017 sl t - { ; Mentoring Booker T.1200 NW 61h Ave _ _ Jobs For Miami _ _ _ _33136_8 others _ — , ;�= :' � .1 .' $ — _44,017 Mentoring Northwestern 1100 NW 71 St. Mentoring Jobs For Miami _3_3150 S others * $ 44,018 h r'L i550 N.W. 3rd Avenue _ Miami -Dade Human Ser. -33136 & others $ 721,258 F.n 5040 N.W. 7 Street_ u Miami -Dade Human Bar. 33128,& others 33125 8 others s�< r $ 646,800 `%• $ _666,720 $ 274,060 S 279,000 SER Jobs for Progress -_ 42 N.W. 27 Avenue 33125,33149, +` Youth Cc -Op, Inc. 3523 NW 7th Street 33146,33145, $ 3,410,245 , 33133,33129, 33126 - -_ _ --- E of 57 Avenue _ = 3500 NW 7th Street Yoe Youth $ 450,000 V *• _ _ Youth Co -Op, Inc._ _ Booker T. High School. u: ;, ;u : ,� ; ; s 137,941.-- + _ SIS ^` _ _ Youth Co Inc. _ _ 3500 NW 7th Street;, e'§3 $ 122,500 y' �. -_ Tutoring _ 3625 NW 7th Street Youth Co.ox Ina _ _ :;irs _ "j , ;' y ti ~, ' ' _, Z 132,20D EZ Itle Havana -- - CubanAmedcen Natl Council _ _ � :' `i ,• t $ 859,120 _ 169 E. Flagler Sl.— HeavenSent Consultants. Inc. _ Inc. 3 Little Havana HeavenSent Consultants, _ _Edgewater Leadership K!y Power7eohnlcal Institute 613 NW 7th Street $ 463,320- Metropolian Technical Institute -_--all 561 NE 79th Street _ _ all $ 188,000 +249,600 Little Havana Activities & Nuirltlon Ctr 700 SW 6th Sheet $ ASPIRA 650 N. Miami Ave _ _ 33142 $ -91,483 _ _ - Community Coalition 93145 ?i;. �.- $ 27,360 d 2100 Coral Way Funded NAM 2102 Paye 1 or3 9 ALLOCATION COMPARISON SUMMARY Region Current Total Allocation Option A Option B Option C Option D 1 $ 3,267,158 $ 3,559,835 $ 5,380,839 $ 4,785,767 $ 5,083,303 2 $ 1,294,670 $ 1,339,671 $ 1,724,256 $ 1,423,578 $ 1,573,917 3 $ 1,585,245 $ 1,582,317 $ 1,861,036 $ 1,273,118 $ 1,567,077 4 $ 2,671,276 $ 2,594,661 $ 1 2,522,553 $ 1,869,169 $ 2,195,861 5 $ 4,189,484 $ 4,208,640 $ 3,929,314 $ 4,687,390 $ 4,308,352 6 $ 2,233,472. $ 2,213,231 $ 1,958,854 $ 2,256,892 $ 2,107,873 7 $ 2,746,826 $ 2,598,423 $ 1,638,043 $ 2,013,842 $ 1,825,942 8 $ 8,159,359 $ 8,089,858 $ 9,432,011 $ 6,024,164 $ 7,728,088 9 $ 4,268,993 $ 4,112,074 $ 3,349,864 $ 3,240,665 $ 3,295,265 10 $ 5,816,860 $ 5,549,174 $ 4,509,592 $ 3,801,994 $ 4,155,793 11 $ 3,241,591 $ 3,342,448 $ 4,326,390 $ 3,408,485 $ 3,867,437 12 $ 8,707,606 $ 9,338,765 $ 12,383,970 $ 12,864,282 $ 12,624,126 13 $ 3,202,601 $ 3,211,857 $ 3,586,121 $ 2,933,959 $ 3,260,040 14 $ 6,494,423 $ 6,692,593 $ 6,235,506 $ 9,212,747 $ 7,724,126 15 $ 9,032,606 $ 8,935,718 $ 10,780,744 $ 6,082,033 $ 8,431,389 16 $ 2,861,044 $ 3,002,510 $ 4,022,987 $ 3,454,780 $ 3,738,884 17 $ 3,927,272 $ 4,201,947 $ 6,205,663 $ 5,057,752 $ 5,631,707 18 $ 2,712,628 $ 2,646,858 $ 2,774,560 $ 1,834,448 $ 2,304,504 19 $ 1,466,033 $ 1,487,980 $ 1,867,668 $ 1,336,774 $ 1,602,221 20 $ 4,051,444 $ 3,994,551 $ 4,046,199 $ 3,350,616 $ 3,698,407 21 $ 5,846,463 $ 5,877,632 $ 6,344,930 $ 5,734,819 $ 6,039,875 22 $ 8,727,556 $ 8,875,360 $ 8,774,639 $ 10,514,800 $ 9,644,719 23 $ 52,168,868 $ 51,512,246 $ 41,849,680 $ 54,339,003 $ 48,094,341 24 $ 5,061,342 $ 4,766,469 $ 4,229,401 $ 2,233,744 $ 3,231,572 Total $ 153,734,820 $ 153,734,820 $ 153,734,820 $ 153,734,820 1 $ 153,734,820 0 SERVICE PROVIDER SERVICE LOCATION ZIP CODES SERVED FUNDING AMOUNT - SERVICE 0710101 - 06130/02 0410110t - e3131#02 10101rot - 09130/02 CONSOLIDATED YOUTH RETP OTHER JESCA _ _ _ _ - JESC_A _ 2400 NW 54 Street _ 2401 NW 54 Street _ 33142_° _ -_33142 -_ u _33145 - - Td %' ` '' ' ;"` xc, : x� : �� ,.'•t;,� •.:�,• ; �•..,,r;��:� � • . _- i $ 413,400 S 384,844 ,+ ^ a • :. i_ ; . �, � ' =� ;,_",,, x $ $ 2,303,813 $ 346,750 3 226,160 $ 267,000 •., ;� S $ ; $ -i _225,000 y ��• - ' ..�. -„ - $ 1,077,589 S -_440,000 $ 137,280 _ S 478,588 �" _ • •<o< , j $888,450 r -,i $1,630,855: . ¢ i 309,238 $1,621,857 $94,460 $202,129 ; $167,000 =- 120,000 _ _ 55,000 65,000 ' 160,000 18_8,500 118,000 ITeen $60,000 ' 1 Teen Pregnancy _ Mental Health _—_ - JCS179 SW 27 Avenue -_ Teen Pregnancy SABER — - 3990 W. Flagler Street ^ - _33134 - _ ~_ 33133 -_ 33135 Suiled For Success 2650 SW 27 Avenue Switchboard 444 8rickeN Ave Teen Pregnancy _ _ — The Village 3160 Biscayne Blvd _ 33137 Teen Pregnancy Pregnancy YWCA351 NW 5 Street Legal Services of Greater 3_000 Biscayne Blvd._ Miami, Inc. - _—_-- - — Supe 500 Greater Mlaml Service 181ONW28th Street 33128 A8 (33137) All (33127) _a" � Corp. _ _ _ Transition_ 390 NW 2nd Street _` 33128 _33142 _ _ -_ - _ _ - --- _ y 33136 All (33142) _ -_-_- YWCA _ Miami Jackson Sr. Hi. --- ---- --� --_- - -'"1751 NW 38 Street_ _` __ YW_CA- _- — - ulmwOneStop --- u 1550 NW 3rd Avenue 11th Judicial Circuit _ 3300 NW 27th Avenue^ Miami•DadeCounty Clerk of the CourtsCatholic - - --- Charities of the — the HaRi One Stop Cir. - Archlocese of Miaml _ _ 6660 Biscayne Blvd._ Catholic Chadiles of the Miami Edison Sr. HI. An:hloaae of Miami -_ 61610 NW 5th Court 33138 - 33127 City of Miami 1313 NW 36th Street 33127+vicinity _ Miami Dade County Public Schools 750 NW 20th St 33127+others _ Miami Dade Community College 300 N.E. 2nd Avenue 33132{others Funded Min 3112/02 Page 2 of 3 r jut SERVICE PROVIDER SERVICE LOCATION ZIP CODES SERVED oTratot •asr3araz otrolmf -0313"'02 1aot1al -am CONSOLIDATED YOUTH RETP Big Brodws Big Sisters _ Coral Gables Sr 450 Bird Rd 33146+others Edison 6189 NW 5th Ct 33127+others --- _. _—...- -.— .--...---- Jackson SrA751 NW 36 St 33142+others C I G bias Sr 450 Bird Rd 33148+others)=�; `'+ - ' ,'�j "-,s=4 �• � -`-- ` ��'' i? S_ 123,500 ; 90,000 - — $- 68,750 $ 22,250 - _ Communi8es In School Vlctorla 8 Associates - Victoria &Associale_s _ — _ora a _ __- - _ ___.____ 33127 --- . _•y _, . S 325,501 ____ - Tools for Change 6015 NW 71h Avenue _ __ NW 9th Avenu_e__ 701 SW 27th Avenue 390 NW 2nd Street _ _ _ _ _ 33127 _ .3 3128 + Othsrs_ j ' =� _ _ __$422,551 E_ 93,333 Bellefonte Taoolcy6161 Switchboard — $ 38,450 Easter Seals1475 NW 141h Ave 3050 Biscayne Blvd _33128 all 33137 -- i; = S i 99,000 438,864 1200 NW 0th Ave. _ _33127 ` _ S_ _ 81.668 A1A 1100 NW 71stStreet $ 81,666 050 Biscayne Blvd --- 33137 $ 1,307,571 y — ADE ---- - -_` 2801 North Miami Ave CAMACO_L— - 3990 W. Flagler_ _ 33134 $ 485,710 _ — Gu_NCoast Care 14 NE lot Ave _ ail _Community _ New 0ireciions -- 5_555 Biscayne Blvd. _ all _ ^---�_ 11th Judicial Cfrcult 175 NW 1st Ave. _ _ all _ 11th Judicial Circuit (JOBS Program_)_ 1351 NW 12st all - MDHA (Uberty Square)— t 304 NW 14th Ave. 33147 ` _ MOHA (Rainbow Square) 2431 NW 4th Court _ _ _ 33127 M_DTA ( Transportation Coordinator) -^--- Jill Nw 1 st 5900 all _ (TEA 21) 111 NW 1 st#900 _ all _MD_T_A Sparks Day Car 15129 NW 12th Court_ _ all _ South Florida Inner City Games 3010 NW 17 Avenue — all J Funded Within $ 19,080,702 1-$ 6,5i 03,215 5 3112102 SERVICE OTHER � Leadership ^_ Leadership Mental Health YOC VS Edison - SIS Northwestern One-Stop/direct train. $ 89,300 irect training (dis) Intensive S 301,285 non Gust. S 208,720 direct training _ S 98,556 victims senrlces $ 98,444 offender program J $ 33,754 resource center S 33,754 resource center _ $ 100,400 lrensp, coots. S 600,000 match grant $ 38,450 after school care _ S 228,982 after school care Pegs 7 of 3 a Q N N O O N m N C FUNDING CHART OF SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE CITY OF MIAMI I Funded Outside Boundaries of City of Miami but Servicing Zip Codes within City Boundaries SERVICE PROVIDER SERVICE LOCATION ZIP CODES SERVED FUNDING AMOUNT SERVICE 0710101- W3W2 04101/01-03!311102 OMNI - W3UO2 CO SO (DATED YOUTH RETP OT Jobs For Miami 7900 N.W. 27th Avenue _ _ _ 5400 N.W. 22nd Avenue 9485 W. Flagler St. 33147_& other 33142 & other $ 1,742,864 $ _ 544,613 w $ 2,406,609 $__734,005, $ 1,123,500 +rx ` : :R �'` 4`'" = `� ` pi 'r`4 -� , mak $ 192,500 Mlami-Dade Human Services Youth Co-Op,1nc. 3312e W of 57 Ave 33127 W of 57 Ave_ 33142_ & other within all _ all _ — S.B.O.C. _ 9486 W. Flagler St. ACS State and Local Solutions Jewish Community Services 5400 NW 22nd Avenue 735 NE 125th St senior emp. Center for Famll Enrichment 1825 NW 187th Street $ 102,000 after school care - — -----------•— OTA OUTS DE FUNSING1 i$ 6,551,591 , $ - $ - 6,846709TJ-------- ---- ------1- - - - $ 294,500 _ _- - - --•------ -- -- Funded Outslde/Serving Inside Boundaries 3112102 A"�ACHMENT NO.7 APR 0 2 2002 AMC- rt„r�y�rkis r y. 44: 77 L. WORKFORCE FLORIDA, INC. h FINANCIAL & PROGRAMMATIC _REVIEW OF REGION 23 FOR THE PERIOD= ' - JULY 1, 2001, THROUGH JANUARY 11, 2002 ft 17 y - ._s< r,W'�'t� i^fir;.,• ._-_ • t n c t is _ . J yEt d' �' v,� 4. �••-fir .-'7r a }''rf waw- •(,,c+; � .— � .. Taylor, ,Lombardi &Hall, P.A. « - . � gfied Public Accountants _ t _ 570 Ta lorLumbardi & Hall, P.A. y Certified Public Accountants A. VanTa76,, CPA m Mwhwl P. Lombanh, CPA m Damm L Hall, CPA Cynd- S. Wydm, CPA Independent Accountants' Report Tiwmw W. Hawl. CPA e On Applying Agreed -Upon Procedures a . m 3 3 To Workforce Florida, Inc. c/o Nancy Thompson We have performed the procedures enumerated below in the attached sections, which were agreed to by representatives of Workforce Florida, Inc., solely to provide a financial and programmatic review of South Florida Workforce Development Board (SFWDB) and South -Florida ,Employment --and :Training Consortium-(SFETC), -as--the-fiscal--agent--and— administrative entity, for the period July 1, 2001, through January 11, 2002. This agreed- upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in this report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. A 1. Financial II. Programmatic III. Summary Report Sections - . . 1 Pr z r.: r - Phone ( 407 539-3066 - F.ra- !+07i 539-2383 We were not engaged -to and did not conduct an examination, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion on the accounts or items referred to in the report sections. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. This report is intended solely for the information and use of Workforce Florida, Inc. and the board of directors and management of South Florida Workforce Development Board and South Florida Employment and Training Consortium and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. January 11, 2002 r m —T1,e, L,,,4 6,6 , 44gi� f A. E I z a d 3 r 02z 570 w ti Adequacy of Financial Management System 1. Through inquiry of SFETC accounting staff and our financial review, we obtained an understanding of the financial management system currently in place to record and report financial information. : Findings: The current finance director began working for SFETC in September 2001 and acknowledged that the accounting system was very simplistic for an organization that receives over $100 million a year in funding. The accounting system had been in effect for many years and did not have the capability of providing a general ledger. It consisted of utilizing Quicken as a check register and Excel spreadsheets to summarize contract and administrative costs. Checks were manually typed and then- keypunched into the Quicken system. At the end of each fiscal year, a trial balance had to be constructed by the accounting staff for the auditors. :31 This system, which is still being used, does not have the capability of providing the accounting information critical to the organization's success. :3OMB Circular A-110 for financial management systems specifies that :3 recipients of federal awards are required to maintain accountability and exercise effective control over all funds, property, and other assets. :3 2. In September, SFETC began the conversion to SBT Accounting. During - November, the system crashed, disabling some of the features of the software (i.e. — check writing). Therefore, checks are still being manually typed. As of the date of our fieldwork, the system still had not been fixed. Per SFETC :3 accounting staff, the preferred vendor to address the problem is not on the --------county's- approved -vendor -list:--- ----- Recommendation: We suggest SFETC implement an effective accounting system that contains the appropriate reporting and tracking elements required by the organization as soon as possible. If SFETC plans to continue to use SBT, we suggest a vendor be found as soon as possible to support the system. In the future, SFETC staff should ensure that technical support is available for any software conversions. 3 02-- 570 1. We reviewed the SFETC's budget process by performing the following: a. _ Through inquiry of staff, we obtained an understanding of the current budgeting process. b. We obtained and reviewed the current budget reports for the period ended December 31, 2001. Finding: 1. Currently, budget -to -actual summary information (Board, Administrative Entity and Service Provider costs) is not being prepared by the Administrative Entity and provided to the Workforce Board. The only budget -to -actual report provided was a consolidated program expenditure report for the period ended December 31, 2001, that listed by service provider total expenditures to -date, total contract and balance remaining. 02- 570 4 3. Prior to selecting SBT Accounting, SFETC staff did not conduct an analysis of system requirements and an evaluation of vendor alternatives. The software was selected based on its use by the Miami -Dade WAGES Coalition, Inc. SFETC has multiple funding streams that require various cost allocation and reporting requirements. The accounting and reporting requirements for Workforce Development funds are very complex. Recommendation: We suggest that SFETC consider conducting an in-depth analysis and review : of the software alternatives available, to ensure that SBT has the ability to meet all of the organization's fund tracking and reporting requirements. We suggest a comparison be made between SBT and other non-profit accounting software packages commonly used by Workforce Development Boards, such as MIP. Sixteen regions in the state are currently using MIP for their accounting -- software and could offer insight regarding the functionality of the software, vendor selection, customization, setup and use, and on-going technical support. We also suggest that SFETC staff seek technical assistance with the creation of a chart of accounts, reporting templates, and cost pools regardless of the accounting software used. Proper setup is essential in order to . maximize both the efficiency of transaction entry and the effectiveness of reporting. Budgeting 1. We reviewed the SFETC's budget process by performing the following: a. _ Through inquiry of staff, we obtained an understanding of the current budgeting process. b. We obtained and reviewed the current budget reports for the period ended December 31, 2001. Finding: 1. Currently, budget -to -actual summary information (Board, Administrative Entity and Service Provider costs) is not being prepared by the Administrative Entity and provided to the Workforce Board. The only budget -to -actual report provided was a consolidated program expenditure report for the period ended December 31, 2001, that listed by service provider total expenditures to -date, total contract and balance remaining. 02- 570 4 Recommendation: Budgeting is an integral part of assessing and managing the operations of the Board. Per the Workforce Investment Act, one role of the local Workforce Investment Board is to develop a budget for the purpose of carrying out the duties of the .Board. Furthermore, oversight responsibilities are required to ensure that expenditures are made against the cost categories and within the cost limitations specified in the Act. We suggest, at a minimum, the following reports be prepared: a) Schedule of Funding Sources for the program year detailing prior year carry -forward and current year allocations. b) Year-to-date Expenditure Budget Variance Report. -- - c) Schedule of Grants detailing life -to -date expenses and encumbrances,- - - --- - including a calculation of the administrative and program costs percentages. In order to accomplish these tasks, it will be necessary to review the current budget to ensure all relevant information by significant line -item is presented for all Board, Administrative Entity and Servic& Provider costs. 'Additionally, actual expenditure information will need to be available and summarized in the same format. Attachment A is a sample format that staff may wish to consider for the Year -to -Date Budget Variance Report. These reports should be prepared and reviewed on a monthly basis. . Cost Allocation---------- - -..-- ----------- -.. -- --__ -- ---- - - ---- - - 1. We obtained the cost allocation plan and performed the following: a. Determined whether the current method of allocation agreed with the Administrative Plan. b. Completed the Fiscal Review - Cost Allocation section of the AWI Compliance Review PIan and determined whether there were any discrepancies. - a 02 570 5 Findings: 1. The allocation percentages used by SFETC to allocate costs at the end of each month are based on funding availability. During fieldwork, SFETC staff provided a letter sent to AWI detailing the use of funding availability as their allocation base. Per SFETC staff, the letter was approved by AWI, although the method was not in compliance with OMB Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Non -Profit Organizations. OMS Circular A-122 explicitly states that any cost allocable to a particular award or cost objective may not be shifted to other Federal awards to overcome funding deficiencies and requires that actual conditions be taken into account in selecting an allocation base that will result in an equitable distribution of costs and will assign costs to the cost objectives in accordance with benefits received. i Recommendation: We suggest that SFETC select an allocation method that meets the' requirements of OMB Circular A-122 and that all allocated costs be reallocated for the current year using the new allocation base. 2. The cost allocation section of the Administrative Plan does not agree with current practice and is not specific regarding directly charging costs t whenever possible. i Recommendation: i We suggest that the Administrative Plan be updated to include the new allocation methodology and that it include wording regarding directly t charging costs whenever possible. FMTS --- - - _ — --- 1. We selected a sample of grants on the Financial Management Reconciliation for the period ended November 30, 2001, obtained the Financial Report Summaries, and performed the following: a. Tested the mathematical accuracy. b. Traced the Financial Report Summary to the Financial Management Reconciliation. C. I Traced payables and total accrued expenditures to the general ledger. d. Determined whether the administrative cost limitation was not exceeded as required by the grant. o2- 570 6 2 e. Determined whether obligations were reported on the Financial Report Summaries. - Findings: 7 1. We were unable to reconcile the Financial Report Summaries for the grants selected in our sample to the accounting records, which consist of cash -basis Quicken reports and Excel spreadsheets. The current accounting system does not have the capability of providing a general ledger. Per SFETC accounting staff, a manual reconciliation is performed for weekly expenditures, which would have to be reviewed for all weeks of the current 3 fiscal year to determine whether expenditures per FMTS agreed to the accounting records. Recommendation: We suggest that SFETC implement a new iccoui ing- system- that has- the - - capability of fund accounting and ensure FMTS agrees with the general ledger printout by funding source for year-to-date expenditures. 2. The PY 2001 WIA Dislocated Worker grant had no recorded expenditures through November 30, 2001; however, payment requests that included Dislocated Worker costs were received at the end of December 2001 due to implementation of a 10% penalty for late submission of payment requests. Recommendation: We suggest that SFETC strictly enforce the penalty and continuously communicate with contractors regarding timely submission of payment requests and emphasize the importance of accurate and timely billings for - use in planning atthe-AE and Board level.-------------___ Payroll 1. We selected a sample of payroll disbursements from the month of December 2001 and determined whether: a. Check data agreed to payroll register, unless direct deposit. b. Gross pay recalculated and deductions appeared reasonable. J C. Pay rate for the employee was authorized. —� d. Total hours per the payroll register agreed to the related timesheet period. J e. The cost was properly allocated ana-classified. J o2- s ! 7 3 - We suggest that a narrative of the current payroll process and a description of the allocation methodology used to allocate staff time between program and administration be added to the Administrative Plan. Service Provider Payment Rgauests 1. Through inquiry of SFETC staff, we obtained an understanding of the current procedures for processing service provider payment requests. We also determined whether a process is in place to monitor actual expenditures against contract budgets. 02— 5708 Findings: 1. The allocation of payroll costs between program and administration is based on a labor distribution by position; however, the rates currently being used have not been updated in at least a year and a half, per SFETC payroll staff, and documentation to support the rates could not be located for our review. y Additionally, the amount classified as administration vs. program is not being calculated and charged based on the cost of each employee and the related labor distribution; rather, the labor distribution percentages are combined and averaged, and the results are multiplied by total payroll for 7 the period. This method of calculation distorts the amounts charged to program and administration because it does not consider the variation in employee costs. j Recommendation: 7 We suggest that a time study be performed for all positions within--the------ consortium to determine the percentage of each employee's time relating to �. both programmatic and administrative duties. The cost allocation spreadsheet should be updated with this information, and the time study 3 documentation should be retained to support the percentages used. Staff salary allocations should be recalculated for each employee for the current j fiscal year, and, if the difference is material, an adjustment should be made. wVe also suggest that time studies be performed periodically to reassess the breakdown of staff time between program and administration. 3 2. The Administrative Plan does not directly address the methodology used to j allocate staff costs between program and administration, and does not contain language describing the procedures in place for processing SFETC's j payroll. Recommendation: We suggest that a narrative of the current payroll process and a description of the allocation methodology used to allocate staff time between program and administration be added to the Administrative Plan. Service Provider Payment Rgauests 1. Through inquiry of SFETC staff, we obtained an understanding of the current procedures for processing service provider payment requests. We also determined whether a process is in place to monitor actual expenditures against contract budgets. 02— 5708 q it Id 2. We selected a sample of payment requests from the period July 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001, - nd performed the following: a. Tested the mathematical accuracy. b. For operating disbursements, determined whether the vendor invoice was present and contained the appropriate approval, and the costs were properly allocated and classified, if applicable. C. For payroll disbursements, obtained the supporting detail by employee salary and related benefits to determine whether the costs were allowable and properly allocated, if applicable. d. For performance-based payments, reviewed supporting. documentation to verify whether benchmarks have been achieved, if applicable. e. Determined whether advances were properly tracked, if applicable. f. Determined whether performance holdbacks were properly calculated, withheld and tracked, if applicable. g. Traced line -item costs to the contractor's general Iedger, if provided. s h. Determined whether performance reports were submitted and requirements were met, if specified in the contract. i. Traced the payment request to the SFETC general ledger. j. Determined whether payment requests/justification packages are submitted in a timely manner. k. Determined whether the contractor's expenditures to -date appear reasonable. Service Provider Payment Process Findings: 1. There is, either very little or no communication between the contract manager and the accountant regarding service provider costs, budgets, allocation plans, etc. For example, the accountants reviewing payment requests assumed that the allocation percentages used agreed to the allocation plan submitted and were approved by the contract manager; however, there was no communication regarding the allocation plan and a copy was not received nor obtained by the accountant. 02_. 0570 9 CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission 4A. i"mCity Manager� BACKGROUND: DATE: MAY 15 2002 FILE : SUBJECT: Discussion Item on South Florida Employment and Training Consortium REFERENCES: City Commission Agenda ENCLOSURES: May 23, 2002 At its meeting of March 14, 2002, the City Commission directed the Administration to schedule a discussion item for its meeting of April 25, 2002 regarding City of Miami involvement in the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium. At the March 14 meeting, the City Commission also adopted legislation that instructed and directed the City Manager and City Attorney to provide the appropriate ninety (90) days written notification to the State of Florida and Miami -Dade County indicating the City's intent to withdraw its membership in the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium and, likewise, withdrawing from the Consortium agreement entered into by Consortium members. The existing Consortium Agreement expires June 30, 2002. However, the City Commission tempered this action by indicating that it would reassess this action at the April 25 meeting, thereby leaving its option open to reconsider its withdrawal from the Consortium at that time. Subsequently, this item was deferred and rescheduled for the May 23, 2002 City Commission meeting. The City Commission further requested that representatives from Miami -Dade County meet individually with each Commissioner to brief them on Consortium issues impacting the City of Miami and Consortium issues in general. Staff from Miami -Dade County has met with each Commissioner and is prepared to address the City Commission as a body at the May 23 meeting. The following information is provided as a Preliminary Report based on a review of information the Administration requested and received from the State of Florida and the funding source (see Attachment 1- request letter submitted to the State). The City Commission directed the Administration to provide a financial impact analysis on the City's participation on the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium (Consortium). The five -member Consortium, which was established in 1977 in response to the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), is comprised of a representative from the jurisdictions of Miami -Dade County, Monroe County and the cities of Miami, Hialeah and Miami Beach. Under the restructured format of the Consortium as a result of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and complementary State legislation, this entity is responsible for appointing members to the South Florida Workforce Board, approving the South Florida Workforce Plan and Budget and the selection of One -Stop Centers. The Consortium is not responsible for the distribution of funds to service providers, however each member jurisdiction has consistently assumed a liability 02- 570 responsibility for all workforce activities. The City of Miami liability, as referenced in the Interlocal Agreement (See Attachment 2 — Current Interlocal Agreement), is 36%. It is important to note that it is not uncommon for Consortium Agreements to be in effect in other regions within the State of Florida between various counties and cities. However, as stated in the attached letter, dated April 16, 2002 from Workforce Florida, Inc., the State Agency responsible for policy and programs, (See Attachment 3) to the local South Florida Workforce Board in Miami -Dade County, "From general familiarity with the agreements in other Regions, such advance liability terms are not common and may be unique to the current Region 23 Consortium Agreement. Consequently, such terms could be modified/deleted under the renegotiation/renewal terms of the agreement." This letter further states that, "Nothing in federal or state workforce law requires establishment of a Consortium Agreement within a Workforce Region to include cities within the Region's county/counties.... Inclusion of cities as signatories is purely a local option. The only inter- local agreement and signatories required under federal and state are agreements between/among the counties in multi -county Regions. Similarly there is no requirement in state or federal workforce law requiring that Consortium Agreements or Inter -Local Agreements among counties to include advance agreements on apportionment of potential liability." In short, the only Consortium Agreement that includes shared liability in the State of Florida is the local Region 23 Consortium Agreement. As directed by the City Commission at the March 14 meeting, the Law Department was instructed to provide an analysis of the legal parameters governing the City's participation in the Consortium. This analysis is provided as Attachment 4. It must be clearly understood that the Administration's primary concern remains the liability issue potentially facing the City and does not focus on funding activities, delivery systems, the level of service provided to City residents or the establishment of an independent service delivery area. A consistent theme identified by the Members of the City Commission throughout the informational sessions provided by representatives of Miami -Dade focused on the request for information regarding the funding allocations assigned to this region and the City of Miami population demographics that specifically attributed to the Region's total allocation. The State of Florida provided information on the allocation breakdown by funding stream, however the basis for the allocation formula for each funding stream is unique and further analysis will be necessary to determine this information. Staff will continue to work with State officials in an attempt to acquire information to provide greater clarity on the generation of dollars based on the demographic characteristics of City of Miami residents. The State indicated that it would assist the City in identifying resources that will hopefully help provide this information. The Regional Workforce Funding Allocations By Type PY 2001-02 spread sheet (identified by the tab) included in Attachment S - Funding Distribution FY 2001-2002 provided by Workforce Florida, Inc. indicates that Region 23 received approximately $118.9 million. In the Funding 02-- 570 Chart of Services Provided to the City of Miami provided the local South Florida Workforce Board (See Attachment 6) indicates that approximately $30 million was allocated to agencies with addresses located within City of Miami municipal limits and around $7 million was allocated to service providers with addresses outside the City of Miami, but within close proximity to the City. Even with the unlikelihood that all $37 million was directed specifically to City residents, this would represent only 31% of the total allocation, which is 5% below the City's assumed liability as a member of the Consortium. However, it must be recognized that these are not accurate figures because City residents may be served by service providers not located in the City of Miami and non -City of Miami residents may be served at sites located in the City of Miami. Neither Workforce Florida, Inc. nor the South Florida Workforce Board has readily available data to provide the actual amount of dollars received by City residents or the actual number of City residents receiving services. Finally, staff in the Department of Community Development has received and reviewed the Financial and Programmatic Review of Region 23 for the period July 1, 2001 — January 11, 2002 performed by Taylor, Lombardy and Hall, PA on behalf of Workforce Florida, Inc. (See Attachment 7). In addition, a copy of this Audit has been forwarded to the Assistant City Manager responsible for Finance and Administration to solicit professional expertise in reviewing and assessing this document. The cursory review of the aforementioned audit performed by the Department of Community Development identified significant concerns relative to the following areas: • Financial management systems — The Consortium utilized a simplistic accounting system (Quicken and Excel) to manage over $100 million annually. The accounting system had been in affect for many years and did not have the capability to provide a General Ledger. Checks were manually typed and keypunched into Quicken. At the end of each fiscal year, a trial balance had to be constructed by the accounting staff for the auditors. The Report cited the Consortium's failure to meet the requirements of OMB Circular A-110. • Budgeting — Budget to actual summary information (Board, administrative entity and service provider costs) is not prepared by the administrative entity and provided to the Workforce Board. • Cost Allocation — The method used to allocate costs was not in compliance with OMB Circular A-122, which states that any costs allocable to a particular award or cost objective may not be shifted to other Federal awards to overcome funding deficiencies and requires that actual conditions be taken into account in selecting an allocation base that will result in an equitable distribution of costs and will assign costs to the cost objectives in accordance to benefits received. • Reconciliation of accounts — CPA firm was unable to reconcile the financial report summaries for the grant selected in the sample to the accounting records, which consisted of cash basis Quicken Reports and Excel spreadsheets. • Payroll — The amount of payroll costs classified as administration versus program delivery is not being calculated and charged based on the cost of each employee and the related labor distribution. 02- 570 • Organizational Structure/Staffing — Staff with no accounting experience is responsible for performing fiscal monitoring. The service provider tool utilized for fiscal monitoring is lengthy and difficult for personnel without an accounting background to answer. In addition to the Financial and Programmatic Review of Region 23 for the period July 1, 2001 — January 11, 2002 performed by Taylor, Lombardy and Hall, PA on behalf of Workforce Florida, Inc., attached you will also find an Independent Accountant's Report on Compliance and on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards, which was performed by Sharpton, Brunson and Company PA. (See Attachment 8). The report indicates that, "The results also disclosed instances of non-compliance that are required to be reported under government auditing standards." In its meetings with City officials, representatives from Miami -Dade County have acknowledged the negative reports, but indicated that appropriate actions have been initiated to address the areas of weakness identified. The Miami -Dade representatives further indicated that these actions have resulted in significant improvements in managing workforce programs in Region 23 and they were prepared to report on this progress at the upcoming City Commission meeting. In closing, it must be clearly understood that the decision of the City of Miami to either continue its membership in the Consortium or to withdraw from future participation will have no impact on City residents receiving employment related services. Regardless of the City's decision or the governing structure managing the delivery of workforce development services in South Florida, the County's failure to provide services to City of Miami residents would result in sanctions by the State of Florida. If the City decides to continue its participation in the Consortium under the parameters of the existing Consortium Agreement, it would retain its liability exposure, but would also ensure its participation in the policy matters of this under the purview of South Florida Work Force Board. Under this same scenario, the City would limit its liability exposure if it was to withdraw from the Consortium, but it risks losing its voice in policy making considerations before the South Florida Workforce Board. DB/DF/JJH 02- 570 GWENDOLYN C. WARREN Director March 29, 2002 of �Ct�xx�i VIA CERTIFIED MAIL — Return Receipt Requested 70001670 00051463 7067 Mr. Curtis Austin President Workforce Florida Inc. 1974 Commonwealth Lane Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dear Mr. Austin: CARLOS A. GIMENEZ City Manager ATTACHMENT NO. 1 As you may be aware, the City of Miami is currently a member of the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium in Region 23. In order to respond to a request by the City of Miami Commission, and in accordance with Florida Statute 119, we would appreciate your providing the documents listed below as expeditiously as possible, but not later than Tuesday, April 9, 2002. The documents requested are as follows: I. Any and all documents which reflect the Workforce Development funds allocated to Region 23 over the course of the last five years, indicating allocations per year, and whether these funds were restricted to use by certain populations. 2. All performance reports for Region 23 for the past five years. 3. All correspondence relating to the performance of Region 23 for the past five years. 4. Documents which indicate the current structure of each of the Regional Workforce Boards. 5. Documentation regarding the configuration of consortiums in other Service Delivery Areas. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT — 444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 2nd Floor/ Miami, Florida 33130/(A5) 416-2080/Fax:.(305) 416-2090 Mailing Address: P.O. Sox 330708-0708 Mr. Curtis Austin March 29, 2002 Page 2 -of 2 6. Any draft or final audit reports for Region 23 for the past 5 years that were initiated by the State of Florida or Workforce Florida, Inc. 7. Any and all documents that reflect the allocation formulas for Workforce Development dollars. 8. Documents which reflect the resources allocated that were generated by relevant demographics within census tracts in the municipal limits of the City of Miami. 9. The number of persons served by Region 23, indicating the type of service provided for each of the past five years. 10. The number of residents within the municipal limits of the City of Miami that have been provided services each year for the past five years. Joni Harris, Assistant Director, will contact you to coordinate the collection of the information requested herein. Should you need to discuss this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (305) 416-2138 or Joni Harris at (305) 693- 3132. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincefely, )bwendo(yn Warren Director 4� ti 02- Yi 0 V /` TTACHMENT NO.2 CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of July 2000 by and among: Miami Dade County, A political subdivision of the State of Florida. 111 N. W. First Street Miami, FL 33128 The City of Miami, A municipal corporation of the State of Florida. 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 The City of Hialeah, The City of Miami Beach, Monroe County, A municipal corporation of the State of Florida. 501 Palm Avenue Hialeah, FL 33011 A municipal corporation of the State of Florida. 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33139 A political subdivision of the State of Florida. Courthouse Key West, FL 33040 WHEREAS, it is desirable to conduct programs on an area wide basis providing for employment and training opportunities for the economically disadvantaged, unemployed, underemployed or otherwise meeting the eligibility criteria of any program operated under this agreement and to assure universal access to training resources for the population of the two -county area and to assure that training and other services are organized and delivered in the most effective and efficient manner; and WHEREAS, Miami Dade County, the City of Miami, the City of Hialeah, the City of Miami Beach, and Monroe County are located in reasonable proximity to each other; and have entered into an agreement creating the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium; and WHEREAS, all of Miami Dade and Monroe Counties can be effectively served by a Consortium of the type created by this Agreement; and 02. 570 WHEREAS, the signatories to this Agreement believe that as a Consortium they can plan and operate a workforce development program so as to obtain administrative and programmatic advantages; and WHEREAS, it is the feeling of the parties hereto that the interests of the community would be better served by the South FloFiBa Employment and Training Consortium herein referred to as SFETC continuing to provide for the funding, review, evaluation, and coordination of programs in the Miami Dade and Monroe Counties area, and to provide for the coordination of related ancillary workforce development services; and WHEREAS, the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969, Section 163.01 et seq., Florida Statutes 1977 and the Miami -Dade County Home Rule Charter provide a method for governmental entities to join together in order to perform programs of the type intended; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, conditions, and premises herein set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. That the parties hereto do all mutually and individually agree to continue with each other the entity known as the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium. 2. That a purpose of this Consortium is to continue to conduct programs on an area -wide basis under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 as amended from time to time, (herein referred to as the Act) and under the Jobs and Education Partnership process. 3. That this Agreement shall be approved by the affirmative vote of the legislative body of each jurisdiction (i.e., the City Commission of the City of Miami, the City Council of the City of Hialeah, the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, the Boards of County Commissioners of Miami Dade and Monroe Counties), and shall supplant the existing Agreement executed in 1998. 4. That the representatives to the Consortium from each member local government shall be either the chief elected official or the chief non-elected/appointed official of local government. Said non-elected/appointed officials shall be designated by their respective legislative bodies. - 5. The Consortium hereby formed shall have the power; a. To receive all grants, funds, allocations, -and any and all forms of revenue based on, or pursuant to the Act and to the Jobs and Education Partnership process; to receive grants, gifts, or other resources from any agency or agencies of the 02-. 570 United States Government, and/or the State of Florida or other sources. b. To enter into contracts or agreements with any corporation, municipality, or any other legal entity, public or private, or any other person or persons for the performance of such services as may be required by the terms of any grant, contract,, -or agreement entered into, or with, any agency or agencies of the government of the State of Florida and/or the United States, or any other organization. C. To, by four (4) affirmative votes of its members, promulgate such policies, and to amend such policies as necessary for the conduct of its business. d. To expend funds for both planning and administrative purposes as deemed necessary for the conduct of its business. e. To implement, coordinate, review and evaluate programs; and to fund, monitor and audit projects which have been approved by the Consortium. f. To consult and retain experts and purchase or lease or otherwise provide for such services, supplies, materials, equipment and facilities as it deems necessary. g. To appoint and remove an Executive Director who shall serve at the will of the majority of the Consortium and the Charman of the Jobs and Education Partnership. Said Director shall employ directly or through contract with a member jurisdiction appropriate staff personnel who will comprise the Office of the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium. The staff will be hired pursuant to Miami Dade County Employment Policies and Procedures and subject to the Miami Dade County employee merit system. h. To provide for an annual audit of the Office of the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium by an independent auditor. i. To provide either directly or through contract for legal service. 6. That this Agreement shall be effective, upon its proper execution by the designated officer of each member jurisdiction's legislative body of Miami Dade County, the City of Hialeah, the City of Miami Beach, the City of Miami, and Monroe County, from July 1, 2000 and shall expire on June 30, 2002 or when re-enacted by the membership. This Agreement may be renewed by the affirmative vote of the legislative body of each member jurisdiction. 7. That the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium staff shall perform the following and other duties as delegated by the Consortium: 0- 570 a. To prepare an annual budget for the operation of programs and projects. The budget for funds received under the Act shall be approved by the Consortium and the Jobs and Education Partnership Board for Miami -Dade and Monroe Counties which will function as a regional workforce development board/workforce P, investment board in compliance with all Workforce Investment Act requirements. b. To maintain a financial accounting system to account for and report on all funds received and expended. Such report shall be made not less than quarterly to the Consortium and parties hereto. C. To monitor, evaluate, audit and provide technical assistance and advice to the parties hereto and to all others, organizations, or governmental units as may be required by Federal or State Regulations or the Consortium. d. To prepare appropriate reports for each member jurisdiction as required by the Consortium. 8. That the Consortium has caused to be created a regional workforce board in accord with the Act. This council, to be known as the Jobs and Education Partnership Regional Board of Miami Dade and Monroe Counties, is a separate entity whose members sha" be appointed by the Consortium's member local governmental jurisdictions according to a formula for apportioning appointments that shall be agreed to by the Members, and revised from time to time by agreement of the Members, and which shall bL in compliance with all federal and State requirements for representation on the Jobs and Education Partnership Regional Board, including required representation in the follow ng membership categories: private sector businesses (majority of all seats) economic development organizations community based organizations, including a representative of a nonr community based organization which provides direct employment and trai,::- services to hard -to -serve individuals including the disabled and a nonr. -)�t community based organization representing veterans. organized labor local education agencies (school districts and community colleges) licensed private post secondary schools eligible to receive ITAs, including one representative from a degree -granting institution and one from an institution offering certificate or diploma programs 02_ 570 the public employment service, vocational rehabilitation the public assistance system, and others, including local elected officials, representation of services to the elderly, and other membership categories that may be added from time to time. 9. That this Agreement may be amended from time to time, or cancelled, upon the affirmative vote of each legislative body, (i.e., the City Commission of the City of Miami, the City Council of the City of Hialeah, the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, the Boards of County Commissioners of Miami Dade and Monroe Counties), of the parties hereto. 10. That any parry hereto shall have the right to withdraw from this Agreement upon the following conditions: a. That the Consortium by and through its Executive Director shall have received written notice of the party's intent to withdraw no later than ninety (90) days before the end of the then current Workforce Investment Act program year. b. That the withdrawing parry shall not be released from any financial or any other obligations incurred by that party during the then current or prior fiscal years. 11. That majority of the Consortium shall constitute a quorum. Action of the Consortium shall be valid and binding when adopted at a public meeting by at least a majority of Affirmative votes by those present unless otherwise provided in this agreement. 12. That each jurisdiction shall be entitled to all of the benefits from association in the consortium, and shall retain responsibility for the operation of the program. 13. That each member jurisdiction of the Consortium, to the extent consistent with State and local law, accepts ultimate responsibility for the operation and success of the program operated hereunder. 14. That each member jurisdiction of the Consortium agrees to contribute to SFETC liability 02- 570 incurred under this agreement as follows: a. No liability will be paid by member jurisdictions unless ordered by court or other controlling body or unless otherwise agreed. b. Costs disallowed from contracts with SFETC Members will be paid by the SFETC Member involved. r C. Costs disallowed from contracts with Service Providers or from staff errors will be paid as follows: Miami Dade County 46% Miami, City of 36% Hialeah, City of 8% Miami Beach, City of 5% Monroe County —% TOTAL 100% d. In the event that a new political jurisdiction enters into this Consortium, hibility to said new political jurisdiction will be prorated proportionately according to the total number of jurisdictions which then comprise the Consortium. AGMI2.CONSORTAJM AGMT 2000 ®2- 570" WITNESSES: I THIS AGREEMENT LS ENTERED INTO ON BEHALF OF: CITY OF MAW BY ._ frr7 f APPROVED INSURANCE APPROVED AS FORM D REQUIREMENTS: CORREC^1NES . n� Mario Soldevilla, A' inistrator Al ro 1 lo, City Attore Risk Management Dep rtmeAit C ttorn s Office 02- 570 RESOLUTION NUMBER 06-29-00-26 RESOLUTION APPROVING RENEWAL OF THE CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium has been duly authorized to carry -out the legislative and executive provisions of the Workforce Investment Act W of 1998 for Dade and Monroe Counties, Florida, in accordance with the Consortium Agreement of July 1, 1998; and WHEREAS, the Consortium desires to accomplish the purposes outlined in the memorandum from the Executive Director, a copy of which is attached to this resolution, for the reasons delineated therein: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM that the Consortium Board approves renewal of the Consortium Agreement. THE foregoing resolution was offered by Mr. Adderly, the representative of the City of Miami Beach who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Mr. Malloch, the representative of Monroe County and upon being put to a vote was as follows: City of Miami Absent City of Miami Beach Yes Dade County Yes Monroe County Yes City of Hialeah Yes THE Chair, thereupon, declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 29th day of June, 2000. SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM Jdj(eph Alfano Executive Director AG29.w19 02- r P TTACHMENT NO.3 ..t r - Work/�_V_1LJ �/ Toni Jennings, Chairman CunisAustin, President April 16, 2002 Ms. Edith Hutnes-Newbold, Executive Director South Florida Workforce 3403 NW 82ad Avenue, Suite 300 Miami, FL 33122 Dear Ms. Humes -Newbold: We at Workforce Florida have been advised of recent discussions in Workforce Region 23 regarding possible redesignation to create a separate workforce investment area for iiie City ofMiatn'i, thereby dividing current - Region 23, which is composed of all of Dade and Monroe counties. Through our assigned Peer Consultant, Nancy Thompson, we are also aware of other governance and structural options being discussed. After initial conversation with you, Workforce Florida CEO Curtis Austin has discussed this with me, asked me to research the issue and provide feedback to you and other key officials in Region 23. First addressing the possibility of establishing the City of Miami as a separate workforce investment area with its own Regional Workforce Board and separate One -Stop service delivery system, the following 3 main points are offered:•"�- 1. The City of Miami does not fit the requirements of federal Iaw and regulations that would entitle it to demand that the Governor designate it as a separate local workforce investment area. -Section 116 of the federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998 authorizes the Governor to establish workforce investment areas within the state, listing some recommended factors to be considered in making such designations, and specifying certain circumstances where a community can demand that the Governor make a temporary or permanent designation upon local request. - Mandatory permanent -designation -can be required .if requested -by. a "unit .of generallocal-go-m-ernment with a population of 500,000 or more." The City of Miami did not have a population over 400,000 in either 1990 or 2000 according to the official US Census. -Temporary designation could have been required at the beginning of WIA. early (7/1/1999) implementation by a unit of local government or combined units totaling 200,000 or more if that grouping had previously been a separate service delivery area under the predecessor Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and had performed successfully for 2 years. Such temporary designation was not requested by or granted to the City of Miami in 1999, and the City could not have compelled such temporary designation at the time because it had not previously served as a separate service delivery area under JTPA. 0 - Note that there is no explicit provision in federal law or regulation for subsequent redesignation after the initial 2 -year temporary period. See Federal Regulations Part 661 on State and Local Governance. Also note that Florida's 5 -Year WIA Plan which has been accepted by USDOL and is valid until 6130/2004, specifies the 24 Regional Workforce Board areas and boards as currently constituted, including Region 23 consisting of all of Dade and Monroe counties. There is no process or expectation in the plan for redesignation prior to plan expiration, but there are federally mandated appeal procedures relating to initial designation. 2. The Governor has accepted the 5 -Year WIA plan and underlying premise of having each of Florida's regions consist of an enure county or several entire, contiguous counties. -Prior to 1996 Florida had 25 regions, and 2 shared Hillsborough County, with one of them serving only residents of the City of Tampa. After multiple hearings and deliberations, the Jobs and Education Partnership (the states workforce policy body at that time) developed criteria for all Florida communities to confirm current geographic configurations or propose new arrangements but all were required to avoid splitting any county. 325 John linos Road. Building 200 - Tallahassee, Florida 32303 - Phone (550) 921-1119 - Fax (850) 921-1101 Ms. Edith Humes -Newbold Page 2 April 16.2002 That policy was adopted by the then -Governor and applied to redesignation Re—ons, resulting in a single Region (15) encompassing all of Hillsborough County. -The same policy was later ratified by the Workforce Development Board of 1999 in establishing 24 Regions for WIA, resulting in some further consolidation but no division of any county. -As noted in Point #I above, the designation of the 24 current RWBs and the policy of not dividing counties are part of Florida's approved 1999-2004 WLA1 plan which has been reviewed by and accepted by the current Workforce Florida Board and Governor Jeb Bush as current policy. 3. The trend and preference of the Workforce Florida Board favors further consolidation of Regions, not. division and proliferation. -As noted above, in 1996 and in 1999 state -level guidance and policy was promulgated to reduce the number of workforce regions and to eliminate division of counties, labor market areas and/or vocational service areas. That has so far resulted in the reduction in the total number of RWBs and consolidation of the 2 separate entities previously approved for Hillsborough County. -Factors still applicable to consolidation include reduction in overhead at local and state levels necessary to operate and oversee more RWBs, the need to avoid splitting labor-market/commuting patterns, and the 10% limit on administrative. funds_ a_v_ailable for operating separate governance, planning and administrative structures. -The likely reduction in appropriated workforce funding at federal and/or state level will make it more important to take advantage of economies of scale, and implement further reductions in administrative costs to free up more of the reduced budgets to provide direct services. In addition to considering a request to establish a separate Region for the City of Miami, we understand that other options under discussion include reconfiguration of the current Consortium Agreement in terms of membership and some current liability commitments. Several points to consider in that regard: -Nothing in federal or state workforce law requires establishment of a Consortium Agreement within a Wor`ic arce Agreement Region to include cities within the Region's county/counties. A consortium has been traditianal in Dade - Monroe since JTPA days and possibly earlier. Currently Region 22 (Broward) also still has .a consortium that - includes the cities of Ft. Lauderdale and Hollywood. There are no other Regions currently known to have a Consortium Agreement including cities, despite having multiple counties and large cities within the boundaries, such as Orlando, Jacksonville, etc. Inclusion of cities as signatories is purely a local option. The only inter -local agreement and signatories required under federal and state are agreements betweenlamong the counties in multi - county Regions. -Similarly there is no requirement in federal or state workforce law requiring that Consortium Agreements or ..Inter -Local Agreements- among- counties_to--include-advance-agreements-on-appordenment.-.of-potential-1iabilit3= - Consequently, any percentage calculations or the basic option of whether to include such advance understandings is again purely a local option. From general familiarity with the agreements in other Regions, such advance liability terms are not common and may be unique to the current Region 23 Consortium Agreement. Consequently such terms could be modified/deleted under the renegotiation/renewal terms of the agreement. Although this is not an exhaustive treatise on these complex topics, we hope that this information is helpful in clarifying some of the primary issues you are considering in Region 23. Curtis wanted to be sure that this information is passed along to all those with an interest and need to know in the Region. We will rely on Edith to distribute as needed to Consortium representatives and SFETC, and copies are going to Harriet Spivak and Nancy Thompson for the Regional Workforce Board members and staff.. Sincerely, Michael M. Switzer, Vice President for Policy and Programs cc: Toni Jennings Curtis Austin Harriet Spivak Nancy Thompson Lucy Hadi 02— 570 t'r TACHMENT NO.4 CITY OF MIAMI - CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM'? r TO: Mayor and Members of the City Com sion FROM: Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney DATE: April 23, 2002 RE: South Florida E4�ent and Training Consortium At the City Commission Meeting of March 14, 2002, I was directed to provide an analysis of the legal parameters governing the City's participation in the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium ("SFETC") and the City's potential liability in connection herewith. The Florida workforce program is structured in accordance with the federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the Florida Workforce Innovation Act of 2000. The City participates through its membership in the SFETC, in accordance with the contractual agreements described more fully below. Those contracts allocate to the City thirty-six percent (36%) of the liability that may be incurred for "costs disallowed from contracts with Service Providers or from staff errors". A party withdrawing from participation in the SFETC maintains responsibility for financial or other obligations incurred by that party during the then current or prior fiscal years. I. LEGISLATIVE PARAMETERS A. Federal Workforce Legislation The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 ("WIA") established a system of providing workforce activities through state and local workforce systems. 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 2801-2945 (2002). For a state to be eligible for funding, the WIA charged the Governor with establishing a state workforce board and developing a plan outlining a five-year strategy for a statewide workforce system meeting the requirements of the WIA. The WIA also charged the Governor with establishing local service delivery areas throughout the state. The WIA requires that in each such local area, a local "workforce investment board" be established to set policies for the workforce system within that local area. o2— 570 Mayor and Member of tb' —ity Commission South Florida Employment and Training Consortium April 23, 2002 Page 2 _ The WIA requires the Governor to approve a request for designation as a local service delivery area from: (1) any unit of general local government with a population of 500,000 or more; (2) an area served by a rural concentrated employment program grant recipient, in certain circumstances; (3) an area that served as service delivery area of the Job Training Partnership Act in a state having a population of not more than 1,100,000 and a specified population density. The Governor may also approve a request for designation as a local service delivery area from any unit of general local government (including a combination of such units) if the state workforce board determines, and recommends to the Governor, that such area should be so designated, taking into account certain statutorily specified considerations. Generally, the chief elected official in a local area serves as the local grant recipient. The chief elected official in the local area is authorized to appoint the members of the local workforce investment board; in a case in which a local area includes more than one unit of general local government, the chief elected officials of the various units of general local government may execute an agreement that specifies their respective roles. The Governor may de -certify a local board at any time for fraud or abuse, failure to carry out the functions specified in the WIA or failure to meet the local performance measures for two consecutive program years. If the Governor determines that a local area is not in compliance with applicable administrative requirements for grants and agreements as promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget, or, if, as a result of financial and compliance audits or otherwise, the Governor determines there is a substantial violation of a specific provision of the WIA, and corrective action has not been taken, the Governor may take remedial action including, but not limited to, de -certifying the local board. The WIA provides sanctions for a local area's failure to meet local performance measures for two consecutive program years. The Governor is authorized to require the appointment and certification of a new local board, prohibit the use of eligible providers and One -Stop partners or take such other actions as the Governor deems appropriate. A recipient of funds is required to repay to the United States any amounts found not to have been expended in accordance with the requirements of the WIA. The recipient is required to repay such amounts from funds other than funds received pursuant to the WIA, upon a determination by the Secretary of Labor that the mis-expenditure of funds was due to a willful disregard of WIA requirements, gross negligence, failure to observe accepted standards of administration or a pattern of mis-expenditure. D2_. 5'70 Mayor and Member of the y Commission South Florida Employment and Training Consortium April 23, 2002 Page 3 B. Florida Workforce Legislation The Workforce Innovation Act of 2000 (the "Florida Act") was Florida's response to the WIA. §§ 445.001-445.051, Fla. Stat. (2002). Signed into law on May 30, 2000, the Florida Act focused on the following six elements in implementing the WIA: streamlining services, empowering individuals, universal access to employment services, increased accountability for performance, local board and private sector leadership and local flexibility and innovations. Workforce Florida, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation created as a unit or entity of state government, is the principal workforce policy organization for the State of Florida, charged with designing and implementing strategies to help Floridians enter, remain in and advance in the workplace and with assisting and developing the state's business climate. The Workforce Florida, Inc. Board includes representatives from business and industry, the state community college system and the Florida Board of Education, as well as state agencies such as the departments of Children and Families, Labor and Employment Security, Education and Community Affairs. The Florida Act grants to Workforce Florida, Inc. a broad spectrum of powers and authorities to carry out and effectuate the purposes of the WIA. Generally, Workforce Florida, Inc. serves as the state's workforce investment board and provides policy, planning and oversight direction to the twenty-four regional workforce boards in designing and implementing programs to develop a skilled workforce. Workforce Florida, Inc. is tasked with preparing and submitting a five-year plan to implement the requirement of the WIA. It is also tasked with an annual review of each regional workforce board's performance to certify that the board is in compliance with applicable state and federal law. The twenty-four Florida regional workforce boards are largely responsible for implementing programs in their communities. Regional workforce boards have the responsibility of developing the local workforce plan and budget, providing ongoing oversight, and developing local performance measures, as well as overseeing the One -Stop delivery system in the local area. II. SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE PROGRAM The Florida Governor has designated Miami -Dade and Monroe Counties as the local "workforce investment area", known as Florida Region 23. The general structure of the Region 23 workforce program is summarized in the Historical Overview from South Florida Workforce, dated March 2002, attached as Exhibit A. o- 570 Mayor and Member of the - ty Commission South Florida Employment and Training Consortium April 23, 2002 Page 4 _ III. CONTRACTUAL PARAMETERS FOR CITY'S PARTICIPATION A. South Florida Employment and Training Consortium The City of Miami entered into a Consortium Agreement, effective July 1, 2000, with Miami -Dade and Monroe Counties and the Cities of Hialeah and Miami Beach (the "Consortium Agreement") continuing the SFETC and allowing for regional planning and operation of a workforce program for Region 23. Pursuant to the Consortium Agreement, the SFETC represents the region's member local elected officials. It functions as the grant recipient for federal and state workforce funds allocated to Region 23. The five SFETC member governments appoint the membership of the Workforce Investment Board of South Florida (known as the "South Florida Workforce Board") according to a formula agreed to by the SFETC membership itself), and, jointly with the South Florida Workforce Board, approve the South Florida workforce plan and budget and the selection of One -Stop operators for the region's One -Stop Career Centers. The Consortium Agreement requires that the member jurisdictions contribute to SFETC liability incurred under the Consortium Agreement. More specifically, it provides for the City of Miami to assume thirty-six percent (36%) of the liability derived for "costs disallowed from contracts with Service Providers or from staff errors". A member withdrawing from the Consortium Agreement retains financial or other obligations incurred by that party during the then current or prior fiscal years. B. Interlocal Agreement: South Florida Workforce Board and the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium Board Effective April 1, 2002, the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium entered into an agreement with the South Florida Workforce Board to implement and operate workforce programs for the residents of Miami -Dade and Monroe Counties (the "Interlocal Agreement"). The Interlocal Agreement allocates authority and responsibilities between the SFETC and the South Florida Workforce Board. With regard to liability issues, the Interlocal Agreement provides that the SFETC Board shall bear financial liability for funds administered pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement. Distribution of that liability among the SFETC members is as specified in the Consortium Agreement, with the City of Miami bearing thirty-six percent (36%) of stated liabilities as described more fully in Section III. A. above. U2-- 570 Mayor and Member of the :y Commission South Florida Employment and Training Consortium April 23, 2002 Page 5 IV. CONCLUSION The City of Miami's participation in Region 23 workforce programs is pursuant to a South Florida workforce structure established in accordance with the federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the Florida Workforce Innovation Act of 2000. The contractual agreements governing the City of Miami's participation in the South Florida workforce structure allocate to the City thirty-six percent (36%) of the liability for "costs disallowed from contracts with Service Providers or from staff errors". A member of the SFETC who withdraws from membership retains financial or other obligations incurred by that party during the then current or prior fiscal years. cc: Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk AV -IT: Community Development—General-SFETC-Commission Memo 4/23/02 Q2-- 570 'south florida EXHIBIT A vVbrk rce Ajfumtca urtth WonCor;r i�on:::r.. South Florida Employment and Training Consortium Historical and Service Data for the City of Miami March 2002 1. Historical Overview South Florida Workforce is the structure that has been put in place in the Miami-Dade/Monroe County Region to plan for, administer and oversee approximately $114 million a year in federal and state funded employment and training programs. The structure is made up of the South Florida Workforce Board, the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium, the central administrative structure that is referred to as "South Florida Workforce" and a network of Service Providers and training agents who provide services to approximately 250,000 jobseekers a year, the Region's employers, and specific targeted populations. The authority for this structure emanates from the federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the state's Workforce Innovation Act of 2000. Through this and preceding legislation, the South Florida Workforce Board has been chartered by the State of Florida to plan for and oversee funding allocated to the Region. The South Florida Employment and Training Consortium is a consortium made up of five local governments: Miami -Dade and Monroe Counties and the Cities of Miami, Hialeah, and Miami Beach. Under an Agreement among the five governments, the Consortium represents the Region's Local Elected Officials. It functions as the grant recipient for these federal and state funds allocated to the Region. Its staff has been designated by the South Florida Workforce Board as its administrative entity, and carries out the administrative and operational functions for the South Florida Workforce Board. The five Consortium governments appoint the membership of the South Florida Workforce Board, jointly approve with the Board the South Florida Workforce Pian and Budget, and jointly approve with the Board the selection of One -Stop Operators for the network of One -Stop Career Centers through which most of the system's services are accessed. The system is funded from a number of different funding streams, including: youth, adult and dislocated worker and welfare -to -work funding that originates from the U.S. Department of Labor, Welfare Transition funding and Refugee Employment and Training funding that originates from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and additional funding from time to time from other sources. in addition, the Boards oversee staff and additional resources from the state's Agency for Workforce innovation who assist jobseekers and employers in the One -Stops, provide food stamp employment and training services, and offer specialized services to veterans. All workforce services are provided by Service Providers selected through competitive procurement. Services are accessed by the population through a network of One -Stop Career Centers located throughout the two -county Region. Employment services are provided at the One -Stops along with case management and referral to training provided by training institutions — approved to offer training in a wide array of high -demand occupational areas. In addition, providers are contracted to offer employment and training services to refugees and to at -risk youth. city Of Miami commission Pape 1 of 5 3403 NW 82''d Avenue. Suite 300 Wmi, FL 33112-1019 • Tdq*onc: (305) 594-7615 Faaimile: (305) 499.5471 www.southflofidawmmorce.org 02— 570 CONSORTIUM AGREEMENT THIS—AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 2&h 1st day of May:4998 July 2000 by and among: Miami Dade County, A political subdivision of the State of Florida. 111 N. W. First Street Miami, FL 33128 The City of Miami, A municipal corporation of the State of Florida. 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 The City of Hialeah, A municipal corporation of the State of Florida. 501 Palm Avenue Hialeah, FL 33011 The City of Miami Beach, A municipal corporation of the State of Florida. 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Monroe County, A political subdivision of the State of Florida. Courthouse Key West, FL 33040 WHEREAS, it is desirable to conduct programs on an area wide basis providing for employment and training opportunities for the economically disadvantaged, unemployed, underemployed or otherwise meeting the eligibility criteria of any program operated under this agreement and to assure universal access to training resources for the population of the two -county area and to assure that training and other services are organized and delivered in the most effective and efficient manner; and WHEREAS, Miami Dade County, the City of Miami, the City of Hialeah, the City of Miami Beach, and Monroe County are located in reasonable proximity to each other; and have entered into an agreement creating the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium; and WHEREAS, all of Miami Dade and Monroe Counties can be effectively served by a Consortium of the type created by this Agreement; and 1 02- 570 WHEREAS, the sigi ries to this Agreement believe that as ansortium they can plan and operate a workforce development program so as to obtain administrative and programmatic advantages; and WHEREAS, it is the feeling of the parties hereto that the interests of the community would be better served by the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium herein referred to as SFETC continuing to provide for the funding, review, evaluation, and coordination of programs in the Miami Dade and Monroe Counties area, and to provide for the coordination of related ancillary workforce development services; and WHEREAS, the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969, Section 163.01 et seq., Florida Statutes 1977 and the Miami -Dade County Home Rule Charter provide a method for governmental entities to join together in order to perform programs of the type intended; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, conditions, and premises herein set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. That the parties hereto do all mutually and individually agree to continue with each other the entity known as the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium. 2. That a purpose of this Consortium is to continue to conduct programs on an area -wide basis under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 as amended from time to time, (herein referred to as the Act) and under the Jobs and Education Partnership process. 3. That this Agreement shall be approved by the affirmative legislative body of each jurisdiction (i.e., the City Commission of the City of Miami, the City Council of the City of Hialeah, the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach,the Boards of County Commissioners of Miami Dade and Monroe Counties), and shall supplant the existing Agreement executed in 4996 1998. 4. That the representatives to the Consortium from each member local government shall be either the chief elected official or the chief non-elected/appointed official of local government. Said non-elected/appointed officials shall be designated by their respective legislative bodies. 5. The Consortium hereby formed shall have the power; a. To receive all grants, funds, allocations, and any and all forms of revenue based on, or pursuant to the Act and to the Jobs and Education Partnership process; to receive grants, gifts, or other resources from any agency or agencies of the United States Government, and/or the State of Florida or other sources. 2 02— 570 b. To enter into contracts or agreements with any corporation, municipality, or any other legal entity, public or private, or any other__person or persons for the performance of such services as may be required by the terms of any grant, contract, or agreement entered into, or with, any agency or agencies of the government of the State of Florida and/or the United States, or any other organization. C. To, by four (4) affirmative votes of its members, promulgate such policies, and to amend such policies as necessary for the conduct of its business. d. To expend funds for both planning and administrative purposes as deemed necessary for the conduct of its business. e. To implement, coordinate, review and evaluate programs; and to fund, monitor and audit projects which have been approved by the Consortium. f. To consult and retain experts and purchase or lease or otherwise provide for such services, supplies, materials, equipment and facilities as it deems necessary. g. To appoint and remove an Executive Director who shall serve at the will of the majority of the Consortium and the Chairman of the Jobs and Education Partnership. Said Director shall employ directly or through contract with a member jurisdiction appropriate staff personnel whu'wVi[i'Wrnprise the dffice of the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium. The staff will be hired pursuant to Miami Dade County Employment Policies and Procedures and subject to the Miami Dade County employee merit system. h. To provide for anannual audit of the Office of the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium by an independent auditor. L To provide either directly or through contract for legal service. 6. That this Agreement shall be effective, upon its proper execution by the designated officer of each member jurisdiction's legislative body of Miami Dade County, the City of Hialeah, the City of Miami Beach, the City of Miami, and Monroe County, from JWy 1, 1998 July 1, 2000 and shall expire on Am 30, 2 June 30, 2002 or when re-enacted by the membership. This Agreement may be renewed by the affirmative vote of the legislative body of each member jurisdiction. 3 02- 570 7. That the South -)rids Employment and Training Cons am staff shall perform the following and other duties as delegated by the Consortium: a. To prepare an annual budget for the operation of programs and projects. The budget for funds received under the Act shall be approved by the Consortium and the Jobs and Education Partnership Board for Miami -Dade and Monroe Counties which will function as a regional workforce development board/workforce investment board in compliance with all Workforce Investment Act requirements. b. To maintain a financial accounting system to account for and report on all funds received and expended. Such report shall be made not less than quarterly to the Consortium and parties hereto. C. To monitor, evaluate, audit and provide technical assistance and advice to the parties hereto and to all others, organizations, or governmental units as may be required by Federal or State Regulations or the Consortium. d. To prepare appropriate reports for each member jurisdiction as required by the Consortium. .8. That the Consortium has caused to be created a pFWate regional workforce board in accord with the Act. This council, to be known as the -pate kidusay eetncil the Jobs and Education Partnership Regional Board of and Monroe Counties, is a separate entity whose members shall be appointed by the Consortium's member local governmental jurisdictions according to a formula for apportioning appointments that shall be agreed to by the Members, and revised from time to time by agreement of the Members, and which shall be in compliance with all federal and State requirements for representation on the /Jobs and Education Partnership Regional Board, including required representation in the following membership categories: private sector businesses um of majority of all seats) economic development organizations community based organizations including a representative of a nonprofit community based organization which provides direct employment and training services to hard -to -serve individuals including the disabled and a nonprofit community based organization representing veterans. • organized labor , 4 02- '70 loco lucation agencies (school districts and cc iunity colleges) ineluding�e licensed private post secondary schools eligible to receive ffAs, including one representative from a degree -granting institution and one from an institution offering certificate or diploma programs the public employment service, vocational rehabilitation -agencies the public assistance system, and others, including local elected officials, representation of services to the elderly, and other membership categories that may be added from time to tithe. 9. That this Agreement may be amended from time to time, or cancelled, upon the affirmative vote of each legislative body, (i.e., the City Commission of the City of Miami, the City Council of the City of Hialeah, the City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, the Boards of County Commissioners of Miami Dade and Monroe Counties), of the parties hereto. 10. That any party: hereto shall have the right to withdraw from this Agreement upon the following conditions: a. That the Consortium by and through its Executive Director shall have received written notice of the parry's intent to withdraw no later than ninety (90) days before the end of the then current Workforce Investment Act program year. b. That the withdrawing party shall not be released from any financial or any other obligations incurred by that party during the then current or prior fiscal years. 11. That A majority of the Consortium shall constitute a quorum. Action of the Consortium shall be valid and binding when adopted at a public meeting by at least a majority of Affirmative votes by those present unless otherwise provided in this agreement. 5 02-- 570 12. That :Me each jurisdiction shall be entitled to all of the benefits from association in the consortium, and shall retain responsibility for the operation of the program. 13. That each member jurisdiction of the Consortium, to the extent consistent with State and local law, accepts ultimate responsibility for the operation and success of the program operated hereunder. 14. That each member jurisdiction of the Consortium agrees to contribute to SFETC liability incurred under this agreement as follows: a. No liability will be paid by member jurisdictions unless ordered by court or other controlling body or unless otherwise agreed. b. Costs disallowed from contracts with SFETC Members will be paid by the SFETC Member involved. C. Costs disallowed from contracts with Service Providers or from staff errors will be paid as follows: AGM72.REV.5/00 Miami Dade County 46% Miami, City of 36% ✓ Hialeah, City of 8% ' Miami Beach, City of 5% Monroe County 5 % TOTAL 100% d. In the event that a new political jurisdiction enters into this Consortium, liability to said new political jurisdiction will be prorated proportionately according to the total number of jurisdictions which then comprise the Consortium. 2 02- 7 JEP REGIONAL BOARD -LEO AGREEMENT This AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and among: the Local Elected Officials (LEOs) of the Jurisdictions who comprise the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium, namely Miami - Dade County, the City of Miami, the City of Hialeah, the City of Miami Beach, and Monroe County, through their designees, the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium Board (hereinafter referred to as "SFETC Board"), and the Workforce Investment Board of South Florida which will be called the Jobs and Education Partnership Regional Board for Miami -Dade and Monroe Counties (hereinafter referred to as the "JEP Board"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS the United States Congress has established the Workforce Investment Act (WIA or Act), and charged the Gover4or of the State of Florida with the establishment of local Service Delivery Areas; and WHEREAS the area within the Counties of Miami -Dade and Monroe has been designated as the local Service DWivery Area and JEP Region; and WHEREAS the WIA requires the JEP Board and the LEOs through their designees, the SFETC Board, to jointly implement WIA; and WHEREAS the parties desire to enter into an agreement to provide job training and job placement services under WIA legislation and the Jobs and Education Partnership process to the eligible residents of the WIA Service Delivery Area and:JEP Region; and WHEREAS the SFETC Board has developed a staff organization (hereinafter referred to as the SFETC staff), that is trained, experienced and competent in the areas to be implemented and administered under the WIA and JEP process; and WHEREAS the JEP Board has a staff (hereinafter referred to as the JEP staff) that is trained, experienced and competent in the areas to be planned and overseen by the JEP Board; JEP LEO AGREEMENT Page 1 of 5 02" 570 In CONSIDERATION of the mutual promises herein contained, the parties agree to develop an agreement under the laws of the State of Florida and the laws, rules and regulations of the United States of America. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that this Agreement pursuant to the Act be made and entered into by and between the SFETC Board and the JEP Board. N I. AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIB LITIES OF THE JEP BOARD A. The JEP Board, jointly with the SFETC Board, shall provide policy and program guidance and oversight on all activities pertaining to the provision of services under the Act and the JEP process. B. The JEP Board, jointly with the SFETC Board, shall have the responsibility for the development of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Five -Year Plan, insuring compliance Wath the requirements established by the Governor and pursuant to the WIA legislation and United States Department of Labor (USDOL) regulations. Upon review and approval by the JEP Board and the SFETC Board, the JEP Board Chairperson and the Chairperson of the SFETC Board shall sign the plan 'vindicating joint approval, and shall submit it to the Governor for State approval. C. The J PMMMy perform independent oversight of program activities in addition to oversight performed by the SFETC Board. D. The JEP Board has incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. It will use its own By-laws and, in accordance with the Plan, develop and approve an annual budget for its internal activities, use its own staff that reports to the JEP Chairperson, and hire legal counsel E. The JEP Board may solicit and accept public or private sector funds. F. The JEP Board shall use SFETC staff for the performance of functions related to the roles of Grant Recipient, Administrative Entity, and JEP Fiscal Agent. The SFETC Executive Director shall be responsible to the Chairperson of the JEP Board as well as to the SFETC Board. The SFETC staff shall report to the SFETC Executive Director. The hiring and firing of the Executive Director shall require a majority vote of the SFETC Board and JEP Board Chairperson. JEP LEO AGREEMENT Page 2 of 5 02 570 IL AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM BOARD A. The SFETC Board shall be the Administrative Entity and the custodian of funds as the WIA Grant Recipient and the Fiscal Agent for the JEP process. B. The SFETC Board shall bear financial liability for funding and administrative decisions made by the Board pursuant to this agreement. Distribution of that liability shall be made according to the Consortium Agreement entered into by the SFE7C Board members. C. The SFETC Board shall manage a system to hear and resolve complaints, grievances, and appeals as required by the Act and the JEP process, through hearings conducted by representatives of the SFETC Board. Complaints, grievances and appeals brought by SFETC staff shall be heard according to Miami -Dade County procedures. Appeals brought by current or future Service Providers will be conducted as prescribed in Section III D. D. The SFETC staff shall administer programs pursuant to the Act and USDOL regulations, applicable federal, State and local laws, and JEP guidelines. The responsibilities of the SFETC staff shall include: 1. Receipt and disbursement of all funds related to program operations. 2. Management of contracts with program operators for services described in the Plan. _ 3. Lt'an"'iI'ifiaintenance of a management information system • adequate for collection of the program data necessary for management, evaluation and the preparation of required (and desired) reports. 4. Monitoring and evaluation of program operations pursuant to the Act. 5. Determination and. verification of participant eligibility as described in the Act. 6. Procurement and maintenance of fixed assets and expendable supplies necessary for program operation. Ownership and disposition of fixed assets shall be as established by the federal regulations. Ownership of assets that will revert to the SDA/JEP Region shall be vested with the SFETC Board. 7. Procurement of audits of funds as required under the Act, resolution of any questions arising from said audits through hearings conducted by representatives of the SFETC Board, and reporting the results of audits to the JEP Board and SFETC Board. Other functions as determined by the JEP Board and the SFETC Board. JEP LEO AGREEMENT Page 3 of 5 02- 570 E. The SFETC staff consists of an Executive Director and staff members necessary to perform the administrative duties of the Grant Recipient/JEP Fiscal Agent and Administrative Entity. The Executive Director shall be responsible for the employing and terminating of the employment of staff, who are Miami -Dade County employees, in accordance with Miami -Dade County personnel policies and procedures. The Executive Director shall report directly to the Chairperson of the JEP Board and the SFETC Board. III. JOINT AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES A. The JEP Board and the SFETC Board shall jointly approve the Plan which shall be signed by the JEP Board Chairperson and the Chairperson of the SFETC Board, indicating their joint approval. B. The JEP Board and SFETC Board shall jointly approve WIA policy and funding decisions. C. It is the responsibility of both parties to insure effective service delivery which provides the most beneficial mix of program options to the economically disadvantaged people of Miami -Dade and Monroe Counties and others in the population who will access training and employment services. Further, it is the shared authority and responsibility of the partners to stimulate the active, effective participation of all sectors of the community in the provision of job training and placement services. D. Recognizing a locally agreed partnership where the SFETC and the JEP Board are equal partners, it is agreed that appeals brought by current or future Service Providers will be -conducted by a panel comprised of two representatives of the SFETC Board and two private sector representatives of t.9ZIM=Mrd. . % IV. INDEPENDENCE OF TERMS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT If any terms or provisions of this Agreement are held invalid, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby. V. AMENDMENT OF AGREEMENT This document may be amended by the mutual agreement of the parties hereto and said amendments must be executed with the same formality as this Agreement. VI. WITHDRAWAL FROM AGREEMENT Either party to this Agreement shall have the right to withdraw from this Agreement at any time upon the following conditions: A. That the party intending to withdraw shall provide written notification of the intent to withdraw not later than ninety (90) days before the end of the current fiscal year. B. That the party intending to withdraw shall not be released from any financial or any other obligations incurred by that party during the then current fiscal year or prior fiscal years during which this Agreement was in force. JEP LEO AGREEMENT Page 4 of 5 02- 570 VII. TERM OF AGREEMENT The term of this Agreement shall commence on the first (1st) day of July, 2000 and shall run through June 30, 2002, and thereafter shall be renewed every two (2) years unless either parry notifies the other of its intention not to renew at least ninety (90) days prior to the expiration of any one fiscal year. 61. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement at Miami, Florida, the day and year first above written. JOBS AND EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP SOUTH FLORIDA EMPLOYMENT AND REGIONAL BOARD, MIAMI-DADE AND TRAINING CONSORTIUM BOARD MONROE COUNTIES '. By By Attest Attest JEP LEO AGREEMENT Page 5 of 5 02- 570 66 -Seat JEP Board PY'98-99 Seat Designation Miami -Dade County City of Miami City of Hialeah City of Miami Beach Montbe County Total Private Sector 11 16 5 1 1 34 Economic Development 2 0 4 1 0 0 0 2 Community Based Organization 3 2 1 0 1 7 Education (Public) I 1 0 0 2 4 Education (Private) 2 0 0 0 0 2 Labor 2 1 0 0 1 4 Employment Service + 1 0 0 0 1 2 Vocational Rehabilitation 1 0 0 0 0 1 Public Assistance 0 1 0 0 0 1 Elder Affairs 0 0 0 1 0 1 Os 1 1 1 1 1 2 Other and One -Stop Partners 5 1 1 0 0 7 Total 28 22 7 3 6 66 02- 570 V= Recommended 65 Member JEP Board Effective 7/1/2000 Seat Designation Miami -Dade County City of Miami City of Hialeah City of Miami Beach Monroe County Total Private Sector 11 15 5 I 1 33 Economic Development 2 0 0 0 0 2 ICommunity Based Organization 3 2 1 0 1 7 I Education (Public) 1 1 0 0 2 4 Education (Private) 1 0 1 0 0 2 Labor 2 1 0 0 1 4 Employment Service 1 0 0 0 0 1 Vocational Rehabilitation 1 0 0 0 0 1 Public Assistance 0 1 0 0 0 1 Elder Affairs 0 0 0 1 U 1 L.EOs- 1 0 0 1 1 3 One -Stop Partners, 5 1 0 0 0 6 Total 28 21 7. 3 6 65 Public Sector: 32 seats Private Sector: 33 seats The distribution of seats is as close as we can get to the liability distribution formula in the Consortium Agreement. Miami -Dade County: • 46 % of 65 seats would be 29.9 seats City of Miami: 36% of 65 seats would be 23.4 seats City of Hialeah: 8% of 65 seats would be 5.2 seats City of Miami Beach: 5 % of 65 seats would be 3.25 seats Monroe County: 5 % of 65 seats would be 3.25 seats 70 JEP APPOINTMENT ACTIONS NEEDED The following steps are needed to get the appointments needed for re -certification of the Board: JEP Board Members whose terms expire 6/30/00 were polled to determine their willingness to serve another 2 -year term. All indicated a willingness to serve another term. 2. The following seven (7) individuals are active WAGES Coalition Members from the Business sector: Richard W. Gross Partner, Wetzel & Gross 39 E. 6th Street, Hialeah Carla Harris President, Heaven Sent Consultants, Inc. 11762 N. Kendall Drive, Miami Domingo M. Moya Exec. Vice President, Penn Credit of Florida, Inc. 107 NW 32 Street, Miami Douglas Rodibaugh General Manager, Miami International Airport Hotel John Thacker Regional Vice -President, Loews Miami Beach Hotel 1601 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach Victoiia E. Villalba Owner, Victoria &Associates Personnel Services, Inc. 8181 NW 36th Street, Miami Alexandra Villoch General Manager, Miami/Caribbean, United Airlines These WAGES Coalition Members need to be polled by WAGES staff to determine their interest in filling a Business seat on the JEP Board, and to determine which, if any, Chamber they belong to, so ^. a v man solicit a nomination from their Chamber for their appointment to the JEP Board. 3. Dr. Roosevelt Thomas of the University of Miami is now occupying a seat for a private postsecondary degree granting institution. The State legislation now requires that the private proprietary school represented on the Board be one that is eligible to receive ITAs. We have now determined that the University of Miami does offer certificate programs and we can proceed to have staff complete the work to get them approved and added to the list of training providers eligible for ITAs. 4. Appropriate nominees need to be solicited for vacancies on the JEP Board, including 8 Business seats (which may include the 7 WAGES Coalition Members who are from the Business community, if they are interested in serving on the JEP Board). 4. Nomination packets for Business Members need to be processed through the Chambers. 5. Nomination packets need to be processed through the Consortium Jurisdictions, including in the case of Miami -Dade County our writing of the Resolution. The following actions are needed to fill seats per jurisdiction if the proposed distribution of JEP appointments across the jurisdictions is acceptable: Miami -Dade County: a. Reappoint or replace 8 JEP Members whose terms expire 6/30/00. b. Make appointments for 2'new seats (1 LEO seat and 1 Business seat, including giving consideration to WAGES Coalition Business Members who may have been appointed by Miami -Dade County). C. Appoint a new representative of the Beacon Council. o- 570 City of Miami: a. b. C. City of Hialeah: a. b. City of Miami Beach: a. Monroe County: a. Reappoint or replace 2 JEP Members whose terms expire 6/30/00. Appoint Charles Auslander to JEP to fill C&F Seat: Action still pending at Commission. - Fill 7 additional vacancies, all in the private sector, including giving consideration to 7 WAGES Coalition Members from Business. Reappoint or replace 5 JEP Members whose terms expire 6/30/00. Note: Nancy Rodriguez will be moved back to the private proprietary school category since Sullivan & Cogliano is a private proprietary school that issues certificates and is eligible to receive ITAs. Reappoint or replace 2 JEP Board Members whose terms expire 6/30/00. Reappoint or replace 3 JEP Board Members whose terms expire 6/30/00. Note: JEP appointments are for two (2) year terms. 0 570 Jurisdiction Miami -Dade County City of Miami CURRENT JEP VACANCIES JEP Member Pat Donawa Ramona Phillips Kaaren Johnson -Street SueAllenJ�es:e L. Brooks III Ruben Burke Mario Gutierrez Rafael Schuck Rodolfo Suarez Nelson Tarke William Webb Category Education/Private Economic Development Business Business Business Business Business Business Business Business Business Date Term Expires/d 6/99 6/00 6/00 6/01 6/01 6/01 6/01 6/01 6/01 6/01 6/01 _ 02- 570 TERMS OF CURRENT APPOINTEES STILL ACTIVE ON -THE JEP BOARD MIAMI-DADE COUNTY JEP Member Catesory Date Term Expires Black, Elaine Economic Development 6/01 Boleman, Richard Voc Rehab 6/00 ** Cerezo, Luis Job Corps 6/01 Chi, Joe Business 6/00 ** Cuevas, Roger Education/Public 6/00 ** David, Thomas Business 6/01 Donaldson, Carolyn Business 6/01 Garza, Maria Migrants/Farmworkers 6/01 Grace, Regina CAA 6/01 Hall, Cynthia Labor 6/00 ** Hart, C. Brian Business 6/01 Jakobs, Wayne Business 6/01 Lopez, Elsa Labor 6/00 ** Masso, Joyce Business 6/01 Phillips, Ramona Economic Development 6/00 ** Needs Replacemeu Rivas, Anthony Business 6/01 Robinson, Neill CBO 6/01 Rodriguez, Maria CBO 6/00 ** Rodriguez, Rene HUD 6/01 Rutz, Darryl FDLES �` 6/01 Sabines, Luis Business 6/01 Thomas, Roosevelt Education/Private 6100 ** Urra, Marty Business 6/00 ** Vega, Dan Native Americans 6/01 Weber, Michael CBO/Veterans 6/01 Ziska, David Business 6/01 02 570 CITY OF MIAMI RECEIVED CITY ATTORNEY'S dMift2 l PH 4:38 MEMORANDL SCiLL:- A. THOHPSON .0111116.+„r.. 111 coif TO: Mayor and Members of the C0 ission FROM: Alejandro Vilarello, qiy Attorne, DATE: May 21, 2002+'' �` RE: South Florida Employggfnt and Training Consortium This memorandum supplements my memorandum of April 23, 2002 (copy attached) regarding the City's potential liability in connection with its participation in the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium ("SFETC"). A question was raised as to whether the City could face potential liability to Service Providers in the event that Federal and/or state funding to the SFETC were terminated due to failure to meet local performance measures or the appointment and certification of a new local board to replace the SFETC as the "workforce investment board" for Florida Region 23. We found no basis for the imposition of liability on the City upon the occurrence of either such event. The "standard form" contractual agreement between the SFETC and Service Providers explicitly allows the SFETC to terminate the contract with the Service Providers in the event that either of the funding sources (Federal or state) does not award funds for distribution, if such funds are awarded at a reduced amount or if such funds are reduced during the fiscal year. While the Service Provider remains entitled to receive compensation for any services satisfactorily performed through the effective date of the termination of the contract, the Service Provider has no right to appeal the SFETC's termination of the contract for the reasons stated above. In addition and as noted in the April 23 memorandum, the governing contracts allocate liability to the City only as follows: thirty-six percent (36%) of the liability that may incurred for "costs disallowed from contracts with Service Providers or from staff errors". Thus, there is no basis in the governing contractual agreements for the City to assume or bear liability for the Federal and state funds allocated to Florida Region 23 other than as indicated above. Our conversations with Barbara Jordan, Assistant County Manager and Bob Korner, Esq., legal counsel for the SFETC, confirmed our conclusions in this regard. cc: Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk AV -IT: Community Development—General-SFETC-Commission Memo 5/21/02/02 City Glerk At the City Commission Meeting of March 14, 2002, I was directed to provide an analysis of the legal parameters governing the City's participation in the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium ("SFETC") and the City's potential liability in connection herewith. The Florida workforce program is structured in accordance with the federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the Florida Workforce Innovation Act of 2000. The City participates through its membership in the SFETC, in accordance with the contractual agreements described more fully below. Those contracts allocate to the City thirty-six percent (36%) of the liability that may be incurred for "costs disallowed from contracts with Service Providers or from staff errors". A party withdrawing from participation in the SFETC maintains responsibility for financial or other obligations incurred by that party during the then current or prior fiscal years. I. LEGISLATIVE PARAMETERS A. Federal Workforce Legislation The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 ("WIA") established a system of providing workforce activities through state and local workforce systems. 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 2801-2945 (2002). For a state to be eligible for funding, the WIA charged the Governor with establishing a state workforce board and developing a plan outlining a five-year strategy for a statewide workforce system meeting the requirements of the WIA. The WIA also charged the Governor with establishing local service delivery areas throughout the state. The WIA requires that in each such local area, a local "workforce investment board" be established to set policies for the workforce system within that local area. �F C City Clerk 02- 570 CITY OF MIAMI CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE v 70 MEMORANDU 4n TO: Mavor and Members of the City Com Sion _ "` w rn FROM: Alejandro Vilarello, City AttorneyCA =moo r DATE: April 23, 2002 Z p RE: South Florida Ement and Training Consortium At the City Commission Meeting of March 14, 2002, I was directed to provide an analysis of the legal parameters governing the City's participation in the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium ("SFETC") and the City's potential liability in connection herewith. The Florida workforce program is structured in accordance with the federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the Florida Workforce Innovation Act of 2000. The City participates through its membership in the SFETC, in accordance with the contractual agreements described more fully below. Those contracts allocate to the City thirty-six percent (36%) of the liability that may be incurred for "costs disallowed from contracts with Service Providers or from staff errors". A party withdrawing from participation in the SFETC maintains responsibility for financial or other obligations incurred by that party during the then current or prior fiscal years. I. LEGISLATIVE PARAMETERS A. Federal Workforce Legislation The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 ("WIA") established a system of providing workforce activities through state and local workforce systems. 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 2801-2945 (2002). For a state to be eligible for funding, the WIA charged the Governor with establishing a state workforce board and developing a plan outlining a five-year strategy for a statewide workforce system meeting the requirements of the WIA. The WIA also charged the Governor with establishing local service delivery areas throughout the state. The WIA requires that in each such local area, a local "workforce investment board" be established to set policies for the workforce system within that local area. �F C City Clerk 02- 570 Mayor and Member of the City Commission South Florida Employ t and Training Consortium April 23. 2002 Paue 2 The WIA requires the Governor to approve a request for designation as a local service delivery area from: (1) any unit of general local government with a population of 500.000 or more; (2) an area served by a rural concentrated employment program grant recipient. in certain circumstances, (3) an area that served as service delivery area of the Job Training Partnership Act in a state having a population of not more than 1.100.000 and a specified population density. The Governor may also approve a request for designation as a local service delivery area from any unit of general local government (including a combination of such units) if the state workforce board determines, and recommends to the Governor, that such area should be so designated, taking into account certain statutorily specified considerations. Generally, the chief elected official in a local area serves as the local grant recipient. The chief elected official in the local area is authorized to appoint the members of the local workforce investment board; in a case in which a local area includes more than one unit of general local government, the chief elected officials of the various units of general local government may execute an agreement that specifies their respective roles. The Governor may de -certify a local board at any time for fraud or abuse, failure to carry out the functions specified in the WIA or failure to meet the local performance measures for two consecutive program years. If the Governor determines that a local area is not in compliance with applicable administrative requirements for grants and agreements as promulgated by the Office of Management and Budget, or, if, as a result of financial and compliance audits or otherwise, the Governor determines there is a substantial violation of a specific provision of the WIA, and corrective action has not been taken, the Governor may take remedial action including, but not limited to, de -certifying the local board. The WIA provides sanctions for a local area's failure to meet local performance measures for two consecutive program years. The Governor is authorized to require the appointment and certification of a new local board, prohibit the use of eligible providers and One -Stop partners or take such other actions as the Governor deems appropriate. A recipient of funds is required to repay to the United States any amounts found not to have been expended in accordance with the requirements of the WIA. The recipient is required to repay such amounts from funds other than funds received pursuant to the WIA, upon a determination by the Secretary of Labor that the mis-expenditure of funds was due to a willful disregard of WIA requirements, gross negligence, failure to observe accepted standards of administration or a pattern of mis-expenditure. rM�pUf'�N 1Yi ,��"`A� �',I it . y 5.��ly1.✓ 1 ec oi' 1 �vf V-,:,on item fPriscilla �. T horn City Clerk 02- 570 Mayor and Member of the City Commission South Florida Employ, t and Training Consortium April 23, 2002 Page 3 B. Florida Workforce Legislation The Workforce Innovation Act of 2000 (the "Florida Act") was Florida's response to the WIA. §§ 445.001-445.051, Fla. Stat. (2002). Signed into law on Mav 30, 2000. the Florida Act focused on the following six elements in implementing the WIA: streamlining services. empowering individuals, universal access to employment services, increased accountability for performance, local board and private sector leadership and local flexibility and innovations. Workforce Florida, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation created as a unit or entity of state government, is the principal workforce policy organization for the State of Florida, charged with designing and implementing strategies to help Floridians enter, remain in and advance in the workplace and with assisting and developing the state's business climate. The Workforce Florida, Inc. Board includes representatives from business and industry, the state community college system and the Florida Board of Education, as well as state agencies such as the departments of Children and Families, Labor and Employment Security, Education and Community Affairs. The Florida Act grants to Workforce Florida, Inc. a broad spectrum of powers and authorities to carry out and effectuate the purposes of the WIA. Generally, Workforce Florida, Inc. serves as the state's workforce investment board and provides policy, planning and oversight direction to the twenty-four regional workforce boards in designing and implementing programs to develop a skilled workforce. Workforce Florida, Inc. is tasked with preparing and submitting a five-year plan to implement the requirement of the WIA. It is also tasked with an annual review of each regional workforce board's performance to certify that the board is in compliance with applicable state and federal law. The twenty-four Florida regional workforce boards are largely responsible for implementing programs in their communities. Regional workforce boards have the responsibility of developing the local workforce plan and budget, providing ongoing oversight, and developing local performance measures, as well as overseeing the One -Stop delivery system in the local area. Il. SOUTH FLORIDA WORKFORCE PROGRAM The Florida Governor has designated Miami -Dade and Monroe Counties as the local "workforce investment area", known as Florida Region 23. The general structure of the Region 23 workforce program is summarized in the Historical Overview from South Florida Workforce, dated March 2002, attached as Exhibit A. O Rlsy ir.o.,t 'Y'.^.fid k4 E£'6.V 65 Y } I c -LL !11� record, C Y b.oi_n tl d 7„�"_%.A, .� e. 'r� 'i .. S '�3 Y LY i'tenn� oilOa- 0 2- 570 Mayor and Member of *he City Commission South Florida Employ t and Training Consortium Apr'123, 2002 Page 4 III. CONTRACTUAL PARAMETERS FOR CITY'S PARTICIPATION A. South Florida Employment and Training Consortium The City of Miami entered into a Consortium Agreement, effective July 1, 2000, with Miami -Dade and Monroe Counties and the Cities of Hialeah and Miami Beach (the "Consortium Agreement") continuing the SFETC and allowing for regional planning and operation of a workforce program for Region 23. Pursuant to the Consortium Agreement, the SFETC represents the region's member local elected officials. It functions as the grant recipient for federal and state workforce funds allocated to Region 23. The five SFETC member governments appoint the membership of the Workforce Investment Board of South Florida (known as the "South Florida Workforce Board") according to a formula agreed to by the SFETC membership itself), and, jointly with the South Florida Workforce Board, approve the South Florida workforce plan and budget and the selection of One -Stop operators for the region's One -Stop Career Centers. The Consortium Agreement requires that the member jurisdictions contribute to SFETC liability incurred under the Consortium Agreement. More specifically, it provides for the City of Miami to assume thirty-six percent (36%) of the liability derived for "costs disallowed from contracts with Service Providers or from staff errors". A member withdrawing from the Consortium Agreement retains financial or other obligations incurred by that party during the then current or prior fiscal years. B. Interlocal Agreement: South Florida Workforce Board and the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium Board Effective April 1, 2002, the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium entered into an agreement with the South Florida Workforce Board to implement and operate workforce programs for the residents of Miami -Dade and Monroe Counties (the "Interlocal Agreement"). The Interlocal Agreement allocates authority and responsibilities between the SFETC and the South Florida Workforce Board. With regard to liability issues, the Interlocal Agreement provides that the SFETC Board shall bear financial liability for funds administered pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement. Distribution of that liability among the SFETC members is as specified in the Consortium Agreement, with the City of Miami bearing thirty-six percent (36%) of stated liabilities as described more fully in Section III. A. above. 02- 570 record i 9 corn.`Ce ,' � _� K� g item �eai s $ a� Priscilla A. -Irk di a pson City Clerk 02- 570 Mavor and Member of the City Commission South Florida Employs t and Training Consortium April 23. 2002 Paee IN'. CONCLUSION The City of Miami's participation in Region 23 workforce programs is pursuant to a South Florida workforce structure established in accordance with the federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the Florida Workforce Innovation Act of 2000. The contractual agreements governing the City of Miami's participation in the South Florida workforce structure allocate to the City thirty-six percent (36%) of the liability for "costs disallowed from contracts with Service Providers or from staff errors". A member of the SFETC who withdraws from membership retains financial or other obligations incurred by that part} during the then current or prior fiscal years. cc: Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk AV -IT: Community Development—General-SFETC-Commission Memo 4/23/02 �� 6�estl A c n6nnPSOn City Clerk 02- 570 souin portua EXHIBIT A `'fork price A,ux=u,:n woac. "c:r.:: South Florida Employment and Training Consortiu* Historical and Service Data for the City of Miami g March 2002 ,c 17 ra i s r 'O I. Historical Overview .SILO t, South Florida Workforce is the structure that has been put in place in the Mia ni-� de%Nlonroe County Region to plan for, administer and oversee approximately $114 million a yein federal and state funded employment and training programs. The structure is made up of the South Florida Workforce Board, the South Florida Employment and Training Consortium, the central administrative structure that is referred to as "South Florida Workforce" and a network of Service Providers and training agents who provide services to approximately 250,000 jobseekers a year, the Region's employers, and specific targeted populations. The authority for this structure emanates from the federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the state's Workforce Innovation Act of 2000. Through this and preceding legislation, the South Florida Workforce Board has been chartered by the State of Florida to plan for and oversee funding allocated to the Region. The South Florida Employment and Training Consortium is a consortium made up of five local governments: Miami -Dade and Monroe Counties and the Cities of Miami, Hialeah, and Miami Beach. Under an Agreement among the five governments, the Consortium represents the Region's Local Elected Officials. It functions as the grant recipient for these federal and state funds allocated to the Region. Its staff has been designated by the South Florida Workforce Board as its administrative entity, and carries out the administrative and operational functions for the South Florida Workforce Board. The five Consortium governments appoint the membership of the South Florida Workforce Board, jointly approve with the Board the South Florida Workforce Plan and Budget, and jointly approve with the Board the selection of One -Stop Operators for the network of One -Stop Career Centers through which most of the system's services are accessed. The system is funded from a number of different funding streams, including: youth, adult and dislocated worker and welfare -to -work funding that originates from the U.S. Department of Labor, Welfare Transition funding and Refugee Employment and Training funding that originates from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and additional funding from time to time from other sources. In addition, the Boards oversee staff and additional resources from the state's Agency for Workforce Innovation who assist jobseekers and employers in the One -Stops, provide food stamp employment and training services, and offer specialized services to veterans. All workforce services are provided by Service Providers selected through competitive procurement. Services are accessed by the population through a network of One -Stop Career Centers located throughout the two -county Region. Employment services are provided at the One -Stops along with case management and referral to training provided by training institutions _ approved to offer training in a wide array of high -demand occupational occupational areas. In addition, providers are contracted to offer employment aWrartii nig �nrviic to rgNgees and to at -risk youth. D i i ep record in connecti wi h Item _ZA on r s3 s., City Miami commissionPriscilla A. Thompson 1 of s City Clerk 3403 NW 82"d Avenue, Suite 300 Miami, FL 33122-1019 0 Telephone: (305) 594.7615 Facsimile: (305) 499-5471 www.southfioridaworkfarce.org 02- 570