Perkins 101 â Session 2
Perkins 101 – Session 2 José R. Figueroa, PhD, Education Program Specialist, OCTAE - DOED Andrew Johnson, Education Program Specialist, OCTAE - DOED
Date Monitoring Cycle 2
Sept 9, 2016
ONGOING Continued Findings or Close-Out Letters
Evaluation of State’s Response
Conduct Risk Analysis Prepare Monitoring Plan
DATE Monitoring Cycle
Conduct monitoring reviews
States Submits Corrective Action Plan(s) Send Final Monitoring Reports to States Sept 9, 2016
Assistant Secretary signs monitoring plan
Conduct pre/post monitoring briefings 3
Risk-Based Analysis DATE conducts a risk analysis each year to determine States to be monitored based on the following risk factors: • Accountability • Quarterly Reports Submitted • Missing Enrollment • Missing Indicator or Subpopulation • State Completed its Consolidated Annual Report during the Specified Time • State Completed al FAUPL Negotiations during the Specified Time Sept 9, 2016
4
Risk-Based Analysis - continued Fiscal Lapsed Funds Program.Specific.Audit.Findings Audit Unmodified opinion Late Liquidation Program Administration Last Time Monitored Changes in State Director within the last two years Sept 9, 2016
5
Risk Level Classifications Based on these risk factors, grantees are organized into one of three levels of differentiated risk: • Low Risk – routine monitoring may be appropriate • Elevated Risk – increased monitoring frequency and/or intensity may be appropriate • Significant Risk – increased monitoring frequency and intensity are appropriate
Sept 9, 2016
6
Monitoring Reviews/Visits • “Full” monitoring reviews are generally week-long. • “Targeted” visits are generally more focused (less compliance areas reviewed) week long reviews. Compliance areas State program administration Fiscal program responsibility Local applications Accountability Special populations Programs of study Sept 9, 2016
7
Monitoring Report Sent to States A formal monitoring report is generally issued 60 days after the visit detailing areas of non-compliance (findings), corrective actions, if any, and suggested improvement strategies. New online monitoring portal – new site will allow the State to see the monitoring report online as soon as the report is issued by OCTAE.
Sept 9, 2016
8
Common Findings No state or local assessment of CTE program Lack of states policies / handbooks Missing clear descriptions of all elements of 134(b) (Local Applications)
Missing inclusion of section 113(b)(4)(A)(ii) in the local application Fiscal MOE/hold harmless Formula allocation to sub-recipients Sept 9, 2016
9
Common Findings No sub-recipient monitoring No improvement plans for sub-recipients that have not met performance measures Use of Perkins funds in conjunction with CTSOs Annual local reports and State and local program improvement plans that fail to take into consideration the performance gaps among different categories of students, including those students belonging to special populations.
Corrective Actions 1st step: Submit corrective action(s) to DATE via the online Monitoring Portal 2nd step: DATE staff will coordinate extensive follow-up 3rd step: A “close-out” letter is issued to the State
Sept 9, 2016
11
Resources
12
Sept 9, 2016
Resources • Perkins Collaborative Resource Network (PCRN): http://cte.ed.gov/ • Non-Regulatory Guidance and Q&A: http://cte.ed.gov/legislation/perkins-policy-guidance • Core Indicators and Data Requirements: http://cte.ed.gov/accountability/core-indicators • State Profiles (Archived CAR reports, FAUPLS): http://cte.ed.gov/grants/state-profiles • Colorado State Profile: http://cte.ed.gov/profiles/colorado • PCRN Learning Center: http://cte.ed.gov/resources/learning-center Sept 9, 2016
13
Resources • Events Archived: http://cte.ed.gov/calendar/events-archive • 2015 DQI Materials: http://cte.ed.gov/accountability/2015-dqi • 2014 DQI Materials: http://cte.ed.gov/dqi/index.php/pages/materials • 2013 DQI Materials: http://cte.ed.gov/dqi/index.php/pages/2013_materials • 2012 DQI Materials: http://cte.ed.gov/dqi/index.php/pages/2012_materials Sept 9, 2016
14
Date Monitoring Cycle 2
Sept 9, 2016
ONGOING Continued Findings or Close-Out Letters
Evaluation of State’s Response
Conduct Risk Analysis Prepare Monitoring Plan
DATE Monitoring Cycle
Conduct monitoring reviews
States Submits Corrective Action Plan(s) Send Final Monitoring Reports to States Sept 9, 2016
Assistant Secretary signs monitoring plan
Conduct pre/post monitoring briefings 3
Risk-Based Analysis DATE conducts a risk analysis each year to determine States to be monitored based on the following risk factors: • Accountability • Quarterly Reports Submitted • Missing Enrollment • Missing Indicator or Subpopulation • State Completed its Consolidated Annual Report during the Specified Time • State Completed al FAUPL Negotiations during the Specified Time Sept 9, 2016
4
Risk-Based Analysis - continued Fiscal Lapsed Funds Program.Specific.Audit.Findings Audit Unmodified opinion Late Liquidation Program Administration Last Time Monitored Changes in State Director within the last two years Sept 9, 2016
5
Risk Level Classifications Based on these risk factors, grantees are organized into one of three levels of differentiated risk: • Low Risk – routine monitoring may be appropriate • Elevated Risk – increased monitoring frequency and/or intensity may be appropriate • Significant Risk – increased monitoring frequency and intensity are appropriate
Sept 9, 2016
6
Monitoring Reviews/Visits • “Full” monitoring reviews are generally week-long. • “Targeted” visits are generally more focused (less compliance areas reviewed) week long reviews. Compliance areas State program administration Fiscal program responsibility Local applications Accountability Special populations Programs of study Sept 9, 2016
7
Monitoring Report Sent to States A formal monitoring report is generally issued 60 days after the visit detailing areas of non-compliance (findings), corrective actions, if any, and suggested improvement strategies. New online monitoring portal – new site will allow the State to see the monitoring report online as soon as the report is issued by OCTAE.
Sept 9, 2016
8
Common Findings No state or local assessment of CTE program Lack of states policies / handbooks Missing clear descriptions of all elements of 134(b) (Local Applications)
Missing inclusion of section 113(b)(4)(A)(ii) in the local application Fiscal MOE/hold harmless Formula allocation to sub-recipients Sept 9, 2016
9
Common Findings No sub-recipient monitoring No improvement plans for sub-recipients that have not met performance measures Use of Perkins funds in conjunction with CTSOs Annual local reports and State and local program improvement plans that fail to take into consideration the performance gaps among different categories of students, including those students belonging to special populations.
Corrective Actions 1st step: Submit corrective action(s) to DATE via the online Monitoring Portal 2nd step: DATE staff will coordinate extensive follow-up 3rd step: A “close-out” letter is issued to the State
Sept 9, 2016
11
Resources
12
Sept 9, 2016
Resources • Perkins Collaborative Resource Network (PCRN): http://cte.ed.gov/ • Non-Regulatory Guidance and Q&A: http://cte.ed.gov/legislation/perkins-policy-guidance • Core Indicators and Data Requirements: http://cte.ed.gov/accountability/core-indicators • State Profiles (Archived CAR reports, FAUPLS): http://cte.ed.gov/grants/state-profiles • Colorado State Profile: http://cte.ed.gov/profiles/colorado • PCRN Learning Center: http://cte.ed.gov/resources/learning-center Sept 9, 2016
13
Resources • Events Archived: http://cte.ed.gov/calendar/events-archive • 2015 DQI Materials: http://cte.ed.gov/accountability/2015-dqi • 2014 DQI Materials: http://cte.ed.gov/dqi/index.php/pages/materials • 2013 DQI Materials: http://cte.ed.gov/dqi/index.php/pages/2013_materials • 2012 DQI Materials: http://cte.ed.gov/dqi/index.php/pages/2012_materials Sept 9, 2016
14
