Technical Advisory No. 04-19 issued by the New York State Department of Labor’s Workforce
Development and Training (WDT) Division, provided clarifying guidance on the roles and responsibilities of the Chief Local Elected Official (CLEO) (or the CLEO’s designated Fiscal Agent) and the Local Workforce Investment Board (LWIB) in conducting financial, program and performance oversight and monitoring in local workforce investment areas. This monitoring guide has been developed by WDT for the Local Workforce Investment Areas (LWIAs) to use as they carry out their oversight and monitoring responsibilities. The LWIAs will be required to use this guide or alternatively, incorporate the elements of this guide into their own work products as they carry out their oversight and monitoring responsibilities.
Helpful information to support the monitoring process can be found through the following websites:
http://www.doleta.gov/usworkforce Select “Laws and Regulations” to review the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998 and the WIA Final Rules.
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/ From this website you can review a listing of USDOL, TEGLs
and TEINs by program year and connect to specific documents.
http://workforcenewyork.org/ This NYSDOL Web site provides access to informational items by
selecting Information, Policy Related material, Technical Advisories
Additionally, staff from WDT will be available to LWIAs to provide technical assistance in the establishment of systems and processes to help bring about compliance with the requirements set forth in Technical Advisory No. 04-19.
Monitoring Purpose and Process
The purpose of Workforce Investment Act (WIA) oversight and monitoring is to ensure the integrity of the WIA system and WIA funds, to review performance, assess compliance with applicable laws and regulations and identify successful methods and practices that serve to enhance the system as a whole through continuous improvement.
The monitoring process should be accomplished through a combination of desk and on-site reviews. Desk reviews are used for collecting and analyzing information and to support on-site reviews/monitoring. Desk reviews analyze existing data such as required monthly financial reports, vouchers, contracts, budgets, OSOS data, and prior audits and monitoring reports. The Monitor should gather available, up-to-date, written policy, procedures or other guidance governing the systems, programs and contracts under review. The desk reviews may include telephone and/or e-mail contacts with the entity under review or other entities that may have relevant information that may impact the desk review. The Monitor should be prepared to provide on-site technical assistance as a result of issues disclosed during the desk review process.
On-site reviews are the fundamental component of monitoring and employ data collection
techniques using formal monitoring guides. The on-site reviews should be conducted per a monitoring schedule. The on-site review allows for the verification of items contained in the contract or grant agreement or which were identified in the desk review. Additional on-site reviews may also be conducted on an as-needed basis, should issues arise that require immediate attention. The Monitor should be prepared to provide on-site technical assistance during the conduct of an on-site review.
If the program, financial and performance monitoring functions are to be conducted by separate individuals, it is suggested that where appropriate and possible, the scheduling of the monitoring reviews be a coordinated effort so as to minimize disruption of the operation of the subrecipient.
Monitoring Scope and Frequency
The scope and the frequency of the required oversight and monitoring must include the following reviews:
? WIA IB Adult (annual)
? WIA IB Dislocated Worker (annual)
? WIA IB Youth (annual)
? Data Validation (annual)
? Subrecipient Contract Reviews (Quarterly)
? Financial Management/Cost Allocation Reviews for Subrecipients Reporting by
? Financial Management/Cost Allocation Reviews for Contracted Service Providers
? Subrecipient Monitoring (annual)
? Procurement (bi-annual)
? Property Management (bi-annual)
? Desk Reviews of subrecipient expenditure reports (monthly)
III. Performance and Accountability
? Performance Outcomes (quarterly)
? Service Progression (quarterly)
? Service Levels (quarterly)
? Activity Levels (quarterly)
? Exit Strategy (quarterly)
? Analysis of Relationship Between Expenditures and Program Activities (quarterly)
? Trend Analysis (quarterly)
? Training Providing Transferable Skills (quarterly)
? Training Related to Entered Employment (quarterly)
The frequencies identified above are minimum levels. Factors that influence whether more frequent monitoring is needed include the following:
? The dollar amount obligated to the subrecipient
? Subrecipients with prior audit or monitoring findings or history of poor performance
? High profile programs or activities
? Programs administered by inexperienced subrecipients
? Subrecipients that have inexperienced staff or have experienced a change in key staff
? Programs where the subrecipient has requested an on-site visit
? Subrecipients that have not been visited recently
? Type of sub-award (multi-year vs. single year)
? Subrecipients that are not financially stable
? Subrecipients that have not conformed to terms and conditions of previous awards
? Issues identified by the desk reviews that require on-site follow-up
By identifying a review cycle for each subrecipient, the Monitor should be able to draft a rough
plan of review visits for a full year in advance. By estimating the approximate number of visits
for the upcoming year, the Monitor can use this figure in computing total workdays needed and
use this in developing an overall workload analysis. It is neither expected nor even desirable that
the Monitor actually schedule their review visit dates a year or even several months in advance.
There are too many variables that will affect the actual scheduling. However, the Monitor
should be able to develop a working schedule for 2 to 3 months in advance. This working
schedule should identify which sites they expect to visit and the approximate dates they hope to
schedule those visits. Actual visit dates are usually set up no more than one month in advance.
The monitoring procedures and instructions specific to each of the above topics are presented in
the individual sections of this guide. Review items are presented in two primary formats: items
with check boxes requiring a “yes,” “no,” or N/A (not applicable) response; and items requiring
the entry of a numerical or narrative response. Each review section has a space provided for
comments. Monitors must provide an explanatory comment for any item answered with a “no.” Any other comments are left to the monitor’s discretion. If the monitor determines a
review item is not applicable; the N/A box must be checked.
Monitoring procedures and instructions that are universal and applicable to all the on-site review
topics are presented below:
A. Monitoring Review Set Up
1. Contact the subrecipient to obtain a start date and advise them of the scope of the
2. If requested, prepare and transmit a letter confirming the date and scope of the review
send it to the subrecipient.
3. Telephone the subrecipient prior to the start date of visit as a reminder.
B. Entrance Conference
1. Arrange for an entrance conference. However, a formal entrance conference is not
always necessary. The decision to have an entrance conference should be a mutual one
between the subrecipient and Monitor. Instances where an entrance conference would be
a. This is the initial visit
b. There are major problems with the subrecipient's financial or program systems
c. An entrance conference is requested by the subrecipient
2. When an entrance conference is held the subrecipient’s Executive Director and
appropriate staff should attend.
3. Subjects discussed at an entrance conference may include, but are not limited to:
a. The purpose of the visit
b. The procedures to be used by the Monitor
c. Problems disclosed during prior review visits
4. Create a record of the meeting in the Entrance/Exit Conference Exhibits included in the
C. Sampling Procedures
Transaction testing comprises a significant portion of the on-site review. Since it is rarely cost
effective to examine all transactions, monitors should consider examining a representative
sample or cross-section of the items that make up the various classes of transactions. Sampling
implies gathering evidence to use as a basis for making valid inferences about the characteristics
of the population as a whole. The characteristics of most concern when conducting monitoring
are the effectiveness of control procedures, the accuracy of transaction processing, the reliability
of agency records and systems, and the accuracy of account balances. Important decisions for
the monitor to make include:
? Which population should be tested and for what (population)?
? How many items should be included in the sample (sample size)?
? Which items should be included (selection)?
? What does the sample information tell about the population as a whole (evaluation)?
Taking these factors into consideration, the Monitor can use statistical or non-statistical
(judgmental) sampling. When used properly, either sampling approach can be effective. The
advantage of statistical sampling stems from its objectivity, helping the monitor to design
efficient samples, measure the efficiency of the evidential matter obtained, and evaluate the
sampling results. Combining statistical sampling with good monitoring judgment generally
produces a higher-quality monitoring conclusion than using monitoring judgment alone.
It is up to the Monitor to evaluate the individual and situational costs and benefits associated
with each sampling approach before making a determination on which one to use.
Whichever sampling method is chosen by the Monitor, the methodology should be clearly
identified in the Monitor’s work papers. The Monitor must also make judgments about what
represents a tolerable error rate and what additional work (e.g. increasing the sample size) may
need to be performed if that rate is exceeded.
D. Technical Assistance
There are no set procedures to follow for providing technical assistance. Each situation is unique.
The Monitor must determine what is appropriate in the given circumstances. However, it should
be kept in mind that the act of identifying an issue without accompanying technical assistance in
the creation and implementation of corrective action results in little improvement. All technical
assistance given should be documented in the work papers. Any necessary follow-up assistance
should also be detailed in the work papers.
E. Exit Conference
1. An exit conference is to be held at the end of every review visit.
2. In arranging the time for the exit conference, ensure that the subrecipient’s Executive
Director and appropriate staff are available to attend.
3. Subjects discussed at the exit conference may include, but are not limited to:
a. Findings disclosed during the review
b. Action taken to resolve prior findings
c. Required corrective action and timeframes
d. Technical assistance to be provided by the Monitor
e. Timeframes for issuance of written report
4. Open discussions should be encouraged at the meetings.
5. Create a record of the meeting in the Entrance/Exit Conference Exhibits included in the
F. Monitor’s Work Papers
Monitoring work papers record the activities that took place during the monitoring visit and form
the rationale for the monitoring report. Extensive notes are a necessary part of the review
process and serve to validate the information collection process. Monitoring work papers should:
1. Detail the source of the information acquired and conclusions reached.
2. Document the weaknesses and deficiencies disclosed by the review.
3. Be complete, timely and fully reflect the review steps taken by the Monitor.
4. Go through a supervisory review process.
5. Be retained for review by the LWIB and/or NYSDOL.
G. Monitoring Report
When the on-site monitoring review has been completed and the work papers have been fully
prepared, a report must be written reflecting the purpose and scope of the review. The report
should clearly identify all findings and required corrective action including any necessary
adjustments to the related financial reports. Written monitoring reports should be structured to
assist the subrecipient in reaching their goals by providing feedback to them regarding program,
financial, compliance and performance issues.
The findings to be identified in the written monitoring report should reflect a concise statement
of fact and include the following information:
? Background information
? Problem analysis
? Outline of what was reviewed
? Size of the sample taken (if appropriate)
? Conclusions reached
? Recommendations for corrective action including timeframes
Preparation of the report and supervisory review should ideally be done within 10 days of the
exit meeting. The report should be issued to the subrecipient’s Executive Director within 30
days of the review's start date. If reasons exist such that the report cannot be issued within this
timeframe, the work papers should detail these reasons. The WIB Director and CLEO should be
copied on any monitoring report issued to a subrecipient. Additionally, NYSDOL must be
notified of any significant findings resulting from the reviews.
For this purpose, significant findings are defined as those findings that: may have a material
impact on the financial reports which the LWIA submits to NYSDOL; may materially impact the
ability of the LWIA to meet established program performance measures; or represent a
substantial violation of WIA statutory and regulatory requirements.
The Monitoring agency should consider imposing sanctions against a subrecipient should the
subrecipient agency willfully and flagrantly fail to take timely and responsive corrective action
in response to significant issues identified in the monitoring report.
The specific sanctions that can be imposed should relate to the specific violations and/or to the
scope of violations. Sanctions include the following items:
? Suspension of the affected program until corrective action is implemented
? Increased documentation requirements and/or increased monitoring frequency and/or
? Disallowance of costs associated with the particular violation or deficiency and seek
? Denial or adjustment of requests for WIA funds until the violation or deficiency has been
? Reallocation of unexpended or unobligated funds
? Contract cancellation.
AER Accrued Expenditure Report
CAP Cost Allocation Plan
CLEO Chief Local Elected Official
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COW Cash Order Worksheet
CT Customized Training
DOL Department of Labor
DSS Department of Social Services
DW Dislocated Worker
FIFO First In – First Out
FOTA Financial Oversight and Technical Assistance Unit
IEP Individual Employment Plan
IFB Invitation for Bid
ISS Individual Service Strategy
ITA Individual Training Account
LA Layoff Aversion
LWIA Local Workforce Investment Area
LWIB Local Workforce Investment Board
MIS Management Information System
MSCR Monthly Summary Cash Report
MSDCT Monthly Summary of Daily Cash Transactions
NOA Notice of Obligational Authority
NPS Non Personnel Services
NYSDOL New York State Department of Labor
OJT On-the-Job Training
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSOS One Stop Operating System Preface 7
RFP Request for Proposal
RRBR Rapid Response Business Retention PY Program Year
SW Statewide Funds
TA Technical Advisory
TAA Trade Adjustment Act
TAG Technical Assistance Guide
TEGL Training & Employment Guidance Letter
TRA Trade Readjustment Act
WDT Workforce Development and Training Division
WIA Workforce Investment Act
WIASARD Workforce Investment Act Reporting Data Format
WIB Workforce Investment Board