Laserfiche WebLink
December. This would effectively mean new providers would be required to have two years of <br />performance metrics. <br />Resolution —TEGL 8-19, Attachment 1 indicates that, "The performance of ETPs is a factor that <br />states must use in determining both initial and continued eligibility of a provider to be <br />included on the state's ETP list." The state requires placement data for initial eligibility for two <br />main reasons: 1) it ensures that providers on the ETPL are of a certain quality in keeping with <br />state and federal laws and regulations, and 2) participants are more likely to be successful in <br />WIOA (i.e. employment) if the ETPL program meets the initial eligibility placement <br />requirement. This benefits Local Board performance numbers. Performance data is entered <br />directly into CalJOBS, and is no longer verified using the BPPE Annual Report. <br />Comment #32 —Given the time it takes for a provider to create and complete an ETPL <br />application, what is the exact timeframe for Local Boards to complete their review process? <br />Resolution — Local Boards should complete their review process of a provider within 30 <br />calendar days of the complete provider and/or program data being submitted into CalJOBS. <br />The state considers the date of a program being submitted as the application date, and the <br />Local Board has 30 days from that date to nominate the program for review to the state. <br />Comment #33 — Is it required that all initial and continued eligibility reviews be reviewed by <br />the state prior to a Local Board approving? If so, what is the process for this? <br />Resolution — Local Boards will submit providers and their programs to the state for review. <br />This is called "nominating," and the process will be very similar to the current one for adding <br />programs to the ETPL. Within 30 days of receiving the nomination, the state will review the <br />data in CaIJOBS and either approve or deny the provider and/or program, and inform the Local <br />Board. <br />Comment #34— In the past, performance was collected during the subsequent eligibility <br />period. Are we now, gathering information on performance prior to listing a program on the <br />ETPL? Is there an exception for performance if the provider or program is new? <br />Resolution —Yes, performance information must be provided as part of the initial eligibility <br />review process. The use of performance data during initial eligibility review is required by the <br />DOL, and cannot be waived. <br />Continued Eligibility <br />Comment #35 — Removing programs and then requiring a program meet continued eligibility <br />requirements limits consumer choice and would slow the ETPL's ability to foster demand - <br />driven skills attainment. <br />Resolution —The state has implemented this policy to limit the number of providers that are <br />only on the ETPL for other funding sources (e.g. Workers' Compensation Vouchers) and should <br />help limit the burden of the Local Board ETPL Coordinators in reviewing these providers if they <br />are not helping participants in the workforce system. <br />Comment #36 — Previously, it was up to the Local Board to determine if a provider or program <br />can stay on the ETPL. Is it required that we remove the provider if no enrollments have <br />Page 8 of 25 <br />