VERONICA PARKER: [INAUDIBLE] Oh. Thank-- 

NEIL KELLY: Thanks, Veronica. 

VERONICA PARKER: You're welcome. 

NEIL KELLY: All right. So Veronica, we're going to cover the-- are we going to go straight to the governance live demo, or what's the next slide? 

VERONICA PARKER: No, we're actually going to go into NOVA. Oh, excuse me. 

NEIL KELLY: OK. 

VERONICA PARKER: You can cover this slide, and then we're going to go into NOVA, as you're going to each of the programs. 

NEIL KELLY: So just a reminder, with the governance document, as you know, for those of you who were around back in 2015-16 program year, we required each consortia to submit a governance document. There were about, I don't know, 15 or 16 questions you had to answer, and it was signed by all the members. It was before we had electronic signature, so you had to upload it to NOVA in the document box. And so that was all based on-- a lot of it was based on the Ed Code 84905, which covers decision making, membership, public meetings, public input, those kind of things. 

And so starting this year, those governance questions will remain the same. We added a couple extra ones on carryover and bylaws, but you'll have to certify those questions every year. And so not to say that you'll have to change it every year, because your governance might stay the same, but you do have to certify-- have each member certify it, and approve it, and submit it through NOVA to the state as your governance structure, so we know how things are working in your consortia, and then if there are any changes, you would note that in the governance document. 

And I don't know if anybody had any questions, but we're going to move along. 

OK, so Veronica, did you just want to show people how-- just walk them through how you get to the governance document? 

VERONICA PARKER: Yes, I can. So you'll log in using your email address and password for NOVA. I'm in the sandbox version, just to protect people's data, but you would log in to the regular NOVA site and enter your email and password. Then you will click on "Programs", CA-- oops. "Programs", "CAP", then "Consortia and Members", and my system is taking a little while to think. 

OK, and then you will search for your consortium, or you can select the consortium names. I'm just going to go with Allan Hancock since they are first on our list. You would scroll down on your main consortium page, and the CFAD section is the third section on this particular page. So you'll click on this link here, and the C file will appear. So we'll go through these other pieces in a little while. Right now, we'll cover the governance section. So you just click on this section here, and we'll go over here. 

NEIL KELLY: All right. Thank you, Veronica. So I'm just going to quickly go through these questions, in order to give us time for if anybody has any follow up questions, or to get to the other topics and the three year plan, of course. So the first question is, have all the members that wanted to join-- I won't read them verbatim-- have been allowed to join the consortium as a member? 

So for some reason, you had a member that wanted to join, and they weren't allowed to. We just want to make sure, if that was "no", then you should respond what happened-- what was the instance. I don't think that's likely. I mean, there could be-- I know we have charter schools that sometimes want to join, so that's a little sketchy as far as who's affiliated with the charter, what district is overseeing that charter. So there could be a few instances out there that you might answer "no", but for the most part, I think everyone would answer "yes" on this one. 

So the next question-- have all members committed to reporting any funds available to that member for the purpose of education services? So this is part of that Program Area Report, and this is part of Ed Code where you're supposed to report-- I think that we have like five or six fund sources we list in the Ed Code, that you're supposed to share and report out to your fellow members. And so we do that through the Program Area Report. The draft is due September 1st. The final is due December 1st. 

And so hopefully, all your members are sharing that, you're filling out the program area report correctly, and you would say "yes". If there were some problems, you would say "no". OK, the next question would be, how-- and then if it was "no", you would have to explain why. Thanks, Veronica. 

And then the next question, question 3-- how will the available funds be reported and evaluated? Now, that's a question on the three year plan under the fund evaluation. If you didn't notice, this is also something-- a process that you go through during the CFAD, when you make allocation decisions, and you also have your assurances in the CFAD that talk about funds being reported and evaluated. So this connects a lot of loose ends that are in code and in our processes. And so you would explain that. 

And the next question, question 4-- how do you assure that the member is represented by an official designated by the governing board of the member? So we had problems with this in the beginning, where people would have to go back to their district-- "oh, I'm not the decision maker". 

And so in Ed Code, it states the district has to appoint someone to make that decision at the consortia meeting, and all meetings are-- all decisions at these meetings are final, meaning that doesn't have to go back to the district's governing board-- that this official representative designated by the governing board of the district makes those decisions, and so that decision is final. 

And so we wanted to make sure, because this was an issue in the past-- how are you making sure you have that official designee? Sometimes people leave, and then you don't have a designee. So how are you filling that in time to have that representation? What's the process? So things like that would be covered in question number 4. 

And then on to number 5, how will you assure that each member of the consortium participates in any decision-- if you could just scroll down for a second, I want to read-- made by the consortium? So sometimes in the past, we had members that weren't showing up, and so part of the assurances-- and the Ed Code-- is that that official representative has to participate in the decision making. And so if they're not showing up to meetings, then that could be grounds for an ineffective member and a reduction of funds. There might also be additional bylaws that you use to make sure members are participating. 

And then-- pause a second. I think I saw a question. Is that-- let's see. OK, we had a few questions. For question 1, is the time period within the past year or any year past? Oh, that would be, I think, in the past year, because we're doing this annually. So this would be in the past year. So this is kind of like an annual update. So we don't want to go back, like, six years if you had something that happened in 2017 or something. We just want to revisit the past year, because this is an annual update. 

And then Janae says, is this representation the voting member of the consortium? Yeah, the official designated member is the voting member, or however you make your decisions. If that's a voting-- and we'll get into that in the next question-- but that would be that official representative. 

OK, let's go on to the question 6. This is a good one. What will be the relative voting power of each member? So I think LA Consortia did a nice little study around the state to determine how that varies. And I think for the most part, people have one member, one vote. Then, there are a few that have-- they give various votes to different districts with multiple votes, and then there are some other models-- not a lot, but for the most part, it's one member, one vote. And so we would look to-- if you did put "other", what is that voting structure or voting power of each member? You would explain that in the text box. 

OK, next question. OK, how will decisions be approved? So that's how your decision making process is, and we gave a few choices there. "Other", of course, if it didn't meet one of the choices listed, you would put that in the box. OK, and then how did you arrive at the decision making model? So just explaining how you determine-- whether it was consensus or majority, or-- how did you go about and make that decision and arrive at that process-- or arrive at that decision? 

And then the ninth question-- how will proposed decisions be considered in open, properly noticed public meeting? So that pertains to the Ed Code about public meetings, and so you would list your process for public meetings, and noticing, and publicizing. 

And then the follow up question to that is number 10. How you provide the public with adequate notice? So these are all things that districts go through with their public meetings, so this shouldn't be any-- and no surprises here, but it is listed in the Ed Code for the Adult Education Program and the funding, and this is part of your assurances. When you sign the CFAD, you're certifying that you're doing all this. And so this gives you a chance to describe how you're meeting those assurances and meeting ED Code. 

And then 11th question is, how you're going to distribute comments made by the public? And then the 12th one-- let's see. I got a pop up box here. I'll just wait. If you scroll up just a little bit-- describe the process-- oop, the other way. Sorry. 

Describe the process by which consortium will solicit and consider comments and input regarding decisions from other entities-- and this was added on Ed Code. This originally wasn't there in the original governance document, and then I think the legislature added the part that's not bolded. But it listed a whole variety of education service providers that should be involved in that public comment, and so that is part of question 12. 

And then going on to 13-- how will you determine approval of the distribution schedule? And so that is part of that CFAD allocation process. So how did you come to an agreement on-- although we have Ed Code that says you get no less than the prior year, but if there are some decisions made about a consortia pot, or if a member says, I don't want to do this anymore, or I can't, and you have to reallocate funds, or you have some bylaw that allows to reallocate carryover. This would-- you could put that process in here. How did you determine to come up with the approval of the distribution schedule? And you could put that in number 13. 

And then going on to 14-- has the consortia and this is the fiscal agent question. So you would answer whether you have a fiscal agent, or whether you have a direct funded, and you would just choose one or the other. 

And then 15 is kind of a new one we added, because we did have members leaving and joining. So you would put your process in there-- of how do you bring on new members? How do members leave? What's that process? I don't think we've had anybody dismiss a member, but that could definitely be a process as well, with the ineffective member-- if they're not following the assurances, and things like that. 

And then 16 is related to the carryover. How does the consortia monitor and administer carryover funds? And then 17 would be any bylaws around the governance for that carryover situation. And so you might have bylaws in addition to the state Ed Code and the state guidance, and I think we do have several consortia that have that. 

So let's go on to the next question, and this is a big one we've added. How does your consortia define effectiveness? So you might have kind of discussed this already, so we'd like to know-- how are you determining effectiveness? Is it just following the assurances that you certify, or is there something else? Are you looking at your data? Is there other factors that you use to determine that? 

And then the number 19 is what bylaws does a consortia have addressing member effectiveness? So you might have put that into a bylaw, or some kind of MOU or governance document, and we'd like to know what that looks like, or what formal language that you have that addresses member effectiveness. You might not have anything, but if you do we'd like to know about it. 

And then 20 is, does the consortia have a formal document detailing its work beyond the questionnaire? And that would be whether you have some kind of document, or bylaws, or MOU that you have your members sign, we'd like to know if you have that formal document beyond what the state provides as far as guidance. And so that-- I think, that's the last one, right, Veronica? 

VERONICA PARKER: Yes, it is. 

NEIL KELLY: OK, so we went through there pretty quick. I'll just see if-- what was the-- OK, so we have a few questions. So Eric, that-- Veronica, Eric's question is not pertaining to the governance questions, right? That's a separate issue, right? 

VERONICA PARKER: No, it is. So his consortium completed the CFAD, and it sounds like some members approve, some members have not as of yet. So I need to look at their CFAD, in particular, to see if they are able to enter in their data and go through the submission process again, or does the programmers have to open up their CFAD so that they're able to complete the governance section, and then go through the submission process. Once -- 

NEIL KELLY: Oh, I see. So-- 

VERONICA PARKER: There's another consortium that's in the same boat, too. 

NEIL KELLY: So Eric, they went ahead and did their CFAD before we had the governance questions posted. Is that what-- 

VERONICA PARKER: Yes. 

NEIL KELLY: OK. All right. 

ERIC: We jumped the gun, Neil. Sorry. 

NEIL KELLY: That's OK, Did you have any problems? 

ERIC: No, I mean, we were just in the process. We saw it was live, so we met, and we agreed to the distribution, and we plugged in our numbers. We should have held off, and I purposely didn't approve mine until after this meeting, and now I realize I should have just had us all wait, so my apologies. 

NEIL KELLY: Well-- yeah, I think-- well, Veronica, if Eric hasn't approved the certification of the CFED, then it might be less of a problem if he hasn't certified, right? 

ERIC: No, our-- 

VERONICA PARKER: Well-- 

ERIC: Our financial person-- she submitted, so I do believe it's at the member level now. 

NEIL KELLY: OK. 

VERONICA PARKER: Yeah, some members have approved it. 

NEIL KELLY: So all we need is, maybe, someone to reject it. I don't know. Veronica will figure it out with the programmers. 

VERONICA PARKER: Mm-hmm. 

NEIL KELLY: I don't think it's an impossible situation. OK, so Michelle had a question. If our bylaws have answers to these questions, can we refer to that document, or do we need to paste relevant sections in NOVA? So Michelle, what I would do is just paste relevant sections, and then on the questions that ask if you have additional bylaws, you could just refer to that, if it's a lengthy document. 

We don't want the whole-- all the bylaws cut and pasted there, but you could reference-- saying that we have an additional document of bylaws that are available for anybody to look at. And if you want to highlight some of the things that might be interesting for us to look at, you could do that in those text boxes. But by all means, you don't have to list every single one or the whole document. 

OK, and Dana has something similar. So just-- let me see if I answered Dana and Michelle's question. Did I, Michelle or Dana? Yes, OK, and hopefully Michelle. So David has-- what questionnaire is being referenced in question 20? And we see that again-- if you could scroll up, Veronica? Oh, so the governance document that we just went through, we call it a questionnaire, so that would be the document we're referring to, David. So that-- 

DAVID: Got it. So, this itself. 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah, yeah. Sorry for the confusion. OK. Well, we thought that was going to take a lot of time, but-- 

SHANNON: Neil, can I clarify Michele and Dana's question? 

NEIL KELLY: Sure. 

SHANNON: So we have our bylaws, and so if one of these questions-- I'm just going to pick out one. One of the questions is carryover. I can just copy and paste our carryover section of our bylaws. Is that what you're saying? 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah. 

SHANNON: OK. 

NEIL KELLY: So how does your consortia monitor and administer carryover funds? You could say, our consortia has developed the following bylaws around carryover, and you just cut and pasted it. 

SHANNON: Perfect. Thank you. 

NEIL KELLY: All right. OK. Well, we can always come back to this later, if you think of something. But I'll hand it back to Veronica, and we'll move on to the next agenda item. Thank you. 

VERONICA PARKER: All right, so we'll go back to the PowerPoint, and Mayra will be covering the CFAD process, including the preliminary allocations. Mayra? 

MAYRA DIAZ: Yes, thank you, Veronica and Neil. So I'm just going to touch on a little bit on the CFAD, and explain what that is, as you're working on that in conjunction with this governance certification. So the Consortium Fiscal Administration Declaration is based on the CAEP preliminary allocations that is released at the end of February each year, and is derived from the Governor's Budget. 

The CFAD captures members' allocations for each consortium, as well as the consortium's chosen disbursement method. This CFAD consists of five main components, which is the fiscal declaration, agencies and the certifiers, member allocations, preview-- provides preview prior to submission. And the CFAD is a one time process that is due once a year on May 2nd, so I'm sure that is on the calendar. Next slide, please. 

And I also just want to touch on briefly on the governor's proposed budget for '22-23 The fiscal year '22-23 budget will provide the California Adult Education Program with a COLA increase of 5.33%, of about $29.9 million, along with a proposed one-time $130 million investment to support health-care focused vocational pathways for English language learners. So I'm sure more information and details to come with that. 

Amounts are subject to change based on the May revise. If we look at the numbers for '21-22, the CAEP allocation was $566 million. The new proposed for '22-23 is up to $596.3 million, a change of about $29.9 million. Next slide, please. 

And as a reminder, CAEP funds are restricted funds. They were issued under AB104 legislation, and are in Article 9 in the Adult Education Program of the Education Code. CAEP funds are apportionment. They are not a grant, and at this time, are not subject to flexibility. CAEP funds are restricted to adults 18 years and older, and can only be used within the seven CAEP-approved program areas. They must have-- CAEP funds must have an approved regional consortium plan specific to K through 12 adult education and community college non-credit programs. Next slide, please. 

And as a reminder, the CFAD and the governance documents for 2022 are connected to the three year plan. The CFAD and the governance documents are to be submitted and approved in NOVA by all consortium members by May 2nd, 2022, and the CFAD must be certified in order to submit and approve the three year plan by June 20, 2022, which we'll touch on that in this presentation. Next slide. 

And I think this is my last slide. So '22-23 allocation process-- in February, the release of CAEP preliminary allocations was done for the '22-23. During this time-- March and April-- public meetings are taking place to decide allocations, or should be taking place to decide these allocations if not already done. May 2nd, the CFAD is going to be due in NOVA with the governance certification, which is what Neil walked us through. 

In May, we are awaiting the Governor's May revise. And in June 2020, the final three year plans will be due. By July 1, the state budget is signed by the Governor, and in August the release of CAEP funds per the approved disbursement schedule. So it's a busy time of the year, as we've been mentioning. The CFAD, May 2nd, and the governance certification-- the other big item that the field is currently busy working on is that three year plan, and we'll be touching a little bit further on that in this presentation. Thank you, Next slide. 

VERONICA PARKER: OK, so I will go back to NOVA so that we can cover the other sections of the three year plan-- excuse me, the CFAD process. So I'm going to go back to NOVA now, and I'm going to go back to the Fiscal Declaration and start there. That is the first section of the workflow for the CFAD, and so here is where consortia and members have decided upon their disbursement method for the '22-23 program year. 

So for this consortium, again, I'm in the sandbox, and I'm working with the Allan Hancock College Consortium. And so currently, they are direct funded. However, the CFAP process, as you all may know, is the one opportunity that the consortium has to change their funding-- their disbursement method. So they are direct funded this year, and they could, in theory, change to a fiscal agent for the 2022-23 program year. 

So they-- we're going to say here that they will continue to be direct funded, and so there's a message here. "You kept your consortium's disbursement method of Direct Funded." If this was not intentional, you have the opportunity to click here and go back to undo, because remember, this is the only time throughout the year that you're able to change your disbursement method. 

And so here, the consortium will provide a narrative justifying how the plan allocations are consistent with their annual adult education plan, which is based on the three year plan. And so here, they will type in their narrative, which is a summary justifying how the allocations are aligned, and the character limit is 3,500. So 3,500 characters, including spaces, et cetera. And so since they do not have any changes, they would check this box here for "No Changes". 

But if there were changes-- so let's say, they went from a direct funded consortium to a fiscal agent consortium, then they would explain here. So they would use the box below to explain the changes, and so they will provide a description of what changed and why. So for example, they would mention that they changed from direct funded to fiscal agent, and then they will provide some justification as to why they changed that disbursement method. 

And here is just an example. So changes could include change in fiscal structure, change in fiscal agent-- as I just mentioned as the examplet-- change in funding amounts to each member. Those are just some examples that you have at your disposal. But again, it's whatever is real-- whatever is true for the consortium, and this section has 3,500 character limits as well. So once you have finished this section, you would click "Next" here. 

And here are where your member agencies and certifiers are listed. So this consortium has two agencies-- so they have the Allan Hancock Joint Community College District, and then they also have the Lompoc Unified School District. Now here, you can add a certifier, so if there is another member representative for this particular agency, you can add the certifier here. And then here is the one time throughout the program year where you are able to designate a particular agency as "non-allocated, voting member only." 

Now, this designation means that the consortium will not be allocating any funds for this particular program year to this agency. However, this agency-- because this agency is a part of the consortium-- they still will be required to approve certain CAP deliverables. So for example, they would have to sign off on the CFAD. They would have to approve the annual plan. This agency would have to approve the three year plan, and the agency would have to-- it's optional for them to submit the Program Area Report. 

This particular agency would not submit a budget or work plan, as well as any of the four fiscal reports, because they do not receive any allocations. And that's only for the 2022-23 program year where that would be an option for this particular agency, if they become non-allocated, voting member only. So again, that's the one time that an agency can switch designations-- or if you're adding a new agency, but they are not currently funded, then they would be non allocated, voting member only. 

So I'm going to scroll down to the bottom of the page. This is also an opportunity to add a member agency, so you are able to add any new member agencies that come on board to the consortium here. So let's say nothing changed here, so we're going to go next. Oh, before I move on-- if a member agency is no longer a part of the consortium, and everything is closed out so they no longer have any funds available to them that they are reporting on, they will not be a member of the consortium any longer moving forward. 

You can delete an agency from the consortium. But if an agency-- let's say, they go from allocated one year to not allocated this year, but they still have available funds to them, do not remove them from the CFAB, because they are still a voting member, still a part of the consortium, still expending funds that they have available to them. So just keep that in mind. 

So we're going to delete-- excuse me. We're going to go next here, and here are the member allocations. So here is where you divvy up the allocation for the program year. So currently, this consortium has $1,855,946 million available to the consortium, and so the total CAP funds matches the total remaining funds at this particular time. 

And so you would just divide the allocation, so I'm going to give $774,807 to Allan Hancock Joint CCD-- and remember, this is all hypothetical. These are not their true allocations. So I'm going to give $1,081,139 million to Lompoc Unified. So once I've entered in both of the agency's allocations, the CAP funds, the total allocated to members, and total cap funds match one another, and total remaining is $0. In order to move forward past this, the total remaining has to be $0. 

And as you can see-- in prior years, if you all remember-- we've had changes in allocations based on the Governor's signed budgets. So last year, for example, we received-- well, this consortium received an additional $43,183 as a part of the Governor's signed budget. And so that increase will remain on the screen as a positive number, and the consortium completed an allocation amendment to account for those funds last year. And just like in 2020-21, there was a reduction in funds as a part of the Governor's signed budget, and so this negative number remains, but the consortium completed an allocation amendment to account for those funds. 

So if you see these numbers from last year, it's not because the consortium did not do anything or did not complete the CFAD from last year. Just remember, if there is a change in the Governor's budget come July 1 of this year, you will see the change in the CFAD. However, the funds, whether it's a reduction or an increase, is accounted for via an allocation amendment. So don't be alarmed when you see that. 

NEIL KELLY: Hey, Veronica, this is Neil. There's just a couple of questions in the chat. Somebody direct messaged me with-- if they have a member that's not funded, can you go back and show them how to check the "Non-allocated Voting Member" box, or is that the appropriate thing to do? 

VERONICA PARKER: Say-- what's the question again? 

NEIL KELLY: So if they have a non-CAEP-funded program-- I mean, a member that's not receiving CAEP funds, but a member-- how do you check that box for a non-allocated voting member? 

VERONICA PARKER: Check it here, and then it's going to say, "Allan Hancock cannot become a voting member only, as money has been allocated to them." So that's because I completed this section here. So let me go back, because I don't want to confuse anyone. So I'm going to-- in theory, I'm going to take the funds away from Allan Hancock Joint CCD, and I'm going to give all of the consortium funds to Lompoc Unified. And again, this is all hypothetical for demonstration purposes only. 

946-- so now, we're going to go back to the agencies and certifiers. And so when I click this, it should say that we're changing their status, and it's going to ask me, am I sure I want to change Allan Hancock Joint CCD to become a-- [COUGHS] excuse me-- a voting member only. And I'm going to say, yes, change. [COUGHS] So now, they are no longer receiving CAEP funds, beginning with the 2022-23 program year. And then moving forward, they-- since they are still a member of the consortium, they still are voting members, so they vote on consortium decisions. 

But when it comes to CAP deliverables-- [COUGHS] excuse me. [COUGHS] When it comes to CAP deliverables, they no longer have to complete a budget and work plan. They no longer have to complete the quarterly fiscal reports. The Program Area Report becomes optional for them. 

So if they're still providing programming, and they still have hours of instruction, then they would still complete that particular report, but they would approve [COUGHS] the CFAD as a voting member. They will still approve the annual plan as a voting member, the three year plan as a voting member, and-- I believe those are all of those CAP deliverables that, if you're a voting member only, that you do have to still approve in NOVA even though you no longer receive an allocation. Does that answer the question? 

NEIL KELLY: So Veronica, Tim had another question related to that. So does NOVA alert new certifiers once they're added? Is there some process that says like, welcome to NOVA. You are a new member, or we've changed your status. How do-- is there any kind of notification like that? 

VERONICA PARKER: That part, I'm not sure. I will have to check on that, because I'm not sure if they are-- I know you're-- an individual is notified, once they become-- once they have access to NOVA, and they're invited to create a profile. But if a new agency comes on board, will those member representatives be notified from the system? I'm not sure. 

NEIL KELLY: OK. All right, and then Eric had a follow up question to Tim's question. If a transition is taking place at an agency, do we enter the new admin at this time? So that would be like a change in personnel, I guess. 

VERONICA PARKER: Yes. If you know who that person is, then yes, you can add them here as a certifier. And then, if you add them at this time, if they do not have a NOVA account already, you can invite them here by putting in their first name, last name, and their work email, and then they'll receive notification from NOVA to create their profile. If they are already a member in NOVA, then you would just look for their name here. So enter their name or their email, and it should appear, and then you'll click "Add User". 

NEIL KELLY: OK, and then Janae had a question. When you did the hypothetical situation with Lompoc, she said, "where did those hypothetical funds come from again?" 

VERONICA PARKER: OK, so these are their true funds. Let me go back and change this. So these are Lompoc's true funds for the 2022-23 program year. However, the division that I did-- so by giving Lompoc Unified the $1,081,139, that's not their true allocation for the year. Neither is this Allan Hancock Joint CCD. That isn't their true allocation for the year. However, here, their total allocated to members, as well as their total CAP funds-- that's their true allocation for the 2022-23 program year. I just went-- the division of the funds is something I created. It's not for their consortium. Does that answer your question? 

NEIL KELLY: Janae didn't have a follow up question, so-- and I think the answer is no. So CAEP is not auto-- or maybe it's yes. So CAEP is not autopopulating the distributions? 

VERONICA PARKER: That is correct. The consortium-- so in theory, the primary contact who-- the consortium lead who is entering this information for the CFAD, the members have come together and voted on what the allocations per member would be. And so the consortium leader-- the primary contact-- is entering in those allocations for each of the member agencies who is an allocated member. 

NEIL KELLY: All right and I think those are all our questions. 

VERONICA PARKER: All right. 

NEIL KELLY: Now-- 

VERONICA PARKER: Mm-hmm. OK, so yes, as I was mentioning, so your total allocated to members and total CAP funds have to equal, and then the total remaining has to be $0 in order to move forward to the next section, which is our new governance section. So as Neil has gone through each of these questions, just make sure that the consortium is completing them in its entirety, each of these characters-- excuse me. Each of the spaces for the narrative are 2,500. 

It has a 2,500 character limit, as of right now. If that is an issue, and individuals are going over that, send TAP an email to let us know, and we'll see what we can do about that. So each of the sections are 2,500 character limits. Make sure you complete each of these in its entirety, and this red line is cleared out. And so you completed this section-- let's say, although it's not completed, but it's just for demonstration purposes. So you've completed your-- this is CFAD summary, so you've completed the fiscal declaration. This consortium will remain direct funding for the '22-23 program year. The allocations have been divided per member agency, and there are zero funds remaining. 

And in theory, each of these questions for the governance section have been completed, and now you scroll down, and the agencies are listed. So there are two agencies for this consortium, and then you get down to your certification and assurances. And so this is where each member will make sure that they have read the certifications and assurances and are very familiar with them, because again, those are utilized when we're going through the member effectiveness process, and of course, you want to make sure that you are adhering to all of the assurances within the consortium, in order for the consortium to run smoothly and effectively. 

So there are assurances from member and decision making, public meetings, reporting requirements-- and so once you've reviewed all that, the consortium primary contact or lead would press "Submit" here, and-- of course, I didn't fill in all the steps, so I am unable to submit. Let me go back and just put in some fake data so that you all are able to still see the step. And I'm just going to put in fake data, just to remove the reporting requirements. So I've completed this section, this section-- I'm just going to put in some fake data here so that I can move past this. 

OK. We're going to go one member, one vote, here. I'm going to say, by majority, 51% here. And then put in some more fake data here, more fake data here-- oops. I'm going to build this fake data. Some more fake data in here. We're-- one second, I'm almost done. 

All right, so I put in enough data to satisfy Miller. So I'm going to go next here, and then again, this is my preview page. Everything that we have already gone through, you review the assurances, then we're going to go submit. And so here is our submission screen where, by clicking OK, you're affirming at the CFAD is ready to be reviewed by the selected member representatives. If there are any comments that you would like your member representatives to know prior to them receiving this form, then you would enter in your comments here. And if there are no comments, you would press OK. 

And the submission screen will appear. Each of your member representatives will be notified that the CFAD has been submitted, and in their notification, it will ask them to accept this or not, and here you have "awaiting approval". So at this time, no member representatives have approved this. 

Now, let's say you're approaching the May 2nd deadline to complete this, and your members still have not submitted or approved the CFAD. You are able to send them a reminder here, which we definitely encourage you to do, because what happens is, let's say someone forwards another email to another individual. They may log in under someone else's login information. Or access the CFAD-- excuse me-- from someone else's login information. 

So just use it for each of the member representatives, and do not forward emails from NOVA to other member representatives, just to make sure that the wrong name or the wrong person is on another member representatives' or another agencies' CFAD approval. What else was I going to say? 

NEIL KELLY: Veronica, we did have a quick question. So once the governance document is completed and you submit your CFAD, and then you realize that you wanted to update or edit your governance document. Because it's linked to the CFAD, once you submit it, you can't go back in and change it, is that correct? 

VERONICA PARKER: That is correct. You are not able to make changes to the CFAD once it is submitted-- 

NEIL KELLY: And that includes the governance? 

VERONICA PARKER: --and approved. Yes, that includes the governance. 

NEIL KELLY: So you'd have to wait until next year to update it or change it, right? 

VERONICA PARKER: Correct. Mm-hmm. 

NEIL KELLY: OK. Thank you. 

VERONICA PARKER: Mm-hmm. Any other questions? 

NEIL KELLY: Just-- Shannon was following up on Carleigh's question. 

VERONICA PARKER: OK, and how about Janae? Was that answered? 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah, that was answered. 

VERONICA PARKER: OK, great. 

NEIL KELLY: So if-- so Carleigh, Shannon was just saying, if they're fiscal changes you can always do an allocation amendment as a way to change the fiscal part. But governance, you'd have to wait until the following year. 

VERONICA PARKER: Yes. 

NEIL KELLY: Because we don't have a governance amendment process, unfortunately. 

VERONICA PARKER: Yes, that is correct. Yes, for fiscal, that will be an allocation amendment if you're making changes-- one time changes to the allocations and for the governance. We are not able to open up the CFAD again to make those changes. 

CARLEIGH: OK, perfect. Thank you. That answers that. 

VERONICA PARKER: All right, great. 

CARLEIGH: Very helpful. 

VERONICA PARKER: All right. 

CARLEIGH: Particularly with the three year planning, and annual plan and whatnot. OK, great. Thank you. 

VERONICA PARKER: You're welcome. All right if there are no additional questions regarding the CFAD, I will go ahead and stop sharing, and go back to our PowerPoint. 

All right, so then we'll pass all of these slides, because we completed the live demo. And next, we'll talk about the three year plan. So Mayra, do you want to provide an update with the alignment of the three year plan and the annual plan? 

MAYRA DIAZ: Yes. Thank you, Veronica. So I just have a brief update that I wanted to alert you all of, and you should see communication get sent out on this. We are currently working on getting the annual plan link to be made inactive, as we work on enhancements in NOVA to be able to align the three year plan with the annual plan. So as of, hopefully, by the end of the day today, the annual plan link will be inactive. 

And that is to alleviate some of the work that is going to be done in NOVA. That's going to be taking place in the next month or so, and so in order to avoid any confusion as you are working on your three year plan and your annual plan, we're going to make that annual plan link inactive, and our CAEP TAP will be sending out communication on these updates as we work on getting these enhancements in Nova. 

VERONICA PARKER: All right. Any questions about that? 

SPEAKER 1: There'll be guidance on what the new plan will look like before it's active for us to see? 

VERONICA PARKER: Yes, that is the goal. The goal is to provide guidance, as well as training, once the three year plan and the annual plan for the 2022-23 program year are aligned. We will be providing guidance as well as training before the anticipated submission of the annual plan. 

SPEAKER 1: Thank you. 

VERONICA PARKER: Mm-hmm. 

SPEAKER 1: Is there an estimated date for that, the training and the template guidance? 

VERONICA PARKER: So there is not at this time, because the annual plan is not available yet. But as soon as it is, then we will work around the time. So as we know more for the completion of the alignment of the three year plan and the annual plan, then we'll notify all consortia and members with updates on training, as well as when the template will be available and the submission of the Annual Plan. 

SPEAKER 1: Yeah. 

VERONICA PARKER: All right. And I see Emma's question. Yes, we will work to get it done as soon as possible, and Neil just followed up with that. All right, so this next part of our time together will be about the three year plan, so we just wanted to provide an opportunity for you all who have joined us this afternoon to ask any questions that you may have of the three year plan, as you all are finishing up that process-- still working on-- slash-- finishing up the process. 

If there are any discussion items or any questions, we wanted to provide an opportunity for that discussion. So we are a smaller group, so you could definitely raise your hand and come off mute, or you can continue to type in chat if there are any questions. 

SHANNON: Can we just talk about the activities and outcomes section of the three year plan, just real quickly? The activities and outcomes are related to the consortium level target. So if you picked ELL at the consortium level, and then you're looking at your activities and outcomes, you do a description of maybe something you're going to do at the consortium level to help support the ELL? Is that-- 

NEIL KELLY: Shannon, this is Neil. I would say the metrics are just to connect. So when you're putting in your activities, you're connecting it to a metric, because all your activities should tie to a metric. But more importantly, you know, it's something that the member is going to do. So what will happen is-- and this ties into the annual plan. So in your consortia three year plan, you'll have a whole bunch of activities, and some members will do some of those activities. Other members will do other activities. 

So when you're developing this, you should think about-- what are the activities my members are going to do to support the three year plan vision? You know, meeting the need, the metrics, the targets-- but it should be specific to that member level, because when they do their annual plan, they're going to be clicking on those activities that best suit-- that they're going to do for their budget and their work plan. So when they build their budget and work plan, they're going to be clicking on those activities that you put into the three year plan that translated into the annual plan, if that make sense. 

SHANNON: It does. So I just want to be clear, too. So if we're choosing ELL as the consortium level metric to improve on at the consortium level, but say one of our members doesn't have an ESL program, then we're not obligated to choose one of those optional metrics. But then, that member who does not have ESL is semi off the hook, putting in any activities or outcomes? 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah, so even in the MET, there'll be-- even though you selected for the majority of your members, it'll still get selected for that member, but they just put 0 in their targets, because they're not participating. Unfortunately, there's not a way to abstain from the optional metrics that gets loaded for everyone but, if that member doesn't have a program or is not participating in that optional metric, then they can just put 0, if that makes sense. 

SHANNON: Correct, so I do understand that part. So you put 0-- one of our sites doesn't have ESL, so we put 0 for that. But then when we get to the activities and outcomes section, that member will not have to put an activity nor outcome related to the ESL? 

NEIL KELLY: Yes, so what will happen in the annual plan-- just like we've done in previous years-- you'll have a menu of activities to select from. And then that member will say, OK, I'm not going to do the ESL one, but I'm going to do the one pertaining to professional development, and the one pertaining to marketing, and the one pertaining to high school diploma, and they'll select those activities. 

So when you draft those activities, you have to make the details of that activity specific enough so that the member will know what they're doing, because that'll drive their budget and their work plan, if got make sense. 

SHANNON: So some of our activities and outcomes in the three year plan might not be related to ESL, despite not selecting optional metrics, either? 

NEIL KELLY: Right. Veronica, is what I'm saying-- does that make sense? I always double check with Veronica on that one. 

VERONICA PARKER: Yes, it does make sense. 

NEIL KELLY: OK. 

SHANNON: OK. 

- And if you need more help, you can always reach out to TAP, and they can do some one on one with you, if you want more assistance. 

SHANNON: OK, perfect. Thank you for that explanation. 

NEIL KELLY: Sure. So Janae, yeah-- each activity is tied to a metric. It's just a question of which members are participating in that metric, if that makes sense. 

But I mean, if you're doing overall professional development, I mean, you're going to tie that to all metrics, right? So don't get too hung up on the activities tied to the metrics. I think that's just a way to frame it, but you still have to write the activity that it makes sense at the member level, so they can select it as an activity in their annual plan and their work plan. 

I don't know. Anything to add on that, Veronica, or did I-- are there other questions in there? 

VERONICA PARKER: No, I don't have anything else to add. Emma is asking, "If you take out objectives currently in the annual plan, how will you tie-in marketing and professional development?" 

NEIL KELLY: So Veronica, do you have a take on that, as far as-- I'm just thinking-- so if you put something generic as an activity, how would you address tying that back to metrics? Or do you-- there's not a way to select all metrics, if it's broad enough. How would you suggest that consortia deal with that-- dealing with broad activities? 

VERONICA PARKER: You're talking about broad activities in the annual plan? That-- 

NEIL KELLY: Well-- so they're in the three year plan. Let's say in the three year plan, they list things like marketing and professional development, and then they're supposed to tie it to a particular metric, right? Like Shannon was talking about, and Janae was talking about as well? For each activity you have to select a metric, right? 

VERONICA PARKER: Right. Well, you're selecting for each-- 

NEIL KELLY: When they're broad enough-- how do they go about when those activities are very broad? 

VERONICA PARKER: So for the activities and outcome section, they are selecting the objectives, right? 

NEIL KELLY: Right. 

VERONICA PARKER: So in the objectives, they would have described their-- how they are addressing this particular-- the strategies that they plan to use to support this particular objective. And that would include PD, marketing, et cetera, right? And so when they get to the activities and outcome section, then they would just identify which of those-- which objective this particular activity pertains to. 

NEIL KELLY: OK. And then when they write out their specific activity, when we get the annual plan to link, the annual plan would bring in all those activities for them to select from, right? 

VERONICA PARKER: Correct. 

NEIL KELLY: That's how we've done it in the past. 

VERONICA PARKER: Correct. 

NEIL KELLY: OK. So I think-- I don't know if that answers people's questions, so-- Janae said, "But then we might need to choose some optional metrics, so can they tie them to the activities?" Correct. So Veronica, when you're choosing optional metrics, are those also tied to the same-- to the activities, just like you showed? So when they select an optional metric, the same-- you'll have the same thing that you'll be typing out, right? 

VERONICA PARKER: Correct. So they're going to be-- they're going to take the mandatory and the optional to the-- yeah, the mandatory and the optional metrics-- coming over to this objectives section, and identifying the strategies that they would use for the objectives that they are identifying for each of the strategies. Hold on, I'm saying that in the inverse. They will describe the strategies for each of these objectives. 

So they're aligning the metrics to these objectives, then they're describing the strategies, and then when you get to the activities and outcome section, that's where you are going into more detail about the specific activities for each of the metrics that's tied to an objective, and now you're explaining your activity. Does that make sense? 

NEIL KELLY: I mean, if people want to come off mic, might be helpful, because it's kind of a detailed conversation in the weeds, a little bit. David asked, "Just confirming, in the annual plan, individual sites will have to select activities named in the three year plan that we are working on for the year?" And I would say, that is correct. Right, Veronica? 

VERONICA PARKER: I need to go to the question again. 

NEIL KELLY: It's the last one in the chat. 

VERONICA PARKER: OK. "In the annual plan, individual sites will have to select activities, name, and a career plan, that they are working--" yes, that is correct. 

NEIL KELLY: OK. And then Janae, if you want to come off mic and explain your metric question? 

JANAE: Yeah, thank you, Neil and Veronica. So when we're looking at the activities section, and we scroll down to the bottom of it where we have to choose what metric is tied, right? So that drop down menu, then, only will include the metrics and barriers that we have identified in the metric section of the three year plan. Accurate? Is that correct? 

NEIL KELLY: I believe so, Veronica. 

VERONICA PARKER: Ask that question again, Janae? I'm sorry. I'm reading something. 

JANAE: That's OK. So when we're in the metric section, and we're choosing our barrier and our metrics-- either the consortium level, which is mandatory choosing-- and as Shannon's saying, she's choosing the ELL, and that's what our consortium is also choosing. So if we only choose that mandatory metric, and we don't choose any of the optional metrics, then when we're creating our activities, and we go down to this dropdown menu that you have shown, it will only show the ELL? It won't show any other metrics. 

VERONICA PARKER: Right. 

JANAE: So I guess my question is, if we are having activities, like-- and, you know, sorry, Shannon, to be using you. But let's just saying, she has one consortium member that doesn't have ELL, then how are they going to create activities for that member if they're unable to tie them to a metric or a barrier? 

VERONICA PARKER: So-- 

JANAE: So then, therefore, that leads us to maybe need to choose some optional metrics to that either for members that don't have that consortium level metric, or we have these broader maybe sort of goals that we want to deal with our consortium, that aren't necessarily tied to English language learners, right? It seems like we might need to pick some optional metrics. Is that-- am I understanding that correctly? 

VERONICA PARKER: Yes, you are. So yes, if-- 

NEIL KELLY: And I would just add that-- so Janae, you have other global metrics that are mandatory. So like, the number of enrolled adults, or reportable individuals have become participants, that's a global one for every member of your consortia. So it's kind of a catch. So if they're serving students, then obviously you can make that their metric. If that's the only one they want to work on, you at least have that one. And I don't know, does-- Veronica, does the funds spent also show up in the dropdown as a metric? Those mandatory metrics, would they show up as well in this section? So we have the two consortia mandatory metrics. 

VERONICA PARKER: Right. 

NEIL KELLY: Then we have the two member mandatory metrics. So if they didn't do any optional metrics, what would show up in the dropdown, just the mandatory ones? 

VERONICA PARKER: Yeah, just the student barrier. So the adults served, and the adults who become participants, as well as the funds spent-- those do not show up here. These are only the barriers and the optional metrics. 

NEIL KELLY: Oh, OK. So that's why. I see. So since these student barriers are the only mandatory metric at the consortia level, and all you're doing for this one, Janae, would be-- are you serving this English Language Learner population? And you can make whatever you wanted out of that metric. If you're going to increase enrollment, increase participant, increase progress-- that's up to you on that. It's pretty loosey goosey on the student barriers. 

So you could make that as a generic metric, for those ones that aren't participating in the optional metrics, if that makes sense. You would have the ability to do that in activities aligned with that. Does that sound right, Veronica? 

VERONICA PARKER: Yes. 

NEIL KELLY: Just checking-- OK. So does that help, Janae and Shannon? Maybe we took a while to get back to your question around it. 

SHANNON: Yes. Yes, but I think what will make it easier for our consortium, at least, is if we choose the student barrier, "English Language Learner", and also one optional metric, or possibly two, just so that our sites without ESL, we can place an activity in there to link that section that's highlighted right now on Veronica's screen to a student barrier-- or an optional metric, I should say. Because we're coming up with activities and outcomes at every site, but it would be-- it wouldn't make sense if one of our non ESL sites put in an activity that wasn't related to ESL, because you have to choose that ELL metric. 

VERONICA PARKER: Right. 

SHANNON: So I think for our consortium, it's just going to be easier to select, probably, one more optional metric, so that way, everyone's submitting at least one activity and outcome in the three year plan, because they're coming up with them. It's just-- working it into NOVA is the difficult part. 

NEIL KELLY: Hey, Veronica? 

VERONICA PARKER: Yes? 

NEIL KELLY: I don't know if you know this answer, but Michelle was asking, why aren't the other mandatory metrics, like the percentage of funds spent, the reportable individuals to participants, and the enrollment mandatory metrics-- why aren't they listed in the dropdown? It's just the student barriers and the optional metrics. Any idea why that didn't happen, like, in NOVA? 

VERONICA PARKER: No, I don't know. 

NEIL KELLY: OK. So sorry, Michelle, the programming-- I'm not sure what happened there. It is logical that it should be there. I don't know why it's not. Maybe, Veronica, we could-- when you talk to the programmers, you can ask them, that that was a question back from the field? Because it does make sense that since we're mandating metrics, that they should have the availability of all, and if they're not choosing any optional metrics, they should have the mandatory metrics to choose from, not just the student barriers. 

VERONICA PARKER: OK. I'm making a note now 

NEIL KELLY: OK. -- 

SHANNON: I don't mean to drive everyone crazy, so I apologize. But if you scroll down on the activities and outcomes, and the short term intermediate and long term outcomes-- I just want to make sure that I'm understanding what those mean. Because when we're going over them at the consortium discussion, everyone's thinking of them as short term goals, but these are actually short term outcomes. 

So let's say by December-- I'm making up all these numbers. By December 2022, enroll five students into a workforce prep program. Of those five students, 80% complete a transition outcome. Is that the kind of answer we're looking for here? 

NEIL KELLY: I would think so. I mean, you're covering all the specific measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound, so yeah. 

SHANNON: OK, because I think most people think of these short term goals, so a lot of-- when we're going over this, a lot of discussions I hear is like, oh, we'll look at the LMI data and talk with our workforce board in the next 12 months. Well, that's not exactly what we're doing. That's a great goal. That's a great way of doing that, of finding or figuring out what you want to do, but that's not an outcome. That's not a CAEP outcome. 

NEIL KELLY: Right. 

SHANNON: Do you see what I'm saying? 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. 

SHANNON: So I'm on the right track there, then. 

NEIL KELLY: Yes. 

SHANNON: OK, thank you. 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah, and I think we're going to learn a lot from the field on this exercise. [CHUCKLES] 

VERONICA PARKER: And Neil, did you see Emma's question? 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah, does Emma want to come off mute and explain? Does she have the ability-- 

EMMA DIAZ: I will, but then I know Annabelle has her hand up. So Annabelle, I promise right after this, they'll come to you. 

VERONICA PARKER: Yeah, we will. 

ANNABELLE RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, no worry. Your time. 

EMMA DIAZ: So here's my question, Neil, is currently, the way the three year is written, it is more of an umbrella of performance metrics, where the annual plan is written about activity, and it's written for the activity. Not all of the activity will fall under the objectives of the three year plan, and the reason why I say that is because when you talk about seamless transition-- you know, gaps in service, acceleration, and student progress-- all of those things, those are real activities where we dedicate money to marketing to be able to address gaps in service. 

To me, the activity is maybe an adult school will offer GED in Spanish as a way of addressing a gap. It's not really a metric, though, right now. And so that's what I'm saying is, I think there's a misalignment if you change the wording or the objectives that are in the annual plan, because they're not going to align to how we wrote the three year. 

And my concern is when it comes time for the work plan and budget, that verbiage is going to be really difficult for us to select a strategy that we can actually say we're applying funds to. Because in the past, that's what we were told, is the strategies in the annual plan aligned to our budget. So things for marketing-- you know, sending out postal mailers, doing radio commercials-- all the things that we do are not necessarily in the three year because it doesn't apply to a metric. 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah, we'll have to see how, like Mayra was saying, as they connect the annual plan to the three year plan-- 

EMMA DIAZ: My concern, Neil-- and I hate to interrupt you. My concern is always there isn't a director there in your work groups, because if you haven't been a director with this dialogue, it makes it very difficult for others to connect that. And after going through this for the third time, there's a huge disconnect between what you see as a plan and what we see in activity. And that's my concern, is you're going to revamp the whole annual plan. We have less than two months to be able to understand the new template, get people into these meetings. 

Again, we're professional cat herders, where the minute you pull one, the other walks away. You have, 8, 10 members that you're trying to get together while they're planning graduations, while we've just done the CFAD three year. There's a lot of activities, so I don't know if this is the right timing to be able to switch out an entire annual plan template, and still expect for us to get it done on time when members are gone for the summer. That's my concern, is having that availability of folks in the room. 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah, I think-- a couple of things, there. So number one-- hopefully, we would have field input before the programmers got to work on this. And then two-- we would put some time into the guidance and linking the two. And then three-- giving you guys more time and maybe not insist upon that August 15 date, but giving you more time, since we are changing the process, that we would be more lenient on the due date, and give people more time for that. 

EMMA DIAZ: And remember, because when they come back in August, they're coming back to a lot of people having to go back to in-person that they might not be doing right now. So there's going to be a lot of-- I'm going to say, cognitive overload and stress on everything that's going to happen in August. And on top of that, to walk into a new annual plan template is going to be very stressful on people, so I'm just trying to be mindful, again, to not put too much of a burden on a lot of our folks that are just coming back-- going to be coming back on top of a new plan. And that's just my concern, Neil. 

NEIL KELLY: Thank you. 

MAYRA DIAZ: I just wanted to chime in. Emma, thank you. We appreciate you voicing that concern. We really do, and we'll definitely take that into consideration. And any of the concerns that you guys have, please, reach out to us. That's the type of information that we need to hear, as we plan-- as we have these conversations at the table. So we definitely welcome that, and like we all had mentioned, the annual plan-- the enhancements that are going to take place in NOVA are going to incorporate or address some of these challenges that you're experiencing, as you try to tie-in some of the metrics from the three year plan to the annual plan. 

So we'll definitely do our best to make sure that we provide enough technical support, webinars, a lot of training-- and we hope to bring this concern, as well, to our leaders in some of these deadlines that we have. So we appreciate you bringing this up, and we'll definitely take this back to our leaders and see what we can do and report back to you guys. Thank you. 

VERONICA PARKER: All right. Go ahead, Annabelle. 

ANNABELLE RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, thank you. Just to piggyback off of this conversation, I think part of the concern-- and I appreciate what you're saying, Mayra, as far as providing us the technical assistance and training. But once the thing is set in the three year plan, you know, we're going to be held accountable to that. And so I'm hoping that as we move forward that there's also flexibility, until the three year plan and the annual plan are aligned, so I wanted to mention that. 

But part of my question-- let me open up my-- I'm going to be looking at my NOVA while I ask this. So up back at the key barriers and metrics, we were kind of going back and forth in our consortia around which one do we choose. And so we realize that there's real-- around identifying-- how do our members identify low income and low literacy? And those look really different from between the adult school and the community college, where both the adult school and the community college use ESL enrollment to measure the low literacy. 

Low income is a little bit different, where at the community-- and it took just a lot of just kind of checking in with members, and even, like, with the research department on the college side, that they report to the Chancellor's Office low income students that are applying for financial aid and-or the California Promise, but that does not pick up all adult learners, because it doesn't pick up the low literacy. 

And so we're choosing both low income and low literacy, to try to capture as many adult learners as we possibly can. It feels like the measurement is a little bit easier at the adult school. So-- and because the college doesn't use CASAS to measure that, I was thinking that we would have to use-- that if we chose illiteracy, that we would have to use CASAS as the metric, but the college doesn't use it. 

Anyways, I just wanted to share that, that it took us a little bit. It's not as simple as just choosing one to a couple of these metrics. So I guess as we're-- and then these sub areas are choosing the progress, a transition, and/or how we're measuring success. We're trying to find the right metric, and I guess, just overall-- you know, and I've heard us in some of these other webinars, that these are all optional. And I guess I'm still not fully understanding why they're optional, because what else would you look at if it's not EFL? If it's not literacy gains? If it's not high school graduation? If it's not earning the post-secondary credentials and the high school diplomas? 

And so I'm just kind of trying to step back and understand. If we're already looking at this, and we're looking at it through LaunchBoard. Beyond, we're doing so much work in data, because beyond LaunchBoard and TE, we're looking at the colleges' MIS systems. And we're putting so much work and effort, because these other systems are older, usually. There's a lag. So what are-- as we're trying to make sure that we're selecting the right barrier, with the right metric, matching the right outcomes and the activities-- what is the implication? What is the consequence at the other end? 

Are we tied to the same platforms of LaunchBoard and TE to measure all of these metrics? And is this just going to be simply as using LaunchBoard and TE to track the progress of the metrics, or will there be a different level of data inquiry? I am not even sure if my question makes sense, but [CHUCKLES] I hope you're tracking that. 

NEIL KELLY: OK, I'll respond. [CHUCKLES] So Annabelle, I think what we're seeing with this move to NOVA with the three year plan are some growing pains, and I think we're going to have to-- and bringing in LaunchBoard, as well. And as we brought in LaunchBoard, there have been some time lags, and we've discovered that as we've gone through the data. So I think this is all up for improvement, and making it better. 

And so that's why I put in the chat, that we hope to involve you guys in this process as we connect the various processes in NOVA-- the three year plan, the annual plan, and the work plan, and budget. Might be a little clunky right now, but we hope to get the bugs out. The good thing-- I mean, so that's the downside. But the upside is, it's not a performance space program. So if your performance and your metrics, and things like that you're tracking, and your targets are not met, it's not going to result in any funding loss, so we'll try to work together to make these plans usable and less work on you guys. 

But we'd love to hear your input. We'll involve you guys in this process, because I think the three year plan, when it got implemented, it was kind of in a vacuum. I wasn't around. Mayra wasn't on board, so there wasn't much field input into that process or the testing, and so I think this is what we're discovering a lot on that stuff, so bear with us as we try to make this more user friendly and customer focused. I know that doesn't help right now, but at least we're making-- 

ANNABELLE RODRIGUEZ: Can I ask a more clear, concrete question, maybe? 

NEIL KELLY: Sure. 

ANNABELLE RODRIGUEZ: [CHUCKLES] I just had to get that out, so let me ask a more concrete question. So if under the metrics-- under the student metrics, progress, transition, and success-- we're looking at those now as a consortia, right? And we have LaunchBoard and TE, and we have MIS. If we don't select these-- like, I have members. I'm like, oh, they said it was optional. Let's not choose this. I won't select any of that. 

And so I guess it's been a hard sell for me to say, no, we need to continue. We're already looking at this. We need to continue to look at this. And so I think it's just kind of this mixed this mixed message. I mean, why wouldn't CAEP want to look at our EFL gains, and our transition to post-secondary, and earning of credentials in post-secondary degrees? And so I guess that's been a little bit of a mixed message in communications. 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah. 

ANNABELLE RODRIGUEZ: A little confusing. Does that make sense? 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah, well, in the past I've kind of said, the state sets the bar for the minimum compliance. So the minimum compliance are those mandatory metrics, but we've also made the optional metrics available, if you want to take it beyond minimum compliance, and so you have the ability to select this. 

Now if you have members that aren't willing to do that, then that's a good time for a conversation at the member level with the official reps to say, hey, shouldn't we be doing this? Why aren't we doing this? And then that's where you get that consensus, and maybe you vote on it, and you move forward with it rather than having that one member that doesn't want to do anything. Maybe there's some discussion that happens that might change their mind, or you have a decision making process that will allow kind of a voting process to move forward and agree upon selecting a certain metric. 

So-- but the state-- first go around, we wanted to make it easy to get into this metric process. We didn't want to mandate a lot of stuff. And so maybe the next go-around-- three year plan-- will have worked out all these bugs and have more focused metrics. I'm sure LAO will have some recommendations this year on metrics and incentives and performance, and we'll see what that looks like, and that's something that maybe we'll have to build into this process anyway in the future. 

So all very incremental at the state level. I know at the local level, you guys like to move a lot faster, so we've given you the ability to move as fast as you want, and just meeting the minimum compliance, which isn't that much. So-- because we know there's members at the local level that maybe aren't all in agreement, so we didn't want to mandate too much right away, if that makes sense. 

ANNABELLE RODRIGUEZ: Got it Thanks. 

VERONICA PARKER: All right. We have John. John, go ahead. We have two more minutes. 

JOHN RUSSEL: Thanks. Real quick-- this is more of a nuts and bolts question, and I think that-- because it's not in the guidance-- but I think this was sort of intimated, Veronica? That the objectives that we're writing-- and it says strategy, so I'm assuming strategy and objective is the same word-- serving the same purpose. And it says the strategies-- and let me see in NOVA. The exact wording is-- sorry. 

It is that-- "describe strategies the plan will support to address the educational needs identified in section 2." So are these objectives supposed to address the metrics? Is that correct? Am I understanding that, that we're doing objectives that will-- so, because we have a whole slew of metrics chosen. And so should each objective-- I'm trying to see the connection between the metrics and the objective, because the objectives seem to be different than what the metrics are-- I'm not making the connection 

VERONICA PARKER: OK, so-- OK, I'm off mute. Yeah, so you're talking about what I just said. 

JOHN RUSSEL: Yeah. 

VERONICA PARKER: We were talking to Janae and Shannon, I believe, so I did misspeak. So the subset-- no, no, excuse me. The assessment and the objectives align, and then the metrics and the activities and outcomes align. 

JOHN RUSSEL: Yup. 

VERONICA PARKER: But when you get to the activities and outcomes-- so you are basing your activities and outcomes on the objectives. So you're going to have your activity name. You're going to select which objective you are responding to, provide your description, and then the goals or the outcomes. Then down here. Is where you identified the metric that this particular activity aligns to. 

JOHN RUSSEL: So the metric is not the driver? It should be those three objectives that the educational need-- what's the other one? I know there's three of them. 

VERONICA PARKER: There is the educational needs-- 

JOHN RUSSEL: Yeah, the-- 

VERONICA PARKER: --the improved integration of services and transitions, and the effectiveness of services. 

NEIL KELLY: OK. 

JOHN RUSSEL: Yeah, so those are your drivers. OK. 

NEIL KELLY: We'll get-- don't get caught-- 

JOHN RUSSEL: So we're looking at assessments. We're trying to create objectives that match the assessments, then we create activities that match those objectives, and then hopefully those activities move metrics. 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah. 

JOHN RUSSEL: Did I say that right? Is that-- 

NEIL KELLY: I think you did, and don't get too caught up in the metrics. 

JOHN RUSSEL: OK. I think everybody is getting a little too caught up in the metrics. 

NEIL KELLY: I don't think that was the intent. I know when the programmers developed this, they like to use the metrics, and every point to kind of point towards that, but it's not something that is driving it. I think those objectives and activities are driving it, and so if you could focus on that, that would be better than trying to come at this from a metrics standpoint. 

[INTERPOSING VOICES] 

ANNABELLE RODRIGUEZ: I just wanted to say, Neil, that makes a lot more sense. Because I think we are getting caught up, and it's not the best kind of format. 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah. 

ANNABELLE RODRIGUEZ: And so I think we're caught up in this circle. So, thank you for that. 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah, yeah. 

ANNABELLE RODRIGUEZ: I think if I kind of reframe my thinking around those three objectives that we've always had, and think about what we want to do and how we want to measure it. Just like a logic model, yeah. 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah, I think that's what we intended, but then somehow, someone wanted to introduce the metrics, and then that kind of became a red herring that people followed when we still want to go back to-- like you were saying, Annabelle-- the objectives and activities that we done in the past. And that's what I was thinking, that those objectives and activities are going to drive the plan, not necessarily the metrics. 

The metrics are kind of a byproduct. They're kind of like a nice-to-have, something like a little dashboard that you're checking on, but not driving the car. Maybe one of those smaller indicators on your dashboard, like a little tiny one in the far right hand corner, where your objectives and activities are a lot bigger. Because those are what's driving your budget and work plan, are those objectives and activities like we've always had. So maybe we can reframe it and refocus like that, and kind of put those metrics kind of as a nice-to-have. Something to be mindful of, but don't drive your plan using those. I don't know. 

VERONICA PARKER: All right, so there-- 

NEIL KELLY: Would that make sense, Veronica? 

VERONICA PARKER: Yeah. There's one last question from Sherry. She wants to know, for these-- and I believe this is the section you were referring to, Sherry. Are these numbers a duplicated or unduplicated? 

NEIL KELLY: The numbers-- those are inputted by you, right? Those are not pre-populated, correct, Veronica? 

VERONICA PARKER: Yeah, these are not pre-populated. Sherry, are you referring to these numbers? 

SHERRY: I'm looking at the ones that are in the assessment section, where it says "regional service providers". If you just-- 

VERONICA PARKER: Yeah, that's-- 

SHERRY: You're right, here. Yeah. So it was pre-populated for me. 

NEIL KELLY: It was? 

VERONICA PARKER: It's not-- 

SHERRY: That' not how-- 

VERONICA PARKER: It's not supposed-- 

SHERRY: And I thought that came from LaunchBoard. 

VERONICA PARKER: Yeah, It's not supposed to be pre-populated. It used to-- well, it was supposed to-- the original intent was for it to be pre-populated, but these are numbers that the consortium inputs. 

NEIL KELLY: So what you could do, Sherry, is-- I think you could still go in and change those numbers, right? 

SHERRY: Yes. 

NEIL KELLY: It doesn't prevent you from changing them, does it? 

SHERRY: It gives me the ability to change them. However, I need to-- we lost our data person, so I need to be able to pull these, and I'm not quite sure what I can pull without having to go to each member, because I don't think we have the ability, with our manager reports and TEs to pull everything we need for this. Or-- is it duplicated? Is it unduplicated? So I'm-- 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah. So what you could do, Sherry is given the magnitude of your consortium-- the 22 members-- you could just use the LaunchBoard data, because it's broken out by individual program, and it does take the TE and the COMAS data. And so if you wanted to, you could use the LaunchBoard data, and that's already available and for the public, so you wouldn't need passwords and anything like that to go into it. 

SHERRY: So it does not have EL civics broken out separately? 

NEIL KELLY: No, it doesn't, unfortunately. 

SHERRY: So what do I do about that? I would have to just get it from those WIOA members that have EL civics? 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah, but you know what-- in this part, you're assessing who's providing what, and I guess you could get an estimate or have them drive reports out of their system to break out EL civics, I guess, if it's not available. Umm-- 

SHERRY: OK. So if I got it from LaunchBoard, but do we still know-- I mean, because I could get it from each member, probably, but I would need to know if it's the-- do we want duplicated? Do we want unduplicated? 

NEIL KELLY: Yeah, that's the thing. So you would have to know what your TOPSPro data says, versus your CAMAS data, versus your LaunchBoard. The LaunchBoard board data, you know, does de-duplicate. I think the COMAS data does too, but that's kind of a technical thing that-- too bad you lost your data person. 

But since this isn't a critical, we're not going to hold you to these numbers. I think if all members are comfortable with where you're getting the data, and you do your best job-- just-- and this is for the assessment to show who's offering what kind of services. And so these numbers are to answer that assessment question, not necessarily to do any target setting, or goal, or metric, or setting, or anything like that. 

It's just to assess the need in your region, so you'd just like to know who's offering what program, and how robust it is. Or maybe it's small. Maybe it's huge. Maybe they're the biggest CTE program in the region. That kind of thing. I don't think we want to get specific numbers and audited, and that kind of thing. So I think if you're comfortable to know what direction your region's going, and who's providing what from maybe a 5,000 foot level, I think that gives you enough information to answer the educational need question in this section, doing the assessment. Does that help? 

SHERRY: Yes, it does. Thank you. 

NEIL KELLY: OK, sorry. [CHUCKLES] I think we had one other question from somebody? I don't know. Someone was trying to speak. 

VERONICA PARKER: No. 

NEIL KELLY: OK, Shannon-- so no, this data is not from the Program Area Reporting, because the Program Area Reporting is hours of instruction. So this would be from LaunchBoard, or if you have access to TE, you could get this from TE. You could also get this from COMAS in DataMart, but then you you'd have to count individual semesters, and it could be duplicated count. So-- but it's not the Program Area Report. 

And then-- any other questions before we sign off? I don't know. Did we come full circle on this, and help everybody-- whoever's on the line? I mean, we-- the explanation of focusing on the objectives and activities, and keeping those metrics as not the driving force. Does that help? OK. Maybe either Veronica or Mayra-- do you guys want to wrap it up? [CHUCKLES] 

VERONICA PARKER: Yeah, so-- yeah, that is all that we have. If there are additional questions, please submit them, and we will do the best we can to get the answers to you. Yeah, that that's all that I have. The evaluation-- yes, it's close to therapies. Complete that. We do have upcoming PDs, so check out the register.caladulted.org site to register for those upcoming PD opportunities. 

Also, please be on the lookout in the newsletter, because that's where we do disseminate a lot of information. And also we will do direct communication, but definitely continue to look at the newsletter, especially as we are working towards this alignment of the three year plan and the annual plan. So that is-- 

NEIL KELLY: Veronica? 

VERONICA PARKER: Mm-hmm? 

NEIL KELLY: Maybe we could have one more PLC related to this topic that we covered today in the last half hour. Maybe that could be a good follow up. 

VERONICA PARKER: OK, I'll look into that opportunity. 

NEIL KELLY: OK, I think that would be helpful. 

VERONICA PARKER: All right. OK, well, thank you all very much, and have a great afternoon. Bye, everyone. 

NEIL KELLY: Bye. 

MAYRA DIAZ: Thank you. Bye, everyone.