AEBG Webinar Chat Q&As

Click on the topic areas below to view the Q&As, which are organized by date of release. These questions are updated by the Wednesday following each webinar. Topics that have new additions are highlighted in RED - new questions can be found at the end of the topic block, under the latest date which will also be highlighted in red. They will change to black when the next posting is made.




Q1: When are the FAQs updated? How will we know?

A: They are updated by the Wednesday following each webinar. Topics that have new additions are highlighted in RED, as are those new Q&As which will be dated as well. They will change to black when the next posting is made.





Q1: Can you briefly explain what we will report on in August?

A: On August 1, 2016 you will be required to report the 2015-16 Student Data Enrollment. More details will be shared soon.

Q2: Will there be a template for the progress report that is due July 31st with the Year1 Expenditure report?

A: No – it’s the same online budget & expenditure progress report that was used under AB86. We are using the same online system for AB104. Your primary consortium contact will have the log on and password to access the site. This is different than the AEBG portal.



 - General



Q1: Who is the Primary Contact? Can it be the Fiscal Agent? Can it be more than one person? Some consortia have carefully balanced leadership between the systems. Single POC is mildly annoying.

A: The Primary Contact(s) can be the leader, co-leaders, or a designee of the consortium. This role is mostly about flow of information, not decision making. Because of the size and structures of many of our AEBG consortia, we are retiring the term "Single Point of Contact." We encourage consortia to limit the number of Primary Contacts to no more than two per consortium so that information can flow predictably to and from the rest of the membership.

There are two levels of access to the AEBG documents - View Only and Editor. In View Only, a person identified by the Primary Contact(s) can view all of the documents but they cannot edit them. View Only access can be granted to any number of people, and each person would be referred by the Primary Contact(s). The Editor is the single person who has the clearance from the consortium membership to submit official consortium documents and make changes to them. Just as with the View Only individuals, the Editor is identified by the Primary Contact(s). Access is based on passwords associated with email addresses.

The rationale for the two levels of access is to make sure that viewing and editing of official AEBG documents is in the control of the Consortium membership. Primary Contacts will know who is asking for access to their documents and be assured that the only changes that occur are exclusively made by their Editor designee.

Q2: How do we get access to the electronic system so we can designate a Primary Contact (PC) and Editor?

A: You will get notification that the system is open through the Primary Contact currently on file for 2015-16. If that person will not continue to be the Primary Contact for 2016-17, the current Primary Contact should send an email to the AEBG inbox at with the request to change for next year. The request will be verified and the new Primary Contact(s) for Year 2 will get access. The verification process should only take about 24 hours.


Q1: What is the URL for the portal?

A: It is:

Q2: Q: I submitted plan revisions prior to the portal. Have those been approved or do I resubmit?

A: Those revisions received prior to the portal being open will be reviewed as submitted and later posted. We will get back to you soon.

Q3: I asked for an email password, and it says I don't have a recognized account name. I submitted my email and it says it doesn't know me. Thought I had access as 'primary contact'.

A: Please send an email to the AEBG inbox at and we will check to see what the issue is. Primary Contacts are generally one person per consortium, occasionally two on a case-by-case basis, though more people can have Ready Only access.


 - Documents & Due Dates



Q1: Can the allocation schedule submitted on May 2 be adjusted afterwards?

A: If you are direct funded, you will receive your apportionment in the first 12 months of the 16-17 state fiscal year.  If you wish to alter or revise the amount you received, you may do so through the subcontracting process.  If you have a fiscal agent, they will receive the consortium apportionment in the first 12 months of the 16-17 state fiscal year. If the fiscal agent wishes to alter or revise the amount being allocated to members, they may do so, with member agreement, through the subcontracting process.

Q2: If we're finalizing our Plan still in May and June, might the Plan Template change?

A: A draft of the Year 2 Annual Plan for public comment will be released soon. You will see that it has not changed greatly from Year 1 - there are a few new items but it is largely the same. We don’t anticipate that the main approaches of the Plan template will change much (maybe add clarifications, etc.) so you can start your planning as soon as that draft is release.

Q3: Where are these reports on the AEBG website for the CFAD, Annual Plan, etc.?

A: They will be on the Grantees tab on the AEBG website -

Q4: Can anyone download templates or does the Single Point of Contact (SPOC) have to do it?

A: We will provide access to PDFs copies and screenshots with guidance so everyone can see what will be required. The SPOC will have to be the one to input the information into the electronic system for final submission.

Q5: Will the templates be available in word documents like last year. This was helpful for finalizing our plan last year.

A: Yes, we can do that for drafting and discussion. The final submission will have to be inputted through the electronic system.

Q6: When will the CFAD be opened and due?

A: It will open the week of March 14 and be due May 2.

Q7: When will the Annual Plan Template be open and due?

A: A draft for comment will be posted the week of March 14 and finalized by March 23. It will be due in July, exact date still to be determined.

Q8: You said the dates are fixed, but the bottom of the slide says, "the dates are tentative and subject to change."

A: Some of the dates are subject to change. The exact date for the Annual Plan submission in July has not been set yet, for example. The May 2 deadline for the CFAD is firm, however, as are some other dates. We will clarify these dates as soon as possible on the website.

Q9: Is this likely to be the process and timeline for 2017-18, as well? Our members have expressed concern that it will be hard to get teacher involvement in and approval of the Plan when that work is concentrated in May and June.

A: You will have a draft of the Annual Plan to begin working off of in March. It is not due until July so that gives you nearly 4 months.


 - Submission of Information



Q1: How do we submit member signatures in the electronic system? (added 3.28.16)

A: There are a couple of ways this can be done. One way is to print out the summary page with signatures blocks, then scan and upload the doc into the electronic system. All signatures should be condensed in a single document; we do not want to have multiple summaries with one signature per doc. Another way is to have signatures collected at a face to face meeting and signed on an iPad or similar device. We will provide instructions for this as we get closer to submission time.

Q2: How would you indicate in the CFAD, etc. that we have more than one member per organization at the table? (added 3.28.16)

A: Each consortium member organization has one designated representative for membership, though they can have multiple colleagues at discussions. Only the officially approved member can vote on decisions, unless the consortium decides otherwise. As far as the state is concerned, there is only the one officially approved representative for each member organization.

Your consortium governance plan will specify on proxy and/or substitutes. However, on the CFAD, please list only the member representative that was approved by the member’s local board.

Q3: We will have some personnel shifts due to retirements etc. which may change officially governing board representatives. Those changes may not be resolved until after May 2. Is that an issue with membership updates? (added 3.28.16)

A: Enter the current representative’s information into the CFAD for each member organization. When replacement representatives are identified, you can do a revision to provide the new person’s name and contact information. You will also be able to update member information in the Year 2 Plan which will be due in mid-July.

Q4: Can we add new members CFAD for 2016-17, if we know ahead of time? (added 3.28.16)

A: Yes.

Q5: Does the information upload for the AEBG documents (CFAD, Plan, etc.) have to be entered in one session or is there a save button so we may revisit and upload information over a couple of weeks before the deadline? (added 3.28.16)

A: The system has an auto-save, so you won’t lose anything when you close. When you sign on again, the system will pull up the information you entered earlier.


Q1: Regarding CFAD, where do we find the link to indicate that a member is "active" or "inactive"? I've added a new member but don't know how to make them active.

A: By adding them, they are automatically active. We will delete the old language that indicates other steps are necessary.

Q2: We were notified that someone not associated with our consortium made an attempt to access the web portal. The sign-in is on front of website so that might be why some of the public appears to think they need to log on. Maybe that should be in our resources?

A: It has been moved to the home page: Thank you for the heads up.

Q3: If I add a new member to the front member list, should they show up automatically on the signature page?

A: If they are added to the contacts table, they should appear. If not, they would need to be added by you can selecting edit signature block button at the bottom of the summary page.

Q4:  Where do we upload scanned documents? Can we add more than 1 document of rules and procedures?

A: Yes, you can add more than one document. Make sure the documents have different names or the new one will replace the old one.

Q5: If we submit new workbook allocation templates for 15/16 as part of our revisions to the Year 1 Plan, will those updates be what is auto-filled in the 16/17 workbooks, for the 2015/16 sections?

A: Maybe, it depends on how recently the revisions are submitted. Those submitted prior to the end of January, yes - they should all be there. If submitted in May, you will want to check to be sure the latest information is there.

Q6: I see that the plan template will auto-populate for our consortium in some areas of the 2 year plan, taken mainly from 2015-16 annual plan. Are we stuck with any auto-populated items in the 2year plan when we turn in the annual plan on May 15th?

A: At this point, we are planning on selected sections being locked. For example, some of the information provided in the CFAD that will auto-populate and cannot be changed, include the choice made between fiscal agent and direct funding and the allocation schedule. Those will remain locked. However, we may look into making some auto-filled sections in the Year 2 Plan editable, if need be.


Q1: What is the process to move from a single person who inputs the data in the AEBG portal to have co-chairs inputting collaboratively?

A: The AEBG portal does allow for up to two primary contacts to have access. So it is possible for co-chairs to both access the portal.

Q2: When is the Year 2 Plan for 2016-17 due?

A: The AEBG Plan for 2016-17 is due August 15, 2016.

Q3: Can we edit the Year 1 Plan text when filling out the Year 2 Plan template?

A: Yes, Year 1 (2015-16) activities may be edited or added onto, but not deleted.

Q4: When submitting the Year 2 report if we have new activities to add to the tables by program type and objective, are we able to add them on the online system? I noticed the template says that the activities will pre-populate.

A: Only CFAD activities will be pre-populated.

Q5: Do we have procedures on how to submit amendments to the Year 1 - 15-16 plans? Are they still due May 15th?

A: Yes, all revisions/amendments to Year 1 documentation must be submitted by no later than May 15, 2016. Revisions to previously submitted documents should be clearly marked in red or blue font (no Track Changes, no strike-through).Revisions/amendments may be submitted via the AEBG Web Portal in the “View and Update Prior Records” tab. Submissions by email will NOT be accepted. Please Note: Meeting minutes OR membership signatures must be submitted to demonstrate membership agreement of revisions/amendments at a public meeting. Note: If you miss the May 15th deadline, you can always submit amendments beginning July 1, 2016.

Q6: For the amendment, do we need to reflect changes in projected enrollment numbers that we put in the performance workbook?

A: No.


2016-17 – Budget Trailer Bill

 - Section 312, Adult Education Technical Assistance



Q1: Re: section 313, are the Technical Assistance activities going to be outsourced?

A: Some activities may be contracted out, while others will still be carried out by the state. More details to follow.

Q2: Will there be events scheduled by AEBG for regional leadership to come together in person?

A: Yes. The November Summit will have the larger consortia participation but the AEBG team is planning to convene a consortia-leadership focused event in Spring 2017. We would also encourage consortia leadership to schedule regional events and invite the AEBG Office to participate.


 - Section 313, Adult Education Apportionments



Q1: What if a currently chosen fiscal agent cannot meet this requirement?

A:Consortia must focus on and agree to a process that will allow them to meet the AEBG requirements. Consortia may elect a different fiscal agent if the current one fails to meet AEBG requirements. However, AEBG revision timelines and processes need to be followed when making such changes.

Q2: If the chosen Fiscal Agent cannot meet the requirements and no other member can either, can the consortium change to direct funding? In other words change their CFAD? We understood that the Funding Structure choice was final and un-alterable after the May 2 submission this year.

A: No, no changes will be accepted until the following fiscal year. The selection made on the CFAD submitted May 2, 2016 is being used now to develop the statewide Allocation Schedule, in accordance to what the Department of Finance required the CDE and CCCO to provide.

Q3: We are using the term “Apportionment” more frequently now. Is apportionment considered the same as general fund operational dollars?

A: The AEBG Apportionment funding comes from the state general fund, but are earmarked for the specific purposes described in AB104 for the AEBG. They are not part of general funds coming to the k-12 school districts or the community colleges.

Q4: Apportionment is usually based on ADA or FTE. This seems a little confusing to finance people. Clarification would be helpful.

A: Apportionment is just mechanism for distribution. The fund source does not determine whether it is called Apportionment or not. The fund source determines what the formula basis is.

Q5: Does this new legislation apply to the current year (15/16) allocation?

A: It does not apply to fiscal year 2015-16. It would first be enforced, if it is signed by the Governor, on July 1 2016 for fiscal year 2016-17.

Q6: If a member has agreed that reimbursement payment, is that okay until we can change to direct funding in 17-18?

A: Yes.

Q7: Will funding continue to come in monthly?

A: Yes, at this time, there is no change but we are proposing improvements (quarterly, biannual or even annual distributions) to the legislators in order to streamline the process of use of funds and implementation of efforts.

Q8: If Consortia decided to go with the pass-through model, would funding each member quarterly go against "Section 84905"?

A: Nothing in the bill says you cannot do a pass-through model on a quarterly basis. However, please refer to the next question.

Q9: If funding is received monthly and is required to be sent to members w/in 45 days, wouldn’t it need to go out more often than quarterly?

A: Yes, that is true.



 - General



Q1: How much is available for the Adult Education Block Grant?

A: For 2015-16, the Adult Education Block Grant distributes $500 million, as follows:

  • $336.9 million for maintenance of effort (MOE) funding to eligible county offices of education and school districts based on 2012-13 General Fund expenditures on adult education programs. This funding is distributed directly to the local educational agency (LEA).
  • $163.1 million for consortia funding (also known as non-MOE funding) to adult education consortia based on a region’s share of statewide adult education need. This funding may be distributed directly to consortium members or to a fund administrator designated by the consortium.

Q2: When can LEAs expect to receive Adult Education Block Grant funds?

A: Per California Education Code Section 84912, funds are apportioned in twelve equal payments to each LEA on a monthly basis.

Q3: In what fund should we account for Adult Education Block Grant funds?

A: All Adult Education Block Grant revenue should be recorded in Fund 11, Adult Education Fund, using Resource 6391, Adult Education Block Grant Program. Fund 11 is the only fund valid in combination with Resource 6391.

Q4: How do we account for unrestricted local control funding formula (LCFF) funds LEAs choose to commit to adult education?

A: Now that there is again a restricted revenue source for adult education, it may no longer be necessary for LEAs to formally commit general purpose LCFF revenues to the purposes of adult education in order to justify the use of a special revenue fund in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). LEAs that continue to formally commit LCFF revenue to the purposes of adult education should use Object 8091, LCFF Revenue Transfers, to transfer the committed LCFF revenue from their general fund to Fund 11.

Q5: How should LEAs account for the MOE and consortia (non-MOE) funding using the standardized account code structure (SACS)? Note: This answer has been revised as of 3.30.16

The answer to this question is specific to K-12 school districts, adult schools, and County Offices of Education and doesn’t apply to community college districts.

LEAs will use the same resource code for MOE and non-MOE funding.

Consortia Fund Administrators

LEAs who are the fund administrator for an adult education consortium and receive Adult Education Block Grant revenue on behalf of their member LEAs should use:

  • Resource 6391, Adult Education Block Grant Program and,
  • Either Object 8587, Pass-Through Revenues from State Sources (for the pass-through grant model), or Object 8590, All Other State Revenue (for the subagreement for services model), to account for the revenue that will be provided to their member LEAs.

Consortia Members (Subrecipients)

LEAs who are the members in an adult education consortium and receive Adult Education Block Grant revenue from their consortia’s fund administrator (not directly from the state) should use:

  • Resource 6391, Adult Education Block Grant Program and,
  • Either Object 8590, All Other State Revenue (for the pass-through grant model), or Object 8677, Interagency Services Between LEAs (for the subagreement for services model), to account for the AEBG revenue.

LEAs that receive AEBG directly from the state

Use Resource 6391, Adult Education Block Grant Program, and Object 8590, All Other State Revenue.

Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG) SACS Coding Examples

Pass-through grant model accounting examples:

Original Recipient


Receipt of AEBG revenue to be passed through:


Pass-through of state revenue:
11-6391-0-0000-9200-7211, 2, 3

Receipt of passed-through AEBG revenue:


Expenditure of AEBG funds:

Subagreements for services model accounting examples:

Original Recipient


Receipt of AEBG revenue:


Payment to subrecipient for subagreement services:

Receipt of payment for subagreement services:


Expenditures for subagreement services:

For further information on whether to use the pass-through grant model or the subagreement for services model when accounting for this grant, LEAs should consult the California School Accounting Manual (CSAM) Procedure 750. Additional guidance can be found in CSAM Procedure 330 under the definition for Object Code 5100, Subagreements for Services.

Q6: Are indirect costs allowed to be charged to Adult Education Block Grant funds?

A: Yes, pursuant to the LEA’s approved indirect cost rate.

Q7: Are these funds subject to state audit?

A: All funds are subject to a financial audit; however, there are no specific compliance procedures for the Adult Education Block Grant in the current state audit guide.

Q8: Can these funds be carried over?

A: There are no statutory provisions preventing an LEA from carrying over funds, however, a consortium may change the amount of adult education funds available in future years based on actual prior fiscal year spending.


Q1: Will funds hit the LEAs and Consortia on the same time schedule as last year?

A: Not quite. AEBG Funds are to be released no later than 45 days after the state budget is signed by the Governor. Also take into account processing time by State Controller’s Office, and County Offices of Education in the funding release time. Keep in mind, the State can withhold funding if a consortium has not submitted its deliverables.


 - Budget & Funds Distribution



Q1: What is the 15-16 budget transfer deadline? (added 4.06.16)

A: The deadline for consortium level budget changes is June 20, 2016 for changes to go into effect for the 15-16 year. If you miss that deadline, you can carry over funds into the next year, and make the budget change in that year. Keep in mind, in order for the budget change to be reflected in the reporting period (every January and July), the budget change must be made prior to the closing of that period. These deadlines are December 21st and June 20th (always ten days prior to the close of reporting period).

Q2: You mentioned an allocation schedule being distributed in July, but I thought I heard that the 2016-17 funds would be sent out in one lump sum in July. Is that true? (added 4.06.16)

A: The Allocation Schedule for each Consortium from the state budget will be posted within 45 days of the day the Governor signs the budget. Per AB104, only 1/12 of the allocation can be dispersed each month to consortia. We have been working with legislative staff to highlight how this hinders program roll-out and management of expenditures. We are hopeful this stipulation may change but at this point, consortia will receive 1/12 of their allocation per month whether direct funded or using a fiscal agent.

Q3: Can you please let legislative staff know that even if fiscal agents use the pass through method, if they have to do that each month with 1/12 of the allocation it will be more cumbersome and certainly slow down the process of getting the funds on the ground. Annual or semi-annual distributions would certainly be more desirable, so let us know if we can do anything to advocate for this. (added 4.06.16)

A: We are working on that.

Q4: What if there is a member who has been consistently ineffective in providing services that address the needs identified in the adult education plan and reasonable interventions have not resulted in improvements. What recourse do we have regarding continuing to fund them? (added 4.06.16)

A: The AB104 legislation, Section 84914 does allow a consortium to reduce funding for ineffectiveness. Per the legislation, if the member has been consistently ineffective in providing services that address the needs identified in the adult education plan and reasonable interventions have not resulted in improvements, the consortium can reduce their funding. Consortium must document the reasonable interventions, and the member responses to these interventions. The consortium must share these activities with its members at a public meeting, and if a reduction is to take place that must also be documented in the meeting minutes and be agreed to by members using their governance plan.

Q5: Do substantive budget transfers need to be approved by all members? (added 4.06.16)

A: Yes.

Q6: Is the 2016-17 budget due at same time that the 2016-17 Annual Plan is due (July 15)? We will need more consortium meetings and it's hard in summer with school staff members off. (added 4.06.16)

A: We haven’t yet determined that. We know that a lot of things are due around that time. We will gather input on the timing of the budget submission and get back to you. But it does seem reasonable that the 16-17 online budget would not be due until later as those AEBG expenditure reports (Report Period 1) for 16-17 funding will not be due until January 2017.


 - Consortia Allocations



Q1: Is there still separation between MOE and Consortia Allocations?

A: Both MOE and Consortia Allocations have always been from the same place: the AEBG. Both were always intended to carry out the approved Three-Year and Annual Plans for AEBG. In the first year only, MOE was called out separately. It will not be called out separately going forward. Allocations will only be made as AEBG Consortia Allocation.

Q2: Where are the allocations posted?

A: On the AEBG website, on the For AEBG Grantees tab:

Q3: Will the amount that consortium members change?

A: AB104 has a provision that requires that all members receive the at least same allocation every year, unless each member agrees and signs off on the allocation schedule to a different amount.

Q4: Will my MOE funds be available to the other members of my consortium?

A: First, MOE is not separate from Consortium Allocation any longer. However, you will receive the same total amount in Year 2 as you received in Year 1 (MOE plus Consortium Funds as applicable), unless each member agrees and signs off on the allocation schedule to a different amount.

Q5: If we agree to move money from one member to another in one year, can we establish a bi-law that puts that decision up for review (and possibly reversal or change) the following year?

A: Yes, if you have unanimous agreement to do so among your consortium members.

Q6: We received funding late this year. Will we be allowed carry over of funds to next year? Will that affect how much we are allocated in Year 2?

A: Yes, you can carry over funds from Year 1 to Year 2. It will not affect your Year 2 allocation amount. However, it is not clear yet how this will affect Year 3 and beyond funding.

Q7: Can we change the amounts allocated to members based on differences in needs and activities year to year?

A: Yes, but only through unanimous agreement of the consortium members.

Q8: If there is an error in the allocation table, who should we report that to?

A: Please report errors as soon as possible to the AEBG email inbox at or contact Carmen or Neil directly.

Q9: How long will the 2016-17 funds be allowed to be used?

A: See Program Guidance for a detailed breakdown on life of the funds and reporting deadlines. The AEBG Office encourages all consortia to spend the funding in the year it is received, knowing in some cases funds may need to be carried over. However, keep in mind, that the State is tracking student enrollment and outcomes on a year to year basis. If funding is not spent and the program is not meeting the needs of the region, your consortium and members may be deemed ineffective and funding may be reduced as a result.

Q10: What is the additional line item on the new allocation schedule and what do we need to know about its distribution?

A: In 15-16, some funding was withheld for various projects. In 16-17, that funding has been allocated to the consortia using the funding formula. Consortia members must decide how they additional funding will be allocated in 16-17.

Q1: If members have agreed through consensus to reduce their base funding so that $$ can be used on pan-consortium activity, what documentation will you need to support the CFAD?

A: All members will need to sign the CFAD, which that allocation schedule is part of. In addition, you should keep meeting minutes and attendance sheets to document that you followed the Governance Plan for your Consortium in order to reach this agreement.

Q2: If the consortium shifts to direct funding, do you need any other documentation to support that in the CFAD?

A: All members will need to sign the CFAD, which that allocation schedule is part of. In addition, you should keep meeting minutes and attendance sheets to document that you followed the Governance Plan for your Consortium in order to reach this agreement.

Q3: If a consortium agrees to allocate a different amount to each member next year, what documentation is required other than one sheet which all members sign off on?

A: Please keep meeting minutes and sign-in sheets in your records.

Q4: Will it be allowable to have an unallocated amount on the May 2 report?

A: No. The funds must all be allocated by May 2. The detail of how they will be expended, and the chance to sub-contract if needed, will be due in July with the Annual Plan.

Q5: What if a portion of the consortium funds are held by the fiscal agent (who is also a member) so that the consortium can contract with a provider on the behalf of the consortium? How should this amount be listed in the allocation schedule?

A: Only the member allocations should be listed on the CFAD adding up to the total consortium amount. The Annual Plan will require more detail on the budget, consortium administrative costs, and member indirect rates, but the CFAD does not.

Q6: Will the 2016/17 allocations become baseline for the 2017/18 allocations?

A: Yes. AB104 ensures no less than the prior year’s allocation.

Q7: Can we decide that the fiscal agent can get less than 5% for indirect?

A: Yes

Q8: If fiscal agent has to get 5%, then they should be getting more than last year, because now based on CF and MOE total, not just CF total, right?

A: Per AB104 legislation, the consortium is permitted to use up to 5% for administration of the consortium. This does not mean that the fiscal agent “has to” receive 5%, but instead can use up to 5%. Those activities are mostly fiscal in nature. If the MOE and Non-MOE funds are combined in 16-17, then yes, the consortium totals are larger and the potential for more administrative costs is greater. However, consortium administrative activities and their cost should be discussed and understood by the consortium members.

Q9: Just wondering, for those of us going to direct funding, can you suggest a source to locate a non- financial MOU sample?

A: The AEBG Office has not received a sample non-financial MOU, but as soon as it becomes available, it will be posted on the AEBG website, under the Resources tab.

Q10: If the legislation states that members can get no less funding than the prior year, is there any risk of 2016/17 funds being reduced if 2015/16 funds aren't spent due to the funds being received too late to implement much of the first year plan.

A: Not at this time.

Q11: Some districts are negotiating raises with teachers and classified staff. Are there any plans for increases based on COLA?

A: Not that we are aware of.


Q1: Members receive no less funding than the prior year but they can put money back into the consortium pot for 15-16, right? (added 3.28.16)

A: It is important that students’ needs are met to the fullest extent enabled by the funding resources, regardless of which member provides the services. That can mean sub-contracting with another member or returning the funds to the consortium for redistribution, if a member cannot utilize the money they were allocated for AEBG purposes. As these are state funds, they can be rolled over for one year after the year of disbursal. See the Program Guidance for more information.

Q2: Just to clarify, for the coming program year 2016-17, if someone pulls out of the consortium, the money they got as MOE goes back to the local consortium for redistribution among the active AEBG members? (added 3.28.16)

A: Yes. And the gap in services left by the member who is departing should be addressed by the consortium, as the money is available to support the implementation of your AEGB plan.

Q3: If a member was doing something in 2015-16 that was a one-time project, the consortium could decide to re-allocate those funds in the region, right? (added 3.28.16)

A: Yes, they could. It would take unanimous agreement of the consortium membership to do so, since no consortium member shall receive no less funding than the prior year unless all agreed to it.

Q4: So we would need to put this allocation change process in as a bylaw? (added 3.28.16)

A: The guarantee of “no less funding than the prior year” unless otherwise agreed to is in legislation already, but if it helps to manage discussions at the local consortium level you can certainly put that in your bylaws too.

Q5: If a member’s program doesn't need the same level of funding because they were working on curriculum development which is now completed, would they still receive that same amount for following year? (added 3.28.16)

A: Yes, they would receive the same amount unless the member and the rest of the consortium agree otherwise. However, if they still receive the same funding once the curriculum development is finished, their funds are still obligated to the implementation of your AEBG plan and achieving the plan goals.

Q6: What is the purpose of the “prior year” rule for funding? (added 3.28.16)

A: It is important to have the means to stabilize programs in order to consistently serve regional needs, address gaps and meet other objectives. Implementation of student-focused best practices should drive decisions in use of funds as the system seeks stability and, hopefully, future growth.

Q7: For 2015-16, does the “money reverts to the consortium” apply just to MOE or also to the Consortia Allocation? We are under the impression that if a member is not spending non-MOE money they can turn it over to another member to address the gaps. (added 3.28.16)

A: Unspent MOE funding for 15-16 would have to be subcontracted with another adult education provider within the consortium or returned to the State. If returned to the state, this money will go back into the $500 M Consortia pot for statewide redistribution. MOE money was released in 15-16, and had its own certification process. That is why MOE funds cannot revert to the consortium if unspent. In 16-17, MOE funding is rolled into the consortium allocation, and if a member is not spending their consortium allocation, it can be reallocated by the consortium using subcontracting methods. Both MOE and Consortia Funding are governed by the AEBG rules and AB104 legislation.

Q8: If fiscal agency was changed to Direct Funding for next year, would funding to members be affected? (added 3.28.16)

A: Not necessarily, as the consortium would still need to cost out the time & effort it takes to administer the consortium level activities. Even if your consortium opts for direct funding, the State still only wants one report per consortium. So the consortium would have to designate a coordinator position and resources to cover these activities. See Program Guidance for specifics on the consortium administration activities.

Q9: In saying a member gets no less than they received the prior year, is that referring to MOE + New Consortia money, or just MOE money...unless agreed to by/within the consortium processes? (added 3.28.16)

A: The “prior year” allocation figure for Year 2 is based on the total of MOE and/or Consortium Allocation in 2015-16. As a consortium, you can agree to shifts in amounts as needed if you are all in agreement.

Q10: Is the 2017-18 funding going to be decided the same way, i.e. same as 16-17, same as 15-16? That might influence whether or not we keep the fiscal agent model (if members are getting the same chunk of money every year, maybe they should just receive and manage their own funds directly). (added 3.28.16)

A: Yes. The “prior year” rule applies throughout the AEBG 3-year Plan period, unless the legislature changes it (which is not anticipated). See the Program Guidance for more information.

Q11: What about a Coordinator salary that is part of a subcontract? Would that be part of the allocation amount to a member? (added 3.28.16)

A: When completing the CFAD form, consortium members must decide how to fund their consortium coordinator and other supporting staff and resources. In 15-16, the consortium coordinator was funded by various means – using either a fiscal agent structure, pooling resources from various members, or other alternatives. Whatever funding mechanism you used, that member (or members) will receive the same amount in 16-17 (using the AB104 legislative language). Please consider this when discussing how to pay for the coordinator activities in 16-17.


Q1: So to change the allocation schedule it must be unanimous, even if normally we vote by majority?

A: Yes, though other decisions can be made according to your local governance plan and any by-law agreement, decisions regarding allocation amounts have to be agreed upon by all members.

Q2: If members don't submit invoices in a timely manner (to the fiscal agent), doesn't that slow the process for the fiscal agent to reimburse funds?

A: Yes, it most likely would, but be aware that a reimbursement process is NOT the model the Legislature intended. Legislative staff are stressing that the intent is that the fiscal agent run a pass-through process. The funds should be distributed directly to members and NOT provided through a reimbursement process. Please check with your fiscal staff for the most appropriate MOU or sub-agreement to pass-through funding.

Q3: If we have a member who is located in 2 counties within the consortium do they need to get their funds from the county they are under?

A: It depends on many things – but it’s up to the members of the consortia to determine whether or not these partners receive funding.

Q4: How will the 15-16 carryover money be reported going into the next fiscal year? Won't the reports be similar? We just use a different year code for each year?

A: Each year of AEBG funding will be tracked separately – 15-16 will have code 15-328-XX in the online system. The 16-17 funding will have code 16-328-XX, and so on. Each year will be tracked online through the life of the funding – even if it’s carried over into the next year. Just don’t co-mingle 15-16 funding with 16-17 funding – the budget & expenses are to be tracked, and reported separately.


Q1: Could we have an official statement that AB104 funding (MOE and Consortia Funds) expire December 31, 2017. Some members insist that MOE funds expire 6.30.16. Can that be added to allowable uses guide?

A: It is referenced in the updated AEBG Program Guidance (Pages 11-13) posted on the website 3-17-2016.

Q2: We have added a new adult education program in a new location in our region. Will you factor this in as you calculate amounts of this new distribution?

A: The Consortia Allocation calculation is based on the demographic data for each consortia region to determine level of need, so it already factors in the data for all areas within each region.  It is a local consortia decision to determine whether the new program receives consortia funds from the amount being allocated to that region.

Q3: Do we need to add to our Annual and 3 yr. plans the mini grant process we are now using for allocations? Or should we put in the disbursement amounts for 15-16 to each school district, and what programs they are providing?

A: Mini-grants to members can be included their allocations in the CFAD, or they can be part of sub-contracting between partners.  The 3-Year plan is a high level view of what your consortium hopes to achieve in this 3-year window. More detailed information is contained in each of the Annual Plans. Financial reports provide an even more detailed look into where funds were spent on what activity.

Q4: I have a member that was not active and is now interested in adult ed. Can we allocate funds out of 15-16 from funds set aside and not fund them from 2016-2017 funds? They are just now joining and we have already allocated for 16-17.

A: You can use existing 15-16 funding from members and subcontract with this members for services.  If you have already allocated your 16-17 funding, you can still subcontract with this member for services.  Remember, if the new member did not receive a direct allocation from the fiscal agent (or was direct funded), but rather receive the funding via a subcontract using another member’s funding, they are not entitled to funding in the next year.  They would be treated just like any other adult education provider that has a subcontract with a member.


Q1: If there were changes in allocations from what is reflected in the Preliminary Allocation Schedule, will there be an updated allocation schedule to reflect those changes?

A: Yes, the Final Allocation Schedule from the state will be released within 15 days after the Governor signs the state budget. It will be posted on the AEBG website. It is unlikely there will be any big changes. If you see a discrepancy, please let us know ASAP.


 - Fiscal Agent and Direct Funding



Q1: If we choose to have a Fiscal Agent in Year 1, can we change that to Direct Funding in Year 2?

A: Yes you can. The choice you make will apply to all the funds the consortium receives for AEBG.

Q2: Does that choice between Fiscal Agent or Direct Funding have to be unanimous?

A: The decision has to be made according to the decision-making structure in your Consortium Governance agreement. If you have no special structure for such decisions, the fallback is consensus. In any case, the decision submitted on your Consortium Fiscal Administration Declaration (CFAD), which is due May 2, is binding for all consortium members for the entire program year. It will apply to all AEBG funds distributed.

Q3: If we choose having a Fiscal Agent, will what was MOE in year one go to the Fiscal Agent, then sent to us?

A: Yes. If the consortium chooses to have a Fiscal Agent, all AEBG Allocations will go through that entity.

Q4: Can we have the Adult School amounts go directly to them, while the rest of the Consortium Allocation goes through the Fiscal Agent?

A: No, you must select either “Direct Funding” or “Fiscal Agent” for all the Consortium Funds.

Q5: In the direct funding model, is the state prepared to directly allocate funds to members who are not adult schools, such as community colleges and county offices also?

A: Yes. Members can receive direct allocations provided that they spend the AEBG in the seven program areas, based on a plan approved by members at a public meeting.

Q6: Is the amount of an administrative fee charged to the consortium by a Fiscal Agent considered "guaranteed funding", i.e., funds apportioned to a member of that consortium in the immediately preceding fiscal year that cannot be reduced.

A: No, according to AB104 legislation, a consortium may use up to 5% for the administration of the consortium. Administrative activities are mostly fiscal in nature. There is no guaranteed fiscal agent funding as those administrative costs must be discussed by members when making the decision on who will be responsible for administration of the consortium and the cost associated with those activities. Also, the consortium can decide to hire a different fiscal agent or opt for direct funding, which in turn may change the cost of administrating the consortium.

Q7: Our consortium set aside a significant amount of our consortium funds this year for common costs, and these are currently housed with a fiscal agent. If we decide to go with direct funding, where will those funds be distributed since they are not attached to any specific member district?

A: In the direct funding model, members would have to decide how they will manage the administration of the consortium. Who is going to manage the program side? Who will be responsible for those fiscal activities at the consortium level? How will the consortium report to the State? In some cases, members in the consortium have agreed to take on those responsibilities (along with funding to support it). A non-financial MOU would be important to have in place in order to have member agreement on who is responsible for what activities, the requirements, and deadlines.


Q1: Which is better for getting funding “on the ground” and meeting the goals of AEBG – fiscal agent or direct funding? (added 4.06.16)

A: In some instances, Direct Funding is quicker in getting the funding directly to consortia members. However, some State officials and some consortia state that having a common fiscal agent has encouraged better collaboration within the consortia and are satisfied with this process. Both models, Direct funding or Fiscal Agent, require a MOU (financial or non-financial) in order to clarify the fiscal and programmatic responsibilities of the consortium and its members. Our goal is to both get funds “on the ground” to programs that benefit students as quickly as possible AND to foster collaboration between providers to improve coordination and alignment of services.


Q1: If we (the consortium) want to change the fiscal agent, can it be any member of the consortium?

A: Yes.

Q2: It has to be a unanimous vote to change the fiscal agent, correct?

A: No, you will use your governance plan and agreed upon decision making process when making consortium decisions. Only changes to member allocations needs to be unanimous, per AB104.

Q3: I heard a rumor that through the CFAD, consortia can vote to have MOE funds be directly funded to K12's and consortia funds to be allocated through fiscal agent if there is one. Is this true?

A: No – consortia can only opt for one of two fiscal models – direct funding or fiscal agent model. A consortium cannot vote to have MOE funds be directly funded to K-12 and consortium funds be allocated through the fiscal agent. Two things to keep in mind- 1) the "no less than prior year" rule for funding consortium members (unless changes are unanimously agreed to) continues into Year 2, and 2) there is no longer a distinction between MOE and consortia funds. MOE and consortia funds were always all AEBG funds and the distinction was a Year 1 phenomenon only. Neither the CFAD nor the role of the fiscal agent have an effect on this.


Q1: What happens if our consortium votes for continued use of a Fiscal Agent, but in October 2016 decides that Direct Funding is a better route. Are we able to make that change then?

A: Once the CFAD is submitted (no later than May 2 at 11:59 pm) the choice is fixed for the year. Your consortium will have to wait to make changes until the following year.

Q2: What is happening with the Assembly Bill that would require direct funding for all consortia in the state?

A: The bill was pulled and is no longer moving forward.

Q3: If a Fiscal agent is selected, can allocations be revised later in the year with consortium approval?

A: Allocations to consortia members from the state are set for the year after May 2, but consortium members can subcontract with each other to move funds as needed. This is the case regardless of whether the consortium has chosen fiscal agent or direct funding.

Q4: We have reached agreement in our consortium to change which member will be providing the fiscal agent services and we will be moving money to that member for this service. Because of this, it will look like we reduced the funds to the first member. How do we describe this in the CFAD?

A: Please note it in the narrative part of the CFAD to explain why the member’s allocation is below the prior year’s funding level.

Q5: For the CFAD, is it possible to have 2 certifying agents or can there only be one (when it comes to financial info)?

A:  To be clear, we at the state are not using the term “certifying agent.” There may be many people that help roll up the member’s expenditure and budget information, but there should be one Fiscal Agent or Fiscal Coordinator (for those doing Direct Funding) for the consortium. On the CFAD you may list more than one person, but realize that the State really wants one person to talk to about fiscal matters at the consortium level. Keep in mind, that depending on how your consortium is structured, you may or may not have a fiscal agent.  You may only need a fiscal coordinator for the consortium, while each member has its own certifying fiscal agent separately in their organization.  This will vary from region to region.


 - Allowable Expenditures



Q1: Since the new allocation table does not distinguish between MOE and Consortium Funds (they are together as Consortium Funds) does that mean that the consortium will need to track the spending separately for the purposes of reporting? For example, our understanding has been that MOE could be used for instructional and operational costs but that we cannot use AEBG money to fund on-going operational and instructional costs. Is that correct? And if so, will we need to identify the funding stream in our reporting going forward?

A: Consortium Funds and MOE funds were always available for all allowable activities necessary for implementation of your Three-Year and Annual Plans. In other words, you have always been able to use Consortium Funds for operational and instructional costs, and that will continue to be the case. If is always good to enhance your funding through seeking grants and leveraging, but it is not impacted by the unification of MOE with Consortium Funds into one fund. For information on tracking expenditures see the updated AEBG Program Guidance on the For AEBG Grantees tab on the webpage.

Q2: If an adult service provider has been using reserve funds to supplement the money allotted to them and those funds have run out, would it be considered supplanting if the consortium decided to give the member AEBG funds to continue with their programs, with the recommendation that in a year the consortium could go back and review if these funds need to be allocated to the school again?

A: In the case of a K-12 adult school that didn’t have dedicated funding in prior years, this would not be considered supplanting. However, if that school is also receiving Perkins, CalWORKS, WIOA or other fund sources – and replaces that with AEBG funds – then there could be a supplanting issue. In the case of a community college that has receive apportionment for courses in the seven AEBG program areas, and replaces that apportionment with AEBG funds - then there could be a supplanting issue.

However, if in 15-16 the member used only reserves and received no MOE or Non-MOE funding, it may be difficult to receive AEBG funding in 16-17 unless other consortium members agree to give them funding from their allocations.

Q3: On the issue of continuing consortium funding for a new consortium (shared) program or service or individually supporting consortium work, should we anticipate that the state may eventually ask us to review this in terms of no longer being "new" and supported by consortium funding (supplant vs. supplement)?

A: See the response in Q2.

Q4: I have a member inquiring about allowable expenses. Can AEBG funds be used for food for ESL graduation?

A: It is unlikely to approved expenditures for light refreshments and entertainment. We would need to know more about what you are proposing. Please email the AEBG Office with more detail.

Q5: Can we use consortium money to feed our consortium members during our monthly AEBG meetings correct?

A: Yes – meeting supplies are allowable.

Q6: Can we pay for food outside of meeting?

A: No. The focus must be on AEBG planning and implementation activities.

Q7: Can we use the funds to pay for citizenship applications?

A: USIS will assist with payment for low income citizenship and naturalization applicants. They have a sliding scale. There are also other resources out there that may be offered by other partners in your region.

Q8: Can we pay for food that is used in Meet and Greet to market our consortium?

A: If the meeting involves AEBG planning and the implementation of activities – it would be allowable to purchase meeting supplies.


Q1: I know that in order to assist students with GED cost we need to check with the rules at our local level, but are aware of the issues with “gifting public funds.” What are some ways you were able to legally and ethically pay for GED/HiSet vouchers without giving the money to the student?

A: Some have ordered a block of GED voucher codes and the teachers distribute them to students who are ready to take practice tests. They have pre-purchased the vouchers and establish a procedure/process for "awarding" the voucher to the student so no cash goes to students. Some use private foundation grants and other county resources to support the students who cannot afford to take GED and Industry Certification tests.

Q2: Are any consortia using AEBG funds to support their test centers, like Pearson Vue or HiSet?

A: We are setting up a chat feature on the AEBG website where you will be able to pose questions like this to colleagues in other consortia around the state. Supportive services are allowable provided that they do not violate any existing State regulation, or local policy and procedure of the member district.  Also, any expense of AEBG funds must be agreed to by members at a public meeting, and included in your annual plan reflecting the 3 year vision of that effort. (4/21/16)

Q3: Is there an issue with districts using funds for staff for HSE programs if they are collecting student fees? Do they have to be paying for the positions out of student fee income? Have been using general funds - which are so small, and going to disappear soon.

A: There would be an issue if the district is supplanting AEBG funds that were used last year by another fund source.  Also, there may be an issue if the district is violating the State policy on fees or any local policy and procedures.  Finally, any expense of AEBG funds must be agreed to by members at a public meeting, and included in your annual plan reflecting the 3 year vision of that effort. Please keep in mind that AEBG students must be 18 years old or older.


Q1: If we are going Fiscal Agent, can we leave some funds with the FA? And if so, how do we separate them from the member's allocation if the FA is also a member receiving an allocation?

A: Yes, you can retain funds for common consortium level costs. How you do that is controlled locally. Some consortia add the dollar amount to the member’s allocation and track that amount separately e.g. through an Excel spreadsheet.

Q2: Will it be possible to reflect encumbered funds from 15-16 that haven't been expended yet, to at least show that the 15-16 funds are being utilized?

A: The state system does not have a feature to show encumbered but un-expended funds in the year- end report. You can identify encumbered funds carried over from Year 1 being utilized when submitting your Year 2 Plan.

Q3: Where are the detailed expenditure report templates/forms? With revision due May 15th, we should have clear direction.

A: AEBG has an online system that allows consortia to report every 6 months expenditures and progress.  The primary lead has the password to access these online forms. AEBG also has an annual reporting process that allows consortia to report individual consortium and member annual expenditures by program, by objective, and by object code. The annual plan for Year 2 has been posted to the AEBG website.

Q4: For the June 20th 15-16 Expenditures Report: Can you clarify what this report is? How does this report interact with respect to allocations with CFAD and the Year 2 Annual Plan?

A: The June 20th deadline for 15-16 Budget Revision is only for the online system changes.  The online system reflect actual expenditures for the 15-16 apportionment at the consortium level.  This is the same online system used for the AB86 allocation.  And will be used for the 16-17 apportionment.  Each consortium primary lead has a password to access this system.


Q1: When we say operational funds, do adult schools need to make sure that all expenditures under AEBG align with the consortium plan - salaries, building repairs, toilet paper?

A: Yes. What can’t happen is that the funds are used outside the AEBG purposes and programs.


 - Administration & Indirect



Q1: What about indirect? Will the fiscal agent get 5% of the total including what used to be MOE?

A: The amounts for administration and indirect are outlined in the updated AEBG Program Guidance on the AEBG Resources webpage.   “Indirect” is for membership level and “administrative” applies to the fiscal agents or the entity/person that will be responsible for the consortium level administrative activities. Don’t confuse consortium administrative activities with indirect – different rules, different definitions. See the AEBG Program Guidance for 2016-17 on the AEBG Resources webpage.

Q2: In the 16-17 allocation and beyond, the 5% admin would be included in the total consortium allocation, right? This could be considered a huge amount to only the fiscal agent and not recognize individual district administrative costs. Is it possible to get some guidance on what admin costs can cover earlier than a few weeks?

A: Yes – the consortia amounts will be larger in 16-17. AB104 legislation allows for a 5% cap related to consortium administrative activities (mostly fiscal type). Members that receive funding will also be able to charge their indirect rate. See the FAQs and link to the indirect rate and its definition. The AEBG Office advises that each consortium discuss the activities and cost for administration of the consortium before making a decision on who is responsible and how much that amount will be. For more information see the updated AEBG Program Guidance.


Q1: Can we agree for one member to have more funds to pay for the office, etc.? (added 3.28.16)

A: As long as it is a unanimous consortium agreement, yes. The allocation schedule could be different year to year, depending on your consortium agreements. But the 5% total administration cap for the consortium level activities still applies.

Q2: So if we had a fiscal agent this year which received the 5% administration, and there is a decision not to have a fiscal agent, would that 5% necessarily be part of the "prior year allocation" as directed in AB104? (added 3.28.16)

A: According to AB104, the total amount received by a consortium member in the prior year is what they would receive in the following year, unless the consortium is in agreement to change it. Since fiscal agent costs are not broken out separately in the Allocation Schedule there is no formal way to differentiate that amount. Whatever amount a member receives, it has to go to implementing your AEBG plan and meeting your goals. But keep in mind, fiscal agent or not, the members are responsible to fund the consortium administrative activities and provide a point of contact to the State.

Q3: If a member refuses to give up the 5% admin? Would AB104 allow that? (added 3.28.16)

A: Members receive the same amount of AEBG funds as they received in the prior year. If a member received funding in 15-16 to administer the consortium and now that has changed – those funds are now available to be used for AEBG program related activities. If the consortium has agreed to make changes re: Fiscal Agent or “AEBG coordinator,” it is allowable if all membership agrees to this change.

Q4: So in essence, the consortium can take 2 hits: 1) admin for up to 5% and 2) indirect per each member? (added 3.28.16)

A: Yes, that is possible. However, we need to maximize resources that go directly to students if we want to achieve the goals of AEBG and keep, or even grow the funding. While having adequate admin resource to operate the program is necessary, it is important that the maximum amount possible goes to direct services to students.


Q1: Are “all” LEAs able charge indirect costs or does that apply only to direct funded LEAs? (added 4.01.16)

A: Please see the updated program guidance on this topic at: (updated 3/17/16, pages 13 and 14). Make sure you don’t confuse the administrative cap of 5% at the consortium level with the indirect rate allowed by members to be charged on AEBG funds received – we are discussing two different levels. One level is at the consortium level , for consortium administrative activities (as referenced in the AEBG program Guidance), and the other level is at the member level. So when a member receives AEBG funds for activities put forth in the annual plan, the member district can charge the approved indirect rate.


Q1: Can an administrative fee charged by the fiscal agent be considered an administrative expense for the consortium?

A: Please review the Program Guidance for allowable administrative expenditures.

Q2: Are the salary and benefits of the Block Grant Project Director considered an administrative expense for the consortium? How about the salary and benefits of a Project Lead/Co-chair? How about PT support staff?

A: Only administrative activities can be charged to administration. Almost all duties defined as “administrative” are considered fiscal type activities per the AB104 program guidance. Who performs these duties is not relevant.  A project director, or co-lead, or part-time staff might also have other programmatic duties and those cannot be charged to administration. You will have to keep track of time and effort for administration charges based on allowable administrative activities for all staff who perform them. Please review the Program Guidance for details

Q3: We are changing fiscal agents, so the change in 5% admin costs is shifting from 1 member to another. On the CFAD allocation it looks like the former fiscal agent funds are being reduced (allocation is in the red) because of the shift in admin costs. Is that going to be a problem?

A: No – so long as the consortium documents and provides a clear explanation for why this decision was taken.

Q4: We are changing to direct funding next year, but my institution will be overseeing the hiring and funds for the consortium project manager. I'm still confused about the indirect for this. Can we add indirect that our college charges on to the cost of the project manager?

A: No – consortium administrative activities are limited to the 5% cap whether you have a fiscal agent or are direct funded.  If you are going direct funding, you will still need a person to administer the activities of the consortium per the program guidance. Your consortium will have to figure out how to pool resources to pay for those consortium level activities.  A member’s indirect is to be used at the member level for those indirect type activities.  Be careful not to confuse consortium administrative costs with a member level indirect costs. Please review the Program Guidance for additional information.


 - Other Consortia Costs



Q1: How do we account for "consortium-wide" support that is not administration? For example, a member could be assigned funding for a counselor to support multiple members. That would not be counted within the "5%" admin, correct? (added 3.28.16)

A: Counseling services to students are direct services and are considered a program expense, not administration. That would be a cost shared between the consortium members.

Q2: Is a consortium coordinator counted as part of the 5% Admin? (added 3.28.16)

A: This would depend on the consortium coordinator activities. In some cases, the consortium coordinator may be responsible for some administrative type activities. Please see Program Guidance for a complete list of consortium administrative activities, and a list of consortium coordinator activities. Each consortium operates differently, so there may be overlap.


Q3: Are there any statewide AEBG activities in the rest of 15-16 or 16-17 of which we should be aware, e.g. conferences in Sacramento? We want to make sure those are in our plans/budgets. (added 3.28.16)

A: There will be a state AEBG Summit in October, and possibly one in the spring, both in Sacramento. Neil and Carmen will also be doing a session at CASAS Summer Institute in June, and the CCAE (San Francisco) in the spring (April 21-22). There may also be conferences for related programs that are important to AEBG, such as CalWorks/San Francisco (April 11-12). We are looking into creating a bulletin board on the AEBG Grantees webpage where consortia can share such events with their colleagues.

Q4: Can AEBG notify us of state conferences that relate to our AEBG work (e.g., WBD, DSS, CC Basic Skills, etc.)? (added 3.28.16)

A: Once we have the bulletin board function up on the website, state staff can contribute information about meetings and conferences of interest, but we need the help of the consortia for posting information they come in contact with to make the resource comprehensive and keep it current.

Q5: Will there be regional technical assistance workshops? (added 3.28.16)

A: With such a small state staff right now we don’t anticipate being able to do regional workshops in the coming year. We may be able to do themed online workshops that consortium teams could attend together. We will keep you posted on this. Also, if you have regional meetings we may be able to “beam in” via online conferencing for presentations or Q&A. Our schedules are tight so we would need to coordinate in advance to make this workable. In addition, there will be an online/chat forum feature on the AEBG website. We will announce when it is available.


 - Budget Revisions



Q1: Regarding 10% being a possible threshold at which fiscal revisions are required, is that between objectives or program areas?

A: The online system expenditures must reflect actual amounts for each 6 month reporting period (it’s a cumulative reporting system). 


Q1: I'm looking for more info on the June 20th budget revise and can't seem to find details on the AEBG website. Where should I look?

A: It is in the online system under the Budget Change feature, just like it was under AB86. Please note, the June 20th due date for misweb budget revision is for your AEBG budget changes prior to the expense report due in July. If you have made changes, you will need to update your misweb budget.

Q2: Will our online budget reporting totals be updated to reflect our 15-16 actual totals before the June ending?

A: Your July report should reflect your reported expenses to date. You can revise that budget by June 20th. The next expense report for 15-16 funds after July will be due in January 2017.

Q3: Will we be able to revise the 15-16 budget again before the January 2017 report is due?

A: Yes, revision for that period will be due Dec. 20th.

Q4: If a budget change does not require a plan change, is there anything required beyond the budget revision due 6/20?

A: No, nothing more as long as the budget change does not necessitate a plan change.


 - Supplanting



Q1: Since all the $$ is AEBG $$, isn't the supplanting issue dead? Adult Ed programs will not get anything other than base funding AEBG dollars, though maybe individuals will have specific/other grants. What could we possible be supplanting? Does it matter if it is all coming through a fiscal agent or not?

A: Supplanting is not a dead issue. It can be an issue and it doesn’t matter whether the funds are coming through a fiscal agent or through direct funding. Supplanting could happen if you are replacing programs that were funded were other fund sources (like WIOA, Perkins, CalWORKS, Apportionment, etc.) with AEBG funds.

Q2: Can you provide additional guidelines on supplanting of grant funds? Or direct us to a proper site.

A: Please check the AEBG Program Guidance and Allowable Uses on the AEBG website.


 - Fiscal Reporting



Q1: When will the formats for the progress reports & expenditures be released?

A: We are using the same progress report and expense format online like we did for the past 1.5 years. You can submit your report any time.

Q2: Would you please clarify the use of carryover 15-16 funds? We can spend it on the 15-16 plan activities, correct? We don't have to create new activities to spend it on?

A: Yes, you have to spend them on 2015-16 activities. If 2015-16 funds are spent on additional/new activities, your consortia’s 2015-16 Annual Plan needs to be revised or amended to reflect such changes.

Q3: We will keep 6391 for 15-16 unspent funds?

A: Yes – K-12 districts should still use Resource Code 6391 for tracking 15-16 AEBG funding.

Q4: Should we use indirect rate for 15/16 or 16/17? (Data & Accountability Funds)

A: Yes – fiscal agents for Data and Accountability funds can use their approved indirect rate.  Budgets & Workplans wills be due December 20, 2016.

Q5: Question regarding 15-16 expenditures: are these the total spent not "actual" (but, actual) or the amounts spent + amounts encumbered?

A: For 15-16 annual plan expenditures, we would like to see your best estimate for the amount spent – by program, by objective, and by object code.  For the 15-16 online system - we need to see actual expenditures by object code.

Q6: So carryover shouldn't be included in 16 - 17 estimated expenditures.

A: Correct – do not include any 15-16 remaining or carry over funds in your 16-17 budget projection/ estimated expenditures.

Q7: So only fiscal agents will be reporting budget revisions, but consortium coordinators will report individual member data, correct?

A: The online system expense & progress reporting (completed every six months) is completed at the consortium level by the designated consortium coordinator. The coordinators will work with each individual member to obtain the necessary financial information and progress.

Q8: Will we need to break down 5000 by object code for expenditures by "partners" (i.e., CBOs)?

A: No – if you allocate using the 5000’s or 7000’s object code in the online system – the AEBG Office doesn’t need to have a breakdown of how those funds were spent.  But in the annual plan, each member will have to break down their AEBG expenses (MOE & Non-MOE) by program area, by objective, and by object code.

Q9: What if we paid out in category 5000, and the member bought computer equipment that belongs to the consortium, should that be reported in the online budget as equipment later in #6000?

A: No – report object code 5000 expenses summarized under that object code (5000).  No need to break out those expenses in the online expenses & progress report – due every six month.  This is different than the annual plan report which does ask for the breakout.

Q10: In the annual plan, if there is carryover, will they give a best estimate of using the remaining of 15 16 funds, and then give a best estimate of the 16-17 funds as well?

A: No – in the 16-17 annual plan, we ask for 15-16 to date expenditures by program, by objective, and by object code.  We also ask for 16-17 planned expenditures by program area & objective.  You won’t have to submit 16-17 budget by object code until the Fall.  For the remaining 15-16 carry over funds – use the online expense & reporting system to revise your budget going into next year, and update your 15-16 annual plan to reflect how those funds will be spent.

Q11: Does the CBO need to detail out actuals by object code in the annual plan?

A: Depends on how the CBO was funded.  If the CBO is a subcontractor – then they would be rolled up under their fiscal agents expenses based on how they were funded (like object code 5000).

Q12: Do we have to report anything for 15-16 MOE funds?

A: MOE funded activities for AEBG (along with the rest of AEBG funded activities) will be reported in as part of 16-17 Annual Plan. Expenditures for both will be reported in the Expenditure Report tables.

Q13: You said to keep Data Collection money separate from other pots. Does that include the unspent 15-16 monies we are receiving? The two are joined and kept separate?

A: The Data and Accountability funding will be tracked separately, having its own grant code, expenditure and progress report – separate from every of AEBG funding pot. Though activities with the Annual Plans may overlap but the budgets etc. will be done separately.

Q14: Can 2015/16 budget revisions also be made prior to 3rd reporting period?

A: Yes.

Q15: Member districts and subcontractors expenditures are ALL reported in the 5's?

A: If that is how you distributed the funds, then that is how you would report it. Use the object codes as indicated in your budget.

Q16: When will the portal be open for budget revisions?

A: There is no portal for budget revisions. We use the Online Financial System (misweb), which is based on the CC Chancellor’s Office system, for this. Contact Neil if you have trouble getting into the Online Financial System. We can put a link to the Online Financial System from the portal. We intend to move to a single system eventually, but we are not there yet.

Q17: I don't have to break down how they spent their money individually?

A: You don’t have to break down expenditures individually in the Online Financial System but such information is gathered in the Annual Plan. In each year’s Annual Plan, each member will break down how they expend their resources by object code, by program and by objective, per the Workbooks provided. This will required every August as part of the Annual Plan process.

Q18: As the fiscal agent, I only report any money I pass-thru to members under 5000 object if that is the object I used to pass-thru the money, correct?

A: Yes, that’s correct.

Q19: When do we submit the consortium 16/17 budget on the state Online Financial System?

A: Expect it in October 2016.


Q1: Regarding expenditure reports: 1) Capital Outlay - AEBG descriptions of what falls under 6000 are very different from most districts, who put any equipment or software that costs less than $5,000 per unit under 4000 Supplies & Materials. How should we code these?

A: Follow your district policies and procedures for coding your expenses. These fiscal reports in the online system (Chancellor’s Office) are auditable – so use your district’s/fiscal agent’s policies and procedures for reporting.



 - General



Q1: How long to you expect we will continue to get AEBG funding? For example, if we implement a new program via our annual plan in one year and keep it going the next two years using consortia funds, and then the three years of AEBG are up and the money disappears, that would make no sense for trying to grow and improve our programs.

A: Our best hope for keeping and growing this funding is documented success. As long as consortia throughout the state implement best practices for helping students meet the goals of AEBG, objectively track outcomes to document program improvement and student achievement, and coordinate, leverage and expend resources responsibly, we anticipate that this funding will continue well beyond the Three Year Plan.


 - CLASP Review of AEBG Implementation



Q1: It's GREAT to have CLASP involved! It will be great to have a perspective on our role in impacting poverty! Can everyone in the consortium fill it out, not just one representative? Can we include broad distribution, including "stakeholders" like community partners, academic senates etc.? It would be more useful. (added 4.06.16)

A: Thank you for your suggestions. CLASP will be looking at strategies to broaden the distribution of the survey.

Q2: Are you considering having focus groups from the field, beyond surveys and interviews? (added 4.06.16)

A: We will look into that.

Q3: Will the survey results inform the required report to the legislature? How will the state access your findings? (added 4.06.16)

A: The first AEBG Year 1 report to the Legislature is due in September 2016. The first draft of the CLASP report will be available in spring 2017. We will be able to share that with the Legislature as it becomes available, as well as incorporate findings in our Year 2 report in September 2017.


Q1: Are the CLASP survey and the Implementation survey the same thing? I thought the CLASP survey was only to be completed by one person per consortium. Is there a link for the CLASP survey we could send to the membership with a reminder to participate?>

A: They are the same thing. All members of all consortia should have received the link to the survey. The link was sent directly to the Consortia Contacts that the AEBG office has listed. For additional questions or for additional information about your consortium’s submissions, please contact Judy Mortrude from CLASP at:



 - General



Q1: For "Part 1" of the Year 2 documents, we won't need to turn an "annual plan" that describes the use of the allocations to members?

A: Correct. Part 1, the Consortium Fiscal Administration Declaration (CFAD), is due on May 2. This document covers only fiscal and consortium administration, including the Allocation Schedule for members. Part 2, the 2016-17 AEBG Annual Plan (in which you will describe your Year 2 activities) will be due in July. Part 3, performance targets for Year 2 will be due in August.

Q2: Will there be a form similar to this year to describe Annual Plan activities then? When will it be due?

A: Yes. The Plan Template for 2016-17 will be very similar to the one for 2015-16. It will have a few additional questions regarding updates on what happened in Year 1, otherwise it is almost the same. It will be due in July, date TBD.

Q3: When do you anticipate being able to provide additional information regarding Part 3, setting performance targets?

A: The AEBG Office will release information and instructions related to the End of the Year data collection for Year 1 of the AEBG Program. We anticipate this information to be released by April (if not sooner). The instructions are very similar to the WIOA student demographics and performance outcome reporting and the National Reporting System (NRS) framework.

In August, the state will release data submitted for Year 1, to be used for setting performance target goals for Year 2. We are all aware that Year 1 data will not reflect a full year of activities because for the late start to the year and that much of the data will be “fuzzy” until we have a fully operational data collection and tracking system that all consortia are integrated with. The state is working with experts in the field and consortium members in a focus group to develop this system. It is expected that an AEBG Data Tracking system will be launched in the next few years. In Year 3 (2017-18), we hope to have our first full year of AEBG data.

Q4: Will the Annual Plan Guidance release be for all three parts?

A: There will be guidance documents release with each part separately – CFAD due May 2, Year 2 Annual Plan due in July, Year 2 Performance Targets due in August. In addition there is the updated AEBG Program Guidance on the AEBG Resources webpage that will be posted on this week which covers the overview of the program as well as fiscal guidance.

Q5: I'm hearing "governance and administration". Does that suggest we redo or create a new governance plan, different from what was submitted last Nov.?

A: Each year you will be asked to review your Governance structure and submit a form describing any changes. It would be a good idea for members to review their governance plan on an annual basis.

Q6: Is May 2 a hard deadline? We have our public meetings the first Wednesday of each month and would like our consortium to discuss this at our public meeting which would be May 4.

A: It is a hard deadline for the Consortium Fiscal Administration Declaration. It was set because of the timelines that the state needs to follow for the program year. The Annual Plan of activities, which provides more detail, will be due in July.

Q7: Is it correct that by May 2 we simply report total funding per member and in July we provide a more detailed breakdown of funding per member?

A: Yes.


Q1: What are the important due dates we need to be aware of? (added 3.28.16)

A: Here is an overview of the due dates:
- The CFAD is due May 2.
- Final revisions to Year 1 plans and/or budgets must be received by May 15.
- The Year 2 Plan will be due in July, the exact date TBD.
- Student data for Year 1 will be due August 1st


 - CFAD – Consortia Fiscal Administration Declaration



Q1: How do we submit member signatures in the electronic system? (added 3.28.16)

A: There are a couple of ways this can be done. One way is to print out the summary page with signatures blocks, then scan and upload the doc into the electronic system. All signatures should be condensed in a single document; we do not want to have multiple summaries with one signature per doc. Another way is to have signatures collected at a face to face meeting and signed on an iPad or similar device. We will provide instructions for this as we get closer to submission time.

Q2: How would you indicate in the CFAD, etc. that we have more than one member per organization at the table? (added 3.28.16)

A: Each consortium member organization has one designated representative for membership, though they can have multiple colleagues at discussions. Only the officially approved member can vote on decisions, unless the consortium decides otherwise. As far as the state is concerned, there is only the one officially approved representative for each member organization.

Your consortium governance plan will specify on proxy and/or substitutes. However, on the CFAD, please list only the member representative that was approved by the member’s local board.

Q3: We will have some personnel shifts due to retirements etc. which may change officially governing board representatives. Those changes may not be resolved until after May 2. Is that an issue with membership updates? (added 3.28.16)

A: Enter the current representative’s information into the CFAD for each member organization. When replacement representatives are identified, you can do a revision to provide the new person’s name and contact information. You will also be able to update member information in the Year 2 Plan which will be due in mid-July.

Q4: Can we add new members CFAD for 2016-17, if we know ahead of time? (added 3.28.16)

A: Yes.

Q5: Does the information upload for the AEBG documents (CFAD, Plan, etc.) have to be entered in one session or is there a save button so we may revisit and upload information over a couple of weeks before the deadline? (added 3.28.16)

A: The system has an auto-save, so you won’t lose anything when you close. When you sign on again, the system will pull up the information you entered earlier.


Q1: Can the CFAD be submitted on May 2nd? We meet the last Friday of the Month.

A: Yes, by 11:59pm on May 2.

Q2: Can you review how to drop and add new members in the CFAD?

A: In the CFAD, there's a button in the Member area for active/inactive, as well as the space to add new members. Members who become inactive are identified as such, but not removed from the record.  (If you have technical questions about using this feature, please email Greg Hill Jr at

Q3: For CFAD allocations, do we include MOE for 15-16? Or only consortium funds?

A: Both MOE and Consortium Funds are AEBG funds. For the 2015-16 funding level you will provide the combined total of both, by member.

Q4: Can the CFAD be printed to be shared at a public meeting?

A: Yes, it can. There's a link at the top of the page that will launch the print dialog box. We will look at the protocol for that print feature to make the font size more user-friendly.

Q5: Since separate signature sheets are not accepted for the CFAD or Annual Plan, can we combine those and still scan? We have members that can't attend meetings, 2 hours away, and we do email with scans.

A: So long as the signatures are combined into a single file, and it is clear that they have reviewed, agreed to, and are signing the current document (CFAD or Annual Plan), that should suffice.

Q6: When you say members’ signatures, you are referring to the voting members of the Consortia, right?

A: Yes, voting members and as defined by the legislation. 

Q7: After submission of the CFAD, will we receive confirmation that you've received the complete submission?

A: We will set up an auto-confirmation of receipt of your submission, not to be confused with approval. Approval of the CFAD will take a bit longer and there may be follow up questions. Confirmation of approval will be a separate notification.


Q1: Are "inactive members" required to sign and vote on CFAD?

A: This is a term specifically used in the CFAD. Active indicates current members who are participating in your AEBG implementation during the year in question. Inactive refers to former members who are not currently implementing your consortium’s AEBG plan. An inactive member would not be required to sign or vote on the CFAD.


 - Annual Plan Activities



Q1: So the school received their MOE this year but we should have added their activities into our annual plan?

A: Yes, regardless of whether last year’s funding was MOE or Non-MOE – it all falls under the Adult Education Block Grant. MOE and Non-MOE members are required to use the funding to implement their Three Year and Annual Plans. If a district’s activities are not reflected in the various plans, use the amendment process to update them.

Q2: If all consortium members are listed and a clear description of their programs/services is articulated in the 3 year plan, does that suffice for the 2015/16 plan inclusion?

A: No. It is necessary to describe the activities each year for all those receiving AEBG funds each year. The legislation requires a Three Year Plan and an Annual Plan for each of the three years. You will need to revise your 2015-16 Annual Plan to include all the activities funded by AEBG (both MOE and Consortium Funds) for that year.

Q3: We never included activities related to use of MOE money in our 2015-16 plan. That is what we have to do now? The budget, too?

A: You will need to do a revision to your 2015-16 Plan to include those activities. You will not have to revise the budget for 2015-16 for MOE, as that is done through the CDE system already.

Q4: Have the consortia that need to add MOE activities been notified?

A: Consortia are responsible for checking and addressing those themselves. They should know whether the activities supported by the MOE and Consortium funds are both represented in the Three Year and Annual Plans.

Q5: We did not include 2015-16 MOE $$ in the online reporting tool budget. We only entered a budget for Consortium Allocation. Were we supposed to enter MOE $$s into that budget?

A: MOE budgets are entered into the CDE system (SACS), and Consortium Allocations through the AEBG system. Regardless of the fund name, all activities support by AEBG funds (MOE and Consortium Funds) are required to be addressed the Three Year Plan and the Annual Plans.

Q6: When we did the research on gaps, MOE programs were already running and the gaps took them into account. How do we work this into the 2015-16 Plan?

A: Objective 4 is about filling gaps used for continuation of or expanding of "old activities." That should work for this.

Q7: I just took a quick look at my 2015-16 Plan. I don't see how to incorporate MOE activities into the plan since the objectives (4.1, 4.2, and so on) really relate to the goals of the AB 104, like acceleration, leveraging structures, and so on: new activities, not old ones.

A: Not all activities must be brand new. Addressing gaps in service can mean, for instance, reviving services that were reduced or eliminated in the recession. Working with Colleges to align curriculum and facilitate student transition, improve student support, etc. are just some of the many activities that align with the required objectives of the AEBG. To be clear, in all our webinars and throughout the documents for the Three-Year and Year Annual Plan it was emphasize that all AEBG funds – MOE and Consortia Funding – must support the implementation of the Consortium’s Three Year and Annual Plans.


Q1: What remedies are in place if a member uses funds for another purpose - i.e. funding activities or positions that should be funded with apportionment, instead to activities described in the annual plan? (added 4.06.16)

A: If a member is potentially in violation of AEBG regulations, the consortium lead or primary should be contacted. The primary lead is responsible for the consortium annual plan. A suggestion may be for this to be discussed at the next consortium member meeting and a review of the program guidance and allowable use guide. The consortium can also request technical assistance from the State in helping resolve this issue.

Q2: If for 2016/17 everyone is supposed to get at least what they received in 2015/16, how would that work if we have a fiscal agent taking 5% of our MOE? (added 4.06.16)

A: That depends. Who was the fiscal agent in 15-16? How much did it cost for them to administer the consortium related activities (see Program Guidance)? If you are keeping the same fiscal agent, then that is already built into the budget. But you still need to find out the real cost, because it might not require the entire 5%.

Fiscal agents are not necessarily “guaranteed” the same amount every year as stated in the legislation for members of a consortium. In other words, fiscal agents are not “protected members” of a consortium. These individuals and the amounts they receive can change (if the consortium votes on this change) and the percent negotiated for their services may also vary – it can be up to 5%, but does not “have” to be the full 5%. The amount paid to the fiscal agent would depend on the services rendered and terms and conditions negotiated with consortia.

On the other hand, if you go to Direct Funding, the consortium members would need to pool their resources together to pay the primary lead or designee for the cost of administering the consortium (which is still required under direct funding per all the State level deliverables). See Program Guidance for the list of those activities.


Q1: If we are putting MOE in the annual plan because it was left out of the original, do we separate it from the changes of our original plan?

A: The amount of MOE funding amounts should already be filled out in the Year 1 Plan in sections 3 and 5, as requested in the charts. In your revision for the Year 1 Plan regarding activities that the MOE is funding, you can note that these activities are from that source and those providers. Just submit the changes as a revision/amendment with member signature or consortium minutes approved by members.

Q2: Should the annual plans be detailed to include all expenditures or changes in strategies? We were asked not to be detailed and repeat the 3 year plan in the annual plan.

A: You are asked in the Year 2 plan to identify the KEY 3-5 strategies you are planning to implement to meet your 3-year goals. There will of course be many, many additional strategies that make up your implementation plan that you will want to share with members, partners and stakeholders for their feedback and input, but for the Year 2 Plan submission the state is just looking for the 3-5 high-level most-important strategies that will characterize your efforts to achieve the AEBG goals for that particular year.

Q3: Regarding the Year 2 Plan, am I correct that the plan will need to reflect what members are doing with their entire allocation (MOE&AEBG) since it is now one fund?

A: The Annual Plan was always supposed to include the AEBG activities for both MOE and Consortia Funds, as stated throughout the Year 1 Plan and Guidance. This continues to be the case.

Q4: If the 3-year plan indicated new ideas to implement, and the MOE portion of the AEBG was used to sustain what was already in process, we are wondering how the MOE directly links to the 3 Year plan?vA: AEBG funds are available to address gaps in services, either current or emerging. It can be used to stabilize services as efforts are made to make improvements in them through innovative approaches outlined in AB86 and AB104. These aspects work together – stabilizing and expanding services AND improving them for better student outcomes in alignment with the AEBG goals.

Q5: How can MOE be used to sustain programs without supplanting if another funding was used in the previous year?

A: The use of MOE funding for AEBG purposes is not considered supplanting.  The issue of supplanting may occur when members use AEBG funds to supplant an existing fund source (like apportionment, CalWORKS, Perkins, WIOA, SSSP, etc.).  Please see the first section of the AEBG Allowable Uses Guide posted on the AEBG website.


Q1: We had planned to have our public meeting to sign off on the 16-17 plan on June 21. However, I notice that we are to report on 15-16 expenditures in the 16-17 plan. Will that be an issue to finalize our 16-17 Plan before the end of the fiscal year (June 30)?

A: The 2016-17 Plan isn’t due until August 15th, so that should not be a problem.

Q2: Would we need to update our 3-Year Plan if we are adding to our 1 (2015-16) and 2 (2016-17) Year Plans? I can update after July 1 for the 3 Year Plan?

A: The 3-Year Plan is the big picture, so you would only make revisions to that if your big picture plan is changing. The Annual Plans have more detail, so it is more likely that changes would need to be made in those. If your 3-Year Plan is changing, please contact the AEBG office to discuss prior to submission.

Q3: When will you be sending out the 16-17 Annual Plan template?

A: Template has been on our website since May. The next step is to open the portal so the information can be entered and submitted. Our target data for opening the Annual Plan and the Data entry screens on portal is July 1.

Q4: When will you be sending out the 2016-2017 annual plan templates for each consortium with our auto-filled info so we can populate missing information? There have been multiple revisions. Will I only be able to see what the state has put in once the portal is up?

A: Templates have been on the website since last month – final version was released the first week of July.  Portal access was opened the second week of July.

Q5: Does the 16-17 Annual Plan template posted on the web have everything we need to work on in order to submit our Plan?

A: It contains virtually all of the information requests required for the Year 2 submission. However, there will be a couple of additional questions added to what is contained in the template posted in May. These questions will be released as soon as final language is confirmed. The questions aim at gathering input and information and should not in any way interfere with your consortia activities planning process. There were some last minute changes in Section 2 & Section 4 – so please use the final version posted the week of July 4th.

Q6: Will the signature process for the 2016-17 Annual Plan template be similar in the portal just like the CFAD?

A: The Primary Lead will certify that the all members have approved the Annual Plan, and retain the minutes of the public meeting where this approval occurred. The CFAD, being a financial document, required a different process. NOTE: It is important that true consensus of all members be reached and documented if we are to be able to use the Primary Lead’s certification going forward.


Q1: Section 4 question: It seems like there’s a section missing or something. Under Objective 3 we’re asked about 15-16 activities and then under the other Objectives we’re asked about 16-17 activities. We have to do those activities tables for every Objective for both 15-16 and 16-17, right?

A: For Section 4 - narrative on progress by objective, and then add new objectives & activities for 16-17. Use the narrative boxes to discuss the status of 15-16 activities, and we use the activities tables to list the new 16-17 activities.

Q2: I noticed you have to scroll down to select "save" the data vs auto save. Correct? Does the plan save between completing and certification?

A: Much of the form automatically saves upon entering values. However, just to be safe, you should be sure to manually save your work often.

Q3: Is there a character limit on the table entries?

A: Yes there is a word limit on the narrative.

Q4: What is add and delete for on the tables in section 4?

A: These links allow you to add or delete entries in the tables.

Q5: For Section 4, the previous 2016-17 Annual Plan Template we received gave us a page to answer the narrative questions. This revised version only gives us 200 words per objective. Is there a way for us to add more narrative if needed?

A: No, we limited the narrative for a specific reason.  The AEBG legislative report will contain a summary of each consortium.  Due to the space in the report, our office can only use so much information from each consortium – so please be succinct. If you want to provide us additional information on how your objectives are doing – please submit an AEBG Practice with Promise via our website highlighting that specific practice.

Q6: What would be an example of practices with promise? Can you explain what you are looking for?

A: Something that you would want a legislative member, the public, and/or policy makers to read about and justify giving adult education $500M each year.

Q7: Does the new template not have Section 6? Could you address Section 6: Levels of Service and Assessment of Effectiveness? Is this now part of the Student Data Report?

A: That is correct. The AEBG Office is not currently planning to collect this information in this plan.

Q8: Somehow I thought that some of the questions from 15-16 were also going to be auto-filled.

A: No – just the CFAD information will be auto-filled. Due to formatting and other changes, it was not possible to do any other auto-fill.

Q9: The Annual Plan for 2016-17 only reflects activities funded by 2016-17 allocation, correct? Or both 2015-16 and 2016-17 allocations?

A: The annual plan reflects the progress you have made in 15-16 and what you plan to do in 16-17 with the additional funding.


Q1: Regarding the Annual Plan: One question on the plan is regarding tools and vendors for assessment and data collection. We are still in the process of identifying vendors. Should we insert prospective vendors or leave this blank or TBA?

A: That's fine. Just let us know your progress and what you are looking at.

Q2: Are these student data tables found in the Year 2 Annual Plan, or is this solely applicable to the data collection grants?

A: The tables for the Year 2 Annual Plan for fiscal information only, not student data. The fiscal tables are due with the 16-17 Plan submission on 8/15. The 15-16 Student Data tables are due 8/8. The data collection grants are to help you meet the student data reporting requirements.


 - Plan Revisions



Q1: What type of changes to our Plans would we amend? Most of our plan proposed start up activities.

A: Please update your plans to reflect any major spending areas that you may have missed – like professional development, MOE activities, capital outlay, etc.

Q2: Revisions? Can you explain more on what that would be? Budget or Annual Plan? Both?

A: For 15-16, the non-MOE revisions would have to be reflected in your annual plan and your budget – provided that you moved money around to reflect that revision. For 15-16, for MOE revisions would only be reflected in the annual plan as MOE budgets are not reflected in the online AEBG system.


Q1: We are planning on going to Direct Funding with Project Manager housed with community college. I will complete the rollup and reporting. Is that allowable? May we claim admin % for that person? (added 4.06.16)

A: Depends on what activities are that you are claiming as administrative. Please see the updated Program Guidance (starts on page 13) for what you can claim as administrative activities (which are mostly fiscal in nature). Link to program guidance documents:

Q2: Will there be another apportionment agreement form sent to the consortiums? (added 4.06.16)

A: The Preliminary Allocation for 16-17 and 17-18 will be the only document with the allocations listed until the final allocations are released 15 days after the Governor signs the budget. We do not anticipate any changes between the preliminary allocation and the final allocation. Apportionment schedules will be released 30 days after the final allocations are posted. We encourage AEBG consortium members and fiscal agents to obtain local board approval now so that AEBG funding can be allocated locally when the school year begins for 16-17.

Q3: If a consortium wishes to change member allocation, must the vote be unanimous? (added 4.06.16)

A: We ask that if the consortium wishes to change a member allocation that they refer the AB104 legislation for restricting funding to members (see section 84914). If the three criteria listed in the AB104 legislation are not applicable to your member’s situation because the consortium wishes to pool resources for consortium wide activities, or shift member funds around from the prior year to meet current year needs, the State request that all members be in agreement for these types of changes. Evidence showing member agreement would be a signed CFAD.

Q4: If we continue with the preliminary allocation schedule, but it becomes clear as we begin implementing that member funding needs might be different than planned (if someone needs more or less), can we make budget transfers? (added 4.06.16)

A: Yes - Consortium members and/or fiscal agents may use their agreed upon subcontracting process for moving funding among members after the CFAD is submitted on May 2, 2016. Please refer to your consortium MOU that is in place among consortium members. If you do not have a consortium MOU, it is strongly recommended that you put one in place to define the responsibilities (financial and programmatically) of each of your members and how the consortium will operate per the State guidelines.

Q5: For funds not spent out of 2015-16, are those allocations fixed for each member as per the 15-16 plan and so those funds wouldn't go back into one pot to be reallocated? (added 4.06.16)

A: The 2015-16 AEBG funds that were allocated and not spent this year can be carried over into the next year. Those funds do not go back into the “pot” unless the consortium makes at least one of findings, per the AB104 legislation Section 84914: (A) The member no longer wishes to provide services consistent with the adult education plan. (B) The member cannot provide services that address the needs identified in the adult education plan. (C) The member has been consistently ineffective in providing services that address the needs identified in the adult education plan and reasonable interventions have not resulted in improvements.

Q6: Do we know yet if the 15-16 MOE has the same expiration date as the 15-16 Consortium Funding? 12/31/17? (added 4.06.16)

A: Please refer to the CDE Fiscal Division for questions related to MOE expiration. Non-MOE funding activities must end by 12/31/17. Final expenditure reports for AEBG 15-16 Non-MOE funding are due 1/31/18 with close processing through February/March 2018.

Q7: After July 1, all activities previously funded through MOE become a function of the consortium and need approval of the consortium board, correct? (added 4.06.16)

A: Yes. That is correct for 16-17 funding. MOE funding from 15-16 can be carried over into the next year. All AEBG funding is restricted funding (MOE & Non-MOE) and must follow the AB104 legislation related to program areas, member decision making, annual planning, 3 year planning, etc.

Q8: The MOE reporting updates are relatively new in that at the consortium level, and we were not aware of the need to track in detail. What do we need to do to comply with MOE reporting? Just ensure that they expenditures are in accordance with the 3 year and annual plans? So a rollup of MOE separate from consortium or together? (added 4.06.16)

A: Please refer to updated Program Guidance for details, but for MOE reporting the State requires that on an annual basis, each member with 15-16 MOE funding breaks it down with their budget & expenditures by program area, annual plan objective, and expenditure object code. Each year, MOE funding will be broken down this way until they are fully expended.

Q9: Will we be able to complete budget transfers for 15-16 through 2017, since we may have carryover? (added 4.06.16)

A: Yes. At the local level, transfer of funds may be accomplished by subcontracting. At the State level, for consortium level online reporting, continue to use the budget change feature.

Q10: When we speak of the transfer of funds, are we speaking of transfers between accounts within the 15-16 school year or a transfer of carry-over of funds from one year to the next?

It depends. There are many levels of transfers (see previous questions). For carry over funds, please check with your local accounting office if you wish to carry over funding into the next year. The State does not need to approve carry over funding into the next year, however 15-16 annual plans for those funds must be current.

Q11: Are there Extension forms for carryover from 2015-16? When are they due? (added 4.06.16)

A: Carrying over funds to the next year is a local process, so check with your local agency regarding how to access those funds in the new year. There are no state carry over forms. Please make sure your 15-16 annual plan is current and accurately reflects activities that you are funding in subsequent years.

Q12: When making transfers using Objects codes to identify impact won’t always show that something significant happened programmatically. For instance, paying deans instead of teachers would track in the same object code, but would be a significant change, no? (added 4.06.16)

A: Such program changes need to be documented in a plan revision as an amendment to your plan, as well as a budget revision. As you point out, this is not only a question of accounting, but also of intent.


Q1: What is the procedure for submitting revisions to our 2015-16 Annual Plans?

A: Please upload any revisions or changes to your annual plan via the AEBG portal.  Meeting minutes may be used in place of signatures if the change or revision is referenced in the minutes and agreed upon by members.  Deadline for revision is May 15, 2015.


Q1: How long before we hear back on a revision?

A: Revisions are conditionally approved upon receipt. If the state has questions or issues with the revision, we will get back to you within 7 to 10 days.


Q1: Did we have a due date for the updated three year plan later?

A: You may submit revisions to your 3 year plan, annual plan, governance, etc., through the year – with the final deadline each year being May 15th. The portal opens each year on July 1st for updates/amendments.

Q2: If we use minutes to reflect an approval of a change for the 15-16 Annual Plan, do the minutes I submit have to be approved minutes?

A: Yes.

Q3: Is it necessary to include the approved minutes in the upload, or is it sufficient to say that members must ensure they have evidence of formal approval?

A: The state needs the formal approved minutes, if those are provided instead of signatures. The form being used to submit revisions/amendments requires submitters to certify that the files they've uploaded have been formally approved.

Q4: Are we allowed to use a block signature sheet if we can't get all original signatures from the members, like was allowed for the Declaration?

A: You can use approved meeting minutes or a signed block signature sheet.

Q5: Do you want the signatures, plus the minutes from the meeting to show they were ok with the revisions for the annual plan 2015-2016?

A: There is no need for minutes if we have the signatures: Signatures OR Minutes — just one file.

Q6: Do we need to do another Governance document if we have changed funding models, or does the CFAD cover us?

A: Choice of fiscal organization shouldn't necessarily change governance. If governance structure has changed then, that change must be shared with the AEBG office through a revised Governance document submission.

Q7: If an expenditure by a member is different from an original proposal (e.g. developing a website vs. professional development), but the intent to achieve the objectives and generate outcomes is the same, does such a change need to be reflected in approved minutes and submitted to AEBG office? What guidelines are there to define "change"?

A: There can be issues with such changes, so you will need to submit the revision. Basic rule: Make sure that you have a clear plan and can verify that the activities carried forth with the designated AEBG funding is in alignment with your consortium’s approved annual plan.

Q8: Professional development and associate dean are both 1000 object code but the activity is very different, so that would clearly need to be approved by the whole consortium, in minutes, and reported by May 15, right?

A: Yes.

Q9: When can we revise Annual Plans after May 15th, since we will be using some of that money into the next year?

A: Starting July 1, 2016, revisions can start up again. You are right, the money follows the year in which the activities are taking place. This year’s activities -> this year’s revisions. Next year’s activities -> next year’s revisions. It is fine if activities are multi-year, but we need to have a clear relationship between when funds are expended and when the activities take place. The AEBG Office has to report accurate information to the legislature based on information received from consortia.

Q10: So if activities aren't changing but just the timeline, i.e. they will be completed or continue in 16-17, do we NOT have to do an amendment for those? What about “On-going” activities that are multi-year?

A: The Year 1 (2015-16) Plan should show the activities taking place in that year and the timeline should reflect that actual projected finish date, even if in another year. Timelines in Year 2 (2016-17) plan should reflect the reality of implementation in that year, as in the successive years. An “on-going” designation is not adequate.


 - Annual Plan Template



Q1: When will the Year 2 Annual Plan template be released?

A: We are hoping to release the template in the portal by the end of April.

Q2: Why is there an updated Governance Plan Template on the website (Reporting Toolkit)? If we have no changes in governance structure, do we just resubmit what we submitted at the beginning?

A: There are slight changes to the Governance Template (hence the new date), but nothing substantial. The Governance Plan needs to be reviewed by the consortium membership annually and Governance template needs to be filled out and signed and submitted annually. Though it is possible that there will be NO changes to the plan or the membership from year to year, it is unlikely. Annual submission of the signed Governance Plan is the evidence needed to show that all current members of the consortium are familiar with and in agreement on the consortium's governance structure.

Q3: I thought the CFAD is replacing the Governance Template.

A: No, they provide different kinds of information. The CFAD's information is time sensitive and is needed in May. There is more time available for gathering the Governance Information. This will be due July 15 with the Year 2 AEBG Plan.

Q4: Can we upload Bylaws instead of doing the Governance Template? Or do we have to do both?

A: The AEBG Governance Template is required. You may upload your by-laws but that is not required.

Q5: How are we to fill in the Funding by Objectives in the Annual Plan template? Projecting estimates is somewhat simpler than reporting expenditures. But I don't see how we can make these numbers exact. Much of the time, activities and expenditures address more than one objective. The same can be said for funding activities that benefit more than one program. The only audit sound reports that we would be able to generate now are expenditures by object code.

A: We understand the challenge and as we go forward, we are hoping to learn from your experiences on how to do this. To be clear - the requirement to project and report on expenditures by objective is a requirement of the legislature, not something the CDE and CCCCO came up with. The Legislators want to know to what extent and how funds are being spent to address the objectives put forth in AB86 and continued in AEBG per AB104. The strategies promoted in these objectives are the strategies they expect to see carried out in the consortia throughout the state. This is part of our accountability to legislators and taxpayers. We won't know the best way to meet this requirement until we try for a few cycles. One way to start can be to identify what objective or program benefits MOST from the activity. Expenditures by Object Code will also be collected.


 - Coordinating with Other Programs



Q1: Does anyone know if or when new WIOA dollars would come to Adult Ed (not talking about 231/225)? New call outs says AE is supporting the new WIOA plan, but will we get any new money that directly supports the new WIOA language?

A: For next year, the overall state budget for WIOA is approximately $92M. No discussion has taken place about adding more state funding for WIOA at this time. Note that there will be an open competition for WIOA funds in 17-18 and we are expecting many more applicants.

Q2: Isn't there some new funding for Integrated Education and Training under WIOA II?

A: Yes, and there are other funding sources that can be leveraged for this - Perkins, for example.

Q3: I'm happy to be a player and participant in all WIOA activities and on a WDB, but what I keep hearing is “What can Adult Ed do to contribute to support WIOA initiatives?” Does this mean - what do we have to leverage in in-kind dollars, to contribute? Not that we are getting any more money. So it seems that we are being asked to support WIOA from our block grant, but not getting any more funding to do so.

A: Many WIOA Title providers are feeling this same thing. Going forward we will convene opportunities to explore these issues. What we need here in CA is to make sure that our AEBG funds go to intended purposes, and to collaborate and leverage resources to serve more students better, more efficiently with all available funds. The WIOA Unified State Plan is really the place for the integration and interoperability of resources to be outlined. Some communities are successfully building positive relationships with their WDB partners with a shared focus on common purposes. That is the purpose of all these efforts.

Q4: If we are applying for WIOA funding as a consortia, how would that work?

A: The consortia option has always been available in WIA/WIOA. CDE will release instructions and guidance on WIOA funding applications.


 - Annual Plan Fiscal



Q1: For 15/16 expenditure reporting how do we address carryover funds that are not spent yet?

A: Update your 15-16 annual plan to reflect ongoing activities, revise your 15-16 budget, and report your expenses using the 15-16 fund code in the online system along with progress reports.

Q2: What about roll-over funds that we use in 16-17?

A: Your tables will show us remaining funds for 15-16. The tables will also show projected funding for 16-17. But you keep those tables separate – don’t co-mingle fund years in your tables even though they might be spent on similar activities.

Q3: Some of us will be receiving 15-16 money in 16-17. How do we track it?

A: Track it separately. Use separate annual plans. Separate reporting.

Q4: Do the 15-16 funds need to stay separated by MOE and Consortium funds when carried forward/rolled over?

A: In the annual plan tables (Section 3), each member that has received 15-16 MOE and/or Non-MOE (consortium) funding will be asked to report on budget/expenses by program area, by AEBG objective, and by object code.

Q5: On the 15/16 allocation templates we submitted last year, the admin fee was in a separate box. I notice the worksheets for this year do not have a separate box to enter the admin fee. Do we spread it over the program and objectives?

A: No – please keep all your consortium administrative costs (as listed in the program guidance & allowable uses) and the indirect costs from members in the administrative/indirect line item.  If you have overhead costs for program – you may use an allocation percentage to spread over the program areas.  But operational costs and admin/indirect are not the same thing.

Q6: Do the Program area budgets equal the objective total budgets?

A: Yes the bottom lines for Program Area, Objective, and Object Code should all be the same.

Q7: So the 15/16 plan money that is going into 16/17 is still tracked by the fiscal agent-we have opted for direct funding for 16/17?

A: Yes – your fiscal agent for 15-16 will be responsible for tracking the 15-16 expenses until these funds are exhausted.  That means filing online reports for the 15-16 funds, providing progress updates, and closing out the account in the spring of 2018. This is their responsibility, even if in 16-17 you are direct funded.

Q8: So, in order to track our funding, I will need to have a separate account for 15-16 MOE, 15-16 Consortium allocation, and 16-17 AEBG funds....correct?

A: Yes – but don’t forget - if you are the fiscal agent – a separate account is required for Data and Accountability funding too.

Q9: So for the program area and objectives tables, the indirect fees (for MOE in 15-16), just get absorbed into a program area or objective (not a separate line)?

A: No – you will have to report those on a separate line marked administration/indirect.

Q10: If you use your own previously created tools, do you just submit the consortium expenditure workbook?

A: No. If you are not planning to use the Consortium Expenditure Workbook to roll up and report your expenditures data, please reach out to the AEBG office to discuss your options.



 - General



Q1: Besides the question of spending down the funding for services, I understand that the Legislature also wants to know why the $25M for data systems isn't hitting the streets.

A: We will soon be releasing the overview of the AEBG Data Tracking System. CCCCO and CDE have been working with experts and focus group members to be sure that the system meets the goals of AEBG and utilizes current systems to reduce incidences of redundancy or disconnect. We are working with legislative staff to update them on what has been accomplished so far and our timeline for implementation.


 - Data & Student Outcomes Tracking



Q1: Continuing the conversation on the “data system that is coming" would you recommend that we go forward conservatively as we attempt to gather and coordinate data in our consortium? It seems like we could go deep (and spend a great deal of money) to create/develop something locally only to find it replaced by the system the state finally adopts....

A: The state has been working with experts and focus groups to develop the new AEBG Data System. We anticipate its release within the next few years. The first full year of data collection through that system will hopefully be in Year 3 of the AEBG. Consortia should do their best to track student outcomes based on local resources until within a few years.

Q2: Still having questions about how to track outcomes for the "parenting" - program 7? Is parenting the right term?

A: The legislation language does not say “parenting”, it says “... Programs for adults … that are primarily designed to develop knowledge and skills to assist elementary and secondary school children to succeed academically in school.” We shortened that to "Adults training to support child school success.” WIOA has family literacy outcomes that are similarly child education development focused, in addition to adult ed outcomes. This can provide a helpful common definition. It also depends on the program goals you have for your adults in these classes. For example, data has shown that Community Based English Tutoring results in an increased persistence among adult students, more course completion, and in some cases better jobs, an increase in high school diplomas, etc. So the AEBG outcomes will pick up these successful outcomes provided that your program is focused in that direction.

Q3: What about tracking outcomes for programs for immigrants (program 3)?

A: Immigrant integration outcomes can be identified as an outcome a consortium wants to track. AB104 does allow consortia to identify "additional outcomes – 6.3 in the Annual Plan." In the next version of the Annual Plan, there will be an optional item for reviewing these outcomes in Year 1. It will become permanent for tracking in Year 2.

Q4: Back to the LAO's testimony - what can the local consortia do to address the perceptions of AEBG "falling short" on assessment, common identifier, fee policies etc.?

A: The State is already working on many of these policy areas. However, consortia still have to work out some of the local/regional intake issues – assessment, appraisal, referrals, case notes, etc. with your local adult education members and partners. Continue working through these building blocks for regional alignment and share insights with the AEBG Office.

Q5: What does "opportunity" mean to help with the legislative impression? $$?

A: Consortia still have to work out some of the local/regional intake issues – assessment, appraisal, referrals, case notes, etc. with your local adult education members and partners. Continue working through these building blocks for regional alignment and share insights with the AEBG Office. This information can then be shared with the legislature to show our progress.


Q1: What are the expectations for how the data funds are to be used at the local level? How will this interface with what the state will be doing around Data for AEBG? Aren’t we supposed to coordinate the data systems we use so that they all communicate and we can get usable data to analyze?  How do we do that individually as consortia?

A: Along with the funding, you will receive AEBG Data Tracking System Guidance that will get everyone started on the same foot for next steps to be taken related to a coordinated system. At the same time, the state is working on how to pull all the pieces together from local consortia. We anticipate building on current systems and encourage you to do the same, while identifying what new pieces or processes need to be developed in order to get reliable and valid data that truly represents how your students are benefiting from your efforts and that can be used to make program improvements going forward.

An example of how one consortium is approaching this:  The Bay Area Community College Consortium (which is basically a "super region" of K12 and CC's) agreed to use these funds to develop a data system that will help them track transitions. They will hire a company to do the programming, guided by a sub-committee.


Q1: We're trying to get a head start on our data collection for the Annual Plan (section 6.2), and many of the items say "for those who had this goal in this program year." How are people getting info about students’ goals? Our students indicate their goal when they apply but it's not updated after that.

A: That information is collected locally and you will have to figure out how you will collect it to meet this requirement. It is a best practice to revisit goals regularly (at least annually) as students tend to change their goals as they learn more about their options and abilities. It is good that you are looking into how to do this now, but remember that we're not going to be collecting follow-up measures for 15-16. At the state, we are exploring cohort identification processes (i.e. “for those who had this goal in this program year”) for 16-17. More details to follow in the data instructions to be released in June.

Q2: Any suggestions on helping CC members understand what data to include and not include other than codes on instructions?

A: AEBG Program areas include for community college – basic skills (credit & noncredit), ESL (credit & noncredit), CTE (noncredit only), along with the three program areas (can be credit or noncredit). The codes are posted to help identify the courses.

Q3: For non-WIOA agencies, will we still need to report student enrollment and demographics?

A: Yes, AEBG Data Collection requirements, including student enrollment and demographics, are specifically for all programs receiving AEBG funds regardless if they receive WIOA funds or not.

Q4: Is reporting restricted to AEBG funded programs only?

A: Yes, reporting is restricted to AEBG programs only. All students participating in AEBG program areas, regardless of fund sources (e.g. WIOA), need to be included in consortia reporting.

Q5: Regarding the All Enrollment and Program Participation numbers, these are counts regardless of funding sources, correct?

A: Yes. Eventually we will get to the point where we can track with more detail, but this is what we are doing for Year 1. By AEBG program areas – regardless of fund source.

Q6: By course completion, do you mean individual class completion or entire pathway completion?

A: For non-WIOA students, this is for Individual class completion. See the AEBG Webinar PowerPoint from 6/3/2016 on our website for more information.

Q7: What is your definition of dislocated worker and displaced homemaker?

A: All barriers for AEBG map directly to WIOA. The definitions have been released and are in the AEBG Data and Accountability Instructions.  Draft tables will be released soon.

Q8: Would barriers to employment need to be documented with additional paperwork or just reported on an application?

A: No additional paperwork is needed for identifying these barriers. Student self-report is sufficient.

Q9: Will we be submitting the 15-16 data due Aug 1 through the portal template as well?

A: Yes. A template will be available to work from so you can see the tables, and the data itself will be submitted through the portal.

Q10: What the demographic categories will be for AEBG data collection?

A: The demographic data that will have to be collected will be the items typically collected in educational programs, and they align with WIOA. Those definitions are in the Data and Accountability Instructions.

Q11: Will a portion of the funds for regional data system development be used to drive a state-wide data system?

A: 15% of the Data and Accountability funding was retained at the state level for work on the statewide data system. The 85% that went to the consortia is for the purposes outline in your Data and Accountability grant, foremost to make sure each consortia develops a complete data collection and reporting system.

Q12: Do we report all students or only those courses that were funded from AEBG?

A: For 15-16, report all students in the seven AEBG program areas - regardless of fund source. So those could include students paid by AEBG funds, apportionment, LCFF, CalWORKS, Perkins, WIOA, and K-12 Jail Education funds.

Q13: Greg, will the demographic categories for age ranges be easy to pull out of our system, ASAP?

A: Yes.

Q14: What are the MIS Data codes for Total Adults Served in Instructional, Support services and Instructional programs?

A: They are in the Data Collection Guidance.

Q15: Even if the data templates are not live on the portal, can we get paper copies to begin filling them out?

A: We will get those out as soon as we can.


Q1: For Intake forms, is there a way that on the AEBG site agencies could share what they have? That way we could see what other agencies use for Intake/Registration forms.

A: The AEBG Office can request intake forms via the newsletter and post what we receive from consortia members on the AEBG website.

Q2: Why are the ages broken down this way?

A: The data system will enable us to analyze inputs and results for different groups of students – youth, older students, etc.

Q3: Some of our younger students are declining to indicate gender and/or race, or write in “other.” How should we handle that?

A: Report the information that you have collected.

Q4: What is the definition of "completer"?

A: Please see the 2015 – 16 Guidance Document for details. 

Q5: How is completion rate factored?

A: Courses Completed by Participants ÷ Participant Enrollments – i.e. the completion rate is calculated by dividing the number of courses completed by participant, by the number of courses attempted and in which the adult learner has achieved 12+ hours of instructional contact time OR where the adult learner received certificate of completion. Does that help? 

Q6: A student may come in and be 3 credits short in a subject and has already completed 7. When they complete the 3 credits is that considered course completion?

A: Course completion is described as follows: “for the purposes of the 15-16 reporting
year, K-12 and CCD members shall apply the definitions typically applied within their
respective systems for course completion”. In your example, if the student completed the course – meaning it meets your definition of course completion – than they would be counted as course completer.

Q7: So on table 8 Total participants is a duplicate count? So if I have 400 unduplicated, then it should be about 800 duplicate?

A: No. A “duplicated” count is a count of participation by enrollment. This differs from an “unduplicated” count, which would count individuals. For example, a student enrolled in four courses would be counted four times in a “duplicated” count. In an unduplicated count, this same student would only be counted once.

Q8: What is meant by date string?

A: It is just a way of saying date value entered as text.


 - Data and Accountability Instructions



Q1: What if an adult school doesn't have WIOA? Are these reporting requirements for AEBG programs?

A: Yes – we have released the student data reporting requirements for AEBG funded programs. They align with WIOA, but are not specifically for WIOA funded programs, as WIOA reporting is collected for the NRS using CASAS’s TopsPro system. The WIOA data will be collected at the state level and be part of the total picture of the AEBG-types of services provided in each community.  If you don’t have WIOA, you will be still be required to report on the items listed in the 15-16 student data instructions.

Q2: Is the list of reporting requirements shown in the slide for Year 2?

A: These reporting requirements are for Year 1 and going forward. They align with the directives in AB104 for the AEBG, and with the information provided in the AEBG Year 1 Plan for 2015-16, Section 6.

Q3: Regarding the “Total Adults Served” data points, should the sum of those who receive Instructional Services and Support Services be equal the total number of participants?

A: Ultimately, yes. The unduplicated count would most likely be equal to the total, but in the first year we may see anomalies that we will work through to clean up. A duplicated count of students would show those who get both instruction AND support services, which is another category that we will be viewing. NOTE: these counts are the total picture of community services, regardless of funding stream – i.e. a compilation of counts from WIOA, AEBG, Perkins, etc.

Q4: For “Total Students Served,” you only want the categories under AEBG, correct? You don't want community interest?

A: Yes – only AEBG services in the AEBG program areas.

Q5: “Total Adults Served” are only AEBG, not WIOA or MOE, Perkins, etc.?

A: Total Adults Served” includes all those receiving AEBG-type services (i.e. the program areas for the target population outlined in AB104). When we drill down to reporting data for AEBG funded programs that will include adults who received services through AEBG MOE and AEBG Consortium Allocation in Year 1. In Year 2, those two distinctions no longer exist. Again, all the funding for each of the three years of AEBG is from the same pot of money in AB104. All activities and student data that resulted from the use of AEBG MOE or Consortia Allocation are part of the total picture of effort and must be reported.

Q6: What do you consider support services? Would you include ESL placement assessment sessions?

A: Student services are described as orientation, assessment, academic and or career counseling/referrals.

Q7: For non-WIOA agencies, who will we be reporting to?

A: You will report data for non-WIOA students to the AEBG Office using the 15-16 student data collection instructions.

Q8: When will the AEBG office provide excel tables for student data collection to share with member agencies?

A: We are trying to get these out ASAP. No concrete timeline now, but we understand that the summer is approaching and hope to get those out as soon as possible.

Q9: Where will we need to submit the AEBG reporting data?

A: A: You will report through the AEBG Portal. You will soon get notification about when it will be released.  Note that student data is due August 1, 2016.

Q10: Will you be providing the field with a handy table to enter this data? It would be helpful to have as we begin to compile the data in the areas required for AEBG.

A: The data portal is in development and we will get data table information to you as soon as that is concluded.

Q11: If WIOA complaint with AEBG goals, I assume we can collect this data through TopsPro. Is that correct?

A: Yes, for WIOA students, data is collected through TopsPro. If your school has AEBG students not tracked in TopsPro, you would have to report them separately through the AEBG data system.

Q12: Does “Total Adults Served” regardless of fund source mean LCFF or other grant funded are included? There is some concern that the data will falsely reflect higher adult served numbers and that those figures might be used as a benchmark.

A: The parameters will still be AEBG parameters, regardless of funding stream. No one getting services outside of those activities will be included in the count. The figure is not intended to be a benchmark, but instead an illustration of what services are available in each community. The legislature is already looking at demographic data regarding community needs. We want to be able to show the big picture of total effort, of which AEBG is a part.

Q13: Do we disaggregate student counts of 1 hour of instruction and a second group of students served with 12 or more hours?

A: You will report into the AEBG data system the number of hours of instruction and/or student services each student receives. The system will disaggregate the data for 1-hour and 12+-hour cohorts.

Q14: The due date for the various state reports and data are most untimely. Our Adult schools in the region complete their services in May and are out until the last week of July with most school administrators back in August. The data template is not out and will not be out in time.

A: This is understood. We are working to get information out to you as quickly as we get it identified and confirmed by our agencies. We are looking at the timeline and will try to accommodate your time issues, as well as the requirements our agencies are under.

Q15: Do we have participants of 12 or more hours and a second category of students with between 1-11 hours?

A: Every hour a student receives services of any kind will be entered into the data system. Student groupings are analyzed by 1 hour and 12+ hour cohorts, and by the types of services they receive. As we get the data in and work with it, we plan to be able to make a range of queries in order to answer a variety of questions going forward (e.g. outcomes for students with different hour ranges, types of services, etc.). The raw data is what the schools will enter into the data-pot, so that we can all have the opportunity to slice and dice the information for different kinds of views of what is happening, and what is working, where and with whom.

Q16: What is the definition of Participants? Some will be students receiving instruction, others will be adults who receive only support services and never become students.

A: It would be correct to say “Adults” receiving services, which could be instructional or could be support services, or both. Some adults with only 1 hour could be students, but most would most likely be those receiving support services.

Q17: Are we able to include our concurrent high school students (who are also enrolled in adult school) in the number of participants?

A: Please contact the AEBG office to provide more information. In general, concurrently enrolled high school students would not be in AEBG counts. However, if the student is 18 years or older and enrolled in a AEBG Program area, they may qualify.

Q18: I understand we would only count participants over 18 but what if they are over 18 AND are generating apportionment - can they still be counted?

A: The 15-16 Student Data Collection process is to gather student data from the AEBG Program areas regardless of fund source. Many fund sources support the AEBG Program areas – like Perkins, CalWORKS, WIOA, Apportionment, LCFF, etc.

Q19: The single pregnant women demographic characteristic is new. We won't have it this year, since we didn’t know about it till now.

A: This was added to the parent piece and we know that there will be anomalies in the first year which will resolve as we go forward.

Q20: Will single pregnant women also need to meet the 18 year old threshold? CA Ed Code emancipates pregnant girls under 18.

A: AEBG legislation is clear about the age threshold of 18 years, old regardless of emancipation status.

Q21: Do they need to bring proof of disability status if they are disabled or we take their verbal words?

A: It is a local decision. We want ensure we can track students with actual disabilities. Generally speaking, proof is not required if the disabilities are self-reported or are identified though assessments they have received.

Q22: For program area participation, we will be reporting for 7 program areas, right?

A: Yes, as identified in AB104 for the AEBG. They are: ABE/ASE, ESL, CTE, Adults training for child school success, Programs for adults with disabilities, Workforce re-entry, and Pre-apprenticeship. Slide 7 of the webinar illustrates how these programs fit together and where they may also overlap.  

Q23: How long is a CTE short term course? How is short term determined?

A: Right now the way this is being defined is “non-credit that leads to recognized industry certification.” Under AB86, we defined this as short-term vocational programs with high employment potential consist of a course of study, or an organized sequence of courses leading to a vocational/career technical objective, certificate or award that is directly related to employment. For community colleges, any noncredit vocational course should be included.  Those leading to a certificate would be reported as CDCP.  Those that don't would be regular noncredit.

Q24: Where would you put an Excel class - in Workforce Reentry or CTE?

A: This can be determined locally depending on where you think they best fit.  Do not double report, though, or the counts will be off.

Q25: We had a 12 week CTE night class for Ag welding for adults at the K12 site and they received a certificate: non-credit short term CTE, no fees. Does this fit the CTE definition?

A: Yes.

Q26: Do we include credit basic skills and credit ESL in our numbers?

A: Non-credit and credit-non-transferable/non-degree-applicable are included.

Q27: If we have CBET (Community Based English Tutoring) classes on the K-12 school campuses. Should those numbers be reported as ESL Program participants or "Adult Training for Child School Success" courses?

A: This would be cross-program situation so each student would show in both categories in the duplicated count, but show up as one person in the un-duplicated count.  This could happen with integrated ESL-citizenship programs (services for immigrants), or integrated basic skills and technical training as well.

Q28: Do you have clarity on how or if we record any data on correctional facilities, with respect to COE?

A: Please contact the AEBG office to provide more information. In general, yes you can count them. They would be tagged when you do the demographic data for each student in this situation.


 - Data Development Allocation



Q1: Regarding the $25m for data collection that will be released in July, how will this be distributed?

A: 85% will go to consortia and 15% will stay at the state level.

Q2: Since this 85% of $25M for data and accountability is one-time money, it should not be used for personnel costs to manage and gather data, correct?

A: It can be used to launch a system but you are correct, it is one-time money and on-going operations should be based on on-going fund sources.

Q3: If we go Fiscal Agent, can all of the Data funding go to one entity then we decide on Data allocation later?

A: Yes, it can. That is the case whether you have chosen a fiscal agent or direct funding. But once received via apportionment, you would have to use a subcontracting or MOU process to move the funding among members. More details will be released soon.

Q4: Should the same processes (i.e. member approval and public comment) used for the consortia annual plan be used for the data and accountability disbursement?

A: The AEBG Office is working on a process.  For now, funding will be disbursed to fiscal agents and direct funded members with instructions for planning documents.  The submission of the planning documents will come later in the year and will require member approval and public comment.  Funding will be apportioned by June 30, 2016. Funding must be expended by December 31, 2017.  More details out soon.


Q1: For the data collection plan and budget submissions, please remember that many of us meet with our consortia boards once per month. Since the data funding is separate from the base fund funding, we will likely need new MOUs. That means local LEA boards will need time to take action as well. I recommend at least 60 days from the November Summit before anything is due back.

A: The money will be released to consortia in June. The AEBG Office does not encourage consortia to wait until the November AEBG Summit to begin the MOU process – that can be started right away. Consortia activities and expenditures may begin well before that November event. Guidance for the Data Collection funds will be released in June.

Q2: Are the unspent 15-16 AEBG dollars being added to the Data and Accountability Funding?

A: Yes. It was a small amount and it was added to this D&A fund. It was the only way the AEBG Office to get the $4.8M out to consortia without having to completely redo the CFADs.  So the two columns of funding on the Data &Accountability Allocations are Unspent & D/A funds – both will goes towards Data & Accountability objectives and activities.


 - Coordinating with Other Data Systems



Q: Has anyone been looking at using CCCApply to capture the data, since each consortium has a community college and community colleges use this for their student application system? CCCApply does capture "uninformed" student goals, which could be tweaked very easily for AEBG and WIOA reporting.

A: Regarding a common intake for data collection on common clients, we are still at the conceptual level. We will consult with stakeholders to examine the issues and options. WIOA Titles still have several systems in play and we will explore how to interface the systems. The details will emerge as work progresses.

Q: We have heard you mention WIOA alignment many times in your presentation. It sounds like looking at common metrics, assessments, intake, and data collecting/reporting is worthy of discussion in consortia. For WIOA funded agencies that includes CASAS, TopsEnterprise for federal reporting. Is that the direction AEBG is headed?

A:  In terms of common metrics, the state Workforce Board’s position is that the WIOA metrics have established credibility as they were developed over a long period of time in response to research by workforce professionals, and they are similar to the AEBG metrics. It makes sense to use common metrics for things that are intended for a common of purposes, e.g. skills gains across systems should use the same definitions, etc., in addition to metrics uniquely needed by different systems for their separate purposes. We know that this is the direction grants and programs that are federally funded will go when rolled out to the states. It makes sense to proactively set ourselves up to use a common metrics going forward. Regarding CASAS, the state Workforce Board isn’t recommending any particular assessment tools, but encourages consortia to find ways to avoid duplication.  The primary consideration is to identify WHAT we want systems achieve, and then how to best do that (with what tools or vendors).

Q: What recommendations do you have for consortia working on shared data systems?

A: Use something flexible that you will be able to change with or from. Don’t lock yourself in to something until we have more clarity from the state level regarding WHAT we want to achieve. That will guide what actions and tools can be implemented to achieve it going forward. Adaptability is the primary consideration.

Q: There may be a problem processing undocumented and ESL students through CCCApply. Do you have suggestions on how to approach this?

A: First and foremost, it is important to remember that Federal law does not require social security numbers (SSNs) to access services for many of the involved programs. That is separate from the data tracking issues. Federal and state agencies want us to use the base wage files, employment and wage data systems, as much as possible for tracking outcomes. However, those are based on SSNs. Federal rules also allow for “supplemental wage data” that are not based on SSNs (sometimes referred to a “Fuzzy Matches”). So there is a two-part bottom line:
1) We don’t require SSNs for people to access to services and
2) For tracking outcomes, we always use SSNs and the base wage data systems when available, resorting to supplemental data when necessary.

Q: Is there an AEBG goal for Consortia in 16-17 to have and implement a particular assessment and data collection system? It seems like that might be too lofty for next year. It might be good to pilot some of the assessment, data analysis programming without being locked-in.

A: For AEBG, we are working on a number of key elements in consultation with experts and focus group input. The elements still to be established are guidance for refining definitions,  cohort identification, tracking practices and system approaches. More information will be coming out later in May and throughout the summer as work progresses. The data collection funds that are being released now provide opportunities for piloting some strategies as we get more clarity on what is needed.

Q: Are any agencies that are newly implementing the parent-student success in elementary schools program area using any specific assessment, enrollment measures that could be shared?

A: There are some that consortia are using intake forms that are also aligned with WIOA and AEBG. Examples are available from Tahoe -  and San Luis Obispo -


 - Student Assessment



Q1: Could assessment integration include looking at the K-12 system (specifically use of Smarter Balanced resources), or the Common Assessment Initiative for the community colleges?

A: Yes, these should be considered.

Q2: What is the "Common Assessment Initiative"? AE has used CASAS and TOPS system for years. Do we have to chase a new system to align with?

A: This initiative is focused on the Community College system and is broader than AEBG, but includes these same populations and goals. It is being piloted at a selection of community colleges. The work includes building a menu of common assessments that align with each other so that students are assessed in a consistent and transparent manner. Alignment is the goal. How this aligns with CASAS is under discussion.


 - Reporting



Q1: These numbers are for all people who meet the AEBG eligibility requirements, regardless of whether or not AEBG funds supported the courses, correct?

A: Correct – all students in the seven AEBG Program areas – regardless of funding.

Q2: The age range doesn't jibe with our reports in ASAP. What do we do?

A: Our understanding is that ASAP can produce breakouts in the age ranges identified.

Q3: Do ASAP or CASAS/TE have canned reports for these tables?

A: It is our understanding that some vendors have created reports that may be used to populate the AEBG data tables. You will want to confirm with your specific vendor what they may or may not provide to support reporting to the AEBG Office.

Q4: Can you provide these tables as a PDF for us in the field? That would be helpful.

A: Tables have been posted as templates on the website.

Q5: I downloaded the student data sheets and class spreadsheet weeks ago? Have these changed and should I send any updates?

A: Yes – the sheets and forms/tables have been changed recently – new questions in Section 2 & 4 of the annual plan and some tweaks to the tables. Please use the most current version on the website.

Q6: In the spreadsheet we use one line item for every course we offer, correct? And every section of every course?

A: Each course and section used in your Student Data Summary tables.

Q7: In the spreadsheet about courses, what are we saying yes or no to?

A: It indicates whether the course is in that program area and/or has those features.

Q8: I have a question concerning the list of courses. You used the word "export". Might this be a report we can produce and export it to the portal, rather than type all courses?

A: Yes—the AEBG Office has provided a template for Members to use for this purpose.

Q9: What happened to VABE?

A: VABE (Vocational Adult Basic Education) may be reported in both ABE / ASE and CTE and / or Workforce (Re)Entry program areas as appropriate. It may be helpful to consider at the proportion of technical skills provided in the course versus the amount of English Language in the context of vocations.

Q10: What is the difference between total students 1 hour plus and the 12 hour plus?

A: For Instructional Programs, 1 hour plus indicates adults who enrolled and attended for at least 1 hour. The 12 hour plus indicates students that received at least 12 hours of instruction.

Q11: Will there be similar approval process/signatures/meeting notes required for the student data submission?

A: Just the submission & certification by the consortium lead is all that is needed for both the annual plan and the student data submission (as well as the completion of the documents).

Q12: This is a lot to do and then to have to collect it and aggregate it from each member of the consortium. Any chance of a later due date?

A: Sorry – we have a tight timeline to get the student data to the legislature – so we can’t change the due date.

Q13: Many of our members are out for summer break and admin offices are closed, should we just report data from those members that are available to do this work?

A: Failure to report member data could lead to the State determining that the member and possibly the consortium are being ineffective. This may lead to a reduction in funding. Members and consortium have been aware of the due dates and deadlines for the past 6 months (if not longer). There is no excuse for a member to not report their data. The CA Legislature gave adult education $525M in 15-16, and if we can’t report student data and show progress, they may choose to cut our funding.


 - Data Reporting: Student Level Data



Q1: Please explain in further detail the 1+ and 12+ hours columns in the data sheet.

A: You can find the definitions in categories below:

  • Total Adults Served (Tables 1-5) –all enrolled, even if they didn’t matriculate, plus  those who received support services such as assessment, orientation, etc.
  • Total Students Served (Tables 6&7) – enrolled in instruction and showed up in classes for at least one hour.
  • Total Participants (Tables 8 &9) – adult learners who have enrolled in a particular course and attended for at least 12 hours or were awarded a certificate.

Q2: Does the number of adults served include those served through funding other than AEBG?

A: Yes.

Q3:  Would adults served by ROP by the K-12 districts be countable for Total Adult Learners?

A: Yes, if they meet the AEBG learner profile and are served by a member of your consortium.

Q4: Is it ok if we are counting census for participation and if a student dropped before census we translated them in the students served count (1 hour)

A: That is fine.

Q5: Is it correct that for an adult who enrolled in a course but never attended anything (no orientation, etc.), we don't count them?

A: Yes, you would count them in Table One (Total Adults Served) even if they never attended. 

Q6: What is the minimum activity of Total Adults Served - Orientation? Attended Presentations?

A: For Table One: just folks who have enrolled. For Table Two: Look at the program guidance for more descriptions. Orientation, assessment, counseling, instruction, etc. would all count.

Q7: If a particular field of data is not collected by a member, should they enter a zero, N/A or leave it that box blank?

A: Get the best data you can. If you enter N/A, it will indicate you do not have the data (it won’t impact our ability to import the data, so this is fine). If you enter 0, it will indicate that you do have the data, and the data says 0. Please do not leave it blank.

Q8: For highest level of schooling for some students, can we list both US and non-US-based schooling (one might have both), right?

A: Yes.

Q9: How do we account for students on a waiting list? We do not currently collect demographic data on them, only name and contact information.

A: Right now we don’t have a mechanism for collecting information on waiting lists. But if you provide any services to them, the students would be captured under services.

Q10: Regarding the AWD Program Area, do they have to be students in classes specifically for AWD, or count AWD students who are being served in any type of class?

A: Currently, our focus is classes set up specifically for AWD students.

Q11: Do AWDs have to be formally assessed and diagnosed to be counted, or can they be self-reporting?

A: I would assume to enroll in an AWD class there would have to some type of referral & or assessment process, but you need to check with a specialist who works with this population. There are Federal DORs.

Q12: When reporting the total adults served information, we are including student data for credit students enrolled in basic skills and ESL courses according to the way it is defined in the Student Data Collection Guidance document. However, since credit courses are census and not positive attendance, how do you recommend that we define those students in our total counts?

A: For participation, census works. There are fields in MIS that can be used to identify these kinds of things.

Q13: How do we handle completions for developmentally disabled students? In ASA, these students become participants, but don't complete in the traditional way that other students do.

A: This is a good example where schools’ approaches will be useful. We don’t think that there will be enough students in these categories to negatively or positively affect your numbers overall. We will be looking to you to see how we should approach this.

Q14: Some students do not disclose ethnicity or age and there is no place in tables 1, 2, 6 & 7 to include those students. Do you want us to just leave them out? Will this skew our total counts? 

A: We number of total students served that we need to be accurate. Provide the data you have.

Q15: When using our SIS-AIM system we can run a report with age and gender or ethnicity and gender but not ethnicity, age, group and gender. What should we do?

A: Reach out to your vendor and see about getting specialized queries to meet this need. Most should be able to do this.

Q16: What back-up documentation will be required for submitting the counseling data? Should we retain logs and narratives to describe how the numbers were generated, but not numbers produced by SIS etc.?vRight now, there is no formal requirement to provide documentation of your data for the AEBG system. Comments etc. can be provided in the system, if you would like to offer them.

Q17: What if age groups in our data systems don't match the age groups on data tables? How do we parse our information to match?

A: If you collect birthdates, age ranges can be extrapolated through queries. You can work with your vendor to help set up such queries.


 - Data Reporting: Course Level Data



Q1: What do we enter regarding courses vs classes?

A: If the activity follows a traditional delivery model, enter courses (grouped in some logical way, with start and end date identifiers, etc.). As for courses such as HSD modules, use the most logical unit for reporting given content and duration. In this case, entering classes would be acceptable.

Q2: So even for courses we’re listing, they don’t have to be AEBG-funded? (I understood that the adult/student data were to include those served by all funding sources, but thought that courses listed were only those supported by AEBG.) If this is the case, can we add (at some point) a column to the course list where we can list the funding source for each class? Even list courses funded by other grants or private sources separately? Or only funding sources that you usually ask for (LCFF, Perkins, WIOA, etc.)?

A: Right now, we are only tracking students in the seven AEBG program areas regardless of fund source.  We don’t need to know the fund source on the student data tables as we are reluctant to add a column or have consortium alter the tables. In the annual plan, there is a table for projected 16-17 expenditures by the seven funding sources listed in the AB104 legislation (LCFF< Perkins, WIOA, etc.).

Q3: If we submit data by course (instead of section) can we exclude the section start and end dates?

A: Yes.

Q4: Can 1 class be listed under more than 1 program area?

A: Yes, but be cautious about this. Considerations should include a review of the content and intent. Consider the amount of content for each of the categories, as well as the intent of skills to be acquired through the course. It is unlikely that any course would be under more than two categories.

Q5: How will the CBO3 portion apply to adult schools? Most ESL (493084-87 type classes) offer the Civics (493090) embedded into the ESL class. Would we just have our adult schools call them ESL classes? All courses would have to be non-credit bearing, correct?

A: You can code these courses in both categories (English and civics) as long as they are non-credit and not credit-transferable. Just with other cases of integrated and/or contextualized courses, considerations should include a critical review of the content and intent. Consider the amount of content for each of the categories, as well as the intent of skills to be acquired through the course. It is unlikely that any course would be under more than two categories.

Q6: For courses to be counted for AEBG we don’t include degree applicable courses, but certificate applicable is okay, right? How about courses that count towards certificates that have general education requirements like English and Math (e.g. a Food Safety Certificate that is 12 credits plus an English and math requirement)?

A: Yes, those can be included.

Q7: Are we following same completer criteria as Perkins uses for completion, i.e.  a completion is only counted when the last course in sequence (the capstone) is completed,  or should we count the completion of each courses that is leading to the capstone?

A: We do want to follow the Perkins model for AEBG in this case. We want to count completions of each of the courses leading up to the capstone.

Q8: Some of our courses have a range of hours. Can we list the maximum or the range?

A: Yes, either is fine.

Q9: How do we include services that are not classes (e.g. counseling meetings done by a Counselor w/only a PPS credential or services offered by a classified staff member such as assessment)? None of these are on the approved list of classes.

A: This would be in Support Services, Table 2.

Q10: For table 9, we are still counting the number of students who completed courses, not the total number of courses, right?

A: You count the number of participants who enrolled in courses, and the total number of completions of courses, related to those students.

Q11: Under courses completed, what about high school classes like math, English, not the completion of the HSD itself?

A: Yes, those should be included if you set up the courses to achieve the Adult Secondary certification - HSD, Hset, or GED.

Q12: Would it be accurate to say that Total Courses Completed is really Total number of completions of courses by each student?

A: Yes.

Q13: For HSE course completions, can we count different modules as a class? Apparently in an ASAP webinar they recommended counting each subject or module separately, but want to confirm with you.

A: Use the most logical unit of measure that makes sense within your consortium. Then you can count them. Make sure the number of contact hours make sense in terms of what is considered a course within your consortium, and would pass a “straight-faced test.”

Q14: For Table 8, we are trying to find out course completion rates. Are there a minimum amount of hours or credits that define a course?

A: Most courses have a minimum number of hours of participation and content completion for a passing grade and we would follow that.

Q15: When I email the INBOX about a list of about 2500 sections for the course table data, you mentioned that I could submit a list by course instead of by section. In that case, will I leave the starting/ending date as well as the section number fields blank?

A: We would need to know what the duration of the courses are so do not leave this blank. It should reflect the amount of face to face time, for instance.

Q16: If our student data system is creating the report section by section, is it not possible that it could generate a large number of pages. If ASAP is online, do we have an option as to whether to run the report by section or course? Is there some advice for those using ASAP that ran the reports but don't want to individually re-type the data into the AEBG templates?

A: ASAP pushes the Course Characteristics only by the Class level, not Course. Contact Joel if you need assistance.

Q17: Our ESL teachers have 1/2 hour office hours for each class for "interview" time with students - working on individual career pathways and college readiness etc. This is advisement, not tutoring. It is a teacher, not guidance staff. This should be quantified and reported as counseling, correct? Is it ok for the schools to define what qualifies for this data field?

A: Yes, at this point as we work to understand how these systems are working around the state, this is fine.

Q18: Our courses are coded in CB22 where they don't necessarily fit into the AEBG program definition. For example, Child School Success is counted under short term voc. Does it need to match or can we define per the narrative definition?

A: Yes, you can define it. If the course meets the primary criteria for AEBG eligible, then it can be included. Apply your best logic here. Avoid counting the same course in more than two categories.

Q19: CASAS question - in some course levels (e.g. Intermediate Low) CASAS can have a student move two levels. But as a consortium we have defined the course as Intermediate Low. If the student moves two levels in CASAS, but only completes one course, how many completions is that?

A: In your WIOA data, it will show 2 level completions for a WIOA student. For a non-WIOA student, you would only use the AEBG data system and would only see the one course completion. WIOA data is uploaded into AEBG, so all students will be counted, but the students’ WIOA status will dictate how their completion is counted.

Q20: How do I add rows to the course data form?

A: Please call Greg if you need to do this.


 - Data Reporting: Submitting Data



Q1: Where can we find our member number? ASAP reports ask for the consortium number and member number. I know our consortium number, but not our member number.

A: The Member & Consortium numbers are only needed for the Course Characteristics data. Enter any number to get it to work (111 & 222 for example) and ASAP will run. When you get your Course Data out, you can fill in the real numbers if you have them.

Q2: What are the acceptable formats for submitting data?

A: There are three –
1) Using AEBG forms provided in the portal and public webpage
2) Using the TopsPro Enterprise format
3) Using the ASAP format

Q3: Just to clarify, as a lead I am not creating a separate consortium level summary sheet.  I am uploading each member spreadsheet into the portal, correct?

A: No summary sheet is required. You can just uploading member sheets and the AEBG Office will create the summaries. However, if you have a workbook in an acceptable format (AEBG, TopsPro Enterprise, or ASAP) that has the consortium level data  rolled up, with the individual data sheets, you CAN submitted that in place of only individual member data sheets with no roll-up.

Q4: Will leads submit each member's budget and expenditure reports in the same way on the portal?

A: Yes.

Q5: Can the portal accommodate more than 2 files per member?

A: No, it can only accommodate one file for each member.

Q6: Does the newly released next version of TOPSpro Enterprise automatically formulate the information for my agency into the proper tables for me to submit to the consortium?

A: Yes, the TE release generates both reports for reviewing and cleaning data as well as exports for submission to the AEBG Office.

Q7: Can we generate our own tables with copied headings, particularly on the Courses table?

A: That is doable for student data but not for fiscal data. Please contact Greg to organize the import process to be sure it will work.

Q8: Can we get a recommendation to copy either by column or row that won't produce errors and run into merged cells, etc.? Seeing examples of how it would look if properly populated would help. Some of the stuff I'm getting looks like numbers running down the middle of two columns in merged cells.

A: Create another workbook so that you can copy/paste into the system. Or you can use the exports. If you need more assistance contact Greg.

Q9: How do we account for independent study courses? Hours vary greatly by students to complete the course. There is a work product requirement for these courses not an hour or number of weeks requirement.

A:Yes, if there is a work product requirement this can be counted. There also needs to be a sense of the time/effort needed to complete the product that is identified, as is done with many distance education courses.

Q10: The scale for ages in ASAP is different than the breakdown in the tables. What do you want us to do?

A: Age, Ethnicity, Birthdate are handled by ASAP, so this should not be a problem.

Q11: Com. Colleges have enrollment and completion data in other formats, can we scan and send the counts that way.

A: No, scanned documents will not be processed. The data has to be entered into the system by the consortia. The state office will not be entering data on behalf of consortia.

Q12: Can you upload a file without submitting?

A: Yes. Yes there is a two-step “submit” process. One “Submit” in the dialog box for uploading documents at the portal cell level. You can still comment and add/delete the documents at this point. There is a final “Submit” button at the bottom of the page. There is no editing after this last Submit step.

Q13: We have until midnight Monday, August 8th (updated) right?

A: Portal is open until 11:59 pm on 8/8.


Note: These are questions that recently came into the AEBG inbox. We will provide the answers here for one week and then sort them into the FAQ topics they relate to.

No new questions.

Partnering for a Strong California Workforce
Subscribe to the AEBG eNewsletter


The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office (CCCCO) and the California Department of Education (CDE) are working in partnership to implement the requirements outlined in the Adult Education Block Grant (AEBG). We will continue to provide guidance and solicit feedback from the field throughout the implementation process.

Subscribe to More on AEBG eNews
Back to the top
California Department of Education California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office