TEN 02-26 announces the federal rule that removes the national state-merit-staff requirement for Wagner-Peyser Employment Service. The flexibility belongs to the state. California Local Boards should not redesign Employment Service staffing unless and until California changes its State Plan or issues implementation direction.
Source + trust record
Source checked as of September 18, 2026. Primary authority: USDOL TEN 02-26 and the 2026 Wagner-Peyser Employment Service Staffing Final Rule.
Check result: TEN 02-26 is active federal guidance issued August 20, 2026. The final rule removes the national merit-staffing mandate and gives states staffing-model flexibility, but a state changing its model must do so through the applicable State Plan process. The federal rule does not itself authorize a California Local Board to redesign Employment Service staffing. This AI-assisted brief does not receive human legal or compliance review. Official sources control.
WDB decision strip
| Status | Action | Primary owner | Current timing | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FINAL FEDERAL RULE · ACTIVE | MONITOR CALIFORNIA IMPLEMENTATION | WDB Director + AJCC / EDD Leadership | Federal flexibility available; California change not automatic | Wagner-Peyser staffing · AJCC roles · State Plan · MOUs |
The bottom line
Federal flexibility does not equal local staffing authority.
The final rule allows states to choose a Wagner-Peyser staffing model they consider appropriate. TEN 02-26 explains that a state changing its staffing model before the next required four-year State Plan must submit a State Plan modification. Until California makes and communicates such a decision, Local Boards should continue using current EDD roles, AJCC agreements, and state direction.
What changed federally
| Before the 2026 final rule | After the 2026 final rule |
|---|---|
| The 2023 rule generally required state merit staff to deliver Employment Service, with a delayed compliance date. | The national merit-staffing requirement is removed and states have staffing-model flexibility. |
| Alternative staffing was constrained by the federal rule. | A state may change its model, subject to its State Plan and other applicable requirements. |
| Local partners could plan around a national staffing mandate. | Local operational consequences now depend on what each state chooses to do. |
What it does not change automatically
- California remains the Wagner-Peyser state grantee.
- Local Boards do not independently gain authority to reassign Employment Service functions.
- Other Wagner-Peyser service, labor-exchange, AJCC-integration, and applicable worker-protection requirements remain.
- Local MOUs, cost-sharing agreements, leases, co-location arrangements, data permissions, and supervision agreements do not rewrite themselves.
The local readiness map
| Map now | Why |
|---|---|
| Wagner-Peyser functions performed locally | Shows what could be operationally affected if California changes staffing. |
| Functional supervision | Identifies who directs day-to-day work and where state/local boundaries sit today. |
| MOUs + cost sharing | Flags agreements that may require revision after a state change. |
| Data / CalJOBS roles | Shows which permissions and accountability functions are tied to staffing. |
| Customer + employer workflow | Keeps any future redesign focused on service integration rather than organizational structure alone. |
Operational considerations for WDBs
- Do not change local staffing from the federal rule alone.
- Document the current EDD/Wagner-Peyser role in each AJCC and major workflow.
- Flag agreements that would be affected by a future state staffing change.
- Track California State Plan modifications and EDD implementation guidance.
- If California opens a redesign discussion, evaluate options against customer experience, employer service, accountability, data, cost, and partner integration rather than staffing flexibility alone.
Watch out
- Do not treat state flexibility as local discretion.
- Do not amend AJCC agreements before California defines its implementation model.
- Do not focus on who employs staff without mapping who owns the work, data, performance, and customer handoff.
Source authority
Primary source: USDOL TEN 02-26 — Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service Staffing Final Rule.
Status: Active TEN issued August 20, 2026. DOL’s final rule creates state flexibility and TEN 02-26 explains the State Plan process for changes. California implementation remains a state decision. Source checked September 16, 2026.
Responses
[…] TEN 02-26 — Wagner-Peyser Staffing […]
[…] TEN 02-26 — Wagner-Peyser Staffing […]