Reference: Final JTPA Regulations, 20 CFR 627.201, published in the Federal Register on September 2, 1994. Background: One of the major changes in the above-referenced September 2, 1994, JTPA final regulations is the addition of a new section, 20 CFR 627.201, "Waivers." This section, unlike the rest of the final regulations, became effective 30 days from the date of publication of the JTPA final rule in the Federal Register-- October 3, 1994. This was intended to complement the Department's desire to enable States, service delivery areas (SDA's), and Title III substate grantees (SSG's) to implement beneficial changes in the final rule as quickly as they choose, as provided for in the final rule, and to apply for waivers of regulatory provisions to be effective before the beginning of Program Year (PY) 1995 and thereafter. The purpose of the new waiver provision was to be responsive to suggestions and comments which have stated that some of the administrative burden or unintended effect of many regulatory requirements may be reduced through the granting of waivers. In addition to receiving this type of suggestion through the formal regulations comment process, the Department also heard this belief echoed during its recent "JTPA Dialogue" and dislocated worker "Next Steps" meetings. In addition, this was also recommended in Vice President Gore's Report of the National Performance Review--From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government that Works Better & Costs Less--which was published in September 1993. The Department believes that in order to be responsive to the needs of the JTPA system, some guidance is appropriate in order to maintain consistency in the way that waivers are handled at the Federal level. Accordingly, the Department is issuing the attached guidance to assist Governors in submitting requests for JTPA regu-latory waivers pursuant to 20 CFR 627.201. The Department expects that, as experience is gained regarding specific waiver requests, information will be created which we anticipate will be useful in future policy deliberations, including possible regulatory revisions. Also, as the waiver process evolves, it may be adjusted to respond to concerns and issues that may surface in handling such requests. The States may be contacted periodically for their views on the effectiveness of the waiver process and on the ways the process might be improved and made more responsive. Action: States are requested to share the attached information with appropriate individuals within the State, as well as with their SDA's and SSG's. States are also encouraged to develop as soon as possible standardized internal procedures/mechanisms for SDA/SSG submission of waiver requests to the State, as well as procedures/processes for State evaluation of local level waiver requests. The procedures established should conform to the provisions of 20 CFR 627.201 and the information contained herein.

Reference: RAL No. 3-91, RAL No. 1-82 Background: In the above referenced RALs, it was requested that data from the ETA 539 report, Weekly Claims and Extended Benefits Trigger Data, not be released until the official release time in the National Office. Early release of this data could give some individuals or companies unfair advantage in the financial markets. Embargoing of this data has been difficult for some SESAs because of State freedom of information acts and increasing pressure from within State governments to have that data available. Because of the need to use interstate agent information to have accurate State by State insured unemployment and because of issues with clearance and publication requirements, it was not possible for the National Office to officially publish this data much earlier than twelve days after the close of the period to which the data relate. However, in consultation with State Labor Market Information Chiefs, and at their urging, the ETA 538 report was developed to allow for an earlier release of National figures and greatly reduce the time that the States are requested to embargo their data. The ETA 538 data will be published by the National Office each Thursday, five days after the end of the week to which the data relate. The first ETA 538 data was published on March 18, 1993, for claims filed during the week ending March 13, 1993, and reflecting unemployment for the week ending March 6, 1993. Embargoing State ETA 538 data until the official release time will allow SESAs to release State ETA 539 data for the same week--which is of more interest within the State--at that same time or seven days prior to the former embargo date. This also means that States can release their input to the ETA 539 report seven days prior to the date this State-specific data will be released by the U.S. Department of Labor in its Weekly Claims Report and news release. Action Required: It is requested that SESAs not release their ETA 538 data to outside parties until the official National Office release time, usually 8:30 a.m. eastern time each Thursday following the end of the week in which the claims were filed. It is further requested that States not release their ETA 539 data until the date of the release of the ETA 538 representing the same week.

Background: Many organizations in the employment and training community have expressed a desire to have electronic access to one another. Several have established independent electronic solutions for accessing information data sources. In order to meet the growing communications and information needs of the employment and training community - national, Regional, State, and local - ETA has, with additional impetus from the 1992 Amendments to the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), decided to develop a "corporate strategy" to communications and networking. An ETA-wide task force has been formed for this purpose and has come together to develop a collective approach to electronic communications. Objectives: The objectives that will guide development of ETA's networking strategy are threefold: -- to provide a facility for electronic communications between ETA and its grantee universe; -- to provide a facility for electronic communications among and between ETA grantees; and, -- to seamlessly interconnect ETA's three principal operating environments (the ETA LAN and its components, the Unemployment Insurance Service Artecon/Sun system, and the Office of Job Corps communications/data system). This effort will serve to bring all of ETA's existing and planned communications systems and initiatives under one umbrella. Design and Implementation Strategy: Several steps have already been taken towards establishing a network strategy. a. Task Force. The Data Communications Network project is guided by a task force under the direction of David Morman, Deputy Director of the Office of Information Resources Management. Its members represent the ETA National and Regional Offices, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, and the Office of the Inspector General. The task force, with the assistance of a technical consultant, has begun to review the configuration of existing hardware/ software/communications systems within the employment and training community. This may entail some detailed data collection about these configurations. The task force has also begun to design and evaluate some architectural options for a wide area data network. b. National Conference. To facilitate input/feedback from the employment and training community regarding its functional requirements and the overall network design, ETA has and will continue to host a series of meetings/conferences with the user and grantee community. A conference is scheduled for August 26 and 27 at the Stouffer Hotel at the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, Maryland. This conference is intended to bring together all users within the ETA community to discuss the communications needs and expectations of each user group and to review the work to date on the network design. ETA has informally contacted the States to identify attendees representative of the employment and training community to attend this conference. Attached is a list of names submitted to the National Office to date, as well as detailed conference information. c. Network Pilot. The next phase in our communications strategy, anticipated to begin in October 1993, will be to test a selected architectural approach, through the establishment of a pilot network. This will allow us to fine tune the overall design, and will provide a more indepth understanding of potential usage of the fully implemented network. One of the ten ETA Regions will be identified as a pilot site to test network options; grantees in the selected Region will participate on a voluntary basis. From the pilot of the network we hope to learn: (1) what technical approaches work best, (2) the amount of traffic required by network, (3) how much it will cost to implement and maintain, and (4) how complex it may be to operate/manage the network. This phase will last 6 months. Upon completion of the pilot, the knowledge gained will be used to establish a strategy for developing a nationwide employment and training wide area network. Technical Workgroup: As an adjunct to the task force, a larger workgroup of users within the ETA grantee community is being formed. Members of this workgroup will provide their individual views and concerns as we proceed. Action: Recipients of this TEIN are requested to: a. Please widely share the information in this TEIN with State, service delivery area, and grantee organizations; b. Determine if additional representatives from the employment and training community in their States should attend the system-wide conference in August or join the large networking workgroup. If so, please submit the names, addresses, and affiliations of the additional attendees to the National Office by FAX to either Roxanne Rozek (FAX: (202) 219-6510) or Diane Mayronne (FAX: (202) 219-7190).

PILOT TEST A one day pilot training session will be held in Crystal City, Virginia, on September 30. This office will be contacting you shortly concerning the identification of pilot test participants. TRAINING The training schedule, and geographic areas covered are as fol- lows: Regions Covered Location Date I, II & III Washington, DC area Oct. 19 - Oct. 22, 1993 V Chicago, IL Nov. 2 - Nov. 5, 1993 VI & VII Houston, TX Nov. 16 - Nov. 19, 1993 IX & X San Diego, CA Nov. 30 - Dec. 3, 1993 IV & VIII Atlanta, GA Dec. 7 - Dec. 10, 1993 Each of the five three-and-a-half day training courses is sched- uled to start on Tuesday morning and end Friday at noon. At each training site we would like to schedule a meeting on Monday evening between Regional Office participants and DTI, the contractor who is developing the training, in order to identify procurement con- cerns specific to the attending Regions. Due to the quick turn around on training development and delivery, DTI is having problems locating hotels that can accommodate the one hundred or so participants that are expected at each site. Should this result in any changes in locale we will let the Regions know immediately. Attached is a listing of State and SDA training slot allocations for each Region. The slot distribution was based on the number of SDAs in each Region. In addition to these, each Regional Office will also be allowed to send four staff to the training. Please have each State solicit the State JTPA agency and the SDAs for nominees based on your Region's allocation to each State. Final nominations will be made by each Regional Administrator. We ask that State level administrative entity staff be limited to no more than two per State, in order to allow for a larger SDA participation. Since there are fewer slots available than there are SDAs, we ask that representatives from "priority need" SDAs be selected for this training. Our goal is to limit the size of each training session in order to accommodate small group discussion. Currently, only 87 slots have been allocated to the San Diego training site. If Regions indicate that the number of slots are insufficient to meet the needs of the States and SDAs, we will be able to accommodate approximately 13 additional State/SDA participants at the San Diego site on a first nominated, first enrolled basis. The proposed list of Regional Office, State and SDA attendees should be submitted to Patricia Wilkinson by c.o.b. October 6, 1993. Ms. Wilkinson's address is: Office of Grants And Contract Management; DAA/Governor's Grant Unit; 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room S-4203; Washington, D.C. 20210. Please use the attached nomination information form or format in compiling and submitting your attendee list.

Background. The U. S. Department of Labor's Native American Cultural Heritage Month Committee (NACHMC) concluded a very successful schedule of activities in the celebration of American Indian Heritage Month. This year's program highlighted American Indian cultural heritage through the creative talent of Indian youth. The committee sponsored an art and poetry contest based on the theme: "The Birth of the White Buffalo, A Celebration of the Partnership of All Peoples." Entries were solicited from Native American high school students throughout the country and judged by Indian artists, Indian educators, and volunteers from various government agencies and Departments. Results. The first place winner, Eric Moulton of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in Montana, and second place winner, Jeremy Bisson also of the Confederated Salish and Kootnai Tribes, were flown to Washington, D.C. to receive their awards. Both winners received their awards from Ms. Cecilia Bankins, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, on November 30, 1995. Third place winners, Emily and Jeremiah Smith, Chippewa Indians from Cass Lake, Minnesota received a plaque, certificate and savings bonds. Three additional contestants were awarded Honorable Mention Certificates: fourth place, Sam Tenakhongva from Hopi, Arizona; fifth place, Sally Peltier from Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, North Dakota; and sixth place, Lorinell Lomahaptewa from Hopi, Arizona. All contestants received Certificates of Appreciation. Entries were displayed in the Department of Labor's Great Hall. They formed the perfect cultural backdrop for the celebration. Inquiries. Questions or suggestions should be addressed to Ms. Dawn Bush on (202) 219-5511.

Background. DINAP reviews anually all bulletins issued since the inception of the Job Training Partnership Act for the purpose of identifying those that are needed by grantees for current program operations and those which may be eliminated. A listing of those which should be retained for operational purposes is attached. Action. Review all bulletins which have been issued since November 7, 1983 (DINAP BULLETIN 84-1) and insure that you have copies of those listed in the attachment. Contact your DINAP Federal Representative to obtain copies of those that are missing. It is recommended that you retain any bulletins which you believe may be needed for audit or close-out purposes, you may wish to retain bulletins that were issued primarily for informational purposes. All bulletins issued in Program Year 1994 are to be retained until the next annual listing of current operating bulletins is issued. Effective Date. Date of this bulletin. Questions. Contact your DINAP Federal Representative.

References: Public Law 97-300, Section 4(8) (JTPA); and Internal Revenue Code Section 51 (TJTC). Background: JTPA defines the term "economically disadvantaged: at Section 4(8) of the Act. Among other things the term means an individual who is a member of a family which has received a total family income for the 6-month period prior to application for the program involved which, in relation to family size, was not in excess of the higher of the poverty level determined in accordance with criteria established by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or 70 percent of the LLSIL. In addition, the LLSIL figures at the 70 percent level are used to determine whether an individual is a member of an economically disadvantaged family for applicable TJTC purposes. The poverty levels were revised and new Federal Poverty Income Guidelines were published in the Federal Register on Friday, February 12, 1993. The guidelines for the LLSIL were published in the Federal Register on March 23, 1993. Attached are copies of these 1993 guidelines. Effective Date: States may implement these guidelines in accordance with the dates as published in the Federal Register or on such later date as the Governor may determine for JTPA programs in the State, but no later than July 1, 1993. In future years as well, States may implement guidelines in accordance with the effective dates published in the Federal Register.

References: JTPA, as amended; JTPA Regulations, 20 CFR Parts 629 and 630 as published in the Federal Register on September 22, 1989; Preamble to the JTPA Interim Final Regulations, as published in the Federal Register on December 29, 1992. Background: President Clinton included an expanded and enriched summer jobs program for economically disadvantaged youth in his economic stimulus proposal announced on February 17, 1993. The House of Representatives passed a supplemental appropriation bill which provided policy guidance on the program, through both the bill itself and the Appropriations Committee Report. The Senate has the matter under consideration but, as of this writing, no final Congressional action has been taken. However, in recognition of the planning time required to design an effective program, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is issuing this directive to provide the JTPA system with a policy framework in which the 1993 Summer Challenge is expected to operate. As with the preliminary planning estimates issued on March l, 1993, final policy guidance awaits the enactment of the supplemental appropriation into law. At that time, the policy framework articulated in this directive will be either confirmed or modified, as appropriate. Goals for the CY 1993 Summer Program: In addition to the purposes of the Summer Youth Employment and Training Program set forth in the statute, ETA has established the following goals: a. Ensure that youth have meaningful, well-supervised work experiences which: (1) demonstrate the value of the work performed to the individual and to the neighborhood or community; (2) ensure that the youth acquire basic work competencies and discipline, such as: working and completing assignments as directed by overall leadership and front-line supervision; showing up for work regularly, on time, and with a positive attitude; working as a member of a team; demonstrating sound reasoning abilities; and exercising independent judgement. (3) reinforce the relationship between the skills acquired on the job and what is learned in an educational setting. b. Ensure that enrollees are provided academic enrichment which, at a minimum, counteracts the erosion of basic educational skills associated with the summer months and, to the extent possible, increases the level of educational skills, particularly reading and mathematics. c. Provide income for work to economically disadvantaged youth to benefit them, their families, and their communities; d. Enhance the level and quality of public services provided to distressed neighborhoods and communities; e. Achieve the stimulus objective of providing well-supervised, productive jobs to as many eligible youth as possible this summer; f. Preserve the integrity of the funds by implementing sound administrative systems (e.g., time and attendance; payroll) which can adequately absorb the program expansion; g. Use this summer's experience as a means to further enhance and enrich subsequent summer jobs programs in such areas as: (1) innovative educational components; (2) the relationship between success in the world of work and educational attainment; (3) providing year-round services to youth to preserve educational gains achieved in the summer. Key New Feature: Academic Enrichment: The President, the Congress, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Education have placed a high priority on enriching academic services to maintain and improve basic educational skills for all summer youth enrollees during the school vacation period(s). a. Academic enrichment activities should typically include: (1) assessment of the basic skills and supportive services needs of each participant; (2) skill-based instruction in reading and math; (3) curricula matched to the learning levels and interests of each individual participant; (4) use of educational technology as an integral part of participant learning; (5) not less that 90 hours of academic enrichment instruction during the period of participation, except where fewer or more hours are indicated by the participant assessment; (6) pre- and post-testing of participants' reading and math skill levels and gains, utilizing instruments appropriate to an individual's age. (The use of existing test results, such as those available from a public school system, is allowable, provided that they reflect a participant's current achievement level so that gain as a result of enrollment in the Summer Challenge can be identified.) While improvement in reading, math, and other educational competencies (e.g., science) are the primary emphases, this does not preclude the provision of other services and activities which have a direct correlation with improving educational performance and/or which enhance the citizenship skills of youth. Innovative approaches to all aspects of academic enrichment, tailored to the widely varying backgrounds and skill levels of the youth, are strongly encouraged. b. In furtherance of these ends: (1) a percentage or a fixed amount of supplemental funds will be earmarked for academic enrichment activities which: (a) can be spent only on such activities; (b) cannot be part of the ten percent of Title II-B funds which can be transferred to JTPA Title II-C; (c) is expected to be spent during the CY 1993 summer program; and (d) cannot include participant wages and/or other payments for time spent in academic enrichment. [Note: Participants may be paid wages and/or other payments while attending academic enrichment activities. What is being said here is that the source of such payments cannot be the earmarked academic enrichment funds.] (2) the academic enrichment funds cannot be used to supplant other Federal, State or local funds for existing academic services or activities and such funds should be an addition to the funds expended on remediation in the CY 1992 summer jobs program. (3) to the extent feasible, public educational systems should be utilized to provide academic enrichment services; (4) to the extent feasible, certified teachers should be utilized to deliver educational services. The use of teacher assistants, teacher aides, student teachers, community-based educators, etc. is allowable; however, these personnel should perform under the direction of certified teachers and/or certified educational administrators to the extent possible. Technical Assistance and Training: The Department of Labor (DOL) and the Department of Education (DOE) are committed to providing and arranging for as much technical assistance and training as needed. a. National Practitioners Work Group. The two Departments have established a work group consisting of individuals who have been successful in providing training, employment services and academic enrichment to youth. This group will identify successful program models, refine them as needed, and advise DOL and DOE on the most effective means of assisting States and SDAs in utilizing the models. To the extent feasible, these practitioners will also directly deliver technical assistance and training. b. State Practitioners Network. States are expected to establish a State Practitioners Network comprised of representatives of State and SDA staff; public educators; service providers, including community-based organizations; and other appropriate individuals. Members of the Network should have proven expertise in youth programs. Responsibilities of this peer group Network should include: (1) Providing technical assistance and training to SDAs and, in conjunction with SDAs, service providers, in program design and operations; (2) Reviewing, to the extent feasible, the summer jobs program plans of SDAs for the purpose of advising the State JTPA administrator as to whether such plans are satisfactory, particularly with regard to academic enrichment and worksite supervision; (3) Assistance to the State in the oversight of the Summer Challenge. States can meet this requirement by using existing structures such as Youth Service/Resource Networks or other similar entities which meet the membership and functional requirements listed above. c. Redirection of Current ETA Contractors. ETA is concluding negotiations with Brandeis University and its major subcontractor, Public/Private Ventures (P/PV), to enlist their efforts to provide technical assistance and training for the 1993 Summer Challenge. (1) Brandeis will prepare a program "primer" covering all aspects of the Summer Challenge, but with particular emphasis on academic enrichment and worksite supervision. (2) P/PV will replicate its academically enriched Summer Training and Education Program (STEP) in 75 SDAs where the SDAs and States make a commitment to utilize the STEP model. Private Sector Summer Jobs Campaign: When President Clinton presented his economic stimulus proposal to a joint session of Congress, he challenged the private sector to match the public sector effort in providing jobs to needy youth. With the assistance and support of business leaders and organizations, DOL will be promoting a National private sector summer jobs campaign. But the success of such a campaign rests on the efforts of localized public/private initiatives. Accordingly, DOL and National business organizations will be working with localities to activate local private sector summer jobs campaigns. Thus far, a large number of large corporations and business associations (e.g., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Alliance of Business) are committed to working with DOL. We expect other firms and private sector organizations to join DOL in this effort. States and localities are strongly urged to mount private sector summer jobs campaigns. Program Oversight and Monitoring: If the Summer Challenge is to be met, an energized oversight and monitoring effort is required at all levels: Federal, State, SDAs, and service providers. Further, such efforts must begin during the program design phase--the relative shortness of the summer program allows precious little time for corrective action once operations begin. Oversight and monitoring of program operations is essential to avert operational crises and to keep the program operating effectively. ETA Regional Offices and the States must coordinate their oversight efforts with SDAs to avoid duplication and undue burdens on SDAs and service providers. State Role/Responsibilities: ETA anticipates that up to three percent of the funds allocated to the SDAs within a State for academic enrichment may be used by the State for program administration, technical assistance, and oversight. ETA expects that most of these funds will be used for technical assistance and oversight, as described earlier in this issuance. Reporting and Data Collection: It is clear that the Summer Challenge will create a substantial demand for information on the progress of SDAs in achieving the Summer Challenge goals, especially enrollment and expenditure data. In anticipation of these information needs, States and SDAs should make preparations to: a. Provide information on planned total enrollment and planned total expenditures for the entire summer program, broken out by overall total and academic enrichment; b. Report cumulative total enrollment and cumulative enrollment in academic enrichment activities on a bi-weekly basis; c. Report monthly expenditures, broken out by overall total and by academic enrichment; d. Maintain information on pre- and post-assessment educational attainment levels for each individual; e. Submit SYETP end-of-program reports by November 15, 1993. Evaluation: Utilizing organizations recognized as having expertise in youth programs, ETA will evaluate the 1993 Summer Challenge program against four basic objectives: a. Acquisition of work competencies; b. Prevention of educational skills erosion; c. Stimulus effect; d. Impact on neighborhoods and communities. As an integral part of its evaluation endeavors, ETA will identify program designs and operational practices which prove useful in accomplishing these objectives and the goals specified in section four of this issuance. These can then form the basis for additional program enhancements for ensuing summers. Additional information on the evaluation process will be forthcoming in a future issuance. States' and SDAs' cooperation in the evaluation process is requested. Additional Guidance: More specifics on the policy guidance presented above will be forthcoming. In addition, working through its Regional Offices, ETA will operate a question-and-answer system as an integral, but identifiable, part of its JTPA Q&A system. Readers will note the "Sum Chal" classification and number in the upper right hand corner box of this directive. Because of the high priority attached to the Summer Challenge, this identification will be used to help you keep track of all issuances generated by this program. This identification scheme amplifies, but does not change, the regular TEGL and TEIN numbering system. States are strongly urged to transmit this and other TEGLs and TEINs to the SDAs as quickly as possible. In turn, States should strongly encourage SDAs to expeditiously provide relevant guidance to service providers. Success demands a truly "team effort" and information must be shared as rapidly as possible with all of those involved in the Summer Challenge. ETA is actively exploring ways of providing information via electronic bulletin boards so that the JTPA system may be kept fully informed. However, it is not our intent to interfere in State program guidance.

Background: A number of States have inquired about whether or not it is permissible to "support or supplement" "training" funds which have been carried forward with "administration" funds allocated for another program year. More broadly, the question is how to treat any unspent funds, whether "administration" or "training" funds, which are carried forward to a subsequent program year. Many States, service delivery areas (SDAs), substate grantees (SSGs), and other subrecipients, upon receipt of their program year allocation, divide the allocation into fund accounts corresponding to the JTPA cost categories. The administration fund budget is usually set at the 15% or 20% maximum limit, and retraining services/direct training services is set at the 50% minimum limit. As costs are incurred in the delivery of program services, each fund account (cost category) is charged for its share of costs. Although SDAs/SSAs are likely to have most of a current year's allocation expended at the end of the program year, any unexpended fund balances are carried forward into the second year (or even the third year) and costs continue to be charged to each category, usually on a first-in, first-out (FIFO) basis. Section 161(b)(1) of the Act provides that JTPA funds appropriated for any program year are available for expenditure during that program year and the subsequent two program years. During the period of availability, the appropriated funds may be expended for any allowable JTPA cost, subject to the cost category limitations. Sections 108(b)(4) and 315(c) of the Act provide that of the funds allocated to a subgrantee for any program year, not more than 20% or 15% (depending on the Title) may be expended to cover the costs of administration. The JTPA regulations at 20 CFR 627.445(c)(2) and 20 CFR 631.14(g) indicate that States, SDAs and SSGs have the full three year period of fund availability to comply with the cost limitations. The relevant regulatory provisions require that expenditures be reported by program year of appropriation [20 CFR 627.455(d)(1)] and that administrative and other costs be charged to a JTPA program based on benefits received by that program [20 CFR 627.440(a)]. Interpretations: The first interpretation argues that each program year allotment is a separate grant and therefore a discrete program. In other words, if a grantee expends all of its allotted "administration" funds (20% of its PY 1 allocation) in year 1, but spends less than 100% of its allotted PY 1 "training" funds, then PY 2 "administration" funds cannot be used to support the expenditure of these carry-over "training" funds. This interpretation is based on the position that benefits derived from the expenditure of PY 1 funds on administration can accrue only to PY 1 program expenditures. Expenditure of PY 2 or PY 3 funds in support of the expenditure of PY 1 carry-over funds constitutes an impermissible "shifting of funds" in violation of 20 CFR 627.435(c). A second, alternative interpretation of the statutory and regulatory provisions gives greater weight to the three-year expenditure provisions of section 161(b)(1) of JTPA. This interpretation holds that the strict application of the "benefits received" test to individual grants has the effect of nullifying the three-year expenditure flexibility built into the statute. Under this alternative interpretation, funds from different PY appropriations may be expended along side each other for the operation of the "program" (e.g., Title II-A), as long as all other conditions governing allowability of costs are met. This means that funds appropriated for one PY are available for expenditures on "administrative costs" along side and in support of "program costs" charged to another PY allocation. Action Required: ETA will apply the second, more flexible interpretation in evaluating a State's expenditure of funds unless the State explicitly adopts the first, more restrictive interpretation. However, a State may adopt either of these two interpretations to govern the expenditure of JTPA funds in their individual States, and ETA will defer to the State's decision in this regard under 20 CFR 627.200(a)(1) of the regulations.

References: Training and Employment Information Notice (TEIN) No. 49-93, Capacity Building Strategy Paper; and TEIN No. 11-94, "Consultation with our Customers." Background: TEIN No. 11-94, dated November 4, 1994, discussed the Employment and Training Administration's (ETA) intention to conduct an extensive "consultation process" to strengthen the understanding of the technical assistance and training needs of the Nation's employment and training system. This effort will help build the system's capacity to better meet the needs of its participant and employer customers. Panel of Experts: As part of the capacity building consultation process, Technical Assistance and Training Corporation (TATC), the contractor engaged to assist in this effort, has convened a Panel of Experts to provide guidance and oversight to the entire capacity-building consultation project and related efforts. The Panel was selected through a collaborative process, with key facets of the employment and training system. TATC solicited input from ETA's Regional Offices, public interest groups, community-based organizations, States, local employment and training agencies and other stakeholders as to the optimal make- up of this panel. Over one hundred nominations were received. In January 1995, thirty-four (34) panel members were chosen by a committee of stakeholders to represent Federal, State and Local interests. A list of panelists is attached as well as a preliminary statement of the panel's roles and responsibilities. The Panel held its first meeting on March 8, 1995 in Washington, DC. The meeting provided an opportunity for members to become acquainted and to discuss key capacity building issues such as: critical front-line staff training and technical assistance needs; training development/delivery methods; how to identify, validate, disseminate and replicate model programs and practices; and electronic communication networks. Additional meetings of the Panel will be held over the coming months. Action: Recipients of this TEIN are requested to inform Service Delivery Areas, Substate Areas, One-Stop implementation States, Employment Service Directors and program administrators of the appointment and membership of the Panel of Experts.