Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Reference. DINAP Bulletins Nos. 94-18; 94-18, Change 1; 94-25; 94-27; and 95-01. Background. On Thursday, July 27, the President signed the 1995 rescission bill, which became Public Law 104-19. As you probably have heard, one of the provisions of this act eliminates all new funding for JTPA title II-B programs for the summer of 1996. As a by-product of this rescission action (while it was pending), the Department issued two "pots" of PY 94 title II-B funds for the Summer Youth program for CY 1995. Because the second title II-B Notice of Obligation (NOO) was not signed and mailed out until late June, and because many grantees on the Payment Management System (PMS) did not receive access to that second II-B issuance in a timely manner, many grantees have asked DINAP staff if they could carry some title II-B funds over to next year to operate a reduced-size Summer Youth program in 1996. This bulletin provides Departmental policy with regard to those issues. Also, as a result of certain revisions to the title II-B allocation formula and the issuance of a reduced amount for the title IV-A program for PY 1995, many grantees have planning documents [Budget Information Summary (BIS) and Program Planning Summary (PPS)] which do not reflect actual new funds and carry-in for the appropriate funding period(s). Policy. It is the policy of the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration that activities conducted under title II-B of JTPA are still allowable, and that these activities may continue to be conducted using all funds legally available for those purposes spelled out in the Act. Unless the Act itself is repealed, grantees may continue to operate programs under title II-B of JTPA during the summer of 1996, using whatever funds remain to them for title II-B purposes. All carry-in limits previously issued for title II-B funds are hereby withdrawn, including limits imposed on the deobligation of II-B funds from the now-expired 99-1/B-3 grants to the new B-5 grants which (for title II-B purposes) became effective on May 15, 1995. Grantees operating Summer Youth programs during 1996 need not submit a Summer Plan for DOL approval, but will be expected to report on the expenditure of Federal funds as previously instructed by November 15, 1996. Action. Grantees needing to submit revised 1995 planning documents should do so at once to the address contained in DINAP Bulletin No. 94-27. That address is: U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration Division of Indian and Native American Programs Room N-4641 FPB 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210 ATTENTION: MIS DESK Grantees wishing to do so may begin to assess their capabilities to operate a title II-B Summer Youth program during the summer of 1996. Questions: Contact your DINAP Federal Representative Team.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Reference: UIPL No. 3-91, Change 1, dated January 22, 1991. Background: The new UI National Office FAX number for forwarding advance information on Title XII loans and repayments is now 202-219-8506, located in room C-4512 of the Frances Perkins Building. In the event that the FAX equipment is inoperable or inaccessible, backup capability is available in ORM in the Employment and Training Administration on 202-219-6510. The new numbers are effective immediately. After the FAX message is transmitted, a confirming telephone call must be immediately made to TEUMI, 202- 219-5216, advising of the existence of the FAX message, date and time sent, where it was sent, loan and/or repayment amount, and effective date as appropriate. This will alert appropriate staff and trigger immediate followup to acknowledge receipt for processing. Official documentation, signed by the Governor or a designated individual, must be forwarded to TEUMI as soon as possible. 4. Action Required. SESAs should include these FAX numbers on their list of significant telephone listings.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

References. DINAP Bulletins Nos. 94-18; 94-18, Change 1; 94-27; and 95-01. Background. By now, all section 401 grantees should have received the edit check disk developed and sent out by the California Indian Manpower Consortium (CIMC) on behalf of the Department of Labor. This software is specially designed to ensure that ASRs are correct (free of mathematical errors) before submission to DINAP. Annual Status Reports are still due in DINAP 90 days after the expiration of the grant period (September 30, 1995). Action Required. Grantees are reminded that the edit check software distributed by CIMC is designed to check a completed ASR for correctness. Grantees are instructed to prepare the PY 1994 ASR as in the past, and then invoke the edit check routine, entering the appropriate PY '94 data. In preparation for using the software for PY '94 data, grantees are encouraged to practice with correct PY '93 data. Grantees will note that the software is configured in such a way as to require the orderly completion of the subroutines before being able to return to a previous field. Questions. For questions of substance concerning the PY 1994 Annual Status Report, contact your DINAP Federal Representative Team. For technical questions concerning the use of the edit check software, contact CIMC staff Linda Cruz or Rithy Chea on (916) 920-0285.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Reference. Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992. Background. Due to the death of Mrs. Alice Roach, Council member representing Region VII, a vacancy now exists to represent that region on the Council. The new representative would serve on the Council for the balance of Mrs. Roach's two year appointment until June 30, 1997. Only grantees in Region VII may submit nominations for this vacancy. Self nominations will also be considered. In submitting nominations, grantees should consider the willingness of the nominee to attend Council meetings, and to provide feedback to the grantee community. The Department of Labor considers the Council as its partner, and, as such as its major source of consultation with the Section 401 grantee community. Therefore, communication between the prospective Council member and his/her constituency is critical. Action. If you would like to suggest a nominee for this membership, please submit the name of this individual to the following address: Mr. Thomas M. Dowd Chief Division of Indian and Native American Programs U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Room N-4641 Washington, D.C. 20210 ATTENTION: Council Desk We would appreciate having the nominations postmarked no later than September 1, 1995. Questions. Contact Mr. Dowd on (202) 219-8502.

References: Section 314(f), JTPA, as amended by Section 301 of P.L. 102-367 (The Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992), and Section 3304(a)(8), FUTA. Background: Section 3304(a)(8), FUTA, requires, as a condition for employers in a State to receive normal credit against the Federal tax, that a State's unemployment compensation (UC) law provide that: compensation shall not be denied to an individual for any week because he is in training with the approval of the State agency (or because of the application, to any such week in training, of State law provisions relating to availability for work, active search for work, or refusal to accept work). . . Title III, JTPA, contains certain employment and training provisions specifically related to dislocated workers. In its original enactment (Public Law (P.L.) 97-300), JTPA included a provision which the Department of Labor (Department) interpret- ed as requiring that acceptance of training under Title III, JTPA, was to be considered approved training under Section 3304(a)(8), FUTA. The reauthorization of JTPA (P.L. 99-496) did not include a similar provision; however, Department regulations at 20 CFR 631.4 (1992) imposed such a requirement. The recently enacted P.L. 102-367, the Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992, again included such a provision related to approved training. Specifically, Section 301(2) of P.L. 102-367 added new Section 314(f)(2) to JTPA. This section provides: An eligible dislocated worker participating in training (except for on-the-job training) under this title [i.e., Title III] shall be deemed to be in training with the approval of the State agency for purposes of section 3304(a)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [i.e., Section 3304(a)(8), FUTA]. This provision is implemented in regulations at 20 CFR 631.4 (57 Fed. Reg. 62004, 62063). Discussion: Section 3304(a)(8), FUTA, requires a State to allow an individual in an approved training course to receive UC and to prohibit denial based on State law provisions relating to availability for work, active search for work, or refusal of work. Ordinarily, each State is free to determine whether training is appropriate for a claimant, to establish the criteria for approval of a training course, and to adopt safeguards to assure that the claimant is actually attending approved training. Section 314(f)(2), JTPA, however, preempts State agency discretion to approve training in one area. A State must consider training under Title III of JTPA to be "approved" training within the meaning of Section 3304(a)(8), FUTA. This amendment to JTPA applies only to those individuals actually participating in training under Title III, JTPA. It does not apply to individuals who are merely enrolled, accepted in, or planning to attend such training. Nor, by its terms, does it apply to on- the-job training. States do, however, have the option of considering whether individuals participating in training under other titles of JTPA are in "approved" training. Section 3304(a)(8), FUTA, prohibits the denial of compensation to a trainee in an approved training course based on State law requirements relating to availability for work, active search for work, or refusal of work. However, an individual participating in training under Title III, JTPA, who does not meet other State UC eligibility requirements is not entitled to UC. For example, Title III, JTPA, permits individuals who have exhausted their compensation to participate in training programs. These individuals remain ineligible for UC because of State law regarding exhaustion of compensation, despite participation in training under Title III, JTPA. Individuals must satisfy all other basic State law requirements for eligibility, such as establishing sufficient qualifying wages or showing good cause for voluntarily leaving employment. These requirements are not waived by any provision of JTPA or FUTA. Effective Date: Under Section 701(a) of P.L. 102-367, the amendments made by such act "shall take effect on July 1, 1993" except as otherwise provided. Since no other provision designates an effective date for Section 314(f), it is effective July 1, 1993. Action Required: States should review their laws to assure that individuals participating in training (except for on-the-job training) under Title III, JTPA, are in "approved" training under State laws.

References. TEGL 1-94, dated August 31, 1994; 20 CFR Part 627.470; also the "Guide to JTPA Performance Standards for Program Years 1994 and 1995" transmitted by Training and Employment Information Notice 16-94, dated December 13, 1994. Background. Within 90 days after the end of the Program Year [JTPA 106(j)], each State is required to report to the Secretary the final performance standards and actual performance of each Service Delivery Area (SDA) within the State. Within the same timeframe, the State shall also provide to the Secretary technical assistance plans for each SDA that has failed the established performance standards for one program year, and a reorganization plan for each SDA that has failed performance standards for two consecutive program years. Policy. Effective Program Year (PY) 1994, the Governor's determination of an SDA's failure to meet performance standards, and the consequent imposition of technical assistance and reorganization plans, must incorporate the Secretary's parameters, including the new definition of failure to meet performance standards (see TEGL 1-94). The Secretary's definition of failure to meet performance standards is not retroactive to PY 1993, unless similar provisions were included in the Governor's performance standards policy for PY 1993. For Program Years 1993 and 1994 only, the Governor's policy shall be used to determine SDAs that are subject to sanctions due to failure to meet performance standards for 2 consecutive years. Further, Governors are encouraged to take into consideration program funding uncertainties and other budgetary constraints in their review of SDA performance results and development of performance standards. In particular, we encourage Governors to review performance standards for youth programs, given rescissions and continuing uncertainty of youth program funding. Governors are reminded that adjustments to performance levels are allowable should changes occur in the levels of funding, the local economy, or needs in service to special populations.