References. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6102. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794, and its implementing regulations at 29 CFR Part 32; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1681; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Par. 2000d, and its implementing regulations at 29 CFR Part 31; Section 167 of the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1559. Backqround. Section 401 of the Job Training Partnership Act authorized the Secretary of Labor to fund programs offering job referral, job training, job counseling and other employment-related services to help jobless Native Americans. Eligible persons include Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts, Hawaiians and other persons of Native American descent who are economically disadvantaged, unemployed, or underemployed. Presently there are one hundred eighty-eight (188) tribes, bands, or groups administering comprehensive training and employment programs for Native Americans. All programs which receive financial assistance from the Department of Labor (DOL), including Native American programs, are covered by equal opportunity and nondiscrimination laws and regulations. The following provisions apply to Native American programs: -- Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, which provides that no person shall, on the basis of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from DOL.* -- Section 167 of the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982, which provides that no person shall, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or political affiliation or belief, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, be subjected to discrimination under, or denied employment in the administration of or in connection with any program or activity funded under the Act; JTPA further requires that any such program or activity be open to participation by citizens and nationals of the United States, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, lawfully admitted refugees and parolees, and other individuals authorized by the Attorney General to work in the United States.* -- The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which provides that no person shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from DOL. -- The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which provides that no otherwise qualified person shall, solely on the basis of physical or mental handicap, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving financial assistance from DOL. -- Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which provides that no person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any education or training program or activity receiving financial assistance from DOL. * Since Native American programs are limited by law to individuals of certain race and ethnic origin, recipients may legitimately exclude from the program persons who do not meet the race/ethnic eligibility criteria. The Directorate of Civil Rights (DCR), as the agent of the Secretary of Labor, is responsible for monitoring or reviewing recipients to determine if they are in compliance with the above nondiscrimination provisions, and for conducting investigations when there is reason to believe that discrimination is occurring or has occurred. Employees and participants of the Native American programs who feel discriminated against on any of the grounds described above, may file a complaint with: Directorate of Civil Rights U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20210 Only complaints alleging discrimination on the basis of handicap shall be processed at the local level, pursuant to 29 CFR Part 32.45. This provision requires that the recipient issue a determination on the complaint within 60 days of the date on which the complaint is filed. If not satisfied with the decision, or if no decision is issued, the complainant or his/her representative may, within 30 days of the local level decision or 90 days from the date the complaint was filed, file a complaint with the Directorate of Civil Rights at the above address. In order to maintain program participants' awareness of the program's nondiscrimination policy, and to explain briefly the procedure for filing a complaint, recipients are required by regulation to display prominently and in reasonable numbers the poster developed by DCR for this purpose. DINAP will issue a supply of posters to all grantees in the near future. Action Required. The information in this directive should be provided to appropriate personnel at the program level with instructions that all discrimination complaints involving U.S. Department of Labor funded JTPA programs, except for handicap complaints, should be referred to the Directorate of Civil Rights. DCR may also conduct on-site equal opportunity compliance reviews of Native American programs to determine compliance with appropriate civil rights statutes and regulations. Grantees will be advised in advance of any review scheduled. Inquiries. Consult your DINAP Federal Representative.

Background. Grantees and their auditing firms frequently request that DINAP provide them financial information related to their grants. DINAP will honor these requests if they conform to the instructions in this bulletin. DINAP will either confirm or point out the error in data submitted to it, but will not initiate the data gathering process. Action. All data to be confirmed must be presented in a neat and orderly fashion, with appropriate dates, grant numbers, titles, etc. indicated. For example, requests for confirmation of drawdown data should be in accordance with the attached sample format, and accurately reflect the data on the Forms SF 5805 that were submitted to draw down the funds. Requests for confirmation of information should be sent to the following address: Herbert Fellman, Chief Division of Indian and Native American Programs Frances Perkins Bldg., Room N-4641 200 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, D.C. 20210 Attn: Drawdown Desk Questions. Consult your DINAP Federal Representative.

References. 20 CFR 632.37(b), OMB Circular A-87 and A-122. Background. The JTPA regulations at 20 CFR 632.37(b), and the Federal cost principles contained in OMB Circulars A-87 and A-122 state that all costs charged to a grant, whether indirect or direct, to be allowable, must be necessary, reasonable and allocable to the grant. Some examples of possible indirect costs are: rent, telephone, office equipment and supplies, utilities and printing. Almost all grantees have more than one funding source and in most cases the indirect costs are spread among all of them. It is unlikely that any grantee would have only its JTPA grant, or that a grantee with more than one funding source would not spread the indirect costs among all the benefitting grants. In all cases where a grantee has more than one source of funds and spreads the indirect costs among them it must have either an indirect cost proposal or a cost allocation plan approved by its cognizant Federal agency. This requirement is stated for federally recognized tribes in OMB Circular A-87 in Attachment A, Section J, and for non-profit organizations in OMB Circular A-122 in Section E. Grantees should contact their nearest Department of Health and Human Services regional office to obtain copies of OASMB-5, "A Guide for Nonprofit Organizations" and OASC-10, "A Guide for State and Local Government Agencies" (applicable to tribes); these documents provide guidelines for the preparation of indirect cost rate proposals and cost allocation plans. Definitions. For purposes of this directive the definitions contained in OMB Circular A-87 and A-122 will govern. Policy. If the grantee intends to charge its JTPA Section 401 grant for indirect costs, a cost allocation plan or an indirect cost proposal is required. A cost allocation plan or indirect cost proposal and the methodology used in their computation must be negotiated with and approved by the cognizant Federal agency annually. The portion of the salaries and expenses of the chief executive and the executive staff of a Federally recognized Indian tribal government that is attributable to managing and operating the JTPA program is allowable and can be included among the indirect costs. The allowable portion of the salary and expenses of the chief executive and staff will be determined on a reasonable basis. These and all other costs covered by a cost allocation plan or an indirect cost proposal must be identifiable and are subject to audit. In all instances where indirect costs are administrative, they will be charged to the administrative cost category. Because Section 632.263 of the JTPA regulations limits administrative costs to 20 percent of the amount allocated to the grantee, a combination of direct and indirect administrative costs cannot exceed the 20 percent limitation. If the total of direct and indirect administrative costs exceeds 20 percent, the difference must be paid from non-JTPA funds. Grantees' funding levels are not increased as the result of an approved indirect cost proposal or cost allocation plan. The Negotiation Process. When a grantee is the recipient of other Federal, State and/or local funds, and wishes to charge the JTPA program for indirect costs, it is required to establish a cost allocation plan or an indirect cost proposal. The cost allocation plan or indirect cost rate proposal will be approved by the grantee's cognizant Federal agency. The cognizant Federal agency is usually the agency which provides the largest sum of money to the grantee. The Division of Cost Determination (DCD) of the Department of Labor (DOL), is available to provide technical assistance when requested. In addition, DCD will negotiate an indirect cost rate for those grantees for which DOL is the cognizant Federal agency. Summary. The negotiation of a cost allocation plan or an indirect cost rate is based on the regulations and instructions cited throughout this directive. The rate established by the Federal cognizant agency will generally be accepted by DOL. The total of direct administrative and indirect administrative costs that can be charged to the JTPA grant cannot exceed twenty (20) percent of the total amount of the grant. A cost allocation plan or an indirect cost proposal and the methodology used in its development must be approved annually by the cognizant agency. The proposal and supporting data and all costs claimed, both direct and indirect, are subject to audit. During monitoring visits, the DINAP Federal Representative will verify that services reimbursed through application of the indirect cost rate are actually being provided. If any questions arise concerning the negotiated indirect cost, rate and how it should be applied to a JTPA Section 401 grant, DCD should be contacted. See attached listing of DCD contacts. Action Required. A grantee that does not have an approved cost allocation plan or indirect cost rate, but requires one, should contact its cognizant Federal agency. Grantees who already have approved indirect cost rates should obtain renewals in accordance with this bulletin and the applicable OMB Circulars, and they should start the renewal process as soon as possible after being advised of their new funding level when an indirect cost rate is approved for a grantee, the type of rate and the rate itself is to be reported in the comment section of all the financial status reports submitted by the grantee to DINAP. In those cases where DOL is the cognizant agency, a new grantee should submit an indirect cost proposal or cost allocation plan to a DOL regional office (see attachment) for review and approval within 90 days after it has been designated a JTPA grantee. Existing JTPA grantees for whom DOL is the cognizant agency should apply for a renewal within six months after completion of any grantee Fiscal Year. Please note the reference to "grantee Fiscal Year," which may or may not correspond to the Federal Government's Fiscal Year. Inquiries. Questions should be directed to your DINAP Federal Representative.

References. DINAP Bulletin No. 85-16. Background. The Single Audit Act was passed by Congress in 1984 and DINAP issued its first bulletin on the subject on March 21, 1986. The attached set of questions and answers was prepared by the Office of Management and Budget and covers areas which are in addition to the areas covered by DINAP Bulletin No. 85-16, which is still valid. Grantees are reminded that OMB Circular A-128, which implements the Single Audit Act, states that it applies to, Federally recognized tribes. OMB Circular A-110, Attachment F, was written to apply to non-profit organizations. However, DOL made OMB Circular A-128 apply to non-profit organizations when it issued 29 CFR Part 96. The reference is at 96.202. Action. Grantees should study the attached questions and answers and apply the knowledge gained to their operations. Questions. Consult your DINAP Federal Representative.

Background. The FBP originated as a Department of Labor (DOL) pilot project in 1966. It was created when it became apparent that a significant number of persons participating in Federally financed training, counseling, work-training, or work-experience programs could not move into the job market because they could not qualify for fidelity bond coverage. A fidelity bond is insurance an employer carries as protection against employee theft or dishonesty. Employees who handle money or valuable tools or goods are frequently required to be bonded. Insurance companies routinely refuse to cover individuals with a record of arrest, conviction, probation, imprisonment, parole, drug or alcohol abuse, or poor credit. The pilot project provided coverage to eligible job seekers through an insurance company, the Aetna Casualty and Security Company, which issued bonds for these high-risk potential employees. In 1971, no longer a pilot project, the FBP was expanded and made available through local Public Employment Service offices throughout the U.S. Under the FBP, more than 21,000 persons have been successfully placed in jobs they could not have obtained without fidelity bonding; and the "default rate," that is, the percentage of participants who have claims paid against them, has remained constant at less than 2%--fewer than 1 bondee in 50. Key Features of the FBP. The FBP provides individual fidelity bond coverage for ex-offenders; persons with a history of drug or alcohol abuse; persons with poor or no credit history; veterans with dishonorable discharges; persons who have been bankrupt; and other high-risk job applicants normally ineligible for fidelity bonding. Eligibility. Bonds are available to any individual who is qualified for a specific job and is not commercially bondable; who has a firm job offer of fulltime, steady work, with a reasonable expectation of permanence, and is not self-employed. Amount of Bonds. Bonds are available in increments of $500 up to a maximum, in most cases, of $10,000. In specific cases, coverage can be obtained up to $25,000. Most bonds are written for amounts in the $1,000--$8,000 range. The bond must be "tailored" to fit only the actual amount of risk (the amount of cash, merchandise, or equipment the employee can access) on the job. Bonds above $10,000 must be authorized individually by the FBP National Coordinator before they are issued. (This can be done by phone). Administration. Either the job applicant or the potential employer may apply for the bond at any local Public Employment Service office. If the applicant and the job meet the eligibility criteria, the authorized local office staff will certify the bond. The bond will become effective on the day the applicant begins work. The bond itself will be mailed to the employer by the McLaughlin Company, which acts as agent for the Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, that contracts with DOL to insure the bond. Length of Coverage. The bond is issued for six months. The employer may extend the coverage for another six months by writing to the FBP in Washington, D.C., one month prior to the expiration date to request a renewal. At the end of the 12 months, if there has been no claim against the bond, Aetna will sell coverage to the employer or bondee at regular rates. Cost of the Bonds. The FBP covers the total bonding costs for 12 months. After that, the premium must be paid either by the employer or the bondee. Bond rates will vary depending on the amount of risk to the employer and type of business. How JTPA Officials Can Use the FBP. Since 1966, the FBP has been administered through local Public Employment Service offices. Recently, however, a number of JTPA staff have indicated an interest in having more direct access to the program. This can be done in two ways: a. Public Employment Service Access. JTPA staff contact the local Public Employment Service office and work closely with them--by phone or in person--to provide the information needed for bond certification. The local office staff will handle the paperwork and certify the bond by letter to the employer the same day. When the certification request (application) is received by the McLaughlin Company in Washington, D.C., the bond will be mailed to the employer. b. JTPA FBP Designated Authorized Representative (DAR). In addition to working through Public Employment Service offices, JTPA personnel can be authorized to act as representatives of the FBP. After training provided by the FBP National Coordinator, JTPA staff would complete the certification request themselves and send it directly to the McLaughlin Company in Washington, D.C., issue a letter certifying the bond to the potential employer, and forward a copy of the certification request to the State Coordinator for the FBP. As above, the McLaughlin Company will mail the bond to the employer. How to Get Involved. JTPA personnel interested in becoming DARs should write for full information on the program to: Mr. Bill Throckmorton National Coordinator or Ms. Trudy Brisendine, Assistant National Coordinator The Federal Bonding Program 2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 803 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 293-5566 Questions. Consult your DINAP Federal Representative.

References. Grant documents are received in DINAP occasionally which do not have proper signatures, owing to a temporary absence of a tribal chairman or other person authorized to sign them. It is important that grant documents be signed only by an individual who has the authority to legally bind an organization to carry out the provisions of the grant. This is normally the tribal chairman, or in the case of non-profit organizations, the executive director. Action. Grantees should review the signatures on all grant documents submitted for PY 1987 and PY 1988, and if any have unauthorized signatures, a letter must be prepared granting authority to the signer. The letter must be signed by the authorizing official and submitted to DINAP. In the future, any time the authorized person cannot sign a document because of temporary absence, etc., he/she must in each case sign and submit with the document a letter authorizing another individual to sign for him. Or, the authorized person may sign a letter designating one or more individuals to sign for him for the duration of the grant or other time period. Questions. Contact you DINAP Federal Representative.

Reference. DINAP Bulletin No. 87-23. Background. DINAP Bulletin No. 87-23 provided grantees with general information on the establishment of indirect cost rates. The attached Guide contains valuable additional information on that subject. Questions. Consult your DINAP Federal Representative.

References. 41 CFR Part 29-70 Information. (a) In November 1983, a 20-agency task force under the President's Council on Management Improvement (PCMI), chaired by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), was established to explore streamlining grants management and review of OMB Circular A-102. on March 12, 1987, the President directed all affected agencies to simultaneously propose and subsequently adopt a common rule verbatim, except where inconsistent with statutory requirements. Affected agencies were to propose the common rule within 90 days and adopt a final common rule within one year. To meet this schedule, 23 agencies, including DOL, proposed a government-wide "common rule" in the June 9, 1987 Federal Register. OMB proposed a revised Circular A-102 in this same issue. on March 11, 1988, OMB published the final common rule establishing Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. As such, this final rule is applicable to Federally recognized Indian Tribal Governments. DOL's adoption of the "common regulation" is contained in 29 CFR Part 97. The final common rule has a government-wide effective date of October 1, 1988, consistent with the Federal fiscal year cycle. Since this date occurs three (3) months into the Program Year (PY) 1988 grant cycle, a departmental decision has been made to delay implementation until the PY 1989 grant cycle. A copy of this Federal Register is enclosed, along with a listing of some selected implementation factors. (b) In 1987, the PCMI directed that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and OMB jointly chair a follow-on effort to review and issue a common rule and revised circular for nongovernmental grantees covered by Circular A-110, "Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations". This regulation was reviewed, compared to the March 11, 1988, common rule, and the need to restore uniformity was considered. The March 11, 1988, common rule was amended to extend its applicability and make other necessary changes to cover nongovernmental organizations. The revised version of the common rule was published by OME in the Federal Register dated November 4, 1988, for comment by interested parties. A copy of that Federal Register is also enclosed. A final common rule for the combined circulars is scheduled to be issued in early 1989. When the revised version of the common rule is finalized it will apply to all Native American grantees, i.e., both tribal and non-tribal. Action. Tribal grantees should study the new regulations very carefully and apply them to their grant operations during PY 1989 and thereafter. Questions. Consult your DINAP Federal Representative.

Reference. DINAP Bulletin 87-7. Background. On August 11, 1987 DINAP provided grantees with information on the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). It covered the requirements and procedures for complying with IRCA. It also detailed the implications for the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). The attachment to this bulletin makes clear in a question and answer format who is covered by the law, the documents a prospective employee must produce, how the Form 1-9 is completed, and the individual's rights against employment discrimination. The information is presented in identical English and Spanish versions. Action. Grantees should add the attachment to the information provided in DINAP Bulletin 87-7, and also insure that it is prominently available to all applicants and participants. Questions. Consult your DINAP Federal Representative or the nearest office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Reference. 20 CFR 632.3,B Clarification. a. Staff-Training. According to 20 CFR 632.36 (d) staff training is an administrative expense. Therefore, all costs, including travel costs, associated with providing training to grantee staff must be charged to the administration cost category. Such costs cannot be charged to the training cost category as a "training assistance" cost. The only exception to this rule is discussed below. b. Training Provided to Staff who will Train Participants. The cost of specialized training received by a staff member(s) to enable his/her to provide such vocational training to a participant (a) (e.g. typing, data processing, auto mechanics) is to be charged to the classroom training cost category, including any travel coats associated with such staff training. c. Staff Travel Costs Associated with Provision of Training Assistance. The cost of staff travel associated with the provision of training assistance to participants may be charged to the training coat category only if its purpose fits the definition given at 20 CFR 632.78 (d). To meet this definition, such travel must be conducted on behalf of a specific participant or group of participants, e.g., a Job developer traveling to a nearby town to attempt to find Jobs for recent classroom training graduates; a counselor traveling to a distant part of the reservation to provide counseling to a participant in danger of dropping out of the program; or a staff member traveling to a distant point in the service area to give participants an orientation to the 'World of Work' and job search assistance. Travel coats associated with the provision of training assistance and chargeable to the training cost category would be primarily of a local, non-overnight nature and would involve the use of a personally owned vehicle or a tribal vehicle. The cost of staff travel undertaken to negotiate a specific OJT contract(&) for a specific participant(s) may be charged to the training cost category, where the cost of travel to speak at an employers' meeting to explain the operation and benefits of the grantee's OJT program must be charged to the administration cost category. The cost of staff travel which enables a participant(s) to participate in programs under the Act as specified at 20 CFR 632.38 (k)(4) must be charged to the supportive services cost category. Examples of this would be where a staff member transports participants to and/or from a training or work site to which they would otherwise be unable to go because of a lack of transportation facilities. Also, the cost of sending a staff member to a remote corner of the service area to take applications from people who cannot got to the central office would also be chargeable to the supportive services cost category. d. Travel Costs Associated with Regional or National Grantee Meetings. The cost of staff (counselors, job developers, etc.) for the purpose of attending regional or national meetings to improve their skills is not to be charged to the training (i.e., training assistance) coat category. It is considered 'staff training" as specified at 20 CFR 632.38 (d) and must be charged to the administration cost category. The cost of any grantee staff to attend any national or regional meeting as specified at 20 CFR 632.38 (d) and (k)(2) must be charged to the administration cost category. e. Travel Costs of Participants who Serve in Staff Positions. All allowable participant travel costs must be charged to the supportive services cost category except in those instances where a participant (e.g. a CSE participant) is actually functioning as a program staff member. In such cases, travel costs would be charged to the appropriate cost category following the guidelines for permanent staff members set forth above. Action. If a grantee is in doubt as to the proper way to allocate a particular travel cost, a written request for guidance is to be sent to the Chief of the Division of Indian and Native American Programs immediately. Inquiries. Call your DINAP Federal Representative.