References. Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended. Section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1989. Job Training Partnership Act, as amended, Section 142(a)(2) and (3). DINAP Bulletin 89-31. Background. Section 142(a)(2) and (3) of the JTPA requires, in part, that compensation to participants under all activities financed under the Act be at the same rates as similarly situated employees or trainees. In no case may compensation be less than the rate specified in Section 6(a)(1) of the FLSA of 1938, as amended. The minimum wage will be increased in steps under provisions of the FLSA amendments enacted into law on November 17, 1989. The first increase took effect on April 1, 1990. The FLSA Amendments also include a "training wage" which may be used instead of the minimum to pay teenagers, aged 16-19, for their first 90 days (and in some cases, 180 days) of employment. This "training wage" was set at $3.35 an hour or 85% of the federal minimum wage, whichever was higher. Clarification. The Employment and Training Administration has reviewed the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments as they pertain to the JTPA and has determined the following: (1) the JTPA statute applies the minimum wage rate specified at Section 6(a)(1) of the FLSA to all the JTPA programs; (2) Section 6 of the Amendments, which contains the "training wage" provisions, does not amend Section 6 of the FLSA. As such, rather than establishing a new minimum wage rate at Section 6(a), the amendments provide for an exception to the minimum wage rates set forth at Section 6(a) of the FLSA; and (3) exceptions to the FLSA minimum wage do not apply to the JTPA training and employment programs. Based on the above and given the JTPA statutory requirements at Section 142(a)(2) and (3), there is no current authority to allow the use of the new "training wage" in the JTPA program. Therefore, the JTPA grantees will not use this FISA minimum wage exception. This will be the case for all JTPA programs including the Summer Youth programs under Title II-B. The JTPA statutory wage requirements will remain unchanged. Wages for those participants who receive the federal minimum wage was increased from $3.35 an hour to $3.80 an hour on April 1, 1990. The second increase, to $4.25 an hour, is scheduled for April 1, 1991. The Department of Labor is developing a technical amendment which it may submit to Congress to apply the "training wage" to JTPA programs in the future. Grantees will be notified if there are further developments. Action. Grantees are advised regarding the application of the new minimum wage provisions to the JTPA programs. Questions. Contact your DINAP Federal Representative.

References. OMB Circulars A-87, A-102, A-110 and A-122, and 29 CFR 97.51. Background. The Department of Labor (DOL) regulations for grants to States and local governments at 29 CFR 97.51 (b) indicates that "the closeout of a grant does not affect...the grantee's obligation to return any funds due as a result of later refunds, corrections, or other transactions." OMB Circular A-102, "Uniform Requirements for Assistance to State and Local Governments, 11 (applies to tribal organizations) Attachment L, paragraph 3.b. stipulates that closeout procedures require that "the grantee shall immediately refund to the grantor agency any balance of unobligated (unencumbered) cash advanced to the grantee that is not authorized to be retained by the grantee for use on other grants."OMB Circular A-110, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and other Nonprofit Organizations," Attachment K, paragraph 3.b. stipulates the same thing. Refunds, rebates, and other credits may occur when grant funds are expended, disbursed and subsequently returned to the grantee (e.g., differences between grantee-approved provisional indirect cost rates and negotiated final indirect cost rates, the result of subgrantee audit disallowances, unemployment insurance overpayments, insurance rebates, etc.). Policy. Based on the requirements of 29 CFR 97.51 (b) and OMB Circulars A-102 and A-110, it is the Employment and Training Administration's (ETA) policy that all refunds, rebates and other credits are to be returned to DOL immediately upon receipt if the grant is no longer open. If the refund, rebate or other credit is related to an open grant, it may be treated as an applicable credit in accordance with OMB Circular A-87, Attachment A, paragraph C.3.a. and OMB Circular A-122, Attachment A, paragraph A.5. and used to reduce or offset expense items.

References. Farmworker Bulletin 91-6, "Status Report on the Phase-Out of the TFCS-LOC Network," January 29, 1991; Farmworker Bulletin 90-27, "Phase-Out of the TFCS-LOC Network," August 8, 1990. Background. In March and April 1991, the electronic fund transfer system for all Section 402 grantees was transferred to the Department of Health and Human Service Payment Management System (PMS). Accounts were established for each grantee and communica-tions software and instructions for using the Smartlink procedure were provided. Currently, grantees are drawing PY 1990 funds under this system. Information. In order to facilitate the accounting for funds from different program years, the PMS has established a separate subaccount for PY 1991 funds. Grantees must continue to draw down funds using the current subaccount number for funds to be applied to grant activities in PY 1990. Action. For grant activities in PY 1991, grantees are instructed to draw down PY 1991 funds using a different subaccount number. The subaccount number for PY 1991 funds is: Cxxxx178 where "xxxx" represents the four digit segment of the grant number. A grantee with the grant number 99-1-1234-56-000-02 would draw down PY 1991 funds using the subaccount number C1234178. Note: The four digit segment is underscored here for emphasis only. Grantees should not underscore the subaccount number when using the Smartlink procedure. Effective Date. The new subaccount number will become effective when PY 1991 funds are awarded on or after July 1, 1991. Inquiries. Contact the Federal Representative assigned to your grant.

References. 41 CFR Part 301-4; Federal Register/Vol. 56, No. 122/Tuesday, June 25, 1991, page 28824, attached. Background. The General Services Administration is required by law to periodically investigate the cost of operating privately owned vehicles to employees while on official travel and report the results of these investigations to Congress. Action. Effective July 1, 1991, grantees are authorized to increase the mileage reimbursement rate from 24 cents to 25 cents per mile for use of privately owned automobiles for approved JTPA grant purposes. Questions. Consult your DINAP Federal Representative.

Reference. DINAP Bulletin 90-24, dated March 1-3, 1991. Background. DINAP Bulletin 90-24 introduced the new Employability Enhancement performance measure which is designed to give grantees credit for improving participants' knowledge, abilities and skills. Paragraph 3.f. of the Bulletin advised grantees that the Annual Status Report has been revised to capture data on various types of enhancements. It also imposed a requirement that all grantees assess the reading level of all participants at time of entry into the Section 401 program. It further stated that, for some outcomes, some grantees would need a broader approach and would have to assess a participant's employability at the time of program entry. Also, all grantees were encouraged to adopt an employability development plan to record increases in employability, to measure progress and to capture data to support reported outcomes. This policy caused some concern at the recent DINAP sponsored TAT seminars in January-February 1991 and generated considerable discussion at the recent Advisory Committee meeting in Spokane. Written comments were received subsequently from grantees. ETA of met to discuss and resolve these issues and concerns. In the meantime, it was determined that about forty percent of the grantees are already testing participants. In addition, OMB suggested the following language receding testing: ... "all grantees must offer to administer a reading test to all participants prior to service delivery. However, grantees shall permit individual participants to refuse the test..." The attached Q&A paper on assessment addresses the most frequently raised issues and concerns. In addition, there will be more training on this requirement at seminars during August-September 1991. Details will be provided in a forthcoming DINAP bulletin. Information. The reading assessment policy is in effect beginning July 1, 1991. However, grantees need to note the following clarifications and special instructions: a. Clarification of DINAP Bulletin 90-24 In reference to paragraph 3.f., grantees will obtain reading scores at intake whenever possible. Grantees are encouraged to assess for reading levels once it has been established that the eligible applicant has no existing score from a school or GED program within the last 12 months, or has acquired a four-year college degree, or is in a special circumstance where he or she is unable to be assessed at the intake site. See attached Q and A, Question number 6 for more details. Furthermore, grantees should be advised that the phrase "to assess a participant's employability" refers to other terminee characteristics which are listed as "multiple barriers to employment" such as teen parents, lacks significant work history, poor math skills, or substance abuse, etc. This phrase means that grantees should determine if a participant has multiple barriers to employment; it does not mandate grantees to conduct aptitude testing. b. Special Instructions for PY 1991 PY 1991 is considered a transition year for INA grantees to phase in a reading assessment capability for all applicants. Grantees are expected to develop this capacity during the second quarter of PY 91 and then implement an assessment procedure for all applicants during the third quarter. Summer youth participants are exempt from the reading assessment during the Summer of 1991. Grantees will not be penalized for failure to implement a total assessment procedure for PY 1991. Expenses to conduct reading assessments may be charged as a training cost (see CFR 632.38(e)). Action. Grantees are requested to review the attached Q and A paper, distributing copies as necessary to staff who will be involved in these activities. Questions. Contact your DINAP Federal Representative.

Background. As part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, Congress mandated that DOL and the Department of Agriculture determine annually whether there is a shortage of Seasonal Agricultural Services workers. In order to fulfill this assignment, DOL began the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS). NAWS. The survey collected information about the demographics, migration and employment patterns of farmworkers. NAWS is the only survey collecting information for the Federal government on this diverse population. The enclosed copy is the first in a series, although it reports on the second year of NAWS. The volume covering the first year's interviews is forthcoming. A similar report will be produced annually, contingent on continued funding for NAWS. Data collection is now underway for the 1991 survey. Additional Copies. Contact the Federal Representative assigned to your grant.

Background. There appears to be a misunderstanding among some Federal staff, contractors and grantees about who is eligible for Federal travel discounts. The employment and Training Administration's Division of Acquisition and Assistance has researched this matter and has consulted with travel policy experts in the General Services Administration. Policy. Only Federal contractors that have cost-reimbursement contracts are eligible for travel discounts through participating vendors. Federal grantees are not eligible. Furthermore, grantees are not eligible to use General Services Administration sources of supply and services for travel purposes. Finally, grantees are not eligible for Diner's Club credit cards issued to Federal employees. Grantee/staff are expected to obtain the most economical rates possible when travelling, however. Questions. Contact your DINAP Federal Representative.

Background. The U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Development (OSPPD) has contracted with Berkeley Planning Associates (BPA), and SRI International to conduct an evaluation of the JTPA, Title IV MSFW program. The purpose of the study is to examine the effectiveness of training, employment and supportive services provided by grantees, funded under Section 402, in meeting the goals of the program. The project officer for this evaluation is Mr. Tom NaSell of OSPPD. Ms. Marlene Strong, of BPA, and Mr. Ron D'Amico of SRI serve as Co-principal Investigators of the study, which began July 1, 1991 and continues through June 30, 1993. Evaluation Objectives. The evaluation has the following objectives: -- to describe variations in the provision of services to farmworkers, including differences by type of worker served (seasonal or migrant; in-state or interstate; those with or without non-agricultural work experience; youth or adult), as well as differences by type of grantee (administrative; size); -- to assess the quality of services being provided to program participants; -- to describe the influence of Federal policies and regulations on grantee operations; -- to describe the influence of local economic conditions on grantee operations and program design; -- to describe the coordination practices of grantees; -- to describe the outcomes for different types of clients, and to analyze the effects of local economic conditions and services provided on those outcomes. Research Design. Both qualitative and quantitative methods will be used to assess program effectiveness. Two site visits will be conducted to 18 randomly selected grantees, one during each of the study years. Four days will be spent on site in the first year - two days in discussions with staff at the central administrative office, and two days in discussions with staff and program participants at one of the grantee's field offices. Quantitative analyses will be performed using databases contain- ing information about the client population (from the Annual Status Reports) and databases on the eligible farmworker population. In addition, analyses will be performed on existing client-level data from grantees at ten of the sites visited. Action. Initial site visits to selected grantees will occur from October 1991 through February 1992. Grantees will be notified of their selection by the Department, and contacted by a BPA or SRI study team member to arrange the site visit. Grantees may be asked to provide copies of grant plans and quarterly or annual reports to the study team before the visits. Questions. For further information, please contact your Federal Representative.

Reference. Farmworker Bulletin (FWB) No. 90-10 (January 25, 1990). Background. Section 303 of Immigration Reform and Control Act amended the INA by adding provisions relating to the control of illegal and legal immigration into the United States. The new Section 210A of the INA provided a system for granting temporary resident alien status to RAWs. The number of RAWs to be admitted (or to acquire the status of lawful admission) is to be jointly determined each Fiscal Year (FY) by the Secretaries of Labor and Agriculture, and will be the smaller of (1) the calculated numerical limitation, and (2) the number determined necessary to meet a shortage of workers to perform seasonal agricultural services (SAS). FWB No. 90-10 transmitted procedures to be used by (1) the Secretaries for the determination of the RAW number, (2) SAS employers for appealing for an increase in the shortage number, and (3) RAWs for petitioning for a decrease in the number of days of work required to maintain their status. Policy. The attached notice announces the determination that the number of workers to be admitted (or have their status adjusted) to meet a shortage of workers to perform SAS during FY 1992 is zero. Action. None required. Inquiries. Contact the Federal Representative assigned to your grant.

At a nationwide series of meetings with representatives of all State agencies in August 1971, Manpower Administration staff discussed draft procedural guides which were proposed for implementation of the requirements of the Supreme Court's decision in the Java case.

Under separate cover, we are sending to each State agency five copies of the procedures, revised in the light of the August discussions.

UIPL No. 1126 advised that States should issue as quickly as possible, but not later than September 1, 1971, predetermination procedures to provide for the necessary notice and hearing opportunity to claimants and employers. Later the States were informed through the Regional Manpower Administrators that any State that must have the Java procedures prepared by the Manpower Administration before it could implement changes in its predetermination procedures would have until two weeks after receipt of the Java procedures to effectuate the necessary changes in its procedures. Accordingly, States that have not revised their procedures should do so as soon as possible, with an implementation date not later than two weeks after receipt of the Java procedures.