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.

AWBA Utilization: The attached listing identifies the AWBA which is to be used when computing the weekly amount of disaster unemployment assistance (DUA) for major disasters where the date of the disaster for the individual occurs during the third quarter of FY 1993 (refer to 20 CFR 625.6). The AWBA for each State is based on the total amount of unemployment insurance paid in that State in the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters immediately preceding the quarter in which the major disaster began. States shall use the AWBA, rounded to the next higher dollar amount, in the computation of the DUA weekly benefit amount. An updated listing will be provided for each subsequent calendar quarter. Action Required: State Employment Security Agency Administrators are requested to provide this information to appropriate staff.

References. DINAP Bulletin No. 94-18, Attachment No. 1-A and Attachment No. 1-B and Federal Register/Vol.60, No. 28/ dated February 10, 1995, pp 8066-74. Background. Proposed JTPA Title IV-A and Title II-B grant allocations for DINAP grantees were published in the Federal Register on February 10, 1995, and in DINAP Bulletin No. 94-18. Action. Grantees are advised to continue using the allocations listed in DINAP Bulletin No. 94-18, Attachments 1-A and 1-B in the preparation of CAPs and SYEPs. Current grantees with changed geographic service areas and all new grantees have been informed of their modified or new allocations. Instructions will be issued regarding any changes affecting the planning documents (Budget Information Summary and Program Planning Summary) once final allocations have been published in the Federal Register. Inquiries. Questions should be directed to your DINAP Federal Representative.

References. DINAP Bulletin No. 93-18, Change 1; A Guide to Smartlink II, Enclosure (1), SUB-ACCOUNT STRUCTURE AND PROGRAM YEAR AND TITLE CODES. Background. Within the next few months, most section 401 grantees will be receiving their signed grant documents and Notices of Obligation (NOO's), which will authorize them to operate title II-B programs for the summer of 1995 and title IV-A programs for PY 1995. Grantees who use the PMS to draw down their JTPA funds will need to know and use the following subaccount codes to draw down the appropriate funds. Grantees who continue to obtain their funds through the SF-270, Request for Advance or Reimbursement, will not be affected by this bulletin. Action. The new subaccount code for PY 1994 title IV-A funds will be 6X. As indicated last year in DINAP Bulletin No. 93-18, Change 1, the subaccount code required to access title II-B funds for the summer of 1995 is 5J. These subaccounts correspond to the planning funding document (printout) transmitted to all grantees with DINAP Bulletin No. 94-18. All previously-issued subaccount codes remain the same, including the "split" subaccounts for title II-B funds for the summer of 1993. As a reminder, the subaccount code for PY 1993 title II-B funds is 3A, and the subaccount code for PY 1994 title IV-A funds is 5K. Grantees are reminded that, when drawing down funds under either title, the oldest remaining funds should be drawn down first, so that as many subaccounts as possible can be "zeroed out." The only exception to this rule is when a grantee has been officially notified that it has exceeded the carry-in limit for a given funding period and, as a result, a specified amount previously allocated is no longer available to the program. In such cases, the Grant Officer will issue further instructions on a case-by-case basis. Effective date. Date of this bulletin. Inquiries. Questions should be addressed to William Stewert on (202) 219- 7796, Andi Rebar on (202) 219-6683, Julia Murray on (202) 219- 8793, or Greg Gross on (202) 219-7509.

Reference. DINAP Bulletin No. 87-11. Background. The JTPA Amendments of 1992 revised section 167 of the Act to require the Secretary of Labor to issue final regulations to clarify the application of the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of the JTPA and provide uniform procedures for implementing these provisions. On January 15, 1993, the Directorate of Civil Rights, the DOL agency responsible for enforcing the various Federal nondiscrimination and equal opportunity statutes applicable to federally-assisted programs, issued a final rule to implement the nondiscrimination and equal employment opportunity requirements of the JTPA in 29 CFR part 34. This final rule is in addition to the Department's nondiscrimination and equal opportunity regulations at 29 CFR parts 31 and 32. All three parts are applicable to JTPA, section 401 programs. In order to eliminate the burden of complying with other overlapping regulatory requirements, 29 CFR part 34 provides that compliance by JTPA grantees with part 34 constitutes compliance with the Department's Civil Rights Act of 1964 title VI regulations (29 CFR part 31) and with specified portions of the Department's Rehabilitation Act section 504 federally-assisted programs regulations (29 CFR part 32, subparts A, D and E). However, 29 CFR part 34 does not incorporate all of the requirements contained in 29 CFR part 32. Therefore, grantees remain responsible for the obligations imposed by subparts B and C and Appendix A of 29 CFR part 32, which pertain to employment practices and employment-related training, program accessibility, and accommodations under Rehabilitation Act section 504. Action. Grantees are to follow the regulatory requirements on nondiscrimination and equal opportunity contained in 29 CFR parts 31, 32 and the new part 34. Grantees should familiarize themselves with 29 CFR part 34. Inquiries. Contact your DINAP Federal Representative.

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

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