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.

References: UIPL 44-90 (September 21, 1990) Background: Charging a UI benefit to the appropriate employers' accounts involves two determinations: determining whether an employer should be charged for benefits paid under the claim in question; and allocating the benefit amount between the accounts of chargeable employers and the general pool account. Core RQC reviews the accuracy of both determinations as part of its program review of a SESA's tax accounting function. A Department of Labor Office of Inspector General study of experience rating raised the concern that employers might be systematically evading benefit charges by alleging that the claimant had quit or otherwise left for nonchargeable reasons. As a result, UI tax rates might be insufficiently experience-rated. In response RQC pilot tested a more thorough examination of Benefit Charging accuracy, including a verification of the accuracy of employer responses to notices of potential benefit charge. The results of that pilot test, conducted in six States for 9 months during 1991, are summarized in the attached paper. The paper also identifies options for assessing the accuracy of benefit charges in the future. The Department seeks comments on these options before deciding whether to go beyond, at some future date, the present Core RQC review. The final evaluation report on the Benefit Charging pilot was received from Abt Associates, Inc., in January 1993. Copies of this report, "Unemployment Insurance Revenue Quality Control: Benefit Charging Pilot Project" are available on request. Action Requested: State Administrators are requested to (a) provide comments to the appropriate Regional Office on the attached options paper 45 days from date of release of this UIPL, and (b) forward to the National Office (Attn: TEUQR) any benefit charge studies done within the past 5 years that might be helpful in considering these options. Inquiries: Questions should be directed to the appropriate Regional Office. Copies of the Abt Evaluation Report: Copies are available upon request from Burman Skrable, ETA/UIS/OQCI, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room S-4015, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 219-5220.

Reference: Training and Employment Information Notice (TEIN) No. 34-93, Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Targeting, Outreach, and Recruitment Technical Assistance Guide (TAG). Background: Approximately two years ago, DOL sponsored the development and distribution of a technical assistance guide (TAG) and three train- the-trainer sessions on Targeting, Outreach and Recruitment (TOR). The TAG and training were presented as part of a series of technical assistance and training developed to assist States and service delivery areas (SDAs) in the implementation of quality JTPA programs. As a follow-on to the TOR TAG and training, the Private Industry Council (PIC) of Central Florida has developed a two-day workshop to help JTPA organizations further develop or enhance their marketing, outreach, and recruitment efforts. The DOL-sponsored workshop is scheduled to take place at the Hilton at Walt Disney World Village on April 28 and 29 prior to the National Association of Workforce Development Professionals (NAWDP) conference held on April 30 through May 3 in Orlando, Florida. The PIC has done an extensive mailing notifying persons in the employment and training system about the workshop. Action Required: a. Please share information about this upcoming workshop with the SDAs, Private Industry Councils, State Training Institutes and other appropriate agencies in you State as soon as possible. b. Please advise your colleagues that should they be unable to attend this workshop on such short notice, the Department is still open to receiving information on the need for additional technical assistance and/or training in this subject area. Additional workshops may be scheduled dependent on the need expressed.