References. 20 CFR 632.4 and DINAP Bulletin 94-2 and 94-29. Background. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) published revised poverty income guidelines in the Federal Register on March 4, 1996. The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) regulations at 20 CFR 632.4 provide for the use of DHHS poverty guidelines in determining economically disadvantaged persons and program eligibility. However, DHHS has definitions of "income" and "family" which are not applicable to the JTPA program. JTPA definitions can be found at 20 CFR 632.4. Action. The revised guidelines are effective from the date of this bulletin. Questions. Contact your DINAP Federal Representative at (202) 219-5511.

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

Reference. DINAP Bulletins Nos. 95-03; 95-12; 95-18; and 95-20. Background. On Thursday, July 27, 1995, the President signed the 1995 rescission bill, which became Public Law 104-19. This act eliminated all new funding for JTPA title II-B programs for the summer of 1996. However, as a result of input from a wide variety of sources, Congress became convinced of the importance of the Summer Youth program and agreed to restore some $625 million in JTPA title II-B funds for the summer of 1996. Approximately $11.4 million of this total is available to those section 401 grantees who qualify for title II-B funds. Policy. As stated in DINAP Bulletin No. 95-03 (now rescinded), all carry-in limits previously issued for title II-B funds are hereby withdrawn, including limits imposed on the deobligation of II-B funds from the now-expired 99-1/B-3 grants to the new B-5 grants which (for title II-B purposes) became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 must submit a Summer Plan for DOL approval, and will be expected to report on the expenditure of Federal funds (Financial Status Report) and program outcomes (Program Status Summary), as previously instructed, by November 15, 1996. Action. Attached are individual allocation levels for those grantees eligible to receive JTPA title II-B funds for the summer of 1996. These grantees need to submit new CY 1996 title II-B planning documents as soon as possible, due to the extremely short lead time remaining for processing and funding. To facilitate this effort, the Department will require only the following documents with the 1996 Summer Plans: (1) a new Budget Information Summary (BIS), showing actual title II-B carry-in amounts from the summer of 1995 (regardless of funds source); (2) a new Program Planning Summary (PPS); (3) a new grant signature sheet (attached), with the appropriate boxes checked under the Summer Plan section; and (4) a new narrative portion, if?necessary. Grantees wishing to omit the narrative and operate essentially the same title II-B program as they operated during 1995 need only check line a. "Program substantially unchanged from CY 1995". Because the procedures accompanying DINAP Bulletin No. 95-20 are now obsolete, all grantees eligible to receive title II-B funds MUST submit the above-referenced documents, whether or not they have already submitted paperwork pursuant to Bulletin 95-20. New Summer Plans must be sent as soon as possible to the following address: 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: SUMMER PLANS DESK Questions. Contact your DINAP Federal Representative Team.

References: ET Handbook No. 395, Revised July, 1997. FY 1999 BAM Training Seminars for State Investigators: Three remaining sessions of approximately 30 participants each are scheduled as follows: Date Location Deadline May 18 -21, 1999 Kansas City, Missouri April 16, 1999 June 29 -July 2, 1999 Washington, D.C. May 28, 1999 August 17 -20, 1999 Buena Park, California July 9, 1999 Logistics Information: The attached sheets provide information on location, hours, hotel arrangements, and ground transportation for the upcoming training seminars. A separate sheet is provided for each seminar. State Nominees: Nominations for each session will be accepted on a first come, first served basis. Nominations should indicate the session being requested. The deadlines shown above are for notification to the Regional Office (RO).

References: Sections 501, 1402(a)(15), 3301-3310 (the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA)), 7701(a), 7871, and 7873(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC); 25 U.S.C. Sections 450b and 479; Revenue Rulings 56- 110, 59-354, 68-493 and 85-194; and Unemployment Insurance Program Letters (UIPLs) 29-83, 29-83, Change 1, 12-87 and 24-89. Background: It is the Department's position that the granting of reimbursement status to Indian tribes liable for the Federal unemployment tax is inconsistent with the experience rating requirements of Section 3303(a)(1), FUTA. However, some States have nevertheless granted such Indian tribes reimbursement status. Although Congressional action has been anticipated on this matter for a considerable time, it does not appear to be forthcoming. Therefore, the Department is issuing this UIPL to assure consistent treatment of tribes for experience rating purposes. This UIPL also contains a discussion concerning State jurisdiction over the tribes. Unless greater specificity is required, this UIPL will use the term "tribe" to describe the Indian tribe, its tribal government as well as other tribal governmental entities and tribal business enterprises. Section 7701(a)(40)(A) of the IRC defines the term "Indian tribal government" to mean "the governing body of any tribe, band, community, village, or group of Indians, or (if applicable) Alaska natives, which is determined by the Secretary [of the Treasury], after consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to exercise governmental functions." Tribal governments, usually called "tribal councils," frequently operate business enterprises. "Tribe" is not defined in the IRC. For purposes of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, a tribe is defined as "any Indian tribe, band, nation or other organized group or community . . . which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians." 25 U.S.C. 450b(e). For purposes of the Indian Reorganization Act, a "tribe" refers to "any Indian tribe, organized band, pueblo, or Indians residing on one reservation." 25 U.S.C. 479. Federal Law Requirements: Section 3301, FUTA, imposes an excise tax on every employer (as defined in Section 3306(a)(1), FUTA) with "respect to having individuals in his employ . . . . " To encourage States to cover these services, Section 3302, FUTA, provides for a "normal" and an "additional" credit against this tax. Also, as described below, FUTA requires States to cover services performed for certain entities which are not subject to the FUTA tax and to offer such entities a reimbursement option. As a condition of receiving the additional credit, Section 3303(a)(1), FUTA, requires that State law provide that "no reduced rate of contributions . . . is permitted to a person (or group of persons) . . . except on the basis of his (or their) experience with respect to unemployment or other factors bearing a direct relation to unemployment risk." (Emphasis added.) Therefore, except as explained below, if an entity is a "person," that entity may be assigned a reduced rate only on the basis of its experience or other factors bearing a direct relation to unemployment risk (hereafter "experience"). If a "person" is assigned a rate that is not based on experience, the State's assignment of rates will conflict with Federal law requirements and all employers in the State will lose the additional credit against the FUTA tax. To determine if an entity is a "person," States may rely on the entity's FUTA tax status. Section 3306(a)(1), FUTA, defines the term "employer" as, in part, "any person . . . ." Only "employers" are liable for the FUTA tax (Section 3301, FUTA). Thus, any entity determined by the IRS to be an employer subject to and liable for the FUTA tax is a "person" which must be experience rated. However, since the term "person" is broader than the term "employer," it is possible for an entity to be a "person" even though it is not liable for the FUTA tax. One way this will happen is if all the services performed for a "person" are excluded from the definition of "employment" in Section 3306, FUTA. Two of these exclusions are described in paragraphs (7) and (8) of Section 3306(c): (7) service performed in the employ of a State, or any political subdivision thereof, or any instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing which is wholly owned by one or more States or political subdivisions; and any service performed in the employ of any instrumentality of one or more States or political subdivisions to the extent that the instrumentality is, with respect to such service, immune under the Constitution of the United States from the tax imposed by section 3301; (8) service performed in the employ of a religious, charitable, educational, or other organization described in section 501(c)(3) which is exempt from income tax under section 501(a). Since these State and local governmental entities and nonprofit organizations are not subject to the FUTA tax, the principal incentive for requiring State unemployment compensation (UC) coverage - the receipt of the tax credits against the FUTA tax for the individual employer - is absent. Sections 3304(a)(6) and 3309, FUTA, therefore, require, as a condition for all employers in a State to receive credit against the FUTA tax, that the State cover these services. These sections further require that States extend the option to make "payments (in lieu of contributions)," commonly called reimbursements, based on these services. The only way a "person" can qualify for reimbursing status under a State law without conflicting with Federal law is by meeting one of these two exclusions. Providing reimbursement status is viewed by the Department as assigning a zero rate to the "person" because no prospective liability is created. (Similarly, assigning no rate is viewed as assigning a zero rate.) Unless the "person" qualified for reimbursement status as discussed in the preceding paragraph, a conflict with Section 3303(a)(1), FUTA, would exist since the zero rate would not be based on experience. In addition, such a zero rate would not be based on the three years of experience immediately preceding the computation date and "persons" would not receive rates based on the same factors over the same period of time. (A discussion of these experience rating requirements is found in UIPL 29-83 and its Change 1.) Status of Tribes under Federal Law: It is well established that the IRS and the courts consider tribes to be "persons" for Federal tax purposes. The term "person" is defined in Section 7701(a)(1), IRC, "to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation." IRS Revenue Ruling 85-194 addressed whether an Indian tribal government was a "person." That ruling held that the definition of "person" in Section 7701(a)(1), IRC, "is sufficiently broad to include a governmental body." See Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U.S. 360 (1934). Therefore, the tribal government was a "person." The fact that tribes may perform governmental functions does not, therefore, form a basis for excepting them from the definition of "person." In fact, in cases where they are subject to the FUTA tax, they are plainly "persons" under Federal law since only "persons" are subject to this tax. In Revenue Ruling 56-110, the IRS determined that a business enterprise operated by a tribe is not an instrumentality wholly- owned by the United States and, therefore, is liable for the FUTA tax. Revenue Ruling 59-354 held that a tribal council is liable for FUTA taxes for employees of the council and employees of tribal council business enterprises. Revenue Ruling 68-493 held that services performed by an Indian employee are not excepted from the FUTA definition of employment merely because the Indian is a ward of the United States. Courts have upheld the IRS position that tribes are subject to FUTA. See Matter of Cabazon Indian Casino, 57 B.R. 398 (Bankr. 9th Cir. 1986), and Washoe Tribes v. United States, 79-2 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) P9718. Also, Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation v. Kurtz, 691 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1982), established that tribes are liable for Federal excise taxes. Under Section 3301, FUTA, the FUTA tax is specifically defined as an excise tax. The FUTA liability of tribes is confirmed by the fact that two special provisions were deemed necessary to exempt certain tribal services from the FUTA tax. First, an amnesty provision was created in 1986 to exempt service in the employ of "a qualified Indian entity" from the FUTA tax for a specific period during which the entity (that is, the tribe) was not covered by a State UC program. See UIPL 12-87. Second, Sections 1402(a)(15) and 7873(a)(2) were added to the IRC in 1988 to exclude from the FUTA tax services "performed in a fishing rights-related activity of an Indian tribe by a member of such tribe for another member of such tribe or for a qualified Indian entity." See UIPL 24-89. Even though tribes perform governmental functions, this does not mean that a tribe may be treated as a governmental entity for FUTA purposes. In fact, in Section 7871, IRC, Congress has clearly delineated those situations where a tribe may be treated as a State for Federal tax purposes. These purposes do not include the FUTA tax. The FUTA governmental exclusion in Section 3306(c)(7) applies only to State governments or "political subdivisions thereof." In the attached correspondence, the IRS has confirmed that, even where tribes are considered to be political subdivisions or agencies of a State under State law, the tribes remain subject to the FUTA tax in the same way as other private employers. (The IRS further stated that tribes would likely not be allowed a credit against the FUTA tax for any reimbursements made to a State's unemployment fund.) A State may, for UC purposes, treat a tribe as a Section 3306(c)(7), FUTA, entity only if the tribe is in fact such an entity under Federal law. Merely designating a tribe as a governmental entity under State UC law is not sufficient; the tribe must be a Section 3306(c)(7) entity in all respects. The term "political subdivision" is a Federal law term; it is not affected by the State's use of that term. In sum, if a tribe is subject to the FUTA tax, it is a "person." This tribe is not a governmental entity described in Section 3306(c)(7) since such entities are exempt from the FUTA tax. The State may not give this tribe reimbursable status and may assign it a reduced rate only on the basis of its experience. Status of Tribes under State Law - Jurisdictional Issues: The provisions of FUTA relating to taxable services do not require a State to cover these services for UC purposes. Instead, coverage is encouraged by granting employers credit against the FUTA tax for contributions paid on services covered under State law. Since States have limited jurisdictional rights over tribes or activities on reservations, State UC coverage has not always been extended to the tribes. In some States, the continuation of coverage for tribal services is conditioned on the tribe's payment of its UC benefit costs. If tribes are not covered under State law, then they will not be eligible for any credit against the FUTA tax. A leading State court decision on this jurisdictional matter is Employment Security Department v. the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 119 N.W.2d 285 (S.D. 1963). In this case, South Dakota sought to collect from a tribe contributions owed to the State's UC fund. The Cheyenne Court noted that the tribal authority in certain areas results in the existence of three forms of government within the geographical confines of the State: the United States of America, the State itself and Indian tribes. In concluding that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe was immune from suit, the Court decided that "unless Congress enacts a statute authorizing, or consenting to, actions to enforce the claimed liability, the courts of this state have no jurisdiction of the Tribe in this civil action." The United States Supreme Court has confirmed the States' limited jurisdiction over tribes. In Bryan v. Itasca County, 426 U.S. 373, 96 S.Ct. 2102 (1976), the Court held that States may not impose a tax, in this case a personal property tax, on Indians living on reservations without the consent of Congress. In White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Bracker, 448 U.S. 136, 143, 100 S.Ct. 2578, 2583 (1980), the Court held that States could not impose taxes on a non- tribal company operating on a reservation. The White Mountain opinion provided a useful summary concerning the status of tribes: The status of the tribes has been described as "'an anomalous one and of complex character,'" for despite their partial assimilation into American culture, the tribes have retained "'a semi- independent position . . . not as States, not as nations, not as possessed of the full attributes of sovereignty, but as a separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations, and thus far not brought under the laws of the Union or the State within whose limits they resided.'" [Citations omitted.] At least one State mandates UC coverage of tribes on the basis that, through Section 3305(d), FUTA, Congress has provided States with the authority to cover services on lands held in trust for the tribes by the Federal government. That section provides that "[n]o person shall be relieved from compliance with a State unemployment compensation law on the ground that services were performed on land or premises owned, held, or possessed by the United States, and any State shall have full jurisdiction and power to enforce the provisions of such law to the same extent and with the same effect as though such place were not owned held, or possessed by the United States." The Department has not, however, taken a position on this. In short, States have limited jurisdictional authority to impose or collect a State UC tax on tribes. However, unless this tax is imposed by the State and paid by the tribes, the tribes receive no credit against the FUTA tax for which they are liable. Summary: Although tribes may perform governmental activities, this does not mean that they are not liable for the FUTA tax. In fact, both the IRS and the courts have concluded that tribes are "persons" liable for the tax. For employers in a State to receive the additional credit, the State may assign reduced rates to any "person" only on the basis of experience. If a State does not assign a rate based on experience to a FUTA liable employer, this experience requirement is not met. Only entities excluded from the FUTA tax under Sections 3306(c)(7) and (8) qualify for reimbursement status. As FUTA liable tribes are not among those entities qualifying for the reimbursement option, they must be assigned a reduced rate only on the basis of experience. Action Required: State agencies should assure that, for experience rating purposes, tribes are treated consistent with the Federal law requirements described herein.

References: a. The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), as amended; b. JTPA Final Rules, as published in the Federal register on September 2, 1994; c. Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 4-95 (February 21, 1996): "Instructions for Submission of State Plans under Title II and Title III of the Job Training Partnership Act for Program Year (PYs) 1996 and 1997; and PY 1996 Wagner-Peyser Act Program Planning Guidance". d. Training and Employment Information Notice No. 33-92 (June 1, 1993): "Child Labor Restrictions Applicable to Youth Participants in Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Funded Programs". e. Training and Employment Information Notice No. 23-95 (April 11, 1996): "Calendar Year 1996 Summer Youth Initiatives". Background: a. Summer Jobs Funding Level. The Department of Labor is obligating $625 million to the States for the CY 96 Summer Youth Employment Program (SYETP) under Title II-B of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). (State allocations are contained in Attachment A.) These funds are being obligated as Fiscal Year (FY) 96 funds, not as Program Year 96 funds. Notices of Obligation will be issued under the current PY 95 JTPA grant agreement to obligate these funds to the States, and they will not be combined with Title II-A and Title II-C funds. Thus, States will be required to submit a separate JTPA Title II Quarterly Status Report (JQSR) for these FY 1996 Title II-B funds, and they will not be combined with Title II-A and Title II-C PY 1996 data. Additionally, States will draw cash under the Payment Management System (PMS) for Title II-B FY 1996 funds, and these II-B funds will not be combined with other Title II funds under PMS. A further explanation and reporting instructions are contained in Attachment B. b. Program goals. In this year's summer program, the Department maintains its commitment to providing the nation's disadvantaged youth with solid work experiences, which for many youth represent the first step into the labor force. The Department of Labor's vision of the summer program is one where new entrants to the labor force and those with limited job histories: 1. build and refine a strong foundation of work, employment competencies, and the discipline of work; and, 2. gain an appreciation of the inextricable connection between work and learning which is critical to a long-term attachment to and success in a rapidly changing labor market. This message regarding the connection between education and work is consistent with the on-going school-to-work message communicated by the Departments of Labor and Education to States, SDAs, local school systems, employers and youth. We recognize that we need to help youth acquire the knowledge, skills, abilities, and labor market information they need to make a smooth transition from school to career-oriented work or further education or training. Program Emphases: This summer's program emphases focus on the need for States and SDAs to: Maximize the number of economically disadvantaged youth participating in SYETP; Fully utilize all available funding, including new FY 1996 monies as well as any carryover from previous years, to provide maximum opportunities for participation in SYETP; Provide meaningful worksites with capable, trained supervisors; Provide educational enrichment, including life skills training; Strengthen linkages between SYETP and the year-round youth program under Title II-C and the School-to-Work initiatives; and, Work with the private sector to provide more unsubsidized employment opportunities for economically disadvantaged youth.

References. P.L. 97-300, Section 4(8) (JTPA); and Internal Revenue Code, Section 51 (TJTC). Background. JTPA regulations at 20 CFR 632.4 provide for the use of either of two sets of data in determining economically disadvantaged persons and program eligibility: the Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines or the LLSIL. The attached Federal Register Notice (Vol. 61, No. 65) contains updated LLSIL and detailed instructions for their use, effective April 3, 1996. Action. Grantees will use one of the three tables on pages 14825 and 14826 of the Notice to find their 70 percent LLSIL for a family of four. Those grantees in one of the 25 Metropolitan Statistical Areas will use Table 3; grantees in Alaska or Hawaii will use Table 2; all other grantees will use Table 1. Grantees using Table 1 can find which region they are in by referring to the list on page 14824. Grantees using Tables 1 or 2 must also determine if they are in a metro or non-metro area; this information can be obtained from the grantee's State JTPA. Having found the applicable 70 percent LLSIL for a family of four on Tables 1, 2 or 3, the grantee can then find the 70 percent LLSIL for a family larger or smaller than four on Table 4. For example: a grantee in a non-metro area of Arizona is in the "West" region. On Table 1 its 70 percent LLSIL is 18,270. To find the applicable 70 percent for a family of six, the grantee finds 18,270 in column "four" of Table 4 and reads across that line to Column "six" to find 25,210. Grantees should note the disclaimer on page 14825 that the figures in this notice are valid only for eligibility determination under the JTPA and TJTC programs and should not be used for any statistical purposes. DINAP grantees are to disregard the instructions to Governors on page 14825 in the paragraph entitled "Use of These Data." Questions. Contact your DINAP Federal Representative at (202) 219-5511

Average Weekly Benefit Amount (AWBA) Utilization: As required by 20 CFR 625.6, the attached listing sets forth the 50 percent of AWBA computation applicable for major disasters declared during the third quarter of FY 1999, from April 1 through June 30, 1999. Action Required: SESA Administrators are requested to provide this information to appropriate staff and insure that the correct AWBA is utilized in determining the weekly DUA amount.

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

Background: A review of Benefit Timeliness and Quality (BTQ) non-monetary determination quality scores of the SESAs indicates a need for improvement in certain areas of the adjudication process. In an attempt to assist States with improving performance in these selected areas (see attached draft agenda), the National Office is offering two ¿Train the Trainer¿ seminars. Participants and Objectives: The seminars are designed to assist SESA staff who are responsible for training State staff in areas of non-monetary determinations with training material and preparation. The seminars will be held in 1999 in Washington, D.C., and in San Diego, California. While prior training experience is not necessary, each participant should be knowledgeable of the adjudication process in his/her State. A package of training materials will be provided to each participant which may be used to conduct training within his/her respective State. Each participant will be expected to practice presenting the material during these sessions. Group workshops will be conducted in areas which have been identified based on analyses of the BTQ data as needing specific attention. Conference Locations/Reservations: The sessions will be held as follows: States in Regions I thru V: A session will be held June 7 -11, 1999, in Washington, D.C., at One Washington Circle Hotel, One Washington Circle NW, Washington, D.C., 20037. Room rates are $115.00 plus 14.5% tax per night for a single and $130 plus 14.5% tax each night for a double. Each participant is responsible for contacting the hotel at (800) 424-9671 or (202) 872-1680 to make his/her own reservation. Please reference ¿Department of Labor (DOL) Group¿ when making a reservation to ensure the correct rate is quoted. Reservations must be made no later than May 8, 1999. Ground Transportation : The hotel is located directly across the circle from the Foggy Bottom-George Washington University Metro station on the blue line. The blue line is available from National Airport without a change of trains. Super Shuttle and taxi cabs are also available from all three area airports (National, Dulles, Baltimore-Washington). States in Regions VI thru X: A session will be held July 26 -30, 1999, at the Westgate Hotel, 1055 Second Avenue, San Diego, California. Room rates are $98.00 (includes all taxes) per night for a single/double room. Each participant is responsible for contacting the hotel at (619) 238-1818 to make his/her own reservation. Please reference ¿Department of Labor (DOL) Group¿ when making a reservation to ensure the correct rate is quoted. Reservations must be made no later than July 5, 1999. Ground Transportation: The hotel provides complimentary airport transportation. The San Diego Trolley stops at the hotel. Auto parking is available for an additional $12 per day for those who may wish to drive. Action Required: SESA Administrators are requested to: (a) Encourage attendance of State staff who are responsible for training in the area of non-monetary determinations. (b) States in Regions I thru V -provide the names of each staff member planning to attend the June training to the appropriate Regional Office no later than May 8, 1999. States in Regions VI thru X -provide the names of each staff member planning to attend the July training to the appropriate Regional Office no later than July 5, 1999.