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.

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.

Reference. 29 CFR Part 98.100 Background. It has come to DINAP's attention that some section 401 grantees encounter participants who have had financial difficulties with previously obtained Federal education grants and/or student loans. This bulletin conveys Departmental policy with regard to the JTPA eligibility of individuals determined by other agencies to be in default on Federal obligations provided to them for educational/training purposes. Policy. Individuals in default on a government (student) loan or grant may be enrolled as a participant under JTPA if two conditions are met: (1) the individual is otherwise eligible for the particular program applied for; and (2) the individual has not been debarred by another Federal agency for fraudulent activities. Individuals, like organizations, are subject to the debarment and suspension procedures at 29 CFR Part 98, and may not receive any "Federal financial and non-financial assistance and benefits under Federal programs and activities" if debarred. Action. Grantees should handle each such case on an individual basis. When appropriate, grantees should encourage and assist the, applicant in resolving the repayment of the amount in default, but are reminded that JTPA funds cannot be used by the grantee to pay fines or penalties directly. If a participant negotiates a repayment agreement with an agency or financial institution, the grantee may deduct the amount(s) of said payments from amounts otherwise accruing to the participant and transmit those payments to the creditor, just as they would for insurance, child support, or other non-Federal obligations authorized by the participant or ordered by a court. Questions. Contact your DINAP Federal Representative.

References: The Trade Act of 1974; 20 CFR Part 617; and GAL 7-94 and 7- 94, Change 1. Background: In response to inquiries from the States, GAL 7-94, Change 1 provided amended Employment and Training Administration Operating Instructions to the States regarding the delivery of services to any worker who is dual eligible (that is, a worker whose separation is covered by certifications under both the regular Trade and NAFTA-TAA programs). It required States to provide every dual eligible worker, at the point at which they become eligible under the second Trade certification, with the information necessary to make a fully informed choice regarding the Trade program under which they wish to permanently participate. The intent of the GAL was to help the States encourage workers to enter training as quickly as possible after they are initially certified as eligible to receive benefits, regardless of the program under which they are certified. This GAL amends the applicant processing procedures for States for implementing the amended Employment and Training operating instructions contained in GAL 7-94, Change 1. Operating Instructions: GAL 7-94, Change 1 revised the operating instructions to the States pertaining to Nonduplication of Assistance to read as follows: The intent of this section is to prevent duplication of assistance to workers who are eligible to receive assistance pursuant to certifications issued under both the regular and NAFTA-TAA programs (dual eligible workers). In order to fairly administer this section, State agency staff must fully explain the difference between programs to dual eligible workers. This will assure that the affected workers are provided with the ability to make a fully informed choice regarding the application of benefits under both programs. A dual eligible worker who has entered, or is otherwise receiving benefits under one program, may elect to switch after being certified as eligible to apply under the second program. Under such circumstances, the State may allow the worker's benefits to continue to be paid by the first program until the first convenient break in training as determined by the State. This approach is currently used with Trade eligible workers who are also enrolled under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Title III program. In order to minimize the administrative burden on the States, once a decision is made by the worker after becoming eligible for the second program it may not be changed. This election will also stand in the case of a subsequent separation covered by the same two certifications. Revised Applicant Processing: GAL 7-94, Change 1 also revised applicant processing procedures to provide greater flexibility and reduce the administrative burden on the States to serve dislocated workers. States were informed that when a worker receiving benefits under one program elects to switch after becoming eligible for the second program, the State may, as is current practice with Trade eligible workers who are dual enrolled under the JTPA Title III program, allow the workers' benefits to continue to be paid by the first program until the first convenient break (e.g., the end of a semester/quarter) in training as determined by the State. This did not affect the prohibition that, in any event, claimants are never entitled to more than one full round of TAA services and TRA on the basis of the two certifications, nor does this new guidance change this prohibition. States have recently noted that with the increasing number of workers certified under both programs there may, at some point, be insufficient funding available to provide services to all workers requesting assistance under the regular Trade program. It is estimated that 65-70% of workers certified as eligible for NAFTA-TAA program assistance are also certified eligible for regular Trade program assistance and that a significant number of these NAFTA-TAA eligible workers currently elect to receive services under the regular Trade program. Therefore, to keep up with this increased demand for regular Trade program related services, States may, where regular Trade program funds are not available (either the State does not have funds in its regular Trade account or has not received requested regular Trade funds from the National Office), use NAFTA-TAA program funds to provide training, job search and relocation services to dual eligible workers. The State may fund such services for dual eligible workers from NAFTA-TAA program funds until regular Trade program funds are available, at the first convenient break in training as determined by the State. For purposes of participant tracking on the 563 report, workers should be counted as a participant in the program from which the funding for their training, job search or relocation services is sourced. The intent is to allow the States to effectively process the increasing number of NAFTA-impacted workers applying for assistance under the regular TAA program. This will ensure that a worker receives rapid assistance, including placement in training, regardless of the program from which the worker formally elects to receive services. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to: a. Convey the information in this directive to appropriate staff. b. Request that Trade program staff review the information and ensure that appropriate arrangements are made with both program and resource allocation staff to implement these revised applicant processing procedures. c. Encourage appropriate officials to review the present State TAA program funding and benefits delivery system to identify potential problem areas and ensure that regular Trade and NAFTA-TAA program funds are tracked and monitored in accordance with the information provided in this transmittal.

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

Reference: Benefits Quality Control State Operations Handbook, ET Handbook No. 395 (2nd edition) Background: With the increasing use of interactive voice response (IVR) and automated telephone data entry systems to file continued claims, the Department has received inquiries concerning whether such claims should be coded in item f11, key week filing method, as telephone (code "4") or other (electronic) claims (code "5"). A review of the BAM data for the July-December 1996 period shows that States are not using the codes uniformly. In order to insure consistent coding of continued claims filing method in the BAM database, the Department has developed the following guidelines. These coding guidelines take effect immediately. Coding Instructions: The codes used in the BAM DCI are documented in chapter IV of ET Handbook 395. Item f11, key week filing method, includes code "4" (telephone) and code "5" (other, i.e. electronic) to record the method the claimant used to file the continued week claim for which the UI benefit payment subject to the BAM investigation was issued. Code "4" (telephone) will be used for all continued week UI claims filed by claimants who initiate contact with the SESA by telephone. These claims include: Voice contacts between the claimant and State agency staff in a local office or service center; Interactive voice response systems in which the claimant enters required UI claim data through a voice recording system and/or by entering data from the telephone keypad; and Any other automated telephone voice mail system which the SESA has established to accept continued claims for UI benefits. Code "5" (other, electronic) will be used for continued week UI claims filed using the following methods: Direct dial-up (modem) connection between a claimant logged on to a personal computer and the State agency; Claimant access to the State agency via the internet, State agency intranet, or other computer network; State agency kiosks with automated data processing capability which enables claimants to file continued UI claims; Benefit cards that allow claimants to file continued claims and/or receive UI benefits from ATM terminals; Electronic facsimile (fax); and Any claim initiated or generated by the State's ADP system. Database Conversion: The Department will contact any State that has used code "5" (other) to verify whether this code was used for IVR telephone claims. The Department will then convert the codes for all such records from "5" to "4" on both the State and Department versions of the database. States which have used code "4", telephone, should verify that this code has been used only for those UI continued claims filed using a method defined for code "4" in section 4 of this UIPL. States should notify the Department (Attention: Andrew Spisak, at (202) 219-5608 ext. 135) if any record has been incorrectly coded and needs to be recoded by the Department. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to: a. provide copies of these guidelines to the appropriate staff; and b. ensure that any records in the BAM database that need to be recoded are identified and that this information is conveyed to Andrew Spisak within 30 days after the issuance of this directive.

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