B. TRADE PROGRAM
Q.
B-1. Is there a "work-around" to allow an employer to pay for a laid-off
individual's tuition without endangering his eligibility for allowances?
A.
B-1. Answer: Yes, there is a process that has worked.
Explanation:
Currently, the regulations prohibit the approval of any training program
if the worker would be requested or required, at any time or under any
circumstances, to pay any of the costs of a training program. Employers can
pay for the full costs of training but a problem arises if this reimbursement
becomes contingent (e.g., a passing grade). A "work around" that has been
utilized involves obtaining a dual-enrollment NEG to supplement the
employment-related assistance for these workers. As such, the state and the
company can enter into an agreement where the employer tuition program will be
used to pay the costs of training, but in cases where the participant is in
TAA-approved training, and does not meet the employer's requirements for
reimbursement, the NEG funds are used to cover the costs of the training rather
than requiring the individual to repay the employer. This arrangement allows
trade-certified workers to benefit from the company's training funds, while assuring
that the individual's costs are paid under the TAA program.
Q.
B-2. What is the interpretation of the standard language which prohibits
using Trade Act funds for training "if other funding is available?"
A.
B-2. Answer: TAA regulations specifically allow for the
mixing of fund sources for payment of TAA-approved training; however, mixing
must be done under a cost-sharing agreement with specific commitments from each
program to pay the costs agreed to. Current TAA regulations governing
restrictions on funding may be found at 20 CFR 617.25(b) (please see Question
A2).
Explanation:
The prohibition being referred to is actually a prohibition against duplication
of payment. It says that if the costs of training are paid with TAA funds, no
other payment for such costs of training may be made under any other federal
law, and if the costs of training are paid with other federal funds, no other
payment for such costs of training may be made with TAA funds. This does not
mean that there is a prohibition on using TAA funds for training if, for
example, WIA formula funds are available for the general eligible dislocated
worker population. TAA funds should be used for training trade-eligible
workers if there are TAA funds available since such funds are not available for
dislocated workers who were not impacted by trade. The general population of
eligible dislocated workers under WIA generally exceeds the number of
trade-certified workers, and many local areas report limited funds budgeted to
training. However, these are decisions made by workforce investment boards.
Q.
B-3. What is ETA's position on over-obligating TAA training funds?
A.
B-3. Federal funds that a state or grantee expects but have not yet been
awarded cannot be obligated. State obligations in excess of the amount of
Federal funds available are made at its own risk. Should additional funds
covering the period when the obligations were incurred not be provided, some
other source of funds would be needed to pay bills as they are received.
Q.
B-4. There is a 70% WIA expenditure requirement in order to apply for a NEG.
Is there the same restriction/requirement for a TAA petition?
A.
B-4. Answer: There is no requirement that a 70% WIA
expenditure exist to access TAA reserve funds.
Explanation:
As outlined in TEGL 6-03, 75% of annual TAA funds are allocated according to a
formula that is currently based on past TAA expenditures and the number of
eligible workers served. The remaining 25% of annual TAA funds are held in
reserve in the national office. The reserve funds are available only to states
that have accrued expenditures [actual cash payments plus the cost of services
or goods that have been received or are being provided (e.g., the cost of a
semester of tuition that has not been paid but participants are in training)]
of at least 50% of TAA funds provided each year.
Q.
B-5. RE: Dual enrollment - We need a "work-around" in order to capture program
success in WIA reporting when a TAA participant does not exit within 104
weeks.
A.
B-5. Answer: Under the OMB common measures (to be implemented
in calendar year 2004) a participant will not be reported for any program (in
which they are co-enrolled) until after they have received their last service
from all programs.
Explanation:
TEGL 15-03, issued December
10, 2003, provided a
new definition of the exit date to be used in reporting on participants in all
training and employment programs under the common measures. For a participant
in any program, the date of exit is the date on which the last service funded
by the program or a partner program is received by the participant. Therefore,
under the common measures, participants will not be reported for any program
until after they have received their last service from all programs. Also note
that trade training funds can provide up to 130 weeks of training (not just
104) if remedial training is involved, whereas there are no limits under WIA.
In the
meantime, with separate TAA and WIA reporting systems, the integrated
comprehensive individual employment plan which should address services being
received under different programs (including WIA, Trade and Pell, for example),
should support the time of exit for both the WIA and Trade programs after
collaborative arrangements and agreements are in place in the local workforce
investment area-perhaps the partnership MOU between the local board and the
Trade program.
Q.
B-6. How can OJT be authorized under TAA?
A. B-6.
Answer: OJT has been and continues to be an allowable activity
under TAA.
Explanation: The Trade Reform Act of 2002
revised requirements for OJT to mirror the requirements under WIA, which
includes NEGs. Therefore, under a co-enrollment, for example, both WIA and TAA
could be used to fund OJT for a worker. In order to do this, the training must
be pre-approved by both TAA and WIA, or conducted under an agreement between
the two programs.
Q.
B-7. Shouldn't regional or local workforce investment boards be allowed to
administer the Trade programs, to conform to WIA and other federal training
programs?
A.
B-7. Yes. A revised Secretary/Governor's agreement is being distributed to
states that will make clear the latitude that workforce systems have in the
delivery of TAA services.
Q.
B-8. States operate the Trade program under an Agreement between the Governor
and the Secretary of Labor (i.e., it is a state-run program). WIA is operated
through a five-year plan with annual grants. To what extent do these
differences inhibit or enhance the ability of states to integrate these two
programs?
A.
B-8. Answer: The Department does not believe that the funding
mechanisms either enhance or inhibit the integration of the Trade and WIA Dislocated
Worker programs.
Explanation: Both the Trade and WIA formula
programs operate under Governor-Secretary agreements. The state is the grantee
for both the Trade and WIA formula allotments/grants, although under WIA the
local workforce investment boards have clear policy and oversight
responsibility over funds allocated by states to local workforce investment
areas.
Back to Main FAQ Page