Texas Register, Volume 23, Number 15, Pages 3631-3764, April 10, 1998 Page: 3,704
3631-3764 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
the development of written policy guidelines to their subcontrac-
tors.
Response: State law specifies that the local workforce de-
velopment boards are directly responsible and accountable to
the workforce development division for planning, oversight, and
evaluation of all workforce programs in their area. To the extent
that development of policy pertains to those responsibilities, it
is clearly a local workforce development board responsibility.
This does not, however, preclude local workforce development
boards from soliciting input from their subcontractors and the
community. Therefore, the Commission declines to revise this
rule.
Comment: A commenter requests a clarification regarding
811.17(d) relating to program services for teens. If a teenage
participant has completed high school or GED, will staff have the
option to refer the client to job skills training or to an employment
activity?
Response: Determining what services teens need is a local
decision. The rules provide those with knowledge the flexibility
needed to serve the local population. Therefore, the Commis-
sion believes that no rule change is needed.
Comments regarding 811.18 Monitoring of Participation are as
follows.
Comment: A commenter requests clarification about whether lo-
cal workforce development board contractors would be required
to obtain permission from the Commission as to which partici-
pants can be exempted from the weekly monitoring requirement
stipulated in this section. As the basis for this question, the com-
menter references the language in the rule that states, "unless
less frequent monitoring is approved under written guidelines
by the Commission."
Response: The timeframe for monitoring clients' participation is
a local decision. The Commission suggests weekly monitoring,
but has revised the rule by substituting the following two
sentences for the first sentence of the proposed rule: "Choices
staff shall monitor the participation in employment services
activities, compliance with program requirements, and progress
toward achieving the goals and objectives in the employability
plan. Monitoring shall be ongoing and frequent, as determined
by local workforce development boards or their subcontractors."
Comment: A commenter states that the frequency of monitoring
should be a decision made by the local workforce development
board, not the Commission. The commenter also requests the
word "monitor" be defined, as it could be interpreted differently.
Response: The Commission agrees, and has amended
811.18 to reflect that the frequency of monitoring is a local
decision. The rule as revised specifies the type of monitoring
to be conducted.
Comments regarding 811.19 Individual Development Accounts
are as follows.
Comment: A commenter states that the goal in the creation of
individual development accounts (IDA) is commendable.
Comment: A commenter questions the restriction that IDAs
must be administered by the Commission or through contract
with a public or nonprofit entity. If this is not required, the
commenter requests that the Commission allow local control
and administration of such accounts. This would assist in
obtaining matching funds and ensure that each area establishesIDA programs that are based on local needs. The commenter
states that local workforce development boards should be a
party to any decision regarding the selection of an IDA contract
manager, as well as establishing guidelines for use of IDAs.
Response: The current rule, as written, does not preclude IDA
programs from being developed in local workforce development
areas. Texas Labor Code 301.067 requires the Commission
to establish and implement a pilot program that establishes
IDAs for TANF recipients who are participating in the subsidized
work program. To fulfill this mandate, the Commission is
requesting a rule change from DHS to disregard IDA balances
as resources when determining eligibility for cash assistance.
In addition, DHS may have to request a federal waiver from the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to exclude IDA
balances from food stamp resource limits. If waivers are granted
that extend to local areas, local workforce development boards
may develop IDA programs. To avoid possible confusion as to
who may administer the program, commas are added between
"nonprofit" and "private" and between "private" and "or public
entity."
Comment: A commenter questions whether TANF recipients
will be allowed to make deposits into the account from sources
other than temporary cash assistance funds.
Response: Participants are not required to limit the source
of deposits into an IDA to cash assistance funds. The
Commission, local workforce development boards, or entities
administering the IDA may restrict the source of deposits to
earned income or other sources if they are providing matching
funds.
Comment: A commenter asks what entity determines which
recipients are eligible to participate in the individual account
program.
Response: TANF recipients in the pilot program area who
are participating in the subsidized employment program are
eligible to participate in the IDA pilot program. If local workforce
development boards implement an IDA program, the local
workforce development board or its subcontractor will determine
which recipients are eligible to participate, subject to DHS' rules
and approval of a federal waiver from USDA.
Comment: A commenter asks about the benefits of participating
in an IDA if matching funds are not available.
Response: If matching funds are not available, the benefit of
participating in an IDA program would be reduced. However, if
USDA grants a federal waiver of food stamp eligibility require-
ments, the non-matched deposits in the IDA would allow the
participant to accumulate more resources without losing eligi-
bility for food stamps or cash assistance.
Comment: A commenter asks who is responsible for locating
matching funds.
Response: The Commission, local workforce development
boards, or entities administering the IDA program are responsi-
ble for identifying sources for matching funds.
Comment: A commenter questions if the match is dollar for
dollar.
Response: The match is not required to be dollar for dollar.
The ratio of matching contributions to participant deposits will
be determined by the availability of funds.23 TexReg 3704 April 10, 1998 Texas Register
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Secretary of State. Texas Register, Volume 23, Number 15, Pages 3631-3764, April 10, 1998, periodical, April 10, 1998; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth113834/m1/74/: accessed April 27, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.