Part 1.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Chapter 39.
COMMUNITY ALZHEIMER'S RESOURCES AND EDUCATION (CARE) PROGRAM
40 TAC §§39.1, 39.2, 39.4, 39.6, 39.8, 39.10, 39.12, 39.14, 39.16
The Texas Department of Human Services (DHS) adopts new §§39.1,
39.2, 39.4, 39.6, 39.8, 39.10, 39.12, 39.14, and 39.16 in its new Community
Alzheimer's Resources and Education (CARE) Program chapter. DHS adopts new §39.1
with changes to the proposed text published in the November 1, 2002, issue
of the
Texas Register
(27 TexReg 10361). DHS
adopts new §§39.2, 39.4, 39.6, 39.8, 39.10, 39.12, 39.14, and 39.16
without changes to the proposed text.
Justification for the new chapter is to establish rules for current practices
in the CARE Program, which was established as a pilot program for the treatment
of Alzheimer's patients in 1998 at the direction of the 75th Legislature.
DHS received no comments regarding adoption of the new sections. DHS, however,
has initiated a minor change to the text of §39.1 to clarify the accuracy
of the section.
The new sections are adopted under the Human Resources Code,
Chapters 22 and 32, which authorizes DHS to administer public and medical
assistance programs, and under the Government Code, §531.021, which provides
the Texas Health and Human Services Commission with the authority to administer
federal medical assistance funds.
The new sections implement the Human Resources Code, §§22.0001-22.038
and §§32.001-32.053.
§39.1.Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, have the
following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(1)
AD--Alzheimer's disease.
(2)
CARE Program--The Community Alzheimer's Resources and Education
Program that serves persons with AD and related dementia and their caregivers.
(3)
CARE group--Representatives of participating state agencies
and community entities concerned with caring for persons with AD who help
secure access or available services, develop service plans, and educate and
advocate for persons with AD and their caregivers. The number of members in
a CARE group is not limited.
(4)
CARE site--A location where CARE services are coordinated
under the supervision of CARE staff.
(5)
CARE staff--The persons who manage and operate the CARE
Program at each site.
(6)
Caregiver--The person who provides or supervises the care
of a person with AD or related dementia.
(7)
Client--The person with AD or a related dementia. A diagnosis
of AD is not needed for information and referral or an in-home assessment.
A diagnosis of AD or a related dementia is required before receiving CARE-contracted
services.
(8)
Contracted services--Services provided to a client who
has been diagnosed with AD or a related dementia, or provided to the client's
caregiver to enable the client to live in the home for a longer period of
time. Services may include:
(A)
respite (adult day, in-home, out-of-home);
(B)
transportation;
(C)
minor home safety modification;
(D)
supplies;
(E)
personal companion and homemaker services;
(F)
home health;
(G)
emergency needs; and
(H)
identification registration.
(9)
DHS--The Texas Department of Human Services.
(10)
Emergency circumstances--Temporary situations where:
(A)
the client needs supervision and/or care and is without
any support services; or
(B)
the usual caregiver is unable to care for the client and
the client will be without assistance if CARE services are not put into place.
(11)
In-home assessment--A CARE staff member (or employee of
a home health agency) visits the client's home to assess the living situation
and identify client needs.
(12)
Information and referral--CARE staff give AD education
and information to clients, such as information concerning the symptoms, diagnosis,
and current research of AD, with referral to possible assistance available
in the community.
(13)
Interest list--A list, in chronological order, of persons
who have applied for and may qualify for assistance through the CARE Program.
(14)
PRUCOL--Permanently residing under color of law. Applies
to individuals who entered the United States before January 1, 1972, and who
may be eligible for permanent residence at the discretion of the attorney
general, and any alien who is living in the United States indefinitely with
the knowledge and permission of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
(15)
Service plan--The description of services for a client,
including the agency or organization responsible for providing each service.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on January 6, 2003.
TRD-200300029
Paul Leche
General Counsel, Legal Services
Texas Department of Human Services
Effective date: January 26, 2003
Proposal publication date: November 1, 2002
For further information, please call: (512) 438-3734
Subchapter A. MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING FOR LONG-TERM CARE
40 TAC §72.104
The Texas Department of Human Services (DHS) adopts new §72.104
with changes to the proposed text published in the July 26, 2002, issue of
the
Texas Register
(27 TexReg 6670).
Justification for the new section is to implement provisions of the Human
Resources Code, §22.038, authorized by the 77th Texas legislature, which
calls for DHS, the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation
(TDMHMR), and the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (PRS)
to adopt a joint Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by rule. The MOU will facilitate
the coordination and implementation of a pilot program, subject to availability
of funds, required by the Human Resources Code, §22.037. The pilot program
is intended to provide opportunities for persons with disabilities to move
out of nursing facilities into community-based settings. The MOU defines the
responsibilities of each agency for implementing the pilot program.
TDMHMR received two written comments from the parent/guardian of a resident
of a state mental retardation facility (state MR facility), Garland; and from
the Parent Association for the Retarded of Texas, Austin. DHS collaborated
with TDMHMR and PRS in preparing the responses. A summary of the comments
and DHS's responses follow.
Comment: Concerning §72.104(b)(1), (2)(A), and (4), two commenters
questioned who will determine what constitutes being "inappropriately placed
in an institution."
Response: The person who meets medical necessity or the person's legally
authorized representative, in conjunction with the treatment team, identifies
who is a candidate for community-based alternatives. Federal laws and regulations
describe the criteria that permit a person to be admitted to and remain in
a nursing facility for Medicaid services. If a person meets that criteria
but moves to a community-based alternative care setting, the decision to do
so is made by the person, the person's legally authorized representative (LAR),
or a surrogate decision maker.
Comment: Two commenters stated that §72.104(b)(2)(B) should be revised
to add the phrase "or legally authorized representative" to specify that either
the person or the person's LAR makes a decision regarding a long-term care
placement.
Response: DHS responds that the proposed MOU text faithfully follows the
text of the statute authorizing the pilot and declines to make the requested
revision.
Comment: Concerning references in §72.104(b)(3) and (4) to "community-based
organizations," two commenters stated that the official policy of community-based
organizations such as The Arc of Texas, Advocacy, Inc., Texas Council for
Developmental Disabilities, and The Disability Policy Consortium is that institutional
placement is never appropriate. The commenters stated that a "transition case
manager" provided by one of these organizations would have the same attitude.
The commenters further stated that a community-based organization to whom
a grant is awarded under the terms of the MOU to identify persons who may
inappropriately reside in nursing facilities must advocate for a full array
of residential services, including state MR facilities.
Response: The organizations named by the commenters are not the recipients
of the grants authorized by the Human Resources Code, §22.037. In addition, §22.037,
which requires the implementation of the pilot relocation program, specifies
that the "transition case manager" will assist a person with a disability
who resides in a nursing facility to transition to a "community-based alternative
care setting" if the person or the LAR decides that the transition should
occur. Therefore, advocating for admission to a state mental retardation facility
would be counter to the statutory directive. DHS declines to make the requested
revision.
Comment: Concerning §72.104(c)(1)(A)(i), two commenters stated that
DHS must include a requirement that all residential services, including state
mental retardation facilities, be included in the full array of services offered
to a person with mental retardation or the person's LAR.
Response: DHS responds, again, that the Human Resources Code, §22.037,
requires that the pilot relocation program address "community-based alternative
care settings" for persons residing in nursing facilities. State mental retardation
facilities do not fit that description. DHS does note that subsection (b)(3)(B)
specifies that a transition case manager will coordinate with the local mental
health or mental retardation authority (MHMRA) when a nursing facility resident
who wishes to make a transition from the nursing facility to a community-based
alternative care setting requires mental retardation or mental health services.
Comment: Also concerning §72.104(c)(1)(A)(i), the commenters stated
that the phrase "nursing facility residents/their families" should be revised
to include a reference to LARs.
Response: DHS and TDMHMR agree with this comment and revised the language
accordingly.
Comment: Two commenters expressed their agreement with the reference to
"legally authorized representative" in §72.104(c)(1)(A)(ii) and stated
that the phrase needs to be used throughout the section.
Response: DHS acknowledges the commenters' approval and notes that the
phrase is used in the section where appropriate.
Comment: Two commenters stated that §72.104(c)(1)(C) must be revised
to require DHS community awareness and relocation contract staff not to talk
to a nursing facility resident who has an LAR unless the LAR gives permission.
Response: Surrogate decision makers, who in some cases are the LAR, do
not have the authority to bar staff from talking to the resident. Guardians
may be able to place restrictions on visitors depending on the authority granted
to the guardian. DHS declines to make the requested revision.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the description of persons DHS is required
in §72.104(c)(2)(A) to provide to a DHS contractor should not be a list
of names.
Response: Only persons who have expressed an interest in community placement
are referred to the relocation specialists. The relocation specialist then
explores options with the resident or the resident's LAR.
Comment: Concerning §72.104(c)(3), two commenters stated that before
the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (PRS) identifies
for DHS those PRS clients residing in nursing facilities who are appropriate
for transition into community-based living, PRS must first ask the individual
or LAR if such transition is desired.
Response: DHS responds that PRS is the LAR for its clients who reside in
nursing facilities and declines to make the requested revision.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the requirement in §72.104(d)(2)
that a special staffing be held to resolve disagreements about whether a nursing
facility resident should leave the nursing facility or move to a specific
placement must be changed. The commenters stated that the individual or LAR
will resolve a disagreement by making the decision. The commenters stated
that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), formerly the Health
Care Financing Administration (HCFA), issued a ruling in 1993-1994 against
DHS that supported the right of the individual or LAR to make this decision.
Response: This provision is included to address those situations in which
a person residing in a nursing facility wants to leave but family members,
nursing facility staff, and other concerned persons believe that the person's
health and safety would be seriously compromised in community-based setting.
As written, the provision does not take away decision-making authority from
a person who has capacity to make decisions or the LAR of that person. The
provision provides a forum for the person's family members, nursing facility
staff, and other concerned persons to attempt to convince the person to remain
in the nursing facility.
In addition, DHS added use of the acronym LAR to mean "legally authorized
representative" at the request of TDMHMR in §72.104(b)(3)(A), (c)(1)(A)(ii),
and (d)(2).
The new section is adopted under the Human Resources Code, Chapter
22, which authorizes DHS to administer public assistance and support programs
for persons with disabilities.
The new section implements the Human Resources Code, §§22.0001-22.038.
§72.104.Relocation Pilot Program.
(a)
Background and purpose. The Texas Department of Human Services
(DHS), the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation (TDMHMR),
and the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (PRS), are
required under SB 367 of the 77th Legislative Session and the provisions of
the Human Resources Code, §22.038, to adopt a joint memorandum of understanding
(MOU) to facilitate the coordination and implementation of a pilot program
under the provisions of Human Resources Code §22.037. The pilot program
will be implemented, subject to availability of funds, to provide a system
of services and support that fosters independence and productivity and provides
meaningful opportunities for persons with disabilities to live in the community.
The terms of this MOU apply in those areas of the state in which community
awareness and relocation pilot programs will be implemented.
(b)
Components of the pilot program. Human Resources Code §22.037
provides that the pilot program, subject to the availability of funds, shall
include the following components:
(1)
A comprehensive system of improved policies and procedures
to avoid inappropriately placing a person with a disability in an institution,
including policies and procedures that require:
(A)
a preadmission screening for the person that includes the
participation of hospital discharge staff and the person's physician; and
(B)
an analysis of the costs, benefits, and effectiveness of
placing the person in a community- based alternative care setting.
(2)
A program under which physicians who treat persons with
disabilities and hospital discharge staff are:
(A)
educated about the availability of community-based alternatives
to institutionalization to reduce the number of persons inappropriately placed
in an institution; and
(B)
required to inform a person with a disability and any other
person required to be provided information under Section 531.042, Government
Code, of all care and support options available to the person with the disability,
including community-based care and support options, before that person makes
a decision regarding a long-term care placement.
(3)
A program, including a program implemented through grants
to community-based organizations, to provide a transition case manager to:
(A)
assist a person with a disability in making a transition
from an institution to a community- based alternative care setting after that
person or the person's legally authorized representative (LAR) decides the
person should make that transition; and
(B)
coordinate with the local mental health or mental retardation
authority as defined in Section 531.002, Health and Safety Code in:
(i)
providing services to the person related to the assistance
described in (A) above, if applicable; and
(ii)
conducting outreach initiatives as indicated in (4) below.
(4)
A program to provide grants to community-based organizations
to conduct outreach initiatives to identify persons with disabilities who
may inappropriately reside in an institution.
(5)
A program under which presumptive eligibility is authorized
for community-based care and support programs for a person with a disability.
(6)
DHS will implement each component of the pilot program
as described above for which the legislature appropriates sufficient funds.
DHS is not required to implement a component if the legislature does not appropriate
sufficient funds for that component.
(c)
Roles and responsibilities of the agencies relating to
the pilot program.
(1)
The Texas Department of Human Services (DHS) will implement
the following pilot program components for which funding and/or resources
are available:
(A)
DHS will contract with eligible non-profit/for profit organizations
for a 12-month period, to implement the following components:
(i)
Community awareness activities at pilot sites. The contractor
will be required to develop and implement a community awareness campaign.
Community awareness contract staff will educate nursing facility residents,
their LARs and their families, individuals at risk of being institutionalized,
medical professionals who treat persons with disabilities, hospital discharge
planners, and all others involved in the decision-making process about the
availability of community-based alternatives to institutionalization to reduce
the number of persons inappropriately placed in an institution.
(ii)
Relocation services at pilot sites. The contractor will
be required to utilize relocation specialists (transition case managers) to
assist a person with a disability in making a transition from a nursing facility
to a community-based alternative care setting after that person or the person's
LAR decides the person should make the transition. Relocation services will
be provided to children and adults residing in nursing facilities in the pilot
areas.
(B)
DHS community awareness and relocation contract staff will
be required to coordinate with the local mental health or mental retardation
authority as defined in Section 531.002, Health and Safety Code, in:
(i)
providing services to the person being relocated, if applicable;
and
(ii)
conducting outreach initiatives as described in subparagraph
(C) of this paragraph.
(C)
DHS community awareness and relocation contract staff will
conduct outreach initiatives to identify persons with disabilities who may
inappropriately reside in a nursing facility and inform them of alternatives
to institutionalization and relocation services.
(2)
The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation
(TDMHMR) will engage in the following activities:
(A)
TDMHMR will provide to DHS' contractor a description of:
(i)
persons who may be eligible to receive TDMHMR funded services
(referred to as TDMHMR's "priority population"); and
(ii)
services funded by TDMHMR.
(B)
TDMHMR will inform local mental health and mental retardation
authorities that serve the areas included in the pilot program regarding:
(i)
pilot activities; and
(ii)
the potential for additional referrals from nursing facilities.
(3)
The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services
(PRS) will identify for DHS the PRS clients with disabilities who are currently
residing within nursing facilities in the pilot sites and who are appropriate
for transition to a community-based living arrangement.
(d)
Coordination and Integration of services.
(1)
DHS, TDMHMR, and PRS will coordinate needed services to
the targeted population at pilot sites to the greatest extent possible by
fulfilling the responsibilities listed above.
(2)
If there are disagreements among the signatory agencies,
nursing facility resident, LAR, and/or nursing facility staff about whether
a client should leave the nursing facility or whether the client should move
to a particular placement, the agencies will conduct a special staffing to
attempt to resolve the disagreements, consistent with any court-imposed limitations
and agency rules and policies.
(3)
The sharing of information among TDMHMR, DHS, and PRS will
be conducted in a manner which does not violate confidentiality laws and regulations.
(e)
Amendments or modifications.
(1)
No later than September 1 of each year, DHS, TDMHMR, and
PRS will review and update this memorandum.
(2)
Each agency by rule will adopt the MOU and all revisions
to the MOU.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on January 10, 2003.
TRD-200300108
Paul Leche
General Counsel, Legal Services
Texas Department of Human Services
Effective date: January 30, 2003
Proposal publication date: July 26, 2002
For further information, please call: (512) 438-3734
Chapter 181.
GENERAL RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Subchapter A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
40 TAC §181.28
The Texas Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing adopts
amendments to §181.28 without changes to the text as published in the
November 29, 2002, issue of the
Texas Register
(27
TexReg 11056).
The amendment is adopted to implement an increase in the application fee
for children applying for camp to help cover the rising cost of the program.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendment.
This amendment is adopted under the Human Resources Code, §81.006(b)
(3), which provides the Texas Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
with the authority to adopt rules for administration and programs.
No other statute, code or article is affected by this adopted amendment.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on January 13, 2003.
TRD-200300155
David Myers
Executive Director
Texas Commission for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Effective date: February 2, 2003
Proposal publication date: November 29, 2002
For further information, please call: (512) 407-3250
Chapter 253.
STATE AGING PLAN
40 TAC §253.3
The Texas Department on Aging adopts an amendment to §253.3,
concerning Area Agency on Aging Funding Allocation Formula for Older Americans
Act Program. The rule is adopted without changes to the proposed text as published
in the November 29, 2002, issue of the
Texas Register
(27 TexReg 11056) and will not be republished.
The amendment is necessary to provide for a phase-in of the new funding
formula for fiscal years 2003 and 2004. The previously approved rule did not
contain any provision for phasing-in the impact on allocations to Area Agencies
on Aging based on the current census data. The phase-in provisions impact
allocations for Area Agencies on Aging who will receive increase or a decrease
in funding. The phase-in provision will reduce the impact on regions that
have realized a decrease and provide adequate time for any transition in services
and provide regions that have realized an increase an opportunity to plan
appropriately for increasing funding levels.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the rule.
The amendment is adopted under Texas Human Resources Code §101.021,
which provides the Texas Department on Aging with the authority to promulgate
rules governing the operation of the Department. Contrary to the statement
in the notice of proposed rule, this amendment is not adopted under Texas
Government Code, §2161.003.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on January 10, 2003.
TRD-200300125
Gary Jessee
Director of the Office of AAA Support and Operations
Texas Department on Aging
Effective date: January 30, 2003
Proposal publication date: November 29, 2002
For further information, please call: (512) 424-6857
The Texas Department on Aging adopts the repeal and replacement of §270.19,
concerning Residential Repair Services. The repeal is adopted without changes.
The new rule is adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in
the November 29, 2002, issue of the
Texas Register
(27 TexReg 11056). The text of the rule will be republished.
The repeal and new rule are necessary to increase the amount of funds that
may be expended on for residential repair services from $1500 to $4500 per
home. Additionally, targeting requirements have been updated to reflect the
requirements of the Older Americans Act, the section of the rule relating
to allowable repairs has been broadened and the administrative requirements
have been eliminated, as they are included in other rules. Area Agencies on
Aging have reported an inability to provide the minimum amount of residential
repair services that are needed when the limit is set at $1500. Additionally
they have reported difficulty in securing contractors to perform needed repairs
at the $1500 limit. The increase in the amount of funds that may be expended
for residential repair services allows Area Agencies on Aging to provide needed
services where the minimum amount of repairs exceeds $1500 and to secure contractors
to make the repairs. The allowable repair categories have been broadened to
provide greater flexibility in the types of repairs that may be provided.
The previous rule was restrictive in the types of services that may be provided.
The changes to the text of the replacement rule as published are made to §270.19(f),
(g), and (h). In subsection (f), The term "one unduplicated dwelling" has
been replaced with "one home" to clarify that a unit a service represents
all repairs on one home. The second sentence is reworded to clarify that an
Area Agency on Aging may not expend more than $4500 of Department provided
funds on a unit of service without prior written approval from the Department.
In subsections (g) and (h) clarifying language has been added to make the
subsections easier to understand and to make clearer the intent of those subsections.
The Department's representative from the Office of the Attorney General
has advised that the changes affect no new persons, entities, or subjects
other than those given notice and that compliance with the adopted sections
will be less burdensome than under the proposed sections. Accordingly, republication
of the adopted sections as proposed amendments is not required. The Texas
Register will republish the text of the rule.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the rule.
40 TAC §270.19
The repeal is adopted under Texas Human Resources Code §101.021,
which provides the Texas Department on Aging with the authority to adopt rules
governing the functions of the Department. Contrary to the statement in the
notice of proposed rule, it is not adopted under Texas Government Code §2161.003.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on January 10, 2003.
TRD-200300127
Gary Jessee
Director of the Office of AAA Support and Operations
Texas Department on Aging
Effective date: January 30, 2003
Proposal publication date: November 29, 2002
For further information, please call: (512) 424-6857
40 TAC §270.19
The new rule is adopted under Texas Human Resources Code §101.021,
which provides the Texas Department on Aging with the authority to adopt rules
governing the functions of the Department. Contrary to the statement in the
notice of proposed rule, it is not adopted under Texas Government Code §2161.003.
§270.19.Residential Repair Services.
(a)
Purpose. The purpose of this rule is to improve the condition
of the older person's residence to enhance energy efficiency, structural integrity,
health and safety.
(b)
Scope. This rule applies to residential repair services
funded in whole or part with federal or state funds provided through the Texas
Department on Aging.
(c)
Targeting. Area agencies on aging shall target individuals
in accordance with the Older Americans Act, §305.
(d)
Service Authorization. Residential repair services shall
be authorized in accordance with §260.3 (o)(2)(B) of this title (relating
to System of Access and Assistance).
(e)
Outcomes. Homes shall receive repairs and/or modifications
that are essential for maintaining the health, safety and independence of
its older residents. Clients will be provided an opportunity to express their
level of satisfaction with residential repair services received.
(f)
Unit of Service. One home that has received residential
repair services regardless of the amount or number of times repairs are provided.
An Area Agency on Aging may not expend more than $4500 of Department provided
funds on a unit of service without prior written approval from the Department.
(g)
Service Definition. Allowable repairs include:
(1)
Structural Services. Any repairs to the structure itself
considered necessary to the health and safety of the client.
(2)
Accessibility Modification. Structural adaptations that
meet the needs of older persons who have disabling conditions.
(3)
Electrical Services. Replacement of unsafe or defective
wiring, replacement of telephone conduits to permit the installation of an
emergency response unit and replacement of light switches.
(4)
Plumbing Services. Replacement, repair and/or installation
of essential plumbing lines or fixtures.
(5)
Weatherization. Repairs and/or modifications or purchase
of supplies that protect the home or its resident(s) from the effects of the
weather, conserve energy or provide alternative energy sources to heat or
cool.
(6)
Safety and Security Modification. Measures that prevent
accidents, fires or intrusion into a dwelling and the repair, modification,
treatment or removal of safety hazards in the home or yard.
(7)
Essential Appliance. Appliances necessary to sustain a
healthy environment and independent living.
(8)
Repair of Rental Units. The area agency on aging may elect
to perform residential repair service on rental units occupied by eligible
clients who are the primary resident. If work is performed on rental units,
the residential repair service providers (AAA) must obtain a signed agreement
from the landlord authorizing the repairs and/or modifications.
(h)
Prohibited Activities. This includes the following:
(1)
construction, repair or maintenance of outbuildings such
as garages, carports, animal shelters or greenhouses;
(2)
installation, repair or maintenance on non-essential appliances
and fixtures; and
(3)
beautification of property or activities which are strictly
for cosmetic purposes.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Filed
with the Office of the Secretary of State on January 10, 2003.
TRD-200300126
Gary Jessee
Director of the Office of AAA Support and Operations
Texas Department on Aging
Effective date: January 30, 2003
Proposal publication date: November 29, 2002
For further information, please call: (512) 424-6857
Chapter 803.
SKILLS DEVELOPMENT FUND
The Texas Workforce Commission (Commission) adopts the repeal of Chapter
803. Skills Development Fund, Subchapter A. General Provisions Regarding the
Skills Development Fund, §§803.1-803.3; Subchapter B. Program Administration, §§803.11-803.15;
Subchapter C. Program Administration After Award of Contract, §§803.31-803.35;
and new Chapter 803. Skills Development Fund, Subchapter A. General Provisions
Regarding the Skills Development Fund, §§803.1-803.3; Subchapter
B. Program Administration, §§803.11-803.12 and §§803.14-803.15;
and Subchapter C. Program Administration After Award of Contract, §§803.31-803.36,
without changes as published in the September 13, 2002 issue of the
The purpose of the adopted rules is to interpret and administer Texas Labor
Code, Chapter 303, relating to the operation of the Skills Development Fund.
As part of the Commission's innovative system of workforce training and
services, the Skills Development Fund exists to meet the needs of Texas employers
for the development of a highly skilled and productive workforce through customized
job training for new and existing jobs. Customized job training provided through
the Skills Development Fund also prepares, places and retains individuals
in employment, and meets the needs of workers of this state for education
and skills. By merging private and public interests into a winning formula
for putting Texans to work, the Skills Development Fund ensures a trained
workforce for Texas employers with high-skill, in-demand employment positions.
The Skills Development Fund teams the business community with education
organizations, such as public community and technical colleges, the Texas
Engineering Extension Service (TEEX), or community-based organizations in
partnership with education organizations, to fund customized job training
for employers needing high-skilled workers for new or existing positions.
This formula successfully merges employer needs and local job training opportunities
that in turn expands the local workforce and economic base of a community.
As an opportunity to expand a local workforce and economic base, and as a
source of workforce development funds provided to a local workforce development
area, the Commission encourages employers and education organizations to collaborate
with the Local Workforce Development Boards (the Boards) when creating Skills
Development Fund proposals. The Boards are the Commission's partner in workforce
training and service delivery and the architects of local workforce development
policy, but also have valuable local economic development expertise and resources
beneficial to successfully creating a proposal or implementing customized
job training.
The new rules incorporate substantially all of the requirements currently
contained in Chapter 803, which is concurrently adopted for repeal. However,
because of the extensive nature of the changes, the Commission proposes the
repeal of the current rules and proposes new rules. The new rules describe
the operation of the Skills Development Fund. The new rules update the rules
to reflect current workforce development philosophy and policy, strengthen
accountability of the grant recipients, encourage collaboration with the Boards,
enhance administrative efficiency of the fund, and provide clarity throughout
Chapter 803. Some of the nonsubstantive changes include minor typographical
edits, changes in terminology in line with the definitions set out in Chapter
800 distinguishing Commission, meaning three member decision-making body of
the Commission, from Agency, meaning the Texas Workforce Commission as an
Agency responsible for implementing and administering programs. The purposes
and goals of the Skills Development Fund are to increase the skills and wages
of Texas' workforce, to enhance the ability of education organizations to
respond to employer and workforce training needs, and to develop incentives
for education organizations to provide customized assessment and training
in a timely and efficient manner. The fund provides customized job training
throughout the state. The rules describe the procedure to be used in making
an application for a Skills Development Fund award, in evaluating the proposals
submitted, enumerate the responsibilities of the grant recipient, and list
the requirements that the grant recipient must meet in order to obtain payment
on training contracts. A document reflecting the new rules may be viewed at
www.twc.state.tx.us/twcinfo/rules/prorules.html, or requested by contacting
Kathy Turney at (512) 936-9256, faxing (512) 463-2672, e-mailing Kathy.Turney@twc.state.tx.us,
or writing to the Texas Workforce Commission, 101 East 15th Street, Room 526-T,
Austin, Texas, 78778-0001.
Subchapter A contains §§803.1-803.3 and sets out the provisions
relating to the scope and purpose, definitions, and uses of the fund.
Specifically, the purposes of the sections contained in Subchapter A are
as follows.
Section 803.1 sets out the scope and purpose of the Skills Development
Fund. A reference to wages is added as part of the goal to clarify that the
goal of the fund is to increase the wage level of the trainee in addition
to the skills level of the trainee.
Section 803.2 sets out the definitions. Some of the definitions, such as
customized training project and private partner, are edited for clarity within
the rule and to enhance administrative efficiency of the fund. The clarifications
made to the definitions are reflected through the remainder of the Chapter
803, where applicable, to clarify the rules. The term "Director" is simplified
to allow the reader to understand clearly when duties can be delegated and
not delegated to a designee, and edits to reflect this change are made through
the remainder of Chapter 803 where applicable to clarify the rules. Throughout
Chapter 803, the term "training project" replaces the term "training program"
to provide clarity to the rules and update the rules to reflect current workforce
development philosophy and policy. Other edits made to this section are to
correct typographical errors.
Section 803.3 sets out uses of the Skills Development Fund. The term public
community college is added in reference to junior colleges because the Texas
Education Code treats them interchangeably. Including a reference to public
community colleges clarifies Chapter 803 and enhances administrative efficiency
of the fund.
Subchapter B contains §§803.11-803.15 and sets out the provisions
relating to program administration.
Section 803.11 sets out the provisions for grant administration. This section
is edited to clarify the role of the Executive Director, and brings the rule
in line with definitions set out in Chapter 800 that distinguish Agency and
Commission. Subsection (c) is eliminated because of redundancy.
Section 803.12 sets out the limitations on awards. Edits are made to this
section to bring the rule in line with definitions set out in Chapter 800
that distinguish Agency and Commission. Other edits are made to clarify the
rule under Chapter 803.
Section 803.13 sets out the program objectives. A new objective is added
to address the development of projects that will create jobs in local workforce
development areas through the collaboration with the Boards. As the Commission's
partner in workforce training and service delivery and the architects of local
workforce development policy, the Boards should be informed about workforce
training funding designed to impact employment and training in a local workforce
development area. Furthermore, the Boards should be utilized as a local economic
development resource. The new objective is added to emphasize that employers
and education organizations should work with the Boards when preparing Skills
Development Fund proposals. Former subsection (a)(2) is removed because it
is redundant with former subsection (a)(3), which is now new subsection (a)(4).
In an effort to streamline the objectives for administrative efficiency, some
objectives with common issues are merged. Former objectives under subsections
(a)(1) and (a)(12) are merged into new subsection (a)(1); former subsections
(a)(8) and (a)(9) are merged into new subsection (a)(5). The Commission has
made a change to §803.13(a)(3) at adoption to clarify that the trainee
must receive a wage in that occupation that is equal to or greater than the
prevailing wage for a person of like experience and knowledge in the local
labor market. This clarification reflects current practice that takes into
consideration the experience and knowledge of the trainees when the trainees
are placed into a job following the Skills Development Fund training. The
Commission has made a change to §803.13 (a)(5) at adoption that removes
the reference to targeted occupations and demand occupations as examples of
occupation that are suitable to that objective. This change will allow the
Commission to retain the flexibility to review proposed training projects
under the objective §803.13(a)(5) on a case by case basis. Furthermore,
the Commission strikes the objectives listed in §803.13(a)(6) through §803.13(a)(10)
because the objectives are redundant, and the Commission seeks to focus on
the objectives listed in §803.13 (a)(1) through §803.13 (a)(5).
Section 803.14 sets out the procedures for requesting Skills Development
Fund grant funding. Subsection (a) now calls for employer and education organizations
to obtain from the Boards review and comments of the proposal. Any review
and comments of the Board would be part of the proposal submission to the
Agency. The Skills Development Fund is a vital source of customized training
funds for a local workforce development area and local economy. As architects
of local workforce development policy, the Boards should be informed of and
have the opportunity to collaborate on any workforce training that might come
into a local workforce development area. When preparing the proposal, businesses,
education organizations, and community-based organizations must recognize
that the Boards are the cornerstone of workforce training and services in
a local workforce development area, and coordinate accordingly. Under subsection
(c), the parties submitting the joint proposal and the Board must disclose
to the Agency if the parties are seeking other funding from the Commission
to fund the proposed training project or a similar project, such as funding
through an Achieving Performance Excellence (APEX) grant. Though the Commission
encourages the development of training projects that facilitate the integration
with other state and federally funded training, the use of Skills Development
Fund grant funds to duplicate training projects available in a local workforce
development area, or that would be available concurrently with the adopted
Skills Development Fund training, is not considered an efficient use of scarce
resources and funds by the Commission. Other changes made to Section 803.14
are made for clarity of Chapter 803, to strengthen business and education
organization commitment to the Skills Development Fund grant funded training,
to strengthen contract monitoring issues, and to eliminate parts of the rule
that are no longer applicable, such as the provisions relating to the now
defunct Smart Jobs Fund.
Section 803.15 sets out the procedures for proposal evaluation. This section's
edits provide clarity to the rule and bring the rule in line with Chapter
800 definitions distinguishing Agency and Commission. A new section is added
to establish the notification of Boards when the Agency is evaluating a proposal
in order to keep the Boards up to date about potential workforce activities
in a local workforce development area.
Subchapter C contains §§803.31-803.36 and sets out the provisions
relating to program administration after award of contract.
Section 803.31 sets out the grant recipient responsibilities. The adopted
new subsection (a) requires a grant recipient to submit financial and performance
reports to the Agency on a quarterly basis based on the commencement date
of the contract. Other provisions clarify the rules, such as replacing the
term contractor with grant recipient. Four new subsections are added. These
are added to bring clarity to the rules, strengthen the contractual obligations
of the grant recipient, enhance administrative efficiency of the fund, strengthen
contract monitoring procedures, and to provide the grant recipient with guidance
on how to submit reports and establish the treatment of additional reports
requested by the Agency.
Section 803.32 sets out the provisions for contract completion reports.
Edits are made to provide clarity to the rule or are made to bring the terminology
in line with definitions set out in Chapter 800. The term contractor is replaced
with grant recipient for clarity. The time frame to submit final reports is
reduced from 90 days to 60 days following the end of the contract period to
accelerate the closeout process and enhance administrative efficiency of the
fund. Subsection (5), which addresses payroll records and reports, is edited
to provide the grant recipient greater flexibility with regard to obtaining
trainee wage information from the employer participating in the customized
job training.
Section 803.33 sets out the contract payment provisions. The provisions
are edited to provide clarity on how the final payment will be completed.
It is also edited to specify that final payment of the awarded funds will
be withheld for 60 days after the completion of training and after receipt
by the Agency of verification from the employer that the trainees are employed
in occupations agreed upon in the contract, which will accelerate the closeout
process and enhance administrative efficiency of the fund.
Section 803.34 sets out the notice to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board. Edits are made to provide clarity to the rule, or are made to bring
the terminology in line with definitions set out in Chapter 800.
Section 803.35 is a new section that sets out notification to the Boards
when a Skills Development Fund grant is awarded. The rule is added to update
workforce development philosophy and policy with regard to the role of the
Boards and the Skills Development Fund. The new rule will also enhance administrative
efficiency of the fund and provide the Boards with notice of workforce training
funding invested by the Commission in a local workforce development area.
Former section 803.35 is renumbered to section 803.36 to provide clarity
to the rules under Chapter 803. New section 803.36 is the same as former section
803.35.
Comments were received from the following five Boards:
*Permian Basin Workforce Development Board;
*West Central Workforce Development Board;
*Capital Area Workforce Development Board;
*Concho Valley Workforce Development Board; and
*North Central Texas Workforce Development Board.
Comments were also received from the San Antonio Economic Development Foundation.
Some commenters agreed with the new rules, some disagreed with the changes,
and some made recommendations for changes to the proposed language. The comment
summaries and responses are as follows.
Comment: One commenter was supportive of the rule changes.
Response: The Commission is appreciative of the comments.
Comment: One commenter felt the proposed changes brought the Skills Development
Fund program closer to the Boards, and felt that the changes would help the
Board more closely align the structure of the Skills Development Fund with
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) employment and training programs; increase
communication and coordination between community colleges, technical colleges,
TEEX, and the Boards; and increase the synergy between Skills Development
Fund programs and local employment and training programs through close coordination,
greater communication, and added accountability. The commenter felt that Skills
Development Fund training projects and local employment and training programs
can accomplish much more by working together than either can accomplish separately.
Response: The Commission agrees with the commenter that the rules further
the Commission's strategy of aligning employers, education organizations,
and the Boards, which will result in greater communication, coordination,
and synergy between employers, education organizations, and the Boards, thereby
better serving the workforce network and its employer-driven goals. The Commission
also agrees with the commenter that employers, education organizations, and
the Boards accomplish more working together than they do working separately,
and encourages these local partners to strengthen communication and collaboration
to improve the local workforce and economic base of the community.
Comment: One commenter applauded the usefulness of the fund and our simplified
process, but felt the program needed to be flexible for projects unique to
Texas and high economic impact projects.
Response: The Commission agrees that the Skills Development Fund needs
to continue to maximize the economic impact of employers, workers, and communities
across Texas. The Commission agrees with the commenter's suggestion that the
program should be flexible. Under the rules, the Commission retains flexibility
to allow the Commission to meet the needs of employers, but also to maximize
allocated dollars appropriated each year and to distribute the funds statewide
as required under Texas Labor Code §303.003(e).
Comment: Regarding §803.3(d)(2), §803.3(d)(3), and §803.3(d)(4),
one commenter stated that the program should be flexible to cover the purchase
of proprietary or production equipment required for the training project of
a single employer, the travel cost of trainees and instructors, and to pay
a portion of the wages of employees who are a part of a Skills Development
Fund job-training project.
Response: The Commission agrees with the commenter's suggestion that the
Skills Development Fund should be flexible. Under §803.36 Waiver, it
is at the discretion of the Agency's executive director to suspend or waive
a rule upon a showing of good cause. Hence, though the rules ban the use of
Skills Development Fund money to pay for the purchase of proprietary or production
equipment required for the training project of a single employer, travel costs
of trainees and instructors, and to pay wages of employees, these rules may
be waived by the Agency's executive director upon a showing of good cause
in a grant proposal, thereby allowing the Commission the flexibility to maximize
economic impact on employers, workers, and communities across Texas.
Comment: Regarding §803.12(1), one commenter stated that the Commission
needed to continue to broaden the program and maximize its economic impact.
The commenter stated that the Commission should not limit all projects to
$500,000, or at the very least should make allowances for larger or exceptional
projects based on economic impact, number and level of jobs or some measurement
that emphasizes the need for Texas to better compete for high impact and primary
employers.
Response: The Commission agrees with the commenter's suggestion that the
program should be flexible. Under §803.12 Limitation on Awards, the Commission
retains flexibility to allow the Commission to meet the needs of employers
because the Commission may, at its discretion, limit training projects to
$500,000 for grants involving a single employer. As a discretionary limitation,
the rule furnishes the Commission the desired flexibility to meet the needs
of employers, but also enables the Commission to spend Skills Development
Fund grant money statewide, as required under Texas Labor Code §303.003(e).
Comment: Regarding §803.12(2), one commenter stated that the program
should be flexible to cover the cost of purchased equipment beyond the 10%
limit for required training.
Response: The Commission agrees with the commenter's suggestion that the
program should be flexible. Under §803.12 Limitation on Awards, the Commission
retains flexibility to allow the Commission to meet the needs of employers
because the Commission may, at its discretion, limit the purchase of any proprietary
or production equipment required for training to 10% of grant funds. As a
discretionary limitation, the rule furnishes the Commission the desired flexibility
to meet the needs of employers, but also enables the Commission to spend Skills
Development Fund grant money statewide, as required under Texas Labor Code §303.003(e).
Comment: Regarding §803.12(4), one commenter stated that all Skills
Development Fund projects should operate at a 10% administrative cost cap
rather than allowing projects with more than one employer to have up to 15%
for administrative costs, and claimed that if training programs were done
in concert with community partners, such as the Boards, a 10% percent administrative
cost would be sufficient. The commenter also noted that the Commission has
the authority to waive sections of the rules if a project needed more room
for administrative costs.
Response: Under §803.12 Limitation on Awards, the Commission retains
flexibility to meet the needs of employers because the Commission may, at
its discretion, cap administrative costs at 10% for single employers, and
15% for multiple employers. The Commission disagrees with the commenter's
suggestion that multiple employer grants should be capped at 10% under §803.12.
The 15% administrative cost cap encourages employers to team together or join
a business consortium that in turn could train more employees per capita and
address more skills at an overall less administrative cost per student. It
also encourages employers to communicate and work together to identify the
needed skills for a local workforce area. Furthermore, the increased cap for
multiple employer or consortium grants drives education organizations to pursue
such collaborations and gives the Commission the flexibility to appropriately
fund the administrative costs of the grant recipient. Because the rule merely
sets a discretionary maximum limitation on administrative costs, the Commission
may also, at its discretion, cap administrative costs below the limitations
set out in the rule.
Comment: Regarding §803.13(a)(2), a commenter stated that collaboration
and coordination with the local workforce development boards was positive,
however, expressed concern that it could cause delay in the application process.
Response: The Commission agrees that more collaboration and coordination
with the Boards is essential to the overall workforce and economic impact
in communities and encourages employers, education organizations, and the
Boards to coordinate with one another early in the planning process so as
to not delay the application process.
Comment: Regarding §803.13(a)(2), one commenter felt the phrase "collaboration
with the Boards" was too general and suggested amending the phrase in the
objective to state, "To collaborate with local Workforce Boards in the planning,
design, and evaluation of the Skills Development grant." The commenter felt
that "collaboration" meant nothing more than obtaining a letter of support
from the Board.
Response: The Commission agrees that more collaboration and coordination
with the Boards is essential to impact the local workforce and economic base
of a community, and encourages employers, education organizations, and the
Boards to coordinate with one another early in the planning process so as
to not delay the application process. The Commission disagrees with imposing
requirements in the rules to force these local partners into working relationships,
rather the local partners should foster productive relationships as part of
their goal in meeting the workforce and economic development needs of the
workforce area.
Comment: Regarding §803.13(a)(5), one commenter agreed that training
projects funded through the Skills Development Fund should focus on occupations
that facilitate the growth of industry and foster the economic growth of the
region, but strongly believed the training projects should only focus on training
for jobs listed as targeted occupations by the Boards to ensure new hires
and current workers receive self-sufficient wages that include benefits.
Response: The Commission agrees with the commenter's suggestion about high
value, high skills jobs; however, the Commission disagrees that Skills Development
Fund grants should be limited exclusively to training projects involving targeted
occupations. The Commission is removing the reference to targeted occupations
and demand occupations in proposed §803.13(a)(5) to allow the Commission
to retain the flexibility to determine if a proposed training project meets
the objective under §803.13(a)(5) on a case by case basis, and not based
upon whether the occupation that is the subject of the proposed training is
on a targeted occupation or demand occupation list. However, in working with
employers and education organizations, the Board is free to support or not
support proposals based on whether Skills Development Fund training proposals
address the local workforce development needs and goals. Furthermore, the
Commission strikes objectives listed in §803.13(a)(6) through §803.13(a)(10)
because these objectives are redundant, and the Commission seeks to emphasize
the objectives listed in §803.13(a)(1) through §803.13(a)(5).
Comment: Regarding §803.13(b), one commenter stated that the proposed
rule should be amended so that priority shall be given to counties, rather
than workforce areas, whose unemployment rates are higher than the state's
annual unemployment rate. The commenter gave an example and pointed out that
many workforce areas cover multiple counties. Although some of the counties
have an unemployment rate higher than the state's annual average unemployment
rate, the grant proposal would not be given priority because other counties
in the workforce area bring the average unemployment rate for the entire workforce
area below the state average unemployment rate.
Response: The Commission disagrees with the commenter's suggestion to amend
the rule to give priority to counties with a high unemployment rate. However,
county unemployment rate information may be included in an application by
the employer and education organization as additional information for the
Commission to consider, though it would not give the application priority
status under §803.13(b).
Comment: Regarding §803.14, two commenters suggested that the following
should be added to §803.14 to enhance Board engagement with Skills Development
Fund projects. Two commenters suggested the first four items, and one commenter
suggested the last two items.
*Proposal shall contain a statement about the role and extent of involvement
of the Boards in the planning, implementation and evaluation processes.
*Proposal shall contain a statement identifying the relationship to the
Board's targeted occupation list.
*Proposal shall contain a statement about how the Boards will be informed
on a regular basis of project progress.
*For prior recipients of Skills Development Funds, the proposal shall contain
a brief description of effectiveness of the project in meeting the planned
financial and programmatic goals.
*Proposal shall contain a description of how the training project will
coordinate with existing workforce employment and training programs.
*Proposal shall contain a description of how the training project will
coordinate with local workforce centers.
Response: Though the Commission strongly encourages employers and education
organizations to involve the Boards early in the planning process so as not
to delay the review and comment requirements of the application, the Commission
disagrees with the commenters' suggested additions to §803.14. It is
the responsibility of the local partners to foster relationships and collaborate
on projects to improve workforce and economic circumstances for local residents.
However, the Commission may consider adding similar requirements to the grant
applications to encourage collaboration and coordination among employers,
education organizations and the Boards.
Comment: Regarding §803.14, two commenters appreciated the revisions
to the rules in regard to the Boards' increased role; however, the two commenters
felt that communication would be ensured if language in this section were
revised to require the education organizations and employers to engage the
Boards during the planning process and/or provide written notification to
the Boards of the intent to apply for Skills Development Fund grant funds
30 to 45 days in advance of proposal submission to the Board.
Response: The Commission agrees that more collaboration and coordination
with the Boards is essential to the workforce and economic development of
communities and encourages employers, as partners of this employer-driven
system, and education organizations to coordinate with the Boards early in
planning of training projects so as not to delay the application process for
Skills Development Fund grants. The Commission disagrees with adding such
time restrictions by rule because it is the responsibility of employers, education
organizations, and the Boards to foster relationships and collaborate on projects
that will improve workforce and economic circumstances for local residents.
Comment: Regarding §803.14, one commenter stated that the Skills Development
Fund needed to be more closely aligned with the Boards, but expressed concern
about pressure placed on the Board to support a Skills Development Fund grant
without having adequate time to review and comment on a submitted proposal.
Response: The new rules reflect the Commission's strategy to more closely
align employers, education organizations, and the Boards, as all three are
local partners and are responsible for fostering a productive working relationship
to improve the local workforce and economic base of the community. The Commission
strongly encourages employers and education organizations seeking Skills Development
Fund grants to strengthen communication and collaboration with the Boards
to ensure success. Because relationships need to be fostered at a local level,
the Commission disagrees with imposing requirements on employers and education
organizations submitting proposals to the Boards because it is the responsibility
of these local partners to work together on such issues. Furthermore, the
Commission accepts grant applications at any time. The Commission does not
set deadlines on submitting applications because the Commission wants to encourage
employers and education organizations to develop projects when appropriate,
and not based on arbitrary deadlines.
Comment: Regarding §803.31(a), two commenters suggested that the grant
recipients provide to the Boards copies of the quarterly contract reports
that are to be submitted to the Commission.
Response: The Commission strongly encourages the local partners to establish
productive relationships and keep each other informed of on-going workforce
training in a local area. Although the Board should be informed about the
progress of Skills Development Fund training in the local workforce area,
the Commission disagrees with the commenters' suggestion that the Boards be
provided copies of the quarterly reports. Skills Development Fund grant contracts
are between grant recipients and the Commission, and because the Board is
not a party to the contract, the Commission is concerned about confidential
information contained in the reports that is required to remain confidential
based on federal and state laws. However, in an effort to keep the Board apprised
of on-going workforce training, the Commission may make a progress report
available to the Board at the Board's request.
Comment: Regarding §803.32, two commenters suggested that the grant
recipients provide to the Boards copies of the final contract reports that
are to be submitted to the Commission.
Response: The Commission strongly encourages the local partners to establish
productive relationships and keep each other informed of on-going workforce
training in a local area. Although the Boards should be informed about the
progress of Skills Development Fund training in the local workforce area,
the Commission disagrees with the commenters' suggestion that the Boards be
provided copies of the final reports. Skills Development Fund grant contracts
are between grant recipients and the Commission, and because the Board is
not a party to the contract, the Commission is concerned about confidential
information contained in the reports that is required to remain confidential
based on federal and state laws. However, in an effort to keep the Board apprised
of on-going workforce training, the Commission may make a progress report
available to the Board at the Board's request.
Comment: One commenter felt that the Skills Development Fund program should
be devolved to the Boards as other federal and state programs have been transitioned
to the Boards.
Response: The Commission recognizes the need for the Boards to have visibility
and flexibility regarding their role in planning and implementing economic
and workforce development policy in a local workforce area, and the rules
succeed in more closely aligning the Boards, employers, and education organizations
regarding Skills Development Fund training. However, the Commission disagrees
with the commenter's suggestion of transitioning the Skills Development Fund
program to the Boards at this time. There are unique opportunities that present
themselves at the State level or at companies with locations in more than
one workforce area, and the Commission does not want to limit its flexibility
in responding to requests from those entities for training funds. In addition,
the Commission has taken steps this year through the Workforce Investment
Act (WIA) alternative funding mechanism to ensure that Boards have flexible
funding to be used for employer's emergent needs and customized training projects.
The Commission has also requested relief via a WIA waiver from the Department
of Labor on the amount of matching fund required of employers for WIA customized
training projects that are funded with an individual Board's own allocation.
The Commission does, however, believe a stronger relationship between applicants
for Skills Development Fund grants and the Boards is critical to the success
of these projects. The new rules seek closer alignment of all the interested
parties.
Subchapter A. GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT FUND
40 TAC §§803.1 - 803.3
The rules are repealed under Texas Labor Code §301.061
and §302.002, which provide the Texas Workforce Commission with the authority
to adopt, amend, or repeal such rules as it deems necessary for the effective
administration of Agency services and activities.
The repeal affects Texas Labor Code, Titles 4 as well as Texas Government
Code Chapter 2308.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on January 9, 2003.
TRD-200300074
John Moore
Assistant General Counsel
Texas Workforce Commission
Effective date: January 29, 2003
Proposal publication date: September 13, 2002
For further information, please call: (512) 463-2573
40 TAC §§803.1 - 803.3
The new rules are adopted under Texas Labor Code §301.061
and §302.002, which provide the Texas Workforce Commission with the authority
to adopt, amend, or repeal such rules as it deems necessary for the effective
administration of Agency services and activities.
The rules affect Texas Labor Code, Titles 4 as well as Texas Government
Code Chapter 2308.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed
with the Office of the Secretary of State on January 9, 2003.
TRD-200300075
John Moore
Assistant General Counsel
Texas Workforce Commission
Effective date: January 29, 2003
Proposal publication date: September 13, 2002
For further information, please call: (512) 463-2573
40 TAC §§803.11 - 803.15
The rules are repealed under Texas Labor Code §301.061
and §302.002, which provide the Texas Workforce Commission with the authority
to adopt, amend, or repeal such rules as it deems necessary for the effective
administration of Agency services and activities.
The repeal affects Texas Labor Code, Titles 4 as well as Texas Government
Code Chapter 2308.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed
with the Office of the Secretary of State on January 9, 2003.
TRD-200300076
John Moore
Assistant General Counsel
Texas Workforce Commission
Effective date: January 29, 2003
Proposal publication date: September 13, 2002
For further information, please call: (512) 463-2573
40 TAC §§803.11 - 803.15
The new rules are adopted under Texas Labor Code §301.061
and §302.002, which provide the Texas Workforce Commission with the authority
to adopt, amend, or repeal such rules as it deems necessary for the effective
administration of Agency services and activities.
The rules affect Texas Labor Code, Titles 4 as well as Texas Government
Code Chapter 2308.
§803.13.Program Objectives.
(a)
The following are the program objectives in administering
the Skills Development Fund:
(1)
to ensure that funds from the program are spent in all
areas of this state and expand the state's capacity to respond to workforce
training needs;
(2)
to develop projects in local workforce development areas
through collaboration with the Boards;
(3)
to develop projects that at completion of the training
will result in wages equal to or greater than the prevailing wage of persons
with similar knowledge and experience in that occupation in the local labor
market for the participants in the customized training project;
(4)
to prioritize the processing of grant requests from local
workforce development areas where the unemployment rate is higher than the
state's annual average unemployment rate;
(5)
to sponsor creation and attraction of high value, high
skill jobs for the state that will facilitate the growth of industry and emerging
occupations.
(b)
In processing requests referenced in subsection (a)(4)
of this section, the Director, or his or her designee, shall give priority
in processing to grant requests from local workforce development areas where
the unemployment rate is higher than the state's annual average unemployment
rate. Notwithstanding the priority in processing, the other objectives within
this section apply.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed
with the Office of the Secretary of State on January 9, 2003.
TRD-200300077
John Moore
Assistant General Counsel
Texas Workforce Commission
Effective date: January 29, 2003
Proposal publication date: September 13, 2002
For further information, please call: (512) 463-2573
Chapter 72.
MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING WITH OTHER STATE AGENCIES
Part 6.
TEXAS COMMISSION FOR THE DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING
Part 9.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT ON AGING
Chapter 270.
GENERAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
Part 20.
TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION
Subchapter B. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
Subchapter C. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AFTER AWARD OF CONTRACT