Here is the document I submitted to DWP stating why my case has merit. There are two docs. This may clarify things a little. i will be away from the computer until later this afternoon

The purpose of this paper is to support my request for full Cost of Attendance support for retraining as a practical nurse at the Montana State University-Great Falls College of Technology. The Montana State University-Great Falls College of Technology is an eligible training provider under the Montana Workforce Investment Act and the practical nursing program is an eligible program under the same act. This paper will show that this retraining request is in congruence with both federal and state general Workforce Investment Act guidelines and demonstrate my eligibility for the program.

The support for this retraining request is directly from the Montana Department of Labor and Industry’s Workforce Investment Act website, the State of Montana Workforce Investment Act Policy manual (revised 07/2008) and the United States Department of Labor Workforce Investment Act; Final Rules (20 CFR Part 652 et al).

I am requesting the establishment of an Individual Training Account (ITA) to fully fund my Cost of Attendance for retraining as a practical nurse. Cost of Attendance is not specifically defined by the Montana Workforce Investment Act Policy manual but is recognized therein as:

The Cost of Attendance may include tuition, fees, room and board, books, supplies, and tools (if required for the training course). Note: Cost of Attendance may also include other expenses that are not incurred through the training provider such as child care, transportation, rent and other living expenses. WIA funds may be used to assist with such expenses and are considered supportive services].

I am requesting this based on the following law:

An individual who has been determined eligible for an ITA may select a training institution/program from the Montana Eligible Training Provider List (ETPL) or from another State, provided that the training institution/program is listed on that State’s Eligible Training Provider List, after consultation with a case manager, counselor or coordinator. Unless the program has exhausted funds for the program year, the Service provider must refer the individual to the selected training institution/program, and establish an ITA for the individual to pay for training. 20 CFR Part 663.440   

The purpose of Title 1 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 defined in the Federal Register Volume 65, Number 156 dated August 11, 2000 is:

“To provide workforce investment activities that increase the employment, retention and earnings of participants, and increase occupational skill attainment by participants, which will improve the quality of the workforce, reduce welfare dependency, and enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the Nation’s economy.”

The State of Montana has defined the long term goals of its workforce investment system as:
“1) promoting a diverse economy by providing skilled workers to emerging Montana industries, specifically those in information and advanced technology, health services, value-added agriculture, and communications; and 2) promoting continual skill development, increasing wages, and an enhanced standard of living for all Montanans”

Eligibility

I am requesting retraining as a practical nurse under the Workforce Investment Act Title 1B Dislocated Worker Program.   A dislocated worker is defined by the Montana WIA Policy manual as an individual whom:

(A)(i) has been terminated or laid off from their job, or who received a notice of termination or layoff, from their employer; (ii)(I) is eligible for or has exhausted their unemployment payments; or (II) has been employed for a duration sufficient to demonstrate, to the appropriate entity at a one-stop center referred to in section 134(c), attachment to the workforce, but can not get unemployment compensation because of low earnings or having done work for an employer not covered under a State unemployment compensation law; and (iii) is unlikely to return to a previous industry or occupation; (B)(i) has been terminated or laid off, or has received a notice of termination or layoff, from employment as a result of any permanent closure of, or any substantial layoff at, a plant, facility or enterprise; (ii) is employed at a facility which the employer has made a general announcement that such facility will close within 180 days; or (iii) for purpose of eligibility to receive services other than training services described in section 134(d)(4), intensive services described in section 134(d)(3) or supportive services, is employed at a
facility at which the employer has made a general announcement that such facility will close;

I do meet the definition of a displaced worker as my former employer CitiMortgage closed its Great Falls, Montana Customer Service site in June 2008. I am eligible for unemployment insurance benefits and it is not likely that I will be able to return to a previous industry or occupation.

Specific eligibility requirements as set forth in the Montana WIA Policy manual are:

A. To receive Title I B Adult or Dislocated Worker services, an individual must:
1. Be a U.S. Citizen or Registered Alien;
2. Meet Selective Service Registration requirements, if applicable;
3. Have received the required Gateway services;

B. Additional Eligibility Requirements for Adults
1. Individuals must be 18 years of age or older and
2. Meet the priority for service definition for adults.

Additional Eligibility Required for Dislocated Workers:

An individual must meet the WIA definition of a dislocated worker or displaced homemaker definition as found in the Glossary of Terms and Definitions.

I am a U.S. citizen. Selective Service registration requirements are not applicable as I am a veteran honorably discharged from the U.S. Army in 1989. I am over 18 years of age. The Workforce Investment Act does not provide a priority of service requirement for dislocated workers. However, plant closures or significant dislocation events are given priority for Intensive and Training services. Therefore, requirement B 2 above is not applicable.   I do meet the WIA definition of a dislocated worker as defined above.

I am also eligible for the Veterans Preference Priority. This is defined by the Montana WIA Policy manual as:

Veterans’ preference priority will be given to eligible veterans who meet the program’s eligibility requirements over non-veterans for all available services. For example, if a particular program provides specialized training to the participants that qualify for that program, the veterans within that group would receive priority when selecting who would attend the training.

The information above clearly establishes my eligibility for the Montana Workforce Investment Act Dislocated Worker Program, with a veterans’ preference priority, when applicable.

Congruence with federal and state guidelines regarding retraining

I am requesting training as a practical nurse. This is an in demand profession in Great Falls, Montana and nationwide. Demand is expected to continue to grow as the population of the United States continues to age. This fulfills the program requirement that,

the training is directly linked to occupations that are in demand in the local area, or in another area to which an adult or dislocated worker is willing to relocate. In determining local demand occupation(s), providers may allow for training in occupations that may have high potential for sustained demand or growth in the local area. (State of Montana WIA Policy manual revised 07/2008).

I have also demonstrated that I am in need of training services and have the skills and qualifications to successfully complete the selected training program (prior successful completion of college coursework and military training).

My retraining request is also in agreement with the purpose of the Workforce Investment Act as stated by the Federal government (see above or 20 CFR part 652 et al). Training as a practical nurse will increase my potential for employment retention and earnings as well as increase my occupational skill level. These are stated objectives of the Workforce Iinvestment Act.

My request is also in line with Montana’s long term goals for the WIA. I will be receiving training in the health care field which is specifically mentioned in part one as an area of special interest. I will also be engaged in continually improving my skill development and enhancing the potential for increased wages and improved standard of living which is the stated goal of part two of the vision. This vision was presented in the Executive Summary of the plan year 2006 Annual Report and is endorsed by the governor, State Workforce Investment Board and the Montana Department of Labor and Industry.

Cost of Attendance

I have previously supplied the case manager with documentation showing that the cost of the two year practical nursing program at Montana State University-Great Falls College of Technology is approximately $10,300. I will be requesting supporting services for additional costs of attendance such as child care and transportation and other living expenses. I will discuss these with the case manger to assure that all additional costs of attendance are reasonable and necessary, allowable and properly documented.

I will be pursuing additional sources of funding for my education. I have completed the FAFSA application and have forwarded it to MSU-GF COT. I have been informed by financial aid office that application review should be completed in two to three weeks. I will continue to research and apply for scholarships and will be contacting the Veterans Administration regarding a disability claim. At this time no additional sources of funding have been identified or approved, therefore in order to make this training possible it will be necessary for the Workforce Investment Act Dislocated Worker Program to fully fund my costs of attendance.

This concludes my request for the establishment of an Individualized Training Account that will fully support the costs of attendance for the practical nursing program at the Montana State University-Great Falls College of Technology. I firmly believe that I have established my eligibility for the program as per 20 CFR Section 663.310. Further as stated by 20 CFR Section 663.440 if an individual is eligible as per section 663.310, the service provider must refer the individual to the selected training institution and establish an ITA for the individual to pay for the training.

and the letter I sent requesting a meeting w/ the manager

August 21, 2008

R H
Manager, Great Falls Job Service
XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX South
Great Falls, Montana 59405


Dear Ms. H;

I am writing to you regarding my request to speak with a supervisor following my meeting on August 21, 2008 with the Dislocated Workers Program Case manager Ms. Norma V. While Ms. V and I agree in many respects such as eligibility and need for assistance, we seem to be at an impasse as to type and amount of assistance. It is for this reason I am requesting your review of the situation as it now stands. I will be contacting you on Monday, August 25, 2008 so you and I can have an opportunity to discuss my concerns personally.

On a personal note and before I get too deeply into the details, I would like to let you know that it is vitally important for me to obtain funding for retraining. I am requesting retraining into an emerging Montana industry so that I may continue to provide for a family of six, soon to be seven.

Here is my story:

I am a former employee of CitiMortgage. The company closed its Great Falls, Montana office in June 2008.   The case manager and I both agree that I fit the definition of a dislocated worker as defined by the Montana WIA Policy manual and in public law. Ms. V and I also agree that I am eligible for the Dislocated Worker Program. I am requesting full Cost of Attendance support for retraining as a practical nurse under Title 1B of the Dislocated worker program. Because of my family size, I will be unable to complete retraining without full cost of attendance assistance from the WIA Dislocated Worker Program. I will be pursuing additional funding sources but at this time those sources are not available.   I have based my request for full cost of attendance funding on the federal regulation shown below:

An individual who has been determined eligible for training services
under § 663.310 may select a provider described in paragraph (b) of this
section after consultation with a case manager. Unless the program has exhausted training funds for the program year, the operator must refer the individual to the selected provider,
and establish an ITA for the individual to pay for training. For purposes of this
paragraph, a referral may be carried out by providing a voucher or certificate to
the individual to obtain the training.

I have included with this letter two documents that I believe make a compelling case for full cost of attendance support.   I hope to discuss these with you personally and get approval for full cost of attendance assistance.

I am basing my request for cost of attendance assistance on what is written in the law, Federal and State regulations, as well as Montana’s own WIA policy manual. In my discussion with the case manager, she stated that she would not be willing to support full cost of attendance for retraining. She tentatively offered $800-$1000 of support. This was the figure that she mentioned during our first conversation a week and a half ago. I believe this the standard offer to everyone and that my request did not receive serious review or consideration   I will be unable to even begin the retraining process with that level of assistance.   My disagreement with the case manager over funding arises from several subjective factors which arose during our conversation and which I believe are unfairly influencing her decision.

1.      Ms. V states that she “believes” that my 23 year old accounting degree that I have not used for at least 8 years is usable. She showed no labor market information to support this. She also stated that she “believes” that I could obtain certification courses to refresh this degree, but once again had no information to support this. This statement is extremely important because it indicates that the case manager and I are in agreement: retraining is necessary. Once this fact is established, it is not the case manager’s position to select or force a change in the dislocated worker’s decision if the worker has chosen an approved occupation and the training provider is also approved.    I have selected the practical nursing program from a local approved provider based on program guidance that the occupation be in demand in the local area. Based on the conversations that I have had with the case manager, I believe that the case manager is unable to make an unbiased decision on funding because (1) she disagrees with my choice of retraining (2) she is uncomfortable with the fact that I am requesting assistance when I already have a degree.

2.      Ms. V appeared unaware of the law, specifically 20 CFR Part 663.440 requiring a service provider to pay for training if an individual is determined to be eligible and program funds are not exhausted. The case manager dismissed this with the statement, “There are 66 of you and if each came in and requested full funding there would be no money left for me.”   This is patently absurd. The budget for dislocated workers was over a million dollars in plan year (PY) 2006. According to the plan year 2006 Annual Report, the WIA Dislocated Workers Program expended only 81% of its budget. Approximately $233,000 that could have been used for retraining and dislocated worker assistance was left unspent. In addition, the fiscal year for the WIA and Dislocated Worker program began on July 1, 2008.   The fact that it is early in the fiscal year and the fact that funds were so under spent in previous years leads one to believe that it is highly unlikely that program funds are exhausted. Denying full cost of attendance funding based on a hypothetical situation is wrong and I am certain it is not allowed by federal or state regulations. I respectfully request that this be disregarded in the determination of funding. I would also like to add that I do qualify for the WIA Veterans Preference Priority.

3.     The case manager stated that the purpose of the WIA Dislocated Worker Program was to return individuals to work as quickly as possible.   While this is an admirable goal   I respectfully disagree, as all my research has indicated that the WIA Dislocated Worker Program is focused on retraining and developing the nation’s work force so we don’t end up as dislocated workers again. The Federal intent and State of Montana vision are shown below:

“To provide workforce investment activities that increase the employment, retention and earnings of participants, and increase occupational skill attainment by participants, which will improve the quality of the workforce, reduce welfare dependency, and enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the Nation’s economy. (Federal Register Vol 65 No. 156 08/11/2000)”

And the state vision;

“1) promoting a diverse economy by providing skilled workers to emerging Montana industries, specifically those in information and advanced technology, health services, value-added agriculture, and communications; and 2) promoting continual skill development, increasing wages, and an enhanced standard of living for all Montanans”

The state of Montana vision was presented in the Executive Summary of the PY 2006 annual report and is endorsed by the governor, State Workforce Investment Board and the Montana Department of Labor and Industry. I have done my homework. I selected a training program and occupation that agrees with those guidelines and is specifically mentioned in the state vision as one of the occupations (health services) they wish to promote

4.     The case manger stated that I was coming in and demanding “free money.” I’m not making demands. I am requesting full cost of attendance funding which I believe is clearly needed by me to allow my entrance to an “emerging Montana industry.” authorized and available.   I have identified my need for funding and my research is based on the policies and regulations governing the program. I believe the regulation is clear in its intent and that the service provider must pay for the training if the individual is otherwise eligible. I have demonstrated my need for retraining and assistance and have provided chapter and verse from the policy manual showing that I am eligible for full cost of attendance assistance per program regulations and intent.

Ms. H, I would like to reiterate that my request for retraining is an extremely serious matter for my family and me, and that Ms V’s preliminary decision is worthy of your further review. I have done my homework and submitted documents detailing why I have requested retraining and showing that I need and am eligible for the assistance. I will contact you on Monday, August 25, 2008 to arrange a meeting so we may discuss this in person. I believe that you, as an unbiased third party, will see that my requests have merit and are deserving of support.   If you wish to contact me, my telephone number is (XXX) XXX-XXXX.

So it's a catch 22. I can argue that 663.440 states that they should pay for the training but they can fall back on 663.420 without having to show me the basis for that decision?

So essentially the letter to the governor would only serve to create an administrative headache for DWP in answering me with the most likely result being that which we already have.

Dang, I was hoping for a slam dunk for my position. I have three children under 5 and daycare costs are what really kills the budget and makes any type of training difficult to fund. I can watch them now while I am not working but we can't fund training and daycare on one income and the job market in Great Falls, MT is just like that everywhere else-dismal. Thanks for the answer even though it was not what I wanted to hear.