Search : |
|
|
||
|
||
|
 
|
|
NEG BRAC Planning Grant Q+A's
Can states request more than $1 million or will those requests be refused? There is some confusion on that from the press and questions from the language on Page 6 of the TEGL. Yes, states can ask for more than $1 million. However, the primary purpose of Phase I planning grants is to initiate early community planning to ensure an effective workforce investment response to BRAC 2005 closure and realignment actions. Therefore, a request in excess of $1 million must justify the increased need for planning resources in accordance with the factors specified in section 6.a. of TEGL 16-03, Change 2 (e.g., number and size of facilities, complexity of transition, etc.). After the Commission's list is final, resources will be available from a variety of sources to assist with actual retraining and job placement for individuals affected by realized closures and realignments. Many of the closures and realignments won't be fully in effect until 2006-2007. For multi-state areas (e.g. NH/ME, IA/IL) does the grant application have to include a breakdown of how much each state is requesting or just an overall amount? Answer: The application only has to include the overall amount; however, the application must identify a representative state as applicant and should address the role of the two states and how they will work together to implement regional economic development planning strategies. Can states that could have large increases of civilian and military (therefore military spouses who are civilians) workers (e.g. CO, AL, KY) apply for NEG funds to help areas try and prepare for potential job seekers/training in those states? Texas could have large layoffs in northeast Texas from Red River Army Depot (2,400 civilians) and large gains in west Texas (11,000 military at Ft. Bliss and 1,600 civilian at Fort Sam Houston), can they use funds for both if the list stays the same? Answer: We are making funds available to address the workforce impacts of both military closures and realignments. We expect that states will have to reskill workers who are losing jobs, transition workers from one type of employment to another as part of realignment, and "skill up" a new workforce in areas that will see significant job growth as a result of realignment. However, depending on the overall amount requested by states, the Department may have to prioritize funds for those areas that are potentially most severely impacted by closures and realignments. If the state gets state planning money and the base(s) come off the list (e.g. Ellsworth in SD) can the state keep all of the money? What are the programs/areas they have to spend the funds on? Answer: We are making funds available to address BRAC 2005 actions in two phases. At this time, we are making PY 2004 Phase I planning funds available to address the immediate need for early community planning to ensure an effective workforce investment response to closure and realignment of installations identified in the May 13, 2005, recommendations of the Secretary of Defense. These planning grants are not predicated on the installations ultimately undergoing closure or realignment. As discussed in TEGL 16-03, Change 2, we recognize that some currently identified installations may not remain on the final list for closure or realignment. We expect that all planning grant funds will be expended for the purposes for which they are awarded, regardless of whether the installation remains on or comes off the list. For installations that do remain on the list, we expect to make supplemental funds available in the future to fund the operational phase of the workforce investment response. In the case cited above, the Department would likely work with the state of South Dakota to ensure that grant funds are spent on activities related to the original grant award. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
