References. UIPL 46-94 (September 30, 1994) Background. Since Fall 1993, the UI Service has been addressing the question of improved UI operational performance and how its conduct of the Secretary of Labor's legally-mandated oversight of the UI system is related to the UI system's performance. Its partner in this task has been a committee of senior SESA managers appointed by the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies (ICESA). A joint workgroup comprising the State representatives and Federal National and Regional office staff was formed to conduct this review. As of June 1995, it has met thirteen times. The workgroup set three goals related to its overall concern of providing better services to UI claimants and employers. These are (1) to develop the broad framework for SESA-DOL working relationships and the roles for the partners; (2) to develop a system through which the UI system can more readily enhance performance; and (3) to apply the framework and performance enhancement principles in reconsidering the nature and focus of the Benefits QC program. In September 1994, three of the committee's draft products were circulated for comment via UIPL 46-94. These were the "Partnership Principles" outlining how the Federal and State parties should work together to the mutual benefit of the UI system's ultimate customers; five papers illustrating how those principles would translate into complementary Federal and State roles in different areas; and an outline of a closed-loop management system for continuously enhancing operational performance. These materials represented the culmination of the work on the first goal and a basic outline of the approach taken toward achieving the second. The committee has since completed the proposed system designed to achieve its second goal. The paper describing the proposed system and how it is intended to work is attached. Entitled "UI Performs: How the Unemployment Insurance System Will Improve Its Performance," it contains as appendices the final versions of both the partnership principles and the role papers. Both appendices reflect comments received in Fall 1994. The workgroup is now in the midst of reconsidering the Benefits QC program, its final task. It intends to agree on a proposed redesign in the Fall of 1995. The Department will solicit comment on the proposed version as soon as possible after the workgroup has made its recommendation. Action Required. SESA administrators are requested to (a) share the attached paper with appropriate staff and (b) offer comments on it. Comments are requested by September 30, 1995, or earlier if possible so that the committee may consider them at its meeting on September 20. ..ST: Paper, "UI Performs: How the Unemployment Insurance System Will Improve Its Performance" (August 1995). To obtain a copy of attachment(s), please contact Deloris Norris of the Office of Regional Management at (202) 219-5585.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Background: The National JTPA Study summarizes the estimates of program impacts on the earnings and employment of adults and out-of-school youths in 16 local SDAs during the first 18 months after their acceptance into the JTPA Title II-A program. While the results were positive for adults, the findings showed the program generally was not effective in helping youth. This is the full report of the 18-month evaluation; findings of the study were released in summary form in 1992. A more complete picture of the long-term effects of JTPA participation will be available when participants have been tracked over a 30-month period. The final report is expected to be available by the end of 1993. Action Required: Please distribute the information to appropriate officials within the State.

Background: The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) has been amended by the Job Training Reform Amendments and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 1993. A new reporting form was needed to implement the provisions that pertain to Title III. The Worker Adjustment Formula Financial Report (WFFR) is used to report cumulative data on fund availability and accrued expenditures for the two components of the formula-funded portion of Title III, the Governor's Reserve and the Sub state Grantee (SSG) funds. In addition, data on total participants and total terminations for these components, notices received under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, initial on-site rapid response visits, Dislocated Worker Unit administration costs, program income, and recipient/subrecipient funds expended for JTPA programs are reported on the form. A single WFFR will be submitted by the Governor at the end of each quarter, beginning with the first quarter of Program Year (PY) 1993. If a State has any carryover Title III funds from PY 1992 or PY 1991 on July 1, 1993, these funds should be reported on this form. Entries for those program years should show the amount of initially allocated funds for the program year, as adjusted by later reallocations and reallotments, and cumulative expenditures against those funds from the time the funds first became available. A final report will be submitted for a program year's funds when they are all expended, or not later than 90 days after the expiration of the period of fund availability for a program year's funds. OMB Approval and Combined Reporting Burden: The reporting requirements are approved by the Office of Management and Budget according to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 under OMB approval no. 1205-0326 to expire June 30, 1996. Action Required: State JTPA or Worker Adjustment Liaisons are requested to distribute the attached instruction to all officials within the State who need such information to implement the new reporting requirements.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

References. None. Background. It is possible that Congress will not have enacted an FY 1996 Appropriation at the beginning of the new Federal Fiscal Year. A number of section 401 grantees have raised questions about how they will continue operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR), or, in its absence, in the event of a general shutdown of the Federal government (euphemistically referred to in the press as "the train wreck"). We will have to wait until the end of September to give specific guidance based on the situation at that time. Action Required. Section 401 grantees will generally not be affected because they operate on a program year basis, and already have their PY 1995 funds available to them. The FY 1996 appropriation for JTPA section 401 activities will not be utilized until July 1, 1996 (PY 1996). For those grantees on the Payment Management System (PMS), arrangements are in place so that they can continue to draw cash through the PMS in the absence of a CR. Drawdowns of cash will, of course, be against program year subaccounts and any balance(s) from prior fiscal year subaccounts. For those grantees using the SF-270 (Request for Advance or Reimbursement) to obtain JTPA funds, there will be two Division of Accounting staff on duty during any shutdown to process necessary paperwork. Grantees are advised, however,? to submit their SF-270's for the second quarter well in advance of the October 1st shutdown date to ensure timely processing. Because essential financial services will continue to operate, grantees drawing down on the SF-270 will receive their checks as scheduled and approved, and not in advance. Questions. Please address all questions to Greg Gross on (202) 219-7509.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Background: Sec. 106 of JTPA, as amended, directs the Secretary to establish performance standards for adult, youth, and dislocated worker programs. These standards may be updated every two years based on the most recent JTPA program experience, as well as program emphases and goals established by the Department of Labor. The Secretary also issues instructions for implementing standards and parameter criteria for States to follow in adjusting the Secretary's standards for service delivery areas (SDAs) and substate areas (SSAs). The Job Training Reform Amendments (JTRA) of 1992 mandated significant changes in the design and operation of local job training programs, as well as the criteria used to assess their performance. Revised section 106 requires that performance standards for Title II-A, Title II-C, Section 204(d), and Title III programs measure the number of job placements that provide a minimum of 20 hours of work per week, and that programs be rewarded based on high performance, increased service to the "hard-to-serve," and quality job placements that are both high-paying and offer employer-assisted benefits. Incentive and sanction policies are to be structured around more explicit criteria, and performance standards failure is now federally defined to ensure greater uniformity in assessing underperformance nationwide. As a result of the JTPA amendments, section 204(d) now mandates performance measures for the older worker program. To assist the Department in responding to the substantive changes required in the section 106 amendments, a Technical Workgroup was convened in Washington, DC, in mid-July 1993. The workgroup had representatives from State and local JTPA programs; public interest groups, including the Partnership for Training and Employment Careers; the U.S. Conference of Mayors; the National Association of Counties; the National Governors' Association; the National Council on the Aging; and staff from the Department of Labor (DOL) Office of the Inspector General. This Guidance Letter incorporates, to a large extent, the workgroup's findings. Performance Management Goals for PY's 1994-1995: Departmental goals, initially established for PY 1990 in anticipation of the amendments, remain unchanged and are as follows: Targeting services to a more at-risk population; Improving the quality and intensity of services that lead to skills acquisition, long-term employability and increased earnings; Placing greater emphasis on basic skills acquisition to qualify for employment or advanced education or training; and Promoting comprehensive, coordinated human resource programs to address the multiple needs of at-risk populations. In addition, with the passage of the 1992 JTPA Amendments, the performance management system has been tasked, through its performance incentive policies, to improve service to out-of-school youth and also to foster employment in better quality jobs which offer high wages and employer-assisted benefits. These goals are reflected in the Secretary's six Title II-A and Title II-C (core) measures, national numerical standards for these measures, new incentive award criteria, and associated reporting requirements. Governors still retain authority to establish additional standards which reflect State policy and to develop the specific approach to determining incentive awards. This issuance specifies the national standards for PY's 1994-1995 and introduces the new criteria which must be a part of State incentive grant policies. Data to support additional non-cost measures will continue to be reported and Governors may use these measures, or others in making State incentive award determinations. Data on costs together with program performance will provide critical information for State monitoring, fiscal oversight, and assist States in measuring returns on their human resource investments. The Department has identified two additional goals for PY 1994-1995. These are: -- Establishing a strong customer focus and orientation toward improving the program's responsiveness in meeting the individual needs of participants; and -- Seeking and using customer feedback to monitor the appropriateness of JTPA services and to promote continuous program improvements. States and SDAs are encouraged to survey customers on a regular basis as an integral part of their program oversight to identify program weaknesses and to improve program services. Technical assistance will be made available on cost-effective ways to gather and utilize such information. Secretary's National Standards for PY's 1994-1995. The Secretary's performance measures and national standards for Title II-A, Title II-C, section 204(d), and Title III (all of section 302(c)(1) State activities, and sections 302(c)(2) and 302(d) substate area activities) are as follows: PY 1994-1995 Performance Standards Title II-A Adult Follow-up Employment Rate: 59% Adult Weekly Earnings at Follow-up : $245 Welfare Follow-up Employment Rate: 47% Welfare Weekly Earnings at Follow-up : $223 Title II-C Youth Entered Employment Rate: 41% Youth Employability Enhancement Rate: 40% Section 204(d) Older Worker Programs Entered Employment Rate: 52% Average Hourly Wage at Placement: $5.45 Title III Entered Employment Rate: 67% Average Wage at Placement State Determined The Title II-A adult and welfare follow-up measures will continue to be based on individuals who terminate during the first three quarters of the program year and the last quarter of the previous program year. Explanation of Performance Standards Levels. The Title II-A and II-C numerical standards were derived from PY 1992 aggregate performance data reported on the JTPA Annual Status Report (JASR) and are generally set at a minimally-acceptable level that approximately 75% of the SDA's can be expected to exceed. Revising the numerical standard for the Youth Entered Employment Rate (YEER) in the same way would lead to reduced standards for SDAs. However, recent National JTPA Study results suggest that employment and earnings experienced by out-of-school youth in JTPA fall short of acceptable levels. Therefore, to encourage improved services to out-of-school youth, the numerical standard for the YEER will remain at its current level of 41 percent. Earnings standards have been adjusted to account for expected future inflation. Finally, an additional special adjustment has been made to employment-related standards to account for the requirement in section 106(k) that permits credit, for performance standards purposes, only for employment that is scheduled for 20 or more hours per week. Similar to the Title II-A and Title II-C standards, the Title III standard was derived from PY 1992 performance data reported on the Worker Adjustment Program Annual Program Report (WAPR). This standard is set at a level that, approximately, 75 percent of the substate areas can be expected to exceed. As with the employment measures for Titles II-A and II-C, an adjustment has been made to take into account the 20-hour per week employment requirement. Since discrete aggregate data were not available for PY 1992 Section 204(d) Older Worker program performance, available SPIR data were used to assist in setting performance standards levels for that program. As with the employment measures for Titles II-A, II-C and III, an adjustment has been made to take into account the 20-hour per week employment requirement. NOTE: Programs operated under section 204(d) are State programs even though they may be managed by various local entities. Therefore, performance standards will be applied to the total older worker programs State-wide. Unlike the adult and youth programs under Title II-A/C, however, no incentive awards or sanctions are associated with these standards. Implementing Provisions: The following implementing requirements must be followed: A. Required Standards. For Titles II-A and II-C, Governors are required to set, for each SDA, a numerical performance standard for each of the six Secretary's measures; for the Older Worker program, Governors are required to set numerical Entered Employment Rate and Average Wage at Placement standards for programs operated under section 204(d); for Title III, Governors are required to set for each substate area a numerical performance standard for the Entered Employment Rate and are encouraged to establish an Average Wage at Placement goal B. Setting the Standards. Consistent with new legislative provisions, Governors are now required to adjust the Secretary's performance standards to reflect local area circumstances (section 106(d)). Such adjustments apply to Title II-A, Title II-C, section 204(d) and Title III programs, and must conform to the Secretary's parameters described below: 1. Procedures must be: Responsive to the intent of the Act, Consistently applied among the SDA's/SSA's, Objective and equitable throughout the State, In conformance with widely accepted statistical criteria; 2. Source data must be: Of public use quality, Available upon request; 3. Results must be: Documented, Reproducible; and 4. Adjustment factors must be limited to: Economic factors, Labor market conditions, Geographic factors, Characteristics of the population to be served, Demonstrated difficulties in serving the population (this adjustment factor is new), and Type of services to be provided. The Department offers Governors an adjustment methodology that conforms both to these parameters and to the requirement in section 106(d). This methodology covers Title II-A, Title II-C, Section 204(d), and Title III programs and will be provided to States in a soon-to-be issued Training and Employment Information Notice. Should the Governor choose to use an alternate methodology, or make adjustments not addressed by the Departmental model, it must conform to the parameter criteria and be documented in the Governor's Coordination and Special Services Plan (GCSSP) prior to the program year to which it applies. The State Job Training Coordinating Council and, where appropriate, the State Human Resources Investment Council must have an opportunity to consider adjustments to the Secretary's standards and to recommend variations. To determine whether an SDA has met or exceeded a performance standard, Governors must use actual end-of-year program data to recalculate the performance standards. C. Performance Standards Definitions. Governors must calculate the performance of their SDA's, SSA's, and section 204(d) programs according to the definitions included in the Attachments. D. Titles II-A and II-C Incentive and Sanction Policies. Performance standards are to be established for programs funded under Titles II and III of the Act. In applying the Secretary's standards for Titles II-A and II-C, Governors must use the six core measures and also consider criteria relating to programs successfully serving out-of-school youth and placement in jobs providing employer-assisted benefits. Governors are encouraged to begin using these criteria in PY 1994 incentive policies; these criteria are required (i.e., they cannot be zero-weighted) to be incorporated into State incentive policies beginning in PY 1995. Governors may select additional non-cost measures, such as increased service to hard-to-serve participants, to form the basis of incentive policies as long as the following criteria are met: 1. As the basis for making incentive awards, the Governors must use all (i.e., cannot "zero weight" any) of the six Secretary's core measures. Beginning in PY 1995, Governors will also be required to reward innovative out-of-school youth program models either identified by the Department of Labor or recognized by the State as having a demonstrated record of success, and placements in jobs providing employer- assisted benefits. Although successful programs for out-of- school youth remain the cornerstone of out-of-school incentives, SDA's will still be expected to exceed the 50 percent minimum service level to be rewarded under that criterion. Governors have considerable flexibility in implementing the new incentive criteria. Suggested approaches to addressing these criteria are included as Attachments 3 and 4 to this TEGL. Decisions regarding the relative weight or emphasis of each core measure (e.g., the Youth Entered Employment Rate) and incentive criterion (e.g., placement in jobs with employer-assisted benefits) in a State's incentive award formula rest with the Governor. The core measures will be the basis for identifying SDA's that are candidates for technical assistance and for imposing sanctions. At least 75 percent of the funds set aside for performance incentives must be related to these measures and the out-of-school youth and assisted employer-benefits criteria, in accordance with section 106(b)(7)(E). 2. Cost standards cannot be used for incentive award purposes. However, States are reminded of the integral role of financial reviews in program management. States are encouraged to explore ways of relating overall costs of job training to more direct measures of long-term employment, earnings and reductions in welfare. Incentive policies may include adjustments to incentive award amounts based upon factors such as grant size, additional services to the hard-to-serve, intensity of service, and expenditure level. 3. A Secretary's standard for service to the hard-to-serve, as required by section 106(b)(7)(B) of JTPA, has been established in the form of a stand-alone eligibility criterion ("gate") for incentive awards. In order for an SDA to be eligible to receive any incentive award, at least 65 percent of both the SDA's (a) Title II-A AND (b) Title II-C (in-school and out-of-school youth combined) participants receiving training and/or other services beyond objective assessment must be hard-to-serve. The definitions of hard-to-serve are to be consistent with the definitions in sections 203(b), 263(b), and 263(d) of the Act. For the purpose of determining compliance with this requirement, Governors are to include any SDA-defined barriers that have been approved by the Governor, as well as the characteristics of participants in school-wide projects under section 263(g) and participants in five percent-funded projects. 4. For those SDA's that successfully "pass through" the gate, three criteria (in addition to any funds set aside for Governors' standards) will determine the amount of the incentive award: 1) exceeding the Secretary's performance standards, 2) providing quality service to out-of-school youth, and 3) placing participants in employment that provides employer-assisted benefits. - The definition of "employer-assisted benefits" is to be consistent with the SPIR definition (see Attachment). For the purposes of reporting and performance standards, fringe benefits count so long as they are an acknowledged component of employment conditions, whether actually received at the time of placement or not. Thus, State incentive policies will be structured to include benefit information for those participants who entered employment at termination, and Governors will have considerable latitude in implementing this incentive policy requirement. 5. Consistent with present DOL policy, SDA's that pass through the "gate" and exceed all six of the Secretary's Titles II-A and II-C standards must receive an incentive award. 6. Determination of an SDA's failure to meet these standards and the consequent imposition of technical assistance and reorganization requirements under section 106(j) will be based only on the Secretary's Title II-A and Title II-C core measures. - "Meeting Performance Standards" overall is defined as meeting at least four of the six core standards, one of which must be a youth standard. Conversely, overall "Failure" is defined as failing any three (3) or more of the core standards or failing both youth standards. Definitions for meeting and failing individual standards will be established by Governors. - Failure for the first year precludes an SDA from receiving any incentive awards and requires Governors to provide technical assistance to the underperforming SDA. - Failure in the second consecutive year precludes an SDA from receiving any incentive award and requires Governors to impose a reorganization plan. 7. Section 106(j)(3) requires each State to report to the Secretary, not later than 90 days after the end of each program year, the actual performance and performance standards for each SDA within that State. Within the same timeframe, technical assistance plans developed by the State are required for each SDA "failing" for the first year. A 90-day timeframe also applies to the imposition of a reorganization plan, which is mandatory when an SDA "fails" for a second consecutive year. Specific procedures for the formal performance standards report and required State action will be provided under separate cover. However, in addition to the formal annual process, there should be ongoing oversight of SDA performance and continuous technical assistance and capacity-building aimed at addressing areas where program performance can be improved. In addition, the Employment and Training Administration will initiate a national JTPA Report Card that will highlight programs showing the greatest returns on their human resource investments in terms of high-quality employment (type of job, wages and fringe benefits) for those participants most at-risk of failure. Further information on the content and procedures for preparing the "report card" will be provided separately. 8. Governors must specify in the GCSSP their incentive award policy under sections 202(c)(1)(B) and 202(c)(3)(A) and imposition of sanctions policy under section 106(j). It is recognized that the timing of this issuance may have precluded some States from submitting complete incentive policies with their PY 1994-95 GCSSPs. States are to provide as much information as possible in compliance with required due dates and submit a GCSSP amendment containing complete information no later than August 31, 1994. 9. In PYs 1994 and 1995, Governors will continue to have the authority to exclude pilot projects serving "hard-to-serve" individuals funded from the 5 percent incentive fund set-aside in computing their standards and actual performance. States and SDA's are encouraged to use such funds to develop or replicate model programs serving out-of- school youth, particularly those based on contextual learning models. NOTE: For those SDA's in which "incentive projects" are indistinguishable from those that provide general training, these programs would not be considered exempt from performance standards. State Action: States are to distribute this Guidance Letter to all officials within the State who need such information to implement the new performance standards policies and requirements for PYs 1994-1995. It is especially critical that States, State Councils, Private Industry Councils and SDA operational staff become thoroughly familiar with the new provisions concerning incentive and sanctions policies.

Reference: TEIN 7-88 Information: The attached checklists are issued to notify the JTPA and ES systems of those TEINs and TEGL that have been rescinded or canceled during the last program year. There are also checklists of all TEINs and TEGLs remaining active.

Reference. DINAP BULLETIN Nos. 94-27 and 95-01. Information. One of the PY 1995 Partnership Plan goals under the topic of ReROrts is to "receive all reports no later than the final due date free of errors. Thus far, DINAP's MIS Desk has received 88 percent of all quarterly Financial Status Reports (FSR) and Program Status Summary (PSS) reports for PY94 (July 1, 1994 - June 30, 1995). If your program has failed to submit one or more of these required reports, you will find a separate memorandum attached indicating which report(s) need to be SUBMITTED IMMEDIATELY to: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Division of Indian and Native American Programs, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room N-4641, Washington, D.C. 20210, Attention: MIS DESK. The PY 1994 ASR is due OCTOBER 1, 1995. If you need technical assistance with completing this required report, please contact your Federal Representative (Fed. Rep.) Team immediately. Also, if require assistance with using theEdit Check disk mailed to all grantees several weeks ago, please contact Ms. Linda Cruz with the California Indian Manpower Consortium (CIMC), Inc. Action. To successfully achieve our partnership reporting goal depends upon each grantee completing and submitting any missing Quarterly Report(s) and the ASR by October 1, 1995. Questions. Contact Ms. Andrea T.B. Brown, DINAP's MIS Desk regarding missing reports and your Fed Rep Team regarding report content (202) 219-5504. Ms. Linda Cruz of CIMC, for Edit Check technical assistance (916) 920-0285.