References: Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 49); 20 CFR 652 and 20 CFR 653; JTPA Sections 202, 252, 262, 302, and 601, as amended by the Job Training Reform Amendments Act of 1992; Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 4-88. Background: The JTPA Titles II-A, II-C and III allotments, and the Wagner- Peyser preliminary planning estimates, are for the program period July 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996. The Title II-B allotments are for the CY 1995 summer program. These JTPA allotments and the Wagner-Peyser preliminary planning estimates will be pub-lished in the Federal Register. The allotments for Titles II-A, II-C, and III, and the ES preliminary planning estimates are part of the Fiscal Year 1995 funds appropriated in the Department of Labor Appropriations Act, 1995, P.L. 103-333, for PY 1995. These appropriations include $1,054,813,000 for Title II-A, a 6.76 percent increase from the PY 1994 Title II-A level; $598,682,000 for Title II-C, a 1.64 percent reduction from the revised PY 1994 Title II-C level (including the $50 million rescission); $1,296,000,000 for Title III, a 15.92 percent increase from PY 1994; and $845,912,000 for allotments to States under Wagner-Peyser, a 1.57 percent increase from PY 1994. The base allotments for Title II-B total $867,070,000, or 1.09 percent below the previous year's level. Included in these allotments are funds from the Fiscal Year (FY) 1995 appropriation in the amount of $184,788,000. The 1994 and 1995 funds available for the CY 1995 Title II-B program will be issued through separate Notices of Obligation (NOOs). The $184,788,000 will not be available until July 1, 1995, at which time NOOs will be issued. The remainder will be issued on April 1, 1995. An additional $3,861,000 has been appropriated for Title II activities in rural concentrated employment program (RCEP) areas, the same as the previous year's level. Distribution of funds for the RCEPs is discussed below under item 5. JTPA/ES Joint Planning and Coordination Provisions: As plans are developed in accordance with relevant statutory provisions and schedules issued by the Department, States are reminded that particular attention needs to be given to the Governor's statement of goals and objectives for JTPA, and joint ES/JTPA planning initiatives consistent with Section 8(b) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended. Note that further planning guidance may be provided for specific programs at a later date. RCEP States: Additional funds are available to assure, to the maximum extent possible, that funding for RCEPs under Title II programs is maintained at prior year levels. The Department previously reserved $250,000 from PY 1994 RCEP funds to be used for this purpose in the CY 1995 summer program. The RCEP appropriation for PY 1995 is $3,861,000. Of this amount, $250,000 is being reserved for the CY 1996 summer program. Therefore, $3,611,000 will be available for PY 1995 Titles II-A and II-C programs. It will be necessary for the States of Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, and Wisconsin to provide the Department with the amount of the Titles II-A, II-B, and II-C RCEP allocations based on the allotments contained in this TEGL. This information should be sent no later than February 16, 1995, to the following address: Donald J. Kulick Deputy Administrator Office of Job Training Programs 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Room N-4459 Washington, D.C. 20210 Notice of Obligation (NOO): NOOs for the CY 1995 Title II-B summer youth program funds included in the FY 1994 appropriation, as well as the additional funds for RCEPs, will be issued in April. The NOOs for the remaining $184,788,000 appropriated in FY 1995 for the Title II-B program will be issued on July 1, 1995, because Congress appropriated these funds to be effective on that date. NOOs for the PY 1995 Title II-A, II-C, and III programs will be issued on July 1, 1995 and will include the additional Title II-A and II-C funds for the RCEPs. A second NOO will be issued to each State after November 1, 1995, for Title III, to increase or reduce the funds available to the State to reflect the amount of reallotted funds the State gains or loses, as discussed in TEGL No. 4-88. Title II-A Allotments: Attachment I shows the PY 1995 JTPA Title II-A allotments by State. For all States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, the following data were used in computing the allotments: - Data for Areas of Substantial Unemployment (ASUs) are averages for the 12-month period, July 1993 through June 1994. - The number of excess unemployed individuals or the ASU excess (depending on which is higher) are averages for this same 12-month period. - The economically disadvantaged adult data (age 22 to 72, excluding college students and military) are from the 1990 Census. The allotments for the Insular Areas are based on unemployment data from the 1990 census, or if not available, the most recent data available. A 90-percent relative share "hold-harmless" of the Title II-A PY 1994 allotments for these areas and a minimum allotment of $75,000 were also applied in determining the allotments. Title II-A funds are to be distributed among designated SDAs according to the statutory formula contained in Section 202(b) of JTPA, as amended by Title VII, Miscellaneous Provisions, of the Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992. (This Title VII provides an interim allocation methodology which applies to the PY 1995 allotments). This is the same formula that has been used in previous program years; however, prior to PY 1993 a different definition of "economically disadvantaged" was used. In determining any necessary hold-harmless levels for SDAs, the States of Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, and Wisconsin shall not include any additional funds provided for RCEPs. Title II-B Allotments: Attachment II shows the 1995 JTPA Title II-B allotments by State and by fund source, with totals. The data used for these allotments are the same data as were used for Title II-A allotments, except that data for the number of economically disadvantaged youth (age 16 to 21, excluding college students and military) from the 1990 census was used. For the Insular Areas and Native Americans, the allotments are based on the percentage of Title II-B funds each received during the previous summer. Title II-B funds for the 1995 Summer program are to be distributed among designated SDAs in accordance with the statutory formula contained in Section 252(b) of JTPA, as amended by Title VII, Miscellaneous Provisions, of the Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992. (This Title VII provides an interim allocation methodology which applies to the PY 1995 allotments). This is the same formula that was used in the previous program year. In determining any necessary hold-harmless levels for SDAs, the States of Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, and Wisconsin shall not include any additional funds provided for RCEPs. Title II-C Allotments: Attachment III shows the 1995 JTPA Title II-C allotments by State. The data used for these allotments are the same data as were used for Title II-B allotments. The allotments for the Insular Areas are based on unemployment data from the 1990 census or, if not available, the most recent data available. A 90-percent relative share "hold-harmless" of the PY 1994 Title II-C allotments for these areas and a minimum allotment of $50,000 were also applied in determining the allotments. Title II-C funds are to be distributed among designated SDAs according to the statutory formula contained in Section 262(b) of JTPA, as amended by Title VII, Miscellaneous Provisions, of the Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992. (The Title II-C formula is the same as for Title II-B). This is the same formula which has been used in the previous program year. In determining any necessary hold-harmless levels for SDAs, the States of Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, and Wisconsin shall not include any additional funds provided for RCEPs. Title III Allotments: Attachment IV shows the PY 1995 JTPA Title III allotments by State. The total appropriation includes 80 percent allotted by formula to the States, while 20 percent is retained for the National Reserve account, including funds allotted to the Insular Areas. Title III formula funds are to be distributed to State and substate grantees in accordance with the provisions in Section 302(c) and (d) of JTPA, as amended. The unemployment data used for computing these State allotments, relative numbers of unemployed and relative numbers of excess unemployed, are averages for the October 1993 through September 1994 period. Long-term unemployed data used were for CY 1993. Allotments for the Insular Areas are based on the PY 1995 Title II- A allotments for these areas. Reallotments: Reallotments of these Title III formula funds, as provided for by Section 303 of JTPA, as amended, will be based on completed program year expenditure reports submitted by the States and received by October 1, 1995. Title III allotments will be adjusted upward or downward, based on whether the State is eligible to share in reallotted funds or is subject to recapture of funds. ES Planning Estimates: Attachment V shows ES planning estimates for PY 1995, which have been produced using the formula set forth at Section 6 of the Wagner-Peyser Act, 29 U.S.C. 49e. These preliminary estimates are based on averages for the most current 12 months ending September 1994 for each State's share of the civilian labor force (CLF) and unemployment. Final planning estimates will be published in the Federal Register, based on Calendar Year 1994 data, as required by the Wagner-Peyser Act. The total planning estimate does include $22,019,700 or 2.603 percent of the total amount available which is being withheld from distribution to States to finance postage costs associated with the conduct of Employment Service business for PY 1995. The Secretary of Labor has set aside 3 percent of the total available funds to assure that each State will have sufficient resources to maintain statewide employment services, as required under Section 6(b)(4) of the Wagner-Peyser Act. In accordance with this provision, $24,716,769 is set aside for the administrative formula allocation. These setaside funds are included in the total planning estimate. Set-aside funds are distributed in two steps to States which have lost in relative share of resources from the prior year. In step one, States which have a CLF below one million and are below the median CLF density are maintained at 100 percent of their relative share of prior year resources. All remaining set-aside funds are distributed on a pro rata basis in step two to all other States losing in relative share from the prior year but which do not meet the size and density criteria for step one. Ten percent of the total sums allotted to each State shall be reserved for use by the Governor to provide performance incentives for public ES offices; services for groups with special needs; and for the extra costs of exemplary models for delivering job services. Action: a. States should allocate the JTPA allotments as follows: (1) Title II-A allotments according to the requirements contained in Sections 162(e) and 202(b) of JTPA, as amended, subject to Title VII of the JTPA Amendments. (2) Title II-B allotments according to the requirements contained in Sections 162(e), and 252(b) of JTPA, as amended, subject to Title VII of the JTPA Amendments. (3) Title II-C allotments according to the requirements contained in Sections 162(e) and 262(b) of JTPA, as amended, subject to Title VII of the JTPA Amendments. (4) Title III allotments according to the requirements contained in Sections 302(c) and (d) of JTPA, as amended. b. RCEP States should forward the following information to the address listed in item 5 above not later than February 16, 1995: (1) PY 1995 Titles II-A and II-C formula allocations for the RCEPs in Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, and Wisconsin. (2) CY 1995 Title II-B formula allocations for RCEPs in these States. c. States should initiate planning for PY 1995 ES programs consistent with provisions of the Wagner-Peyser Act and Federal Regulations at 20 CFR Part 652.

References: The Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended (P.L. 97-300); 20 CFR 652; TEGL No. 2-93. Background: The Secretary of Labor is issuing final planning allotments for each State's share of PY 1994 funds for basic labor exchange activities. These allotments (Attachment I) are based on the FY 1994 appropriation of $832,856,000 and are distributed by the statutory formula described in Section 6 of the Act. The allotments will be published in the Federal Register. The data used are Calendar Year 1993 averages of civilian labor force (CLF) and number of unemployed individuals. Section 6(b)(4) of the Act authorizes the Secretary of Labor to reserve up to 3 percent of the total fund availability to assure that each State will have sufficient resources to maintain statewide employment service (ES) activities. The setaside for distribution through an administrative formula for this program year is $24,396,018. The 3 percent distribution is included in the total final allotment. The setaside was distributed in two steps to States whose relative share of resources declined from the previous year. In Step 1, those States with a CLF below one million and that are also below the median CLF density were held harmless at 100 percent of their prior year relative share of resources. The remainder was distributed in Step 2 in pro rata shares to all other States that lost in relative share from the prior year but did not meet the size criteria for Step 1. Differences between preliminary and final planning estimates are caused by the use of Calendar Year data as opposed to the earlier data used for preliminary planning estimates. We have attached correspondence (LAUS Technical Memorandum No. 5-94-11) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) describing the changes. Ten percent of the total sums allotted to each State shall be reserved for use by the Governor to provide performance incentives for public ES offices; services for groups with special needs; and for the extra costs of exemplary models for delivering job services. Postage Costs: Postage costs incurred by States during the conduct of ES activities are billed directly to the Department of Labor by the U.S. Postal Service. The total planning estimate does not include $19,665,400 of the total amount available, which is withheld for the payment of the States' ES penalty mail costs. The Department had planned to require State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs) to convert from penalty mail systems to commercial mail systems effective October 1, 1994, at which time the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) had planned to allocate national postage reserves to the SESAs. Based on a legal opinion, the Department cannot require this conversion. SESAs are entitled to the penalty mail privilege pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3202(a)(1)(E). This does not impact on the change to direct accountability that SESAs implemented on October 1, 1993. States will continue to use penalty mail systems (penalty meters, penalty stamps and envelops, permit G-12, and Business Reply Mail permit 12634) and ETA will continue to pay the SESA penalty mail costs to the U.S. Postal Service. ETA will explore with the U.S. Postal Service the possibility of having individual State penalty mail agreements with the U.S. Postal Service. This would permit ETA to allocate postage resources to the States who could then have the option of using commercial or penalty mail systems. It continues to be Departmental policy that States utilize commercial mail methods for mail which pertains to both employment security and non-employment security business. In such instances, ETA will reimburse the SESA for the employment security share of the cost. For information purposes only, Attachment II reflects Wagner-Peyser allotments including the amount reserved for postage. Action: State planning activities are to be guided by the process described in 20 CFR 652 and Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 2-93.

References: a. The North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (P.L. 103-182). b. Excerpt from "Statement of Administrative Action" (attached). c. Job Training Partnership Act, as amended. d. General Administration Letter No. 7-94, dated December 28, 1993, entitled "Operating Instructions for Implementing the Amendments to the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers Program in Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation Act" (attached). Background: On December 8, 1993, the President signed into law the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (the Act). Title V of the Act provides for a NAFTA-Trade Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) program under which assistance will be provided to workers in firms directly affected by imports from or shifts in production to Mexico or Canada. This program is similar in many ways to the existing Trade Adjustment Assistance program. The legislation requires that State Title III programs provide certain services with Title III funds after the Governor makes an affirmative preliminary finding on a petition filed by workers under NAFTA-TAA. In addition to the program of adjustment assistance provided in the Act, a separate program has been provided for in the "Statement of Administrative Action" which accompanied the Act and was approved in Section 101(a)(2). Through this Statement, a copy of which is attached, the Administration has agreed to provide adjustment services for certain workers adversely affected by the NAFTA who are not eligible for the statutory program. For this program, the Secretary will use existing authority under JTPA Title III to provide assistance (to be referred to as NAFTA-Title III) to workers in secondary firms, that is, firms that supply or assemble products produced by directly affected firms certified under NAFTA- TAA, as well as to provide income support to workers eligible for assistance under NAFTA-TAA who do not meet the requirements for receiving income support payments under that program. Collectively, these provisions are known as the "NAFTA Bridge" program. Title III and NAFTA: Title III funds may be used to provide allowable services to eligible dislocated workers, and to provide rapid response assistance to workers affected by plant closures and substantial layoffs. Under the provisions of the Act and the accompanying Statement of Administrative Action, States are specifically authorized to provide assistance under Title III based on the following circumstances: a. Title III funds are to be used to provide rapid response and basic readjustment services when the Governor has made a preliminary finding that worker dislocation is a result of NAFTA. Briefly, the Governor is responsible for making a preliminary finding, as part of the process described in GAL 7-94 (see Attachment B). Pursuant to Section 250(b)(2)(C) of the Trade Act, as amended by the NAFTA Implementation Act, if the Governor makes an affirmative preliminary finding that the employment of workers at a directly affected firm has been affected by increased imports from or production shifts to Canada or Mexico, the Governor must "ensure that rapid response and basic readjustment services authorized under other Federal law are made available to the workers." This statutory directive has the effect of establishing Title III eligibility for rapid response and basic readjustment services for individuals in a worker group for which the Governor has made an affirmative preliminary finding. b. Title III funds have been committed for use to provide needs-related payments to workers who are covered by a certification under the NAFTA-TAA program but who are not eligible for income support under that component. c. Title III funds have also been committed for use in providing Title III services to workers in firms supplying components to directly affected firms, workers involved in assembly of products made by directly affected firms, and certain other workers. These other workers include family farmers and farm workers who are adversely affected by the NAFTA but do not meet the "group of workers" requirement for filing a petition under the NAFTA-TAA program. In order to ensure comprehensive planning and coordination of the delivery of services to dislocated workers, States are also to ensure the active involvement of the Title III system in providing rapid response assistance and appropriate basic readjustment services for any worker group certified by the Secretary as eligible to apply for assistance under Subchapter A of the Trade Act (i.e., the "regular" TAA program). Effects on Title III Programs: a. Rapid Response. The NAFTA agreements do not modify the basic substance of rapid response assistance or basic readjustment services. States are expected to provide their standard level of rapid response assistance upon becoming aware of a plant closure or substantial layoff regardless of whether the event is subject to a NAFTA petition. For any dislocation event for which the Governor has made an affirmative preliminary finding, States must ensure that appropriate levels of rapid response assistance and basic readjustment services are made available. Pursuant to 20 CFR 631.30(b)(6), the Governor may,under exceptional circumstances, authorize rapid response assistance for layoffs which do not qualify as "substantial" layoffs. "Exceptional circumstances" include those situations in which layoffs would have a major impact upon the community(ies) in which they occur. To carry out this responsibility under Section 250(b)(2)(C) of the Trade Act, the Governor must provide rapid response assistance to a NAFTA-related dislocation event even if it is below the State's threshold for "substantial layoff." Rapid response is an activity whose purposes include the provision of information on available programs and services to workers who have been or are likely to be terminated or laid off, and the assessment of need for additional assistance. States are encouraged to develop and implement appropriate methods of achieving the goals of rapid response in those situations where the number of affected workers is below the threshold and does not require a full-scale, on-site form of rapid response. Such methods should be cost effective and responsive to the workers' needs; they should also be developed with the cooperation of the substate grantees. b. Income Support for Certain NAFTA-TAA Certified Workers. Workers whom the Secretary has certified as eligible to apply for assistance under NAFTA-TAA may,under certain circumstances, be eligible for needs-related payments from the Title III program. Under NAFTA-TAA, workers who are not eligible for unemployment compensation, do not meet the tenure requirement under TAA, or were unable to meet the 16-week/6-week deadline for enrollment in training are not eligible for Trade Readjustment Allowances. The following groups of individuals may receive income support through NAFTA-Title III if they are enrolled in a training program approved under Section 236 of the Trade Act: (1) Workers who are not eligible for unemployment compensation; (2) Workers who do not meet the tenure requirement for employment at the subject firm (26 out of the 52 weeks prior to separation); (3) Workers who were unable to meet the enrollment deadline because the first available enrollment date was past the deadline. (4) Workers who otherwise would have met the deadline but who were unable to meet the enrollment deadline because a course was abruptly canceled. Income support amounts and duration are described in d. Income Support, below. c. Workers in secondary firms whose employment the Secretary has found to be indirectly affected by NAFTA. Workers in secondary firms, that is, firms that supply or assemble products produced by directly affected firms certified under NAFTA-TAA, may receive assistance under the Title III program. Such assistance includes the same activities (rapid response, basic readjustment services, out-of-area job search, relocation allowances, retraining and income support in the form of needs-related payments) as are available to workers in directly affected firms under NAFTA-TAA. So as not to place an undue burden on the affected workers, the process by which workers in secondary firms are identified as eligible to receive assistance under Title III will be, in most cases, the same process used to certify the eligibility of workers in directly affected firms. A petition may be filed for any group of workers believed to be adversely affected by increased imports from or the transfer of production to Canada or Mexico, as described in GAL 7-94. Preliminary fact finding activities will be carried out by the State.Concurrent and subsequent activities required to determine the group's eligibility will be carried out by the Department of Labor, including, as appropriate, a determination of indirect impact. Information regarding the Department's decision on each petition will immediately be sent to the Governor. d. Income Support. Workers in groups described at b. and c. above may receive income support in the form of needs-related payments under the Title III program for weeks that the individual is in training, subject to the following: (1) Enrollment deadline. Payments may be made only if the worker has enrolled in training by the end of the sixteenth week of unemployment or, if later, within six weeks after the Secretary has issued a certification, or if the worker has been granted a limited extension in the enrollment period based on "extenuating circumstances" (described in e., below). (2) Amount and duration of income support. The weekly amount of income support will be the same as the worker's unemployment compensation payment and the maximum duration of such support will be 52 weeks. Workers who do not qualify for unemployment compensation, such as certain farm workers and seasonal workers, will be eligible for income support if they worked at least eight weeks during the previous year. The weekly amount for such workers will be equal to the minimum unemployment compensation benefit level in the State and will be available for a period that equals the number of weeks that the worker was employed in the previous 52 weeks. (3) Source of income support. Income support for workers in groups described at b. and c.above may be paid from funds allotted by formula under Part A of Title III only if the workers meet the eligibility requirements at Section 314(e) of the JTPA. Section 314(e) authorizes the payment of needs-related payments to an individual: who is unemployed and does not qualify or has ceased to qualify for unemployment compensation... To be eligible for such payments, an eligible dislocated worker who has ceased to qualify for unemployment compensation must have been enrolled in training by the end of the 13th week of the worker's initial unemployment compensation benefit period, or, if later, the end of the 8th week after an employee is informed that a short term-layoff will in fact exceed 6 months. Individuals eligible for income support under the NAFTA-Title III program who fail to meet the eligibility criteria described above may receive income support only through funds provided by the Secretary under Part B of Title III. (See 6., Availability of Funds.) e. "Extenuating circumstances". The Trade Act, as amended by the NAFTA Implementation Act, provides that the Secretary, for justifiable cause, may extend the time for enrollment into an approved training program for a period not to exceed 30 days. GAL 7-94 contains additional guidance and background describing application of the "extenuating circumstances" consideration to workers eligible for NAFTA-TAA. States and local grantees implementing the Title III portion of the NAFTA Bridge program are to use these criteria to consider "extenuating circumstances" which delay enrollment in training beyond the deadline for receipt of needs-related payments under Title III. Only those individuals who have been approved for a training program which is scheduled to begin after the deadline, or who have enrolled in an approved training program for which a course was abruptly canceled, may be found eligible to receive needs-related payments if they enroll in training beyond the 16 week/6 week deadline. Availability of Funds: In cases where local resources are insufficient to support State and local responsibilities under the NAFTA-Title III program, and in cases where participants are not eligible for income support using formula funds provided under Part A, funds reserved by the Secretary under Part B of Title III (the "reserve account") are available to support such activities. Until such time as the Department issues procedures for applying for Title III funds to serve individuals eligible for assistance under the NAFTA-Title III program, States may apply for such funds using the procedures issued July 9, 1992 (57 Federal Register 30536). Actions Required: The Governor of each State has designated a State official who is responsible for handling petitions filed under the NAFTA program. (See Attachment C.) It is the mutual responsibility of the Dislocated Worker Unit (DWU) and the designated agency contact for NAFTA-TAA to ensure that a system is in place to coordinate and share information between the two programs. This system must include a provision that the NAFTA-TAA contact will notify the DWU: a) upon receipt of a petition alleging NAFTA impact; b) when the Governor has made a preliminary finding for such a petition; and c) at the time of receipt of the Secretary's final determination of NAFTA-TAA eligibility. In addition, the DWU should ensure that information about these two programs is provided to workers, labor organizations, firms, and other appropriate organizations as part of its information dissemination activities and during its ongoing operations such as rapid response. The Governor must determine which State agency or unit is responsible for administering the delivery of services under the NAFTA-Title III program. Each State must determine how needs-related payments will be provided to individuals identified as eligible for this program under 5a. and 5b. above. The Department anticipates that most if not all States will identify either the State Employment Security Agency or the Substate Grantees as the provider of income support. Relevant agencies within the Department will work with interested States to identify and develop appropriate arrangements and systems for providing needs-related payments through the unemployment compensation system.

References: a. Job Training Partnership Act, as amended. b. Interim Final JTPA Regulations, 20 CFR Part 631, published in the Federal Register on December 29, 1992. c. Training and Employment Information Notice No. 22-93, dated November 15, 1993. d. Training and Employment Information Notice No. 27-93, dated January 11, 1994. Background: Pursuant to 20 CFR 631.36 and 631.40, this document provides instructions to the States for JTPA Title III State Plans. Draft planning instructions were transmitted in Training and Employment Information Notice (TEIN) No. 27-93. OMB Approval and Reporting Burden: The Planning Instructions for Title III State Plans have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) according to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 under OMB Approval No. 1205-0273 to expire June 30, 1996. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Office of IRM Policy, Department of Labor, Room N-1301, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20210; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1205-0273), Washington, D. C. 20503. Title III Planning Process for PY 1994 and PY 1995: The draft planning instructions issued under TEIN 27-93 have undergone several minor changes and one major change as a result of comments received and the OMB review process. Attachment A is the draft instructions with redline and strikeout indicating the changes for the final instructions, to aid in locating them. Attachment B is the final instructions reflecting those changes. The major change in the instructions was the deletion of Section III from the draft State plan, which discussed program improvement strategies for PY 1994. A number of commentors asked that this section be taken out of the State plan because the May 1 submittal date would not allow enough time to prepare this information. The program improvement strategies will now be a part of the Technical Assistance and Training (TAT) Initiative. In support of State efforts to improve program quality and capacity, the Department will make available a limited amount of TAT funds to support special TAT projects identified by States and substate grantees to be completed by the end of PY 1994. These projects must address one or more of the program emphases included in the program improvement strategies section of the draft State planning instructions, and must be in addition to ongoing State TAT activities and responsibilities. Procedures for applying for these funds will be described in a forthcoming TEIN. The focus of the planning activities continues to be expanding and improving the quality of services to, and outcomes for, dislocated workers and employers, as discussed in the introduction to the planning instructions. State planning should also consider the implementation of the Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services Initiative authorized under P.L. 103-152 in States during PY 1994 and PY 1995. Under this initiative, UI claimants who are identified as dislocated workers will be required to participate in reemployment services based on a comprehensive Statewide strategy coordinated by the Governor. Depending upon the specific arrangements in each State, these dislocated UI claimants may be referred to EDWAA substate grantees for reemployment services. Specific guidance on the implementation of Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services Systems is provided in FM 35-94, Implementation of a System of Profiling Unemployment Insurance (UI) Claimants and Providing Them with Reemployment Services. Plan Submission: The plans are to be submitted to the Department on or before May 1, 1994. State Title III Plans should be sent to: James D. Van Erden, Administrator, ATTN: Title III Plans, Office of Work-Based Learning, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N4649, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20210. Each State should also submit a copy of the plan to the appropriate DOL Regional Office. Action: The States should share the final planning instructions with all appropriate parties, including the Dislocated Worker Unit, State Job Training Coordinating Council or State Human Resource Investment Council, and Substate Grantees.

References: Public Law 102-367, JTPA and Public Law 103-171 Older Americans Act (OAA) Technical Amendments. OW 94-1, "Technical Amendment to Title V of the OAA". Background: On February 8, 1994, Older Worker Bulletin 94-1, was jointly issued by the JTPA and SCSEP offices at the Employment and Training Administration. The issuance quoted a technical amendment to Title V and provided guidance on implementing this new amendment. The amendment extended eligibility for SCSEP eligible individuals in joint programs to section 204(d) of JTPA. The previous joint program eligibility provision for SCSEP enrollees under section 203 was published at 628.605(e) of the JTPA Interim Final regulation on December 29, 1992. The new OAA amendments extended the same coverage to the 204(d) program. While the OAA amendment itself was straight forward, a number of questions regarding implementation were raised. To respond to such questions, the attached questions and answers (Qs&As) are being provided. Action: JTPA operators should review the attached Qs&As dealing with JTPA and the SCSEP dual eligibility and take the steps necessary to implement the dual eligibility policy in their jurisdictions.

References: The Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended (P.L. 97-300); 20 CFR 652; TEGL No. 5-92. Background: The Secretary of Labor is issuing final planning allotments for each State's share of PY 1993 funds for basic labor exchange activities. These allotments (Attachment I) are based on the FY 1993 Appropriation of $810,960,000 and are distributed by the statutory formula described in Section 6 of the Act. The allotments will be published in the Federal Register. The data used are Calendar Year 1992 averages of civilian labor force (CLF) and number of unemployed individuals. Section 6(b)(4) of the Act authorizes the Secretary of Labor to reserve up to 3 percent of the total fund availability to assure that each State will have sufficient resources to maintain statewide employment service (ES) activities. The setaside for distribution through an administrative formula for this program year is $23,754,639. The 3 percent distribution is included in the total final allotment. The setaside was distributed in two steps to States whose relative share of resources declined from the previous year. In Step 1, those States with a CLF below one million and that are also below the median CLF density were held harmless at 100 percent of their prior year relative share of resources. The remainder was distributed in Step 2 in pro rata shares to all other States that lost in relative share from the prior year but did not meet the size criteria for Step 1. Differences between preliminary and final planning estimates are caused by the use of Calendar Year data as opposed to the earlier data used for preliminary planning estimates. Ten percent of the total sums allotted to each State shall be reserved for use by the Governor to provide performance incentives for public ES offices; services for groups with special needs; and for the extra costs of exemplary models for delivering job services. Postage Costs: Postage costs incurred by States during the conduct of ES activities are billed directly to the Department of Labor by the U.S. Postal Service. The total planning allotment includes $19,138,700, or 2.36 percent of the total amount available, withheld from distribution to finance postage costs associated with the conduct of ES business. States will implement direct accountability (i.e., actual count and costs of postage pieces) using penalty mail systems through all of FY 1994. The Department of Labor will continue to pay the U.S. Postal Service directly for all State postage costs during that period. The Department proposes to issue revised regulations which will eliminate the use of penalty mail systems in FY 1995. The proposal would include the distribution of postage resources to States, who would pay costs directly to their local post offices. The proposed regulations will provide for comments by the public on the proposed changes. The State-by-State postage allocation shown in Attachment II is for information purposes only. It provides States with estimates of the amount annually withheld from their ES allotments to maintain central postage reserves for payment of postage costs. Action: State planning activities are to be guided by the process described in 20 CFR 652 and Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 5-92.

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

References: Section 301(a) of the Act; 631.3 of the JTPA Regulations (20 CFR 631.3) published September 22, 1989; Section 1141 of 10 U.S.C. Chapter 58, as amended by the Defense Authorization Act of 1990. Background: Typically, individuals who were discharged or released from active duty with the armed forces were unlike the traditional "dislocated workers" to be served by Title III. For most who left prior to retirement, the limited period of active duty in the armed forces was an expected step in a career path. With the advent of the volunteer army, many individuals who enlisted did so with the intent of making military service a career. With the reductions in Department of Defense expenditures which are now occurring, a number of these "employees" find themselves involuntarily separated from their chosen career. Reasonable questions, raised by several States, are whether members of the armed forces discharged or released from active duty are eligible for Title III, including the Defense Conversion Adjustment Program, and on what basis the eligibility of these individuals should be determined. Section 502 of the Defense Authorization Act of 1990 includes a definition of "involuntary separation," and authorizes benefits and services from the Department of Defense for members of the armed forces who are faced with involuntary separation. The definition of "involuntary separation" from active duty with the armed forces, now found at Section 1141 of 10 U.S.C. Chapter 58, as amended, is provided here: A member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps shall be considered to be involuntarily separated for purposes of this chapter if the member was on active duty or full-time National Guard duty on September 30, 1990, and (1) in the case of a regular officer (other than a retired officer), the officer is involuntarily discharged under other than adverse conditions as characterized by the Secretary concerned; (2) in the case of a reserve officer who is on the active duty list or, if not on the active duty list, is on full-time active duty (or in the case of a member of the National Guard, full-time National Guard duty) for the purpose of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components, the officer is involuntarily discharged or released from active duty or full-time National Guard duty (other than a release from active duty or fulltime National Guard duty incident to a transfer to retired Status) under other than adverse conditions, as characterized by the Secretary concerned; (3) in the case of a regular enlisted member serving on active duty, the member is (A) denied reenlistment, or (B) involuntarily discharged under other than adverse conditions, as characterized by the Secretary concerned- and (4) in the case of a reserve enlisted member who is on full-time active duty (or in the case of a member of the National Guard, full-time National Guard duty) for the purpose of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components, the member (A) is denied reenlistment, or (B) is involuntarily discharged or released from active duty (or full-time National Guard) under other than adverse conditions, as characterized by the Secretary concerned. Discussion: Included in the definition of "eligible dislocated workers" for Title III are individuals who are terminated or laid off; eligible for unemployment compensation; and unlikely to return to their previous industry or occupation (Section 301(a)(1)(A) of the Act). Following is a discussion of the three parts of this definition as they relate to individuals separated from active duty with the armed forces. Terminated or laid off. Although the provisions of 10 U.S.C. Chapter 58, Section 1141 are not directly applicable to JTPA, the determinations made under these provisions may be relevant when considering the eligibility criteria established at JTPA Section 301(a)(1). Eligible for unemployment compensation. Former members of the armed forces may be eligible for unemployment compensation for ex-service members (UCX). UCX may be considered as a form of unemployment compensation for the purpose of determining eligibility under Title III. However, not all individuals eligible for UCX will meet the "terminated or laid off" criterion discussed above. Unlikely to return to their previous industry or occupation. The Department expects that grantees will be able to follow existing procedures in determining whether a former member of the armed forces is unlikely to return to her or his previous industry or occupation. In summary, the Employment and Training Administration considers that individuals who have been involuntarily separated, as defined in 10 U.S.C. Chapter 58, including those who accept an inducement to leave the military, and are otherwise eligible, are eligible to participate in programs funded under Title III of JTPA. The State or the sub state grantee remains responsible for determination of eligibility under reasonable safeguards (Section 141(i)). Individuals who are separated from the armed forces are not necessarily "involuntarily separated." For example, the definition does not apply to individuals who have been involuntarily discharged under adverse conditions. Also, individuals who voluntarily leave the armed forces, including those who retire with or without an inducement, do not fall within the meaning of the term "involuntarily separated." States and sub state grantees may wish to consult with local veterans' employment representatives (LVERs) or other specialists to identify the documents and/or mechanisms that can be used to make an accurate eligibility determination. Additional information regarding adverse conditions is being prepared by the Department of Defense and will be shared once it becomes available. However, individuals involuntarily separated from active duty through honorable discharges are eligible. Since Title III is not an entitlement, program managers should ensure that retraining services are limited to those eligible dislocated workers who can most benefit from and are in need of such services, as required under Section 141(a) of the Act, and 631.41(d) and 631.51(d) of the regulations. In the case of members of the armed forces who have been recently separated from active duty, this might include those without marketable civilian skills. States are encouraged to develop procedures to determine "most in need" for Title III. Attached for your information is a copy of a document issued by the Assistant Secretary of Defense concerning transition services provided by the Department of Defense. Action: State and sub state grantee policy makers should review existing policies regarding eligibility under Title III in light of this policy clarification.

References: Job Training Partnership Act; Trade Act of 1974. Dual Enrollment: In consultation with the agencies responsible for service delivery in the employment and training system, enrolling TAA participants in the Title III program (if they are eligible) has been identified as a valuable program practice. Both programs offer advantages in delivering services a trade-dislocated worker may need. Closer coordination between the Trade and Title III programs provides a real opportunity to improve the quality of services and to increase customer satisfaction for Trade participants. The enrollment of Trade Act participants in Title III would also respond to some of the recommendations contained in an audit report of the TAA program issued by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) in early 1994. The report included recommendations that procedures be implemented that require States to follow up on worker status after program participation and that management information systems be designed and implemented that would provide federal and State managers the necessary data to oversee program operations and evaluate effectiveness. Dual enrollment will make available participant and program data (including employment outcomes) collected for Title III program participants for the dual-enrolled Trade Act participants. In discussions with the OIG and in testimony on the Hill, the Department has identified dual enrollment as an effective way to respond to these concerns. Special Projects: All of these issues will be examined by all of the relevant parties as we seek to improve customer service and ensure quality performance. Nonetheless, the growing demands being placed on TAA training funds and the increased investment in the Title III program as of July 1 provide the impetus for early action on dual enrollment. Without such action, TAA training funds will likely be exhausted before the end of the fiscal year. All States are encouraged to undertake dual enrollment in order to increase the effectiveness of TAA services. The Department is making available Title III national reserve account funds for special projects to help States provide services which may not be available through the Trade Act. Dual enrollment of participants in TAA and Title III is already being undertaken in many States and substate areas. In such areas, the funds can be used to increase the number of persons being dual enrolled, expand the services being provided and to improve coordination between the programs in implementing dual enrollment. Attached are instructions for applying for Title III/TAA special projects. Because of the emergency nature of these special projects, the attached abbreviated application procedures will be used until further notice. Action: A. Recipients of this TEGL should make this available to appropriate officials throughout the State and substate dislocated worker system, and encourage efforts aimed at dual enrollment of adversely affected workers under a trade certification in the JTPA Title III program. B. Applications for funds, including the information required in the attachment, should be mailed to: Office of Grants and Contracts Management Division of Acquisition and Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room S-4203 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210, Attention: Dislocated Worker Grants, Barbara J. Carroll, Grant Officer. A copy of the application should also be submitted to the appropriate Regional Office. Applications are currently being accepted and can be submitted through December 31, 1994. The applicant should specify the period of award, not to exceed June 30, 1996.

References: a. Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993 (Public Law 103-152); b. Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 8-93, dated April 25, 1994; "Final Planning Guidance for Job Training Partnership Act Title III State Plans for Program Years (PYs) 1994/1995; c. "Implementation of a System of Profiling Unemployment Insurance (UI) Claimants and Providing Them with Reemployment Services;" Supplement No. 1, Supplement No. 2. Background: Implementation of UI claimant profiling is an important component of the Department of Labor's (DOL) comprehensive workforce strategy. Claimant profiling and referral to reemployment services will become a primary way of ensuring early intervention assistance to dislocated workers. Referral of profiled UI claimants will be added to rapid response and other outreach and intake efforts for self-referral as the means by which dislocated workers will access reemployment assistance under JTPA Title III or Wagner-Peyser grants. The worker profiling and reemployment services concept encompasses two fundamental principles: 1. the early identification of UI claimants who are likely to exhaust their UI benefits before obtaining employment and, thus, who qualify as dislocated workers; and 2. the timely referral of claimants identified as likely to exhaust UI benefits to quality reemploy- ment services. This service process is designed to shorten the time required to return to productive, stable employment. It also ensures that dislocated workers who may not have been identified through rapid response will be made aware of services available under both JTPA Title III and Wagner- Peyser, so that they can begin the readjustment process as early as possible. Worker Profiling and JTPA Title III: a. Overall Objectives and Principles. The successful implementation and operation of a worker profiling and reemployment services system requires effective joint planning and cooperative efforts among all agencies and organizations responsible for adminis- tering or operating the unemployment compensation, employment service, dislocated worker and labor market information programs within the State. To be effective, the components of the system -- identification, selec- tion and referral, reemployment services, and feedback -- must be linked and must be developed at comparable levels of quality. A quality process for identification and selection does not accomplish the objective if there is not a quality set of reemployment services to which individuals can be referred. In short, the service process must operate as an integrated system of service delivery and not just a summation of service through two or more components. With an increase in funding from $500 million to $1.1 billion in Program Year 1994, the Department of Labor expects that the JTPA Title III program will be a major provider of reemployment services to UI claimants identified as likely to exhaust their UI benefits. Individuals identified through profiling will have the same characteristics and needs as dislocated workers currently being served through the Title III program. Consequently, the Department does not expect that service to individuals identified through profiling should have any negative effect on the ability of Title III service providers to meet current performance standards. At the same time, the Department recognizes that implementation of a worker profiling and reemployment services system represents a substantial impact on the JTPA Title III program, both in terms of the demand for services and the structure for providing services. The initiative creates an opportunity for using the increas- ed funds in PY 1994 to not simply increase service levels through the existing service approach, but to restructure the service approach to achieve improvements in productivity and service quality. Governors are strongly encouraged to use funds under Section 302(c), which are not subject to the minimum expenditure for retraining requirement, to provide support to the worker profiling and reemployment services system in the State. Governors are also encouraged to work with the substate grantees to explore the issues of waiving the minimum expenditure require- ment for retraining as provided for at Section 315(a)(2) of the Act so that additional amounts of Title III funds can be directed to basic readjustment services. Finally, Governors are encouraged to establish, through the State agencies responsible for implementing this initiative, seamless service delivery procedures so that eligibility determinations are completed, to the maximum extent possible, on individuals before they are referred to specific service providers for reemployment services. b. Specific Implications. Profiling becomes another source of referrals of dislo- cated workers into the Title III service system. The State and substate grantees continue to be responsible for ensuring that services are provided to eligible individuals and in accordance with the provisions of JTPA and the September 2, 1994, Regulations. Because the Unemployment Compensation Amendments create a manda- tory participation requirement for individuals identi fied through profiling and referred to reemployment service providers, the State, as suggested in the previous section, should take steps to ensure that the eligibility of individuals to receive Title III funded services is established prior to referral to Title III service providers. Current policy regarding the point at which eligible individuals must be enrolled as participants in the Title III program will continue to apply. Title III funds may be used to pay the cost of outreach, eligibility determination, and an assessment of suit- ability for available assistance prior to enrollment, but receipt of services beyond these requires that the individual be enrolled as a participant in the Title III program. In the context of the profiling and reemploy- ment services system, pre-enrollment activities can include orientation, a determination of eligibility for Title III services, and review of information to confirm that the individual has been appropriately referred to the Title III program. The implementation guidance on the Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services System states that referral of individuals identified through profiling will occur in accordance with agreements between UI and reemployment service providers on the capacity to accept and provide assistance to such individuals. The Department expects that State and substate Title III program operators will not use this provision as a basis for screening out or limiting the service capacity available for dislocated workers identified and referred through profiling. Rather, this provision will be used to ensure that individuals are not referred to providers who do not have the current capacity to provide services to them. Since UI claimant profiling will become an increasingly significant source of dislocated worker outreach and referral, the Department expects that Title III program operators will be taking steps to improve their capacity to provide quality services to larger numbers of dislo- cated workers and that a significant portion of that capacity will be available to eligible individuals identified and referred through profiling. Availability of Supplemental Funds: The Department is making available in PY 1994 up to $20 million, from Title III funds reserved for the Secretary, in supplemental financial assistance to States to ensure effec- tive implementation of a worker profiling and reemployment services system. These limited resources are available on a one-time basis only and should not be viewed as an ongoing source of financial assistance. Supple- mental funds are available for start-up and quality/productivity improvement costs only. They may not be used to increase service levels to a point which will not be sustainable in the absence of the supplemental assistance. Some of the prototype States have received supplemental funds for early implementation. First and Second Wave States that can demonstrate a need for additional, one-time funds, and have a well developed strategy for improving productivity and service quality for dislocated workers are invited to apply for supplemental Title III funds. Funds will be provided to the designated State agency which administers the JTPA Title III program. Within the State, funds can be provided to and used by any organizational entity which is involved in providing reemployment services to eligible dislocated workers through the State's Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services system. Procedures and Criteria for Award of Supplemental Funds: a. Allowable Uses of Funds. The funds which are available to the States are JTPA Title III funds and must be used in a manner consistent with the provisions of Title III of the Act. That is, funds can only be used for activities and cost items authorized under Title III for eligible dislocated workers. b. Priorities for Use of Funds. Funding requests will be evaluated according to the following criteria: -- First and foremost, the State has made or will make a substantial contribution of State formula (both Title III and Wagner-Peyser) funds to support the reemployment services component for the worker profiling and reemployment services system. -- There is a clear demonstration that the requested funds are not to cover ongoing operational costs related to increased service levels and/or that there will be a fund sour ce to pick up any continuing future operational costs. -- Highest priority will be given to costs designed to improve the long-term quality and productivity of the reemployment service system; and to effectively implement new integrated operational relationships. Such costs could include staff training in improved service methods, implementing technologies and meth- ods by which participants can self-access services and information, and integrated information systems (including the feedback mechanism required in the worker profiling and reemployment services system). -- Lowest priority will be given to funding the costs of direct service staff positions. Proposals which request funds to simply serve more individuals at current, or higher, cost per participant levels will not be considered. In general, requests should not exceed ten percent of the State's PY 1994 JTPA Title III allotment. An appro- priate percentage will vary according to the size of the State 's allotment (i.e., the percent should be smaller for States with large allotments and PY 1994 increases, and vice-versa). The guidelines described in this issuance will be used to review all requests for supplemental JTPA Title III funds from First and Second Wave States. For Prototype and First Wave States which have already received approved supplemental funding, requests for additional supplemental funding will be not be considered, but such States may submit modifications regarding the use of supplemental funds in accordance the priorities de- scribed in this issuance. c. Submission of Supplemental Requests. Requests for supplemental funds should be submitted to: The Office of Worker Retraining and Adjustment Programs U.S. Department of Labor Room N-5426 200 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20210 ATTN: Maurice Birch The request shall be submitted by an authorized signatory of the designated State agency which administers the JTPA Title III program. A copy of the request should simultaneously be submitted to the appro- priate Regional Office. The format for the submission is included as an attach- ment. d. Award of Funds. All requests from designated First Wave States should be received no later than December 1, 1994. Approved funds will be awarded within 60 days, or by February 1, 1995, as part of or through a modification to the partnership agreement. All requests from Second Wave States should be received no later than June 1, 1995. Approved funds will be awarded within 60 days, or by August 1, 1995, as part of or through a modification to the partnership agreement. Action: States which have developed plans for implementing a worker profiling and reemployment services system, and which require supplemental funds to effectively implement the reemployment services component of the system, should prepare and submit a request for such funds in accordance with the guidelines and procedures described in this issuance. For those States which have already submitted a request for supplemental Title III funds, these requests will be evaluated as submitted unless the State chooses to submit additional or modified information by the indicated deadlines.