References: The W-P Act, as amended; Workforce Investment Act (WIA), 20 CFR 652; Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 2-97 and TEGL No. 2-97, Change 1. Background: The Secretary of Labor is issuing final planning allotments for each State's share of PY 1999 funds for basic labor exchange activities. The allotments will be published in the Federal Register. Allotment Formula: These allotments (Attachment) are based on the FY 1999 appropriation of $761,735,000 and are distributed by the statutory formula described in Section 6 of the Act. 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 $22,312,050. 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 civilian labor force (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. 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. The data used are Calendar Year 1998 averages of CLF and number of unemployed individuals. 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. 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 $18,000,000 of the total amount available, which is withheld for the payment of the States' ES penalty mail costs.

References: a. The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), as amended; b. JTPA Final Rules, as published in the Federal register on September 2, 1994; c. Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 4-95 (February 21, 1996): "Instructions for Submission of State Plans under Title II and Title III of the Job Training Partnership Act for Program Year (PYs) 1996 and 1997; and PY 1996 Wagner-Peyser Act Program Planning Guidance". d. Training and Employment Information Notice No. 33-92 (June 1, 1993): "Child Labor Restrictions Applicable to Youth Participants in Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Funded Programs". e. Training and Employment Information Notice No. 23-95 (April 11, 1996): "Calendar Year 1996 Summer Youth Initiatives". Background: a. Summer Jobs Funding Level. The Department of Labor is obligating $625 million to the States for the CY 96 Summer Youth Employment Program (SYETP) under Title II-B of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). (State allocations are contained in Attachment A.) These funds are being obligated as Fiscal Year (FY) 96 funds, not as Program Year 96 funds. Notices of Obligation will be issued under the current PY 95 JTPA grant agreement to obligate these funds to the States, and they will not be combined with Title II-A and Title II-C funds. Thus, States will be required to submit a separate JTPA Title II Quarterly Status Report (JQSR) for these FY 1996 Title II-B funds, and they will not be combined with Title II-A and Title II-C PY 1996 data. Additionally, States will draw cash under the Payment Management System (PMS) for Title II-B FY 1996 funds, and these II-B funds will not be combined with other Title II funds under PMS. A further explanation and reporting instructions are contained in Attachment B. b. Program goals. In this year's summer program, the Department maintains its commitment to providing the nation's disadvantaged youth with solid work experiences, which for many youth represent the first step into the labor force. The Department of Labor's vision of the summer program is one where new entrants to the labor force and those with limited job histories: 1. build and refine a strong foundation of work, employment competencies, and the discipline of work; and, 2. gain an appreciation of the inextricable connection between work and learning which is critical to a long-term attachment to and success in a rapidly changing labor market. This message regarding the connection between education and work is consistent with the on-going school-to-work message communicated by the Departments of Labor and Education to States, SDAs, local school systems, employers and youth. We recognize that we need to help youth acquire the knowledge, skills, abilities, and labor market information they need to make a smooth transition from school to career-oriented work or further education or training. Program Emphases: This summer's program emphases focus on the need for States and SDAs to: Maximize the number of economically disadvantaged youth participating in SYETP; Fully utilize all available funding, including new FY 1996 monies as well as any carryover from previous years, to provide maximum opportunities for participation in SYETP; Provide meaningful worksites with capable, trained supervisors; Provide educational enrichment, including life skills training; Strengthen linkages between SYETP and the year-round youth program under Title II-C and the School-to-Work initiatives; and, Work with the private sector to provide more unsubsidized employment opportunities for economically disadvantaged youth.

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

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

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

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

To preserve the formatting of this document, it has been converted to PDF (Portable Document Format) to retain its original layout. Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document (3 pages). If your web browser does not have the Acrobat Reader plug-in, it can be downloaded from the Adobe website at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html

References: Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 6-95, JTPA Titles II-A, II-C, and III Allotments; and Wagner-Peyser Final Planning Estimates for Program Year (PY) 1996; Emergency Supplemental and Rescission Act, 1995, Public Law 104-19; Omnibus Consolidated Recissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Public Law 104-134; Job Training Partnership Act, Public Law 97-300, as amended; TEGL No. 5-95, Program Guidance and Allocations for the Calendar Year 1996 Summer Youth Employment and Training Program; TEGL No. 12-94 and Change 1, Changes in Restrictions on Program Year 1995 Funds under Title III of the JTPA; and TEIN No. 6-93 and Changes 1 and 2, Instructions for Title II, JTPA Quarterly Financial Status Report. Background: TEGL 6-95 provided to the States the Program Year (PY) 1996 allotments for titles II-A, II-B, II-C and III, pursuant to the Congressional appropriations to the Department. In that communication, we indicated that guidance on intertitle transfers would be forwarded separately. Policy concerning transfer rules and procedures is contained in this TEGL. In addition, in order to be responsive to the entire employment and training community, questions were solicited through the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Regional offices. The answers to the questions received, including a reference table summarizing potential transfers for all years, are contained in an attachment to this TEGL. In the 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Congress authorized the transfers of PY 1996 funds between JTPA titles II-A and III for adults and between title II-B and II-C for youth. The current authorization in JTPA sections 206, and 266 for the transfer of funds between titles II-A and II-C is unaffected. This local flexibility provided to service delivery areas (SDAs) and substate areas (SSAs) in planning and fund transfer requires the approval of the Governor prior to implementation.

Due to the tables and graphics contained within the document, it has been converted to PDF (Portable Document Format) to retain its original layout. Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document (23 pages). If your web browser does not have the Acrobat Reader plug-in, it can be downloaded from the Adobe website at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html

References: a. Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), as amended. b. JTPA Regulations, 20 CFR 626-629 and 631, published in the Federal Register on September 2, 1994. c. Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 4-95, dated February 21, 1996, and Change 1, dated May 3, 1996. d. Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 2-95, dated August 10, 1995. e. Training and Employment Information Notice No. 16-94, dated December 13, 1994. f. Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 1-94, dated August 31, 1994. g. Training and Employment Information Notice No. 5-93, Change 1, dated June 23, 1994. Background: Sec. 106 of JTPA, as amended, provides that each Governor shall prescribe, within parameters established by the Secretary, variations in the performance standards based upon specific economic, geographic and demographic factors in the State and in service delivery areas/substate areas within the State, the characteristics of the population to be served, demonstrated difficulties in serving the population, and the types of services to be provided. The PY 1996 and 1997 national departure points for Governors to use in setting performance standards for the Secretary's six core measures, the Title III measures, and the Section 204(d) measures were transmitted in TEGL 4-95, Appendix G. Clarification of the Secretary's parameters and additional implementing instructions were provided in TEGL 4-95, Change 1. Changes from PY's 1994 and 1995: The PY 96 adjustment models were developed using data from the PY 94 Standardized Program Information Report (SPIR) individual terminee data for the first time (previous years' models were developed using SDA-level aggregate data). The major implication of the use of the SPIR data is that the wealth of information on individual terminees makes it possible to identify considerably more characteristics that have a significant influence on outcomes. As a result, the recommended adjustment models contain more terminee characteristics than previous models. Further, the models for comparable measures (for example, the adult follow-up employment rate and the welfare follow-up employment rate) are themselves more similar, both in the local factors included and in the values of the estimated adjustment weights, than in previous years. Rationale for Adjustment Worksheets: The Department's optional adjustment methodology provides Governors with a systematic adjustment approach which conforms to the Secretary's parameters for setting SDA/SSA standards. This adjustment methodology is periodically revised and improved in light of additional experience and more current data for standard-setting. The optional adjustment models are based on an analysis of the relationship between variation in the performance of SDAs, and variation in the types of clients served and in local economic conditions. The adjustment models indicate how much performance is affected by these factors and adjust the performance standards of each SDA accordingly. These models are intended to "level the playing field" so that SDAs serving a hard-to-serve clientele, or operating in areas with difficult economic conditions, receive lower standards than other SDAs. How the Worksheets Were Developed: The worksheets were generated using multiple regression analysis, a statistical technique that estimates the influence of each local factor on a performance measure, while accounting for the influence of the other local factors. This method estimates the factor weights presented on the worksheets. The weights represent the simultaneous influences of various participant characteristics and local economic conditions on SDA/SSA program performance. The models shown in the worksheets were reviewed by the Performance Standards Workgroup composed of representatives from State and local JTPA programs and public interest groups. When reviewing factors for the recommended adjustment models, the Workgroup was guided by criteria developed by workgroups in previous years, including: -- The statistical significance of the estimated relationships of the individual local factors with the outcomes. -- Inclusion of appropriate factors to hold SDAs harmless for serving hard-to-serve groups. -- Consistency with DOL's policy not to hold SDAs harmless for factors that are related to management quality. -- Ease of using the adjustment model. -- Face validity of the adjustments, meaning that they are consistent with the experience of program operators. (In other words, the sign of adjustments for local factors had to make intuitive sense.) -- Models for similar outcomes should contain similar factors. -- Consistency with the PY 94 models. -- There is wide enough variation in the factor among SDAs. Use of the Worksheets: The Performance Standards Worksheets are included in Appendix A. Instructions for completing the JTPA Performance Standards Worksheets, including the sources of data and computation methods for items on the worksheets, are also in Appendix A. Economic Factors: Appendix B contains local economic data to be used in calculating PY 96 standards with the PY 96 Performance Standards Worksheets. Instructions for calculation of economic factors for PY 96 standards are also included in Appendix B. Action Required: States are to distribute this Guidance Letter Change to all officials within the State who need such information to implement the performance standards policies and requirements for PY 1996 and 1997. It is especially critical that States, State Councils, Private Industry Councils and SDA operational staff become thoroughly familiar with the provisions concerning performance standards.