References: Older Worker (OW) Bulletin No. 93-10; August 26, 1997 Federal Register Notice published by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS); August 26, 1997 Federal Register Notice published by the Social Security Administration (SSA). Background: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), (commonly known as "welfare reform"), was enacted on August 22, 1996. Section 403 of PRWORA provides that most qualified aliens who enter the United States (U. S.) on or after enactment of that legislation are barred from eligibility for "Federal means-tested public benefits" for 5 years, beginning on the date the individual entered the U. S. with a qualified alien status. In response to inquiries concerning the applicability of this provision to SCSEP, the Department has informally directed attention to Section 511 of the OAA, Treatment of Assistance. OW Bulletin 93-10 previously made the same point, quoting Section 511: Assistance furnished under this title shall not be construed to be financial assistance described in section 245A (h) (1) (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255a (h) (1) (A)). Based on this language , the Department concluded that SCSEP was not a "Federal means-tested public benefits" program as construed in Section 403 of PRWORA. Federal Register Notices: On August 26, DHHS and SSA published Federal Register Notices containing interpretations of the term "Federal means-tested public benefits." In addition, DHHS Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aging William F. Benson wrote to clarify that "all qualified aliens, regardless of when they entered the U. S., continue to be eligible to receive assistance and services under the Older Americans Act programs administered by the Administration on Aging . . . ." Policy: This is to clarify that it is Department of Labor policy that all qualified aliens, regardless of when they entered the U. S., continue to be eligible to receive assistance and services under OAA programs administered by the Department, namely SCSEP, if they meet other program requirements. Senate Appropriations Committee Concerns: Language from the Committee Report is relevant to this issue as well. The Report states: The Committee is concerned about the impact of welfare reform on indigent elderly legal immigrants who face the loss of Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Current law states that title V funds should be targeted to eligible individuals with the greatest economic need. The Committee believes that within the Title V Community Service Employment for Older Americans, special attention should be paid to providing community service jobs for elderly legal immigrants where possible. Action: SCSEP sponsors are requested to provide the information contained herein to appropriate staff and subgrantees.

References: Older Worker (OW) Bulletins Nos. 96-14 and 97-12. Background: OW Bulletins Nos. 96-14 and 97-12 provided some information on Simply Better! and other quality initiatives supported by the Department. Largely through the efforts of our Regional Offices and the Enterprise support team, a series of Quality Training Academies have been conducted. This is to provide information on a forthcoming Quality Academy. Training Sessions: Attached is a brochure on "Simply Together," a Quality Training Academy jointly sponsored by Region IX , the Enterprise, Simply Better! and several other organizations, to be conducted October 27-31 in Long Beach, California. Included in the brochure are descriptions of the 17 training courses that will be offered during the 3 1/2 day Academy. The reduced rate registration fee of $175 per person is good only until September 26; it will increase to $225 after that date. Other Offerings: Some of the course offerings will be delivered during the Older Worker Conferences planned for November. Information about these conferences will be forthcoming in the near future. In addition, as we receive information on other Quality Academies, we will transmit it to you. Action: Please provide this information to appropriate staff, noting the due date for reduced rate registration fees.

References: General Accounting Office (GAO) Report GAO/HEHS-96-4, "Senior Community Service Employment Program Delivery Could Be Improved Through Legislative and Administrative Actions." Background: The GAO Report, described by a member of Congress as "flawed," looked at SCSEP operations in Program Year 1994. Among other things, the Report stated that some State officials "expressed concern about duplicative national sponsor programs in certain areas," providing examples of a northeastern State where nine national sponsors served an area that the State felt to be overserved, and a southern State where two national sponsors were operating in a city along with the State sponsor. The Report noted that the Department endorses an unwritten agreement among the national sponsors -- "to prevent enrollees from different sponsors from working at the same local host agency. The agreement is to help avoid situations in which host agencies or sponsors must explain why enrollees performing the same job tasks are compensated with different benefits and, perhaps, even wages." At a recent meeting of national sponsors, it was agreed that an effort would be undertaken to address the issue of multiple sponsors in a single political jurisdiction. While many sponsors felt that there was no real problem that needed to be addressed, a few felt strongly that the issue was a contentious one that merited action. Therefore, this Bulletin was prepared. Efforts To Be Undertaken: The Department is forming a work group to address this issue. Donald L. Davis, National Director of the Senior Community Service Project for the National Council on the Aging, Inc., has volunteered to chair the work group; Karen Davis of the Division of Older Worker Programs will serve as co-chair. Other interested parties should contact either of the two by October 10 to let them know of their willingness to serve on the work group. A maximum of 10 people total, from State and national sponsors, should serve on the work group; a smaller number would be preferable from the standpoint of effective working relationships. Tasks of the Group: A report to the Department, to be distributed to SCSEP sponsors and other interested parties, should be completed by November 28, 1997. The report should include the following: (a) A discussion of the history of SCSEP, including the rationale for why the program would envision multiple sponsors, especially those serving particular minority communities, in larger urban areas; (b) Descriptions of the unique circumstances of some of the sponsors, such as the U. S. Forest Service (which typically is located principally in rural National Forest areas); (c) Suggestions about proper oversight procedures to reinforce the need for equitable distribution of SCSEP positions, particularly in underserved areas; (d) Discussion of progress made in overcoming past inequities (such as the outcomes following telephone calls the past few years, and improvements in several States -- including Alabama and Kentucky -- that occurred over the past several years, as well as the decrease in number of sponsors in Philadelphia, and the increase in the number of positions in underserved New York City); (e) The extent to which inequities in provision of services, if any, are more often concentrated in national or State sponsors, or whether there is any discernible difference by type of sponsor; and (f) Policy recommendations, such as (1) Making formal the "unwritten agreeement" noted above; or (2) Setting a minimal number of positions for an area (some sponsors have a "rule of thumb" of 40 to 60 positions as a minimum for administrative efficiency); or (3) Setting a maximum number of sponsors that may serve older workers in a given jurisdiction; or (4) Some general guidance on the above, with exceptions based on population of the jurisdiction, the number of national sponsors in the State, the multiplicity of ethnic groupings in an area, and other demographic considerations that might temper a general rule on "duplication." The report of the work group should, among other things, be viewed as an educational document to assist congressional staff to better understand the issues and to interpret the statements in the GAO Report. An elaboration of Department of Labor comment #8, contained on page 65 of the Report, should be included within the work group's report.

Reference: Training and Employment Information Notice (TEIN) No. 10-97. Background: As the nature of work changes with new technological advances, employers will have a greater demand for workers with higher skills to meet the demands of the information age. The Employment and Training Administration, in partnership with State, local, business, labor, and community organizations, is committed to building a new and better workforce by keeping in tune with new technologies as they become available. JETT*CON '97 will provide opportunities to learn more about how technology can enhance skills, improve the quality of programs and customer service. Technology vendors will be on-hand to demonstrate new information systems. TEIN No. 10-97, which is attached, provides additional information on Jett*Con '97. Action Requested: Please share this information with interested parties.

Background: On October 3, Green Thumb, Inc. launched its first annual search for the oldest worker in America. The Administration on Aging is serving with ETA as Federal co-sponsors of the nationwide search. Procedures: The winner of the national title will be announced early next year. The nation's oldest worker will be honored in March at the Prime Time Awards and Gala in Washington, D.C. The awards and gala will be preceded by a week of events in celebration of National Older Workers Employment Week. All entrants will receive certificates recognizing their long life of productivity. All nominees age 90 and over will receive a 90-minute prepaid long distance calling card compliments of MCI. The oldest workers in each state will be recognized within their respective states. Workers may enter themselves or be nominated by their employers, family or friends. The deadline for entries is December 30, 1997. Action Required: a. To submit an entry, provide the following information: name, date and year of birth, home telephone number and address, employer name and address, position or title, business telephone number, name of supervisor, and the number of hours worked per week. (A minimum of 20 will be considered; volunteers who regularly work 20 hours a week are also eligible.) b. Post cards or notes may be mailed to: Green Thumb, Inc., Oldest Worker, 2000 North 14th Street, Suite 800, Arlington, Virginia 22201. Or Entries may be made directly to the Oldest Worker page of Green Thumb's website at: http://www.greenthumb.org. c. Submit entries as soon as possible. Also, cooperate with other organizations serving older workers at regional, state and locals levels to make this search as comprehensive as possible.

Reference: None. Background: Within the Employment and Training Administration, the Division of Older Worker Programs has arranged for three multi-regional conferences. While the principal audience is national, State and local sponsors, administrators and project operators under the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), workshops and plenary sessions should prove to be of interest to the broader workforce development system as well. Dates and locations: The three conferences are scheduled as follows: Philadelphia, PA November 5 - 7, 1997 Houston, TX November 12 - 14, 1997 San Diego, CA November 19 -21, 1997 Announcement: Attached is a copy of the announcement of the multi-regional training conferences, which was sent under separate cover to all JTPA service delivery areas, as well as the Administration on Aging's "aging network" (State Units on Aging and Area Agencies on Aging.) Action Requested: Sponsors are requested to transmit this information to interested parties, in particular to subsponsors and other entities involved in providing services to mature, experienced workers.

Background: The Women's Initiative of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) works to ensure that the social, economic, health, and longterm care needs of midlife and older women are met. It advocates and supports research, policies, and programs that improve the needs of women in the workforce. The AARP's Women's initiative has produced two reports that discuss sex-and-age discrimination against midlife and older women. The second volume was recently issued; both are available on request. Findings and Recommendations: One of the findings of the most recent research, conducted by the Fair Employment Council of Greater Washington using U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Council (EEOC) data, is that midlife and older women have a greater success rate than men in achieving vindication for job discrimination claims. Men however, receive greater awards from their settled complaints than women do. The first volume analyzed court cases involving Federal Civil rights laws and allegations of sex and age discrimination against women and men age 40 and better. The reports make recommendations for improving enforcement of equal opportunity and urges that the EEOC issue guidelines for staff on how to recognize multiple discrimination against midlife and older women. Obtaining Copies: To obtain copies of Employment Discrimination Against Midlife and Older Women, volumes I and II, write to AARP Fulfillment. Information on how to do this is included in the attachment. Action: Please share this information with interested parties.

Reference: Older Worker Bulletins 96-14 and 97-12. Background: Simply Better! is a national technical assistance project designed to help employment and training organizations incorporate principles of continuous quality improvement into their daily operations. Simply Better! began in 1994 as a joint capacity building initiative among ETA's Office of Job Training Programs and the Seattle and Philadelphia Regional Offices. Since then it has expanded to include representatives of State governments, private industry councils, service delivery areas, sub-State grantees, local direct service providers, SCSEP sponsors and local project operators, and the other eight ETA Regional Offices. The Service by Design publication is the latest in a series of Simply Better! publications. Previously published materials include: (1) The Self-Assessment System, designed to help organizations better understand their strengths and weaknesses in seven key management areas; (2) The Voice of the Customer, a guide to measuring customer satisfaction; and (3) Customers in Focus, a handbook on conducting focus groups. Ten thousand copies of these publications have been distributed nationwide during 1996-97, and extensive training of state and local agency staff and management has been conducted by ETA Regional Offices. Service by Design: Service by Design is a practical seven-step process for improving a workforce development agency's every-day operations. Service by Design examines the points and places where an agency's customers come in contact with its services. These meetings can be called "transactions." A full program or "cycle" of services may consist of dozens of transactions between an agency and its customers. An agency can improve the overall quality of its programs and services by examining and improving each separate transaction in turn: Step One: Identify an opportunity. Select a customer transaction or service cycle for improvement. Step Two: Describe the key features of this service or transaction as the agency staff perceives them. Step Three: Survey agency customers to find out how they perceive this same service or transaction. Step Four: Identify and understand the gaps which may exist between what the agency thinks it is doing and what its customers really want. Step Five: Identify possible and probable causes of these gaps between customer expectation and reality. Step Six: Test the most promising improvements, measure the results and fine tune the process. Step Seven: Implement the proposed changes and improvements. Repeat the process. Continuous improvement never ends. The Service by Design publication consists of three booklets. The Overview explains how the quality improvement process works and how it can improve customer satisfaction and results. It includes a 15-minute exercise that will help readers appreciate the strength of this technique. The Guidebook contains an in-depth discussion of the rationale and methods behind the seven Service by Design steps, the analytical tools that quality improvement teams use, and some ideas for effectively implementing Service by Design techniques. The Workbook leads quality improvement teams through the process step-by-step. It contains blank forms, graphs, worksheets and other practical materials. Distribution: We are providing copies of the Overview to sponsors with this bulletin. Supplies of the Overview and the complete Service by Design publication are available through ETA Regional Offices. To order copies, please call the appropriate Simply Better! regional contact person from the attached list. Action Requested: Inform appropriate staff, subgrantees, and sub-projects of the availability of Service by Design.

Reference: Field Memo on Regional Support for Linkages with SCSEP as Part of the One-Stop Career Center System, Older Worker Bulletin 97-19, and Older Worker Bulletin 97-14. Background: The Employment and Training Administration's One-Stop Career System Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) mandates that, at a minimum, the following programs be included in the "One-Stop" system: dislocated worker programs, Employment Service Programs, Veterans Employment Service programs, Title II of JTPA, the Senior Community Service Employment Program under title V of the Older Americans Act, and Unemployment Insurance programs. DOL has the responsibility of supporting this partnership and, thus, has enlisted the support of the Regional offices. The attached Field Memo, provides additional information on DOL Regional support for linkages with SCSEP as part of the One-Stop Career Center System. Another attachment provides information on Regional One-Stop Leads. Action Requested: Please share this information with interested parties.

References: General Accounting Office (GAO) November 1995 Report GAO/HEHS-96-4, "Senior Community Service Employment Program Delivery Could Be Improved Through Legislative and Administrative Actions"; SCSEP regulations at 20 CFR Part 641, Subpart D; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-87, A-102, A-110, and A-122. Background: In the response to the GAO on the November 1995 Report on the SCSEP, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) agreed to examine the GAO concern further to ensure there is no misunderstanding on the part of our grantee partners about how to charge staff and related costs associated with such staff functions as recruitment, assessment, development of appropriate community service assignments, and unsubsidized placements. The ETA review did not reveal any widespread misunderstandings about proper charging of costs. Therefore, a decision was made to deal with such concerns on a case-by-case basis. Recently there have been questions about the SCSEP cost categories, however, particularly regarding the categorization of charges as "Administration" and "Other Enrollee Costs" (OEC). Auditors have raised this issue in connection with charges for staff, services, and space used for enrollees, including salaries and travel of field staff. In some cases, auditors have suggested that some of the costs charged to the OEC cost category should have been charged to the Administration cost category. Based on these questions, it was decided that a Bulletin was needed to provide clarification. This Bulletin is intended to clarify misunderstandings that might result in questioned costs. In addition, it will elaborate upon ETA's position with regard to the proper charging of costs, and inform auditors, accountants and other interested parties of ETA's policy on these matters. In the November 1995 report, the GAO disagreed with the way SCSEP costs were classified, although sponsors charged costs in accordance with ETA instructions. The principle area of disagreement was the distribution of charges between the Administration cost category and the OEC cost category. Generally, charging of costs should be based on functions performed. Functions such as recruitment, assessment, eligibility determination, host agency development, counseling, job development and placement, and costs associated with those functions, are appropriately charged to OEC. Costs of functions such as financial management, staff supervision and compliance monitoring, and costs associated with those functions, are properly charged to the Administration cost category. Staff training costs of staff associated with OEC functions should be charged to OEC; staff training costs for administrative personnel should be charged to Administration. Part of the confusion that existed when the GAO report was issued revolved around the regulations in effect at the time of the review. While GAO contended that the 1976 regulations governed the grants, ETA placed language in the grant document that specifically directed grantees to use the draft 1985 regulations for operation of the programs. That situation has changed since the report was issued. The final SCSEP regulations were published on May 17, 1995. With regard to the classification of costs, these final regulations were similar to the proposed regulations that ETA had been incorporating by reference into the SCSEP grant packages. Discussion: To the extent that they were consistent with the legislative language of the other statutes and other administrative requirements, the 1995 final SCSEP regulations were drafted to parallel the construction of the regulations for other job training/ workforce development programs administered by ETA. Under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), the overwhelming preponderance of the funds are directed to a principal cost category/function, namely "training." In contrast, under the SCSEP, 75 percent of funds must be used for the "Enrollee Wages and Fringe Benefits" (EWFB) cost category, with only 13.5 percent available for Administration (which may be increased up to 15 percent if a waiver request is granted). The remaining 10 to 11.5 percent of funds available may be used for either EWFB or OEC. Cost principles for current training programs were carried forward from the rules for cost classification and allocation of earlier employment and training programs. These cost principles were, in turn, based upon those articulated in OMB Circulars A-87, A-102, A-110 and A-122. While most dollars will be used to support the basic objective of the legislation -- employment, training, or some other purpose -- it is also important to stress the critical importance of "Supportive Services." Today, supportive services are more critical than they were when the cost categories were developed over 20 years ago. The SCSEP program has evolved from a limited community service program to a more complex program with comparable goals and policies. For example, initially there was no goal for unsubsidized placements or requirements for individual development plans and, generally, grantees did not pay for physicals and other supportive services. Today, transportation, financial assistance, physical examinations, counseling, etc. often mean the difference between an unsatisfactory experience with a workforce development program, and a successful unsubsidized placement that results in significant improvement in a participant's economic well-being. The importance of supportive services was documented in the June 1992 Report GAO/HRD-92-124, "Job Training Partnership Act: Actions Needed to Improve Participant Support Services," which found child care and transportation to be among the most important of supportive services. Although older people may not need child care services, they may need adult day care, housing or transportation. It is important to recognize that such costs often represent the costs of staff salaries, wages and fringe benefits of people who may be performing multiple functions that benefit the program. For instance, the costs of "training" include instructor salaries as well as related costs such as books, materials, supplies, rent, telephones and utilities associated with instructional space. Transportation costs could include the salary of a bus driver transporting enrollees to training, which would be charged to OEC under the SCSEP (unless an enrollee was the driver, in which case the cost would be charged to EWFB). On the other hand, transportation costs of local project staff who perform compliance monitoring would be an administrative cost rather than an OEC cost. Project staff also serve as counselors to enrollees, working on individual development plans and arranging for training. The time, travel and related costs while performing such functions are chargeable to the OEC cost category, since these are OEC functions. OEC functions include activities that directly support and involve enrollees such as recruitment, orientation, assessment, testing, counseling, supportive services, workplace safety activities, job development and placement, training, follow-up services, etc. -- indeed, all functions that are not directly related to administering the program, or chargeable to EWFB, and including training of staff to better perform OEC functions. Sponsors may reduce amounts charged to Administration and/or OEC by assigning enrollees to activities that would normally be charged to either of these cost categories. In such instances, the costs of these enrollees' wages and fringe benefits would be charged to the EWFB cost category. ETA Policy: In general, costs under the SCSEP should be charged by functional area. The charging of costs by function should ensure an accurate reflection of cost category expenses, avoid confusion, and simplify record-keeping requirements. The kind of work actually performed should be the basis on which staff costs are charged to cost categories, and not merely the job title of the staff involved. In summary, there is a need to examine specific examples to determine how the costs should be most appropriately allocated. If functions are being performed by enrollees, regardless of the specific function under consideration, the costs should be charged to EWFB. Although not directly associated with the discussion above, it should also be noted that the costs of enrollee on-the-job training should be charged to the EWFB cost category as well. Procedures for proper allocation of staff and related costs. Most SCSEP projects are operated with a small staff. Local projects are often administered by one or two people. Under these circumstances, it is usually not possible to assign discrete duties to an individual. For example, normally the project director will not be limited to management duties (an administrative charge). Instead, this individual will also perform duties such as counseling and job development, which are appropriately charged to the OEC cost category. A project director may switch roles and therefore perform functions that involve changes in cost categories many times during the work day. Personnel and related non-personnel costs of project staff who perform services that benefit two cost categories may be allocated to the benefiting categories; this should be based on documented distributions of actual time worked or on other equitable cost allocation methods. Consistent with these clarifications, SCSEP grantees should: a. Establish procedures to ensure that staff time is charged properly among the cost categories. While many sponsors have already established adequate systems to collect such information, those that have not should do so. The system established should be easily implemented and should not be a significant additional administrative burden. National sponsors should review OMB Circular A-122, specifically Attachment B, Selected Items of Costs, Paragraph 6L.2. a, b, c and d to determine the suitability of the system. States should review OMB Circular A-87, particularly Attachment B, Selected Items of Cost, item 11. h. b. Advise ETA of any plans to use a survey method to allocate charges, and describe the methodology and timing as well as the source of the survey method. This notification should provide ETA with adequate time to review and comment on the proposal. c. Distribute the personnel time of project staff between the Administration and OEC cost categories. Time distribution sheets, not to be confused with time and attendance reports, should be maintained. Also, if applicable, there should be a distribution of time and costs among different funding sources based on the specific activities conducted for the funding agencies. d. Charge a portion of such project costs as rent, utilities, and staff training and travel as appropriate to the OEC cost category. Of course, these charges must be made on a reasonable and justifiable basis. Actual, documented experience, as opposed to estimates, is the preferred allocation approach. ETA encourages sponsors to develop their procedures with the assistance of competent fiscal staff or audit firms and the appropriate OMB circulars. Special Note: Sponsors should exercise prudence by giving names to staff positions that are appropriate to the job duties. For instance, a staff member whose principal duties are developing jobs, counseling enrollees, and coaching enrollees on work behavior is better described as a counselor than as an enrollee supervisor. It is important that all staff members have job descriptions that clearly and accurately delineate their job duties. Action: Sponsors should review this Bulletin and implement such actions as their circumstances dictate, continuing to follow the SCSEP regulations at 20 CFR Sections 641.401 through 641.406, along with all other applicable Federal regulations and circulars.