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.

Background: The Job Training for the Homeless Demonstration Program (JTHDP) was authorized under Section 731 of the McKinney Act (Public law 100-77). Under this legislation, the U.S. Department Labor (DOL) was authorized to plan, implement, and evaluate a job training demonstration program for homeless individuals. The resulting JTHDP, administered by DOL's Employment and Training Administration (ETA), represented the first comprehensive federal program specifically designed to provide employment and training services (and a wide range of other support services) for homeless individuals and to assist them in securing employment. The demonstration effort was launched in September 1988 with a series of grants to 32 locally operated demonstration sites across the nation. JTHDP was implemented over four phases, each somewhat distinct, building upon the experiences of the previous phase. Phase one was an "exploratory phase," designed to test the feasibility of the demonstration effort, help shape the direction of future phases, and develop a methodology for the evaluation. Phase two provided sites considerable flexibility in designing their service delivery strategies, selecting program participants, and determining which services participants received and how services were sequenced. Building on what was learned during JTHDP's initial phases, DOL/ETA announced a new initiative for JTHDP in November 1990. In accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) negotiated between DOL and HUD, during Phase three sites were required to establish a comprehensive housing assistance strategy. With the demonstration effort drawing to a close, the fourth phase emphasized "partnering" of JTHDP sites with local JTPA programs, as well as the continuation of projects in their localities after the demonstration effort concluded. A major emphasis of the final phase was on broadening and enhancing effective delivery of services to the homeless by the current Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Title II-A service delivery system. This report is two-fold: (1) to analyze the results of the JTHDP and (2) to draw out lessons learned from the demonstration that can help guide future efforts at providing comprehensive and cost-effective services to address the problem of homelessness in the United States. Particular emphasis is placed on the lessons learned with regard to providing employment and training services. However, there is a wide spectrum of other types of housing and support services that are needed to effectively help homeless individuals and families make the transition from homelessness to self-sufficiency. This particular report is designed to address the following major questions: -- Who did JTHDP serve? -- How did JTHDP grantees serve program participants? -- What were the key program linkages? -- What were the outcomes for participants and costs related to serving these participants? -- How successful were JTHDP sites in "partnering" with the JTPA service delivery system? -- Were JTHDP sites able to continue serving homeless individuals at the conclusion of the demonstration effort? Distribution: Copies of this report have been sent under separate cover to all addressees. Additional copies are available through the Office of Policy and Research, Dissemination Unit, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N5637, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone number: 202-219-7664 x119.

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

References: Compendium of State Unemployment Insurance Operations, Organizations and Relationships OMB Approval: This request for information has been approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, under OMB Number 1205-0333 which expires July 31, 2000. The respondent's obligation to reply is mandatory under Public Law 74-271. Persons are not required to respond to this collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 180 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Service, Room S-4516 Francis Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210 (Paperwork Reduction Project 1205-0333). Background: The first Compendium was published in July 1989. It was updated and republished in 1990 and most recently, updated in 1993 and republished in 1995. Department of Labor and SESA staff members have reported that the Compendium is useful and should be updated on a continuing basis to ensure that the information is current. The information has been used to respond to a variety of inquiries. It has also been helpful to SESAs for planning purposes because other SESAs using a particular type of procedure or technology can be identified and then contacted for specifics about the advantages and disadvantages of a procedure or technology. After the most recent update, the Compendium was stored on the World Wide Web. It is now universally accessible. The on-line search capacity provides a very quick means to locate items. The address of the on-line Compendium is http://www.itsc.state.md.us/ui_manage/compend/toc.html. More than three years have passed since the information for the 1993 update was collected. It is time to collect new information and publish a more current Compendium. The SESAs are asked to provide information on changes that need to be made to the tables in the Compendium to reflect their current operations, organizations and relationships. This information will be compiled and an updated Compendium will be published as early as possible in 1998. The cooperation of each SESA is needed to make this updating effort successful by providing the UI community with an accurate and current Compendium. SESAs are requested to submit any changes to the Compendium following the procedures outlined in Section 5. Future changes should be submitted as they occur following these same procedures. Information will be accepted on a continuing basis, therefore, SESAs should submit changes as they occur rather than waiting for a future request for new information. One new four-part question is included with the attached Compendium. This question addresses the production and mailing of quarterly tax and wage reports. Action Required: SESA Administrators are requested to have appropriate staff do the following tasks: (a) Select one appropriate answers to the new compendium question on attachment A. (b) Review each page of the attached copy of the Compendium, and indicate on appropriate pages any change that should be made with respect to information about your State. -- (1) In red ink, mark through any incorrect information about your State and/or; -- (2) In red ink, print your State name in the appropriate column, place an "X" or a "Yes" or "No" in the appropriate column(s) beside your State name, or write in a brief response that describes how a function or activity is accomplished in your State. (c) Return the new compendium question and ONLY the pages of the Compendium on which changes have been marked to the Unemployment Insurance Service, Attention: Diane Wood by May 1, 1998, or (d) States that have access to the Internet may accomplish this procedure by using e mail to transmit the information to woodd@doleta.gov. (e) Please supply a name and telephone number for the individual in your State who can answer any questions, should they arise, on the material submitted. Since the Compendium covers many different areas and programs this individual may be the person who was responsible for coordinating the information. He/she need not have full knowledge of all programs, but should know who can supply information about the various areas in your State that are covered by the Compendium.

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.

Chapter V, Section 5, and Chapter XI, Section 1, ET Handbook No. 391. Background: The locality-based comparability payments (known as locality pay) is authorized for GS employees in certain areas of the country. The Office of Personnel Management recently increased the number of areas to 32. The new pay localities are Hartford, CT and Orlando, FL. The locality rates of pay were computed based on the annual rates shown on the 1998 General Schedule and reflect the locality pay percentages authorized by the President on August 29, 1997. The locality rates of pay are considered basic pay for retirement, life insurance, premium pay, and severance pay purposes and for advances in pay. They are also used to compute worker's compensation payments and lump-sum payments for accrued and accumulated annual leave. They are NOT considered basic pay for other pay administration purposes. The locality pay increases became effective January 1998. Instruction: SESAs should provide copies of the attached 32 Federal Locality Salary Tables to appropriate staff members engaged in UCFE claims activities. Action Required: SESAs should follow the above instructions and provide the attached revised 32 Federal Locality Pay Tables to appropriate staff.

References: Section 3304(a), Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA); Draft Language and Commentary to Implement the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976--P.L. 94-566 ("1976 Draft Language") and Supplements 1-5; Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Handbook 301; Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 43-80, dated May 23, 1980. Background: As a result of implementing its new method of measuring nonmonetary performance, DOL has discovered that some States treat the "between seasons" denial involving athletic services in the same manner as the "between and within terms" denial involving educational services. Although there are similarities in the language of these laws, the applications are different. As a result, DOL is issuing this UIPL to remind the States of its position on when UC is not payable on athletic services and to explain the differences between the two sections. The Between Seasons Denial: Section 3304(a)(13), FUTA, requires, as a condition of employers in a State receiving credit against the Federal unemployment tax, that -- compensation shall not be payable to any individual on the basis of any services, substantially all of which consist of participating in sports or athletic events or training or preparing to so participate, for any week which commences during the period between two successive sport seasons (or similar periods) if such individual performed services in the first of such seasons (or similar periods) and there is a reasonable assurance that such individual will perform such services in the later of such seasons (or similar periods). [Emphasis added.] The Department, thus, interpreted FUTA as requiring States to deny UC to athletes on the basis of any services where "substantially all" of the services performed by the individual during the base period are based on athletically-related services. (See page 22, of Supplement 1, to the 1976 Draft Language.) To determine whether "substantially all" of the services were athletically-related, all services (athletic and non-athletic) must be considered together. If "substantially all" of the services have been performed in athletics, and a reasonable assurance that the individual will participate in athletics in the later season exists, then none of the wages may be used to establish eligibility, and all UC must be denied. Conversely, if the "substantially all" test has not been met, then FUTA permits the use of all wages to determine eligibility for UC. Concerning what constitutes "substantially all," DOL has previously stated that, at a minimum, "an individual shall be deemed to have performed substantially all services in such sports or athletic events if the individual engaged in such sports or athletic events for 90 percent or more of the total time spent in the base period in the performance of all covered services." (See page 22, of Supplement 1, to the 1976 Draft Language.) The definition of "substantially all" as 90 percent as a basis for denial of athletic services under Section 3304(a)(13), FUTA, is a minimum requirement. FUTA does not prohibit a more stringent denial. Therefore, a State may enact a law to deny benefits between seasons if the amount of time spent in athletic services was less than 90 percent of the total time spent in the performance of all services in the base period. (1976 Draft Language, Supplement 4, page 11). For example, a State may choose to deny an athlete if only 80 percent or more of the total time in the base period was spent participating in athletic services. Finally, a State may also deny benefits to athletes between sport seasons where there is no reasonable assurance. The Between and Within Terms Denial: Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA, requires that UC not be paid based on certain educational services between and within periods under certain conditions. This denial pertains only to UC based on educational services. It does not apply to UC based on any other covered employment. As noted in UIPL 34-80, "since compensation is based only on base period employment, the denial must apply only to the amount of benefits based on school service performed in the base period. An individual who has participated in the labor force in a capacity other than as a school employee cannot be denied benefit entitlement based on the non-school work simply because of also being a school employee." Thus, an unemployed individual who performed services for an educational employer and also performed services for a non-educational employer could receive reduced UC during the summer based on the non-educational employment (even if a reasonable assurance of school employment in the next school term exists). The denial would apply only to that portion of benefits based on educational employment during the base period. Also, unlike the athletic services provision, the States may not apply a stricter denial to educational services. Reasonable Assurance: Reasonable assurance in the "between seasons" denial for athletic services is used in a different manner than in the "between and within terms" denial for educational services. For the professional athlete, a mere indication of his/her intent to participate in the subsequent sports season without any verification from any sports organization can constitute "reasonable assurance." (See page 56, of the 1976 Draft Language.) However, the term "reasonable assurance," as it applies to educational employees under the "between and within terms" denial, must be verified by the educational institution before it can be established as a fact. (See page 54, of the 1976 Draft Language and page 17, Supplement 1, to the 1976 Draft Language). Action Required: Administrators are to provide this information to appropriate staff.

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