References. DINAP Bulletin No. 94-18, Attachment No. 1-A and Attachment No. 1-B and Federal Register/Vol.60, No. 28/ dated February 10, 1995, pp 8066-74. Background. Proposed JTPA Title IV-A and Title II-B grant allocations for DINAP grantees were published in the Federal Register on February 10, 1995, and in DINAP Bulletin No. 94-18. Action. Grantees are advised to continue using the allocations listed in DINAP Bulletin No. 94-18, Attachments 1-A and 1-B in the preparation of CAPs and SYEPs. Current grantees with changed geographic service areas and all new grantees have been informed of their modified or new allocations. Instructions will be issued regarding any changes affecting the planning documents (Budget Information Summary and Program Planning Summary) once final allocations have been published in the Federal Register. Inquiries. Questions should be directed to your DINAP Federal Representative.

References. DINAP Bulletin No. 93-18, Change 1; A Guide to Smartlink II, Enclosure (1), SUB-ACCOUNT STRUCTURE AND PROGRAM YEAR AND TITLE CODES. Background. Within the next few months, most section 401 grantees will be receiving their signed grant documents and Notices of Obligation (NOO's), which will authorize them to operate title II-B programs for the summer of 1995 and title IV-A programs for PY 1995. Grantees who use the PMS to draw down their JTPA funds will need to know and use the following subaccount codes to draw down the appropriate funds. Grantees who continue to obtain their funds through the SF-270, Request for Advance or Reimbursement, will not be affected by this bulletin. Action. The new subaccount code for PY 1994 title IV-A funds will be 6X. As indicated last year in DINAP Bulletin No. 93-18, Change 1, the subaccount code required to access title II-B funds for the summer of 1995 is 5J. These subaccounts correspond to the planning funding document (printout) transmitted to all grantees with DINAP Bulletin No. 94-18. All previously-issued subaccount codes remain the same, including the "split" subaccounts for title II-B funds for the summer of 1993. As a reminder, the subaccount code for PY 1993 title II-B funds is 3A, and the subaccount code for PY 1994 title IV-A funds is 5K. Grantees are reminded that, when drawing down funds under either title, the oldest remaining funds should be drawn down first, so that as many subaccounts as possible can be "zeroed out." The only exception to this rule is when a grantee has been officially notified that it has exceeded the carry-in limit for a given funding period and, as a result, a specified amount previously allocated is no longer available to the program. In such cases, the Grant Officer will issue further instructions on a case-by-case basis. Effective date. Date of this bulletin. Inquiries. Questions should be addressed to William Stewert on (202) 219- 7796, Andi Rebar on (202) 219-6683, Julia Murray on (202) 219- 8793, or Greg Gross on (202) 219-7509.

Reference. DINAP Bulletin No. 87-11. Background. The JTPA Amendments of 1992 revised section 167 of the Act to require the Secretary of Labor to issue final regulations to clarify the application of the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions of the JTPA and provide uniform procedures for implementing these provisions. On January 15, 1993, the Directorate of Civil Rights, the DOL agency responsible for enforcing the various Federal nondiscrimination and equal opportunity statutes applicable to federally-assisted programs, issued a final rule to implement the nondiscrimination and equal employment opportunity requirements of the JTPA in 29 CFR part 34. This final rule is in addition to the Department's nondiscrimination and equal opportunity regulations at 29 CFR parts 31 and 32. All three parts are applicable to JTPA, section 401 programs. In order to eliminate the burden of complying with other overlapping regulatory requirements, 29 CFR part 34 provides that compliance by JTPA grantees with part 34 constitutes compliance with the Department's Civil Rights Act of 1964 title VI regulations (29 CFR part 31) and with specified portions of the Department's Rehabilitation Act section 504 federally-assisted programs regulations (29 CFR part 32, subparts A, D and E). However, 29 CFR part 34 does not incorporate all of the requirements contained in 29 CFR part 32. Therefore, grantees remain responsible for the obligations imposed by subparts B and C and Appendix A of 29 CFR part 32, which pertain to employment practices and employment-related training, program accessibility, and accommodations under Rehabilitation Act section 504. Action. Grantees are to follow the regulatory requirements on nondiscrimination and equal opportunity contained in 29 CFR parts 31, 32 and the new part 34. Grantees should familiarize themselves with 29 CFR part 34. Inquiries. Contact your DINAP Federal Representative.

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.

References: UIPL 44-90 (September 21, 1990) Background: Charging a UI benefit to the appropriate employers' accounts involves two determinations: determining whether an employer should be charged for benefits paid under the claim in question; and allocating the benefit amount between the accounts of chargeable employers and the general pool account. Core RQC reviews the accuracy of both determinations as part of its program review of a SESA's tax accounting function. A Department of Labor Office of Inspector General study of experience rating raised the concern that employers might be systematically evading benefit charges by alleging that the claimant had quit or otherwise left for nonchargeable reasons. As a result, UI tax rates might be insufficiently experience-rated. In response RQC pilot tested a more thorough examination of Benefit Charging accuracy, including a verification of the accuracy of employer responses to notices of potential benefit charge. The results of that pilot test, conducted in six States for 9 months during 1991, are summarized in the attached paper. The paper also identifies options for assessing the accuracy of benefit charges in the future. The Department seeks comments on these options before deciding whether to go beyond, at some future date, the present Core RQC review. The final evaluation report on the Benefit Charging pilot was received from Abt Associates, Inc., in January 1993. Copies of this report, "Unemployment Insurance Revenue Quality Control: Benefit Charging Pilot Project" are available on request. Action Requested: State Administrators are requested to (a) provide comments to the appropriate Regional Office on the attached options paper 45 days from date of release of this UIPL, and (b) forward to the National Office (Attn: TEUQR) any benefit charge studies done within the past 5 years that might be helpful in considering these options. Inquiries: Questions should be directed to the appropriate Regional Office. Copies of the Abt Evaluation Report: Copies are available upon request from Burman Skrable, ETA/UIS/OQCI, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room S-4015, Washington, DC 20210, (202) 219-5220.

Reference: Training and Employment Information Notice (TEIN) No. 34-93, Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Targeting, Outreach, and Recruitment Technical Assistance Guide (TAG). Background: Approximately two years ago, DOL sponsored the development and distribution of a technical assistance guide (TAG) and three train- the-trainer sessions on Targeting, Outreach and Recruitment (TOR). The TAG and training were presented as part of a series of technical assistance and training developed to assist States and service delivery areas (SDAs) in the implementation of quality JTPA programs. As a follow-on to the TOR TAG and training, the Private Industry Council (PIC) of Central Florida has developed a two-day workshop to help JTPA organizations further develop or enhance their marketing, outreach, and recruitment efforts. The DOL-sponsored workshop is scheduled to take place at the Hilton at Walt Disney World Village on April 28 and 29 prior to the National Association of Workforce Development Professionals (NAWDP) conference held on April 30 through May 3 in Orlando, Florida. The PIC has done an extensive mailing notifying persons in the employment and training system about the workshop. Action Required: a. Please share information about this upcoming workshop with the SDAs, Private Industry Councils, State Training Institutes and other appropriate agencies in you State as soon as possible. b. Please advise your colleagues that should they be unable to attend this workshop on such short notice, the Department is still open to receiving information on the need for additional technical assistance and/or training in this subject area. Additional workshops may be scheduled dependent on the need expressed.

References: UIPL 33-89 (May 18, 1989), and UIPL 28-92 (June 4, 1992). Background: During each of the past three fiscal years the National Office (NO) has provided an increasing number of SESAs with the resources necessary to implement QC Program Improvement (PI) recommendations. The States have used these resources to successfully implement a wide range of PI recommendations. Policy: The NO will continue in FY 93 to provide limited funding for SESAs to implement QC/PI recommendations within their UI program. States are invited to submit proposals for additional funds for FY 93. The proposal eligibility is open to all States that have documented problems identified through QC findings that need to be corrected to improve operations, but do not have sufficient funding to implement these improvements. SESAs submitting requests for additional funding should describe: problems identified from QC findings; the changes, actions, etc., to be accomplished in the proposed project; the type of personnel that will be involved; and the additional resources in staff and material (e.g., programming and equipment) that will be required, including one-time start-up costs. The proposal must also contain the timeframes for the process including development, training and implementation. In addition, where outside contractor assistance is necessary, the proposal must include an estimate of the level of contractor effort. States should have developed and started the initial implementation phase of the project by October 1, 1993. After one year of operation, SESAs must submit a report describing the implementation effort and the resulting outcomes. This report should be received in the NO by December 18, 1994. The SESA must also agree to periodic Regional Office/NO monitoring of progress. Funds granted for PI implementation are for the express purpose presented in the agency's proposal as approved, including any clarifications or stipulations made by the Department. By accepting funding for this initiative, States are agreeing to the conditions and timeframes set forth in the proposal. Failure to implement funded proposals, or redirection of any portion of the funds allocated for this purpose, may subject the funding to recapture or audit exception. SESAs which are unable to initiate PI projects and/or obligate the funds should return those funds to the NO as soon as they become aware of their inability to implement the project, so that other approved projects may be funded. In the event unforeseen circumstances prevent the State from obligating these funds by December 31, 1993, a formal extension request must be submitted to the NO, Office of Quality Control. The extension request should provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances, and should be for a limited time period only. PI Implementation Funding: The total dollar amount to be set aside for this project is not yet decided. However, the NO will provide funding to those SESAs selected until the amount dedicated to the initiative is exhausted. The NO must obligate the funding by September 30, 1993. Procedures for Submitting and Reviewing Proposals: a. State Agency Procedures. SESAs wishing to undertake QC/PI implementation projects should submit a comprehensive proposal based on the criteria above. Attachment A provides an outline for proposals. The proposal must be received in the appropriate Regional Office (RO) no later than ninety (90) days from the date of this UIPL. The RO should submit these proposals to the NO, Attn: TEUQI as soon as possible. b. NO Proposal Review Procedures. Proposals received timely by the NO will be evaluated according to the procedure contained in Attachment B. The panel will review each proposal to determine whether the proposal is consistent with the format contained in Attachment A. All applicants will be notified concerning the outcome of this review. Action Required: Proposals are to be sent to the appropriate RO. Upon completion of the PI Implementation Grant, the State should send the final report to the NO. A copy of this report should be sent to the RO. SESA administrators are requested to provide this information to appropriate staff.

References: The Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), 26 U.S.C. 3301 et seq., and the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (NCSA), as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. 12501 et seq. Background: The Department has received several inquiries concerning whether Federal unemployment compensation (UC) law requires State UC coverage of services performed by AmeriCorps participants for State or local governments and certain nonprofit organizations in National and Community Service Programs under the NCSA. This UIPL provides guidance on this issue. Discussion: a. AmeriCorps. Under the NCSA, the Corporation for National Service makes grants to States, which in turn grant the funds to local non-profit organizations and educational institutions which operate the National and Community Service Programs. The Corporation also grants funds directly to national non-profit organizations, State and local governmental entities and Native American Indian tribes for these public service programs. The Corporation is charged with the operation of three programs: AmeriCorps, Learn and Serve America and the National Senior Service Corps. Participants in AmeriCorps grantee programs perform full-time or part-time public services in exchange for post-service educational benefits. Full-time participants receive a stipend for living expenses while enrolled. Participants generally perform public service in one of four areas: education, environment, public safety or human service. For example, participants may provide services at a soup kitchen or may transform a vacant lot into an urban garden. b. Federal UC Law Requirements. Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA, requires that UC must be payable based on services performed in the employ of State and local governments and certain nonprofit organizations. Specifically, UC must be payable based on the services described in Section 3309(a)(1), FUTA. Section 3309(a)(1), FUTA, applies to those services excluded from the definition of employment solely by reason of being performed for the State and local governments described in Section 3306(c)(7), FUTA, or the religious, charitable, educational and other nonprofit organizations described in Section 3306(c)(8), FUTA. Exclusions to this required coverage are found in the other paragraphs of Section 3306(c), FUTA, and Section 3309(b), FUTA. Whether an individual performs services in the employ of a governmental or nonprofit entity is determined under the common-law test required by Section 3306(i), FUTA. In sum, Federal UC law requires that UC must be paid based on services performed by an employee for governmental and nonprofit entities unless an exclusion exists in Federal law. The question concerning AmeriCorps is whether an employment relationship exists between the AmeriCorps participants and the grantee/ subgrantee programs. c. Application of Federal UC Law to AmeriCorps Services. The General Counsel for the Corporation for National Service has provided an opinion (attached) which interprets the NCSA as precluding, as a matter of law, the finding of an employer- employee relationship between the grantee/subgrantee program and the participant. Since the Corporation for National Sevice is the organization with the responsibility for administering and interpreting the NCSA, the Department has chosen to defer to its interpretation. Therefore, since there is no employer-employee relationship under this interpretation, the required coverage provision of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA, does not apply. At the same time, nothing in the NCSA or the FUTA requires States to exclude services performed by Americorps participants. Whether such services are covered is a matter to be determined under each State's law. Action Required: State agency administrators are requested to provide the above information to appropriate staff.

Reference: TEIN No. 5-92, dated August 14, 1992. Background: These supplements provide options for problem solving and additional assistance to States and SDAs in understanding and using follow-up data in planning, program design and other management areas. Action Required: States should ensure dissemination of these modules and indices to all staff with responsibilities for follow-up and/or ties with planning, evaluation and other performance management responsibilities.