Reference: TEIN 7-88. Information: The attached checklists are issued to notify the JTPA and ES systems of those TEINs and TEGLs that have been rescinded or canceled during the last program year. There are also checklists of all TEINS and TEGLS remaining active.

Reference: ET Handbook No. 394, Unemployment Insurance Financial Data 1938-1982. Background: The attached tables contain selected unemployment insurance financial information for calendar years 1990 (revised) and 1991. These tables are a supplement and therefore comparable to those tables contained in the referenced handbook and described in its glossary. Selected data on the Federal-State extended benefits program and on employers on a reimbursable basis are shown separately. Data on reserve funds are also included. All employment and wage data used in these tables were furnished by State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs) and include estimates for some States. Note that columns 02-22 are for taxable employment only; columns 34-43 are for reimbursable employment only; and columns 44-52 contain Federal-State extended benefits information. Action Required: SESAs are requested to review the attached tables and report any corrections to the National Office by October 29, 1993 (Attention: Sheila Woodard, TEURA).

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

References: Titles I and II of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act (EUC Act) of 1991 (Public Law (P.L.) 102-164), as amended by P.L. 102-182, P.L. 102-244, P.L. 102-318, and the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993, P.L. 103-6; the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation (FSEUCA) Act of 1970, as amended by P.L. 102-318; GAL 10-92; GAL 12-92 and Changes 1-4 (57 Fed. Reg. 54106, 58 Fed. Reg. 34484); UIPL 9-92 and Changes 1-5; UIPL 45-92 (57 Fed. Reg. 47871, 47873); GAL 7-93, dated March 5, 1993; 20 CFR Part 615; ET Handbook 392; ET Handbook 399. Background: P.L. 102-318 and P.L. 103-6 amended several sections of the EUC Act of 1991 and the FSEUCA. However, this letter will focus on the provisions that are effective with respect to weeks beginning after October 2, 1993. Section 2(b) of P.L. 103-6 amended Sections 102(f) and 106(a) of the EUC Act of 1991 to end the EUC program, with respect to new EUC claims, after October 2, 1993. The EUC program will be phased out between October 3, 1993 and January 15, 1994. (The phase-out period.) The phase-out period covers claimants who established their EUC claim effective prior to October 3, 1993. The amendments to Section 101(e) of the EUC Act of 1991 terminate the Governor's option to elect to trigger off an extended benefit (EB) period (with respect to any EB period beginning after October 2, 1993) and provides, instead, that individuals eligible under both the EB and EUC programs shall be paid for weeks of unemployment beginning after October 2, 1993, under the program where the greater entitlement exists. This requirement necessitates special handling of such claims to determine the appropriate program for payment. Controlling Guidance: The interpretations in these EUC operating instructions are issued to the States and cooperating State agencies as guidance provided by the Department of Labor in its role as the principal in the EUC program and supplement GAL 12-92 and Changes 1-2 (57 Fed. Reg. 54106) and GAL 7-93 (dated March 5, 1993). As agents of the United States, the States and cooperating State agencies may not vary from the operating instructions in this document (or subsequent or supplemental operating instructions) without the prior approval of the Department of Labor. Eligibility During Phaseout of EUC Program: The EUC program is scheduled to phase-out after October 2, 1993, and no EUC will be paid on any new claim to establish an EUC account effective after that date. Individuals who established an EUC claim effective before October 2, 1993, will continue to be eligible for any week thereafter if otherwise eligible for EUC. However, under no circumstances will any payments of EUC be made for any week beginning after January 15, 1994. Payment of the Greater of EB or EUC Entitlement: Section 101(d)(2) of P.L. 102-318 amended the EUC Act by adding a new subsection 101(e)(2) to provide that an individual with EB entitlement, whether or not the individual applies therefor, in a State in an EB period after October 2, 1993, and who has a EUC account balance shall receive, for weeks of unemployment beginning after October 2, 1993, payments under the program, either EUC or EB, under which the individual's monetary entitlement is the greater. This provision requires that EUC shall be paid only to an individual whose potential EUC benefits are greater than the EB entitlement (maximum benefit amount), as of the beginning of the first week beginning in the EB eligibility period for such individual, whether a claim for EB has been filed or not. The intent of this provision is to provide the individual with the greater level of extended compensation available for weeks of unemployment beginning during the individual's EB eligibility period. Therefore, to determine the "greater" benefit level available to the claimant, the State agency must determine the maximum monetary amount of EUC or EB benefits that is potentially payable to the individual. This means that if the end of the EUC program (January 15, 1994), the end of the individual's benefit year, or rights to regular benefits, will prevent the individual from receiving the level of benefits determined under the provisions of Section 102(b) of the EUC Act or State law provisions in conformity with Section 202(b), FSEUCA, the State agency must make a one-time determination specific to the individual's situation based on the actual potential maximum benefit amount that could be payable if all other eligibility requirements are met. No redetermination of the "greater" level of benefits available is made as benefits subsequently paid under the required program reduce the benefit balance. When a State is in an EB period and the potential EB and EUC entitlements are equal, the State shall pay EB. To determine the program under which the claimant is to be paid, the State must examine each individual's specific situation as follows: A. Claimant Receiving EUC Based on a Prior Benefit Year Under Section 101(f) of the EUC Act Effective for Weeks Beginning After July 3, 1992. A claimant who is receiving EUC based on a prior benefit year, having postponed establishing a new benefit year for regular benefits, is not an "exhaustee" for EB purposes. Additionally, the claimant does not have an "applicable benefit year" for EB purposes, as the benefit year upon which the EUC is based ended prior to the beginning of the EB period. Therefore, no determination of "greater" entitlement is appropriate. Such an individual, who is not eligible for EB, will remain potentially eligible for EUC under the provisions of Section 101(f) of the EUC Act. B. Claimant Receiving EUC Based on a Current Benefit Year. A claimant who is receiving EUC based on a current benefit year is an "exhaustee" for EB purposes. Therefore, the State must determine the claimant's EB entitlement in accordance with State law provisions which conform to Section 202(b), FSEUCA, and shall pay either EUC or EB for weeks of unemployment beginning after October 2, 1993, whichever the monetary entitlement is the greater, as explained above. When the current benefit year upon which the EUC or EB is based ends, the State agency must further review the claimant's specific situation as follows: (1) When "Greater" Entitlement is under the EUC Act. When a claimant's "greater" entitlement is under the EUC program, and the current benefit year ends and the claimant has rights to establish a new benefit year for regular benefits, Section 101(f) of the EUC Act applies and the claimant has an option to continue to receive EUC, on the existing EUC claim, or file for regular benefits; (2) When "Greater" Entitlement is under the FSEUCA. When the claimant's "greater" entitlement is under the EB program, and the current benefit year ends and the claimant has rights to regular benefits, the claimant ceases to be an "exhaustee" for EB purposes and has no further rights to EB. Such an individual has no option to postpone establishing a new benefit year for regular compensation under the provisions of Section 101(f) of the EUC Act, as the requirements of Section 101(e) which deny EUC to individuals with greater EB entitlement, effectively terminates all rights to EUC based on the prior benefit year. Therefore, such an individual has rights to establish a new benefit year for regular benefits only. Administrative Funding: When an EB period triggers "on" in a State between October 3, 1993 and January 15, 1994, the State agency will receive additional administrative funds to determine that an EUC claimant's "greater" entitlement exists under the EUC program as of the beginning of the first week beginning in the EB eligibility period for such individual or as of the beginning of the first week beginning in the high extended benefits eligibility period for such individual, as appropriate, through the contingency funding process. Staffyears earned will be computed by using a minutes per unit (MPU) value of no more than 20 minutes. States have the option to use a lesser value MPU if they deem appropriate. This information shall be included on line 13 of the regular UI-3 worksheet, Section B. Staffyears used for this activity should be included on line 1, Section A. Funding for this assessment when the "greater" entitlement is under the EB program is covered by the regular EB initial claims MPU. Funding for the denial of further EUC benefits, when the "greater" entitlement is under the EB program, is covered by the allocated non-monetary determination MPU. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to make a copy of this letter available to all appropriate staff.

Background: Sections (4)(37) and 203(b) of the amended JTPA, and Item 11 of the Standardized Program Information Reporting System (SPIR), have defined Title II program participation as beginning with objective assessment. At the same time, with program targeting beginning in PY 1993, larger numbers of hard-to-serve individuals are expected to be served by the program. Such individuals may begin the assessment process, but never receive training or other services. Training and Employment Information Notice 37-92, dated June 28, 1993, provided clarification regarding the way in which performance against required standards is to be measured as provided for in Section 628.530 of the JTPA regulations published December 29, 1992. Specifically, Title II-A adult and adult welfare terminees, and Title II-C youth terminees, who received only objective assessment (no training or job search assistance) would be excluded from performance calculations. All Title III (EDWAA) terminees who received retraining or basic readjustment services would be included in performance calculations. Since procedures for performance standards adjustments in light of these exclusions were not specifically enumerated in the aforementioned Information Notice, the Department is transmitting additional clarification in this area. Exclusions from Performance Standards Adjustments: States commonly arrive at adjusted performance levels using USDOL "Worksheets." To complete the worksheet, SDA/SSG "factor values" or percentages are entered. These factor values are based upon numbers of terminees. (States which do not use the Department's optional adjustment methodology would still be faced with using percentages of terminee characteristics.) Since "terminees" include former participants who received only objective assessment, the question arises as to whether or not States should consider these particular terminees when arriving at the appropriate percentages for the applicable local factors. However, since terminees who received only objective assessment or supportive services are not to be considered in performance calculations, these terminees are also not to be considered with respect to local factor values. Without this proviso, performance standards would be lowered for areas providing objective assessment to hard-to-serve individuals who are subsequently referred to other services/programs because it had been determined that the services offered by JTPA would not be appropriate in light of the individuals' severe circumstances. This is clearly not the intention of the Department. Therefore, in identifying percentages of terminee characteristics to be used as "factor values" for performance standards adjustments, the universe should consist solely of the terminee group to be included in calculating actual performance (i.e., terminees who have received training, job search assistance, or basic readjustment services). State Action: States are to distribute this Information Notice to all relevant officials within the State responsible for implementing performance management policies and requirements for Program Year 1993.

Background: Program letters, or the five letter series, are considered temporary directives containing instructions or information of a short-term nature which complement one of the five parts of the ES Manual. Rather than rewrite and reissue expiring program letters which still contain relevant information or instructions, the expiration date is extended. Attached is a listing of program letters with extended expiration dates for the above period.

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

Background: In line with the "reinvention effort" of the Department of Labor the signature authority for UIPLs has been delegated to Mary Ann Wyrsch, Director of Unemployment Insurance Service. This change will occur October 1, 1993. Action Required: SESA Administrators should notify staff of this change.

Reference: Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 45-93, Profiling Unemployment Insurance (UI) Claimants. Background: The UI program is heavily dependent upon automation for all of its functions. Much of the automation of the UI program has taken place over the last two decades. As automation technology advances and is more accessible for addressing all aspects of UI operations, many States are seeking to apply this current technology in an effort to increase productivity and improve customer services. DOL believes that a central capacity for exploring and taking advantage of the latest technology in hardware and software for all States is a means by which the Federal partner may assist in addressing State resource constraints and support DOL initiatives, such as the "new profiling system" and "one-stop career centers," which will impact SESAs' current UI operations. During Fiscal Year (FY) 1994, DOL will undertake a new comprehensive profiling system which will focus on UI claimants. The objectives of this DOL initiative are to identify new UI claimants who might experience reemployment difficulties and to refer those claimants to reemployment services early in their unemployment period. As previously envisioned, the profiling initiative will include the use of a "model" for identifying the UI claimants most likely to be dislocated workers. This model will be integrated into initial claims processing using automation. In addition, automated processes are necessary to provide for the remainder of the profiling system which includes selection, referral and feedback components. Project Concept: DOL's Employment and Training Administration (ETA) plans to enter into a cooperative agreement with a State that will be selected to establish and operate an ITC. The ITC could be an organization of a SESA, a contractor-operated facility, a facility operated by a university or consortium of SESAs, or some combination of the above. Organization of the ITC could take a number of forms. The exact organizational structure will not be finalized until input from States on various alternatives is considered and evaluated. Regardless of the ITC's organizational structure, a Steering Committee, comprised of Federal and State staff, is seen as an important element. The Steering Committee would perform strategic planning and establish, implement, and monitor ITC policies and procedures. Other responsibilities would include reviewing projects at key milestone points throughout the development life cycle and providing feedback on systems design and implementation planning, as well as evaluating ITC products for technical merit, exportability and usefulness. The selected State must be able to provide for rapid procurement procedures so that the ITC can quickly respond to changing situations, either hardware or software. The ITC must also be able to attract top-quality staff, either as permanent employees, temporary employees, independent contractors and/or consultants. A flexible staffing pattern is seen as an important feature of the ITC so that necessary adjustments can be made quickly and routinely. Initially, the ITC's focus will be on supporting the development and implementation of a national profiling system. Subsequently, the ITC will emphasize development of other UI applications for final development by SESAs and technology exchange among SESAs and other interested parties. The ITC will focus on innovative solutions and efficient use of the latest technology arising from lessons learned from SESAs' experiences with past UI automation grants, other SESA automation efforts, and other State and Federal agencies and/or private industry experiences. In addition, the ITC will be involved in supporting the UI portion of the information systems envisioned for DOL's one-stop career center initiative. Short Term Goals: As previously indicated, the first project to be undertaken by the ITC will be to support SESAs in the development and implementation of profiling systems. Appropriate models will be provided to the SESAs for final modification and implementation. The ITC will provide support for product installation and use. The ITC will also provide system enhancements periodically, based on States' requirements and feedback. The national profiling system will be designed for implementation on multiple platforms. All systems developed at the ITC would have design specifications available to the States for their own development efforts. Model systems and applications produced by the ITC will recognize the diversity of State ADP environments. Long Term Goals: The ITC will implement some combination of the following functions, based upon States' requirements: a. Perform systems analysis design and development for the SESAs. Supporting DOL initiatives such as the national profiling system and the one-stop career center initiative will be an ongoing and critical task of the ITC. When developing new applications, an individual State may be the initial customer, but all systems will be developed using structured/modular components to attain maximum portability to other States. b. Establish and support a Central UI Electronic Bulletin Board System for technology exchange and information sharing with all States regarding lessons learned, "best practices" and automation projects sponsored by SESAs along with appropriate points of contact. c. Sponsor prototype projects and demonstrations relating to maximizing the use of automation and information technology for UI operations. d. Provide clearinghouse appraisal for ADP systems and software. The ITC will appraise software applications (both UI systems developed by States and commercial packages) for their use in UI operations. e. Provide technical training to States either at the ITC or by sending trainers to seminars or conferences. Training would be on the use of new technologies, specific commercial packages, or ITC developed applications. f. Maintain a Hotline support staff capable of providing technical guidance for implementing new technologies and utilizing ITC developed products. State Responsibilities: The selected State will carry out the following tasks in accordance with the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement: a. The State will operate, administer and oversee the ITC as agreed upon with DOL. b. The State will designate a project officer to oversee administrative functions and requirements and to serve as the State's representative with DOL. c. The State will report to DOL as defined in the cooperative agreement between DOL and the State. DOL Responsibilities: a. DOL will designate a Federal Representative. b. In coordination with the State's project officer and the Steering Committee, DOL will monitor and inspect State and ITC-contractor (if any) performance and products on an on- going basis to ensure compliance with the scope of work and ascertain the level of performance. c. DOL will review and approve the ITC's project staff as specified in the cooperative agreement and any adjustments thereto. Selection of State: To initiate the project, ETA will request interested States to submit proposals for the design, development, establishment and management of an ITC. State selection will be competitive, based on criteria outlined in a directive to be issued. Proposals received timely by the National Office will be evaluated by a panel according to criteria to be established. The panel will review each proposal to determine if the proposal meets the criteria and to select the overall best proposal. Project Implementation Date: The project should begin during the second quarter of FY 1994 with the issuance of a directive soliciting proposals from States. Selection of the State and the signing of a cooperative agreement with DOL is expected by the fourth quarter of FY 1994. Project Funding: Funding for the ITC is available for FY 1994. Continuation of the cooperative agreement in subsequent years is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds for the ITC. The ITC is expected to be included in DOL's FY 1995 budget request. The ITC would be initially approved for a 24-month period, called the pilot phase. At the end of the pilot phase, an evaluation will be conducted to determine whether to continue operations. The cooperative agreement will provide a fixed amount of reimbursement to cover costs of the project and will specify the period of performance. Action: SESA Administrators are encouraged to comment on any aspect of the ITC plan. Alternative approaches to the management of the ITC and functions to be performed by the ITC are especially welcomed. Comments should be sent by November 12, 1993, to the National Office (ATTN: Wayne Zajac, TEUMC) or FAX on 202-219-8506.

References: Title I of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) Act of 1991, P.L. 102-164, as amended by P.L.s 102-182, 102-244, 102-318, and the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993, P.L. 103-6; the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended; 20 CFR Part 615; GAL 12-92 (57 Fed. Reg. 54106) and Changes 1-4, (58 Fed. Reg. 34484) ; UIPL 9-92 and Changes 1-5; UIPL 45-92 (57 Fed. Reg. 47871, 47873); GAL 7-93, dated March 5, 1993. Background: GAL 12-92, dated September 11, 1992, and published in the Federal Register on November 16, 1992 (52 Fed. Reg. 54106) consolidated earlier operating instructions for the EUC program based on the amendments to the EUC Act of 1991 and other provisions of P.L. 102-318. This document became the official controlling guidance for the States and the cooperating State agencies in the administration of the EUC program. In response to questions received from the States and other interested parties, the Department issued UIPL 9-92 and Changes 1- 5. These UIPLs have provided the States and cooperating State agencies with responses to various questions that have arisen regarding the administration of the EUC program. Some State agencies' questions, concerning the answer to one question in Change 5, indicate a need for clarification of the operating instructions with respect to Section 102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318. This GAL clarifies the implementation of Section 102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318, provides guidance with respect to the handling of improper payments, and revises Section III.C.2. of Attachment A to GAL 12-92 for the reasons described below. Controlling Guidance: The revised operating instructions in this GAL 12-92, Change 5, are issued to the States and cooperating State agencies and constitute the controlling guidance provided by the Department in its role as the principal in the EUC program. As agents of the United States, the States may not vary from the operating instructions in GAL 12-92 and GAL 12-92, Changes 1-4, or this Change 5 (or any subsequent or supplemental operating instructions) without the prior approval of the Department of Labor. Clarification: Section 102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318 provides that an individual with a current (subsequent) benefit year, as of July 3, 1992, that was established after the enactment of the EUC Act (November 15, 1991), may defer the receipt of regular benefits in order to receive EUC based on the prior "applicable benefit year," until rights to such EUC benefits are exhausted. This section is effective for weeks of unemployment beginning after July 3, 1992. Questions have been raised regarding when rights to benefits based on a prior benefit year are exhausted. That is, whether EUC, based upon the first (prior) benefit year, may be paid after the end of the second (subsequent) benefit year, or whether those EUC rights terminate at the end of the second benefit year. The definition of "applicable benefit year" at 20 CFR 615.2(c)(2) applies in determining the prior benefit year upon which EUC is payable. This regulation provides that the "applicable benefit year" shall be the claimant's current benefit year or most recent benefit year ending in the extended compensation period. Therefore, a claimant exercising an option under Section 102(b)(2)(B) to defer rights to regular compensation in the current (subsequent) benefit year, in order to receive EUC attributable to a prior benefit year, has rights to such EUC only during the period that the prior benefit year is the "applicable benefit year" for EUC purposes. Hence, when the claimant's rights to regular benefits based on the current benefit year are exhausted, either monetarily or by virtue of the benefit year expiring, this subsequent benefit year now becomes the claimant's "applicable benefit year" for extended compensation purposes, and all rights to benefits based on the prior "applicable benefit year" are exhausted. See also 20 CFR 615.(h)(2). This interpretation produces the identical results for an individual covered by Section 102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318 as is produced by Section 101(f) of the EUC Act. In both cases, the individual receives EUC based on the "applicable benefit year" (i.e., the most recently expired or exhausted benefit year). This interpretation is applicable to all weeks of unemployment beginning after July 3, 1992. Amendment to Operating Instructions: The revised operating instructions in this GAL 12-92, Change 5, are issued to the States and cooperating State agencies and constitute the controlling guidance provided by the Department in its role as the principal in the EUC program. As agents of the United States, the States may not vary from the operating instructions in GAL 12-92 and GAL 12-92, Changes 1-4, or this Change 5 (or any subsequent or supplemental operating instructions) without the prior approval of the Department of Labor. At the end of Section III.C.2. of Attachment A of GAL 12-92, insert the following new paragraph: "When the current benefit year (subsequent), of an individual who has exercised an option to postpone regular benefits to receive EUC, ends, the subsequent benefit year becomes the "applicable benefit year" for EUC purposes as defined in 20 CFR 615. Therefore, all rights to EUC based on the prior benefit year are exhausted. Any further EUC entitlement must be based on the most recently expired/exhausted benefit year." Guidance for Handling Improper Payments: Some claimants were paid EUC based on the "prior" benefit year after their rights to EUC based on that benefit year were exhausted. In order to correct the problem, States will have to review the payment history of each individual who exercised an option in accordance with Section 102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318 to determine if a payment was issued, on the EUC claim based on a prior benefit year, after the benefit year ending date of the subsequent claim. When it is determined that an individual has been improperly paid benefits under one program (or based on one claim) and was entitled to benefits for the same week(s) of unemployment under another program, procedures permitting the necessary payment adjustments to be made by correcting the bookkeeping charges are appropriate. In correcting these improper payments, those claimants, with no regular entitlement or those who exercise an option to postpone establishing a new benefit year pursuant to Section 101(f) of the EUC Act, are entitled to EUC based on the "subsequent" benefit year for the same weeks that were previously paid. Others with regular entitlement and who do not exercise an option to receive EUC will be entitled to regular benefits for the same weeks that were improperly paid. In making the adjustments, the week(s) claimed and associated payment(s) is transferred to the claim where the entitlement exists. If the payment for the week is the correct amount of compensation, the claimant would have received the amount to which he/she is entitled. If the payment made was less than the appropriate entitlement, an adjustment payment would be issued. However, if the payment exceeds the entitlement for the week paid, the excess amount would be a non-fraudulent overpayment and would be handled under the appropriate Federal or State law, rules or regulations with respect to the program (of entitlement) where the overpayment exist. If the payment transfer results in an EUC overpayment, the requirements of Section 105 of the EUC Act, including the waiver provisions, apply. The waiver provision of Section 102(b)(2)(A) of P.L. 102-318 does not apply in this situation as it is specific to EUC benefits to which an individual would have been entitled if the individual was not eligible for regular benefits prior to the enactment of P.L. 102-318. Effective Date: The operating guidance contained in this directive shall be implemented immediately. If procedures consistent with the guidance provided in this directive have not been previously followed, a corrective action plan must be submitted to the appropriate Regional Office no later than 30 days after the issuance of this GAL 12-92, Change 5. Action Required: SESA administrators shall: a. Provide the controlling guidance contained in this directive to appropriate staff; b. Ensure that payments to individuals who exercised an option under the provisions of Section 102(b)(2)(B) of P.L. 102-318 conform to the requirements as explained in this GAL; c. Submit a corrective action plan, if required to do so under paragraph 7 above, to the appropriate Regional Office no later than 30 days after the issuance of this directive; and, d. Where EUC payments to individuals exceeded Federal or State benefit entitlement for the weeks paid, ensure that the implementation includes the proper accounting for EUC payments and the establishment of overpayments, as appropriate.