Reference: Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 5-93 (April 11, 1994): "Summer Challenge II: A Program of Work and Learning for America's Youth." Background: As stated in TEGL No. 5-93, the Department of Labor contracted with Brandeis University and Johns Hopkins University to produce several technical assistance guides (TAGs) on various aspects of the summer program. The following worksite supervisor training handbooks, designed to promote the integration of work and learning, were developed containing techniques that incorporate SCANS foundations and competencies on the job: a. Developing Learning-Rich Clerical Tasks b. Developing Learning-Rich Tasks for Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resource Management Action: States are requested to share this information with their Service Delivery Areas as soon as possible.

References. DINAP Bulletins 90-35, 91-13, and 91-27. Background. As of this date, most Section 401 grantees have submitted the required modifications needed to transfer obligational authority from the 99-7/9 grants to the 99-1 grants, by title. These modifications are being reviewed and will be approved if consistent with the closeout figures. Once the modifications are signed by the Grant Officer, ETANS Division of Accounting will transfer the remaining obligational authority from the 1987 grant to the 1991 grant. If a grantee has drawn down Federal payments in excess of the costs reported in the closeout package, it will have to transfer those excess payments from the 1987 grant to the 1991 grant. To summarize, ETA transfers the obligational authority and if necessary the grantee transfers Federal payments. It is assumed that any remaining Title IV-A unexpended obligations in the 1987 grant are from PY 1990. That PMS subaccount ends in 741 (example B1234741). All funds in the PMS system must be identified by title and program year. Therefore, any PY 1990 carry-in obligations will have a separate subaccount in the 1991 grant. That subaccount ends in 141 (example B1234141). If a grantee has to transfer IV-A payments, it will credit (a negative draw) its subaccount ending in 741 and debit its subaccount ending in 141. Likewise, it is assumed that any remaining Title II-B funds are from PY 1989. That PMS subaccount ends in 736 (example B1234736). Any PY 1989 carry-in funds will have a separate subaccount in the 1991 grant that ends in 136 (example B1234136). If a grantee has to transfer 11-B payments, it will credit (a negative draw) its subaccount ending in 736 and debit its subaccount ending in 136. The examples on the following pages cover any situation involving carry-in which the grantee can encounter. Action. All grantees on the PMS should review the following examples to determine which one(s) fit their particular carry-in situation, by title. Note: In all cases where a grantee has drawn down Federal payments in excess of its reported costs as reflected on the closeout documents, these excess payments must be transferred by the grantees from the 1987 PMS subaccount to the 1991 PMS subaccount created to handle that carry-in, by title. The following examples cover all possible situations and should clarify the procedures. The examples use only Title IV-A but the procedures would be exactly the same for Title II-B. 1. The grantees obligations, federal payments, and costs are all equal. PY 1990 TITLE IV-A FUNDS OBLIGATIONS COSTS PAYMENTS $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 In this situation, there will be no unexpended obligations to carry in and no transfer of payments is necessary. 2. The grantee's costs are less than obligations and payments are equal to costs. PY 1990 TITLE IV-A FUNDS OBLIGATIONS COSTS PAYMENTS $100,000 $80,000 $80,000 In this situation, there are $20,000 of unexpended obligations that may be available for carry-in. But, because payments do not exceed costs in the 1987 grant, no transfer of payments is necessary. 3. The grantees costs are less than obligations and payments exceed costs. PY 1990 TITLE IV-A FUNDS (BXXXX741) OBLIGATIONS COSTS PAYMENTS $100,000 $80,000 $90,000 In this situation, there are $20,000 of unexpended obligations that may be available for carry-in. Because payments exceed costs by $10,000 in the 1987 grant, they must be moved into the 1991 grant. NOTE BENE!!!! These payments are NOT being transferred into the subaccount for the PY 1991 Title IV-A funds (BXXXX177). PMS requires that funds be drawn by program year and title, so a new account for PY 1990 Title IV-A funds will be set up (BXXXX141). (The only difference is the "7" and "1" in the sixth position.) Procedures for Transferring Payments Before the transfer, the two subaccounts would appear as follows: 1987 GRANT (BXXXX741) 1991 GRANT (BXXXX141) PMS SUBACCOUNT FOR PMS SUBACCOUNT FOR PY 1990 TITLE IV-A FUNDS PY 1990 TITLE IV-A FUNDS Obligations $100,000 Obligations $0 Payments 90,000 Payments 0 Assuming that the grantees will carry in the full $20,000, the Division of Accounting will transfer the authorization (obligation) from the 1987 grant subaccount to the 1991 grant subaccount so that the two subaccounts will appear as follows: 1987 GRANT (BXXXX741) 1991 GRANT (BXXXX141) PMS SUBACCOUNT FOR PMS SUBACCOUNT FOR PY 1990 TITLE IV-A FUNDS PY 1990 TITLE IV-A FUNDS Obligations $80,000 Obligations $20,000 Payments 90,000 Payments 0 The next time the grantee does a PMS request for funds, it must transfer $10,000 of payments from the 1987 grant (BXXXX741) to the 1991 grant (BXXXX141) by reducing payments in the 1987 grant and increasing payments in the 1991 grant in the following manner: PY 90 IV A in 87 grant subaccount $10,000> (negative) PY 90 IV A in 87 grant subaccount $10,000 (positive) (Because the PMS cannot accept a request that nets to $0, there must be a draw against a third subaccount or the draw against the 91 grant subaccount must be more than $10,000.) After the transfer, the two subaccounts will appear as follows: 1987 GRANT (BXXXX741) 1991 GRANT (BXXXX141) PMS SUBACCOUNT FOR PMS SUBACCOUNT FOR PY 1990 TITLE IV-A FUNDS PY 1990 TITLE IV-A FUNDS OBLIGATIONS $80,000 OBLIGATIONS $20,000 PAYMENTS 80,000 PAYMENTS 10,000 The following two examples will not require a transfer between subaccounts but do involve payments. 4. The costs are equal to total obligations so there is no carry-in involved but the grantee has not drawn down all the payments. PY 1990 TITLE IV-A FUNDS (BXXXX741) OBLIGATIONS COSTS PAYMENTS $100,000 $100,000 $90,000 The Division of Accounting will open up the PY 1990 Title IV-A subaccount so that the grantee can draw down the remaining $10,000. 5. The costs are less than obligations so there is a potential carry-in involved but the grantee has not drawn down sufficient funds to cover its expenditures under the 1987 grant. PY 1990 TITLE IV-A FUNDS (BXXXX741) OBLIGATIONS COSTS PAYMENTS $100,000 $80,000 $70,000 The Division of Accounting will open up the PY 1990 Title IV-A subaccount with sufficient funds ($10,000 in this case) for the grantee to cover its expenditures under the 1987 grant. The following example does require a transfer between subaccounts. 6. Because the PY 1990 IV-A funds in the 1987 grant (BXXXX741) were frozen until the completion of the closeout process, some grantees have drawn down funds from the PY 91 IV-A in the 1991 grant (BXXXXI77) to cover costs in the 1987 grant. This is in violation of the Payments Management System regulations which require separation of obligations, payments, and expenditures by title and program year. In those cases, the PMS subaccounts for PY 1990 Title IV-A funds and the PY 1991 Title IV-A will appear as follows: PY 1990 TITLE IV-A FUNDS (BXXXX741) OBLIGATIONS COSTS PAYMENTS $100,000 $100,000 $90,000 and for the moment assuming there is only one $10,000 draw against 1991 grant to cover the costs in the 1987 grant, the PY 1991 IV-A subaccount would appear as PY 1991 TITLE IV-A FUNDS (BXXXX177) OBLIGATIONS COSTS PAYMENTS $100,000 $ $10,000 In this case, when the subaccount for the PY 1990 Title IV-A is opened up, the grantee must do an adjustment between the two subaccounts increasing the payments in the PY 1990 Title IV-A subaccount and decreasing the payments in the PY 1991 Title IV-A subaccount so that those accounts appear as PY 1990 Title IV-A funds (BXXXX741) OBLIGATIONS COSTS PAYMENTS $100,000 $100,000 $90,000 +$ 10,000 $100,000 PY 1991 TITLE IV-A FUNDS (BXXXXI77) OBLIGATIONS COSTS PAYMENTS $100,000 $10,000 $0 minus$10,000> Questions. Address any questions to Barbara Manning on (202)535-8798 or Greg Gross on (202) 535-0509.

References: The Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended (P.L. 97-300); 20 CFR 652; TEGL No. 5-92. Background: The Secretary of Labor is issuing final planning allotments for each State's share of PY 1993 funds for basic labor exchange activities. These allotments (Attachment I) are based on the FY 1993 Appropriation of $810,960,000 and are distributed by the statutory formula described in Section 6 of the Act. The allotments will be published in the Federal Register. The data used are Calendar Year 1992 averages of civilian labor force (CLF) and number of unemployed individuals. Section 6(b)(4) of the Act authorizes the Secretary of Labor to reserve up to 3 percent of the total fund availability to assure that each State will have sufficient resources to maintain statewide employment service (ES) activities. The setaside for distribution through an administrative formula for this program year is $23,754,639. The 3 percent distribution is included in the total final allotment. The setaside was distributed in two steps to States whose relative share of resources declined from the previous year. In Step 1, those States with a CLF below one million and that are also below the median CLF density were held harmless at 100 percent of their prior year relative share of resources. The remainder was distributed in Step 2 in pro rata shares to all other States that lost in relative share from the prior year but did not meet the size criteria for Step 1. Differences between preliminary and final planning estimates are caused by the use of Calendar Year data as opposed to the earlier data used for preliminary planning estimates. Ten percent of the total sums allotted to each State shall be reserved for use by the Governor to provide performance incentives for public ES offices; services for groups with special needs; and for the extra costs of exemplary models for delivering job services. Postage Costs: Postage costs incurred by States during the conduct of ES activities are billed directly to the Department of Labor by the U.S. Postal Service. The total planning allotment includes $19,138,700, or 2.36 percent of the total amount available, withheld from distribution to finance postage costs associated with the conduct of ES business. States will implement direct accountability (i.e., actual count and costs of postage pieces) using penalty mail systems through all of FY 1994. The Department of Labor will continue to pay the U.S. Postal Service directly for all State postage costs during that period. The Department proposes to issue revised regulations which will eliminate the use of penalty mail systems in FY 1995. The proposal would include the distribution of postage resources to States, who would pay costs directly to their local post offices. The proposed regulations will provide for comments by the public on the proposed changes. The State-by-State postage allocation shown in Attachment II is for information purposes only. It provides States with estimates of the amount annually withheld from their ES allotments to maintain central postage reserves for payment of postage costs. Action: State planning activities are to be guided by the process described in 20 CFR 652 and Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 5-92.

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: Federal Register Notice of May 18, 1994. Background: The Department is undertaking a Dialogue to examine the need and options for constructive new directions for programs for the disadvantaged. As indicated in the attached Federal Register Notice, the Dialogue consists of several approaches to obtain a wide spectrum of information related to questions which will be addressed in the Dialogue process. The Federal Register Notice contains a list of broad questions to be addressed. The approach to be used will provide an opportunity for anyone to respond to the questions contained in the Notice. In addition, ETA is conducting a review of currently available studies, surveys and reports, a survey of customer attitudes and a series of small group discussions and town hall meetings across the country. Action: States are requested to provide their input to the questions in the Federal Register Notice and to share the Notice with SDAs and to encourage their input. We hope that States and SDAs will share this announcement with other human resource agencies at the State and local level and will encourage their input. As indicated in the announcement, ETA will conduct small group discussions and town halls in 15 sites across the country. The effective support of State and SDA staff is essential in making these useful for the acquisition of the views of the youth and adult "customer" participants of our system, the employer "customers" and the staff "customers". In addition, we encourage the use of the Dialogue approach in conferences and meetings which are held with JTPA and/or other human resource agency staff. States or others may elect to undertake dialogues within the context of other scheduled activities or to undertake them as separate activities. Staff from ETA Regional Offices are available to assist in any of the activities discussed above.

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

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.

Background: On April 18 and 19, 1994, Secretary Reich held a Low Wage Worker Advocates' Conference in Washington D.C. to assure advocate groups that the Department of Labor (DOL) is interested in serving and protecting the most vulnerable populations. The goal of the Conference was to meet with advocates for workers who are traditionally underrepresented to: (1) hear their expectations of DOL programs, (2) exchange information, (3) stress that the Department wants to work with them, and (4) encourage them to establish contacts with DOL's Regional Offices for further exchanges. Department of Labor Agencies represented in the Conference included the Employment Standards Administration (Wage and Hour and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs), the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, the Veterans' Employment and Training Service, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as well as the Employment and Training Administration (ETA). A number of individuals representing groups and organizations that serve as advocates for low wage workers were in attendance. Low Wage Worker Advocate Concerns: During an issue-oriented session on employment and training, representatives from low wage worker advocate organizations raised several important issues and concerns: Populations among the hardest to serve need improved access to the delivery system (through flexible literacy and English language requirements, provision of bilingual front line workers, distribution of multi-language printed information, and greater inclusion in funding decisions). One advocate reported that some Private Industry Councils (PICs) have a policy of not serving anyone who cannot prove mastery of sixth grade level math and English literacy skills. A director for a Chinese workers' center was informed that budget concerns mean that the hardest to serve cannot be helped. An issue was the availability of job training in other languages and of bilingual front line workers. Other advocates questioned why the Department is the only agency not to mandate language access through the translation and distribution of information and materials in other languages. Community groups are not being included in the job training plan process. Community-based organizations (CBOs) represented at the Conference stated that they feel systematically excluded from the job training plan process. They cited: (1) the lack of access to informational documents, (2) the lack of PIC responsiveness to inquiries, (3) the lack of public hearings and other opportunities for public participation, and (4) the lack of time allotted for comments. Necessary supportive services are not being provided. The program coordinator for the Vietnamese Fishermen's Association and for training projects for low income women pointed to the lack of supportive services. She cited the immediate need for funding such items as required physicals, tools, work uniforms, and life skills training when they are prerequisites to jobs. Others suggested that increased supportive services should be mandated rather than limited. Community group proposals for funding to provide services to the neediest need to be given greater consideration. Advocates cited experiences leading to their conviction that the selection process is a closed one in which certain providers are regularly selected and most community organizations are routinely denied funding. Advocates asked for new and creative ways to ensure that funding reaches CBOs which can provide appropriate services to targeted groups. Greater coordination needs to be mandated. Opportunities for connecting job creation projects with job training are missed despite models at the State level, according to low wage worker advocates. They also observed that providers tend to operate in a vacuum and to advertise programs individually, in a fragmented fashion, rather than working to coordinate and centralize their programs and outreach strategies. State monitoring needs to be emphasized. Participants spoke of a lack of accountability between States and Service Delivery Areas (SDAs) and asked for an increased State presence and "ownership" of the use of Federal dollars and of the appropriateness of funding decisions. They requested that States monitor PIC's more closely and work to ensure the openness of the PIC planning process. Discussion: Despite the fact that the JTPA Amendments of 1992 were enacted in large part to ensure that the hard to serve are included among those served by JTPA, this iteration of concerns indicates that some of those groups are not being reached. In addition, although the provision of supportive services has been recognized as a predictor of participant success in JTPA programs, and participants' supportive service needs are required to be considered as a part of their JTPA program participation, it appears that those needs may require greater attention. Finally, community groups need to be regularly included in the development and operation of the JTPA program. Recently a State Job Training Coordinating Council rejected a local job training plan for failure to consult with labor and community-based organizations and failure to provide access to requested documents. Action: The Department believes that actively addressing the advocate's concerns will raise the awareness level of State and local program operators and improve JTPA programs consistent with the goals of the 1992 Amendments. The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) wants to work with States and SDAs to encourage sensitivity to these issues. To follow up on the Secretary Reich's Low Wage Workers Advocates' Conference, ETA will invite advocate groups and organizations to a follow-up meeting at the Department of Labor in Washington D.C. on June 3, 1994. State Liaisons should continue the discussion started at the Secretary's Low Wage Workers Advocates' Conference and work to achieve equitable, collaborative solutions to the concerns of the representatives of low wage workers. Regional Offices will be available to assist State and local efforts to follow up on the Low Wage Worker Advocates' Conference. Advocate concerns should also be addressed in sessions convened relative to the systemwide Dialogue process announced in a Federal Register Notice issued on May 18, 1994.

Background: The UIRR Data Entry System has been operational since 1990. The system is dynamic and is constantly growing and changing as new programs arise or improvements are created. Suggestions have been received from users and many have been implemented. Some suggestions could not be implemented because of requirements of the data base management system that was used to create the UIRR Data Entry System. The National Office is moving in the direction of utilizing personal computers (PCs) to access the SUN equipment. Moving to PCs will have many advantages, one of which is "windowing". Windowing allows the user to pull up different functions without going through traditional menus and to have several applications active on the screen in different "windows" at the same time. Windowing will allow for fewer steps to access any given part of the system and will provide the ability to move easily and quickly from one function to another. The UIRR system will begin to be rewritten in this type of window environment during the fall of 1994. The entire system will be rewritten and tested before any screens are released to the States. Release will not occur before January of 1996. In preparation for this large rewrite, we will be studying the existing system as well as the suggestions that have been received to date but not implemented. Suggestions Requested: We are soliciting suggestions or comments from users that they think would improve the UIRR Data Entry System. We want to hear what is wrong, what is right, and specific suggestions for improvement. Many users have been exposed to multiple pieces of PC software and could comment on what they think works well. There are multiple users in each State and comments from all are welcome. Action Required: Please share this directive with appropriate staff. Any suggestions or comments should be sent to Cindy Ambler, Room S-4519, 200 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington, DC, 20210 by June 30, 1994. Suggestions will be welcome after this date but will more likely be used in planning the new system if received by that time.