In April 1994, the proposed JASPR format and instructions for completion of this report were provided to the States pending OMB approval. This trans-mittal is to confirm that the attached updated JASPR format and final reporting requirements have OMB approval and that States should implement this report. OMB Approval and Reporting Burden: The JASPR require-ments have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) according to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended. The JASPR has been approved under OMB Approval Number 1205-0200 and the expiration date is July 31, 1997. Reporting Requirements: The initial required submittalof the JASPR for the Title I, Section 123, (8%) program will be for the program year ended June 30, 1994. For PY 1993 ONLY, the JASPR for the 8% program is due in the ETA National Office and Regional Offices by September 30, 1994. (Henceforth, this report for the 8% program will be due in these offices by August 15 for the prior program year.) The initial required submittal of the JASPR for the Title II-B, Summer Youth E & T Program (SYETP), will be for the reporting period October 1, 1993 through September 30,1994. This JASPR will be due in the ETA National Office and Regional Offices by November 15, 1994. The approved format and instructions for completion of the JASPR are attached.

Background: From 1982 to 1988, the Rockefeller Foundation provided funding for selected community-based organizations to operate employment-training programs for minority female single parents. The subsequent findings of this project showed that the CET design overwhelmingly provided the most positive impacts. In pursuing the Department of Labor's desire to promote quality programs in the JTPA system, a cooperative agreement has been signed between the Department and CET, to provide training and technical assistance to replicate this model. This agreement provides funding for CET to train up to ten sites to use the CET job training model. Action Required: Governors that have sites in their States will be notified after site selection has been completed. Those States are encouraged to be actively involved in the local replication project, thus enabling States to increase their technical assistance ability with this model.

Background: The unemployment insurance system, designed in a different time for a fundamentally different economy, is premised on the expectation that laid-off workers would return to their former jobs following a periodic downturn in the economy. Today, workers are finding their jobs are directly affected by global competition and changes in technology. Many of these workers do not possess the skills necessary for reemployment in jobs which replace the ones they lost. Dislocated workers looking for reemployment assistance are faced with a complex network of programs and services. Students, workers and the unemployed have a difficult time getting information on the benefits and services that are available, where they can obtain quality training and what they need to know to find good jobs. Hopefully, the attached report, Reemployment Services: A Review of Their Effectiveness will be helpful as we transform current programs and services for the unemployed into an effective reemployment system. Report: The report summarizes the best available evidence on the impact of reemployment services on the reemployment prospects of dislocated workers. Reemployment Services: A Review of Their Effectiveness analyzes dozens of studies, which represent the best and most current research on reemployment strategies for dislocated workers. Such strategies include job search assistance, reemployment bonuses, self-employment assistance programs, and both short-term and long-term training programs. This research indicates that most of these services improve the earnings of workers and save the government money. For example, dislocated workers who receive job search assistance early in their spell of unemployment find new jobs -- and move off the unemployment rolls -- more quickly. In the area of training, the evidence suggests that displaced workers who need new skills would benefit from improved access to long-term training. The report also addresses what does not work in our current approaches to helping the unemployed. For example, reemployment services -- though cost-effective -- have not been the focus of the unemployment insurance system, which was designed to provide income support to the jobless. Furthermore, because current services for dislocated workers are often provided through a fragmented and confusing array of categorically-based programs, many dislocated workers do not qualify for assistance. Finally, the report discusses how conclusions from this research formed the basis of the proposed Reemployment Act of 1994. The legislative proposal incorporated the successful reemployment strategies identified in the research; also addressed the major problems identified in the research, by consolidating reemployment programs, increasing access to services, and providing better labor market information to jobseekers. The report also provides important lessons States and localities can use to improve strategies to help dislocated workers. Action: State Liaisons and SESA Administrators are requested to make the report available to appropriate State staff, Service Delivery Areas, Substate Areas, and Employment Service and Unemployment Insurance local offices. Sufficient copies are being mailed to you under separate cover.

Background: The report is the first to provide a literacy profile of clients served by the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and Employment Service (ES)/Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs. Findings were obtained from a survey of nearly 6,000 adult participants in DOL-administered programs. Among the major findings: -- Some 40 to 50 percent of people applying for JTPA services and roughly 40 percent of people seeking assistance from ES or UI programs demonstrate very low literacy skills. These percentages include a substantial number of persons who reported having earned a high school degree. -- Persons who demonstrate higher levels of literacy skills tend to avoid long periods of unemployment, earn higher wages, and work in higher level occupations than those who demonstrate lower literacy skills. -- Some 60 to 65 percent of those surveyed believe they could get a better job if their reading or writing skills were improved through additional education or training, and roughly 70 to 80 percent report that their job opportunities would improve with increased skills in mathematics. -- As with other data bases, Black and Hispanic DOL clients are disproportionately represented at the low and high levels on the literacy scales when compared with White DOL clients. Use of the Publication: This timely and significant report adds to our understanding of the literacy problems facing the Nation's job seekers. Findings also support the Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992, which provide for more intensive and individualized service strategies. Action Required: Ensure that copies are distributed promptly to SDAs and EDWAA sub-State areas, and to local ES and UI offices. Distribution: Initial shipment of copies is being sent under separate cover for appropriate distribution. Additional copies may be obtained by calling Aida Hilliard, (202) 535-0664.

References: Section 301(a) of the Act; 631.3 of the JTPA Regulations (20 CFR 631.3) published September 22, 1989; Section 1141 of 10 U.S.C. Chapter 58, as amended by the Defense Authorization Act of 1990. Background: Typically, individuals who were discharged or released from active duty with the armed forces were unlike the traditional "dislocated workers" to be served by Title III. For most who left prior to retirement, the limited period of active duty in the armed forces was an expected step in a career path. With the advent of the volunteer army, many individuals who enlisted did so with the intent of making military service a career. With the reductions in Department of Defense expenditures which are now occurring, a number of these "employees" find themselves involuntarily separated from their chosen career. Reasonable questions, raised by several States, are whether members of the armed forces discharged or released from active duty are eligible for Title III, including the Defense Conversion Adjustment Program, and on what basis the eligibility of these individuals should be determined. Section 502 of the Defense Authorization Act of 1990 includes a definition of "involuntary separation," and authorizes benefits and services from the Department of Defense for members of the armed forces who are faced with involuntary separation. The definition of "involuntary separation" from active duty with the armed forces, now found at Section 1141 of 10 U.S.C. Chapter 58, as amended, is provided here: A member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps shall be considered to be involuntarily separated for purposes of this chapter if the member was on active duty or full-time National Guard duty on September 30, 1990, and (1) in the case of a regular officer (other than a retired officer), the officer is involuntarily discharged under other than adverse conditions as characterized by the Secretary concerned; (2) in the case of a reserve officer who is on the active duty list or, if not on the active duty list, is on full-time active duty (or in the case of a member of the National Guard, full-time National Guard duty) for the purpose of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components, the officer is involuntarily discharged or released from active duty or full-time National Guard duty (other than a release from active duty or fulltime National Guard duty incident to a transfer to retired Status) under other than adverse conditions, as characterized by the Secretary concerned; (3) in the case of a regular enlisted member serving on active duty, the member is (A) denied reenlistment, or (B) involuntarily discharged under other than adverse conditions, as characterized by the Secretary concerned- and (4) in the case of a reserve enlisted member who is on full-time active duty (or in the case of a member of the National Guard, full-time National Guard duty) for the purpose of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components, the member (A) is denied reenlistment, or (B) is involuntarily discharged or released from active duty (or full-time National Guard) under other than adverse conditions, as characterized by the Secretary concerned. Discussion: Included in the definition of "eligible dislocated workers" for Title III are individuals who are terminated or laid off; eligible for unemployment compensation; and unlikely to return to their previous industry or occupation (Section 301(a)(1)(A) of the Act). Following is a discussion of the three parts of this definition as they relate to individuals separated from active duty with the armed forces. Terminated or laid off. Although the provisions of 10 U.S.C. Chapter 58, Section 1141 are not directly applicable to JTPA, the determinations made under these provisions may be relevant when considering the eligibility criteria established at JTPA Section 301(a)(1). Eligible for unemployment compensation. Former members of the armed forces may be eligible for unemployment compensation for ex-service members (UCX). UCX may be considered as a form of unemployment compensation for the purpose of determining eligibility under Title III. However, not all individuals eligible for UCX will meet the "terminated or laid off" criterion discussed above. Unlikely to return to their previous industry or occupation. The Department expects that grantees will be able to follow existing procedures in determining whether a former member of the armed forces is unlikely to return to her or his previous industry or occupation. In summary, the Employment and Training Administration considers that individuals who have been involuntarily separated, as defined in 10 U.S.C. Chapter 58, including those who accept an inducement to leave the military, and are otherwise eligible, are eligible to participate in programs funded under Title III of JTPA. The State or the sub state grantee remains responsible for determination of eligibility under reasonable safeguards (Section 141(i)). Individuals who are separated from the armed forces are not necessarily "involuntarily separated." For example, the definition does not apply to individuals who have been involuntarily discharged under adverse conditions. Also, individuals who voluntarily leave the armed forces, including those who retire with or without an inducement, do not fall within the meaning of the term "involuntarily separated." States and sub state grantees may wish to consult with local veterans' employment representatives (LVERs) or other specialists to identify the documents and/or mechanisms that can be used to make an accurate eligibility determination. Additional information regarding adverse conditions is being prepared by the Department of Defense and will be shared once it becomes available. However, individuals involuntarily separated from active duty through honorable discharges are eligible. Since Title III is not an entitlement, program managers should ensure that retraining services are limited to those eligible dislocated workers who can most benefit from and are in need of such services, as required under Section 141(a) of the Act, and 631.41(d) and 631.51(d) of the regulations. In the case of members of the armed forces who have been recently separated from active duty, this might include those without marketable civilian skills. States are encouraged to develop procedures to determine "most in need" for Title III. Attached for your information is a copy of a document issued by the Assistant Secretary of Defense concerning transition services provided by the Department of Defense. Action: State and sub state grantee policy makers should review existing policies regarding eligibility under Title III in light of this policy clarification.

Background: In 1990, Congress authorized two programs to assist specific groups of dislocated workers. The Defense Conversion Adjustment Program (DCAP) provides assistance to workers dislocated by defense cutbacks. The Clean Air Employment Transition Assistance (CAETA) Program provides assistance to workers dislocated as a result of compliance with the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Both programs are discretionary programs. Eligible grantees include States, Title III sub state grantees, employers, employer associations, and representatives of employees. A new reporting form was needed for these programs because discrete projects needed to be tracked. The Dislocated Worker Special Project Report (DWSPR) consists of two sections. Section I is submitted quarterly, and provides financial and some participant data. Section II is submitted at the end of each program year and at project completion. It contains items on participant characteristics, program outcomes, and program activity. Most of the data items are similar to those used in the Worker Adjustment Annual Program Report (WAPR) and the Worker Adjustment Quarterly Financial Report (WQFR) used for Title III programs under JTPA. OMB Approval and Combined Reporting Burden: The reporting requirements are approved by the Office of Management and Budget according to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 under OMB approval no. 1205-0318 to expire February 28, 1993. Action Required: State JTPA or Worker Adjustment Liaisons are requested to distribute the attached instruction to all officials within the State who need such information to implement the new reporting requirements. The Liaisons are also requested to assist DCAP and CAETA grantees within their States that are not familiar with Title III reporting (such as employers, employer associations) with any questions they may have.

Background: Due to changes in personnel, facilities and agency reorganizations, periodic updates of State agency contacts are necessary. States have provided the names, telephone numbers and facsimile (fax) numbers of individuals designated to respond to inquiries from other States about UC tax and employer accounts. This directory reflects information provided through July 1994. It replaces UIPL No. 35-93 and the attached directory. Changes: When changes occur, the page to be changed should be copied and the changes penned in. Mail or fax the revised page to the appropriate Regional Office. They will update their information and forward the changes to the UIS National Office for inclusion in the next directory update. Action Required: All SESAs are requested to ensure that a copy of the attached directory is made available to appropriate personnel.

Background: A provision to a final UCX rule published in the Federal Register on October 17, 1988, required the SESAs to send, effective November 16, 1988, notices of claims filed and sub-sequent monetary and nonmonetary determinations to the branches of the military and to individuals separated from the Commis-sioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-istration (NOAA) and the Coast Guard. SESAs were provided with a list of military addresses via UIPL 19-94 Change 1. Subsequently, the Air Force has provided a new address for such notices. Action Required: State Administrators should provide the attached list of military addresses to appropriate staff and advise them to immediately discontinue using the list of military liaison addresses provided in UIPL No. 19-94 Change 1.

Background: Last year, ETA invited State and local JTPA program staff to participate in one of five, "JTPA Procurement Training Course" presentations held in Bethesda, Kansas City, San Diego, Atlanta and San Antonio. The course presentations were attended by approximately 500 State and local JTPA program staff. The course and the materials provided are part of an ongoing project to provide technical assistance in the area of JTPA procurement, particularly for training and employment services. The Guide is part of a series of technical assistance and training materials to be released during this program year. Participant evaluations at each site consistently gave high marks to the course manual, the "JTPA Procurement Training Guide", Which was issued to all participants in attendance. Since the Guide has undergone several revisions during the course of this project, ETA is providing the final revised edition for distribution to all JTPA State and SDA entities for use as a procurement resource tool. A video is also being developed as part of an instructional package for use With a companion workbook and the Guide. The video and workbook are scheduled for completion this Fall. Further details Will follow. Distribution: Copies of the Guide (2 per SDA, 5 per State) are being provided under separate cover to all Liaisons for distribution to the SDAs and to the State JTPA agency. The material has been prepared in a looseleaf format suitable for use in 3-ring binders.

Laws: Title III of the Social Security Act (SSA); Section 4 of Public Law (P.L.) 103-152; the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 (EUCA); 5 U.S.C. 8501 et seq.; and Title II of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), "Employment and Training Assistance for Dislocated Workers." Issuances: Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 13-94, dated January 28, 1994; UIPL 13-94, Change 1, dated April 15, 1994; and the Secretary's Standard for Claim Determinations, Part V, Employment Security Manual, Section 6010 et seq. Background. On November 24, 1993, the President signed into law the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1993 (P.L. 103-152) which added Sections 303(a)(10) and 303(j) to the SSA. Both of these new sections contain requirements States must meet as a condition of States receiving UI grants. (The text of both sections is contained in the Attachment.) Under Section 303(j)(1), SSA, the State must: Identify which claimants will be likely to exhaust regular UI and will need job search assistance services to make a successful transition to new employment. (Subparagraph (A) of Section 303(j)(1), SSA.) Refer the claimants so identified to reemployment services, such as job search assistance services, available under any State or Federal law. (Subparagraph (B) of Section 303(j)(1), SSA.) Collect follow-up information relating to the services received by such claimants and their employment outcomes and use the information for future profiling. (Subparagraph (C) of Section 303(j)(1), SSA.) Meet "such other requirements as the Secretary of Labor determines are appropriate." (Subparagraph (D) of Section 303(j)(1), SSA.) In addition, Section 303(a)(10), SSA, requires claimants to participate in reemployment services to which they have been referred as a condition of UI eligibility. P.L. 103-152 requires the Secretary of Labor to provide technical assistance and advice to the States in implementing the worker profiling systems. One of the principal aims of the profiling system is to provide reemployment services to certain claimants through an "early intervention" process. That is, claimants who are unlikely to return to their previous jobs or occupations will be identified and given assistance early in their claims series. This approach is expected to facilitate an early return to employment and savings to each State's unemployment fund. In response to this legislation, the U.S. Department of Labor (Department) has launched a major initiative to establish an integrated, comprehensive worker profiling and reemployment services system involving various programs, including the UI, Employment Service, and Title III, JTPA programs. To this end, information describing how a recom-mended integrated system might operate was issued to the States through the Department's Regional Offices. (This recommended system followed the overall approach embodied in the proposed Reemployment Act of 1994.) However, since the SSA amendments create specific requirements as a condition of receiving UI administrative grants, it is necessary to provide guidance to States concerning what actions must be taken concerning the UI program. This issuance provides definitive guidance concerning these actions. Among other things, this UIPL describes the minimum required profiling system for identifying and referring claimants. That the States must use this required profiling system does not, however, abridge the States' authority to use other methods, not related to the minimum system, for identifying claimants for referral. For example, assuming a service provider has twenty- five slots, a State may refer only fifteen claimants identified under the minimum required profiling system to the provider if the State also refers ten claimants using whatever methods it deems appropriate. Overview of Profiling and Reemployment Services System. Federal law does not specify a detailed structure for the profiling and reemployment services system. That is left to the States. However, in order to meet the statutory requirements and coordinate between the various employment and training programs, the Department anticipates that the following general structure will be used by all States: The UI agency will profile all claimants to identify those likely to exhaust regular UI and in need of reemployment services. To the extent that reemployment services are available, the "identified" claimants will either be immediately referred to these services or placed in a selection pool from which a referral may later be made. Services will begin with an orientation session advising claimants of the availability and benefit of reemployment services, and, if appropriate, an individual assessment of each claimant's needs. Based on an individual service plan, the claimant may be referred to reemployment services tailored to the individual's needs. The entity providing the reemployment services will promptly provide the UI agency with any necessary information relating to the claimants' continuing eligibility for UI. Arrangements with Service Provider(s): Under the authority granted by Section 303(j)(1)(D), SSA, which allows the Secretary to establish other requirements as are deter-mined appropriate, the Department has determined that State UI agencies are to establish certain arrangements with the entities providing reemployment services. When the UI agency is not part of the same overall State agency as the service provider (for example, an employment security agency or executive department), the Department recommends that these arrangements be in a written agreement. Arrangements must be made in two areas: the number of claimants to be referred to the provider and the information the provider must forward to the UI agency. Number of Claimants Referred: The burden of reporting to service providers should not be placed upon claimants when services are not available. Similarly, service providers should not be required to expend time and resources working with referred claimants when services are not available for them. Therefore, there must be a balance between the available supply of services and referrals to these services. To avoid excessive referrals, the agreement must provide a method for assuring that the number of claimants referred to the provider is based on the number the provider is able to serve. Section 303(j)(1)(B), SSA, only requires the referral to "available" reemployment services of claimants identified as likely to exhaust regular UI and who need job search assistance. Therefore, the State will meet the requirements of Section 303(j)(1)(B), SSA, when the supply of services and referrals to these services is balanced. Receipt of Information: New Section 303(a)(10), SSA, requires that claimants, identified and referred to reemployment services through profiling, participate in such services, or in similar services, as a condition of UI eligibility. Also, Section 303(a)(1), SSA, requires "methods of administration . . . as are found by the Secretary to be reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due." This means the UI agency must have methods of administration for obtaining eligibility information from service providers and for promptly determining eligibility based on this information. To ensure service providers meet the UI agency's needs, arrangements must exist for the prompt provision of any necessary eligibility information concerning participation or availability. States also will need to establish methods of administration for obtaining this information when claimants are attending "similar services" as discussed in item 11.b. Further, as discussed in item 12 below, States must provide information to this Department related to reemployment services received by claimants and employment outcomes. Arrangements must be made for the provision of this information. Definition of "Reemployment Services": The second conference report for P.L. 103-152, which added Sections 303(a)(10) and 303(j) to the SSA, describes "reemployment services" as including-- - job search assistance and job placement services, such as counseling, testing, and providing occupa-tional and labor market information, assessment, job search workshops, job clubs and referrals to employers, and other similar services. [H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 404, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess. 5 (1993)] Reemployment services need not include skills and education training. Therefore, States are not required to apply the participation requirement discussed in item 11.a. to such training even if claimants are referred to such training through the worker profiling and reemployment services system. Orientation and assessment activities are both reemployment services for purposes of Sections 303(a)(10) and 303(j), SSA. Orientation is a service since claimants are made aware of why services are available and what the services are and, as a result, are able to participate in the identification of appropriate services to assist them in returning to employment. Assessment is a service since it identifies the specific needs of each claimant. Assessment is also listed as a reemployment service in the Committee Report. Benefit Rights Interview (BRI). Under the Secretary's Standard for Claim Determinations, individuals who may be entitled to UI must be provided information as will reason-ably afford them an opportunity to know, establish and protect their rights under the UI law of the State. Therefore, BRI information provided to claimants during the initial claims taking process must advise claimants of the possible consequences of failure to report or to participate in any reemployment services to which they may be referred. Identifying Claimants Likely to Exhaust and in Need of Reemployment Services Who is to be Profiled: Section 303(j)(1)(A), SSA, requires that State agencies establish and utilize a system of profiling "all new claimants for regular compensation" (i.e., regular UI) that "identifies which claimants will be likely to exhaust regular compensation and will need job search assistance services to make a successful transition to new employment." Based on the plain language of Section 303(j)(1)(A), all claimants for regular UI must be profiled. The term "regular compensation" is defined in Section 205(2), EUCA, as "compensation payable to an individual under any State unemployment compensation law (including compensation payable pursuant to 5 U.S.C. chapter 85), . . . other than extended compensation and additional compen-sation." Through the reference to 5 U.S.C. chapter 85, the phrase "all new claimants for regular compensation" includes claimants filing for UI for ex- servicemembers (UCX) and Federal employees (UCFE). The phrase "all new claimants for regular compensation" includes all intrastate, interstate and combined-wage claimants. The Department will work with the States in developing arrangements for profiling interstate claimants. In determining whether to take action against a State which is not profiling and referring interstate claimants, the Department will take into account the feasibility of such State taking appropriate action. Who is to be Identified: The profiling system must be structured so as to identify which claimants will be likely to exhaust regular UI and will need job search assistance services to make a successful transition to new employment. If a claimant is not permanently laid off, there is no need for job search assistance to make a "transition to new employment" and the likelihood of exhaustion also decreases. Similarly, if jobs exist in the current industry or occupation, then the claimant is less likely to exhaust and to need job search assistance to make a "transition to new employment." The word "transition" as used in Section 303(j)(1), SSA, indicates that the require-ment for participation in reemployment services is not aimed at claimants who are merely between jobs in the same industry or occupation, but instead at claimants who are having to make a "transition" to jobs in a different industry or occupation. As a result of this analysis, the Department has determined the following minimum requirement: A State profiling system must identify all new claimants for regular UI who are permanently laid off (and who are, therefore, likely to exhaust). From the claimants so identified, the State must further identify at least one of the following: (1) those claimants who are unlikely to return to their previous industry or (2) those claimants who are unlikely to return to their previous occupation. Claimants identified under the minimum required profiling system described above will also be "eligible dislocated workers" under Section 303(a)(1)(A) of Title III, JTPA. This section defines the term "eligible dislocated workers" to mean individuals who "have been terminated or laid off or who have received a notice of termination or layoff from employment, are eligible for or have exhausted their entitlement to unemployment compensation, and are unlikely to return to their previous industry or occupation." Claimants identified through the minimum profiling system described above are--as are certain "eligible dislocated workers"- -permanently laid off from employment, eligible for UI, and unlikely to return to their previous industry or occupation. Therefore, claimants identified through the minimum required profiling system will also be "eligible dislocated workers" for purposes of Title III, JTPA. How Claimants are to be Identified Variables: The use of certain types of variables is required to ensure that claimants identified are permanently laid off and unlikely to return to their previous industry or occupation. The use of other variables is optional. In addition, the use of certain variables is prohibited. Under the minimum required profiling system, the following variables must be used: First Payment for Total or Part-Total Unemployment: Since claimants cannot exhaust UI unless they are first eligible for UI, the use of this variable is required. Claimants receiving first payments for partial claims are not required to be identified for referral since there has been no separation from employment. First payment to some claimants will occur late in their claims series due to appeals, wage investi-gations or other causes. Since, as noted in item 8.a, "all new claimants" for UI must be profiled, claimants receiving late payments must be profiled. However, given that the profiling system's goal of early intervention will not be achieved for these claimants, States have the option of introducing an additional variable to the profiling system which would exclude claimants who receive first payments after a certain period of time (for example, 5 weeks). Recall Status: Since claimants who are on recall will not need reemployment services and are less likely to exhaust UI, the use of this variable is required. Hiring Halls: Claimants making exclusive use of a union hiring hall will not need reemployment services since these claimants are expecting to find work in their current occupation. If union hiring halls are used in the State, then the State must use this variable. Claimants remaining after these three variables are applied will be passed through either a statistical modeling or characteristic screening process to determine difficulty in finding reemployment. (See item 8.c.(2) below.) Following are variables which the Department has identified for use in this process: Education: Educational level is closely associated with reemployment difficulty. Generally, claimants with less education are more likely to exhaust. Use of this variable is a State option. Job Tenure: This is a measure of a claimant's attachment to a specific employer. Studies show that the longer a worker's specific job attachment, the more difficult it is to find equivalent employment elsewhere. Use of this variable is a State option. Industry: A claimant's search for employment is affected by the former industry of employment. Claimants who worked in industries that are declining, relative to others in the State, experience greater difficulty in obtaining new employment than claimants who worked in expanding industries. States must use either this variable or "occupation." Occupation: Workers in low demand occupations experience greater reemployment difficulty than workers in occupations with higher demand. States must use either this variable or "industry." Unemployment Rate: Dislocation and reemployment difficulty are closely related to economic condi-tions, as measured by unemployment rates. In areas with high unemployment, unemployed workers will have greater difficulty becoming reemployed than those workers in areas with low unemployment, even if all other conditions are equal. Use of this variable is a State option. To summarize, under the minimum required profiling system, States must use first payment, recall status, hiring halls (if they are used in the State), and either industry or occupation to identify claimants for purposes of referral to reemployment services. Using the above optional variables will decrease the number identified under the profiling system; however, the result will be a greater precision in identification. The Department will notify States if any additional optional variables are identified. Finally, a profiling system may not produce results which discriminate in violation of any Federal or State law or which otherwise unfairly favors some claimants over those similarly situated with respect to their need for reemploy-ment services. To this end, under the authority granted by Section 303(j)(1)(D), SSA, which allows the Secretary to establish other requirements as are determined appropriate, the Department has determined that the following elements may not be used in the profiling system: age, race, ethnic group, sex, color, national origin, disability, religion, political affiliation and citizenship. Statistical Modeling versus Characteristic Screening. Statistical modeling uses a set of variables in combination simultaneously. Each variable receives a weight (or "coefficient") that has been established by a statis-tical process. The weighted average produces a ranking. Characteristic screening, on the other hand, uses each variable as an exclusion variable. That is, depending on whether the answer is "yes" or "no" to a given question, claimants will be either included or excluded. Unlike statistical screening, no ranking is produced. Referral to services based on statistical modeling will be based on a numerical score since the higher the score, the more likely the claimant will exhaust and the greater the need for services. If claimants have the same scores, and there are not sufficient opportunities to participate in reemployment services, States must randomly select among those claimants for referral to assure claimants are treated equitably and the profiling system is legally defensible. Since claimants identified through characteristic screening cannot be ranked, States using this system must also randomly select from among the identified claimants for referrals. Under the authority granted by Section 303(j)(1)(D), SSA, which allows the Secretary to establish other requirements as are determined appropriate, the Department has determined that random selection is required for use in profiling systems. The Department encourages the use of statistical models since they are more efficient and precise in identifying claimants as well as easier to manage and adapt. However, States may use characteristic screening. Whichever system is used, each State must assure that the system implemented in fact identifies claimants who are permanently laid off and unlikely to return to work in either their previous industry or occupation. The Selection Pool: Under the profiling system anti-cipated by the Department (see item 4), all claimants identified in accordance with the requirements of Section 303(j)(1), SSA, will be either immediately referred to reemployment services or, if services are not available, placed in a selection pool. Claimants in the selection pool may be referred to services at a later date. As noted in the background section, early intervention is one of the principal aims of the worker profiling and reemployment services initiative. Holding claimants in the pool for more than a minimum period of time will not achieve this early intervention. Therefore, the Department recom-mends that claimants be removed from the selection pool after 4 weeks. In addition, the Department recognizes that large-scale permanent layoffs and plant closings do not occur at regular intervals. Therefore, there may be times when a State elects to retain claimants in the pool for longer periods. States may also elect to vary the length of time individuals are held in the pool by locality within the State. Notifications of Referrals to Reemployment Services. Notification to claimants of referrals to reemployment services should occur only if a referral is actually made. (It is not necessary to notify claimants that they have been placed in the selection pool since they are not required to take any action until a referral is made.) These notifi-cation and referral notices must be in writing and must advise claimants: That they have been identified as likely to need reemployment services in order to make a successful transition to new employment. When and where to report for the services. To bring all relevant information concerning ongoing or recently completed reemployment services or current training in which they have participated and believe would help them return to work. Alterna-tively, States may choose to have certain claimants, such as those already in training, contact the UI agency first. Either way, the notice must clearly explain what information the claimant is expected to provide and to whom. That failure to participate in reemployment services may result in denial of UI. Each State must maintain a record of each claimant referral notification in the same manner that it would any other formal correspondence that is pertinent to the adjudication of UI eligibility issues. Adjudication of Issues Associated With Profiling and Reemployment Services a. Participation Requirement. Section 303(a)(10), SSA, creates a requirement that "as a condition of eligibil-ity for regular compensation for any week, any claimant who has been referred to reemployment services . . . participate in such services or similar services." (Emphasis added.) The Department interprets the phrase "for any week" to mean that a claimant must participate in reemployment services (as defined in item 6 above) only during the week or weeks that the claimant is required to attend. Therefore, eligibility with respect to participation in reemployment services is determined on a weekly basis. Claimants must be held ineligible for any week in which there is a failure to participate in reemployment services which they are required to attend unless they: have justifiable cause, have completed such services, or are attending similar services, as discussed below. Federal law does not require, however, that the maximum UI benefit amount be reduced. Federal law does not require State UI laws to provide for a finding of ineligibility when claimants are no longer required to participate. For example, a claimant may refuse to participate during one week and be held ineligible for that week. If the claimant is required to participate the next week and again refuses, then the claimant will continue to be ineligible. However, if the claimant is not required to participate the next week, then there is no failure to participate and the State is not required to find the claimant ineligible. Similarly, a claimant who has refused to participate in available services and has been held ineligible may later agree to participate. In this case, if the services are no longer available to the claimant, Federal law does not require the claimant to be held ineligible for any additional weeks since there is no longer a failure to participate. There is also no failure to participate when the service provider relieves claimants of the requirement that they attend. This may occur when, for example, a claimant notifies a provider of an inability to participate due to a family emergency and the service provider advises the claimant that it is not necessary to participate. (Note: This may raise an availability issue for the week(s) in question. This is why service providers must provide information concerning availability under item 5.b. above.) Claimants are not required to be held ineligible if the failure to participate is minimal and does not significantly affect their ability to benefit from the reemployment services in attempting to obtain new work. For example, if a claimant misses one hour of an eight hour seminar, the State may find that this limited absence is not a failure to participate. b. Similar Services. Under Section 303(a)(10), SSA, a claimant referred under the profiling system is not required to participate in reemployment services if the claimant is participating in "similar services." "Similar services" are reemployment services that claimants are attending on their own initiative. Examples of "similar services" include, but are not limited to, services offered by a company prior to a permanent layoff or services offered by private employment agencies. The "similar services" need not be identical to those to which the claimant was referred by the State; they need be only reasonably similar. The quality of the services being provided should be a relevant factor in determining whether the services are "similar." Under the Secretary's Standard for Claim Determinations, the UI agency is required to obtain and record such information as will reasonably insure the payment of benefits to individuals when due. Therefore, the UI agency must perform sufficient factfinding to determine if, in fact, the ser-vices are similar. This means the UI agency must determine, among other things, to what services the claimant was referred and what the "similar services" are which the claimant is (or will be) attending. c. Exceptions to Participation Requirement. Section 303(a)(10), SSA, contains two exceptions to the partic-ipation requirement. The first is whether the claimant has completed such services. The second is whether "justifiable cause" exists for the claimant's failure to participate in the services. (Note: As indicated in item 11.b, there is no participation requirement if claimants are participating in similar services.) (1) Completion of "Such Services." Section 303(a)(10)(A) provides that a claimant who has completed "such services" is not required to participate in services to which the claimant has been referred. How recently the services were completed should be considered in making this determination since, for example, certain approaches to finding a job may have changed due to changing labor market conditions. Although the language "such services" appears to refer to those services to which the claimant was referred, it is reasonable to also include the completion of "similar services." Therefore, the Department interprets Section 303(a)(10)(A), SSA, as allowing States to consider the completion of "similar services" as the completion of "such services." (2)Justifiable Cause. Section 303(a)(10)(B) provides that a claimant who has "justifiable cause" is not required to participate in services to which the claimant has been referred. As noted in (1) above, although the language "such services" appears to refer to those services to which the claimant was referred, it is reasonable to also include the completion of "similar services." Otherwise, claimants attending "similar services" would not be relieved of the requirement to participate when justifiable cause exists. Therefore, the Department interprets Section 303(a)(10)(B), SSA, as allowing States to consider justi-fiable cause as a reason for not participating in "similar services." For purposes of ensuring consistency with Section 303(a)(10), SSA, States must apply the "reasonable person" test in determining if justifiable cause exists for failure to participate. That is, States must determine if the reasons offered by claimants for failure to participate are such that a reasonable person would not have participated. As in other areas where the "reasonable person" test is used, such as failure to report to the UI office as required, States must expect that claimants take the actions a prudent and reasonable person would take prior to con-cluding that participation is not possible. For example, although a reasonable person would not be expected to leave children at home unattended, a reasonable person would also be expected to make an effort to obtain child care. A finding of justifiable cause will last only for the period the justifiable cause is relevant. For example, justifiable cause due to short term illness will last only for the period of the illness. There may be cases when the State determines that the justifiable cause continues for a longer period or through the life of the claim, for example, when the claimant is in approved training under State law. (Note: The Department anticipates that claimants in approved training will not be required to participate in reemployment services while they are in training.) d. Relation of Participation Requirement to Other State Eligibility Requirements. Depending on the nature and extent of the reemployment services in which the claimant is participating, States should apply other eligibility requirements in such a way as to not overly burden the claimant. For example, the State may choose to reduce the number of work search contacts required or relieve the claimant of the work search requirement during a period of participation in reemployment services, as appropriate. As noted in UIPL 13-94, Change 1, the justifiable cause exception does not supersede State able and available requirements, but rather is an additional eligibility requirement related to participation in reemployment services. Claimants may be determined to have justifiable cause for failure to participate in reemployment services; however, they must still meet a State's able and available requirements to be eligible for UI. For example, although a claimant who is ill may have justifiable cause for failure to participate in reemployment services, the claimant is still subject to the State's able and available requirements and may, as a result, be ineligible for UI. e. Appeal Rights. Under paragraphs (1) and (3) of Section 303(a), SSA, any eligibility determination that a claimant has failed to participate in reemployment services must be appealable. In addition, all determinations of UI eligibility must contain appeal rights in accordance with the Secretary's Standard for Claim Determinations. Although States must allow claimants to appeal denials for failure to participate in orientation and assessment, States are not required to permit claimants to contest the propriety of the referral to orientation and assessment. Orientation and assessment are aimed at determining what, if any, additional reemployment services may be needed by the claimants. Obviously, if claimants do not report, this determination cannot be made. In this regard, referrals to orientation and assessment are similar to reporting and "call-in" requirements. Claimants must, however, be allowed to question whether any services tailored to the individual are, in fact, needed. If any evidence appears at any stage of the nonmonetary determination or appeals process indicating that the claimant does not need these services, the UI agency must take the initiative in determining whether the referral was proper. If it is found not to be proper, then the partici-pation requirement does not apply and there is no need to address exceptions such as justifiable cause. Feedback and Reporting: Section 303(j)(1)(C), SSA, requires that States collect follow-up information relating to the reemployment services received by the referred claimants and the employment outcomes for these claimants. This information is to be used in refining the profiling system. Section 303(a)(6), SSA, also requires the States to provide "such reports, in such form and containing such information as the Secretary of Labor may from time to time require . . . ." Under these authorities, States will be required to submit information concerning profiling to the Department. This UIPL does not address what information must be collected or reported. Specific instructions for reporting any infor-mation on services and outcomes will be issued as changes to ETA Handbook 401, "Unemployment Insurance Reports Handbook".