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, the DWSPR, was created for these programs because discrete grants needed to be tracked separately. This form has been utilized since September 1992. Since then, the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) has been amended by the Job Training Reform Amendments and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 1993. To implement the provisions that pertain to Title III, the DWSPR has been revised to include cumulative reporting on an individual grant-specific basis for National Reserve grants funded under Section 322. A separate report should be submitted for each individual grant. States need not aggregate these reports. Up until June 30, 1993, States have reported summary information for all ongoing National Reserve grants funded in their State on the Worker Adjustment Program Quarterly Financial Report (WQFR). The revised Dislocated Worker Special Project Report (DWSPR) now consists of three sections. Section I provides financial and some participant data. Section II contains items on participant characteristics, program outcomes, and program activity. (Sections I and II remain the same except for a change in the breakouts for the average needs-related payments.) A new Section III contains items dealing with program income and recipient/subrecipient funds expended for project purposes. For DCAP and CAETA grants, Section I is submitted quarterly, Section II is submitted at the end of each program year and at project completion, and Section III is submitted only at project completion. (The revised DWSPR form with the 6/30/96 expiration date should be used for DCAP and CAETA grants beginning with the report covering activity through 9/93 which is due 11/15/93). For Title III National Reserve grants, Section I is submitted quarterly, and Section III is submitted at project completion. (Data similar to that reported in Section II will be reported on the SPIR for these grants.) Starting July 1, 1993, all ongoing and newly funded Title III National Reserve grants will be reported cumulatively on an individual grant basis on the DWSPR. 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 June 30, 1996. 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 revised 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: This RAL continues the series of annual Tax Rate by Industry Tables. This transmission updates the series through 1993.

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

Background. The updated directory is the result of changes in grantee leadership along with some changes of address and telephone numbers sent in by a number of grantees. It also includes new grantees designated as of March 1, 1995. It is important that all corrections be forwarded whenever they occur so you can be assured that mail will be provided to the correct address and individual. Action Required. Any changes should be placed on the attached Change of Address Information form and forwarded to the Division of Indian and Native American Programs (Attention: Andrea T.B. Brown). Inquiries. Questions or suggestions should be directed to your Federal Representative.

References: Section 3304(a)(6)(A) of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), UIPL No. 18-78, dated March 6, 1978; UIPL No. 4-83, dated November 15, 1982; UIPL No. 41-83, dated September 13, 1983; UIPL No. 30-85, dated July 12, 1985, (50 FR 48274, 48280); UIPL No. 11-86, dated January 31, 1986; UIPL No. No. 15-92, dated January 27, 1992, (57 FR 7795, 7796); the Draft Language and Commentary to Implement the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976-P.L. 94-566 ("1976 Draft Language"); and Supplements 1 through 5 to the 1976 Draft Language. Background: Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA, requires each State to pay unemployment compensation (UC) based on services performed for certain governmental entities and nonprofit organizations. UC is to be paid based on these services "on the same terms, and subject to the same conditions as compensation payable on the basis of other service" covered by the State law. This is commonly referred to as the "equal treatment" requirement. Exceptions to the equal treatment requirement are found in six distinct clauses of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA. These provisions are commonly referred to as the "between and within terms denial" provisions. Some of the between and within terms denial provisions are required as a condition of certification of State law by the Secretary of Labor. Others are optional. The following describes which provisions are required and which are optional: Required: Denial between and within terms based on services performed in an instructional, research or principal administrative (i.e., a "professional") capacity for either an educational institution or an educational service agency (ESA). (Clauses (i), (iii) and (iv) of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA.) Optional: (1) Denial between and within terms based on services performed in other than an instructional, research or principal administrative (i.e., a "non- professional") capacity for either an educational institution or an ESA. (Clause (ii); clauses (iii) and (iv) which are made optional for nonprofessional services by clause (vi), all of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA.) (2) Denial between and within terms based on services performed in either a professional or nonprofessional capacity when the services are provided to or on behalf of an educational institution. (Clause (v) of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA.) In the past, the Department had taken the position that, if an optional denial clause is enacted by a State, it must be applied equally to all services described in that clause. UIPL No. 15- 92, the Department's most recent issuance on the optional clauses, provided that a State may not apply the optional denial to some nonprofessional services while excluding other nonprofessional services. UIPL No. 15-92 also restated the Department's position that "if State law contained a provision implementing clause (v), it was required to apply equally to all services described in Section 3304(a)(6)(A)(i)-(iv)." (Emphasis in original.) The Department has reconsidered its position and concluded that, if a State so chooses, an optional denial clause need not be applied to all services described in that clause. In addition, the Department has concluded that States have other options concerning the implementation of the optional clauses. This UIPL is issued to provide the Department's new position to the States. Any previous Departmental position conflicting with this new position is superseded. Discussion: As noted above, the between and within terms denial provisions are exceptions to the equal treatment requirement of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA. The equal-treatment requirement only describes the relationship of the services required to be covered by Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA, to other services covered by State law. It does not address how exceptions to its requirements are to be applied. Therefore, the equal treatment requirement is not relevant to this matter. Those clauses of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA, which provide for the optional application of the between and within terms denial all provide that UC "may be denied." It is clear that the denial contained in these clauses is discretionary. No optional clause explicitly requires that all provisions of the clause be applied. Social legislation such as the FUTA is to be construed broadly with respect to coverage and benefits. Exceptions to its statutory remedies are to be narrowly construed. (See United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704, 712 (1947).) Accordingly, since the denial provisions are exceptions to the broad coverage provisions of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), they are given a narrow reading. The narrower reading in this case dictates that the application of an optional clause may be limited as to scope and/or time by a State. Such a reading, which permits a State to differentiate among services, or to otherwise limit application of a clause, could also result in extending coverage to the broadest number of unemployed persons, thereby accomplishing the basic purpose of the coverage requirements of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA. That is because States could choose to not apply the optional provisions to those services performed by classes of workers more deeply affected by unemployment. This discussion also indicates that an optional denial clause is not to be treated as an absolute which the States must implement in its entirety, but instead as a ceiling beyond which a State may not go without violating the equal treatment requirement of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA; a lesser application is possible. This approach has previously been followed by the Department where a "reasonable assurance" was required if a State implemented an optional clause. As was also noted in UIPL No. 15-92: States do have the option of adopting a more restrictive test than the "reasonable assurance" test for nonprofessional services. For example, instead of requiring the reasonable assurance requirement as specified under clause (ii), the State law may include a provision requiring a contract to return to work in the next year or term. Applying this concept to the optional denial clauses, States are henceforth granted discretion to apply any optional clause to some or all of the classes of services described in that clause. The term "classes of services" pertains to services performed as, for example, a custodian, cafeteria worker, bus driver, clerical worker or other nonprofessional class. Similarly, States may also limit the time period to which the optional clauses apply. Once a State elects to limit the application of a clause, the limitation must be uniformly applied throughout the State. A State may not, for example, treat services performed for one school district differently than services performed in another school district or treat services performed in a nonprofit educational institution differently from services performed in a public educational institution. This is because the denial clauses refer explicitly to "services" and certain periods of time, thereby providing a basis for providing the States the option to limit the provisions of an optional denial clause to particular classes of services or periods of time. There is no similar reference in the statute to schools, school districts or other geographical and political subdivisions and, there-fore, no basis for allowing disparate treatment of such geographical or political subdivisions. Interpretation and Application: The clauses of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA, relating to the optional application of the between and within terms denials to "nonprofessional" services are interpreted as follows: An optional clause represents an exception to the equal treatment requirement beyond which a State may not go. However, States may limit the application of the clause in the following situations, provided the limitation is applied uniformly throughout the State: (1) Clause (ii)(I) may be applied to some or all of the classes of services described in that clause. The term "classes of services" pertains to services performed as, for example, a custodian, cafeteria worker, bus driver, clerical worker or other nonprofessional class. (2) A more restrictive test than the "reasonable assurance" test required under the Department's interpretation of that term may be adopted. (3) The denial period may be limited to a shorter period than the period specified in clause (ii)(I), and the denial period may be applied only to selected vacation periods or holiday recesses specified in clause (iii). Action Required: State Administrators should provide this information to appropriate staff.

References: (a) JTPA, as amended (Public Law 97-3000); and (b) JTPA Interim Final Regulations, 20 CFR Part 627.420, as published in the Federal Register on December 29, 1992. Background: Approximately two years ago, ETA provided general procurement training to the JTPA system. Since the delivery of the training, the JTPA amendments were passed, and JTPA interim final regulations published. Section 165 of the amended Act required the Secretary to establish minimum procurement requirements in regulations, to be followed by Governors in prescribing and implementing procurement standards. The Secretary's procurement requirements were included in the interim final regulations. One of the standards imposed by the amendments requires procurements to include an appropriate analysis of the reasonableness of costs and prices. This standard was iterated in the regulations, with an explanation of when it was appropriate to undertake only a price analysis, as compared to a cost/price analysis. This section of the procurement regulations generated many comments. It was clear from a review of the comments that the JTPA system would benefit from a training session on cost/price analysis. As a result of the amendments and the interim final regulations, JTPA entities may no longer award to subrecipients fixed unit price performance based contracts whose costs are allocable only to training. Some of the commentors to the regulations thought that this meant that fixed unit price contracts were no longer allowable. Some of the goals of the amendments include a greater focus on fiscal accountability and the prevention of fraud and abuse in JTPA programs. Proper contract administration is integral in meeting the amendment goals. Training: Procurement training will be provided to the JTPA system which focuses on the three areas discussed in the Background section of this TEIN. The three modules of the training are: -- Cost/price analysis; -- Overview of contract types; and -- Contract administration and contractor performance. The training schedule and number of slots available for each Region follows (Note: slot distribution was based on the number of SDAs in each Region): State Region SDA Slots Training Location Dates I 24 Washington, DC area Oct 19 - Oct 22 II 43 Washington, DC area Oct 19 - Oct 22 III 45 Washington, DC area Oct 19 - Oct 22 IV 86 Atlanta, GA Dec 7 - Dec 10 V 101 Chicago, IL Nov 2 - Nov 5 VI 59 Houston, TX Nov 16 - Nov 19 VII 30 Houston, TX Nov 16 - Nov 19 VIII 18 Atlanta, GA Dec 7 - Dec 10 IX 62 San Diego, CA Nov 30 - Dec 3 X 17 San Diego, CA Nov 30 - Dec 3 Each of the five three-and-a-half day training courses is scheduled to start on Tuesday morning and end Friday at noon. Regional Administrators will be contacting the States to inform them of this training. They will ask each State to solicit the State JTPA agency and the SDAs for nominees. Due to the limited number of slots we ask that State level administrative entity staff be limited to no more than two per State, in order to allow for a larger SDA participation. Since there are fewer slots available than there are SDAs, we ask that representatives from "priority need" SDAs be selected for this training. SDA nominees are to be submitted via the State JTPA agency to the Region. Each State is to submit its nominees to the appropriate Regional Administrator. Since the deadline for submission by the Region is October 6, 1993, the States will have to submit their nominees by October 5. Action: JTPA Liaisons are asked to work with the Regional Office and their States to identify nominees for this training. Attached is the nomination information form that was forwarded to the Regions. Prior to using this form, please check with the appropriate Regional Office to determine whether they have made changes to the form.

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

Background: The attached tables contain preliminary estimates of unemployment insurance (UI) average employer contribution rates as reported by State agencies. The first table contains estimates for calendar years 1994 and 1995. For comparative purposes, actual rates for 1993 are also included. The rates shown are the average percent that UI taxes are of wages at or below the State taxable wage base. To permit comparison of data among States with different taxable wage bases, estimated tax rates for each year are also shown based on total wages. The second table shows the relative taxing effort being accomplished by each State in 1994 based on total wages. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to provide this information to the appropriate staff.

Background: The Employment and Training Administration has been very actively involved in improving customer service and satisfaction, in response to Departmental and ETA executive leadership as well as the President's Executive Order No. 12862. During the past year, ETA established customer service goals relating both to services for program customers and for delivery system partners. In addition, a number of other actions were undertaken to obtain feedback regarding customer service and program needs, including hosting dialogue sessions, running focus group discussions, conducting base-line customer satisfaction surveys, and evaluating internal operations to assess the levels of satisfaction that delivery system partners and customers hold for the Employment Service, Unemployment Insurance Service, Job Training Partnership Act Title II, III and IV programs and national and regional administration of these programs. The numerous ETA activities undertaken to improve customer service and program performance are discussed in the attached report, "The Employment and Training Customer Satisfaction Report." This report also discusses achievements compared against commitments made in the September 1994 customer service plan, "Partnering for Customer Service." This report is not all-inclusive of the customer service and continuous improvement activities taking place throughout the training and employment community. A number of Regional and local customer satisfaction initiatives are either in planning stages or are currently underway and will be included in subsequent reports. In other cases, the efforts are significantly broader than the customer satisfaction report requirements of the NPR. In some instances, such as the Simply Better initiative, newsletters and customer feedback quotations were submitted to the NPR in July. ETA applauds these activities and encourages the continuation of these important efforts in local, State and Regional areas. Next Steps for Continuous Improvement: Customer service including customer satisfaction continues to be an important goal for the Employment and Training Administration and its delivery system partners. In keeping with this, ETA's performance goals for FY1996/PY1995 include program performance and system building goals related to ETA's mission as well as customer service goals geared to encouraging service delivery partners and ETA staff to institutionalize and continuously improve customer service in all programs and delivery systems. ETA is currently in the process of discussing these FY1996/PY1995 goals with our State and national program delivery system partners and stakeholders. If these ambitious goals are to be met, employment and training partners and stakeholders at all levels must commit to their successful achievement. ETA will continue to improve customer service to its partners, particularly those areas that were rated less than "very valuable" on responses to the program-specific customer satisfaction surveys conducted by the Regional Offices. The FY1996/PY1995 goals specifically include improving both the satisfaction of its delivery system partners with ETA, and improving the satisfaction of customers with the delivery system partners. Action Required: Please distribute the attached report to appropriate officials, SDAs and SSAs in your State. In addition, please continue to take every opportunity to work closely with your Regional Administrator to jointly improve the services to and satisfaction of our customers.

References: None. Background: As a result of a conference call involving the States in Region III, the District of Columbia and Pennsylvania Partners (the Pennsylvania Service Delivery Area (SDA) Association), it was agreed that a Regional conference on Work-Learning Integration Programs for Youth would be held in the Reading, Pennsylvania area. Pennsylvania Partners coordinated the event as a continuing activity under a Technical Assistance project funded by the Regional Office. Contents of the Videotape: The outline of the conference, with a brief description of each segment/model program and the identity of the presenters is as follows: -- Opening Plenary Session - begins with an introduction by Virginia Williams Joyce, Executive Director of Pennsylvania Partners, followed by reports from groups of participants on their expectations for the conference. This is followed by an introduction of the presenters with thoughts relative to the group expectations. -- Vermont Conservation Corps "WRD" Curriculum - presented by John Zaber. The "WRD" Curriculum is an experiential program that uses actual work experiences of Corps members to reinforce language and expressive skills through written and oral reports. (13 minutes) -- "Opportunity Skyway" - presented by Joseph Puhalla, Executive Director of the Prince George's County Private Industry Council in Landover, Maryland which developed and operates the program. This program works to keep students in school, interested in learning, and focused on careers of choice by relating school curriculum to a broad range of careers in aviation. (13 minutes) -- "Youth At Its Best" - presented by Terry Willis of Man-Tra- Con, a program operator based in Springfield, Illinois, which markets packaged programs which can be operated by an SDA or a sub-contractor. The program has options for computer or electronics training, integrated with entrepreneurial skills and basic education. (11 minutes) -- "Futures" - presented by Jim Wilmer, Northern High School in Baltimore, Maryland. Futures is a comprehensive four year program for at-risk high school youth in Baltimore's "Tomorrow" program. The primary goals are: to increase the skill competency of youth; to increase the number of youth graduating from high school; and to increase the success of students upon graduation. (13 minutes) -- PPV/PA Corps/STEP - presented by Jim Klasen and Mel Campos of Public Private Ventures and Daryl Kern of STEP, Inc. This presentation highlights the various corps and wilderness challenge programs operated and/or assisted by Public Private Ventures and STEP, focusing on the integration of basic skills training into corps work and wilderness activities. (11 minutes) -- Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL) - presented by Phyllis Snyder, CAEL Philadelphia Regional Office. This presentation describes how the collaboration between the Delaware Valley Industrial Resource Center and CAEL is allowing work with small to medium size manufacturing firms to begin building systems that promote ongoing learning for youth and adults. (13 minutes) -- "PILOT" Program Overview - presented by Ed McCann of the Berks County, Pennsylvania Employment and Training Office and Dana Dehoff, PILOT Program Director. PILOT is a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program, developed specifically to serve students who would not otherwise qualify for traditional training programs and who might typically be assigned by case managers to Adult Basic Education, English as a Second Language or GED programs. Key features are a team approach to teaching; integration of competencies - academic/literacy and vocational (e.g., competencies learned "in context" to a job specific skill); meaningful work experience prior to completion of the program; and an on-site GED program. The three vocational tracks included in the program are building maintenance/carpentry skills; clerical and computer skills; and health care occupations. (29 minutes) Distribution: One (1) copy of the videotape in VHS format will be provided under separate cover to all JTPA State Liaisons and Department of Labor/ETA Regional Offices. Recipients are requested to inform Service Delivery Area Directors of the video; make arrangements for duplication and distribution as needed; and circulate it through the State as deemed appropriate.