Reference: Training and Employment Information Notice (TEIN) No. 58-85 and Beyond the School Doors: The Literacy Needs of Job Seekers Served by the U.S. Department of Labor, by Kirsch, I.S., Jungeblut, A. & Campbell A. (1992). Background: Recognizing the importance of literacy skills in the workplace, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is sponsoring a series of initiatives to address the literacy needs of ETA program clients. These literacy initiatives are built on an earlier effort to report literacy levels of Americans such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Under contract with ETA, the Educational Testing Service (ETS) designed and conducted the DOL Workplace Literacy Survey of the JTPA and ES/UI populations. Building on this survey, ETS developed the WLT. Description of Workplace Literacy Test: The WLT is an assessment instrument that measures three dimensions of literacy: prose comprehension, the ability to read and understand prose; document literacy, the ability to use information found in documents; and quantitative literacy, the ability to set up and solve problems using quantitative information. The assessment items are built on tasks that adults frequently encounter in their daily lives. In addition, the test items making up this assessment were developed in a manner that was faithful to a logical cognitive model that attempts to define how adults approach and perform these types of tasks. Pilot Project Objectives and Description: The purposes of the WLT Implementation Pilot Project are to: 1) inform ETA programs about the WLT, 2) determine the validity of WLT procedures, 3) develop procedure manuals, 4) establish a standardized scoring system, and 5) obtain information to determine whether the WLT can be used for the following purposes: -- providing literacy profiles on clients for use in vocational counseling and remedial programs (e.g., JTPA); and -- measuring changes in literacy skills associated with participation in various training programs. Approximately eighty sites will be included in the pilot project. (Sites to be selected will include SESA local offices, State JTPA and EDWAA programs and projects.) As soon as sites are obtained ETS will schedule a one-day training session in each of the ten DOL Regions. ETS will supply sites with test booklets, score the test, and provide score reports at no charge to the sites. Participant responsibilities include: 1) administering the WLT test to 100-300 individuals during the next year, 2) keeping the test instruments secure, 3) returning completed tests for scoring. Each of these responsibilities will be described in more detail by ETS at the training sessions. Use of the WLT: The WLT can be used to meet federal requirements for reporting the literacy levels of JTPA clients. According to the Standardized Program Information Report instructions, DOL will consider either grade level or raw scores from such tests as the WLT to be in compliance with reporting requirements. Limitations of the WLT: The WLT test results cannot be used for hiring or promotional purposes, nor for counseling or training individuals in literacy level requirements for specific occupations. Action: States are requested to provide this information to appropriate JTPA, EDWAA, or SESA entities and request that interested parties contact Jules Goodison, ETS Co-project Director by December 10, 1993, at 1-800-223-0267 or by telefacsimile (609) 734-1878.

Background: Title II, Section 201 of Public Law 102-318 amended the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 by providing for an alternative trigger mechanism for determining a State's eligibility to pay EB: a 3-month average seasonally adjusted TUR. The Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is the official source of this data. The criteria necessary for a State to be eligible to pay 13 weeks of EB based on the TUR trigger are: (a) the average rate of total unemployment (seasonally adjusted) for the most recent 3-month period for which data for all States are published must equal or exceed 6.5 percent; (b) that rate must equal or exceed 110 percent of the rate for the corresponding 3 months in either of the prior two years; and (c) the State must have a provision in its law to utilize the TUR as an alternative EB trigger. If the 3-month average TUR equals or exceeds 8.0 percent and is at least 110 percent of the TUR for the corresponding 3-month period in either of the prior two years, the State enters a "high unemployment period" in which 20 weeks of EB are payable. Revisions to Historical Data: At the end of each calendar year, BLS routinely makes revisions to its historical data. The labor force, employment and unemployment data are revised to incorporate updated population data from the Bureau of the Census and any revisions in other data sources; seasonal adjustment factors are modified and econometric models are re-estimated to include the experience of that year; and the monthly estimates are "benchmarked" to equal the CPS annual averages. Effective immediately, these revised historical data will be incorporated in the computation of TUR percentages of prior years as soon as they are published. However, no State's EB status will change retroactively based on revised data. BLS will be the official source of all data used to make the EB 3-month average TUR computation, and BLS will make all of these computations using their standard methodologies. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to provide the above information to all appropriate staff.

Reference: Training and Employment Information Notice (TEIN) No. 20-92. Background: These TAGs were prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) by the Center for Human Resources of the Heller Graduate School at Brandeis University. The Center is one of the Nation's leading research, training, and policy development organizations in the fields of youth development, employment, and education. "Assessment for At-Risk Youth: A Practitioner's Guide to Definitions, Guiding Principles, and Implementation Strategies" has been prepared to help youth practitioners understand the importance of assessment and its basic components. The guide goes beyond the essential components of a comprehensive, integrated, quality assessment system by addressing key questions. The "Assessment for At-Risk Youth: A Decision Maker's Summary" serves as a companion piece to the Practitioner's Guide. It has been prepared to help line practitioners, managers, and policy makers understand what it takes to build and manage an effective assessment system that meets public accountability expectations and youth employability development needs. It complements the previously issued "Improving Assessment" TAG. The "A Guide to Program Design Options for Serving At-Risk Youth" synthesizes the major themes involved in youth program design and walks through the basic components of youth program planning and implementation. Advance copies of the TAGs were distributed at the DOL sponsored train-the-trainer sessions on Youth Assessment and Program Design Options held the weeks of September 27, October 18, and November 1. These TAGs are part of a series of technical assistance guides and training being developed to assist States and service delivery areas (SDAs) in the implementation of quality JTPA programs. In addition to these TAGs, the series will include technical assistance guides and training in critical program areas such as: Case Management; SDA Monitoring of Service Providers; Targeting, Outreach and Recruitment; On-the-Job Training; Financial Management; Procurement; and State Oversight. Distribution: Copies of the TAGs are being provided under separate cover to all State Liaisons for distribution to: -- SDAs (4 copies each); -- State Worker Adjustment Liaison (3 copies); -- State Employment Service Administrator (one copy); and -- State JTPA agency (balance of copies). The TAGs have been prepared in a loose-leaf format suitable for use in a three-ring binder. Computer disks are also being provided to the State Liaisons for the distribution of one each to the SDAs.

References: The Trade Act of 1974 as amended; regulations at 20 CFR 617; GAL 4-89, and Change l; Section C of APPENDIX A to GAL 15-90; and Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Audit Report No. 05-93-008-03-330. Background: The OIG recently completed an audit of the TAA Program in nine selected States. The OIG conducted the audit to determine if the TAA program assisted workers to find suitable employment and, where training was needed, how States managed their training efforts. States audited were Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The OIG concluded that ETA and the States did not know if the program is effective in assisting workers to return to suitable employment. The OIG felt that data necessary to evaluate the program are not available because clearly defined objectives, follow up and relevant performance measures are lacking. Among its recommendations, the OIG indicated that ETA should strengthen controls over the granting of waivers from the TAA training requirement if it is to meet the training and reemployment goals for workers implied by the Trade Act. Among the waiver issues cited by the OIG were: no evidence that waivers were periodically reviewed as required; lack of documentation showing special conditions or other justifications for waivers; and numerous cases in which waivers may have been granted for unreasonable time periods, were counterproductive, or may have been contrary to the intent of the program. The OIG also reported that States used waivers to allow participants to receive TRA payments, even though training may have been feasible and appropriate in many cases . This practice may be a disincentive for training and send mixed signals about the priorities of the TAA program. This GAL restates the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) guidance for issuance of TAA certifications waiving workers' participation in TAA training and administrative processes which States must have in place to ensure proper administration of the waiver of training requirements. States' Responsibility: States have a positive responsibility to ensure that certifications waiving workers' participation in TAA training are granted only when it has been determined that training is not feasible or appropriate. GAL 15-90 provides specific guidance to the States on how to make a determination on whether training is "feasible or appropriate" for a TAA applicant. A determination on whether training is "feasible or appropriate" is made by evaluating whether training suitable for the worker is available, the training is approvable under Section 236, and the worker is able to take full advantage of the training and complete the training. In addition, full funding for the training must be available and the training must commence within thirty days of approval. In addition, when a State agency makes a determination that the training requirement will be waived for an individual, the State agency must issue a written certification to the individual of such a finding. State agencies are also required to develop a procedure to review these certifications every 30 days or less to ensure that the conditions upon which the certification was granted continue to exist. If conditions under which a waiver certification was issued have changed, the certification must be revoked if it is determined that training is now appropriate. Finally, State agencies must also develop procedures for compiling and reporting on the number of certifications issued and revoked, by reason. Although State agencies are not required to forward copies of individual waivers to the Department, Regional staff responsible for TAA activities will check random samples of waivers during regular ETA reviews. Operating instructions on State responsibilities for providing certifications waiving workers' participation in TAA training are issued in Section C of APPENDIX A of GAL 15-90, dated August 21, 1990. Action Required: The OIG findings underscore the importance of implementing and adhering to administrative controls on the issuances of waivers. States must inform all appropriate staff of the content of this GAL and implement the following actions. a. Review the State TAA program and ensure that State certifications waiving workers' participation in TAA training are granted, documented and reviewed in accordance with the guidelines described in TAA program operating instructions at Section C of APPENDIX A to GAL 15-90. b. Determine what procedures and administrative controls, if any, the State needs to have implemented to ensure that waivers are being reviewed every 30 days to determine the current standing of the waiver. c. Implement corrective action or procedures, where needed, to ensure that the State is able to compile and report on certifications and revocations in a timely and accurate manner and that the State administration of TAA training waivers is in accordance with TAA program operating instructions at Section C of APPENDIX A to GAL 15-90.

Average Weekly Benefit Amount (AWBA) Utilization: On May 11, 1995, the Department published an interim final rule in the Federal Register (60 FR 25560), which amended Section 625.6 effective for all major disasters declared on and after that date. Among the changes, the amendments provide that the minimum weekly DUA amount will be 50 percent of the AWBA paid in the State for regular compensation, unless workers are customarily or routinely employed less than full-time prior to their unemployment due to the disaster. The attached listing sets forth the 50 percent of AWBA computation applicable for major disasters declared during the first quarter of FY 1996, from October 1 through December 31, 1995. Action Required: SESA Administrators are requested to provide this information to appropriate staff and insure that the correct AWBA is utilized in determining the weekly DUA amount.

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.

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

References: DINAP Bulletin 91-22. Background: Based upon suggestions made by the JTPA title IV-A grantees and DOL staff who participated in the Partnership Planning process, and continuing with DOL efforts to further streamline reporting requirements, several changes have been made for Program Year 1995. The new reporting forms and instructions attached to this bulletin contain changes which should reduce reporting errors and increase more timely submittals. The following report and planning forms, as approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), are effective immediately for PY 1995. Most importantly, frequency of reporting has been changed from quarterly to semi-annual. Grantees are not required to submit a first or third quarterly report for PY 1995. This bulletin summarizes the final OMB-approved reporting and planning forms and instructions for PY 1995 and PY 1996. Performance Standards and Revised Reporting and Planning Forms and Instructions: The following section summarizes the significant reporting and planning line item changes for each new form. A. Performance Standards 1. Optional Selection of Measures There will continue to be three performance measures used to assess grantee performance over the next two program years. The Entered Employment Rate (EER), the Positive Termination Rate (PTR), and the Employability Enhancement Rate (EEN). At the end of the program year, grantees will need to meet the final standards for two of the three measures to be considered "fully successful". Grantees serving more "job ready" participants and/or located in favorable labor markets will probably be more successful at meeting the EER and PTR measures. Those grantees serving less skilled participants and/or located on reservations or in rural areas with limited job opportunities may be more successful with the PTR and EEN measures. 2. Employability Enhancements (EEN) The EEN measure reflects a more complete count of those participants who have enhanced their job- specific skills or made learning gains as a result of program participation. Unlike the previous measure of positive terminations, this performance measure excludes job placements to assess more directly how well the grantee is able to address the skill needs of its clients. Use of this measure in combination with other performance indicators will encourage grantees to better prepare their participants for advanced training, education, and more stable employment. 3. Revision of Average Cost per Participant Guideline To encourage more intensive services to hard-to- serve clients, cost measures as a performance standard were eliminated several years ago. They were replaced with a suggested guideline of an average cost per participant, which could be exceeded with appropriate justification or explanation. In keeping with this trend of serving the hard-to-serve, section 401 grantees are reminded that the average cost per participant guideline has been raised from $4,200 to $4,400 for PY 1995, for purposes of planning and program review. Grantees exceeding this limit at the end of the program year will be asked to explain why its provision of services required higher per- participant expenditures. B. Instructional Changes for Each Form 1. Budget Information Summary (BIS) - Form 8600 Grantees are now required to report semi-annually rather than quarterly. Therefore, planning is only required on a semi-annual basis. Although quarterly columns remain on the new reporting form, the 1st and 3rd quarter columns are not required to be completed but may be utilized at the grantee's option. Revised the "Program Funds" section which shows total funds available so that grantees can add down the column. Eliminated line 5.a. "Community Benefits Projects ONLY" from old form. Tryout Employment has been eliminated. 2. Program Planning Summary (PPS) - Form 8601 Grantees are required to report semi-annually rather than quarterly. Therefore, planning is only required on a semi-annual basis. Although quarterly columns remain on the new reporting form, the 1st and 3rd quarter columns are not required to be completed but may be utilized at the grantee's option. Eliminated column (b) "Community Benefit Project". Re-numbered and clarified section I. B. "Total Terminations" category by differentiating "Indirect Placements" into two separate groups, those with and those without enhancements. This essentially eliminates those subcategories which have caused reporting errors in the past. Eliminated line H., section III. "JOBS program participant" in the old form. Line F., section III. "Handicapped" has been retitled "Disabled" (same definition, however). Line G., section III. "Reading Skills At or Below 7th Grade Level" has been changed to "Reading Skills At or Below 8th Grade Level" to be consistent with the definition in the Job Training Partnership Act. Section IV. "Community Benefit Project(s) Goals" on the old form has been eliminated on the new form. Tryout Employment has been eliminated. 3. Financial Status Report (FSR) - Form 8602 Line 9.a. "Community Benefit Projects ONLY" on the old form has been deleted on the new form. Tryout Employment has been eliminated. 4. Program Status Summary (PSS) - Form 8603 Re-numbered and clarified section I. B. "Total Terminations" category by differentiating "Indirect Placements" into two separate groups, those with and those without enhancements. This essentially eliminates those subcategories which have caused reporting errors in the past. Column (b) "Community Benefit Projects" on the old form has been eliminated on the new form. Line C. Section II. " On-the-Job Training/Tryout Employment" on the old form has been redefined to read "On-the-Job Training". Tryout Employment is not an allowable activity per the JTPA amendments of 1992. Section III. "Community Benefit Project(s) Status" on the old form has been eliminated on the new form. A new section III. "Linkages with Other Programs" has been added in the new form. 5. Annual Status Report (ASR) - Form 8604 Eliminated the "Community Benefits" column. Re-numbered and clarified the "Total Terminations" category by differentiating "Indirect Placements" into two separate groups, those with and those without enhancements. Expanded the EEN termination category on the second page of the report form to include multiple adult/youth employability enhancements. This allows grantees to report multiple enhancement counts for terminees. Revised the "barriers to employment" for the following line items: -- Reading skills at or below the 8th Grade Level; -- JOBS Program Participant has been moved to the "Linkages with Other Programs" category; and -- The "Handicapped" line item was retitled "Disabled" (same definition, however). Combined the two veterans categories. Eliminated the two categories of training duration, "Average Weeks in All (Specific) Training" and "Average Weeks in Section 401 Training". Added "Linkages with Other Programs" category, and included a space for the grantee to report on innovative programs or activities undertaken during the year. Revised the "Program Funds" section which shows total funds available so that grantees can add down the column. Moved the "Total Program Costs" category to a separate page to allow for separate submission in the event of revision or amendment. Eliminated Tryout Employment. General: In addition to the above-mentioned changes, there have been several definitional and editorial changes to the instructions which have clarified them significantly. While the above-mentioned changes refer primarily to the reporting of line items, grantees are advised that some of the column headings have been changed to obtain new data or data previously reported on other lines or columns on the old reporting forms. Action: Grantees should read the attached final instructions carefully and familiarize themselves with the new reporting requirements before submitting any of the required reports on the attached final forms to the program office (DINAP). Technical assistance on the new reporting requirements will be provided. Inquiries: Contact your DINAP Federal Representative Team.

Reference. DINAP Bulletins Nos. 94-18; 94-18, Change 1; 94-27; 95-03; and 95-09 (dated October 18, 1995 - renumbered 95-11). Background. The Congress is currently working on the Department's appropriation for Fiscal Year (FY) 1996. The final figure for PY 1996 JTPA title IV-A will most likely be substantially less than the final figure of $59,787,000 appropriated for PY 1995. This fact, coupled with the continuing effects of the 1990 Census data on the allocation formula, will mean that all section 401 grantees will continue to receive smaller grant allocations. Accordingly, the Department has made a policy change to alleviate the portion of this deficiency imposed administratively. Policy. It is the policy of the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration that all carry-in limits previously issued since 1991 for title IV-A funds are hereby withdrawn, including limits imposed on the transfer of IV-A funds from the now-expired 99-1/B-3 grants to the new B-5 grants which (for title IV-A purposes) became effective on July 1, 1995. It is further DOL/ETA policy that carry-in limits are suspended in general. Grantees which exceed the former limit will be required to explain why they did so. Grantees failing to provide an acceptable reason for exceeding the former (20%) limit, given the diminished availability of program funds, will have the former limit reimposed on a case-by-case basis. Action. Grantees wishing to transfer unexpended obligational authority from the expired 99-1/B-3 grant to the current grant must complete the attached grant signature sheet and a revised Budget Information Summary (BIS) for the summer or program year into which the funds are being transferred as soon as possible to the following address: U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration Division of Indian and Native American Programs Room N-4641 FPB 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210 ATTENTION: MODIFICATIONS DESK Questions. Contact Greg Gross on (202) 219-7509.