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

Background: Due to interest by national, regional, and State UI managers and policy makers about the growth in the employee leasing industry and its impact on, and implications for, the State UI programs, the USDOL entered into a contract with KRA Corporation to study the effect of the employee leasing industry on State UI programs. The particular interests of State UI managers, with respect to the employee leasing industry, were exhibited through a survey conducted by a committee formed by the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies (ICESA). Primary among the areas of interest were: (a) the aggregation of employees into the employee leasing industry rather than the industry in which the workers normally performed services; (b) reduced experience rating; (c) tax rate manipulation; and (d) bankruptcies of employee leasing companies. Study Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop a national perspective on the impact of employee leasing on the UI system. To meet the study objective, KRA Corporation conducted a survey of States between September 1 and November 1, 1994; aggregated the State employee leasing statutes and regulations; delineated the State definitions of employee leasing and of temporary help; and performed an analysis of wage data provided by four State UI agencies. Of the fifty-three (53) State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs), only fourteen (14) do not have a definition of employee leasing in their laws, regulations or agency policies. Although the majority of SESAs have developed a definition for the industry, few track the activities of employee leasing firms or have techniques with which to differentiate employee leasing companies from other firms. Many SESAs currently track the activities of various industries and analyze the impact of the industries on the State UI program. Development of similar methods of analyses by the SESAs for the leasing industry could provide useful information for decision makers in the future. Required Action: SESA Administrators are requested to distribute the referenced report to appropriate SESA staff. SESA Administrators are also encouraged to take steps to track and analyze the impact of the employee leasing industry on the State's UI program. Separate Cover: The final study entitled, Employee Leasing: Implications for State Unemployment Insurance Programs, was mailed under separate cover.

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

Background: Over the past decade, global competition and calls for upgrading the American workforce have generated public interest in the preparation of American youth for employment. To promote and evaluate initiatives designed to address this concern, the Department of Labor (DOL) sponsored the School-to-Work/Youth Apprenticeship Demonstration. The demonstration began in September 1990 with grants to six organizations to develop and implement a wide array of school-to-work-based learning approaches. A report presenting a final assessment of the early implementa- tion experiences of the demonstration programs and the students who participated in them, was prepared for ETA by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR), of Princeton, New Jersey. The report presents a final assessment of the early implementation experiences of the demonstration programs and the students who participated in them. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are the culmination of more than four years of program observation and data collection conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) which began an evaluation of the demonstration in June 1991. During this period, as evidence on barriers and promising practices emerged from this and other research efforts and as Federal priorities shifted, the policy context for and expectations of school-to-work initiatives evolved. Copies of the Mathematica report, Experiences and Lessons of the School-to-Work/Youth Apprenticeship Demonstration, have been distributed under separate cover. However, inadvertently, pages 1 and 2 of the Executive Summary were not included in the publication. Under separate cover you will receive copies of these two pages. Action Required: Please ensure that pages 1 and 2 of the Executive Summary are distributed to all those who received copies of Experiences and Lessons of the School-to-Work/Youth Apprenticeship Demonstration.

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

Reference: Training and Employment Information Notice No. 17-96: Employment and Training Administration PY 1996/FY 1997 Goals.

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

References. DINAP Bulletin No. 96-04; A Guide to Smartlink II, Enclosure (1), SUB-ACCOUNT STRUCTURE AND PROGRAM YEAR AND TITLE CODES. Background. Most section 401 grantees have already received their signed grant documents and Notices of Obligation (NOO's), which authorize them to operate title II-B programs for the summer of 1997. On or about July 1, most grantees will receive their title IV-A grant documents and NOO's for PY 1997. Grantees who use the PMS to draw down their JTPA funds will need to use the following subaccount codes to draw down the appropriate funds. Grantees who continue to obtain their funds through the SF-270, Request for Advance or Reimbursement, will not be affected by this bulletin. Action. The subaccount code required to access title II-B funds for the summer of 1997 will be AB. The new subaccount code for PY 1997 title IV-A funds is AC. JTPA section 401 grantees should use these subaccount codes to draw down 1997 funds. Important Reminders. A. All other previously-issued subaccount codes remain the same, including the "split" subaccounts for title II-B funds for the summer of 1993. Grantees are reminded that, when drawing down funds under either title, the oldest remaining funds should be drawn down first, so that as many subaccounts as possible can be "zeroed out." Grantees should pay special attention to those funds expiring on 06/30/97. B. Because all carry-in limits have been officially removed, the only exception to the "First In, First Out" (FIFO) rule is when a grantee is transferring funds between different grants (such as from the 99-1 grant to the B-5 grant) and wishes to leave the exact amount to be transferred (by title) in the appropriate subaccount to facilitate the transfer process. C. Grantees wishing to transfer funds from the 99-1/B-3 grant to the B-5 grant who have not already done so, should submit their transfer modifications to DINAP as soon as p possible, pursuant to the instructions contained in DINAP Bulletin No. 95-12. Effective date. Date of this bulletin. Inquiries. Questions should be addressed to Ms. Karen Tekleberhan at (202) 219-8764 or Mr. Greg Gross on (202) 219-7509 ext 141.

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.