To preserve the formatting of this document, it has been converted to PDF (Portable Document Format) to retain its original layout.

References. TEGL 1-94, dated August 31, 1994; 20 CFR Part 627.470; also the "Guide to JTPA Performance Standards for Program Years 1994 and 1995" transmitted by Training and Employment Information Notice 16-94, dated December 13, 1994. Background. Within 90 days after the end of the Program Year [JTPA 106(j)], each State is required to report to the Secretary the final performance standards and actual performance of each Service Delivery Area (SDA) within the State. Within the same timeframe, the State shall also provide to the Secretary technical assistance plans for each SDA that has failed the established performance standards for one program year, and a reorganization plan for each SDA that has failed performance standards for two consecutive program years. Policy. Effective Program Year (PY) 1994, the Governor's determination of an SDA's failure to meet performance standards, and the consequent imposition of technical assistance and reorganization plans, must incorporate the Secretary's parameters, including the new definition of failure to meet performance standards (see TEGL 1-94). The Secretary's definition of failure to meet performance standards is not retroactive to PY 1993, unless similar provisions were included in the Governor's performance standards policy for PY 1993. For Program Years 1993 and 1994 only, the Governor's policy shall be used to determine SDAs that are subject to sanctions due to failure to meet performance standards for 2 consecutive years. Further, Governors are encouraged to take into consideration program funding uncertainties and other budgetary constraints in their review of SDA performance results and development of performance standards. In particular, we encourage Governors to review performance standards for youth programs, given rescissions and continuing uncertainty of youth program funding. Governors are reminded that adjustments to performance levels are allowable should changes occur in the levels of funding, the local economy, or needs in service to special populations.

Background: Sec. 106 of JTPA, as amended, directs the Secretary to establish performance standards for adult, youth, and dislocated worker programs. These standards may be updated every two years based on the most recent JTPA program experience, as well as program emphases and goals established by the Department of Labor. The Secretary also issues instructions for implementing standards and parameter criteria for States to follow in adjusting the Secretary's standards for service delivery areas (SDAs) and substate areas (SSAs). The Job Training Reform Amendments (JTRA) of 1992 mandated significant changes in the design and operation of local job training programs, as well as the criteria used to assess their performance. Revised section 106 requires that performance standards for Title II-A, Title II-C, Section 204(d), and Title III programs measure the number of job placements that provide a minimum of 20 hours of work per week, and that programs be rewarded based on high performance, increased service to the "hard-to-serve," and quality job placements that are both high-paying and offer employer-assisted benefits. Incentive and sanction policies are to be structured around more explicit criteria, and performance standards failure is now federally defined to ensure greater uniformity in assessing underperformance nationwide. As a result of the JTPA amendments, section 204(d) now mandates performance measures for the older worker program. To assist the Department in responding to the substantive changes required in the section 106 amendments, a Technical Workgroup was convened in Washington, DC, in mid-July 1993. The workgroup had representatives from State and local JTPA programs; public interest groups, including the Partnership for Training and Employment Careers; the U.S. Conference of Mayors; the National Association of Counties; the National Governors' Association; the National Council on the Aging; and staff from the Department of Labor (DOL) Office of the Inspector General. This Guidance Letter incorporates, to a large extent, the workgroup's findings. Performance Management Goals for PY's 1994-1995: Departmental goals, initially established for PY 1990 in anticipation of the amendments, remain unchanged and are as follows: Targeting services to a more at-risk population; Improving the quality and intensity of services that lead to skills acquisition, long-term employability and increased earnings; Placing greater emphasis on basic skills acquisition to qualify for employment or advanced education or training; and Promoting comprehensive, coordinated human resource programs to address the multiple needs of at-risk populations. In addition, with the passage of the 1992 JTPA Amendments, the performance management system has been tasked, through its performance incentive policies, to improve service to out-of-school youth and also to foster employment in better quality jobs which offer high wages and employer-assisted benefits. These goals are reflected in the Secretary's six Title II-A and Title II-C (core) measures, national numerical standards for these measures, new incentive award criteria, and associated reporting requirements. Governors still retain authority to establish additional standards which reflect State policy and to develop the specific approach to determining incentive awards. This issuance specifies the national standards for PY's 1994-1995 and introduces the new criteria which must be a part of State incentive grant policies. Data to support additional non-cost measures will continue to be reported and Governors may use these measures, or others in making State incentive award determinations. Data on costs together with program performance will provide critical information for State monitoring, fiscal oversight, and assist States in measuring returns on their human resource investments. The Department has identified two additional goals for PY 1994-1995. These are: -- Establishing a strong customer focus and orientation toward improving the program's responsiveness in meeting the individual needs of participants; and -- Seeking and using customer feedback to monitor the appropriateness of JTPA services and to promote continuous program improvements. States and SDAs are encouraged to survey customers on a regular basis as an integral part of their program oversight to identify program weaknesses and to improve program services. Technical assistance will be made available on cost-effective ways to gather and utilize such information. Secretary's National Standards for PY's 1994-1995. The Secretary's performance measures and national standards for Title II-A, Title II-C, section 204(d), and Title III (all of section 302(c)(1) State activities, and sections 302(c)(2) and 302(d) substate area activities) are as follows: PY 1994-1995 Performance Standards Title II-A Adult Follow-up Employment Rate: 59% Adult Weekly Earnings at Follow-up : $245 Welfare Follow-up Employment Rate: 47% Welfare Weekly Earnings at Follow-up : $223 Title II-C Youth Entered Employment Rate: 41% Youth Employability Enhancement Rate: 40% Section 204(d) Older Worker Programs Entered Employment Rate: 52% Average Hourly Wage at Placement: $5.45 Title III Entered Employment Rate: 67% Average Wage at Placement State Determined The Title II-A adult and welfare follow-up measures will continue to be based on individuals who terminate during the first three quarters of the program year and the last quarter of the previous program year. Explanation of Performance Standards Levels. The Title II-A and II-C numerical standards were derived from PY 1992 aggregate performance data reported on the JTPA Annual Status Report (JASR) and are generally set at a minimally-acceptable level that approximately 75% of the SDA's can be expected to exceed. Revising the numerical standard for the Youth Entered Employment Rate (YEER) in the same way would lead to reduced standards for SDAs. However, recent National JTPA Study results suggest that employment and earnings experienced by out-of-school youth in JTPA fall short of acceptable levels. Therefore, to encourage improved services to out-of-school youth, the numerical standard for the YEER will remain at its current level of 41 percent. Earnings standards have been adjusted to account for expected future inflation. Finally, an additional special adjustment has been made to employment-related standards to account for the requirement in section 106(k) that permits credit, for performance standards purposes, only for employment that is scheduled for 20 or more hours per week. Similar to the Title II-A and Title II-C standards, the Title III standard was derived from PY 1992 performance data reported on the Worker Adjustment Program Annual Program Report (WAPR). This standard is set at a level that, approximately, 75 percent of the substate areas can be expected to exceed. As with the employment measures for Titles II-A and II-C, an adjustment has been made to take into account the 20-hour per week employment requirement. Since discrete aggregate data were not available for PY 1992 Section 204(d) Older Worker program performance, available SPIR data were used to assist in setting performance standards levels for that program. As with the employment measures for Titles II-A, II-C and III, an adjustment has been made to take into account the 20-hour per week employment requirement. NOTE: Programs operated under section 204(d) are State programs even though they may be managed by various local entities. Therefore, performance standards will be applied to the total older worker programs State-wide. Unlike the adult and youth programs under Title II-A/C, however, no incentive awards or sanctions are associated with these standards. Implementing Provisions: The following implementing requirements must be followed: A. Required Standards. For Titles II-A and II-C, Governors are required to set, for each SDA, a numerical performance standard for each of the six Secretary's measures; for the Older Worker program, Governors are required to set numerical Entered Employment Rate and Average Wage at Placement standards for programs operated under section 204(d); for Title III, Governors are required to set for each substate area a numerical performance standard for the Entered Employment Rate and are encouraged to establish an Average Wage at Placement goal B. Setting the Standards. Consistent with new legislative provisions, Governors are now required to adjust the Secretary's performance standards to reflect local area circumstances (section 106(d)). Such adjustments apply to Title II-A, Title II-C, section 204(d) and Title III programs, and must conform to the Secretary's parameters described below: 1. Procedures must be: Responsive to the intent of the Act, Consistently applied among the SDA's/SSA's, Objective and equitable throughout the State, In conformance with widely accepted statistical criteria; 2. Source data must be: Of public use quality, Available upon request; 3. Results must be: Documented, Reproducible; and 4. Adjustment factors must be limited to: Economic factors, Labor market conditions, Geographic factors, Characteristics of the population to be served, Demonstrated difficulties in serving the population (this adjustment factor is new), and Type of services to be provided. The Department offers Governors an adjustment methodology that conforms both to these parameters and to the requirement in section 106(d). This methodology covers Title II-A, Title II-C, Section 204(d), and Title III programs and will be provided to States in a soon-to-be issued Training and Employment Information Notice. Should the Governor choose to use an alternate methodology, or make adjustments not addressed by the Departmental model, it must conform to the parameter criteria and be documented in the Governor's Coordination and Special Services Plan (GCSSP) prior to the program year to which it applies. The State Job Training Coordinating Council and, where appropriate, the State Human Resources Investment Council must have an opportunity to consider adjustments to the Secretary's standards and to recommend variations. To determine whether an SDA has met or exceeded a performance standard, Governors must use actual end-of-year program data to recalculate the performance standards. C. Performance Standards Definitions. Governors must calculate the performance of their SDA's, SSA's, and section 204(d) programs according to the definitions included in the Attachments. D. Titles II-A and II-C Incentive and Sanction Policies. Performance standards are to be established for programs funded under Titles II and III of the Act. In applying the Secretary's standards for Titles II-A and II-C, Governors must use the six core measures and also consider criteria relating to programs successfully serving out-of-school youth and placement in jobs providing employer-assisted benefits. Governors are encouraged to begin using these criteria in PY 1994 incentive policies; these criteria are required (i.e., they cannot be zero-weighted) to be incorporated into State incentive policies beginning in PY 1995. Governors may select additional non-cost measures, such as increased service to hard-to-serve participants, to form the basis of incentive policies as long as the following criteria are met: 1. As the basis for making incentive awards, the Governors must use all (i.e., cannot "zero weight" any) of the six Secretary's core measures. Beginning in PY 1995, Governors will also be required to reward innovative out-of-school youth program models either identified by the Department of Labor or recognized by the State as having a demonstrated record of success, and placements in jobs providing employer- assisted benefits. Although successful programs for out-of- school youth remain the cornerstone of out-of-school incentives, SDA's will still be expected to exceed the 50 percent minimum service level to be rewarded under that criterion. Governors have considerable flexibility in implementing the new incentive criteria. Suggested approaches to addressing these criteria are included as Attachments 3 and 4 to this TEGL. Decisions regarding the relative weight or emphasis of each core measure (e.g., the Youth Entered Employment Rate) and incentive criterion (e.g., placement in jobs with employer-assisted benefits) in a State's incentive award formula rest with the Governor. The core measures will be the basis for identifying SDA's that are candidates for technical assistance and for imposing sanctions. At least 75 percent of the funds set aside for performance incentives must be related to these measures and the out-of-school youth and assisted employer-benefits criteria, in accordance with section 106(b)(7)(E). 2. Cost standards cannot be used for incentive award purposes. However, States are reminded of the integral role of financial reviews in program management. States are encouraged to explore ways of relating overall costs of job training to more direct measures of long-term employment, earnings and reductions in welfare. Incentive policies may include adjustments to incentive award amounts based upon factors such as grant size, additional services to the hard-to-serve, intensity of service, and expenditure level. 3. A Secretary's standard for service to the hard-to-serve, as required by section 106(b)(7)(B) of JTPA, has been established in the form of a stand-alone eligibility criterion ("gate") for incentive awards. In order for an SDA to be eligible to receive any incentive award, at least 65 percent of both the SDA's (a) Title II-A AND (b) Title II-C (in-school and out-of-school youth combined) participants receiving training and/or other services beyond objective assessment must be hard-to-serve. The definitions of hard-to-serve are to be consistent with the definitions in sections 203(b), 263(b), and 263(d) of the Act. For the purpose of determining compliance with this requirement, Governors are to include any SDA-defined barriers that have been approved by the Governor, as well as the characteristics of participants in school-wide projects under section 263(g) and participants in five percent-funded projects. 4. For those SDA's that successfully "pass through" the gate, three criteria (in addition to any funds set aside for Governors' standards) will determine the amount of the incentive award: 1) exceeding the Secretary's performance standards, 2) providing quality service to out-of-school youth, and 3) placing participants in employment that provides employer-assisted benefits. - The definition of "employer-assisted benefits" is to be consistent with the SPIR definition (see Attachment). For the purposes of reporting and performance standards, fringe benefits count so long as they are an acknowledged component of employment conditions, whether actually received at the time of placement or not. Thus, State incentive policies will be structured to include benefit information for those participants who entered employment at termination, and Governors will have considerable latitude in implementing this incentive policy requirement. 5. Consistent with present DOL policy, SDA's that pass through the "gate" and exceed all six of the Secretary's Titles II-A and II-C standards must receive an incentive award. 6. Determination of an SDA's failure to meet these standards and the consequent imposition of technical assistance and reorganization requirements under section 106(j) will be based only on the Secretary's Title II-A and Title II-C core measures. - "Meeting Performance Standards" overall is defined as meeting at least four of the six core standards, one of which must be a youth standard. Conversely, overall "Failure" is defined as failing any three (3) or more of the core standards or failing both youth standards. Definitions for meeting and failing individual standards will be established by Governors. - Failure for the first year precludes an SDA from receiving any incentive awards and requires Governors to provide technical assistance to the underperforming SDA. - Failure in the second consecutive year precludes an SDA from receiving any incentive award and requires Governors to impose a reorganization plan. 7. Section 106(j)(3) requires each State to report to the Secretary, not later than 90 days after the end of each program year, the actual performance and performance standards for each SDA within that State. Within the same timeframe, technical assistance plans developed by the State are required for each SDA "failing" for the first year. A 90-day timeframe also applies to the imposition of a reorganization plan, which is mandatory when an SDA "fails" for a second consecutive year. Specific procedures for the formal performance standards report and required State action will be provided under separate cover. However, in addition to the formal annual process, there should be ongoing oversight of SDA performance and continuous technical assistance and capacity-building aimed at addressing areas where program performance can be improved. In addition, the Employment and Training Administration will initiate a national JTPA Report Card that will highlight programs showing the greatest returns on their human resource investments in terms of high-quality employment (type of job, wages and fringe benefits) for those participants most at-risk of failure. Further information on the content and procedures for preparing the "report card" will be provided separately. 8. Governors must specify in the GCSSP their incentive award policy under sections 202(c)(1)(B) and 202(c)(3)(A) and imposition of sanctions policy under section 106(j). It is recognized that the timing of this issuance may have precluded some States from submitting complete incentive policies with their PY 1994-95 GCSSPs. States are to provide as much information as possible in compliance with required due dates and submit a GCSSP amendment containing complete information no later than August 31, 1994. 9. In PYs 1994 and 1995, Governors will continue to have the authority to exclude pilot projects serving "hard-to-serve" individuals funded from the 5 percent incentive fund set-aside in computing their standards and actual performance. States and SDA's are encouraged to use such funds to develop or replicate model programs serving out-of- school youth, particularly those based on contextual learning models. NOTE: For those SDA's in which "incentive projects" are indistinguishable from those that provide general training, these programs would not be considered exempt from performance standards. State Action: States are to distribute this Guidance Letter to all officials within the State who need such information to implement the new performance standards policies and requirements for PYs 1994-1995. It is especially critical that States, State Councils, Private Industry Councils and SDA operational staff become thoroughly familiar with the new provisions concerning incentive and sanctions policies.

Authorities and References: Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 3- 98, WtW Planning Guidance and Instructions for Annual State Plans and Planning Allocations for FY 99, dated July 30, 1998. Background: TEGL 3-98 provided States with Planning Guidance and Instructions for Annual State Plans. It specified that the deadline date for states to submit State Plans is March 31, 1999. This TEGL change extends that deadline. New Deadline for Plan Submission: States must submit their FY 99 Annual Plans no later than June 30, 1999. All other guidelines set out in TEGL 3-98 still apply. Action: States should provide this guidance to appropriate staff for the preparation and submission of the FY 99 WtW Annual State Plans.

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

Reference: Training and Employment Information Notice (TEIN) No. 5-96, APY 1996 Funding Strategy for the One-Stop System. Background: TEIN 5-96, announced as part of the One-Stop 1996 Funding Strategy that implementation grantees entering their third year of funding would be allowed to carry-in 15% (15% Rule) of any unobligated funds from the first and second year. The remaining 85% of unobligated funds would not be de-obligated from the grant; rather, the State's third year allocation would be reduced by that amount. The TEIN noted that funds set aside in the grant for the Talent Bank were exempt from this calculation. This exception was subsequently amended to exempt all ALMIS related funding since these technology-related investments are intended for the life of the grant, and are not funded incrementally for each year's operations. In 1996, the 15% Rule was addressed to Around I and Round II States, since they would soon enter the third year of operations under their One-Stop grants and the balance of the States had not yet received their Implementation grants. The TEIN was not explicit that the 15% Rule would apply to all States as they reached their third year of funding. Our overall interest is to assure that grantees are funded at a level sufficient to support each year's operations under the grant, without running a surplus. States should attempt to obligate 100% of annual operating funds to support the roll-out of those activities identified in the annual operating plan, as specified in the grant documents. The 15% Rule was established as a prudent fiscal measure to encourage timely obligation of funds, and to discourage the carry-over of surplus funding from year to year. Policy: One-Stop State Implementation grantees may carry-in a maximum of 15% of any unobligated, non-ALMIS related, Year One and Year Two funds to their third year of operations under the One-Stop Implementation grant. A State's Third Year One-Stop Implementation grant allocation for operations will be reduced by the remaining 85% of unobligated, non-ALMIS funds. Example: If a State's Third Year grant allocation was $1.5 M and the State had $1.0 million in unobligated, non-ALMIS funds at the beginning of Year Three, the third year allocation would be reduced by $850,000 (85% of $1M). In this example, the State would receive only $650,000 for it's third year of operations. If the State had $0 in unobligated, non- ALMIS funding, it would receive the full $1.5 million for Year Three. The objective is to reduce or eliminate non-ALMIS carry-in, so that all of the grant funds are used timely, in accordance with the State's yearly operating plan as reflected in the grant documents. Action Required: States are requested to discuss this policy with their One-Stop GOTRs in the Region to ensure a thorough understanding of its implications; and to assure that the very limited One-Stop appropriations are managed in a fiscally sound manner.

References: Sections 162 and 303 of the JTPA; Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 6-97, dated April 14, 1998. Background: TEGL No. 6-97 describes the reallotment process that was used to identify and reallot unexpended formula funds that were in excess of statutory limits at the end of Program Year 1997. Reallotment of funds has been based on expenditure reports submitted by the States. Action: Copies of the attachment should be distributed to appropriate staff. Equitable procedures for making funds available for reallotment, and distribution of funds requirements, are addressed in the notice.

References: The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), as amended; 1. JTPA Final Rules, as published in the Federal Register on September 2, 1994; 2. The Workforce Investment Act of 1998; 3. Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 2-97 (February 19, 1998), Instructions for Submission of Consolidated State Plans under Title II and Title III of the Job Training Partnership Act for Program Years (PYs) 1998 and 1999; and PY 1998 Wagner-Peyser Planning Guidance; 4. TEGl 4-97 (March 9, 1998), Program Guidance and Allocations for the Calendar Year 1998 Summer Youth Employment and Training Program; 5. Training and Information Notice (TEIN) No. 6-98 (August 6, 1998), Safety in the Summer Youth Employment and Training Program; 6. TEGL No. 7-95, Change 1, (December 4, 1998), Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Intertitle Transfers of Funds"; 7. TEGL No. 11-98, JTPA Allotments for Program Year (PY) and Calendar Year (CY)1999; Wagner-Peyser Preliminary Planning Estimates for PY 1999; 8. Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(m)), as amended by the Minimum Wage Increase Act of 1996; 9. Employment Service Program Letter No. 2-99 (Nov. 5, 1998) Reauthorization of Work Opportunity Tax Credit Program and Authorization of the Tax Credit Program for the Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit; and 10. TEIN No. 35-97 (April 28, 1998), Technical Assistance Guide (TAG) for Providing Educational Services in the Summer Youth Program. Background: The employment and training system is transitioning from the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) to the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). WIA substantially reforms and places new emphasis on serving youth within a comprehensive statewide workforce development system. Under WIA, youth programs will be linked more closely to local labor market needs and the community as a whole, and will provide a stronger connection between academic and occupational learning. Services for youth under WIA shift to comprehensive services with summer youth training as one component of the local area's youth services strategy. WIA encourages local decision making concerning policy, youth program design, the proportion of funding for each program element, and determining appropriate program offerings for each individual youth. A youth council, newly established under WIA, is given the responsibility to guide youth policy in the local area and to coordinate youth services. Summer programs operated this year will be funded under the JTPA appropriations, using JTPA rules. WIA funds will not be appropriated for the summer employment opportunities program until Fiscal Year 2000. For the summer of 1999, determinations will need to be made regarding the amount of Title II-B and II-C funds to be used for the 1999 summer activities, including the transfers to or from the II-C program and carryover funds from previous years. Program operators are encouraged to begin developing strategies for comprehensive programs infused with principles such as preparation for postsecondary opportunities, linkages between academic and occupational learning, and connections to the local job market in their youth systems. Early WIA implementers are especially encouraged to review the new WIA design requirements and begin building these program design features into their youth programs. Allotments and Transfers: Allotments were provided to the system via TEGL No. 11-98, dated February 17, 1999. For 1999, JTPA appropriations language allows for both Title II-B Summer Youth Employment and Training Program and Title II-C Year-Round Youth Training Program funds to be available for obligation on April 1, 1999. The Title II-B and Title II-C programs are still authorized as separate programs in 1999. However, this early obligation of funds will allow States to begin making expenditures in advance of the upcoming Summer Youth Program, as well as facilitate the move toward a consolidated youth funding stream. As in previous years, SDAs, with approval of the Governor, retain the authority to transfer up to 100% of the funds between the two programs. This transfer authority, as well as judicious marshaling of carry- over funds, may be used to begin to prepare for full implementation of WIA. Program Goals/Objectives: The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has established an interim Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) goal for JTPA Title II-B for CY 1999. The actual goal will be established based upon results from this year¿s program. As a temporary baseline measure, at least 50% of disadvantaged youth participating in academic enrichment will retain or enhance their basic skills in addition to working at summer jobs. Other goals and objectives for States and SDAs which are appropriate for this summer under JTPA, and are consistent with the transition to WIA, are to: 1. Encourage school retention or completion. States and SDAs are urged to develop activities which encourage youth to return to school or enroll in alternative school programs. 2. Improve participants academic performance, including mathematics and reading comprehension. Local service deliverers are encouraged to ensure that participants, at the very least, maintain the same level of basic educational skills over the summer. 3. Improve employability skills. Participants should have experiences which introduce them to the world of work and help them develop basic workplace skills with the goal of increasing their employability. Ideally, by the end of the summer, participants will show improvement in both academic and workplace skills. 4. Strengthen integration of summer youth program with year-round youth programs, Job Corps, School-to- Work and other related employment and training activities. 5. Strengthen linkages. Service deliverers are urged to strengthen linkages with the local labor market, and design programs to meet local community needs. 6. Work with the private sector to provide more unsubsidized employment opportunities for economically disadvantaged youth. Program Elements: WIA identifies ten required youth program elements which must be available through local programs. However, local programs will have the discretion to determine what specific services a youth will receive based upon the youth¿s objective assessment and individual service strategy. These required program elements can be grouped around four major themes: - improving educational achievement (including such elements as tutoring, study skills training, and instruction leading to secondary school completion, including drop out prevention strategies, and alternative school offerings); - preparation for and success in employment (including summer jobs, paid and unpaid work experience, and occupational skills training); - supports for youth (including meeting supportive services needs, providing mentoring, follow-up services, and comprehensive guidance and counseling); and - services intended to develop the potential of youth as citizens and leaders (including leadership development opportunities). States and SDAs are encouraged to the extent possible, to begin building these program design features into their programs. The traditional elements of the JTPA summer youth program are a good base to build upon. These elements are explained in some detail below. 1. Objective Assessment and Individual Services Strategy. The requirements of objective assessment have been clearly specified in the JTPA statute (as amended by the Goals 2000: Educate America Act) and the final JTPA regulations. ETA will not recommend any particular assessment device; it is the responsibility of the SDAs to utilize effective assessment instruments. SDAs are urged to consult with their local school systems to determine which measurements of educational achievements are most appropriate and useful to both the individual SDAs and local school systems. 2.Work Experience. Work experience continues to be one of the most effective components in the summer program. All States and SDAs should ensure that worksites introduce and/or reinforce the rigors, demands, rewards, and sanctions associated with holding a job. Documented learning experiences should be an integral part of the youth's work experience. ETA strongly recommends that all participants, including 14 and 15-year olds, spend time on an actual job. If an SDA has an education-only program design, the SDA must provide an explanation in the job training plan as to why such a design is the most effective strategy for the youth involved. In addition, States should encourage SDAs to incorporate the following activities into their summer program planning agendas: (1) provide work maturity training to youth before sending them to youth worksites. This will help address employers concerns regarding placement of youth ages 14-15, who are generally not equipped with behavioral skills and appropriate conduct necessary to function on actual jobs; and (2) to the extent possible, we recommend that SDAs provide employers with all relevant information available pertaining to youth assigned to their worksites. 3. Academic--Basic Educational Skills Enrichment. States should inform SDAs that improving, enhancing and documenting performance outcomes of participants enrolled in academic enrichment activities is a high priority. Findings from a recent ETA pilot study conducted by Social Policy Research Associates (SPR) reveal that the key to assessing the learning gains of youth receiving academic enrichment is determined by the definition of academic enrichment. ETA has addressed this concern by redefining academic enrichment. States and SDAs should use the following definition when planning training curricula under the academic component. Definition-- the operational definition of basic educational skill enrichment is the enhancement of the traditional educational skills of reading, mathematics, and writing attained through classroom or project-based learning methods. SDAs should consider using project-based learning as an instructional strategy that contributes to academic learning. Using this approach, participants plan, implement, complete and evaluate a valuable, real-life project. In this approach, learning, content, and process are totally integrated. Well conceived, learning-rich projects include competencies, basic skills, academic content, specific vocational and occupational skills, work maturity skills, life skills and citizenship skills. SPR also found that SDAs have diverse programmatic objectives for academic enrichment and conduct a wide variety of training activities under this component. Subsequently, it was determined that a single measurement instrument is not the best methodology for assessing skills learned in the academic enrichment training. The skills learned in academic enrichment training may be assessed through a variety of instruments rather than one prescribed assessment instrument. Therefore, States and SDAs are encouraged to assess skill gains for youth using measurement instruments of their choice. ETA will not recommend any particular testing protocol, however, we encourage SDAs to select assessment instruments that have been identified as appropriate tools for measuring skills attained in the academic enrichment training component of the summer program. States and SDAs must have some methodology for assessing gains for youth in the academic enrichment component and will report the percentage of youth who gained, maintained or lost skills during the summer. Further instructions will follow in the Reporting Guidance. 4. Follow-up Services. Follow-up services receive greater emphasis under WIA as they are now one of the ten required program elements. All youth participants must receive some form of follow-up services for a minimum duration of twelve (12) months. The types of services provided and the duration of services must be determined based on the needs of the individual youth. The scope of these follow-up services may be less intensive for youth who have only participated in summer youth employment opportunities. Under JTPA such services may be provided for up to one year if the Individual Service Strategy indicates that such services are appropriate. 5. Integrating Academics and Occupational Learning. There are two inter-related principles associated with the integration of work and learning; learning SCANS foundation skills and competencies within the context of performing work on an actual job. ETA continues to promote linking work and learning. In the fall of 1998, ETA provided training to the employment and training system on strategies for designing and delivering enriched, project-based learning activities. The purpose of the training sessions was to inform SDAs on strategies for connecting work and learning in the SYETP. Linking academics and occupational learning remains a high priority area. Local service providers are encouraged to include project-based learning activities, linking classroom training and work experiences in their training curricula. In addition, lessons learned by School-to-Work (STW) local partnerships may be a source of appropriate project-based learning strategies. Linkages: Under JTPA, SDAs are required to establish linkages with the appropriate educational agencies responsible for services to participants. In previous policy guidance, ETA has encouraged the establishment of linkages with School-to-Work and the Year-round Youth programs in particular. While the establishment of these linkages under JTPA continues to be encouraged, the requirement for linkages is broadened even more under WIA. WIA charges local boards with the responsibility for establishing appropriate linkages to entities that foster the participation of eligible youth. These linkages may include connections to local area justice and law enforcement officials, local public housing authorities, local education agencies, Job Corps representatives, and representatives of other area youth initiatives. In addition, youth councils are required to establish linkages with other organizations serving youth in the local area. Local program operators are encouraged to continue linkages already established and use this summer to strengthen linkages with organizations and entities in the local area offering services to youth where such linkages have not yet been established. Private Sector Summer Jobs Effort: States and SDAs are encouraged to seek every opportunity to involve the private sector in cooperative and creative approaches to fund community-wide summer jobs programs. Across the country private sector summer jobs initiatives are voluntarily undertaken by community coalitions to increase the number of jobs available for young people during the summer. Through these initiatives, private sector employers are encouraged to support summer jobs by hiring young people, making financial donations for job creation in the public sector or donating time and resources to further such efforts. The Private Industry Council plays a major role in most private sector campaigns, serving as the coordinator of the planning group and providing office space and staff support. Business representatives, the Employment Service, community- based organizations, schools and local government agencies are also typically partners in this effort. Title II-B funds may be used to support private sector programs which are not limited to just JTPA eligible youth within the following parameters. JTPA funds can be used for activities including the following where States and SDAs are working with local businesses to plan private sector programs: planning employer outreach, recruitment, intake, eligibility determination for community-wide summer jobs programs that serve JTPA eligible and non- eligible youth. In order to prevent audit questions, however, the ratio of JTPA funded staff to non-JTPA funded staff should be proportionate to the ratio of JTPA eligible youth to non-eligible youth served. Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) Program: All States and SDAs are strongly encouraged to work with local business leaders in strengthening the coordination with the private sector in creating unsubsidized summer job opportunities for economically disadvantaged youth. States and SDAs should utilize the WOTC program to aid them in their private-sector Summer Youth outreach efforts. The WOTC is federal income tax incentive to encourage private-sector employers to hire eight targeted groups of job seekers with barriers to employment. For the employer to qualify for a tax credit under WOTC, a summer youth employee must have attained age 16 but not 18 on the hiring date (or, if later, on May 1), reside in one of the 105 federally designated Empowerment Zones or Enterprise Communities, have never worked for the employer before, and perform services for the employer between May 1 and September 15. Further, for the employer to qualify for the tax credit, the eligible employee must be employed for at least 20 days or 120 hours. Employers must apply for and receive certification from their State employment agency that their new hire is a member of a WOTC target group before they can claim the tax credit on their federal income tax return. State Employment Service Agencies (SESAs) are responsible for certifying new hires as qualifying employers for the WOTC. For more information about this tax credit, SESA WOTC Coordinators or the U.S. Employment Services should be contacted. Job Safety and Health: States are encouraged to provide SDAs training and/or written materials on workplace safety rules and regulations. SDAs should share safety information with worksite supervisors before youth are placed at designated worksites. States and SDAs are also reminded to review Federal, State and local safety standards and child labor restrictions. This will help to ensure that participants are not assigned to job activities which violate the standards and/or restrictions. Minimum Wage: The provisions under the amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which resulted from the Minimum Wage Increase Act of 1996, apply to all participants enrolled in programs operated under JTPA. The FLSA minimum rate referred to in sections 142(a)(2) and (3) of JTPA is the currently applicable rate set forth in section 6(a)(1) of the FLSA which is $5.15. Individuals employed in activities authorized under the Act shall be paid wages not less than $5.15 an hour. Oversight: Specific information regarding the monitoring and reporting requirements will be forwarded separately. Monitoring and reporting instructions will be revised to collect data on skill gains for youth enrolled in academic enrichment. Action: States should: (a) transmit this guidance to SDAs as expeditiously as possible; and (b) instruct SDAs to quickly provide relevant guidance to worksites and service providers.

Authorities and References: Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 3-98, WtW Planning Guidance and Instructions for Annual State Plans and Planning Allocations for FY 99, dated July 30, 1998. Background: TEGL 3-98 provided States with Planning Guidance and Instructions for Annual State Plans. Section 9 (Reallocation of FY 98 Funds) specified that additional FY 98 funds may be available for a second FY 99 formula allocation and provided States with guidance on how to apply for additional FY 98 funds. This TEGL change eliminates that section. Elimination of Additional FY 99 Funds Available Through Reallocation: Since no additional FY 98 funds are available, States are not to include a request for these funds with their FY 99 WtW Annual State Plans. Action: States should provide this guidance to appropriate staff for the preparation and submission of the FY 99 WtW Annual State Plans.

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