Action Required: State agencies are requested to inform their Regional Office of changes to the attached directory.

References: ET Handbooks Nos. 384 and 391. Background: The SESAs are required to prepare and send a "machine readable" claims control inquiry to the LCCC for each claimant who makes an initial claim for either UCFE or UCX benefits, as provided by Chapter II of ET Handbook No. 384 and Chapter III of ET Handbook No. 391. No specific cancellation procedure was provided for SESAs to cancel previously submitted UCX claims control inquiries. The cancellation procedures for previously submitted UCX and UCFE claims control inquiries are illustrated in Attachment I to this UIPL and will be incorporated in the revised UCX and UCFE Handbooks. Action Required: State Administrators should ensure that their SESA is using the UCX/UCFE claims control system and its attendant data requests in the form and content prescribed in the attachments to this directive.

Background: Program letters, or the five letter series, are considered temporary directives containing instructions or information of a short-term nature which complement one of the five parts of the ES Manual. Rather than rewrite and reissue expiring program letters which still contain relevant information or instructions, the expiration date is extended. Attached is a listing of program letters with extended expiration dates for the above period.

References: Training and Employment Information Notice (TEIN) No. 49-93, Capacity Building Strategy Paper, and TEIN 43-93, Capacity-Building Challenge Grants Background: The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has initiated a long-range capacity building strategy aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of staff in local and State agencies that administer employment and training services across the country. Many of our activities are in response to and supportive of what we heard during the recent Dialogue on Training and Employment Programs for the Disadvantaged. In the short term, ETA has launched three specific capacity-building pilot projects through its Regional Offices and has funded challenge grants to the States to encourage the development of innovative training methods. The resulting products or strategies will be offered for replication throughout the employment and training system. In addition to the information discussed below, we are also undertaking an extensive capacity building consultation process which will be explained in a forthcoming TEIN. Capacity Building Pilot Projects: The three capacity building pilot projects include the development of: (1) peer-to-peer technical assistance models; (2) continuous improvement project for local job training providers; and (3) a set of computer-based training modules for the recently developed subject-specific Technical Assistance Guides (TAGs). Following is a summary of each capacity-building project. PEER-TO-PEER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE MODEL: Regions I and IV were each awarded grants to establish peer-to-peer technical assistance (TA) strategies. Each region is identifying subject-matter experts to provide assistance and developing a process for delivering the assistance. The two projects differ in approach and scope and will offer a number of replicable peer-to-peer TA strategies that other regions may adapt to meet their needs. Region I In Region I, the States had already pooled resources through a "New England Compact" to provide subject-specific training to front-line staff. This "Compact" provides the framework for the region's peer-to-peer TA efforts. Working through a project advisory group of representatives from the Compact, Region I's project has three phases. Phase I involves assessing the training needs of the front-line staff throughout the region and identifying State and Service Delivery Area (SDA) staff with expertise in these areas. (Standards are being developed regarding what constitutes an "expert.") The experts will be listed in a Resource Guide, arranged by subject area, that will identify persons as resources or peer "consultants" in a particular subject. They will also identify mentors who can provide one-on- one assistance. During Phase II of the project, the Compact will hold a "Peer Assistance Institute" to provide staff who have identified expertise in certain areas with the skills and tools they will need to be able to effectively share that expertise. Subsequent training sessions will prepare mentors. In the future, States and SDAs will be able to call upon the peer "consultants" to provide training throughout the region. Consultants contacted through the Resource Guide will be paid for their time and for travel by the Compact. A project coordinator will match the "mentors" with new front-line staff persons to whom they can provide one-on-one advice and guidance over the telephone. All training will be evaluated and tracked to assess its quality and effectiveness. At present, the project advisory group has nearly completed phase I of the project. They are currently compiling the results of the needs assessment and expert identification surveys. The next steps will involve producing the Resource Guide and holding the Peer Assistance Institute. Region IV Region IV's Regional Office is working with a contractor, MDC Inc. of North Carolina. Their approach includes identifying topics and subject areas in which expertise is needed, successful system models, and approaches for delivering peer-to-peer assistance. By the completion of the project, MDC will produce a directory of "experts," program models, and system models as well as a "how-to" book providing relevant information needed for replicating a peer- to-peer technical assistance network in other regions. Region IV has also begun to put together a regional work group, composed of representative employment and training practitioners from each State. This work group will identify experts and exemplary program models and arrange for and conduct peer-to-peer capacity building activities. The work group has met to discuss peer-to-peer network development, quality control (criteria for identifying "experts"), methods and materials (information exchange, staffing), and system management and coordination. State-level coordinators have been selected to oversee peer-to-peer capacity building demonstrations. Each State has been given the flexibility to design its own system, and States are presently developing implementation plans. At a minimum, each State must designate a single point of contact and develop a database of peer trainers. SIMPLY BETTER: An Initiative for Continuous Improvement Regions III and X have partnered with a team of job training providers including the State of Virginia; SDAs from Seattle, WA, Portland, OR, and Berks County, PA; and a private sector provider to develop a set of quality improvement tools and techniques furthering continuous improvement and customer satisfaction. The project, which is called "SIMPLY BETTER: An Initiative for Continuous Improvement," will be a year-long effort during which time the project team will gather and disseminate information about local quality improvement tools and customer satisfaction measures. Expected products include: 1) a self-assessment guide for local job training providers to identify where they could more effectively use quality principles and practices to achieve high performance levels of customer satisfaction and operational performance; 2) tools and techniques for getting customer input into the design, operation, and results of programs and services; 3) a suggested approach for managing process quality; and 4) approaches for measuring operational results including return on investment. The project team has developed a survey form to gather information from the local job training providers about what they are already doing, or need, to measure performance, such as "Return-On-Investment," customer satisfaction surveys, focus groups, etc. From this information, the team will build a compendium of quality improvement techniques and processes geared to the needs of local employment and training practitioners and a directory of local job training providers engaged in various aspects of continuous improvement who are willing to share their experiences with others. The vision for the Simply Better project includes assistance to an expanding network of job training providers throughout the country who desire to improve their services and outcomes through reflecting and acting on what truly satisfies their customers. COMPUTER-BASED TRAINING MODULES: To enhance wide-spread knowledge of the content of its TAGs, ETA has initiated an effort to create interactive, computerized training modules from these TAGs. These modules will be designed for use by front-line staff at their work stations. Region VIII, in cooperation with the State of Missouri, the Missouri Training Institute (MTI), the University of Missouri, and the Utah Office of Job Training for Economic Development, will develop user-friendly computer-based training aides. MTI and the University of Missouri, with assistance from The Utah Job Training Office, will provide instructional design and curriculum development assistance. MTI will be responsible for the completion of each phase. The first module will cover the material in the JTPA Eligibility Documentation TAG. It will focus initially on one aspect of eligibility, such as income determination. The final product will be produced in two formats: interactive text-based tutorials and compact discs with read-only-memory (CD ROMs). There are plans for a total of six computerized TAGs, including assessment, case management, and financial management. Challenge Grants: In March 1994, ETA issued a solicitation for grant applications to States for the development and/or improvement of cross-agency training delivery systems, innovative and replicable program models, and training products that have broad application through the system. ETA recently selected the 10 States (Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, and Vermont) to receive challenge grant awards of up to $125,000. The funded projects vary from establishing a professional certificate program in Missouri to developing user- friendly materials on using labor market information in Oregon, to creating a computer-based training system on client assessment techniques in Vermont. A description of each grant is attached.

Background: The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention recognizes that making a significant impact on drug and alcohol abuse requires substantial investment. The Coordinating Council is composed of representatives of 17 statutory and 11 voluntarily participating agencies including Employment and Training Administration. The Council focuses on issues affecting young people and their families and provides a forum for Federal agencies to share information, discuss issues, and collaborate on projects. The Council recognizes that addressing the problem of juvenile alcohol and other drug abuse is a major challenge for communities across the Nation. The severity of the problem, coupled with an often fragmented response, poses serious problems for both professionals and Council developed this Guide, which will be useful to States and local communities that are responsible for dealing with juvenile alcohol and drug abuse. Action Required: State JTPA liaisons should distribute the guide to service delivery areas and others in the State who would benefit from such information.

References: 5 U.S.C. 8521, 20 CFR Part 614, UIPLs 18-89 and 47-94 and GAL 3-92. Background: The Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) have informed us that, effective October 1, 1993, all military services began using a standard list of narrative reasons for separation from service in item 28 on all Certificates of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). This standard list is used when an ex-servicemember does not complete a first full term of service, but has met the other require- ments for "Federal service" under 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1). Such a list makes it possible for the Department of Labor (DOL) to provide SESAs a list of common terminology used by the branches of the military services that will simplify and expedite the processing of UCX claims. DOL is currently consulting with the DOD and the DOT to finalize the standardized list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation for UCX qualifying purposes. The standardized narrative reasons for separation for all areas, except those dealing with "inaptitude," have been prepared. In order not to further delay the issuance of guidance to the SESAs, DOL is issuing this directive at this time covering all "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation, except those dealing with "inaptitude." The list of acceptable" narrative reasons for separation will be amended when a decision is made involving narrative reasons for separation for "inaptitude." (See Section 4.f of this directive for further guidance in this regard.) Instructions: The previous list of acceptable narrative reasons for separation was disseminated to the SESAs in UIPL 25-83 and Changes 1 through 12 to UIPL 25-83, and these UIPLs are now rescinded. DOL is providing the new consolidated list as an Attachment to this UIPL. DOL has determined which narrative reasons for separation are acceptable for UCX qualifying purposes. The SESAs shall follow the instructions in this UIPL in determining "Federal service" under 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1) for all branches of the armed forces. a. UCX First Claim--General Requirements. In determining whether an ex-servicemember has performed "Federal service" under 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1) for purposes of paying UCX, the SESA will first ascertain if the ex-servicemember: (1) Performed active service, either in a regular or reserve status (active service in a reserve status must be for a continuous period of 90 days of more); (2) Separated "under honorable conditions" and if an officer, did not resign for the good of the service; and (3) Was discharged or released after completing the first full term of service which the individual initially agreed to serve. If the member did not complete such first full term of service, then the narrative reason for separation in item 28 of the DD Form 214 must include an entry that is contained on the list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation issued by DOL in order for the ex-servicemember to qualify as having performed "Federal service." b. UCX First Claim--Ex-servicemember Not Member of National Guard or Reserve. If the ex-servicemember filing a UCX first claim is not identified as a member of the National Guard or Reserve, the SESA will then determine if the ex-servicemember was separated from the military service after completing a first "full term of active service" or, if earlier, was separated under a specified reason provided under 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I)-(IV). If the ex-servicemember was separated from the armed forces after completing a "first full term of active service," and was also separated "under honorable conditions" (or, if an officer, did not resign for the good of the service), the SESA will not utilize the attached list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation in order to determine whether that ex-servicemember performed "Federal service." In such case, the ex-servicemember has met the UCX qualifying requirements at 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1)(A) and (B)(i), and such period of service in the armed forces is considered to be "Federal service" for UCX qualifying purposes. In making this determination for an ex-servicemember who did not complete a "first full term of active service," the SESA shall be guided by the attached list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation. In this case, the ex- servicemember's military service will be used to support a finding of "Federal service" under 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1) if: (1) The ex-servicemember's separation was "under honorable conditions" (or, if an officer, did not resign for the good of the service); and (2) The narrative reason for separation shown on the DD Form 214 conforms to the list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation issued by this Department. If the narrative reason for separation is not on the list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation issued by this Department, the ex-servicemember's military service covered by the period of the applicable DD Form 214 is not "Federal service" within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1). This period of military service may not be used to support UCX entitlement. c. UCX First Claim--Ex-Servicemember is a Member of the National Guard or Reserve. If the ex-servicemember filing a UCX first claim is identified as a member of the National Guard or Reserve who has previously served in the regular Armed Forces, the SESA will then determine if the ex- servicemember's most recent period of military service equalled 90 days or more of continuous active duty in a reserve status. In addition, the individual must be discharged or separated under honorable conditions (or, if an officer, did not resign for the good of the service) after completing the first full term of service, unless separated earlier for a reason shown on the DD Form 214 that is on the list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation issued by this Department. NOTE: In some instances, an individual may join a branch of the Armed Forces in a reserve capacity without having previously served any active service in the regular Armed Forces. In such case, to meet the criteria for Federal service at 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1), the ex-servicemember must have at least 90 continuous days of active duty in a reserve status and be discharged or separated from that active duty in a reserve status under honorable conditions (and, if an officer, did not resign for the good of the service). The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1)(B) relating to completion of the first full term of active service which the individual initially agreed to serve are not applicable because the ex-service member does not have a first full term of active service. d. Narrative Reason for Separation--Missing or Incomplete Information. If item 28 of the ex-servicemember's DD Form 214, "Narrative Reason For Separation," is blank, the SESA will send a Form ETA 8-43, UCX Request for Military Information, to the appropriate branch of the military service requesting the specific narrative reason for separation. Also, if information in item 28 appears incomplete, a Form ETA 8-43 will be used to obtain clarification from the appropriate branch of the military service. When a Form ETA 8-43 is used to clarify the "narrative reasons for separation," the information requested by the SESA from the military service in item 16 of the Form ETA 8- 43 will be specific and complete. The military service must not be asked some general question as to whether the ex- servicemember is eligible for UCX under 5 U.S.C. 8521(a)(1). The SESA is responsible for making a UCX determination for eligibility based on the Federal findings on the DD Form 214. (1) When a Form ETA 8-43 is used to obtain clarification of the DD Form 214, the SESA will attach a copy of the ex-servicemember's DD Form 214. (2) If the narrative reason for separation shown on the ex-servicemember's DD Form 214 is clear and complete, but the claimant disagrees with such findings, the claimant will be instructed to write to the branch of the military service that issued the DD Form 214 in order to request a correction of the Federal findings. Under such circumstances, the claimant will be informed that the UCX law provides that findings of the Federal military service must be accepted by the SESA as "final and conclusive" for determining UCX entitlement, but that the claimant may initiate a request for correction of the military finding with the appropriate branch of the military service. At the request of the claimant, the SESA shall forward the request for correction of the military finding, and any supporting material provided by the claimant, to the appropriate branch of the military service. (See 20 CFR 614.22(a).) e. Completion of First Full Term of Active Service. (1) For U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force Separatees. SESAs shall follow the guidance contained in UIPLs 18-89 and 47-94 and paragraph (3) of this subsection below. (2) For U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Navy Separatees. Any combination of prior active service in item 12.d and net active service in the current period shown in item 12.c of an ex-servicemember's DD Form 214 that meets or exceeds the amount of active service normally required for completion of a "first full term of active service" will constitute "constructive completion" of the ex- servicemember's "first full term of active service." These branches of the military service have informed this Department that the term of enlistment may range from 2 to 6 years. For example, a former Navy servicemember who had a 4-year enlistment and who completed 2 years of prior active service and 2 years of active service on the current enlistment would be considered to have completed 4 years of active service and receive credit for "constructive completion" of the "first full term of active service" which was agreed to be served. In the example outlined above, the SESA will not utilize the attached list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation in order to determine whether the ex- servicemember performed "Federal service" since the ex- servicemember has met the requirements for completion of a "first full term of active service" under the "constructive completion" concept. The SESA will then determine if the ex-servicemember's separation was "under honorable conditions" (and, if an officer, did not resign for the good of the service), and, if the ex-servicemember's separation meets this requirement, the ex-servicemember is considered to have performed "Federal service" for UCX qualifying purposes. (3) The constructive completion concept applies only to members of the regular armed services in active duty service. It does not apply to reservists who are on active duty in a reserve status. Active service (regular) and active duty (reservist) may not be combined for UCX qualifying purposes. f. Effective Date. The Attachment to this directive containing the new consolidated list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation for determining "Federal service" for military separatees is effective for all separations from the military services on and after the date of this directive. DOL will be issuing a change to this UIPL containing an amended list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation which includes those dealing with "inaptitude." The change to this UIPL will be retroactive to the issuance of this directive. The reason for a retroactive effective date of the forthcoming change to this UIPL is to provide equal treatment to all ex-service-members separated or discharged before completing their first full term of active service and whose narrative reason for separation is on the "acceptable" list issued by DOL. The authority for the retroactive application of the forthcoming change to this UIPL is contained at 20 CFR 614.9(a). DOL has determined that it would be inconsistent with Federal law to apply State law redetermination time limitations to UCX claims involving the narrative reasons for separation that will be included on the forthcoming amended list of "acceptable" narrative reasons for separation. Action Required: The above information and the attachment to this directive should be provided to appropriate staff members.

Reference: TEIN No. 5-92, dated August 14, 1992. Background: These supplements provide options for problem solving and provide additional assistance to States and SDAs in understanding and using follow-up data in planning, program design, and other management areas. Action Required: States should ensure dissemination of these modules to all staff with responsibilities for follow-up and/or ties with planning, evaluation and other performance management responsibilities.

References. None. Background. a. Grantees attending the conference in Bismarck will be reimbursed for one participant for registration, travel and per diem expenses if they receive less than $200,000 in their Program Year 1994 JTPA section 401 allocation. A list of these grantees is attached. b. Another bulletin, indicating whether additional grantees with Section 401 allocations between $200,000 and $250,000 can be reimbursed, will be issued in January. c. Reimbursement will cover conference registration, travel(including mileage), taxis between residence/airport and hotel/airport, parking and per diem expenses. Expenses for rental cars and telephone calls will not be reimbursed. Federal travel rates in effect at the time of the conference will be used. d. ACKCO will provide travel packets at the conference. There will be a 90-day limit on reimbursement claims in order to get a faster accounting of conference expenses. Action Required. Grantees on the attached list should register immediately for the conference, according to the instructions sent out by the conference planning committee. Questions. Contact your DINAP Federal Representative or Barbara Connell at 202/219-5511.

Reference. JTPA Section 165 (a)(2). Background. The Employment and Training Administration conducted an agency-wide review of its reporting systems to assess and improve the quality and usefulness of program information. A Farmworker subcommittee was formed to assist in this effort and met in Washington, D.C. in November, 1993 to work with the Department in redesigning the current MSFW reporting system. On January 11-12, 1994, subcommittee recommendations were introduced and presented to a widely representative group of MIS directors in Tucson, Arizona. The Department outlined its rationale for changing the way grantees now report information and discussed the main features of this new automated system. Also, an ADP contractor participated in the training session to determine potential data collection problems. At the Tucson meeting MIS representatives proposed several recommendations on the SPIR format. Consequently DOL further refined the SPIR format and introduced a draft version at the MSFW Training Conference in San Diego, California in March 1994. Finally, a draft of the Form and Instructions and a draft of the Record Layout Guidelines were presented for discussion and comments at the AFOP TAT Conference held October 17-21, 1994. Important changes are listed below. Many of them were the result of the valuable and informative discussions held with grantees at that Conference and at a December 6, 1994 meeting with representative grantees. Item 2. Field Office Identifier -- There was universal agreement to use the State and County FIPS Codes to designate the Field Office. No one expressed a preference for Names of States/Counties. To facilitate the use of Codes, a few of the grantees expressed a desire to obtain a listing. We will provide a copy of the FIPS Codes along with the final Data Record Format and Coding Instructions. If requested, we can furnish the list on disk. ACTION: Change to FIPS Codes. Item 4. Social Security Numbers of Participant's Family Members Who are Also Enrolled in 402 Program -- Although this item was included at the behest of the grantees, no one present at the Key West conference was in favor. The notion that the SSNs be eliminated in favor of a simple count of Family Members Also Enrolled was unanimously approved. ACTION: Change to Number of Participants... Item 8. Race/Ethnicity -- Concern was expressed that some individuals may not wish to identify themselves as being in any specific racial/ethnic group and that this preference should be accommodated. ACTION: Add option--6. Not Obtained Item 11. Migrant or Seasonal Farmworker -- Grantees pointed out that if the participant is a dependent of a Farmworker (Item 9 = 2), the options given for Item 11 are not appropriate. One grantee suggested that Items 9 and ll could be combined into one item with four options: Migrant Farmworker, Seasonal Farmworker, Dependent of Migrant Farmworker, Dependent of Seasonal Farmworker. This may, in fact, be the best option and will be kept in mind for the final format. This involves renumbering of items, however, which is best to avoid during the pilot year if at all possible. Resolution of the difficulty can be accomplished by changing the instruction for Item 11 as follows: ACTION: Insert (or is a dependent of) as indicated. Item 13. Family Size -- Grantees pointed out that the sum of the options did not equal family size. A change to the instructions was recommended. ACTION: Change to--13a. Number of Dependent Children Under Age 18: 13b. Number of Others in Family: Family Size will be then be equal to 13a plus 13b plus 1. Item 18. Pre-program Earnings During the Most Recent 12 Months from Enrollment -- There was concern that obtaining this information in addition to documenting the earnings used in the eligibility determination was unduly burdensome. In a meeting with representative Section 402 grantees held December 6, 1994, it was agreed that earnings reported for this item do not have to be documented (if it is not the period used to determine eligibility). A Note to that effect has been included in the Instructions. Item 21. Reading Skills Grade Level -- This item was discussed at some length without a clear consensus as to the feeling of the grantees in attendance. There was concern about how to report results given the format of the options, specifically, how to keep grade levels and raw scores and test names differentiated. The following is suggested to help. ACTION: Add 21a. Enter Name of Test (if tested). This would apply in all cases if a test was administered. Grade levels require an explicit decimal, i.e., grade level 6 would be 6.0--a raw score may not have a decimal. Item 22. Math Skills Grade Level -- This item was included by reference during the discussion of Item 21 above. Same recommendation. ACTION: Add 22a. Enter Name of Test (if tested) Item 31. Occupational Skills Training Code/Type and Code -- The options as presented will be awkward to code. ACTION: Change to 31. Occupational Skills Training Code/Type: 31a. Type 31b. Item 32. Stipends -- Stipends were discussed as support services provided. Many grantees wished to report whether or not stipends had been received. This also seems useful in adding to our knowledge base when assessing the duration of training and the impact of that training on later outcomes. ACTION: Insert 32j. Stipend with same options as other services. Change to 32k. Other: Item 34. Category of Termination -- There was considerable discussion about the method which had been proposed for handling the "objective assessment only" type of termination. Grantees were not satisfied that it would be done by looking at Items 34 and 38 in combination. Therefore, the reporting of this item is changed to including the option in Item 34. ACTION: Insert 4. Objective Assessment Only and adjust subsequent number. Remove Objective Assessment Option from Item 38. Item 36c. Fringe Benefits -- Grantees agreed that this item would be more appropriately reported by including a probationary period proviso. ACTION: Change to read 36c. Fringe Benefits Available/Received, or with Fringe Benefits Available/Received Following Successful Completion of Probationary Period. Item 36d. Occupational Code: and Type: The options as presented will be awkward to code. ACTION: Change to 36d. Occupational Code/Type: 36d(1). Type 36d(2). Code The attached final versions of the SPIR Forms and Instructions reflect the recommendations and comments received from the grantee community during the past year. The Forms and Instructions supersede all previous forms. Implementation Schedule. The Department is conducting a pilot of the new reporting system which began on July 1, 1994. All grantees are invited to send in terminee data in the new SPIR format on a quarterly basis throughout PY 1994. Grantees are welcome to participate in the pilot at any point during the pilot period, if they can reconstruct records for those terminees beginning July 1, 1994. Because of the need to provide consistency of reporting for program office and performance standards purposes, all grantees will continue to transmit current quarterly program and financial status reports on their due date during the pilot period. However, to eliminate dual reporting of the same data elements, SPIR pilot grantees should use the modified quarterly Program Status Summary (PSS) forms which only report on participant data. SPIR pilot grantees will likewise report fiscal data using the quarterly Financial Status Report for all four quarters of PY 1994. Non-SPIR grantees will report programmatic and fiscal data for the fourth quarter, as usual, using the Annual Status Report. The Department will evaluate the results from the pilot reporting period with the intention of implementing the new SPIR format for all grantees as early as July 1, 1995. Action. Pilot grantees should replace existing Forms and Instructions with those attached to this Bulletin. Final Record Layout Guidelines will be distributed as soon as possible and should be used as the format for generating SPIR data. Grantees should submit data as soon as it is available in accordance with instructions which will be included in the final Record Layout Guidelines. Comments may be addressed to: Karen Greene U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration Office of Policy & Research 200 Constitution Avenue, NW - Room N5637 Washington, DC 20210 ATTENTION: Pat Carroll Inquiries. Contact Pat Carroll on (202) 219-8680, extension 139, or Richard Hoff on (202) 219-6485, extension 113, or the Federal representative assigned to your grant.

References. a. 29 CFR Part 97 (Administrative requirements for Federal grants to State, local, and Indian tribal governments); b. 29 CFR Part 95 (Administrative requirements for Federal grants to institutions of higher education and non-profit organizations); c. OMB Circular A-87 (Cost principles for State, local and Indian tribal governments); and d. OMB Circular A-122 (Cost principles for non-profit organizations). Background. Up to the present time, there has been some confusion concerning the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) prior approval requirements applicable to grantee acquisitions of automated data processing equipment (hardware and software), regardless of a dollar limit. This confusion has largely been the result of the prior approval requirement language of the above referenced cost principles coupled with a lack of definition of the term equipment. The Department of Labor's (DOL) publication of the 29 CFR Part 95 regulations on July 27, 1994, to implement the revised OMB Circular A-110 (and transmitted in DINAP Bulletin No. 94-3) provided a definition of the term "equipment" along with other definitions, and revised dollar thresholds such that the previous confusion regarding prior approval requirements can now be dispelled. Information. The DOL regulations at 29 CFR Part 97 includes definitions and regulatory requirements applicable to property acquired by States, local governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes with Federal grant funds. The DOL regulations at 29 CFR Part 95 includes definitions and regulatory requirements applicable to property acquired by non-profit organizations with Federal grant funds. While neither the Part 95 nor Part 97 regulations address prior approvals, both of them require adherence to the cost principles applicable to the grantee's type of organization, i.e., OMB Circular A-87 for governments and OMB Circular A-122 for non-profits. Both Circulars specify prior approval requirements. OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, paragraphs C.1. (Automatic data processing) and C.3. (Capital expenditures) stipulates that prior DOL/ETA approval must be obtained for purchases of equipment with Federal DOL/ETA provided funds. OMB Circular A-122, Attachment B, Item 13 (Equipment and other capital expenditures) stipulates at paragraph b)(1) that capital expenditures for general purpose equipment are unallowable as a direct cost except with the prior approval of the awarding agency. (Note: Paragraph b)(2) deals with special purpose equipment which is defined at paragraph a)(3) as equipment being usable only for research, medical, scientific or technical activities. This should not effect Indian and Native American Grantees.) Both 29 CFR 97.3 and 29 CFR 95.2(n) define equipment as "tangible nonexpendable personal property having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more per unit." The definition of "acquisition cost of equipment" as provided in 29 CFR Part 95.2(c) and 29 CFR 97.3 is "the net invoice price of the equipment, including the cost of modifications, attachments, accessories or auxiliary apparatus necessary to make the property usable for the purpose for which it was acquired." Both regulations treat personal property that falls below the $5,000 or one year thresholds as "supplies". Based on these definitions, it is concluded that prior written approval of ETA/DOL is required to acquire equipment at the $5,000 and above level, and is not required to acquire supplies. Guidance. What is a unit? DOL views the term "unit" to be in the broad sense of all of the component parts of a system which are required to enable it to perform the function for which it was acquired. A computer typically used for JTPA purposes with all component parts would cost less than $5,000 and therefore would not require prior Grantor approval. The exception however would be the purchase of specialized equipment that exceeds $5,000 such as computerized assessment testing or Local Area Networks. System design/needs. Grantees should try to purchase the most expandable system appropriate for grant purposes, that is a system that will keep up with new technology. They should also make sure they get good warranties and service. We are providing the following suggested guidance on minimum system configurations: SYSTEM DOS/WINDOWS MAC Computer 486 Power Mac (w/System 7.5)* Memory/Storage 16/500 16/500 Monitor 15" SVGA,NI 15" color Keyboard Regular Enhanced (w/ F keys) Printer Laser Laser Modem or Fax/Modem 14.4bps,V.32bis 14.4bps,V.32bis *Which permits reading/writing DOS/WINDOWS disks. A dedicated telephone line for your system is also desirable. Please note that the minimum system configurations indicated above are provided as a reference for those planning to upgrade or purchase computer equipment. This is not to suggest that grantees currently operating computers with less capability have inadequate systems. Action. Indian and Native American Grantees shall refer to this bulletin when purchasing ADP equipment. Inquiries. Questions should be directed to your DINAP Federal Representative.