Reference: Solicitation of Grant Announcement (SGA), Federal Register, Volume 64, No. 105, page 29672-29691, Wednesday, June 2, 1999. Background: Section 169 of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 authorizes funding for Youth Opportunity Grants to serve youth living in high poverty areas. These grants will be awarded on a competitive basis to eligible local workforce investment boards, other administrative entities receiving formula funds under Job Training Partnership Act, and designated Native American programs as prescribed in Section 166 of WIA. State Roles: Under WIA, the Governor may designate eligible areas, consistent with the requirements of the Act. States may also provide technical assistance and resources to local areas in developing their grant applications, particularly to rural areas and Native American applicants. (a) Area Designation: (i) Section 169 of WIA authorizes Governors in States without Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities (EZ/ECs) to designate high poverty areas in their States as eligible to apply for Youth Opportunity Grants. (ii) Section 169 also authorizes Governors with EZ/ECs to designate up to two (2) additional high poverty areas as eligible to apply for these grants. Such additional areas in States with EZ/ECs must meet the poverty criteria for EZ/ECs set forth in Section 1392 (a)(4),(b), a,(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. States may need to set up procedures for areas to determine the applicant¿s eligibility for designation. Upon designation approval, a letter must be sent to the local entity, signed by the Governor, describing how the target area was designated. A copy of the designation letter must be submitted with the applicant¿s proposal. (b)Technical Assistance and Resources: Rural areas and Native Americans applying for these grants may not have as many resources available as urban areas may have. The Department encourages States and local areas to provide technical assistance to rural areas and to collaborate with Native American applicants in preparing their proposals. The use of complementary resources, such as integration into the One-Stop System, to rural and sizable urban Native American projects may be considered. Technical Assistance Conferences: The Department will be holding Technical Assistance Conferences for local sites wishing to apply for these grants. States are welcome to send representatives. Dates and locations for the conferences are as follows: June 15 District of Columbia June16Chicago, Illinois June 23Denver (Native American grant applicants only) June24Los Angeles, California June 29Atlanta, Georgia Specific information regarding sites and times for the conferences will be sent directly to all SDAs, and can be accessed by calling the Youth Opportunity Grants Technical Assistance Conference Headquarters at (703) 299-1680. Action Required: Encourage the designation of the additional eligible areas as soon as possible so that applicants from these areas will not be at a competitive disadvantage with applicants from EZ/EC communities.

References: Public Law 97-300, Section 4(8) (JTPA). Background: JTPA defines the term "economically disadvantaged" at Section 4(8) of the Act. Among other things the term means an individual who is a member of a family which has received a total family income for the 6-month period prior to application for the program involved which, in relation to family size, was not in excess of the higher of the poverty level determined in accordance with criteria established by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or 70 percent of the LLSIL. The poverty levels were revised and new Federal Poverty Income Guidelines were published in the Federal Register on Monday, March 4, 1996. The guidelines for the LLSIL were published in the Federal Register on April 3, 1996. Attached are copies of these 1996 guidelines. Effective Date: States may implement these guidelines in accordance with the dates as published in the Federal Register or on such later date as the Governor may determine for JTPA programs in the State, but no later than July 1, 1996. In future years as well, States may implement guidelines in accordance with the effective dates published in the Federal Register.

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

References: UIPL No. 10-96, Implementation of New Time Lapse and Quality Measures for Unemployment Insurance Benefits Operations. Background: New performance measures were developed and field tested through the Performance Review Project and approved by the Office of Management and Budget on September 1, 1995, for implementation on July 1, 1996. The new appeals and nonmonetary quality measures that will apply to decisions and determinations made during the quarter ending September 30, 1996, are different from the previous measures employed in the Quality Appraisal (QA) program. Likewise, there are significant changes in the new reporting requirements for appeals case aging and appeals and nonmonetary determination promptness. Consequently, SESA and Regional Office staff need to become familiar with these new measures and the analysis and use of the new data being collected to be able to successfully utilize them and to ensure that satisfactory performance, as measured by them, is achieved. Training Objectives: The training seminars will provide specific information about the new measures and their use, related required reports, and quality review methodology. This training is intended to prepare SESA and Regional Office staff for the first round of self-evaluations since the implementation of new measures for assessing the quality of Lower Authority Appeals and Nonmonetary Determinations. In addition, training will be provided on the analysis and use of the new data being collected by the Appeals Decision Promptness, and Appeals Case Aging measures. Three identical seminars for each group are planned so that about one third of the States can be accommodated at each session. An opportunity will be provided to ask questions about any difficulties that SESAs encountered in implementing the new Appeals and Nonmonetary Promptness measures and the Case Aging reporting requirements. Instruction will be provided for the analysis of data on quality, promptness and case aging, to aid in achieving the goal of continuous performance improvement. Participants: This training is designed for key appeals and nonmonetary determination personnel in the SESAs and Regional Offices, who have direct responsibility for appeals functions and the quality review of nonmonetary determinations. Seminar for Appeals Staff: One and one-half days of each appeals seminar will focus on the promptness and case aging measurements and is designed for appeals personnel who have direct responsibility for collecting and reporting that data. It will include training on the analysis and use of the data in managing the appellate process, in addition to answering questions that may have arisen in collecting and reporting of the new data. Two days will focus on training for supervisory hearing officers who will have responsibility for performing quality evaluations and ensuring satisfactory quality performance. Seminar for Nonmonetary Determination Staff: This will be a three and one half day seminar for those staff who have the responsibility for evaluating the quality of nonmonetary determinations. The training will focus on evaluating the quality of all nonmonetary determinations beyond those historically evaluated in the QA program and analysis of the outcomes. Issues subject to first level adjudications ranging from separations to profiling will be addressed. It is strongly recommended that SESAs select appeals and nonmonetary staff who will have responsibility for quality evaluations of appeals and nonmonetary determinations; and appeals staff, who have responsibility for the day-to-day performance of the tasks in the appeals unit that are necessary for satisfactory performance under the new measures and for producing, reporting, analyzing, and using the information required by them. Travel Funds: Funds will be provided for travel and per diem costs for SESA staff travel to this training. Each SESA will be provided funds for two of their nonmonetary determination staff and two of their appeals staff to attend this training. Seminar Locations and Dates: Three seminars are scheduled in August and September of 1996. The first seminar is scheduled in San Francisco for Tuesday, August 20 through Friday, August 23, to serve the SESAs in Regions 8 through 10. The second is scheduled in Washington, D.C. for Tuesday, September 10 through Friday, September 13, to serve the SESAs in Regions 1 through 4; and the third is scheduled in Kansas City, Missouri, for Tuesday, September 24 through Friday, September 27, to serve the SESAs in Regions 5 through 7. Each seminar will convene at 8:30 a.m. daily and will end at noon on Friday. SESAs should identify, as soon as possible, the staff who would attend these training seminars. Detailed information about hotel accommodations and meeting locations will be provided to the SESAs by their respective Regional Offices, sufficiently in advance of each seminar so that participants can make their travel plans. Action Required: SESAs are requested to do the following: SESA Administrators in Regions 8, 9, and 10 are requested to ensure that the estimated travel cost, name, title, mailing address, and phone number of each participant is received by their Regional Office by July 5, 1996. SESA Administrators in Regions 1, 2, 3, and 4 are requested to ensure that the estimated travel cost, name, title, mailing address, and phone number of each participant is received by their Regional Office by July 19, 1996. SESA Administrators in Regions 5, 6, and 7 are requested to ensure that the estimated travel cost, name, title, mailing address, and phone number of each participant is received by their Regional Office by August 2, 1996.

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

References: JTPA, as amended (Public Law 97-300); and JTPA Final Rule, 20 CFR Part 627.420 and 627.422, as published in the Federal Register on September 2, 1994. Background: The Department of Labor does not have an appropriation for Fiscal Year 1996 and has been operating under the authority of a series of short-term continuing resolutions. The Employment and Training Administration is not able to issue official allotments for titles II-A, II-C and III in the absence of an appropriation or "full- year" continuing resolution. Recently, allotments were issued for title II-B (SYETP). State level funding data were released to all State JTPA liaisons, and others, on February 26, 1996 via the ETA Regional Offices, based on: 1) the President's budget request, 2) the House-passed level, and 3) the most recent short-term continuing resolution. Because these are only estimates and the SYETP allotments were just issued, many JTPA entities may find that due to State/local laws and policies they are unable to issue requests for proposals and solicitations for bids in a timely manner. Discussion: The selection of service providers must be done in accordance with the JTPA procurement regulations. Section 164(a)(3)(A) of the JTPA legislation states, "procurements shall be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition." Further, 107(e) states, "The selection of service providers shall be made on a competitive basis to the extent practicable...." The implementing regulations reiterate these requirements, and provide additional guidelines to JTPA entities on when it is possible to make awards non- competitively. As mentioned above, due to the absence of a FY 96 appropriation and the multiple continuing resolutions through which the Department of Labor has received its funding, it has not been possible (except for Title II-B) for the Department to issue funding levels to the JTPA system. If the allotments are not issued in a timely manner (a timely manner vis-a-vis the length of time it takes each SDA/SSG to conduct a competition which results in awards by July 1, 1996, based on their procurement process), the SDAs/SSGs may use, for this unique situation, the non-competitive criteria found in section 627.420(d)(1)(iv)(B) "The public exigency or emergency need for the item or service does not permit a delay resulting from competitive solicitation" to justify extending existing agreements for Program Year 96, even where the contract did not include one or more option years or all contract option years will have been exhausted. In the case of title II-B, although the allotments have been issued, SDAs/SSGs may find that they are unable to award title II-B agreements in time for the start of the SYETP. If this is the case, the section 627.420(d)(1)(iv)(B) circumstance may also be used. We think that this is an appropriate circumstance to apply since it can be difficult, if not impossible, to undertake a competitive procurement when the level of funding available is unknown or announced too late. In all cases where such extensions are made, the State and/or SDA/SSG must ensure that past performance is satisfactory. Further, the State and/or SDA/SSG must document the decision and justification in the agreement file. Finally, proceeding as discussed herein will require the State and/or SDA/SSG to negotiate the one-year agreement extension terms for those contracts that either did not have or had exhausted all option years. In all cases, the State and/or SDA/SSG must assess that the price is reasonable. Although the use of the non-competitive procurement method is to be minimized, section 627.420(d)(1)(iv) discusses the conditions and circumstances under which non-competitive awards can be made. JTPA entities may be able to justify the award of other non-competitive agreements based on the circumstances and conditions listed in section 627.420(d)(1)(iv). This may be particularly relevant to your planning for the implementation of the CY 96 title II-B program. Action: JTPA Liaisons and Worker Adjustment Liaisons should inform SDAs/SSGs of the content of this TEIN.

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 af-ter 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 wor- kers 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 computa-tion applicable for major disasters declared during the third quarter of FY 1996, from April 1 through June 30, 1996. 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.

References: 20 CFR 602; Federal Register Notice, September 3, 1987, 52 FR 33520; 20 CFR 602; Federal Register Notice, March 26, 1990, 54 FR 11112; UIPL 13-93, January 12, 1993; UIPL 41-95, August 21, 1995; and Benefits Quality Control State Operations Handbook, ET Handbook No. 395. Background: The final rule to establish the Unemployment Insurance Quality Control program is found at 20 CFR Part 602. Effective October 5, 1987, QC programs in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have selected weekly random samples of UI benefit payments for investigation under the mandatory program. 20 CFR 602.21(g) provides that each State shall: Release the results of the QC program at the same time each year, providing calendar year results using a standardized format to present the data as prescribed by the Department; States will have the opportunity to release this information prior to any release by the Department. The notice of procedures for the release of BQC data for the UI program was published in the Federal Register on March 26, 1990, at 54 FR 11112. Beginning in 1993, a team of senior State Employment Security Agency (SESA) managers and Unemployment Insurance Service (UIS) staff known as the Performance Enhancement Workgroup (PEWG) developed the outlines of a comprehensive new closed-loop system for helping ensure continuous improvement in UI operational performance. UIPL 41-95, issued August 21, 1995, described this new system, called UI Performs, and solicited comments from SESAs. The UI Performs design is now being refined in light of SESAs' responses to UIPL 41-95. The new system will be phased in over 3-4 years as the various components are completed. When complete and fully operational, UI Performs will comprise a renewed affirmation of long-standing principles for Federal-State cooperation; a redesigned process for operational planning and the execution of improvement activities; various mechanisms to ensure that performance in key areas at least exceeds certain minimum levels; and the redesign of many performance measurements plus the regular validation of key performance measures. The measures were selected to enable the UI system's success to be judged by how well it serves its ultimate customers--claimants and employers. Most of the data used to construct existing and new UI Performs measures are already in State databases; UI Performs should not appreciably increase overall measurement effort. The measurement redesign aspect embraces the results of three initiatives which predated UI Performs: Revenue Quality Control, which developed new measures for tax performance to replace those previously gathered under the Quality Appraisal (QA) system; the Performance Measurement Review (PMR) project, which updated QA benefit payment timeliness and quality measures; and data validation. The team designing UI Performs also proposed changes in the Benefits Quality Control (BQC) system for measuring benefit payment accuracy, including the assessment of the accuracy of decisions to deny eligibility. Two proposals for changing BQC have already been accepted: the name change to Benefit Accuracy Measurement (BAM) and dropping the requirement that States publicly release their data. Under 20 CFR 602.21 (g) and 602.22, the Department has determined that public release of data by the States is no longer considered necessary for the proper and efficient administration of State law. Therefore, the Department will no longer require States to publicly release the data. While the Department will continue to publish an annual compendium of all States' data, each State will determine whether they will independently make a public release of their data. Whether data are publicly released or not, States must continue to follow the reporting requirements described below. Date of Record: The Department has established close of business (c.o.b.) April 29, 1996, as the date of record for State data bases for computation of the error rates for the CY 1995 Annual Report of BAM data. All information in the Annual Report will be based on CY 1995 BAM cases that have been signed off by the QC supervisor by c.o.b. April 29, 1996. States must not reopen any CY 1995 BAM cases after this date until they have reviewed the computations of the error rates and have reconciled any differences between the State and National databases. Any data analysis supporting the Annual Report must be run on the database as it exists at c.o.b. on April 29. If States make any further changes, their data and results will differ from the data and results of the National Office. These differences will then have to be reconciled. Annual Report Software: As described in UIPL 13-93, the software which produces the Annual Report excludes Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program eligibility option cases from the rates calculations. It also excludes cases which do not meet the definition of the BAM population, for example, interstate or supplemental payments. These cases are coded "9" in data element c1. The software adjusts the population dollars paid to exclude any EUC and code "9" cases. In CY 1995, there were no EUC cases in any State database. An explanation of the CY 1995 footnotes can be found in Attachment 1, pages 2 and 3. For cases with a reopen code of "3" (the State has changed the data in a previously closed case), the reopen date is used in computing the time lapse and determining the appropriateness of footnotes concerning time lapse requirements. The States may run the Annual Report software as soon as all cases are completed. The National Office will produce an Annual Report for each State, based on the CY 1995 BAM cases as of c.o.b. April 29, 1996. Annual Report Format: The Annual Report format is shown in Attachment 1. It is divided into three main sections. Quality Control Data Total Dollars Paid in Population Total UI benefits paid to the population of UI claimants who comprise the sampling frames for all weeks in CY 1995 for which the State pulled a BAM sample, adjusted to exclude EUC program eligibility option cases and other UI payments that do not meet the definition of the BAM population. Sample Size Total UI payments selected during CY 1995 (BAM batches 9501 through 9552) and completed (supervisor sign-off) c.o.b. April 29, 1996, excluding cases that do not meet the BAM population definition. This is the number of BAM sample cases from which the rates and sampling errors (confidence intervals) are estimated. Proper Payments The weighted ratio estimate of total dollars properly paid to total dollars paid expressed as a percentage. Overpayments The weighted ratio estimate of total dollars overpaid to total dollars paid expressed as a percentage. Underpayments The weighted ratio estimate of total dollars underpaid to total dollars paid expressed as a percentage. 95 percent Confidence Interval A confidence interval, expressed as +/- a percentage, will be constructed for each of the three estimated rates. The actual rate is expected to lie within 95 percent of the intervals constructed from repeated samples of the same size and selected in the same manner as the BAM sample. Footnotes The footnotes that will appear on State BAM Annual Reports to describe certain conditions that affect the data are described in Attachment 1, pages 2 and 3. Narrative States are invited to supply a narrative analysis that will accompany their Annual Report. The Department will include this narrative in the digest of State Annual Reports that it will prepare (see section 10, below). The narrative may include, but is not limited to, a discussion of State laws and how they affect error rates, an explanation of circumstances that led to some degree of inaccuracy in the reported error rates, and proposed or actual corrective action strategies. State narratives must be received in the National Office no later than June 10, 1996. States not planning to submit a narrative should notify the National Office by June 10, 1996, that no narrative will be submitted. The procedures for preparing and transmitting the Annual Report narrative to the National Office are described in Attachment 2. Supplemental Data: In order for the SESAs to interpret the data in the Annual Report and provide narrative explanations of the data, the Department recognizes the need for additional information on cause and responsibility. The software that produces the BAM Annual Report will also generate a separate report consisting of up to 16 responsibility categories and up to 6 cause categories. Responsibility and cause data will be reported as percentages of UI dollars overpaid. States can combine categories which contain few sample cases, where appropriate. No sampling errors will be computed. States should be aware that some of these percentages are based on small numbers of BAM sample cases and may have relatively large sampling errors. If cause and responsibility percentages do not add up to 100 percent, States should check for cases in which the key week amount overpaid coded in data element h5 does not equal the sum of dollars overpaid coded in data element "ei1" for key week actions 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15. The amount overpaid cannot exceed the amount paid coded in data element f13. The Department may publish this and other data in the technical appendix along with additional analysis, where appropriate. The format for this report is shown in Attachment 3. Comment Period: BAM Annual Reports produced by the Department of Labor will be transmitted to each State on May 10, 1996. Each State should review its Annual Report and if there are any comments submit them to the National Office (Attn: TEUQS, Andy Spisak) with a copy to the Regional Office by May 31, 1996. SESA comments will be discussed and reconciled by June 10, 1996. Public Release by SESA: As discussed above, States are no longer required to release their annual data. The Department, however, will continue to release a compendium of all States' data. States should provide the data to interested parties upon request. Federal Release of Data: The Department will announce the availability of BAM program data for CY 1995 through a notice published in the Federal Register on or about July 31, 1996. The Department's publication will be a digest prefaced by background information on the Benefit Accuracy Measurement program, and a brief discussion of how the error rate estimates are computed. Readers will be discouraged from comparing results among States. Each State's section, including its Annual Report and narrative, will be displayed separately. State sections will be ordered alphabetically to discourage ranking and comparisons. The name of the State official designated by the State as its Annual Report contact will also be published. For CY 1995, the Department will continue the practice begun with CY 1989 data of publishing certain analytical information on aspects of the BAM findings. If the Department determines that a State has failed to follow the prescribed methodology -- regarding sample selection, data collection methodology, or case completion timeliness -- to such an extent that the data are not reliable, the Department will publish an explanation of the major deficiency in lieu of an Annual Report for that State. Also in accordance with instructions in the Program and Budget Plan, ET Handbook No. 336 (11th edition, change 2), States will be required to address these areas by submitting corrective action plans for the upcoming fiscal year. Key Dates: The following is a summary of key dates for the public release of CY 1995 BAM data. 4/19--States submit any request for waiver of time lapse requirements, along with supporting analysis, to the appropriate Department of Labor ETA Regional Administrator. by 4/29--States check BAM databases and resolve any database problems. 4/29--Date of record for State BAM databases, for CY 1995 Annual Report purposes. Cases closed by supervisors after this date will NOT be included in the Annual Report. States should not reopen any CY 1995 cases to change the database after this date until their Annual Report is finalized. 4/29--Department of Labor electronically transmits the modified Annual Report software and footnote look-up table to each State's Sun computer. 5/10--Department of Labor sends Annual Reports to the State Administrators over signature of Mary Ann Wyrsch, Director, UIS. 5/13-5/31--States review Annual Reports, including footnotes, and provide comments via their Regional Office by 5/31 to Department of Labor National Office. 6/3-6/10--Department of Labor and States discuss and reconcile comments in collaboration with Department of Labor Regional Offices. 6/10--States provide name, address, and phone number of contact persons to appropriate Department of Labor ETA Regional Administrator. States provide narratives or notice of waiver of narrative comments to Department of Labor National Office via the Regional Office. 7/31--Department of Labor publishes notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of BAM data. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to: provide copies of these guidelines to the appropriate staff; ensure that Annual Report narrative comments or notice of waiver of such comments is transmitted to the Department of Labor National Office via the Regional Office by c.o.b. June 10, 1996; and ensure that the following items are supplied to ETA Regional Administrators: any request for a waiver of time lapse requirements by c.o.b. April 19, 1996; and the name, location, and telephone number of a contact person to whom interested parties may write or call with questions or inquiries about the State's BAM data by c.o.b. June 10, 1996.

References: Final JTPA Regulations, 20 CFR 627.201, published in the Federal Register on September 2, 1994 and TEGL No. 7-94. Background: TEGL No. 7-94, dated March 20, 1995, indicated at as experience was gained regarding specific waiver requests, information would be created that would be useful in JTPA policy deliberations. We believe that the various States may find it useful in their policy delibera- tions to know the types of waivers that are being requested of the Department, and the resulting decisions on such requests. This information is being shared for the State's consideration and evaluation as it may pertain to possible waiver requests for State's JTPA programs. Attached is a brief status report on the waiver requests received, and acted on, to date. Of the valid waiver requests considered, 24 have been approved and 4 have been disapproved. Information: If a State determines that an approved waiver may also be appropriate for its programs, it may wish to consider submitting a waiver request. Any such waiver requests should conform to the criteria set forth in TEGL 7-94, dated March 20, 1995. Additional information on a specific waiver may be obtained by contacting your Federal JTPA representative in the Regional Office.

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