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

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

References: Older Worker (OW) Bulletin No. 97-2; Training and Employment Information Notice (TEIN) No. 31-96. Background: ETA goals for both Program Year (PY) 1995/Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 and PY 1996/FY 1997 have focused upon performance improvement and customer satisfaction, among other things, while involving ETA's partners and stakeholders in the processes of goal development and implementation. This Bulletin deals with this year's processes. Discussion: OW Bulletin No. 97-2 transmitted ETA's PY 1996/FY 1997 goals. Included among them, at #14 (c) and (d), were the following: "c) At least 25% of Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) enrollees will be placed in unsubsidized jobs; and d) Ensure that the number of SCSEP persons served exceed the number of positions funded by 40% to permit the program to serve as many participants as possible." For many, goal #14 (c) was a surprise. We apologize for this. Sponsors were involved in informal discussions about projected placement rates during the summer months, prior to the development of draft ETA goals later in the fall. Since the program experience for PY 1995 resulted in placement of 25 percent of SCSEP enrollees in unsubsidized employment, we concluded that such a goal for the program in PY 1996 would be readily attainable, and this was incorporated in the draft goals. No further thought was given to this until the overall ETA goals were made final and disseminated later in the year. SCSEP sponsors should have been notified that this decision had been taken. This ETA goal applies to the overall SCSEP program, not to individual sponsors. The regulatory provision at 20 CFR Section 641.314, that the Department has established a goal of placing into unsubsidized employment the number of enrollees which equals at least 20 percent of the project's annual authorized positions, continues to apply. Note that the provision establishes a goal, and not a regulatory requirement with which all sponsors must comply. Also note that while the regulations require the development and submittal of a plan of action when the 20 percent goal is not achieved, such a plan is not necessary when the sponsor achieves at least 20 percent although less than the newly formulated overall ETA 25 percent goal for SCSEP. In addition, the conditions of the grant agreement with sponsors are controlling. Thus, when the numerical goal (obtained by multiplying the number of authorized positions by 20 percent) is calculated, that number is the goal against which the sponsor's unsubsidized placement performance is assessed. Similarly, the goal for the number of enrollees to be served is determined by multiplying the number of authorized positions by 140 percent. The number obtained is the goal to which actual performance against this indicator is compared. Customer Satisfaction Goals. Over and above the performance- related goals, ETA's goals also address grantee and service delivery partner satisfaction with services provided by ETA, and the satisfaction of the "customers" of grantees with the services they are provided. Specifically, the goals most directly relevant to SCSEP sponsors are as follows: "15. b) Increase to 75% or by at least 5 percentage points, the number of ETA's direct service delivery partners who use a customer satisfaction measurement system for continuous improvement, contingent upon availability of baseline data that reflect how many ETA partners have such measurement systems and on an assessment of what constitutes a realistic increase." "16. b) At least 75% of OSTP's grantees' customers will rate the services they receive as `very' or `extremely' helpful in facilitating the accomplishment of their objectives." To translate this jargon into more familiar terms, "ETA's direct service delivery partners" refers to entities that deliver services directly to participants. This would include local Job Service offices, Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) service delivery areas and service providers like community-based organizations, One-Stop Career Centers, and local SCSEP projects providing services to enrollees. The first goal aims at increasing the number of such entities using "customer" satisfaction measurement systems to 75 percent of the total of all such entities. "OSTP's grantees' customers" refers to the "customers" of grantees associated with the Office of Special Targeted Programs -- Indian and Native American grantees, migrant and seasonal farmworker grantees, projects for people with disabilities grantees, and SCSEP grantees. In this context, "customers" refers primarily to ETA's ultimate customers -- program participants, including enrollees in SCSEP projects. The term "customers" could also refer to employers, to sub-projects, and to host agency worksites in the SCSEP program. The second goal seeks to set a floor for the satisfaction of such customers with the services received from ETA-funded programs. Tools for Meeting Customer Satisfaction Goals: The attached TEIN was recently distributed to the JTPA, One-Stop Career Center, and State Employment Security Agency systems. It notes ETA's customer satisfaction goals, and identifies Simply Better! technical assistance products as tools that can be helpful in establishing customer satisfaction measurement systems, and in obtaining useful feedback from direct service delivery customers that may be helpful in improving program operations. Training may also be available to SCSEP sponsors and local project operators through ETA's Regional Offices. Simply Better! contacts for ETA's 10 Regional Offices are provided as an attachment to the TEIN. Action Requested: Sponsors that have not already done so should take steps now to establish customer satisfaction measurement systems in local projects, and may do so at National and State (and Regional, where applicable) levels as well. Sponsors are also requested to communicate the 1996 program-wide 25 percent placement goal and the 140 percent service goal to appropriate individuals in their organizations. Please explain that the goals are not applicable to individual sponsors but apply to the entire SCSEP program.

References: Title V--NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance and Other Provisions of PL 103-182, North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act; Trade Act of 1974 as amended; regulations at 20 CFR 617; General Administration Letters (GAL) Nos. 6-94; 7-94; and 1-96.

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

References: Sections 303(a)(1) and 303(a)(8) of the Social Security Act (SSA); Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) regulations at 20 CFR Part 603; Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 52- 80 dated September 9, 1980 (disclosure to food stamp agencies and to child support enforcement agencies); UIPL No. 12-87 dated March 11, 1987 (disclosure to agencies participating in a State IEVS); UIPL No. 11-89 dated January 5, 1989 (disclosure to the Department of Housing and Urban Development and to representatives of a public housing agency; this disclosure provision expired on October 1, 1994); UIPL No. 23-96 dated May 31, 1996 (disclosure to private entities); UIPL No. 37-96 dated September 25, 1996 (disclosure to child support enforcement agencies and redisclosure to an agent, and disclosure to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for purposes of the National Directory of New Hires operated by the Federal Parent Locator Service). Background: For a number of years, State UC agencies have been seeking guidance, particularly in the areas of payment of costs and safeguarding information, requests to use this data for non-UC purposes. Accordingly, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register (57 FR 10064) on March 23, 1992, on the confidentiality and disclosure of State records compiled or maintained for the purposes of the Federal-State UC program. Just over 100 responses were received from various interested parties. As an interim step, until the rule is published, the Department is issuing this UIPL. Rulemaking: The Department will seek to place in regulations all of the requirements of statutory provisions relating to the confidentiality and disclosure of State records compiled or maintained for the purposes of the Federal-State UC program. The aim of the rule will be to prescribe comprehensive requirements for protecting the confidentiality of State records collected for the purposes of the Federal-State UC program, define the limits on the rule of confidentiality, set forth the statutorily required and permitted exceptions to the rule of confidentiality, prescribe the conditions under which the required and permitted disclosures shall or may be made, and set forth the processes through which the Secretary of Labor determines whether the State law fails to conform or the State or State agency fails to comply substantially with Federal requirements. Among the various issues to be discussed in the rule will be disclosure to governmental entities and "quasi" governmental entities and redisclosure to private entities acting as agents for governmental entities, as well as issues raised by the previous NPRM. Interpretation: Until a rule is issued, this UIPL, the UIPLs cited above in section 2, References, other UIPLs subsequently issued and 20 CFR Part 603 are the Department's interpretation of Federal law with respect to confidentiality and disclosure. The basic confidentiality requirement for the Federal-State UC program has its origin in the beginning of the program and is derived from Sections 303(a)(1) and 303(a)(8), SSA. Section 303(a)(1), SSA, requires, as a condition for a State to receive administrative grants, that the State law provide for: [s]uch methods of administration . . . as are found by the Secretary of Labor to be reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due. Section 303(a)(8), SSA, requires, as a condition for a State to receive administrative grants, that the State law provide for: the expenditure of all moneys received . . . solely for the purposes and in the amounts found necessary by the Secretary of Labor for the proper and efficient administration of such State law . . . . It has been the Department's longstanding interpretation of Sections 303(a)(1) and 303(a)(8), SSA, that UC information collected and maintained for the administration of the UC program are confidential and, except as noted in item 6 below, are not subject to disclosure. The basis for this prohibition is that disclosure may discourage individuals claiming benefits from exercising their rights under the law, may deter employers from furnishing information necessary for UC program operations, may impede the "proper and efficient administration" of the UC program, and may create notoriety for the UC program if the information were misused. Any publicity could have disrupting effects on the operations of the State agency and effect the agency's mission of insuring claimants "full payment of unemployment compensation when due." This confidentiality requirement pertains to information required from individuals and employers or employing units for the purposes of administration of the revenue and benefit provisions of State UC laws. This UIPL applies to State UC agencies and the entire executive branch of State government. Exceptions: Following are exceptions to the rule of confidentiality. a. Disclosure to Public Officials - Permissible. UC records may be disclosed to Federal, State and local public officials, including law enforcement officials, in the administration or enforcement of a law by the public official. The Department encourages such disclosure as it lends to more effective administration of numerous laws. This disclosure of records to public officials is permitted only under the following conditions: * Disclosure of the specific record(s) requested is permitted by the State law of the State to which the request is made. * Such disclosure would not significantly hinder or delay the processing of UC claims or significantly hinder other activities of the State agency, or such disclosure would not impede the efficient administration of the State law. * The public officials continue to safeguard the confidentiality of the records. * If disclosure entails more than casual or incidental staff time, arrangements are made for the reimbursement of the costs involved in providing the information. b. Disclosure to Public Officials - Required. Several specific provisions of Federal law require disclosure of UC records to certain governmental entities, which are food stamp agencies, child support enforcement agencies, the National Directory of New Hires and agencies participating in a State IEVS. This UIPL will not discuss these requirements which have already been addressed in 20 CFR Part 603 and the various UIPLs cited above in item 2, References. c. Disclosure to Private Entities - UIPL 23-96. UC information may be disclosed to a private entity under a written agreement which requires "informed consent" from the individual to whom the information pertains, safeguards the information once it is in the hands of the private entity and closely restricts or prohibits further dissemination, and requires the private entity to pay all costs associated with disclosure. Consent is not informed if an individual is not told that governmental records, including a State's records, may be released and to whom the information may be provided. A more complete discussion is found in UIPL 23-96. d. Subpoenas. Where a subpoena requests the disclosure of confidential UC information that is not permitted to be disclosed to the party seeking it, disclosure is permitted only after a Motion To Quash, on the grounds that it is privileged UC information, has been overruled by a court. This is because, while subpoenas may be issued by a public official (e.g., a clerk of court), they are generally requested for a private party, such as a claimant or an employer. Cooperation with law enforcement officials is encouraged so that there should be no need for these officials to rely upon subpoenas. Action Required: State administrators are requested to provide the above information to appropriate staff.

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

References. Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 99, Thursday, May 22, 1997, Notices. Background. The Departments of Labor and Education are reserving funds appropriated for FY96 under the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, Public Law 103-239 for a competition for Indian Program Grants authorized under Title II, Subtitle C of the Act. Grants under this competition will be awarded to local partnerships that serve Indian youth and involve Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funded schools. Approximately $750,000 is available for awards as explained in the attached Federal Register Notice. The following implementation grants were awarded in June 1995 and September 1996: Alamo Navajo School Board, New Mexico; Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma, Oklahoma; Puyallup Tribe of Indians and Yakama Indian Nation, Washington; and Lac Courte Oreilles, Wisconsin; Chugach School District, Alaska; Tolchii' Kooh Charter School, Arizona; Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwa, Minnesota; University of New Mexico at Gallup, New Mexico; Utah Navajo Development Council, Utah; St. Stephens Indian School, Wyoming. Additionally, four development grants were also awarded to the following organizations in June 1995 and September 1996: Tohono O'Odham High School and Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Arizona; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; and St. Stephens Indian School, Wyoming; Independent School District #38, Minnesota; Belcourt School District #7, North Dakota; Milwaukee Area American Indian Manpower, Wisconsin. Action. Applications for grant awards will be accepted commencing May 22, 1997. The closing date for receipt of applications is July 22, 1997, at 4 p.m. (Eastern Time). Telefacsimile (FAX) Applications will not be honored. Effective Date. Date of this Bulletin. Inquiries. Questions should be addressed to Ms. Laura Cesario, Division of Acquisition and Assistance, telephone: (202) 219-7300 (this is not a toll-free number).

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

References. P.L. 97-300, Section 4(8) (JTPA); and Internal Revenue Code, Section 51 (WOTC). Background. JTPA regulations at 20 CFR 632.4 provide for the use of either of two sets of data in determining economically disadvantaged persons and program eligibility: the Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines or the LLSIL. The attached Federal Register Notice (Vol. 62, No. 80) contains updated LLSIL and detailed instructions for their use, effective April 25, 1997. Action. Grantees will use one of the three tables on pages 20207 thru 20209 of the Notice to find their 70 percent LLSIL for a family of four. Those grantees in one of the 25 Metropolitan Statistical Areas will use Table 3; grantees in Alaska or Hawaii will use Table 2; all other grantees will use Table 1. Grantees using Table 1 can find which region they are in by referring to the list on page 20205 and 20206. Grantees using Tables 1 or 2 must also determine if they are in a metro or non-metro area; this information can be obtained from the grantee's State JTPA. Having found the applicable 70 percent LLSIL for a family of four on Tables 1, 2 or 3, the grantee can then find the 70 percent LLSIL for a family larger or smaller than four on Table 4. For example: a grantee in a non-metro area of Arizona is in the West region. On Table 1 its 70 percent LLSIL is $18,850. To find the applicable 70 percent for a family of six, the grantee finds $18,850 in column four of Table 4 and reads across that line to Column six to find $26,020. Grantees should note the disclaimer on page 20206 that the figures in this notice are valid only for eligibility determination under the JTPA and WOTC programs and should not be used for any statistical purposes. DINAP grantees are to disregard the instructions to Governors on page 20206 in the paragraph entitled "Use of These Data." Questions. Contact your DINAP Federal Representative at (202) 219-8502 Midwest grantees may also contact Mr. Duane Hall, DINAP Federal Representative at 214/767-2154.