Background: The Job Training for the Homeless Demonstration Program (JTHDP) was authorized under Section 731 of the McKinney Act (Public law 100-77). Under this legislation, the U.S. Department Labor (DOL) was authorized to plan, implement, and evaluate a job training demonstration program for homeless individuals. The resulting JTHDP, administered by DOL's Employment and Training Administration (ETA), represented the first comprehensive federal program specifically designed to provide employment and training services (and a wide range of other support services) for homeless individuals and to assist them in securing employment. The demonstration effort was launched in September 1988 with a series of grants to 32 locally operated demonstration sites across the nation. JTHDP was implemented over four phases, each somewhat distinct, building upon the experiences of the previous phase. Phase one was an "exploratory phase," designed to test the feasibility of the demonstration effort, help shape the direction of future phases, and develop a methodology for the evaluation. Phase two provided sites considerable flexibility in designing their service delivery strategies, selecting program participants, and determining which services participants received and how services were sequenced. Building on what was learned during JTHDP's initial phases, DOL/ETA announced a new initiative for JTHDP in November 1990. In accordance with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) negotiated between DOL and HUD, during Phase three sites were required to establish a comprehensive housing assistance strategy. With the demonstration effort drawing to a close, the fourth phase emphasized "partnering" of JTHDP sites with local JTPA programs, as well as the continuation of projects in their localities after the demonstration effort concluded. A major emphasis of the final phase was on broadening and enhancing effective delivery of services to the homeless by the current Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Title II-A service delivery system. This report is two-fold: (1) to analyze the results of the JTHDP and (2) to draw out lessons learned from the demonstration that can help guide future efforts at providing comprehensive and cost-effective services to address the problem of homelessness in the United States. Particular emphasis is placed on the lessons learned with regard to providing employment and training services. However, there is a wide spectrum of other types of housing and support services that are needed to effectively help homeless individuals and families make the transition from homelessness to self-sufficiency. This particular report is designed to address the following major questions: -- Who did JTHDP serve? -- How did JTHDP grantees serve program participants? -- What were the key program linkages? -- What were the outcomes for participants and costs related to serving these participants? -- How successful were JTHDP sites in "partnering" with the JTPA service delivery system? -- Were JTHDP sites able to continue serving homeless individuals at the conclusion of the demonstration effort? Distribution: Copies of this report have been sent under separate cover to all addressees. Additional copies are available through the Office of Policy and Research, Dissemination Unit, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N5637, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone number: 202-219-7664 x119.

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

References: Compendium of State Unemployment Insurance Operations, Organizations and Relationships OMB Approval: This request for information has been approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, under OMB Number 1205-0333 which expires July 31, 2000. The respondent's obligation to reply is mandatory under Public Law 74-271. Persons are not required to respond to this collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 180 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the U.S. Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Service, Room S-4516 Francis Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210 (Paperwork Reduction Project 1205-0333). Background: The first Compendium was published in July 1989. It was updated and republished in 1990 and most recently, updated in 1993 and republished in 1995. Department of Labor and SESA staff members have reported that the Compendium is useful and should be updated on a continuing basis to ensure that the information is current. The information has been used to respond to a variety of inquiries. It has also been helpful to SESAs for planning purposes because other SESAs using a particular type of procedure or technology can be identified and then contacted for specifics about the advantages and disadvantages of a procedure or technology. After the most recent update, the Compendium was stored on the World Wide Web. It is now universally accessible. The on-line search capacity provides a very quick means to locate items. The address of the on-line Compendium is http://www.itsc.state.md.us/ui_manage/compend/toc.html. More than three years have passed since the information for the 1993 update was collected. It is time to collect new information and publish a more current Compendium. The SESAs are asked to provide information on changes that need to be made to the tables in the Compendium to reflect their current operations, organizations and relationships. This information will be compiled and an updated Compendium will be published as early as possible in 1998. The cooperation of each SESA is needed to make this updating effort successful by providing the UI community with an accurate and current Compendium. SESAs are requested to submit any changes to the Compendium following the procedures outlined in Section 5. Future changes should be submitted as they occur following these same procedures. Information will be accepted on a continuing basis, therefore, SESAs should submit changes as they occur rather than waiting for a future request for new information. One new four-part question is included with the attached Compendium. This question addresses the production and mailing of quarterly tax and wage reports. Action Required: SESA Administrators are requested to have appropriate staff do the following tasks: (a) Select one appropriate answers to the new compendium question on attachment A. (b) Review each page of the attached copy of the Compendium, and indicate on appropriate pages any change that should be made with respect to information about your State. -- (1) In red ink, mark through any incorrect information about your State and/or; -- (2) In red ink, print your State name in the appropriate column, place an "X" or a "Yes" or "No" in the appropriate column(s) beside your State name, or write in a brief response that describes how a function or activity is accomplished in your State. (c) Return the new compendium question and ONLY the pages of the Compendium on which changes have been marked to the Unemployment Insurance Service, Attention: Diane Wood by May 1, 1998, or (d) States that have access to the Internet may accomplish this procedure by using e mail to transmit the information to woodd@doleta.gov. (e) Please supply a name and telephone number for the individual in your State who can answer any questions, should they arise, on the material submitted. Since the Compendium covers many different areas and programs this individual may be the person who was responsible for coordinating the information. He/she need not have full knowledge of all programs, but should know who can supply information about the various areas in your State that are covered by the Compendium.

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.

Chapter V, Section 5, and Chapter XI, Section 1, ET Handbook No. 391. Background: The locality-based comparability payments (known as locality pay) is authorized for GS employees in certain areas of the country. The Office of Personnel Management recently increased the number of areas to 32. The new pay localities are Hartford, CT and Orlando, FL. The locality rates of pay were computed based on the annual rates shown on the 1998 General Schedule and reflect the locality pay percentages authorized by the President on August 29, 1997. The locality rates of pay are considered basic pay for retirement, life insurance, premium pay, and severance pay purposes and for advances in pay. They are also used to compute worker's compensation payments and lump-sum payments for accrued and accumulated annual leave. They are NOT considered basic pay for other pay administration purposes. The locality pay increases became effective January 1998. Instruction: SESAs should provide copies of the attached 32 Federal Locality Salary Tables to appropriate staff members engaged in UCFE claims activities. Action Required: SESAs should follow the above instructions and provide the attached revised 32 Federal Locality Pay Tables to appropriate staff.

References: Section 3304(a), Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA); Draft Language and Commentary to Implement the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976--P.L. 94-566 ("1976 Draft Language") and Supplements 1-5; Employment and Training Administration (ETA) Handbook 301; Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 43-80, dated May 23, 1980. Background: As a result of implementing its new method of measuring nonmonetary performance, DOL has discovered that some States treat the "between seasons" denial involving athletic services in the same manner as the "between and within terms" denial involving educational services. Although there are similarities in the language of these laws, the applications are different. As a result, DOL is issuing this UIPL to remind the States of its position on when UC is not payable on athletic services and to explain the differences between the two sections. The Between Seasons Denial: Section 3304(a)(13), FUTA, requires, as a condition of employers in a State receiving credit against the Federal unemployment tax, that -- compensation shall not be payable to any individual on the basis of any services, substantially all of which consist of participating in sports or athletic events or training or preparing to so participate, for any week which commences during the period between two successive sport seasons (or similar periods) if such individual performed services in the first of such seasons (or similar periods) and there is a reasonable assurance that such individual will perform such services in the later of such seasons (or similar periods). [Emphasis added.] The Department, thus, interpreted FUTA as requiring States to deny UC to athletes on the basis of any services where "substantially all" of the services performed by the individual during the base period are based on athletically-related services. (See page 22, of Supplement 1, to the 1976 Draft Language.) To determine whether "substantially all" of the services were athletically-related, all services (athletic and non-athletic) must be considered together. If "substantially all" of the services have been performed in athletics, and a reasonable assurance that the individual will participate in athletics in the later season exists, then none of the wages may be used to establish eligibility, and all UC must be denied. Conversely, if the "substantially all" test has not been met, then FUTA permits the use of all wages to determine eligibility for UC. Concerning what constitutes "substantially all," DOL has previously stated that, at a minimum, "an individual shall be deemed to have performed substantially all services in such sports or athletic events if the individual engaged in such sports or athletic events for 90 percent or more of the total time spent in the base period in the performance of all covered services." (See page 22, of Supplement 1, to the 1976 Draft Language.) The definition of "substantially all" as 90 percent as a basis for denial of athletic services under Section 3304(a)(13), FUTA, is a minimum requirement. FUTA does not prohibit a more stringent denial. Therefore, a State may enact a law to deny benefits between seasons if the amount of time spent in athletic services was less than 90 percent of the total time spent in the performance of all services in the base period. (1976 Draft Language, Supplement 4, page 11). For example, a State may choose to deny an athlete if only 80 percent or more of the total time in the base period was spent participating in athletic services. Finally, a State may also deny benefits to athletes between sport seasons where there is no reasonable assurance. The Between and Within Terms Denial: Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA, requires that UC not be paid based on certain educational services between and within periods under certain conditions. This denial pertains only to UC based on educational services. It does not apply to UC based on any other covered employment. As noted in UIPL 34-80, "since compensation is based only on base period employment, the denial must apply only to the amount of benefits based on school service performed in the base period. An individual who has participated in the labor force in a capacity other than as a school employee cannot be denied benefit entitlement based on the non-school work simply because of also being a school employee." Thus, an unemployed individual who performed services for an educational employer and also performed services for a non-educational employer could receive reduced UC during the summer based on the non-educational employment (even if a reasonable assurance of school employment in the next school term exists). The denial would apply only to that portion of benefits based on educational employment during the base period. Also, unlike the athletic services provision, the States may not apply a stricter denial to educational services. Reasonable Assurance: Reasonable assurance in the "between seasons" denial for athletic services is used in a different manner than in the "between and within terms" denial for educational services. For the professional athlete, a mere indication of his/her intent to participate in the subsequent sports season without any verification from any sports organization can constitute "reasonable assurance." (See page 56, of the 1976 Draft Language.) However, the term "reasonable assurance," as it applies to educational employees under the "between and within terms" denial, must be verified by the educational institution before it can be established as a fact. (See page 54, of the 1976 Draft Language and page 17, Supplement 1, to the 1976 Draft Language). Action Required: Administrators are to provide this information to appropriate staff.

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

References: UIPL 41-95 (August 24, 1995), "Draft Narrative Describing the System for Enhancing Unemployment Insurance (UI) Performance: the 'UI Performs' System." Background: On November 19-21, 1997, the State-Federal Performance Enhancement Group (PEG) met for the first time in Washington, DC. The PEG is the successor to the Performance Enhancement workgroup (PEWG) which developed the outline for the UI PERFORMS system. It was convened to guide the Unemployment Insurance Service's completion of the design and implementation of the UI PERFORMS system. The PEG comprises senior State UI managers from Connecticut, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio and Washington; UI Regional Directors from Regions IV and VI; the ETA Regional Administrator from Region III; and four senior ETA National Office managers. Meeting Materials: At the close of its first meeting, the PEG agreed to send out to all States some basic materials from the meeting to help keep the UI system informed of its overall activities. These materials are (a) descriptions of the status of UI PERFORMS roll-out; (b) a matrix showing the expected timing of future UI PERFORMS activities; (c) information on the workgroups which will develop preliminary national performance criteria (or benchmarks) for key UI PERFORMS performance measures; and (d) agenda items for the next meeting, tentatively scheduled for the last week in March 1998. These materials are attached below. Action Required: All SESAs are requested to ensure that a copy of the attached directory is made available to appropriate staff.

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; and Benefits Quality Control State Operations Handbook, ET Handbook No. 395. Background: The final rule to establish the Unemployment Insurance Quality Control (QC) 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 Benefit Quality Control (BQC) data for the UI program was published in the Federal Register on March 26, 1990, at 54 FR 11112. As part of an overall review of the BQC program, the Performance Enhancement Workgroup agreed to several changes, including changing the name of the program to BAM and eliminating the requirement that States publicly release BAM program data. In addition, it was agreed that while the Department of Labor (the Department) would continue to publish an annual compendium of all States' data, each State could determine whether to independently release its data to the public. Date of Record: The Department has established close of business (c.o.b.) April 30, 1998, as the date of record for State databases for computation of the error rates for the CY 1997 Annual Report of BAM data. All information in the Annual Report will be based on CY 1997 BAM cases that have been signed off by the BAM program supervisor by c.o.b. April 30, 1998. Any data analysis supporting the Annual Report must be run on the database as it exists at c.o.b. on April 30, 1998. States must not reopen any CY 1997 BAM cases after this date until they have reviewed the computations of the error rates and have reconciled any differences between the State's and Department's databases. If States make any subsequent changes, their data will differ from the Department's data, which can result in inconsistencies between the State and Department versions of the Annual Report. Any such difference will have to be reconciled before the Annual Report can be issued. Annual Report Software: As described in UIPL 13-93, the software which produces the Annual Report excludes cases which do not meet the definition of the BAM population, for example, interstate or supplemental payments. These cases are coded "9" in the program code data element (c1 in the b_master table of the UI database). The BAM Annual Report software adjusts the amount of UI benefits paid to the population to exclude the amount paid that is represented by cases with program code value "9". Calendar Year 1997 footnotes are defined in Attachment 1, pages 2 and 3. If the State has reopened a previously closed case to update information or correct data that the State has determined to be in error, the reopened date is used in computing the time needed to complete the case and determining whether the footnote concerning time lapse requirements applies. The States may run the Annual Report software as soon as all cases are completed. The National Office (NO) will produce an Annual Report for each State, based on the CY 1997 BAM cases as of c.o.b. April 30, 1998. Annual Report Format: The Annual Report format is shown in Attachment 1. It is divided into three main sections. BENEFIT PAYMENT ACCURACY 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 1997 for which the State pulled a BAM sample, adjusted to exclude other UI payments that do not meet the definition of the BAM population. Sample Size -- Total UI payments selected during CY 1997 (BAM batches 9701 through 9752) and completed (supervisor sign-off) by c.o.b. April 30, 1998, excluding cases that do not meet the BAM population definition. This is the number of BAM sample cases from which the payment accuracy rates and 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, is 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 appear on State BAM Annual Reports describe certain conditions that affect the data. These footnotes are defined in Attachment 1, pages 2 and 3. Narrative: States are invited to supply a narrative analysis to accompany their Annual Report. The Department will include this narrative in the compendium of State Annual Reports that it will publish (see section 10, below). The narrative may include, but is not limited to, a discussion of State laws or special circumstances that affected the payment accuracy rates, and corrective actions that have been proposed or adopted. The narrative should not exceed two pages in length (66 lines per page with one inch margins). The narrative must be transmitted by electronic mail (ELM). Transmit the narrative to "tonight!yvette" on the Sun system ELM or to "sasseeny@doleta.gov" on the internet. List the subject as "Annual Report Narrative for XX" where XX is the State Postal FIPS abbreviation. For help with this process, call the Division of Information Technology Hotline on 1-800-473-0188. Any narrative submitted other than electronically will not be included in the compendium of State annual reports. State narratives must be received in the National Office no later than June 5, 1998. States that decide not to submit a narrative should notify the NO no later than June 5, 1998, that no narrative will be submitted. States will provide a copy of their narrative or notice that no narrative will be submitted to the appropriate Regional Office (RO). State narratives received after the June 5, 1998, deadline will not be included in the compendium of State annual reports. 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 payment error cause and responsibility. The software that produces the BAM Annual Report also generates a separate report consisting of up to 16 responsibility categories and up to 6 cause categories. Responsibility and cause data are reported as percentages of UI dollars overpaid. No sampling errors are computed for these percentages. 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. States can combine categories which contain few sample cases, where appropriate. The format for this report is shown in Attachment 2. 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 in the b_master table of the UI database does not equal the sum of dollars overpaid coded in data element ei1 for key week actions 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 in the b_errisu table. The amount overpaid cannot exceed the amount paid coded in data element f13 in the b_master table. The Department may publish overpayment error cause and responsibility data and other analytical data in the appendix of the annual compendium of State data. Comment Period: BAM Annual Reports produced by the Department will be mailed to each State by May 8, 1998. Each State should carefully review its Annual Report and submit any comments to the NO by May 29, 1998, to: Andrew Spisak U.S. Department of Labor ETA/Unemployment Insurance Service 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Room S-4522 Washington, DC 20210 Alternatively, States may submit comments by e-mail to spisaka@doleta.gov via the internet or tonight!andy via the State's Sun computer e-mail utility or by fax to Andrew Spisak at (202) 219-8506. Each State will send a copy of any comments sent to the NO to the appropriate RO by May 29, 1998. National and RO staffs will discuss and reconcile issues raised in the States' comments by June 5, 1998. Public Release by SESA: As discussed above, States are no longer required to release their annual BAM program data. However, the Department will continue to release a compendium of all States' data. States should provide the data to interested parties upon request. States must continue to follow the reporting requirements described section 11, regardless of their decision to release their data to the public. Federal Release of Data: The Department will announce the availability of BAM program data for CY 1997 through a notice published in the Federal Register on or before July 31, 1998. BAM data will be published as part of a UI PERFORMS report that will also include data for the Benefit Timeliness and Quality (BTQ) and Tax Performance System (TPS) programs. UI PERFORMS is the Department's closed-loop system for promoting continuous improvement in the performance of the UI system. The BAM section of the report will include background information on the BAM program and a brief discussion of how the payment accuracy 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 BAM Annual Report contact will also be published. 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. For CY 1997, the Department will continue the practice begun with CY 1989 data of publishing certain analytical information on aspects of the BAM findings. Key Dates: The following is a summary of key dates for the public release of CY 1997 BAM data. These dates are the latest that the task or action must be completed. 4/24 -- States submit any request for waiver of time lapse requirements, along with supporting analysis, to the appropriate Department of Labor ETA Regional Administrator. 4/30 -- The Department electronically transmits the modified Annual Report software and footnote look-up table to each State's Sun computer. 4/30 -- States should check their UI database by the April 30, 1998, date of record 1) to ensure that all cases for which the BAM investigations have been completed signed off by the BAM supervisor, and 2) to reopen any case in order to update information or correct any data errors. -- Cases closed by supervisors after April 30, 1998, will not be included in the Annual Report. States should not reopen any CY 1997 cases to change the database after April 30, 1998, until their Annual Report is finalized. 5/8 -- The Department sends Annual Reports to the State Administrators over signature of Grace A. Kilbane, Director, UIS. 5/8 -- States provide name, address, and phone number of contact person (or persons) to ETA Regional Administrators. 5/29 -- States review Annual Reports, including footnotes, and provide comments to the NO, with copies to ETA Regional Administrators. 6/5 -- National and RO Offices discuss SESA comments with the States and reconcile any differences between the State's and Department's databases. 6/5 -- States electronically transmit to the NO, with a hard copy to the ETA Regional Administrators, narratives or notification that a narrative will not be submitted. 7/31 -- The Department publishes notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of BAM data. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to: a. provide copies of these guidelines to the appropriate staff; b. ensure that the following items are supplied to ETA Regional Administrators: -- (1) any request for a waiver of time lapse requirements by c.o.b. April 24, 1998; and -- (2) the name, address, and telephone number of the contact person(s) to whom interested parties may write or call with questions or inquiries about the State's BAM data by c.o.b. May 8, 1998. c. ensure that the following items are supplied to the Department's NO with copies sent to ETA Regional Administrators: -- (1) any comments on the CY 1997 Annual Report data that require reconciliation of differences between the State's and Department's databases by c.o.b. May 29, 1998; and -- (2) a narrative or notification that a narrative will not be submitted by June 5, 1998.