DIRECTIVE	:	TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 06-95
TO	:	STATE JTPA LIAISONS STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCIES STATE WORKER ADJUSTMENT LIAISONS
FROM	:	BARBARA ANN FARMER Administrator for Regional Management
SUBJECT	:	JTPA Titles II-A, II-C, and III Allotments; and Wagner-Peyser Final Planning Estimates for Program Year (PY) 1996

1. Purpose. To provide States with Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) Titles II-A, II-C, and III allotments for PY 1996; and final planning estimates for PY 1996 public employment service (ES) activities, as required by Section 6(b)(5) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended.

2. References. Wagner-Peyser Act, as amended (29 U.S.C. 49); 20 CFR 652 and 20 CFR 653; JTPA Sections 202, 252, 262, 302, and 601, as amended by the Job Training Reform Amendments Act of 1992; Training and Employment Guidance Letters (TEGL) Nos. 4-88, 4-95, 5-95.

3. Background. The JTPA Titles II-A, II-C and III allotments, and the Wagner-Peyser final planning estimates, are for the program period July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997. These JTPA allotments and the Wagner-Peyser final planning estimates will be published in the Federal Register.

   The allotments for Titles II-A, II-C, and III, and the ES final planning estimates are part of the Fiscal Year 1996 funds appropriated in the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, P.L. 104-134, for PY 1996.

   These appropriations include $850,000,000 for Title II-A, a 14.73 percent reduction from the post-rescission PY 1995 Title II-A level; $126,000,000 for Title II-C, the same as the post-rescission PY 1995 Title II-C level; $1,097,500,000 for Title III, a 10.7 percent decrease from PY 1995; and $761,735,000 for allotments to States under Wagner-Peyser, a 9.2 percent decrease from PY 1995.

4. Program Emphasis. The program emphasis statement contained in the PY 1996 program planning guidance (TEGL No. 4-95) bears repeating here. The services offered through our system are critically needed, especially now in a labor market that offers less and less job security. The employment and training system has an urgent mission: to ensure that all Americans have the tools to manage their own job lives successfully, and that American businesses have the skilled employees they need. High quality employment transition services can be pivotal for individuals seeking new or better jobs. Training and occupational education are essential for people who want to develop or expand their work skills, and thus increase their long-term opportunities in the job market.

   The new realities--the need for integrated employment and training services, potential cuts in federal funding, and the demand for government to prove its value--have implications for States in developing plans for the Job Training Partnership Act and the Wagner-Peyser Act. Specifically, States should consider the following:

   1. Collaborative Planning.  This planning period offers the employment and training system a unique opportunity to undertake collaborative planning at all levels. Many State employment and training officials are reaching out to stakeholders and bringing them into an active partnership in order to encourage collaborative planning. They have learned that if all stakeholders participate in decision-making, increased support for employment and training programs will result. Localities need to be engaged because that is where the training, education, counseling, and provision of information actually occur--where the value is added.

   2. Systems Development.  A key role for States now and in the future is to redesign delivery systems statewide to enhance the quality and efficiency of services. States are actively engaged in developing or implementing such systems as One-Stop Career Centers and School-to-Work (STW). One-Stop can serve as the organizing vehicle for transforming the current array of employment and training programs into a coordinated information and service delivery system that provides high quality information and advice to individual decision-makers. School-to-Work offers a framework for redesigning learning experiences for in-school and out-of-school youth covering both school-based and work-based learning, and the connecting activities that link the two together. Integrating all ETA funded programs and services into One-Stop Career Center systems is another key system development task.

   3. Improvement in Program Services and Outcomes.  Even though it is recognized that funding for employment and training programs is being reduced by Congress while at the same time States are reexamining and reengineering their work force development systems, States and local areas must continue to emphasize the delivery of quality services to each customer and the improvement of program outcomes in existing ETA programs. States and local officials should review current strategies to determine which have worked well and which need to be modified so that JTPA's continuing objectives -- lifting disadvantaged persons out of poverty and assisting displaced workers in finding new employment at equal or greater wages -- are met.

   In addition, most States can support improvements in local program management and service provider offerings through promoting the use of continuous improvement processes. Continuous improvement focuses on understanding and meeting customer needs, changing processes to improve the quality of services, measuring performance results on a number of dimensions, including the Secretary's core performance measures and using these combined customer and program performance results to pinpoint problems and develop new improvements. In conjunction with its partners, ETA has recently developed a number of instruments that are being used by State and local practitioners in these efforts, including customer satisfaction measurement instruments developed through ES Revitalization in collaboration with certain States, and other successful initiatives such as the Enterprise Council and SIMPLY BETTER! customer technical assistance guides.

   The Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services (WPRS) initiative is based on findings that dislocated workers who are profiled early and receive job search assistance and other reemployment services can speedily and cost effectively return to productive employment. Services are being provided by both JTPA and Employment Service, and both organizations should make it a priority to enhance the scope and depth of reemployment services to UI claimants and seek methods to improve feedback requirements of the WPRS system.

5. Intertitle Fund Transfers. The final Congressional appropriation contains the following language: "... service delivery areas may transfer funding provided herein under authority of titles II-B and II-C of the Job Training Partnership Act between the programs authorized by those titles of that Act, if such transfer is approved by the Governor: Provided further, That service delivery areas and substate areas may transfer funding provided herein under authority of title II-A and title III of the Job Training Partnership Act between the programs authorized by those titles of the Act, if such transfer is approved by the Governor...." Further guidance on this subject will be provided in a separate issuance.

6. Notice of Obligation (NOO). NOOs for the Title II-A, II-C, and III programs will be issued on July 1, 1996, under the PY 1996 JTPA Grant Agreement. A second NOO will be issued to each State after November 1, 1996, for Title III, to increase or reduce the funds available to the State to reflect the amount of reallotted funds the State gains or loses, as discussed in TEGL No. 4-88. (FY 1996 NOOs for the CY 1996 Title II-B program were issued on April 12, 1996, under the PY 1995 JTPA Grant Agreement.)

7. Title II-A Allotments. Attachment I shows the PY 1996 JTPA Title II-A allotments by State. Attachment II is a comparison of PY 1995 and PY 1996 levels. For all States, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, the following data were used in computing the allotments:

   • Data for Areas of Substantial Unemployment (ASUs) are averages for the 12-month period, July 1994 through June 1995.

   • The number of excess unemployed individuals or the ASU excess (depending on which is higher) are averages for this same 12-month period.

   • The economically disadvantaged adult data (age 22 to 72, excluding college students and military) are from the 1990 Census.

   The allotments for the Insular Areas are based on unemployment data from the 1990 census, or if not available, the most recent data available. A 90-percent relative share "hold-harmless" of the Title II-A PY 1995 allotments for these areas and a minimum allotment of $75,000 were also applied in determining the allotments.

   Title II-A funds are to be distributed among designated SDAs according to the statutory formula contained in Section 202(b) of JTPA, as amended by Title VII, Miscellaneous Provisions, of the JTPA Amendments of 1992. (This Title VII provides an interim allocation methodology which applies to the PY 1996 allotments). This is the same formula that had been used in previous program years; however, prior to PY 1994 a different definition of "economically disadvantaged" was used.

8. Title II-B Allotments. JTPA Title II-B allotments for the CY 1996 Summer Youth Employment and Training Program were issued by TEGL 5-95, dated April 12, 1996. (see Attachments I and III)

   The data used for these allotments are the same data as were used for Title II-A allotments, except that data for the number of economically disadvantaged youth (age 16 to 21, excluding college students and military) from the 1990 census was used.

   For the Insular Areas and Native Americans, the allotments are based on the percentage of Title II-B funds each received during the previous summer.

   Title II-B funds for the 1996 Summer program are to be distributed among designated SDAs in accordance with the statutory formula contained in Section 252(b) of JTPA, as amended by Title VII, Miscellaneous Provisions, of the JTPA Amendments of 1992. This is the same formula that was used in the previous program year.

9. Title II-C Allotments. Attachment I shows the 1996 JTPA Title II-C allotments by State. Attachment IV is a comparison of PY 1995 and PY 1996 levels. The data used for these allotments are the same data as were used for Title II-B allotments.

   The allotments for the Insular Areas are based on unemployment data from the 1990 census or, if not available, the most recent data available.

   Title II-C funds are to be distributed among designated SDAs according to the statutory formula contained in Section 262(b) of JTPA, as amended by Title VII, Miscellaneous Provisions, of the JTPA Amendments of 1992. (The Title II-C formula is the same as for Title II-B). This is the same formula which had been used in the previous program year.

10. Title III Allotments. Attachment I shows the PY 1996 JTPA Title III allotments by State. Attachment V is a comparison of PY 1995 and PY 1996 levels. The total appropriation includes 80 percent allotted by formula to the States, while 20 percent is retained for the National Reserve account, including funds allotted to the Insular Areas.

    Title III formula funds are to be distributed to State and substate grantees in accordance with the provisions in Section 302(c) and (d) of JTPA, as amended.

    The unemployment data used for computing these State allotments, relative numbers of unemployed and relative numbers of excess unemployed, are averages for the October 1994 through September 1995 period. Long-term unemployed data used were for CY 1994.

    Allotments for the Insular Areas are based on the PY 1996 Title II-A allotments for these areas.

11. Reallotments. Reallotments of these Title III formula funds, as provided for by Section 303 of JTPA, as amended, will be based on completed program year expenditure reports submitted by the States and received by October 1, 1996. Title III allotments will be adjusted upward or downward, based on whether the State is eligible to share in reallotted funds or is subject to recapture of funds.

12. ES Final Planning Estimates. The Secretary of Labor is issuing final planning estimates (allotments) for each State's share of PY 1996 funds for basic labor exchange activities (Attachments I and VI). These allotments are based on the FY 1996 appropriation of $761,735,000 and are distributed by the statutory formula described in Section 6 of the Wagner-Peyser Act, 29 U.S.C. 49e. The allotments will be published in the Federal Register. The data used are Calendar Year 1995 averages of civilian labor force (CLF) and number of unemployed individuals.

    Section 6(b)(4) of the Act authorizes the Secretary of Labor to reserve up to 3 percent of the total fund availability to assure that each State will have sufficient resources to maintain statewide employment service (ES) activities. The setaside for distribution through an administrative formula for this program year is $22,312,050. The 3 percent distribution is included in the total final allotment. The setaside was distributed in two steps to States whose relative share of resources declined from the previous year. In Step 1, those States with a CLF below one million and that are also below the median CLF density were held harmless at 100 percent of their prior year relative share of resources. The remainder was distributed in Step 2 in pro rata shares to all other States that lost in relative share from the prior year but did not meet the size criteria for Step 1.

    Ten percent of the total sums allotted to each State shall be reserved for use by the Governor to provide performance incentives for public ES offices; services for groups with special needs; and for the extra costs of exemplary models for delivering job services.

    Postage costs incurred by States during the conduct of ES activities are billed directly to the Department of Labor by the U.S. Postal Service. The total planning estimate does not include $18,000,000 of the total amount available, which is withheld for the payment of the States' ES penalty mail costs.

13. Action. 

    1. States should allocate the JTPA allotments as follows:

       (1)  Title II-A allotments according to the requirements contained in Sections 162(e) and 202(b) of JTPA, as amended, subject to Title VII of the JTPA Amendments.

       (2)  Title II-C allotments according to the requirements contained in Sections 162(e) and 262(b) of JTPA, as amended, subject to Title VII of the JTPA Amendments.

       (3)  Title III allotments according to the requirements contained in Sections 302(c) and (d) of JTPA, as amended.

    2. States should continue planning for PY 1996 ES programs consistent with provisions of the Wagner-Peyser Act, Federal Regulations at 20 CFR Part 652, and TEGL 4-95.

14. Inquiries. 

    1. For JTPA Title II, technical questions may be addressed to Jess Aragon or Sherryl Bailey on 202-219-7979. Policy questions may be addressed to Ric Larisch on 202-219-5305.

    2. For JTPA Title III, questions may be addressed to Eric Johnson on 202-219-5577.

    3. For ES, technical questions may be addressed to Jess Aragon on 202-219-7979 or Richard Hardin on 202-219-5185. Policy questions may be addressed to John Robinson on 202-219-5257.

15. Attachments. 

    1. PY 1996 Allotments

    2. Title II-A Comparison

    3. Title II-B Comparison

    4. Title II-C Comparison

    5. Title III Comparison

    6. Wagner-Peyser Comparison

NOTE: Attachment "I" not available to DMS