Planning for 2001 and 2002 reemployment services funds

The signed PDF repeats part of the OMB burden paragraph across pages 6 and 7 and leaves a separate sentence about the PY 2001 report unfinished on page 5. The transcription removes the repeated page-break text and marks the unfinished sentence.

Signed letter (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2002/TEGL3-02.pdf):

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY SYSTEM
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Washington, D.C. 20210
CLASSIFICATION: Reemployment Services
CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL: OWS
DATE: July 23, 2002

TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 3-02

TO: ALL STATE WORKFORCE LIAISONS
ALL STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
ALL STATE WORKER ADJUSTMENT LIAISONS
ALL ONE-STOP CENTER SYSTEM LEADS
FROM: EMILY STOVER DeROCCO, Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT: Planning Guidance for Reemployment Services Allotments for PY 2001 and PY 2002

1. Purpose. To provide guidance to State Workforce Agencies responsible for Wagner-Peyser labor exchange services for the continued use of reemployment services allotments for Program Year (PY) 2001 and guidance for obtaining and using PY 2002 program allotments announced in Training and Employment Guidance Letter 13-01.

2. References.

a. Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 13-01: Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Allotments for Program Year (PY) 2002; Wagner-Peyser Act Preliminary Planning Estimates for PY 2002; Reemployment Services Allotments for PY 2002; and Workforce Information Grants to States for PY 2002.

b. Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) 1-01: Program Year (PY) 2001 Reemployment Services Allotments Planning Guidance.

c. Wagner-Peyser Act as amended, Section 3 (c) (29 U.S.C. 49b) and Section 7 (e) (29 U.S.C. 49f).

3. Background. In PY 2001, Congress appropriated $35 million to State Workforce Agencies to provide direct services to Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants. These funds were in addition to Wagner-Peyser (W-P) state allotments and intended to enhance and target the labor exchange services to UI claimants provided within the framework of the One-Stop Career Centers. States are currently providing reemployment services using the PY 2001 funds in accordance with approved state plans.

RESCISSIONS: [none listed]
EXPIRATION DATE: Continuing

4. Funding for Reemployment Services in PY 2002. For PY 2002, $35 million was
appropriated to provide direct services to UI claimants. Like the funds for PY 2001, these
funds are intended to supplement W-P allotments and thereby increase services to UI
claimants over and above regular services.

5. State Distribution Formula. Allocations of reemployment services funds were determined
on the basis of each state’s share of UI first payments with every State Workforce Agency
receiving a minimum of $215,000. PY 2002 state allocations may be different from PY
2001 due to differences in UI first payment activity and no deduction from the total
allocation for a national evaluation of the services provided with these funds. Preliminary

funding allotments by state were published in TEGL 13-01. Revised PY 2002 funding
levels will be issued shortly.

6. Use of the Reemployment Funds. The funds must be expended in accordance with the W-P
Act and regulations and the approved State Workforce Agency Reemployment Services

Plan, and expenditures must be consistent with the State’s WIA/W-P Five-Year Strategic
Plan.

These funds are intended to improve the quality and the quantity of reemployment services
for UI claimants building on existing initiatives and targeting the funds where they are
needed and will have the most positive outcomes. In light of recent changes in economic
conditions and increases in service levels for UI claimants, we encourage states to review
PY 2001 reemployment services plan implementation and activity to determine if changes,
additions, or a refocusing of services should be done for PY 2002.

Once again, states are encouraged to collaborate with One-Stop partners to provide a full
range of seamless services to UI claimants. It is especially critical for Employment Service,

UI and WIA Title I grantees to work together to assure that UI claimants are provided the
assistance needed to return to work.

State Workforce Agencies should review existing policies, procedures, and research to
determine best practices and next step strategies. Some information and research findings

are provided in the Attachment a. to this TEGL: “Activities For Improving Reemployment
Services.”

States should keep in mind several considerations as they begin to plan for another year of
using reemployment services funds:

a. The funds are intended primarily to enhance direct service delivery to UI claimants.
b. State Workforce Agencies are encouraged to use these funds, or some portion, on
strategies and service delivery methods that ensure claimants served through call

centers are linked to all of the available reemployment services in their One-Stop
service delivery system.

c. Services provided should be integrated into the One-Stop service delivery system to
ensure maximum benefits for unemployment insurance claimants.

7. Grant Procedures. Funds are being provided to State Workforce Agencies for the

provision of reemployment services to UI claimants. These services must be consistent with
the instructions in this TEGL.

a. Grant Agreement. Reemployment Services grant funds are provided on the basis of
approved state plans for the program and are provided under separate W-P Annual
Funding Agreements for each program year with the designated State Workforce
Agency for the Wagner-Peyser Act program. The Agreement includes Standard
Assurances and Certifications that apply to all grant programs covered by the
Agreement. PY 2001 state plans may be modified to extend the date and to make
changes in program activities. PY 2002 funds will require a separate Reemployment
Services State Plan. States should include both the new program plan and prior year

plan modification under one submission as Part I and II of the plan as described
below.

b. Grant Application. The Grant Application must include a signed transmittal letter, a
signed Application for Federal Assistance (SF-424), Budget (SF-424A, Section D

only) and Plan Program Narrative that outlines how the PY 2001 carry-in and PY
2002 funds will be used.

State Reemployment Services Plans/Modifications. The overall submission must

include a signed transmittal letter and a Part I and II (if applicable) as described
below.

Part I (PY 2002 Funds) must include a signed SF-424 Application for Federal
Assistance for the PY 2002 allotment, an SF-424A Budget (Part D only) for July 1,
2002 through June 30, 2003 expenditures, and a plan narrative which describes
activities in accordance with this guidance.

Part II (PY 2001 Funds) should describe how remaining PY 2001 funds will be used
differently (if there are any changes to the existing plan) and must include an SF-
424A Budget (Part D only) which shows expenditures for the extended period. Note:
Part II will be optional in those cases where the state has already obtained a plan
modification for the extended period.

States are requested to submit two signed copies of the Plan and Modification
submission to the appropriate Regional Office and one copy to:

U.S. Department of Labor

Employment and Training Administration
Division of USES/ALMIS

Room S-4231

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

c. Program Plan. The program plan should be developed in accordance with the
following guidelines:

1) Reemployment Services allocations may not be used for any type of UI profiling
model update or modification.

2) System building projects must not exceed a range of 10% to 20% of the allocated
funds. System building projects include career tools, assessment tools, equipment
for job seekers use in resource rooms and similar projects.

3) Reemployment Services allocations may not be used to purchase capital
improvements or major equipment purchases. For example, a bus to provide
services is a major equipment purchase and not allowed.

4) Although the maximum timeframe for using these funds is three years, both PY
2001 and PY 2002 plans should plan for program completion no later than June 30,
2003. Timely service to UI claimants is an important element of providing
reemployment services.

5) Plan Part I. The PY 2002 program plan narrative should include the following
information:

i. Describe the background and need for the funds. Describe the relationship of
the PY 2002 plan to the PY 2001 plan; indicate the extent to which the PY
2002 plan builds on the success or corrects weaknesses in the PY 2001 plan
and examines the need for the services in PY 2002.

ii. Include a program design. Explain how the funds will be used including a
description of specific activities.

iii. Include timeline and milestones. Provide the timeframes and milestones to
mark progress.

iv. Provide information about program linkages. Indicate program linkages with
partners and other organizations inside and outside of the One-Stop that will
be involved.

v. Describe delivery of service through the One Stop. Describe how services
will be delivered through the One-Stop system.

vi. Specify performance outcomes. Describe how program outcomes will be
obtained and measured; program goals should reflect the experience of PY
2001.

vii. The program plan must identify the specific program performance outcomes
anticipated and method to measure attainment of those outcomes. State
Workforce Agencies should evaluate performance outcomes from PY 2001
when developing performance outcomes for PY 2002 to revise weaknesses
and model successes. Weak or difficult to measure performance outcomes
used in PY 2001 should be revised or replaced with better measures.

6) Plan Part II. The PY 2002 program plan modification should include the
following information:

i. Description of how the remaining funds will be used. The modification
should explain why funds have not been expended during the year and how
the State Workforce Agency plans to expend funds during PY 2002.

ii. Changes to the plan. The modification should describe any changes from the
current plan, why changes are needed and how the modified plan will assure
that funds will be expended during the year.

iii. Performance measurement should reflect experience in PY 2001. The plan
should reflect experience with performance goals in PY 2001 and describe
any changes to performance measurement.

d. Program Plan Approval. Regional Administrators are responsible for review,
negotiation of changes, if appropriate, and final approval of the plan and modifications
and will issue an approval letter, with a copy of the approved plan, to the State
Workforce Agency and a copy of the approval letter and plan to the Grant Officer and
the OWS/USES/ALMIS. Federal obligation of funds will be issued via a Notice of
Obligation (grant modification) by the Grant Officer after the receipt of the Regional
Office’s approval package. Funding for PY 2002 will be provided on or around July 1,
2002, the effective date. To receive funds, an approved plan must be in place no later
than 45 days from publication of this Planning Guidance.

e. Program Report. State Workforce Agencies must submit a program narrative

performance report using ETA Form 9100 (see attachment B) for both PY 2001 and

PY 2002 (The report number has been changed from ETA Form 9011 to 9100 since
issuance of TEGL 1-01.)

The PY 2001 report is due December 31, 2002. State Workforce Agencies should
report all activity and compare the accomplishment of planned performance goals with
the attainment of the performance indicators including state goals identified by the
State Workforce Agency in the program plan. The report should include an [sentence ends here in the source].

The PY 2002 report is due 90 days after completion of the program year or September
28, 2003. State Workforce Agencies should report all activity and compare
accomplishment of planned performance goals with the attainment of the performance
indicators including state goals identified by the State Workforce Agency in the
program plan. The report should include an explanation of problems or delays, as
well as corrective actions plans and resulting outcomes.

U.S. Department of Labor

Employment and Training Administration
Division of USES/ALMIS

Room S-4231

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

To evaluate the success of this effort, ETA will track for each state, the entered
employment rate with a new employer by the end of the second quarter following
registration with the labor exchange using the ETA 9002 report. In addition, ETA
will track activity reported on the UI-9048 and UI-9049 reports.

f. Financial Report. State Workforce Agencies must report quarterly expenditures by
direct data entry of Standard Form 269 into the web-based Enterprise Information
Management System (EIMS). Reports must be submitted in accordance with
guidance provided in TEGL No. 17-00, Automation of SESA Standard Form 269
Financial Reporting. Following the instructions in TEGL No. 17-00, Section 4,
please provide appropriate contact information for data entry and data certification for
reemployment services. If reemployment services will be added to a State Workforce
Agency Contact Information Listing (Attachment II of TEGL No. 17-00) already
submitted per instruction in TEGL No 17-00, please re-submit that listing and identify
as revised. If reemployment services contact information is different from that for all
other State Workforce Agency programs, an additional Contact Information sheet
must be provided. As with all other SF 269 reporting, the data must be entered
electronically into the system within 30 days after the end of each quarter.

8. OMB Approval. Persons are not required to respond to the report requirement unless the
report displays an OMB approval number. The reporting requirement is mandatory (Public
Law 105-220, Section 185). State Workforce Agencies must agree to submit the reports to
receive reemployment services funds. Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 56 hours for two reports per year including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching, existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. If you have any
comments regarding this estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information

including suggestions for reducing this burden, please send them to the U.S. Department of
Labor, U.S. Employment Service/ALMIS, Room S4231, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20210 (Paperwork Reduction Project 1205-0424).

9. Action Required. State Workforce Agencies should review and evaluate PY 2001
reemployment services plan implementation when developing the program plan and
modification. Since economic circumstances may have changed in states since PY 2001
plans were implemented, State Workforce Agencies should determine if plans for PY 2002
should be changed or refocused from the PY 2001 plan to respond to economic changes
during the past year. States should submit grant plans within 30 days of the date of this
advisory. Regional Offices may extend the due date, if necessary. State Workforce Agency
Administrators are requested to:

• Immediately transmit this planning guidance to the appropriate State Workforce
Agency office.
• Submit two signed copies of the PY 2002 grant program plan to the appropriate
Regional Administrator and one copy to the National Office address indicated in
Section 7b. of this letter.

Forward the Contact Information, as specified in Section 7e. to Thomas C. Martin at
[email protected], with a copy to the Regional Office.

10. Inquiries. Questions regarding this TEGL should be directed to the appropriate Regional
Office.

11. Attachments.

a. Activities For Improved Reemployment Services
b. ETA Form 9100

Attachment a (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2002/TEGL3-02_AttachA.pdf):

Attachment a.

Activities And Resources For Improving Reemployment Services

Much of this material was adapted from the Training and Employment Guidance Letter
No. 1-01.

The following activities have been shown to be successful for providing effective reemployment
services. The following non-exhaustive list of activities is provided to assist in developing an
action plan. The activities reflect research results and practical experience providing
reemployment services.

• Integrated UI/ES services. While the relationship between the Employment Service (ES)
and UI is longstanding, with the creation of One-Stop Centers and more use of
technological tools to provide services, there is a need for the programs to develop an
effective communication mechanism or linking process whereby UI claimants receive
service in ES and the One-Stop Centers. This is particularly important for State Workforce
Agencies doing remote initial claims filing such as telephone claims in which UI claimants
not familiar with ES services may not now make themselves available for assistance. Cross

training of staff, requiring immediate registration and conducting early job matches have
proved to be successful techniques.

• More intensive or staff-assisted services. A review of state activities since reemployment
services were mandated under Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services found that
services received by claimants were, on the whole, neither very intensive nor clearly well-
matched to client needs. Nearly half the states neither required extensive services nor
generally made them available. Only about one-third of the states required claimants to
participate in 20 or more hours of services. Of the group who were referred to

reemployment services, only one-third were reported as participating in job search
workshops.

Research has found that job search techniques such as increasing the number of employer
contacts and expanding job search to include secondary occupations and a broader
geographic area were very effective in producing positive outcomes. The combined
findings of several state demonstration projects--Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, South
Carolina and Washington--provide strong evidence that intensive reemployment services,
such as job search assistance, are effective and result in positive outcomes.

A report on the Job Search Assistance Demonstration in the District of Columbia (DC) and
Florida found that reemployment services encouraged more aggressive job search efforts,

increased the number of employers contacted per week, and increased the hours of job
search per week.

• Early intervention services. There is extensive research (see list of studies at the end of
this section) to document that early intervention, (e.g., identifying UI claimants who are
likely to face lengthy unemployment early in their UI combined with job search and
similar services) is an effective approach to providing reemployment services resulting in
positive outcomes.

• Eligibility Review Program (ERP) activities. ERP might be more effective if redesigned to
provide services earlier and more frequently and to incorporate job search or other
reemployment services in the ERP.

• Services that are integrated with Remote Initial Claims Filing. Telephone and Internet
initial claims are widespread and in some states becoming the only way to register for UI.
While this may increase the efficiency of delivering UI, it poses a serious problem for
providing reemployment services. Often, the high cost of telephone service at remote
locations prevents customer service representatives (CSRs) from spending more time with
UI claimants on the telephone. To assure that UI claimants are provided reemployment
services, agencies could provide CSRs with information and training for referring UI
claimants to providers of reemployment services such as the National Toll-Free Help Line.

• Services to claimants in targeted occupations or industries. Many states are facing the loss
of jobs in specific industries or occupations. Particularly hard hit have been the textile,
steel, shoe, printing/publishing and some manufacturing industries. Reemployment
services programs could be developed to customize service to UI claimants in a specific
occupation or industry.

• Improved services to profiled claimants. Additional resources can be used to implement an
approach that increases the number of UI claimants selected and provides targeted services
to produce positive outcomes. Projects to increase referrals and improve the intensity of
reemployment services could be expanded. Better communications, linkages and
procedures could be developed between and among the UI, ES and other members of the
One-Stop Center. In addition, services could be provided earlier and be customized to
respond to the needs of the UI claimant.

Specific Resources For Improving Reemployment Services

Most of the studies cited here are available on the ETA website at: www.doleta.gov.

1. Assisting Unemployment Insurance Claimants: The Long-Term Impacts of the Job Search
Assistance Demonstration. U.S. Department of Labor. 2000.

2. Evaluation of Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services: Final Report. Research and
Evaluation Report Series 99D. U.S. Department of Labor. 2000.

3. Evaluation of the Impact of Telephone Initial Claims Filing. Information Technology
Support Center and Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. March 2000.

4. Unemployment Insurance in the One-Stop System. Office of Workforce Security Occasional
Paper Evaluation of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Work Search Demonstration.
U.S. Department of Labor. 1998.

5. Evaluation of Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services Systems: Report to Congress.
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training administration, Office of Policy and
Research, 1997.

6. The New Jersey Unemployment Insurance Reemployment Demonstration Project: Six-year
Follow-up and Summary Report. Corson, Walter and Haimson, Josua. Unemployment
Insurance Occasional Paper 96-2, 1996.

Attachment b (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2002/TEGL3-02_AttachB.pdf):

Attachment b.
OMB No. 1205-0424
Expires 11-30-04

REEMPLOYMENT SERVICES PERFORMANCE REPORT

STATE: ____________________    DATE: ____________________

STATE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE REPORT (Add additional sheets if necessary.)

Describe activities and an overview of how the activities were accomplished. Include milestones, and positive outcomes achieved. Compare accomplishment of planned performance goals with the attainment of the performance indicators identified by the State in the annual plan.

ETA 9100