FY 2007 reemployment and eligibility assessment grants

Accessible letter PDF: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2006/UIPL30-06_508.pdf

CLASSIFICATION
                                                  UI
      EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION
                                                  CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL
                 ADVISORY SYSTEM
                                                  OWS/DUIO
              U. S. Department of Labor
               Washington, D.C. 20210             DATE
                                                  August 9, 2006

ADVISORY:               UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER 30-06

TO:                     STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES

FROM:                   EMILY STOVER DeROCCO /s/
                        Assistant Secretary

SUBJECT:                Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Unemployment Insurance (UI) Reemployment
                        and Eligibility Assessments (REA) Grants

1. Purpose. To announce anticipated FY 2007 funds for selected State Workforce Agencies
   (SWAs) to continue to operate REA programs and for additional states to implement REA
   programs; to invite the submission of state proposals; and to provide the guidelines for
   developing the proposals and criteria governing the use of these funds.

2. References. Regional Office issuances regarding the Reemployment and Eligibility
   Assessments for FY 2005 and FY 2006; Federal Register Notice Volume 70, Number 163,
   dated August 24, 2005; ET Handbook No. 401; ETA Occasional Paper No. 2004-01, Internet
   Initial Claims Evaluation - Section V. Reemployment Assistance and Continuing Eligibility;
   ETA Occasional Paper No. 2002-09, Significant Improvement Grants for the Provision of
   Reemployment Services for UI Claimants; and ETA Occasional Paper No. 2000-01,
   Unemployment Insurance in the One-Stop Delivery System.

3. Background. Reemployment of UI claimants and minimizing erroneous payments are high
   priorities for the UI program. A number of studies have found that attention to UI
   beneficiaries’ efforts to find new jobs and attention to their reemployment service needs
   result in relatively shorter claim durations and fewer erroneous payments.

   In FY 2006, 20 states operated REA initiatives. These states will be given the opportunity to
   continue their REA initiatives if sufficient FY 2007 funds are appropriated for this purpose;
   however, they must apply for an REA grant for FY 2007 to receive continued funding.

RESCISSIONS                                              EXPIRATION DATE
                                                         August 9, 2007
None

   In anticipation of an FY 2007 appropriation that includes funds requested in the President’s
   Budget to conduct UI REAs, additional states also are invited to submit REA proposals. The
   additional UI REA grants will be awarded to states on a competitive basis to implement
   programs meeting the criteria described in Section 5 below.

4. FY 2007 Funding. Based on the amount of funds anticipated in FY 2007, as many as 20
   additional states may be funded to implement UI REA initiatives. The amount of each
   selected state’s award will be determined by the number of expected assessments and the
   state’s estimated cost to conduct an assessment. The final appropriation will determine the
   number of states funded and the level of funding.

5. Guidelines. Funds must be used for reemployment and eligibility assessments for UI
   beneficiaries and are not intended to supplant UI grant funds devoted to eligibility reviews.
   The REA initiative does not have to be implemented statewide, and assessments are to be
   conducted only for beneficiaries who do not have a definite return-to-work date.

   The following guidelines also apply:

       a. Reemployment and eligibility assessments for UI beneficiaries must be staff-assisted
          and conducted in-person at One-Stop Career Centers. Beneficiaries must be required
          to report in-person to the One-Stop Career Center within a specified period of time as
          a part of the assessment.

       b. Assessments must include:

           •   labor market information/work-search plan development/review;

           •   referral to employment services (e.g. job search assistance workshops or job
               placement services) and to skill or occupational training when appropriate; and

           •   eligibility issue detection and referral to adjudication when appropriate.

       c. The SWA must provide the required REA reports, the ETA 9128 Reemployment and
          Eligibility Assessments Activities, and the ETA 9129 Reemployment and Eligibility
          Assessments Outcomes reports.

       d. The SWA must agree to participate in a DOL-funded study of the effectiveness of this
          UI REA initiative. Results from this study may be used to prepare a report to
          Congress about the REA initiative.

   States applying for REA grants should keep in mind that the grants come from funds
   appropriated to administer state UI laws; therefore, they may not be used for reemployment
   services. Providing general information about the labor market, developing a work search
   plan, assessing an individual’s need for reemployment services, and making referrals to
   reemployment services are a part of the UI program’s responsibilities for assuring that

                                                 2

   claimants are doing what a reasonable person in his or her circumstances should do to find
   suitable work and are an integral part of REAs. However, reemployment services such as
   resume writing or interviewing workshops and job finding/placement activities are not
   permissible uses of UI grant funds.

   As part of the REA grants, states will be required to provide data to assess the effectiveness
   of the REA program. Measures of program effectiveness are derived by comparing REA
   program participants with a similar group of claimants who did not participate in the REA
   program. States receiving REA grant funds must agree to develop a methodology for
   identifying a comparison group; however, the specific methodology to be utilized is not
   required to be included in the state’s REA proposal. Upon receipt of the grant award, and as
   needed, DOL will provide states with technical assistance in developing an appropriate
   comparison group methodology. DOL will work with states early in the grant period to
   ensure that the comparison group provides an accurate population for assessing the results of
   the state’s REA initiative.

   States must collect and report specific data elements about the REA program participants and
   the comparison group. The ETA 9128 Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments
   Activities, and the ETA 9129 Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments Outcomes were
   approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Paperwork Reduction
   Project No. 1205-0456 which expires on March 31, 2009.

6. Proposal Format and Instructions. The format and instructions for preparing the UI REA
   grant proposals are provided in the following attachments: Attachment A provides the
   guidance for states that have not received an REA grant; Attachment B provides the
   guidance for states that received a prior REA grant. All pages in the proposal should be
   numbered.

   Each proposal should contain the name and telephone number of the person who is to be
   notified of approval of the grant. In most instances, this individual will be the Administrator
   of the SWA.

   Completed Standard Forms (SF) 424 (Revised 10-2005), and SF 424A must be submitted
   within 10 days of the notification of the grant award. The SF 424A requires a breakout of
   object class categories in item 6 of Section B - Budget Categories. The breakouts must
   match the proposed expenditures for the number of UI REA interviews for which the state
   will be funded.

7. UI REA Grant Scoring Criteria. UI REA scoring criteria are explained in Attachment A.
   Proposals from states that did not participate in the REA initiative during FY 2006 will be
   scored to establish the sequence of funding. SWAs must follow the proposal outline. Each
   element of the proposal is important and should be addressed completely. Proposals should
   explain clearly how the proposed program will work and include complete names and titles
   rather than acronyms and form numbers. Proposals with the highest scores will be funded
   first, and funding will continue sequentially until all available funds are exhausted.
   Proposals scoring less than 80 will not be funded.

                                                3

8. UI REA Grant Evaluation Criteria. Selected states must agree, if asked, to participate in a
   study to determine the effectiveness of the reemployment and eligibility assessments.

9. SBR Procedures. SWAs are encouraged to work with Regional Office staff, if needed,
   while they are developing proposals.

   SWAs should ensure:

           a. The UI REA project design meets the needs of UI claimants;

           b. UI and One-Stop Career Center staff will cooperate in planning, developing,
              testing, and implementing reemployment projects;

           c. The proposed expenditures are appropriate; and

          d. It will be possible for the state to provide the required reports data.
10. Time Lines.

           a. The SWA must submit its proposal to the National Office by September 8, 2006.

           b. The evaluation panel will complete its evaluation and recommendations by
              September 26, 2006.

           c. Final selection and required notifications will be made prior to December 1, 2006,
              or within 20 days after enactment of FY 2007 appropriations for state UI
              operations.

           d. SWAs must submit an SF 424 and 424A within 10 days of notification of
              selection.

           e. Grant awards will be made with the final allocation of each selected state’s FY
              2007 budget if the appropriation includes such funds.

           f. Deadline for UI REA grant obligation is December 31, 2007; and the deadline for
              liquidation/expenditure is 90 days later.

11. Action Required. SWA Administrators are requested to:

           a. Provide information contained in this Unemployment Insurance Program Letter to
              appropriate staff.

           b. Send the original and two copies of each proposal (or one electronic copy) to the
              Office of Workforce Security, Division of Unemployment Insurance Operations,
              no later than September 8, 2006. Proposals should be sent electronically to the
              following e-mail address: [email protected] or to the Office of Workforce

                                                 4

             Security, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, S -4231, Washington, DC 20210 to the
             attention of Diane Wood.

          c. Upon notification of the approval of the grant, SWAs will be asked to submit a SF
             424 and SF 424A, signed by the SWA Administrator, at the appropriate level of
             funding.

12. Inquiries. Direct questions to Diane Wood at 202-693-3212, or [email protected].

13. Attachments.

          A. UI REA Proposal Outline for First Year REA Grants
          B. UI REA Proposal Outline for Second and Third Year REA Grants

                                             5

Attachment: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2006/UIPL30-06_Att1.pdf

Attachment A

             UI REA PROPOSAL OUTLINE FOR FIRST YEAR REA GRANTS

1. UI REA Grant Proposal. The format below must be used for the UI REA grant proposal by
   states that have not received an REA grant in the past. The State Workforce Agency's
   (SWA’s) submission of a grant proposal means it agrees to participate in a U.S. Department
   of Labor study of the effectiveness of the UI REA initiative. Each project should include a
   contact name, telephone number, and e-mail address for the REA program manager.

2. Expenditures and Schedule. Proposals must include a description of proposed expenditures
   and a projected schedule for significant project activities. Any proposed expenditures that do
   not address all of the required information will be deducted from the grant allocation.

3. Scoring Elements. The following elements are used to score the proposal. Each element is
   important and should be addressed fully in the proposal. Proposals must have a score of 80
   points or more to be recommended for funding. Proposals should use the following format.

           a. Project Costs. The proposal should include both fixed minimum costs and
              incremental costs which, if funded, would allow the state to expand the project to
              serve a larger number of claimants. Costs should include the projected costs for
              programming the ETA 9128 and the ETA 9129 reports as a one-time cost.
              Reporting instructions can be found in ET Handbook No. 401. This information
              should be used to determine the approximate programming time for developing
              REA reports. The costs for programming these reports should be clearly
              identified in the project costs.

                          i. Fixed Minimum Costs. The proposal should describe the costs to
                             implement the UI REA program and conduct the first 10,000
                             assessments. This should include staff costs, contract staff costs,
                             and the costs of any equipment needed to implement the system.
                             Costs may include activities such as gathering the required
                             management information, programming the selection of claimants,
                             as well as delivering the services to claimants.

                          ii. Incremental Costs. The proposal should also provide the costs for
                              performing assessments in addition to the initial 10,000. These
                              costs should be expressed as costs per 10,000 assessments. States
                              that do not wish to perform more than 10,000 assessments may
                              omit this information. Incremental costs will likely consist
                              primarily of costs related to service delivery (i.e., conducting the
                              REA) rather than costs such as development of management
                              information systems.

                                            1

             iii. Staff Needs. The proposal should identify both one-time SWA
                  staff needs (in excess of base staff) and any contract staff needs.
                  Staff needs should include the type of position, the expected
                  number of staff hours, and the projected hourly cost. States should
                  identify staff costs for developing REA reports and programming
                  requirements separate from the costs for providing REAs to
                  claimants. SWAs should include information in the following
                  format for all staff requests.

                          Position Title       # Hours Cost Per Hour Total Cost
                          Claims Adjudicator 120         $50              $6,000

                  Any staff costs must be for staff in excess of staff funded by the
                  SWAs base grant. When staff is assigned to the UI REA grant
                  project and the vacated position is backfilled by another individual
                  who is not funded under the base grant, this results in the addition
                  of a second staff member. In this case, the cost of the UI REA
                  grant staff activities can be funded as the backfilled position incurs
                  the base staff funding. Costs incurred by SWA staff assigned to the
                  project on a temporary basis cannot be funded by the UI REA
                  grant unless additional costs are incurred.

                  If contract staff is requested, documentation should include the
                  type of position, estimated contract staff hours, anticipated costs
                  per hour, and total cost.

              iv. Other. Include costs for other activities and/or equipment not
                  identified above. Each cost should be broken down to the specific
                  cost item with a description of each cost and the associated costs
                  for each item requested.

   The weight of this element is 15 percent of the total score.

b. Project Design. A description of the UI REA project should address all key
   aspects of the design concerning the active interaction between UI and any other
   One-Stop Career Center staff providing UI REA services. At a minimum the
   following questions should be answered:

       •   How will beneficiaries be selected for the assessments?
       •   What are the proposed staffing arrangements for assessments at the One-
           Stop Career Center facility (e.g., assessments will be performed by UI
           staff, "contracted" staff or others)?
       •   How will beneficiaries be referred to reemployment services and/or to UI
           adjudication staff, as appropriate?

                                     2

       •   How will assessments be structured? Describe how the beneficiaries will
           participate.
       •   How will information be shared among UI and other parties, and how will
           the work search/service plans and activities be documented? For example,
           if service plans are developed, what will they include and what will be the
           beneficiaries' responsibilities? If service plans are not developed, how
           will information be documented?
       •   What feedback loop will provide information to the UI program about the
           results of referrals to reemployment services?
       •   Describe any additional factors not covered in this list that will be a part of
           the project.

   The weight of this element is 45 percent of the total score.

c. Projected Performance Improvements. The proposal should identify the areas in
   which UI program performance is expected to improve through implementation of
   the proposed project. It should identify the magnitude of the work to be
   accomplished in terms of the beneficiary population to be served. The proposal
   should state clearly how the project may improve program operations, including a
   brief description of what services are generally provided to the selected
   beneficiary population under current staffing. If the SWA has done any study of
   the unmet service needs of this beneficiary population, these findings should be
   included. If the SWA has information to show that the projected assessments
   should lead to a reduction in overpayments or the average benefit duration, or
   faster reemployment, this information should also be included in the narrative.

   The weight of this element is 15 percent of the total score.

d. Estimated Time and Cost for Each Assessment. Provide an estimate of the time
   and the cost for each assessment. If appropriate, varying levels of service may be
   specified in conjunction with varying costs, e.g., beneficiaries who are determined
   to be "job ready" may cost less to serve. Sufficient information should be
   provided to illustrate how the SWA determined the projected staff costs and
   projected staff time for the various components of the assessment that were used
   to determine the maximum number of assessments that could be accomplished
   based upon the grant amount requested.

   The weight of this element is 15 percent of the total score.

e. Project Timeline. A timeline of the project should be included identifying each
   significant step, including project design and implementation. Any programming
   requirements necessary to select and track participating beneficiaries should be
   included in the timeline.

   The weight of this element is 10 percent of the total score.

                                      3

Attachment: https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/UIPL/2006/UIPL30-06_Att2.pdf

Attachment B

         UI REA PROPOSAL OUTLINE FOR SUBSEQUENT YEAR REA GRANTS

1. UI REA Grant Proposal. The format below must be used for the UI REA grant proposal by
   states that have received an REA grant(s) in the past. The State Workforce Agency's
   (SWA’s) submission of a grant proposal means it agrees to participate in a U.S. Department
   of Labor study of the effectiveness of the UI REA initiative. Each project should include a
   contact name, telephone number, and e-mail address for the REA program manager.

2. Expenditures and Schedule. All proposals must include projected costs at the level of 10,000
   REAs or lower, and at any higher level if the state proposes to complete more than 10,000
   REAs. This requirement applies also to states that completed more than 10,000 REAs in FY
   2006. Proposals must include a description of proposed expenditures and a projected
   schedule for significant project activities. Any proposed expenditures that do not address all
   of the required information will be deducted from the grant allocation.

3. Required Information. The SBR should fully address the items listed below, using the
   following format:

       a. Project Costs. The proposal should include both fixed minimum costs and
          incremental costs which, if funded, would allow the state to expand the project to
          serve a larger number of claimants.

             I. Fixed Minimum Costs. The proposal should describe the costs to continue the
                UI REA program and conduct the first 10,000 assessments. This should include
                staff costs, contract staff costs, and the costs of any equipment needs. Costs
                may include activities such as gathering the required management information
                as well as delivering the services to claimants.

            II. Incremental Costs. The proposal should also provide costs per 10,000
                assessments. States that do not wish to perform more than 10,000 assessments
                may omit this information. Incremental costs will likely consist primarily of
                costs related to service delivery (i.e., conducting the REA).

           III. Staff Needs. The proposal should identify both SWA staff needs (in excess of
                base staff) and any contract staff needs. Staff needs should include the type of
                position, the expected number of staff hours, and the projected hourly cost.
                States should identify staff costs for developing and programming REA reports
                separate from the costs for conducting the REAs. SWAs should include
                information in the following format for all staff requests.

                      Position Title       # Hours Cost Per Hour Total Cost
                      Claims Adjudicator 120        $50              $6,000

                                                4

          Any staff costs must be for staff in excess of staff funded by the SWAs base
          grant. When staff is assigned to the UI REA grant project and the vacated
          position is backfilled by another individual who is not funded under the base
          grant, this results in the addition of a second staff member. In this case, the
          cost of the UI REA grant staff activities can be funded as the backfilled
          position incurs the base staff funding. Costs incurred by SWA staff assigned
          to the project on a temporary basis cannot be funded by the UI REA grant
          unless additional costs are incurred.

          If contract staff is requested, documentation should include the type of
          position, estimated contract staff hours, anticipated costs per hour, and total
          cost.

       4. Other. Include costs for other activities and/or equipment not identified above.
          Each cost should be broken down to the specific cost item with a description
          of each cost and the associated costs for each item requested.

b. Project Design. States should review their previously approved REA proposals and
   describe any changes that the state would like to implement based upon a second year
   of REA experience. The state’s prior proposal should have included answers to the
   following questions addressing the interaction between UI and One-Stop Career
   Center staff providing UI REA services. If any changes to the state’s REA program
   are anticipated, states must explain these changes.

          •   How will beneficiaries be selected for the assessments?
          •   What are the proposed staffing arrangements for assessments at the One-
              Stop Career Center (e.g., assessments will be performed by UI staff,
              "contracted" staff or others)?
          •   How will beneficiaries be referred to reemployment services and/or to UI
              adjudication staff, as appropriate?
          •   How will assessments be structured? Describe how the beneficiaries will
              participate.
          •   How will information be shared among UI and other parties and how will
              the work search/service plans and activities be documented? For example,
              if service plans are developed, what will they include and what will be the
              beneficiaries' responsibilities? If service plans are not developed, how
              will information be documented?
          •   What feedback loop will provide information to the UI program about the
              results of referrals to reemployment services?
          •   Describe any additional factors not covered in this list that will be a part of
              the project.

       For changes that were made and agreed to as a part of the FY 2006 grant
       agreement, states should submit a copy of the last modification. If no changes
       were made, states do not need to submit this information.

                                         5

c. Management Information. An activity report and an outcomes report will be required
   from states participating in the REA program. The outcomes report will address both
   REA participants and the comparison group. Reporting instructions can be found in
   ET Handbook No. 401.

d. Performance Improvements. The proposal may identify the areas in which UI
   program performance improved through implementation of the REA initiative
   although this information is not required. For example, if the SWA has information
   to show that the assessments led to a reduction in overpayments or benefit durations,
   or resulted in speedier reemployment, this information should be included in the
   narrative. If the SWA conducted a study of the unmet service needs of this
   beneficiary population, these findings may be included. States applying for a
   subsequent year REA are not required to address performance improvements but are
   encouraged to share any finding that could be useful to other states.

e. Estimated Time and Cost for Each Assessment. Sufficient information should be
   provided to illustrate how the SWA determined the projected staff costs and projected
   staff time needed for the various components of the assessment. If a state changes the
   time and cost estimates for each REA from estimates provided in its 2006 proposal, it
   must provide an explanation for the change(s). If appropriate, varying levels of
   service may be specified in conjunction with varying costs, e.g., beneficiaries who are
   determined to be "job ready" may cost less to serve.

                                        6