Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 12-00 announced Reemployment Services Allotments for PY 2001. These funds will be distributed to State Employment Security Agencies (SESA) by an administrative formula that allocates the funds based on each State's share of first payments to UI claimants with every State receiving at least $215,000. Guidance for the use of these funds is under development. This paper outlines how the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is proceeding with development of guidance to the SESAs regarding the use of reemployment services funds.
Background. In1993 Congress mandated that worker profiling and Reemployment services systems be developed by States to provide services to UI claimants for finding new jobs. The systems established in response to the mandate delivered a greater rate and earlier delivery of services to UI claimants. In the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 Reemployment services was more broadly defined and integrated into the new One-Stop Center concept. In addition WIA transformed the public labor exchange from a nationwide system of separate local employment offices into the foundation of the nation's One-Stop Centers thereby creating a new environment for Reemployment services. Through the One-Stop, service to UI claimants increases with access to the Wagner-Peyser Act services and the range of broad services provided in the One-Stop Centers.
Goal For Use of These Funds
This is the first new funds for Wagner-Peyser Act activities since FY 1995 and represents a strong commitment to serving Unemployment Insurance (UI) claimants under the Wagner-Peyser Act funding umbrella. These funds are intended to supplement Wagner-Peyser Act allotments and thereby increase the services to UI claimants over and above regular services to UI claimants. The goal for the use of the Reemployment funds is to increase the employment of UI claimants who have entered employment with the Wagner-Peyser Act labor exchange by 50% over last year's performance.
Use of the Reemployment Funds. ETA recommends that SESAs pursue a strategy for improving the quality and quantity of Reemployment services, building on existing initiatives and targeting the funds where they are needed and will have the most positive outcomes. To achieve this objective, SESAs should review existing polices, procedures and research to determine best practices and next step strategies. Some information and research findings are provided in Attachment II "Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services Policy Workgroup: Final Report and Recommendations (Executive Summary), February 1999. This report along with other material listed in the 2. Reference section of this guidance paper may be helpful in determining what strategies should produce the most successful outcomes for use of these new funds.
Reemployment services are generally defined as "job search assistance, orientation and job placement services, such as counseling, testing, and providing occupational and labor market information, assessment, job search workshops, job clubs and referral to employment and other similar services." Reemployment services to date have included all of these services but the service most often provided has been orientation and job search workshops. Research on worker profiling and Reemployment services has shown that a combination of early intervention, intensive work search and staff-assisted job search assistance speeded the transition of workers into new jobs.
States are encouraged to keep in mind two considerations as they begin to plan for the strategic use of these funds. First, the funds are intended to be used primarily to enhance direct service delivery to UI claimants. And funds that are used for system building efforts should have a direct relationship to service delivery and should produce the intended results of this investment - more claimants served and more claimants getting jobs sooner. Second, given that many states have moved to telephone call centers as a primary method of service delivery, those states are strongly encouraged to consider using these funds, or some portion of them, on strategies and service delivery methods that ensure claimants served through call centers are linked back to all of the available Reemployment services in their one-stop service delivery system.
Keeping in minds that SESAs have flexibility for determining the needs of the State and how the funds should be targeted, the following a 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. Here are some activities for consideration.
�Integrated UI/ES services. While the relationship between the ES and UI is longstanding, with the creation of the One-Stop 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 SESAs doing telephone claims where UI claimants not familiar with ES services may not avail themselves of available assistance. Cross training staffing, requiring registration at and immediately conducting a job match have proved successful techniques.
�More intensive or staff-assisted services. A review of States since Reemployment services was mandated found that services received by claimants were on the whole neither very intense 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 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, verifying employer contacts, and expanding 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--in 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. The project used three job search service methods: structured job search assistance, individual job search assistance and individual job search assistance with training. While each of the three service methods reduced UI receipt, the largest impact occurred in the structured job search assistance group in DC, where UI receipt was reduced by more than a week. The other method groups across the District and Florida had more modest impacts, reducing UI receipt by about half a week on average. These services also reduced the percentage of claimants who exhausted their benefits. There was no evidence that methods pushed claimants into lower quality jobs in order to hasten Reemployment. The service methods appear to have improved the quality of jobs found by participants in DC (although not in Florida) and did not affect the likelihood that claimants would switch occupations when they accepted a new job. (See Reference c. for more information.)
�Early intervention services. There is extensive research to document that early intervention, that is identifying UI claimants who are likely to face lengthy unemployment early in their UI combined with job search and similar services is effective approach to providing Reemployment services resulting in positive outcomes.
�Enhanced Eligibility Review Process (ERP) activities; ERP might be more effective if redesigned to reflect Reemployment services research findings. ERP could be redesigned to provide services earlier, more frequently and incorporate job search or other Reemployments services in the ERP.
�Services that are integrated with telephone registration centers directly. Telephone registration is more 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. Research supports the view that using telephone registration for UI reduces the extent of UI and One-Stop agency staff knowledge about the services offered by the other agencies in the One-Stop. Further, researchers "conclude that call center staff (CSR) usually were able to provide claimants with some limited information about the One-Stop center nearest to where the claimant lived. CSRs, however, were unable to provide detailed information on the types of services offered or to address specific questions about the services." UI and ES could develop an efficient and effective approach for ensuring that UI claimants receive ES services.(See Reference e. for more information.)
�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, 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; Research has shown that approximately 35% of clients in the profiling selection pool get referred to Reemployment services of any kind. Additional resources can be used to implement an approach to improve the number of UI claimants selected and provided target services that have been identified as producing positive outcomes.
�Development of tools for self-service. Good tools are critical for providing effective service. Reemployment services funds could be used to develop specific tools needed to provide Reemployment services. New tools could be developed or available tools could be integrated into current State operating systems or career tools. For example, a number of career and guidance programs are available through private and public sources. Tools such as the America's Career Kit and O*NET can be uniquely integrated into operating systems or could become the basis of new tools developed to serve UI claimants. In particular, O*NET contains a feature that can help identify related occupations which could be used to guide a UI claimants job search activities.
�Continue or improve on activities/services that SESAs began using the Significant Improvements Grants (SIG). SIGs funded demonstration projects to increase the effectiveness of Reemployment services for UI claimants, to preview and shape future policy directions for reemployment services and to support implementation of the WIA. Where successful, these programs could be continued and/or enhanced with the additional Reemployment services funds.
�Updating profiling models. Many States have not updated profiling models since implementing WPRS. States need to update model weights to reflect changes in economic conditions, as well as changes in demographic composition and labor market experience of unemployed workers. Also, some consideration might be given to using technological advances in the fields of economics and statistics along with new products, and the numerous databases now available to develop new ways to regularly update the profiling models.
Proposed Requirements for the SESA (Pending OMB Approval)
1. Program Plan. A plan describing how the funds will be used is required using the following elements and guidelines. The plan should be submitted to the Regional Office by June 4, 2001. Regional Offices will review the plan, negotiate changes as appropriate and then forward the approved plan to the National Office.
�Program plan should not exceed 12 months. Plans should take into consideration that this project should be completed within 12 months and a report submitted 90 days after the start of the project. It is important to demonstrate in a timely fashion that the use of these funds contribute significantly to positive outcomes for UI claimants.
�Program plan should describe how the funds will be used providing information about specific activities, milestones and positive outcomes expected. It should also describe how services will be delivered through the One-Stop system.
�Program performance outcomes and method to measure attainment for the selected activity. The following are examples of outcomes and tracking measures:
| Outcome | Measurement Tool |
|---|---|
| Reduce the duration of UI claimants receiving benefits by % | UI 9049 A. 2. |
| Reduce the rate of UI benefit exhaustion by % | UI 9049 A. 1. |
| Increase number of U.I. Claimants participating in Customized services e.g. Job Search Workshops or Job Clinics by % | UI 9048 B. 6. |
| Increase the number of available tools to assess UI claimants and assist them in identifying potential related job | Report description and implementation approach for new tools developed |
�System building projects can be done but only if the projects are directly related to service delivery and performance outcome measured in some way. For example the following activities could be included as long as performance outcomes can be associated with these activities: extension of Significant Improvement Grants, development of tools for self directed services, improving the profiling model.
2. Reporting. SESAs must submit one annual financial report (SF 269 Financial Status Report) and an annual narrative performance measurement report due 90 days after the completion of the project, September 30, 2002. The performance report must describe accomplishment of planned performance goals against actual attainment of the performance indicators identified by the SESAs. SESAs should describe activities and an overview of how the activities were accomplished. If goal were not achieved, SESAs should include an explanation as to why the goals were not met and recommended action that would correct the problem.
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 9002 report. In addition, ETA will track activity reported on the 9048 and 9049 reports. In particular, ETA will be noting increased Reemployment services to UI claimants. Further, ETA will contract for a national evaluation that will evaluate program implementation, planned activities against actual results and other aspects of the program that can be used to determine the impact of these new funds to increase the number of UI claimants that enter employment and increase Reemployment services to UI claimants. SESAs participation in the evaluation will consist primarily of providing information about operational and technical components of the program and recommendations based on lessons learned.
Comments
Comments and/or questions should be addressed to Gay Gilbert, U.S. Employment Service, 200 Constitution Ave. N.W. Room C4512, Washington, D.C. 20210 or by email at [email protected] or by fax: (202) 693-3229.