department of labor and workforce development fy 2015-2016 · department of labor and workforce...

Department of Labor and Workforce Development FY 2015-2016

Discussion Points

1

NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANTS

1a. Beginning in August 2014, an estimated 6,778 workers were impacted by the closing

of several Atlantic City casinos and businesses, including the Showboat Atlantic City Hotel

and Casino, the Revel Casino Hotel, and the Trump Plaza Casino. The department identified

37 additional employers who had closed or laid-off a significant amount of employees as a

direct result of the closure of these casinos. On January 12, 2015, the department

announced that its proposal for a National Emergency Grant (NEG) to retrain and re-employ

workers impacted by the closing of the Atlantic City casinos was approved by the United

States Department of Labor (USDOL), securing an initial $13 million of the total $29 million

awarded to the State for this purpose. The department will oversee the grant, which is being

administered through the Atlantic Cape May Workforce Investment Board, the Cumberland

Salem Workforce Board, and through the “AC Re-Employment Initiative.”

Question: a. Please provide details on the services DLWD will provide with the

NEG funding. How many individuals have applied for, and how many have

received, assistance through the “AC Re-Employment Initiative?” How is the

department reaching out to these individuals to inform them of the services

being provided?

Response:

The Department is reaching out to individuals who may be eligible for NEG services

with a letter inviting them to attend an eligibility and Atlantic City Re-employment

Initiative Orientation Session, (ACRE session), at Atlantic-Cape Community College.

The Department has also set up a website with AC-NEG information at

Jobs4Jersey.com/ACreemployment. Listed on this website for the public is a toll-free

information number, email address, and calendar with upcoming events.

To be eligible for NEG services an individual has to meet the WIA definition of a

‘dislocated worker’. For purposes of the AC-NEG that means they have to be laid off

from any of the casinos or casino-related businesses listed in the NEG application

and collected Unemployment Insurance, or would have been approved to collect UI if

they had applied. There are a total of 6,657 individuals that can possibly qualify for

AC-NEG services. We are currently, on a rolling basis, sending out letters inviting

these individuals to an ACRE orientation and eligibility session at Atlantic-Cape

Community College.

Services available to individuals eligible for NEG services are listed below. Also, all

eligible individuals are referred to services based on their specific needs, interest, and

based on their Individual Employment Plan (IEP) developed by counseling staff with

the customer. All individuals eligible for NEG services are able to participate in LWD’s

Jersey Job Clubs, which provide job seekers with the latest information and guidance


Discussion Points (Cont’d)

2

on a variety of job search topics. Participants have the opportunity to network with

other job seekers and to get individual assistance from a career development

specialist

ACRES Orientation Sessions – Each eligible individual attends a 3-hour Atlantic City

Reemployment (ACRE) orientation and information session, run by the Atlantic-Cape

Community College.

I. Assessment and Guidance for Layoff Affected Workers – Once an individual

receives their “Passport” for NEG services, they are scheduled to meet on an

individual basis with a member of the dedicated team of state and county staff.

At these meetings, staff assess the specific needs of each individual and works

with them to develop a customized individual employment plan (IEP).

II. NEG Services – Eligible individuals are referred to the following services based

on their specific needs and interests and based on the individual employment

plan (IEP) developed by re-employment staff.

a. Basic Adult Education/English as a Second Language

b. Employer-Driven Skills Training

c. Individual Training Accounts

d. Job Development Services

e. On-the-Job Training (OJT)

f. Supportive Services

g. Industry Specific Job Fairs and Networking Events

1b. Hurricane Sandy made landfall in New Jersey as a Tropical Storm on October 29,

2012 and wreaked havoc throughout the State, causing in excess of $37 billion in damage. In

the aftermath of the storm, it was difficult for many people to get to work, or their

workplaces were severely damaged and closed temporarily or permanently. The

Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD) responded immediately by:

redeploying unemployment insurance (UI) staff; extending UI call center hours; expanding

out of network usage of ATM machines for UI claimant benefits; facilitating disaster

unemployment assistance (DUA) claims and applying for and securing a $15.6 million NEG to

fund a plan to hire residents to assist with clean-up and recovery efforts in the State.

In response to the OLS Discussion Points during the FY 2015 budget process, the

department stated that USDOL approved, at no-cost to the State, an extension of the NEG

through December 31, 2014 and the department submitted an additional funding request of

$3.6 million to USDOL to provide continuing services through December 31, 2014. On April

22, 2014, the department announced that it had obtained the additional $3.6 million in



3

federal funding to continue restoration and recovery work, specifically directed toward a

plan to employ 1,000 job-seekers and fill recovery jobs.

Question: a. Has the department undertaken any additional or continuing

activities related to Hurricane Sandy and the NEG funding in FY 2015? Please

detail these activities.

Response:

The various sub-grantees have ceased hiring temporary workers under the

Superstorm Sandy NEG. USDOL approved a no-cost extension through December 31,

2014 and LWD submitted an additional funding request and was granted an

additional $3.6 million in order to carry continuing areas up to December 31, 2014.

As of March 12, 2015, 1,196 temporary workers have been hired through the Sandy

NEG. All Sandy related efforts including hiring through the NEG Sandy grant ended

on December 31, 2014. However, any Sandy impacted individual requiring our

assistance continues to be served through our regular Workforce programs (WIA, ES,

Workfirst).

b. What was the final number of individuals who received DUA? How many

claims were denied? Was the additional staff hired to process DUA claims

funded through a special federal appropriation or through regular UI

administrative accounts? How many staff hired in the aftermath of Hurricane

Sandy remain employed by the department?

Response:

The final report was submitted to the USDOL on March 6, 2015, indicating that 4,006

individuals applied for DUA of which 3,428 were deemed to be eligible, with 578

individuals deemed ineligible. $5,344,614 in DUA benefits were paid out as well as

$1,836,141.94 in administrative costs, both of which were funded by the USDOL.

Additional temporary staff with funding provided by the USDOL, were hired to assist

with the processing of DUA claims. The additional staff hired no longer remains

employed by the LWD.

1c. Also in response to Hurricane Sandy, the department appropriated $500,000 to

create two new Talent Networks: A Sandy Recovery Talent Network and a Retail, Hospitality

and Tourism Talent Network. “Talent Networks” are a DLWD program intended to connect

businesses in certain key industries with educational institutions, workforce development

agencies, and government and community groups to identify the skills and training NJ

employers require in prospective employees to remain competitive in the global market. By

acquiring training in those skills, the program seeks to assist students and job-seekers in



4

finding long-term jobs and boost the state’s economy. Prior to the Sandy related initiatives,

the six key industries for which Talent Networks had been operational included:

transportation, logistics and distribution; life science; advanced manufacturing; financial

services; health care; and technology and entrepreneurship. The two new Sandy-related

networks brought the total to eight. The department has stated it will use these same Talent

Networks in the re-employment efforts for Atlantic City.

Question: a. How much did the department expend in FY 2014 and how much

will the department expend in FY 2015 and FY 2016 on Talent Networks, by

network or industry, and what is the source of funding for each of the eight

networks? Please detail the performance metrics used by the DLWD to measure

the success of the individual networks. By network, how many students, job

seekers and businesses has the program assisted thus far?

Response:

In FY 2014 the Department expended $1,294,967 for the Talent Networks. The source

of funding was WIA $1,035,974 and WDP $258,933.

Funding for FY 2015 is shown below. The source of funding for FY 2015 is WIA

($1,600,656) and WDP ($400,000).

Refer to Schedule I for performance metrics data.

FY 2015 FY 2016

NJIT - Advance Manufacturing $250,000 TBD

NJIT - Technology and Entrepreneurship 250,000 TBD

BioNJ - Life Science 250,000 TBD

Rutgers - Healthcare 250,000 TBD

Rutgers - Transportation and Logistic 250,000 TBD

Stockton College - Retail and Hospitality (South) 250,000 TBD

African American Chambers of Commerce - Financial Services 250,566 TBD

Fairleigh Dickinson - Retail and Hospitality (North) 250,000 TBD

$2,000,566



5

b. Please provide details on the Sandy Recovery Talent Network. How many

employees have been placed in jobs due to this initiative? How many

employers have received services from the Sandy Recovery Talent Network?

Response:

The Recovery NJ Talent Network (TN) began in April 2013 and ended December 31,

2014. This TN was created due to Hurricane Sandy having a significant impact on the

economy of many communities. Some businesses were forced to close temporarily

or permanently and many New Jersey residents lost their jobs as a result of the

storm. As New Jersey rebuilt, there were new employment opportunities in

construction, utilities and other supporting industries. The TN served as the primary

workforce contact for all revitalization efforts helping to connect employers and job

seekers in communities throughout the state. The Talent Network also assisted

workforce development system partners including LWD, the local WIBs, the One-Stop

Career Centers, educational institutions and the other Talent Networks to identify

needs and opportunities for businesses and jobseekers.

From July 2014 through December 2014 (Fiscal Year 2015) the talent network served

56 businesses promoting Jobs4Jersey and other state programs and incentives as

well as educating businesses on issues such as salary data and wage trends.

c. Please provide details on how the re-employment efforts for Atlantic City will

utilize the State’s Talent Networks. How many individuals, who were impacted

by the casino closures, have been provided assistance through the Talent

Networks?

Response:

Focusing on the growth industries in Atlantic City, we are utilizing the Retail,

Hospitality and Tourism South Talent Network and Health Care Talent Network on our

job development efforts for the AC NEG participants. These two Talent Networks are

meeting with employers in the region to collect all job openings, and they are also

assisting in the preparation and screening of job candidates for these positions. The

Talent Networks are part of a larger Job Development team including state job

developers, county job developers and the Greater Atlantic City Chamber of

Commerce.

LWD began delivering Atlantic City NEG services on March 9, 2015. As of April 1,

2015, 194 participants have been assisted by the job development team.



6

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

2a. The unemployment insurance compensation trust fund (UI trust fund) is the federally

maintained account that is used to receive employer and employee UI taxes and to pay all

State funded UI benefits. The balance in the fund determines the tax rate for employers for

the following year as explained below.

Due to the high level of UI claims during the Great Recession, the UI trust fund was

depleted in FY 2009 and began to borrow from the federal government to pay benefits in

March, 2009. The reliance on borrowed money from the federal government to fund State

UI benefits resulted in increased costs to employers in the form of: an increase in State UI

taxes; an increase in federal UI taxes as required by the Federal Unemployment Tax Act

(FUTA); and an assessment charged employers to repay the interest accrued on that

borrowed money.

On March 31 of each year, the State determines the reserve ratio in the UI trust fund,

as statutorily required pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-7. The ratio of the UI trust fund is used to

establish the tax rate for employers in the following fiscal year. The tax rate is often referred

to by its corresponding column in the statutorily established tax rate table, or columns “A” –

“E”, with “A” being the lowest tax rate and “E” being the highest tax rate.

Due to the low level of funds in the UI trust fund, the UI tax rate was first expected to

increase on July 1, 2008, but through transfers of appropriations and legislation artificially

maintaining lower tax rates, the Legislature acted to lessen the UI tax increases on employers

and provide the employers with the ability to plan ahead for gradual UI tax increases. These

changes resulted in the following tax schedules – “A” in FY2009, “B” in FY2010, “C” in FY2011,

“D” in FY 2012 and “E” in FY 2013 and FY 2014 (through the enactment of P.L.2008, c.20,

P.L.2009, c. 68, P.L.2010, c.37 and P.L. 2011, c.81, and P.L. 2013, c. 75 respectively).

Additionally, for all years after FY 2011, P.L. 2011, c.81 (the act) increased the UI trust

fund reserve ratios which are used to set employer UI tax rates in such a manner that larger

reserves are required in the UI trust fund than under the former law to trigger a reduction of

employer UI taxes. This change is designed to shore up UI trust fund reserves sufficient to

reduce the likelihood that any future recession will result in the deep UI trust fund deficits

which have caused such large employer UI tax increases during the current period of high

unemployment. The new reserve ratio triggers provided by the act will still permit employer

UI tax reductions as reserves accumulate, but the tax reductions will not be as large. The new

reserve ratio triggers will have no effect on tax rates until the UI trust fund has a positive

balance.

Furthermore, the act amended the provision requiring a 10 percent surcharge on

employers’ UI taxes when the UI trust fund’s balance falls below a certain level. Previously,



7

pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-7(c)(5)(F)(iii), if the UI trust fund reserve ratio, based on the UI trust

fund balance of the previous March 31, was less than 0.05 percent, the contribution rate for

each employer liable to pay contributions would be increased by a factor of 10 percent. The

act increased the reserve needed to trigger the additional assessment from 0.05 percent to

0.1 percent, thus ensuring a larger balance in the UI trust fund to guard against fluctuations

in the future tax rate.

Question: a. Please provide the UI trust fund reserve ratio for 2013, 2014, and

2015 (including the 3/31 fund balance, any liabilities, taxable wages for the

prior calendar year, and the reserve ratio) and estimates for 2016, 2017, and

2018. Please provide the assumptions underlying the department’s estimates,

on a monthly basis, including: insured unemployment rates; total

unemployment rates; anticipated UI benefit payments (regular, extended

benefits and temporary extended unemployment compensation); employer tax

revenue; and employee tax revenue. What does the department estimate the

total revenue in UI taxes will be if the "A" schedule is in effect during FY 2016,

FY 2017 and FY 2018? ...."B" schedule? ....."C" schedule, “D” schedule, “E”

schedule?

Response:

Below is the revenue comparison for the various fiscal years and various schedules.

See Schedule II for reserve rate computation, Schedule III for the monthly revenue

and expenditure estimates.



8

b. Please provide a breakdown of the number of employers and employees in

each tax rate under the current tax column.

Response:

Fiscal Year 2014/2015 (Only Currently Active Employers)

Emp UI

Tax Rate

# of Employers

# of Employees

0 691 272,911

1.2 70,484 880,959

1.6 11,223 434,898

1.9 17,889 413,557

2.3 7,798 307,357

2.6 5,104 250,062

3.0 4,213 207,232

3.4 56,999 505,170

3.7 3,130 146,613

3.9 2,688 111,121

4.0 2,335 68,914

4.1 1,864 63,301

4.3 1,935 59,285

5.4 4,357 12,299

6.1 4,330 87,153

6.2 3,124 70,518

6.3 2,618 49,264

6.4 2,154 30,832

6.5 1,817 25,785

6.6 2,428 47,330

6.7 1,811 24,258

6.8 1,503 18,365

6.9 1,303 19,390

7.0 14,424 188,475

Total: 226,222 4,295,049

2b. In addition to State UI employer and employee taxes, employers also pay a federal

unemployment insurance tax, which is more commonly known as the Federal

Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax. The current FUTA tax rate is 6.0 percent on the first

$7,000 in wages. This rate is offset with a credit of 5.4 percent, yielding a net tax of 0.6

percent on the first $7,000 in wages ($42).



9

The FUTA tax rate can vary if a state has an outstanding balance on a loan from the

federal government used by the state to pay unemployment insurance benefits. As of March

10, 2014, New Jersey had an outstanding balance of $254 million owed to the federal

government. Federal law (section 3302 of FUTA) requires that if a state has borrowed from

the federal government and maintains a deficit two years after the state initiated the

borrowing, then a reduction to the employers’ FUTA credit is initiated, resulting in a higher

total FUTA tax on employers in January of the following year. This was the case for New

Jersey employers for CY 2011 (0.9% tax) and CY 2012 (1.2% tax). However, in November of

2013, the UI trust fund was temporarily solvent and the U.S. Secretary of Labor certified that

New Jersey would be eligible for the maximum credit allowable under FUTA. Therefore,

employers in New Jersey once again paid the reduced FUTA tax of 0.6% on the first $7,000

in wages for wages earned in 2013. In its response to the OLS Discussion Points during the

FY 2015 budget process, the department estimated that the UI trust fund would no longer

need to borrow from the federal government as of May, 2014 which was expected to result

in the continuation of the 0.6% effective FUTA tax for CY 2014 as well.

Question: a. Please provide the total amount borrowed from the federal

unemployment account since the State started borrowing funds to pay benefits.

Of the total amount borrowed, how much is still outstanding?

Response:

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND

LOAN AMOUNTS BORROWED AND REPAID

FISCAL YEARS 2009 - 2015

(in millions)

Change in

Amount Loan

Borrowed Balance Interest

Period or Repaid 6/30 Paid

FY 2009 $ 324.9 $ 324.9 $ -

FY 2010 1,424.7 1,749.6 -

FY 2011 (202.5) 1,547.1 48.0

FY 2012 (494.9) 1,052.2 40.7

FY 2013 (700.8) 351.4 17.1

FY 2014 (351.4) - 2.8

FY 2015 - - -



10

b. Please provide the current balance of the loan from the federal

unemployment account, if any. Has the State fully paid off its debt, and if so,

when?

Response:

There is no federal loan outstanding. The outstanding loan balance was satisfied on

May 1, 2014.

c. Please provide an estimate for funds anticipated to be borrowed from the

federal unemployment account, including any interest to be accrued, for CY

2015 and if any, for CY 2016.

Response:

We do not anticipate borrowing funds in CY 2015 or CY 2016.

3. The Unemployment Compensation Auxiliary Fund (UCAF), established in subsection

(g) of N.J.S.A.43:21-14, is a repository for all interest and penalties imposed upon employers

for violation of unemployment insurance regulations. Moneys from the UCAF are to be used

for the cost of the administration of the UI trust fund, for the repayment of any interest

bearing advances made for the federal unemployment account and for essential and

necessary expenditures in connection with programs, as determined by the commissioner.

Proposed budget language in the FY 2016 Budget Recommendation would authorize

a $6 million increase in appropriations from the UCAF next fiscal year. The following

appropriations are recommended in FY 2016: $1.088 million for administrative and support

services; $150,000 for unemployment compensation earned income tax credit costs; $16

million for certain UI collection activities; $11.818 million for the Division of Vocational

Rehabilitation; $50,000 for the Disadvantaged Youth Employment Opportunities Council;

$491,000 for the Board of Mediation; $72,000 for the Council on Gender Parity; and $475,000

for the New Jersey Youth Corps. With the exception of an $11 million increase for certain UI

collection activities and $5 million decrease for Vocational Rehabilitation Services, these

amounts are equal to the appropriations from the UCAF in FY 2015.

Although annual appropriations acts since FY 2009 have included budget language

permitting $50,000 to be used from the UCAF for the Disadvantaged Youth Employment

Opportunities Council (DYEOC), there is no evidence that the DYEOC was ever established or

that funds have ever been appropriated or expended for this purpose. The DYEOC was

established by P.L.2001, c.446 (C.34:15F-12) to develop a master plan to increase

employment opportunities for disadvantaged youth and to enlist the support of various

stakeholders in implementing this master plan. Although originally established in, but not



11

of, the DLWD, the DYEOC was subsequently directed to report to the Chairperson of the

State Employment and Training Commission (SETC) pursuant to P.L.2007, c.189.


department stated that the DYEOC never became operational. However, the SETC launched

the NJ Shared Youth Vision Council in February 2013 to empower the State’s disadvantaged

youth to become productive members of their communities through workforce readiness

preparation, leadership development, and community engagement. The department stated

that the NJ Shared Youth Vision Council strives to achieve its goals through policies and

practices that build system capacity, institute career awareness and employability, and target

investments in innovative programs that create pathways to employment.

Question: a. Please provide the actual opening and closing balances of the

UCAF for FY 2014 and anticipated for FY 2015, FY 2016 and FY 2017. Please list

the expenditures, by subject or program area, from the UCAF for FY 2014 and

anticipated for FY 2015, FY 2016 and FY 2017.

Response:

See Schedule IV

b. Please explain the $11 million increased appropriation for UI collection

activities from the UCAF. Please explain the $5 million reduction in funding for

Vocational Rehabilitation Services through the UCAF.

Response:

Federal funding for the Unemployment Insurance program decreased significantly

between FY 2014 and FY 2015 and is expected to decrease further in FY 2016.

However, the workload for this program has not abated commensurate with the

funding therefore the Department requested additional funding to continue to

maintain an appropriate level of effort in addressing the workload.

There is no change to the level of funding for the Vocational Rehabilitation Services

program. The $5.0 million from the WDP fund reflects a shift in funding source in lieu

of being funded from the UI Auxiliary Fund.



12

c. Which State funded activities related to unemployment insurance collection,

are not supported by federal funding?

Response:

Federal funds do not support collection efforts for the Temporary Disability

Insurance, Family Leave Insurance, the Workforce Development Partnership programs

and any interest and penalties assessed pursuant to their respective enabling

statutes.

d. Since the DYEOC is not operational, please explain the current and

recommended budget language authorizing appropriations to the council.

How is the NJ Shared Youth Vision Council funded? Please provide details on

the NJ Shared Youth Vision Council, including the number of individuals the

council has helped, the services being offered, and how these services are being

administered and funded.

Response:

Although the DYEOC is not currently operational, language has been provided in the

FY 2016 budget should the need for funding arise.

The NJ Shared Youth Vision Council is a task force established within the SETC. The

Council is primarily a planning body.

4. P.L.2013, c. 124 changes the penalty assessed to individuals who fraudulently

obtain unemployment benefits under the State’s unemployment compensation

program. Previously, the individual was assessed either $20 or 25 percent of the

amount fraudulently obtained, whichever was greater, and the recovered fine was

deposited into the UCAF. The new law requires that a recovered fine of 15 percent of

the amount fraudulently obtained by an individual be immediately deposited into the

UI trust fund, and a recovered fine of 10 percent of the amount fraudulently obtained

be deposited into the UCAF. The new law also requires the same assessment of

penalties and deposit of penalties into the State’s UI trust fund and the UCAF apply

to benefits obtained fraudulently by individuals under any federal unemployment

compensation program.

Question: a. What is the total amount assessed to and collected from

individuals who fraudulently obtained unemployment benefits in FY2012,

FY2013, FY 2014, and estimated for FY 2015? Please include both the base

benefits that were repaid and the penalty amount paid by the individuals.



13

Response:

Separate and apart from fraudulent payments recovered from the US Treasury Offset

Program (TOP) program as identified in 9.b.b., listed below are the total amount

assessed and the fraudulent payments recovered for 2012 and 2013, 2014 and

estimates for 2015.

FY Total Assessed Amount Collected

2012 $18,374,476 $13,471,858

2013 $20,428,741 $12,810,587

2014 $16,097,733 $10,823,550

2015 (estimated) $15,000,000 $ 9,500,000

A breakdown of the recovery types is not maintained

b. What has been the financial impact of P.L.2013, c. 124 on the UCAF and the

UI trust fund?

Response:

Since P.L. 2013, c. 124 was enacted in August 2013, we do not have enough data to

determine its impact. Historically fines and penalties collected as a result of

fraudulently collected benefits have never exceeded $2.0 million on an annual basis.

Further, additional collections following the implementation of the TOP program will

likely offset any reductions in revenues to the UCAF caused by P.L. 2013 c. 124. Lastly

any reductions in allocated fines and penalties to the UCAF will benefit the

Unemployment Insurance Benefits fund.

Through the TOP program, as of October 13, 2013 through March 13, 2015, total

fines collected are $10,723,573.

5. P.L.2010, c.37 modified “misconduct” and “voluntary quit” definitions for

unemployment insurance beneficiaries. Under the new law, an individual must be employed

for eight weeks after voluntarily quitting a previous job and applying for UI benefits.

Previously, an individual only had to be employed for four weeks in a new job.

The new UI eligibility criteria for workers who are terminated for misconduct is a

three-tiered structure, established as simple misconduct, severe misconduct and gross

misconduct. The previous structure identified two levels of misconduct, general and gross

misconduct.



14

Previously, gross misconduct included any discharge from employment because of

the commission of an act punishable as a crime of the first, second, third or fourth degree

under the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice. Persons who were discharged due to gross

misconduct had to secure other employment for four weeks and earn six times their weekly

benefit rate and be laid off again before they could apply for UI benefits. General

misconduct was all other misconduct that resulted in termination. Persons who were

terminated due to general misconduct had to wait five weeks and then could apply for UI

benefits.

Under the new system, gross misconduct is still defined as any discharge from

employment because of the commission of an act punishable as a crime of the first, second,

third or fourth degree under the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice. However, now persons

who were discharged due to gross misconduct must be reemployed for at least 8 weeks,

with earnings of at least 10 times their weekly benefit, before receiving UI.

Additionally, under the new system, general misconduct has been eliminated and

persons either classified as those discharged due to are simple or severe misconduct.

Neither severe misconduct nor simple misconduct are clearly defined in statute, but certain

examples of severe misconduct are provided. Individuals terminated for simple misconduct

must wait 7 weeks from their termination date to receive benefits. Individuals terminated for

severe misconduct must be reemployed for at least 4 weeks and earn at least 6 times their

weekly benefit before receiving UI.

On January 7, 2013, regulations were proposed to implement P.L.2010, c.37 and

define severe and simple misconduct. This was the second set of regulations proposed for

that law, with the first set having been proposed in 2010, but not adopted. However, the

second set of regulations also was not adopted, and the department is currently drafting a

new third set of regulations. Although the definitions have not been clearly defined, the

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, issued a ruling on March 21, 2013, Silver v.

Board of Review, 430 N.J.S. 44, which discussed at great length the challenge the court faced

in identifying misconduct as severe or simple in the absence of a clear definition

promulgated by regulations.

The Governor’s conditional veto message for S-813 of 2010, the bill that became

P.L.2010, c.37, included a statement that the department would be advised to adopt

regulations implementing the act that would “require that an employer provide written

documentation to show that the employee’s actions constitute either misconduct, sever

misconduct, or gross misconduct.” The regulations proposed on January 7, 2013, however,

did not include such a requirement for written documentation. In response to OLS

Discussion Points during the FY 2015 budget process, the department indicated that it

would propose regulations requiring the documentation “when necessary.” Further, the

department’s response suggested that it would only require documentation if “there exists a



15

disputed material fact between the claimant and the employer as to the reason for the

claimant’s separation.”

Also in response to the OLS Discussion Points, the department estimated that the UI

trust fund saved approximately $102.5 million from July 2011 through March 2014 due to

the amended misconduct definitions.

Question: a. Has the department implemented a system to track voluntary quit

data? If so, how many individuals were disqualified from collecting

unemployment after “voluntary quits” or simple misconduct terminations?

Response:

The department has not implemented a system to track voluntary quit data to show

the number of claims that initially were determined to be a voluntary quit and the

claimant subsequently found employment for a minimum of eight weeks (previous

minimum requirement was six weeks) and was again separated from employment

due to no fault of the claimant.

Below are the Simple Misconduct Savings for FY 2011 through FY 2015 (through

February 2015). The savings were determined by multiplying the number of Simple

Misconducts for each FY by 2 (additional weeks of denial) and $396 (average weekly

UI benefit amount).

ESTIMATED

FISCAL YEAR SAVINGS

FY 2011 $20,300,000

FY 2012 19,100,000

FY 2013 17,500,000

FY 2014 18,800,000

FY 2015 (through February 2015) 12,100,000

TOTAL $87,800,000



16

b. Please provide the numbers of individuals who were denied benefits or

whose benefits were delayed for misconduct, by the type of misconduct

(simple, severe or gross), in FY 2013, FY2014, and thus far in FY 2015. For each

year and each type of misconduct, in how many of the claims did the

department require the employer to provide written documentation of

misconduct? What percentage of the claims for which documentation was

required were the claims denied?

Response:

Regular UI Denial

FY2013 FY2014 FY2015*

Simple 22,069 23,531 15,183

Severe 7,173 6,283 4,181

Gross 1,430 1,510 916

* Through February 2015

Data regarding the number of claims the department required the employer to

provide written documentation of misconduct and the percentage of claims denied is

not tracked.

c. Please report the numbers of appeals for the denial or delay of benefits due

to worker misconduct that were reported in FY 2013, FY 2014, and thus far in FY

2015. Please report on the outcome of the appeals and the average amount of

time required to resolve the appeals.

Response:

Fiscal Year Misconduct Denial Appeals 2012 14,679 (3,593 severe misconduct)

2013 18,398 (4,426 severe misconduct) 2014 17,941 (3,185 severe misconduct) 2015 (thru Feb 2015) 9,830 (2,005 severe misconduct)

The department is required to track and periodically report to the USDOL on the

average age of all cases in inventory and the time lapse for decisions affecting these

cases in both Lower Level and Higher Level Appeals. Outcomes of appeals are not

requested and not tracked. As a result, the department does not maintain separate

average age, time lapse or outcomes data for appeals specifically involving claims

relating to any degree of misconduct



17

d. Please provide the savings realized by the UI trust fund due to the

application of the new misconduct definitions in FY 2013, FY 2014, and thus far

in FY 2015. Please be specific as to how these savings were achieved and to

which type of misconduct the savings can be attributed.

Response:

Below are the Severe Misconduct Savings for FY 2011 through FY 2015 (through

February 2015). The savings were determined by multiplying the number of Severe

Misconducts for each FY by 13 (average net duration of benefits), multiplying this

number by 75% (estimate of claimants who do not find other employment) and $396

(average weekly UI benefit amount).

Fiscal Year Estimated Savings

2013

$27,700,000

2014

26,000,000

2015 (through February 2015) 16,300,000

Total $70,000,000

See response to 5 a. for Simple Misconduct Savings.

e. Will the department propose regulations requiring employers to provide

written documentation of employee misconduct? If the department has

implemented regulations, please provide information on the regulations

implemented. Are employers currently required to provide such written

documentation in all cases of alleged misconduct?

Response:

The Department has proposed regulations requiring employers to provide written

documentation. The notice of proposal was published in the August 18, 2014 issue

of the New Jersey Register at 46 N.J.R. 1796(a). The period for submission of written

comments ended on October 17, 2014. The Department received a number of

comments. A notice of adoption has not yet been published in the New Jersey

Register.

Currently, in order to sustain a disqualification for misconduct where there exists a

dispute of material fact between the claimant and the employer as to the reason for

the claimant’s separation from employment, the employer is required to show

through written documentation that the employee’s actions constitute misconduct.



18

f. Please comment on how the Silver v. Board of Review decision has affected

the number of cases that are defined as severe misconduct versus simple

misconduct?

Response:

Below is a comparison of the number of simple and severe misconduct decisions for

2013 and 2014 which were identified in 5.b., confirming that simple misconduct

decisions are increasing while severe misconduct decisions are decreasing:

FY2013 FY2014 Difference % Difference

Simple 22,069 23,531 + 1,462 + 7%

Severe 7,173 6,283 - 890 - 13%

In reviewing the FY 2015 decisions through February 2015, it appears that the trend

in increasing simple misconduct decisions and decreasing severe misconduct

decision is continuing through the current FY.

6. A State Auditor’s report issued in October 2012 concerning the Unemployment

Insurance Services program concluded that the department’s payment of unemployment

insurance benefits is accurate and reasonable based on the information available when a

claim is initiated. However, procedures maintained for the verification of continued eligibility

require improvement. The report made several recommendations to improve the oversight

of the provision of benefits. Some of these recommendations were also made in a

subsequent audit performed by the Office of the State Comptroller issued on May 29, 2013.

In response to the State Auditor’s report, the Legislature enacted P.L.2013, c.169,

which requires employers to report new hires to the state Department of Human Services

(DHS), and then requires the DHS to share that information with State agencies operating

employment security and workers’ compensation programs and with any other federal or

State agency deemed appropriate by the commissioner.

The law also applies to those rehired by the same employer after at least 60 days of

separation from his or previous term of employment. Employers have up to 20 days

following a new hire or rehire to submit the required information to the State.

Information provided to the DLWD as a result of the law is intended to facilitate

efforts by the department to prevent any continued improper collection of unemployment

benefits by individuals after they have returned to work.

Furthermore, the department implemented AppealsTrak in CY 2014, an end-to-end

management system that helps agencies streamline manual processes associated with

administering unemployment insurance. AppealsTrak is meant to reduce the average



19

processing time of appeals and overall case inventory, provide a complete view of

unemployment insurance appeals, assist with federal statutes and standards, update

processes on-demand to support changes in policy, and improve citizen and staff

experience. The department implemented AppealsTrak in 16 weeks, reducing the time of

appeals from 160 days to 30 days.

Question: a. Has the information shared by the DHS identified any individuals

who are fraudulently collecting UI benefits? How much, if any, savings can be

attributed to this new sharing of data?

Response:

From its inception in April 2011 to March 1, 2015 a total of 343,315 claimants were

identified through the DHS employment data and from the National Directory of

New Hires for individuals living out of state as attempting to improperly continue to

collect Unemployment Insurance benefits.

As of March 1, 2015 the department has determined Trust Fund savings of $403.3M

have been realized as a result of the cross-match.

b. Please provide details on the AppealsTrak implementation, including the

date on which the system was implemented, the total cost of the system, and

how the system has reduced the time of appeals.

Response:

The Department does not utilize any system called “AppealsTrak”, however the

Department does use the Salesforce case management system. The Office of Benefit

Appeals implemented the Salesforce case management system in October of 2013

with supplemental funding provided by the USDOL to implement the project. The

cost of the project, paid for through SBR funding, was approximately $805,415.50.

The Salesforce case management system went live in the Office of Benefit Appeals

on October 21, 2013.

Lower Authority Appeals (LAA) was placed at risk by USDOL in July of 2012 as it had

failed to meet federal standards for many years. Federal standards require cases to

be complete within specified timeframes (time-lapse) as follows:

60% of cases must be decided within 30 days of the date of appeal



The average age of pending appeals should not exceed 30 days



20

The Office of Benefit Appeals has made a remarkable turnaround, as the time-lapse

numbers below demonstrate, this turnaround is not all attributable to the new

Salesforce case management system. Processes were changed and improved to allow

for better caseload management in Lower Authority Appeals (LAA). We expect that

following the close of the first calendar quarter of 2015 on March 30 that LAA will be

removed from ‘at-risk’ status by USDOL in the coming months.

Federal

Standards

August 2012

Placed “At-

Risk” by

USDOL

November

2013

New case

management

system is live

October

2014

One year

after system

goes live

March 2015

Met federal standards

for two consecutive

quarters which will get

LAA off “At-Risk” status

30 days

(=/<60) .2%

5.6% 85.8% 75.9%

45 days

(=/<80)

.7%

10.1% 92.7% 90.9%

90 days

(=/<95)

4.9%

75.6% 97% 97.5%

Average

age(=/<30) 92

73 22 21

7. The Office of the State Auditor released a second report on the unemployment

insurance program on December 31, 2013. This audit was conducted on the Department of

Labor and Workforce Development Unemployment Insurance Contribution Revenue for the

time period from July 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012. The audit found that the UI

contribution revenue collection and recording processes were adequate, but noted several

matters which merited management’s attention. One of these matters was the fact that

certain State vendors had outstanding unemployment insurance contribution liabilities. The

State Auditor tested 170 vendors that owed a total of $36.7 million in UI contributions and

penalties and interest as of June 2013. These vendors were paid a total of $78.5 million in

fiscal year 2011 and $32.8 million in fiscal year 2012 in State funds.

State law (N.J.S.A.54:49-19) does require that employers prove that they do not have

any outstanding debts to the State when entering into a contract to provide services to the

State. However, the debt is restricted to that which is defined under the State Tax Uniform

Procedure Law (N.J.S.A.54:50-12), and does not include UI taxes. Therefore, businesses that

are delinquent in their UI taxes are not barred from receiving a proof of business registration

from the Department of the Treasury and contracting with the State, pursuant to P.L.2001, c.

134 (C. 52:32-44). Senate Bill No. 1622 of 2014, sponsored by Senators Madden and Vitale



21

and which has passed both Houses, seeks to change this system and prohibit payments of

vendors who have outstanding UI tax obligations.

Furthermore, the audit found that the New Jersey Comprehensive Financial System

(NJCFS) Garnishment Process within the Department of the Treasury is responsible for

withholding payments to vendors that owe the State monies, but the DLWD does not take

advantage of this program. The department, in response to the State Auditors’

recommendation, stated that it prepared a service request that will generate a listing of all

vendors with unpaid or underpaid contributions. This list will then be submitted to the

Department of the Treasury for inclusion in the NJCFS Garnishment Process.

Question: a. Please update the total amounts of unpaid and underpaid

contributions, penalties and interest submitted to the Department of the

Treasury for inclusion in the NJCFS Garnishment Process.

Response:

In March 2014 a file containing unpaid and underpaid contributions, interest and

penalties totaling $102.9 million for all active employers and $48.8 million for all

inactive employers was submitted to the Department of the Treasury for inclusion in

the NJCFS Garnishment Process. However, out of an abundance of caution regarding

legal questions surrounding the garnishment process, it was suspended after only a

few days of operation. However, in light of pending legislation, a new file is being

developed containing modifications outlined in the proposed legislation to be sent

to the Department of Treasury once the legislation is signed into law.

b. Of the amount submitted, how much has been collected thus far by the

Department of the Treasury?

Response:

Through April 2014 a total of $5.6 million has been collected.

8. Several initiatives have been implemented in the past few years to address the

collection of debt owed to the UI trust fund through both overpayments to individuals and

the underpayment of taxes owed by employers.

The Division of Revenue in the Department of the Treasury was statutorily authorized

to be New Jersey’s centralized non-tax debt collection agency and was given certain powers

to collect debt from individuals pursuant to P.L. 2008, c.24, including the ability to garnish

wages with a notice of a wage execution issued by an Office of Administrative Law judge.

According to the Department of the Treasury’s response to OLS Discussion Points in FY



22

2014, the division’s goal is for 90 percent of the debt owed to each of the State departments

to be transferred to the division for collection efforts. The DLWD has only transferred 72.9

percent of its debt to the division, the second lowest percentage for all departments in the

State. This low rate is due in large part to the department retaining the debt collection

activities for the monies owed the UI trust fund.

According to the Department of the Treasury’s response to OLS Discussion Points in

FY 2012 and FY 2013, the Division of Revenue conducted a two month pilot program from

September 17, 2010 through November 1, 2010 to attempt to collect a portion ($522

million) of the over $1 billion in outstanding debt owed to the UI and the TDI systems. A

collaborative two month effort by the DLWD, the Division of Revenue and the Office of

Information Technology achieved very positive outcomes from the collection effort, as

follows: $9 million collected from employers; $1.4 million collected from individual claimants;

and the production of an automated collection system for future implementation of a full

scale UI debt collection program.

Although highly successful, the UI debt collection activities were never fully

transferred to the Division of Revenue because of unresolved funding issues. According to

the Department of the Treasury, the USDOL does not permit monies owed to the UI trust

fund to be used for UI debt collection operations. Therefore, the project is on hold and UI

debt collection is being implemented by the DLWD.

Question: What is the current level of debt attributed to funds owed to the UI

trust fund? Please detail who owes the debt: employers who have underpaid UI

taxes versus employees who were overpaid benefits? If possible, please indicate

how long this debt has been outstanding and which funds will no longer be

eligible for collection, pursuant to the four year statute of limitations

established by R.S. 43:21-16. What portion of this debt has been deemed

uncollectible and why?



23

Response:

Listed below is the breakdown of employers (including reimbursable employers) and

workers outstanding receivables by timeframe as of December 31, 2014. All liabilities

listed have been established within the four-year statute of limitations required in

N.J.S.A. 43:21-16.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUND

ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE DECEMBER 31, 2014

(in millions)

Period Employers Reimbursables Claimants Total

0-6 months $ 11.3 $ 12.7 $ 20.4 $ 44.4

6-9 months 7.5 0.3 13.4 21.2

9-12 months 7.2 0.5 9.1 16.8

12-15 months 8.2 0.5 8.0 16.7

15-18 months 8.6 0.3 7.3 16.2

18-21 months 8.0 0.3 9.1 17.4

21+ months 295.3 22.8 240.5 558.6

Total $ 346.1 $ 37.4 $ 307.8 $ 691.3

NOTE:

The amounts include accounts that have been deemed to be uncollectible, bankrupt, inactive, and/or deceased

9. In response to the OLS Discussion Points during the FY 2014 budget process, the

department stated that it had spent $56 million from August 2005 to April 2009 to

implement the New Jersey State Unemployment Compensation Claimant and Employer

Service System (NJSUCCESS). NJSUCCESS is a project to redesign all unemployment

insurance business processes and technical systems that was put on hold as of April 30,

2009, because of the increased demands on the UI system and the need to “devote technical

and business resources to the many other technology challenges related to implementing

the extended benefits program.” According to the department, as of April, 2009, the project

had received $53 million in federal funding through a portion of the funds allocated to the

State by the federal “Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002,” more commonly

referred to as “Reed Act” funds, and an additional $3 million in supplemental grants from the

United States Department of Labor. This funding was used to begin the modernization

project, including: a call center technology upgrade; improved telephone queue routing;

enhanced online Internet claim filing; and electronic data exchange with employers.

In response to previous OLS Discussion Points in FY 2012 and FY 2013, the

department stated further that it had engaged a senior consultant “to perform a gap analysis

of the Functional Design produced by the prior vendor to determine the order steps that

need to be taken to achieve modernization and the level of IT resources needed to

(In millions)



24

implement and maintain the modernization initiative. The modernization initiative will be

done in a series of phases and an estimated level of effort and costs associated with each

phase is a deliverable expected from the consultant.” Additionally, the department stated

that, based on a “Statement of Work” a “Request for Information” (RFI) was prepared in

October 2012 and 12 vendors responded to the RFI. In March 2013 the department assigned

two Office of Information Technology (OIT) representatives to work with the department’s

Project Management Office (PMO) on implementation. The department further stated that

the project will be funded through Reed Act funds and a supplemental appropriation from

the federal government may be sought if additional funds are needed.

The department indicated in OLS Discussion Points in the FY 2015 budget process

that a consortium was formed with the State of New York to jointly modernize each state’s

employer/benefits/appeals system. Prior to the end of 2014, the New York and New Jersey

partners anticipated that the project would enter Phase II. Phase II is the development and

implementation of a fully functional modernization of the UI systems for both states. The

federal Department of Labor advised both states that, should consortium proceed with

Phase II, a second SBR could be submitted to the federal Department of Labor for approval.

Proposed budget language in the FY 2016 Budget Recommendation anticipates $22

million in federal “Reed Act” funds, which is appropriated for the continued maintenance

and improvement of services to unemployment insurance claimants (page D-230). The funds

would be used to improve benefit payment system, continue to develop one-stop offices

throughout the State, and enhance processes and services that provide job opportunities for

clients.

Question: a. Please provide details on the current status of this project. Has the

department entered into Phase II of the project with New York?

Response:

New Jersey’s current Unemployment Insurance (UI) system was developed in 1976

and has undergone several partial upgrades since then. The last significant upgrade

ended in 2009, and focused on the upfront processing of initial UI claims and

certifications.

Since that time OIT has completed limited upgrades to assist with the various USDOL

extended benefits programs during the recession period between 2008 and 2013.

However, the current UI system is outdated and does not permit modifications or

upgrades without extensive and costly programming. Likewise, the current system is

not easily supported, nor adaptive to more modern technologies. In addition, New

Jersey currently has insufficient funds to continue with a complete upgrade and

modernization of its UI system.



25

In 2013 the USDOL advised all of the States that federal funds would only be

available for modernization projects if a consortium of two or more States was

formed and the modernization design configurations were transferrable, at least in

part, to other States. Since New York’s unemployment benefits system was also in

need of a UI modernization effort, both States formally entered into an agreement to

form a consortium to modernize the employer/benefit/appeals systems of both

States, thereby jointly seeking federal funding.

To this end, in September 2013 New York and New Jersey received Supplemental

Budget Request (SBR) funding in the amount of a combined $4 million from the

USDOL to complete Phase I of the UI modernization project. With New York as the

lead State, Phase I encompassed leveraging existing consortium business

requirements to define common functional, non-functional and technical

requirements of a UI Employer/Benefits /Appeals modernization system, leveraging

other Consortia relevant materials and single-state Best Practices. As recommended

by the USDOL, the consortium is interacting with the Information Technology

Support Center (ITSC), the national resource center for IT activity created by the

USDOL, for their assistance as referenced by their published UI Business Process and

IT Modernization Guidebook.

As the analysis moved forward, New York and New Jersey jointly established

governance, project management and project working group models and dedicated

resources for approving functional “Use Cases”. A legal comparison deliverable was

finalized wherein common and State unique laws and statutes were explicitly

identified. A joint Request for Information (RFI) was developed with nine vendors

responding with proposals. Vendor demonstrations provided the consortium with an

overall understanding of the requirement needs for a new system and the available

solutions and options currently in use in the marketplace.

Both States realized that additional funding would be required to continue with the

extensive analysis and quality assurance process of over 300 Use Cases and Technical

Tract recommendations. Another request was made for SBR funding in July 2014 and

once again a combined $4 million in SBR funds was awarded by the USDOL in

September 2014 for the completion of Phase II, which has begun and which is to

establish the core requirements (Use Cases, Business Rules and Process Flows) and

defining state-specific requirements leading to the issuance of a Request for

Proposal (RFP) ready document. As the project moved into Phase II and in order to

assist with Phase II the consortium acquired additional Business Analysts, Quality

Assurance and technical consulting resources.

The consortium is also exploring architectures and technology stacks of other states

that have recently deployed UI systems to assist with the construction of reference



26

architecture, Non-Functional Requirements, Common Services and Operational

Model consisting of lists of functions and interfaces. Cross-Matches, Multi-Tenancy

Configuration and a Data Migration Strategy are also being addressed.

b. What is the total cost for the plan? Will all of those costs be funded through

Reed Act funds or will a supplemental appropriation be requested by the

department?

Response:

Based on the experiences and projected costs for completion of other consortiums

which are further along than the NY/NJ consortium, it is estimated that the total

costs for the UI Modernization Project will exceed $100 million.

There is only $22 million remaining in Reed Act Funds which the department

anticipates will be used for New Jersey specific requirements.

The consortium anticipates submitting another SBR to the USDOL to fund the costs

for the remainder of the modernization project.

c. Please provide a plan for FY 2015 and FY 2016 for the modernization of the

UI system.

Response:

Prior to the end of 2015, the consortium anticipates having completed the RFP ready

document containing the complete functional and technical requirements.

Depending on the availability of funds, both from the USDOL, Reed Act or other

supplemental appropriations, once the RFP is finalized and approved by New Jersey

and New York, it will be published for the receipt of vendor proposals in early 2016.

Vendor presentations will be scheduled and jointly New Jersey and New York will

evaluate the proposals and presentations and final contract awarded.

10. Section 1 of P.L.2011, c. 32 amended R.S.43:21-6 to provide that certain individuals

must be able to certify their UI claim via the Internet at any time, 24 hours a day and seven

days a week. The department indicated, in response to the OLS Discussion Points during the

FY 2015 budget process, that online certification of benefits was available 71 hours per week:

M-F 7 AM – 6 PM, Saturday 8 AM – 3 PM, and Sunday 8 AM- 5 PM. Furthermore, 60 percent

of Internet certifications are filed on Sundays, 19% are filed on a Monday, 9 percent on

Tuesday, 7 percent on Wednesday, 3 percent on Thursday, 1 percent on Friday, and less than

1 percent on Saturday. Additionally, Commissioner Wirth, in his testimony to the Assembly

Budget Committee on April 7, 2011 indicated that the department was in the process of



27

creating “off-hours” online access to applications which would permit claimants to access

the certification process during non-business hours. The claim would then be certified

during the next scheduled posting date. In response to OLS Discussion Points during the FY

2015 budget process, the department stated that “the 24/7 access is a realistic expectation

once the department successfully implements the new UI system.”

Question: a. Has the system been updated to permit individuals to certify their

claims 24 hours a day, seven days a week as required by P.L.2011, c. 32

(R.S.43:21-6)? If not, how many hours per week can individuals certify their

claims online? If so, what percentage of claimants are utilizing the system

during the newly expanded hours?

Response:

The available hours for claimants to certify their claims online continues to be 71

hours per week. Claimants currently are able to certify online for UI benefits 7 days a

week: M-F 7AM – 6PM, Saturday 8AM – 3PM and Sunday 8AM – 5PM. There is

sufficient capacity to process significantly more certifications over the web during

these available hours.

In 2013 68% of certifications were filed on line. In 2014 the percentage increased to

71%. In 2015 through March 21st 72% of claimants are certifying over the Internet.

Over the past six weeks the percentage of online certifications has been 75%.

The most recently completed eight weeks of certifications filed online from February

1st through March 28th shows the percentage breakdown by day as follows:

Day Percentage

Sunday 48.7%

Monday 24.8%

Tuesday 10.3%

Wednesday 11.1%

Thursday 3.0%

Friday 1.8%

Saturday 0.3%



28

b. Has the department implemented “off-hours” online certification? If so,

please detail the mechanisms of the system. If not, please detail why not.

Response:

The department has not implemented any additional “off-hours” online certifications

since the department’s nearly 40 year old UI system does not have the technological

capacity to provide 24/7 online certification access for our claimants due to system

limitations. Expanded “off-hours” online certifications will be a requirement in the UI

Modernization project.

11. The department imposes an “internal function” joint tax cost on the funds it oversees

to pay for the administrative functions associated with these funds, including maintenance of

employer accounts, auditing and collections. Furthermore, the Division of Revenue in the

Department of the Treasury, under an agreement with DLWD, imposes an additional charge

to certain funds for functions related to the receipt of employer tax reports and remittances,

commonly known as “shared costs.” These shared costs are charged to the Family Leave

Insurance Account, the State Disability Benefits Fund, the Workforce Development

Partnership Fund, the Unemployment Compensation Auxiliary Fund and the Unemployment

Insurance Fund, among others. The FY 2016 Budget Recommendation includes language

authorizing $16 million in FY 2016 appropriations from the UCAF to support collection

activities, an $11 million increase (page D-229) from the $5 million authorized in FY 2015 for

the same purpose.

According to the department, as required by federal cost principles, the “costs

associated with revenue collection are allocated to all benefitting programs using a cost

allocation plan. To determine the allocation to each benefitting program, the DLWD Joint

Tax Allocation Plan used direct personnel costs along with interviews and observations of

employees within the various operating sections as well as data, such as the number of

registered employers, delinquency and follow-up billings, judgments and refunds.

Complexity factors were developed for some activities in order to provide proper weighting

for the level of sophistication and detail required for specific work assignments. Division of

Revenue cost sharing allocations are based on the percentage of transactions processed as

related to the various tax programs.”

Question: a. Please provide expenditures, by fund, for the shared costs by fiscal

year since FY 2011 through FY 2016 projected.

Response:

See Schedule V.



29

b. Please detail the amounts appropriated from the UCAF for “collection

activities” in FY 2013, FY 2014, and FY 2015.

Response:

See Schedule IV.

SECOND INJURY FUND

12. The Second Injury Fund (SIF), also known as the Special Compensation Fund, was

established pursuant to R.S.34:15-94 and provides workers’ compensation benefits to totally

and permanently disabled workers with prior, work-related disabilities. Additionally, P.L.1980,

c.83 provides that the SIF pay for a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for workers (and their

dependents) suffering permanent disability or death before 1980. Finally, P.L.1990, c.46

provides that all administrative costs of the Division of Workers’ Compensation be paid out

of the SIF.

Revenue is provided for the SIF through an assessment on workers’ compensation

insurance for both self-insured and privately insured employers. State and municipal self-

insured employers are exempt from the SIF assessment, but State and municipal employees

are eligible for benefits if disabled.

The level of assessment is determined each year by the Commissioner of Labor and

Workforce Development. The commissioner makes this determination by estimating the

amounts necessary to pay SIF benefits and administrative costs in the following calendar

year, reduced by the net SIF assets at the end of the current year, exceeding $5 million, and

then multiplying that total by 125% to determine the amount needed in the SIF for the next

year. However, due to statutory requirements, the total amount needed must then be

reduced by $40 million. The $40 million reduction equals the amounts that were transferred

from the SIF to the General Fund by language contained in P.L.2002, c. 12 and P.L.2002, c.38.

(P.L.2002, c.5 and P.L.2003, c.111 both amended R.S.34:15-94 to provide that two separate

transfers of $20 million from the SIF to the GF are added back into the Second Injury Fund

for computational purposes when determining the assessment amount.) The assessment is

then charged to employers as a surcharge on their workers’ compensation insurance

payments. According to the DLWD’s response to OLS Discussion Points during the FY 2015

budget process, in CY 2014, the department assessed companies approximately $231

million.

Moreover, the department further indicated to the OLS that the SIF deficit was expected

to decrease to $15.1 million in CY 2014. Since the SIF began to go into a deficit balance in

2010, the department has either received a supplemental appropriation ($17.5 million from

the General Fund in June, 2011 pursuant to P.L. 2011, C. 82) or the State has advanced funds



30

to cover benefit programs until sufficient resources are available through the collection

process.

Question: a. Please provide, on a calendar year basis for every year from 2005

forward, including an estimate for 2016: the total amount expended from the

Second Injury Fund for benefits (please separate benefits by COLA or second

injury benefits); the total amount expended for costs (please detail specific

administrative costs by minor object detail); the total amount of revenue from

assessments; the total amount carried forward in the fund from the previous

year; the total amount of other revenues in the fund (including transfers in);

and the total amount of unexpended balances at the end of the fiscal year.

Response:

See Schedule VI and Schedule VI A.

b. Please provide the number of claimants, and their average SIF benefit, who

are receiving second injury benefits, for their own injury, from the SIF for each

year since 2004. Please provide the average age of the beneficiary.

Response:

See Schedule VII.

c. Please provide the number, and the average COLA benefit, for beneficiaries

who are receiving COLA benefits from the SIF for each year since 2004. Please

identify the number of beneficiaries who are receiving the benefits for their

own injury and the number who are dependents of injured workers. Please

provide the average age of these beneficiaries (also identified as injured worker

or dependent). Please detail which of these beneficiaries are paid their base

workers compensation benefit by a private insurer and their COLA by the SIF.

Response:

See Schedule VIII.



31

d. The department stated that it was transitioning to a new database in 2014.

What is the status of this transition? What are the details of the new system?

What were the costs of the system? What percentage of beneficiaries received

checks electronically in 2014?

Response:

Transition protocols of data to the new database system have been completed with

nightly reconciliation between the old and new systems. Case inquiry and

approximately 15% of the user interface components have been tested and

implemented, including annual beneficiary recertification and case referrals for

continuing disability certification. In light of staff resources available, full

implementation is now not expected prior to the fourth quarter of 2015. Costs

associated with this program are currently estimated at $43,000 over the last three

years, with all such costs attributable to diversion of existing resource. Based on the

12/30/14 payments, 65% of the SIF claimants received EFT payments, and 35%

received checks.

e. How many claimants that collect benefits from the SIF also collect Social

Security? What is the total amount of SIF benefits paid out to individuals who

also collect social security? How much is the amount reduced by the offset of

social security benefits?

Response:

As the Second Injury Fund can only reduce its benefit payments for the receipt of

Social Security (SS) benefits to those under the age of 62, SS benefit data is only

maintained for those individuals. Currently, 2,198, or 58% of the 3,795 beneficiaries

under the age of 62 are receiving SS benefits. In CY 2014 these individuals received

Second Injury benefits totaling $27.8 million which represents a reduction of $18.8

million as a result of the offset for receipt of SS benefits.

TEMPORARY DISABILITY INSURANCE/FAMILY LEAVE INSURANCE

13. The State Disability Benefits Fund (SDBF) is used by the State’s Temporary Disability

Insurance (TDI) program to provide partial wage replacement for workers who become

disabled due to injury or illness unrelated to work and to pay for administration of the

benefits from the SDBF. Those New Jersey employers that do not wish to participate in the

State plan may offer an alternative private plan that provides, at a minimum, the coverage

offered through the State plan.



32

Until 2012, the SDBF was funded by two revenue sources, a 0.5 percent wage tax paid

by employees and an experience rating tax applied to wages paid by employers. P.L.2011,

c.88 (C. 43:21-7 et al) requires that, for calendar year 2012 and each subsequent calendar

year, a determination be made by the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development

of the annual rate of contribution to be paid by employees into the SDBF. The rate will equal

that amount which is sufficient, when added to employer contributions, to obtain a total

amount of contributions equal to 120% of the benefits estimated by the commissioner to be

payable for temporary disability leave benefits during the next calendar year, plus an amount

equal to 100 percent of the cost of the administration of the payment of those benefits

during the immediately preceding calendar year, less the amount of net assets remaining in

the fund at the end of the preceding calendar year. The act also limits the rate of employee

contributions which may be charged under a private plan for disability benefits to not higher

than the rate of employee contributions to the SDBF set pursuant to the act. The rate for

employees for CY 2015 is 0.025 percent.

Question: a. Please provide the value of revenues (including employer and

employee contributions), benefits, and administrative expenditures, and the

cash balance in the SDBF for: each month in calendar year 2013 and 2014; as

many months as possible for calendar year 2015; and an estimate for the

remaining months of 2015 and for 2016.

Response: See Schedule IX.

b. Please provide the number of employees that were assessed the TDI Tax in

2013, 2014, 2015, and estimated for 2016. Please provide the number of

employees that paid or pay the maximum tax in 2013, 2014, 2015, and

estimated for 2016.

Response:

Total Assessed No. of workers paying

Calendar Year Employment the Maximum Tax

2014 2,642,300 (estimated) 968,890

2015 (estimated) 2,684,600 (estimated) 960,000

2016 (estimated) 2,727,500 (estimated) 970,000



33

c. Please provide the number of employees who are or were provided private

TDI coverage through their employers in New Jersey in 2013, 2014, 2015, and

an estimate for 2016.

Response:

Estimated TDI Private Plan covered employment

Calendar Year No. of Employees

2013 689,277 (actual)

2014 701,700 (estimated)

2015 714,300 (estimated)

2016 727,200 (estimated)

d. Please provide the number of employers that were assessed the TDI Tax in

2013, 2014, 2015, and estimated for 2016.

Response:

Estimated TDI State Plan Employers

Calendar Year No. of Employees

2013 215,900 (actual)

2014 217,200 (estimated)

2015 219,400 (estimated)

2016 222,200 (estimated)

e. Please provide, for the two most recent years available, the summary of

morbidity data for completed claims, including: the major morbidity group

(code); the percent of cases; the average duration of claim; and the average

gross benefits.

Response: See Schedule IXA.



34

f. Please provide an estimate for the TDI assessment to be charged each

employee for calendar year 2016.

Response:

Based on currently available data we do not expect the rate to exceed 0.25% of the

taxable wage base.

14. P.L.2008, c.17 (C.43:21-39.1 et al.) established the “Family Leave Insurance” (FLI)

program in the department. FLI extends the State’s existing temporary disability insurance

system to provide workers with up to six weeks of FLI benefits for a worker taking leave to

provide care, certified to be necessary, for family members of the worker suffering a serious

health condition or to be with a new child of the worker during the first 12 months after the

child’s birth or placement for adoption with the worker’s family. These benefits are funded

through an additional assessment on workers’ wages subject to TDI taxes ($32,000 in CY

2015).

P.L. 2009 c. 195 changed the assessment used to fund the FLI Account from a set tax

of 0.12 percent to a variable assessment that equals the rate that is sufficient to obtain a

total amount of contributions equal to 125% of the benefits estimated to be payable for

family disability leave benefits during the calendar year, plus 100% of the amount estimated

to be necessary for the cost to administer the benefits, less the amount of net assets which

will remain in the account as of December 31 of the immediately preceding year. The

assessment is updated on a calendar year basis and the assessment for 2015 is 0.09 percent,

less than the assessment in 2014. These funds are deposited into the FLI account within the

State Disability Benefits fund (SDBF).

Question: a. Please provide an analysis of the current collection of revenue,

benefits and administrative costs for the FLI account, by month for: CY 2014

(actual); CY 2015 (actual to date and estimated for the remaining months of

the year); and for 2016 (estimated).

Response:

See Schedule X.

b. Please provide an analysis of benefits paid by calendar year for the two most

recent calendar years available, including the total number of claims and the

number of claims attributable to each of the following categories:

1) Bonding with a newborn

2) Bonding with a newly-adopted child

3) Care of a seriously ill child



35

4) Care of a sick spouse

5) Care of another seriously ill family member

Response:

See Schedule XI.

c. For each of the above listed categories, please provide the average cost per

claim and the average duration of the claim.

Response:

See Schedule XI.

d. Please provide the number and percentage of total FLI claims made for

intermittent leave. Were there any intermittent leave claims approved for

reasons other than care for bonding with an infant?

Response:

Intermittent claims average 3% of all FLI claims. Total intermittent claims in CY 2014

were 1,232.

e. Please provide the number and percentage of total claimants who had also

collected temporary disability insurance through the State TDI program.

Response:

Calendar Year No of Claims Percent

2013 13.371 41.6%

2012 12,808 41.7%

The above claims were due to bonding immediately following a pregnancy claim for

TDI.



36

f. Please provide the number of employees who were assessed the Family Leave

Insurance Tax in CY 2014, and estimated for 2015. Please provide the number

of employees that paid the maximum tax in CY 2014, and estimated for 2015.

Response:

Estimated FLI State Plan covered employment:

Calendar Year No. of Employees Maximum

2014 3,773,400 (estimated) 690,000

2015 3,810,800 (estimated) 710,000

2016 3,860,000 (estimated) 720,000

g. Please provide the number of employees that are provided FLI through their

employers’ private plan in New Jersey in CY 2014, and an estimate for 2015.

Response:

Calendar Year Employees

2014 12,666 (actual)

2015 13,000 (estimated)

2016 13,500 (estimated)

h. Please provide an estimate for the FLI assessment to be charged each

employee for calendar year 2016.

Response:

Based on currently available data we do not expect the rate to exceed 0.09% of the

taxable wage base.

15. As of April 18, 2011, all benefits for temporary disability, family leave insurance or

unemployment insurance claims were paid by the DLWD through a prepaid Bank of America

debit card issued to claimants or, for the UI program only, through direct deposits to their

bank accounts. The department is no longer issuing paper checks to pay these benefits. The

department contends that debit cards and direct deposit are the quicker, safer and more

convenient ways to pay benefits.


department asserted that to “expedite the elimination of checks, the department chose not



37

to provide the direct deposit option at the time a clamant files for temporary disability

insurance or family leave insurance.” It is unclear how not providing the option of direct

deposit, in addition to debit cards, expedites the elimination of checks to TDI and FLI

beneficiaries. Although the department does provide the option for beneficiaries to have

their moneys transferred from their debit card to their bank account, it seems like this is an

unnecessary step. Over 56 percent of UI beneficiaries choose direct deposit. If this same

percentage of TDI and FLI beneficiaries chose direct deposit, it would be a cost savings to

the programs because it is a paperless process. The department, in its response to OLS

Discussion Points during FY 2015, stated that technology limitations of the current

Temporary Disability Insurance system would prevent the department from providing the

direct deposit option. However, the department insisted that its banking provider make the

direct deposit option available to claimants.

The department initiated a second contract with Bank of America to facilitate the

debit cards, beginning August 1, 2013, and according to the department, the terms for the

debit cards remained the same as the initial contract. The contract provides for unlimited

ATM access at Bank of American/Merrill Lynch locations and four free non-Bank of America

ATM withdrawals per month. For more details on the terms of the debit cards, please see

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/tdi/content/debit_faqs.html.

Question: a. Please provide the number of claimants who are issued debit

cards, detailed as through the UI, TDI or FLI programs, and the number of

claimants who use direct deposit in the UI program by CY for 2013, 2014, and

to date in 2015.

Response:

Calendar Year UI Debit Cards UI Direct Deposit

2013 214,990 311,736

2014 175,059 251,915

2015 (March 28) 47,302 68,069

Calendar Year TDI Debit Cards TDI Direct Deposit **

2013 98,077

2014 93,899

2015 21,479



38

Calendar Year FLI debit Cards FLI Direct Deposit **

2013 32,065

2014 32,168

2015 8,023

** The TDI/FLI system does not currently provide for direct deposit.

b. What percentage of program claimants, by program, received debit cards?

What percentage, by program, received direct deposit?

Response:

Program Debit Card % Direct Deposit %

UI 41% 59%

TDI 100% 0%

FLI 100% 0%

c. Has the department made any progress in updating the TDI system to

implement a direct deposit option for claimants?

Response:

As the department moves forward to modernize its 27 year old TDI system, the

option to receive payments through direct deposits will be addressed.

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

16. New Jersey provides extensive support for a wide range of workforce development

programs. The three main components of workforce development programs in the DLWD

are: State programs funded by unemployment insurance (UI) payroll tax revenues redirected

into the Workforce Development Partnership Fund (WDPF) and the Supplemental Workforce

Fund for Basic Skills (SWFBS); programs funded by the federal Workforce Investment Act

(WIA), including programs for adult training, displaced workers, and youth; and State and

federal programs to facilitate transitions from welfare to work, comprised of the State Work

First New Jersey (WFNJ) program and the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF) program, also funded through the Workforce Development Partnership Fund.

In response to the OLS Discussion Points during the review of the FY 2015 budget,

the department reported that spending for individuals in these programs was allocated as

follows in the chart below:



39

FY 2013 FY 2014

FY 2015

(est.)

WDPF - Ind. Grants (DW) $11,000,000 $15,200,000 $7,700,000

WDPF- Disadvantage-Smart

Steps $4,000,000 $5,910,000 $1,900,000

WDPF - Customized Training $14,500,000 $15,200,000 $11,550,000

WDPF - OSHA $2,000,000 $1,450,000 $1,145,000

WDPF - YTTW $1,760,000 $2,280,000 $2,000,000

WIA - Dislocated Worker $30,891,644 $34,280,662 $38,580,867

WIA - Adult $20,260,335 $20,840,954 $24,644,654

WIA - Youth $20,322,861 $21,422,496 $25,513,414

WFNJ - TANF $48,392,000 $47,838,306 $47,838,306

WFNJ - SNAP/GA $29,500,000 $29,517,694 $29,517,694

Total: $182,626,840 $193,940,112 $190,389,935

Also in response to the OLS Discussion Points, the department projected the average

costs and the number of individuals who would be served and/or receive job training

through the Workforce Development Programs (Workforce Development Partnership Fund

(WDP); Workforce Investment Act (WIA); and Work First New Jersey (WFNJ) in FY 2013 and

FY 2014:

PROGRAM

FY13

FY13

FY 14

Projection

FY 14

Projection

FY 15

Projection

FY 15

Projection

(Served) (Rec’d.

Training)

Cost per

Partici-

pant (Served) (Rec’d.

Training)

Cost per

Partici-

pant (Served) (Rec’d.

Training)

Cost per

Partici-

pant

Workforce

Development

Partnership

Fund 57,890 57,453 34,271 34,181 43,783 43,683

Customized

Training1,2 51,989 51,898 $347

Customized

Training –

including SWFBS

funding3 68,518 68,518 $269 30,217 30,217 $335 38,300 38,300 $300

Indv. Train. for

DW 397 397 $4,454 657 657 $4,948 1,330 1,330 $6,000

1 Effective in FY13 the CT program delivered grants with blended funding steams which include SWFBS –

25% funds traditionally deployed separately to employers. 2 The CT program numbers reflect actual projects for FY13 and FY14. 3 The revised deployment of the CT program as Skills4Jersey and Recover4Jersey has decreased overall unit

cost by over $125 per person, making this the most cost effective training program in NJ.



40

(WDP-ITG)4

YTTW 542 196 $1,988 207 117 $6,183 225 125 $5,333

SMART STEPPS 338 338 $2,065 428 428 $2,321 428 428 $2,321

Workforce

Investment Act

(Total) 5 6 169,649 11,514 $332 149,900 9,100 $339 149,900 9,100 $339

Adult 156,396 3,795 $92 138,300 2,900 $67 138,300 2,900 $67

Dislocated

Workers 8,548 4,882 $1,839 6,000 3,900 $2334 6,000 3,900 $2334

Youth 4,703 2,837 $2,836 5,600 2,300 $3429 5,600 2,300 $3429

Work First New

Jersey (Total) 26,344 8,532 $3,034 23,850 7,678 $3265 24,600 7,900 $3067

TANF 16,610 5,320 $3,470 15,797 5,148 $3063 16,300 5,300 $2879

General

Assist/Food

Stamps 9,734 3,212 $2,916 8,053 2,530 $3,663 8,300 2,600 $3,435

All Workforce

Development

Programs 253,881 77,499 208,021 50,959 218,283 60,683

*Note: Individuals may receive both services and job training and thus may be included under both columns.

Question: a. Please indicate, for each of the Workforce Development programs

(WDP, WIA, WFNJ), how many individuals participated in job training during FY

2014 and how many are expected to participate in job training during FY 2015

and FY 2016. Please indicate how many individuals accessed services other than

job training through WDP, WIA and WFNJ during FY 2014 and how many are

expected to access services other than job training during FY 2015 and FY 2016.

Please provide or estimate this data for FY 2014, FY 2015, and FY 2016 for each

of the following programs: WDP dislocated workers; WDP disadvantaged

workers; WDP customized training grants; WDP occupational safety and health

training; WDP youth transitions to work; WDP SMART STEPPS; WIA dislocated

worker training; WIA adult training; WIA youth training; WFNJ TANF recipients;

WFNJ Food Stamp recipients; and WFNJ General Assistance recipients.

Response:

See Schedule XII.

4 The revised WDP-ITG fund effective in FY 13 as Opportunity4Jersey and soon to be announced

Recovery4Jersey-OJT. The numbers are estimated using $11 million maximum allocation for both programs. 5 WIA Adult figures include Self-Service, J4J.com “on ramp” services and in-person WIA funded services. 6 WIA cost per person has decreased due to the success and high rate of self-serve and J4J.com “On Ramp.”



41

b. Please define the above programs and explain who provides the services,

except for Customized Training grants (which are discussed in more detail in

Discussion Point #19 and 20, below).

Response:

WIA Title I

Services for TANF and General Title I of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) serves to

provide workforce investment activities, through statewide and local workforce

investment systems that increase the employment, retention and earnings of

participants, and increase occupational skill attainment by participants, and, as a

result, improve the quality of the workforce, reduce welfare dependency, and

enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the nation. Services include

assessment, training and placement assistance.

The WIA has been operational since 2000. Local entities act as One-Stop Operators

with the role of overseeing workforce efforts that also include welfare-reform and

labor exchange and literacy efforts. Targets overall of WIA are disadvantaged adults,

youth and dislocated workers.

The majority of the WIA Title I funding allotted to New Jersey each fiscal year is

distributed to the state's 17 Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs). WIA Youth

Activities funds must be distributed among local WIBs (subject to reservation of the

8.75 percent limitation for statewide workforce investment activities) in accordance

with the provisions of WIA Section 128. WIA Adult Activities funds must be

distributed among local WIBs (subject to reservation of the 8.75 percent limitation for

statewide workforce investment activities) in accordance with the provisions in WIA

Section 133. WIA Dislocated Worker Activities funds are distributed among local

WIBs (subject to the Governor's reservation of up to 25 percent for statewide rapid

response activities and the 8.75 percent limitation for statewide workforce

investment activities) in accordance with the provisions in WIA Section 133.

WorkFirstNJ

Services for TANF and General Assistance/Food Stamp recipients are delivered

through the One-Stop Career Center system via a Notice of Obligation to 18 local

One-Stop Operators. For the current fiscal year the One-Stop Operators received

$54,253,486 for various participant work activities, case management, Career

Advancement Voucher Program, work verification, and needs based work supports.

LWD retained $23,102,514 for case management services, work activities, and On-

The-Job Training (OJT) services. Examples of work activities include OJT, Community

Work Experience Program (CWEP), academic remediation, and vocational training.

Smart STEPS



42

The Smart STEPS program provides alternative financial assistance to individuals who

are otherwise eligible for WFNJ Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

programs to assist them in obtaining additional education on a full-time basis. The

program replaces WFNJ cash assistance payments, support services, and emergency

assistance and prevents time from being counted towards the participant’s maximum

limit of 60 cumulative months of WFNJ program benefits. The Smart STEPS program

provided services to the DVRS customers who are otherwise eligible for WFNJ to

assist them to obtain additional education.

Opportunity4Jersey (O4J) training program

The Opportunity4Jersey program awards training grants on a competitive basis to

eligible training providers. The program is designed to train dislocated workers

sourced from and certified by the state’s One-Stop Career Centers. Intrinsically, it

creates innovative partnerships between New Jersey employers, colleges and eligible

training providers to meet the needs of employer’s current and future job openings.

In FY 2014 the Department awarded 9 partnerships, which include the participation

of 36 employers in a variety of industry sectors, including technology, transportation,

advanced manufacturing, health care and financial services. FY 2014 outcome data is

not completed since training is still in progress. FY 2015 is also in progress. The first

FY2015 contract was awarded in February. As of March 26, 2015, the grantee is in

the recruiting process.

Youth Transitions to Work (YTTW)

The Youth Transitions to Work (YTTW) program exposes high school juniors and

seniors to apprenticeship programs and provides both structured on-the-job training

and relevant classroom instruction.

c. Please indicate for each of the programs listed in question “a.” above, in each

of the indicated years, the cost per individual trained.

Response:

See Schedule XII.



43

d. Please indicate for the federally funded WIA and Work First New Jersey

programs, how much funding was received by the State for all programs in the

State funded through these programs in FY 2014, estimated for FY 2015 and FY

2016. Please indicate the amounts of WIA and WFNJ funding distributed to

local partners, being specific about which local partners received the funding.

What level of funding was retained by the State for administrative or separate

programming costs?

Response:

See Schedule XIII and Schedule XIV.

e. Please discuss, or provide data regarding, the effectiveness of each program

funded through the WDP in assisting individuals without jobs to find

employment providing self-sufficiency and assisting already employed

individuals to retain employment or raise earning levels. If there is no

evaluation data, please indicate so.

Response:

Customized Training/Skills4Jersey

Refer to responses 19aa and 19ac.

OPPORTUNITY4JERSEY

The O4J training program provides grants to approved training providers working in

direct partnership with New Jersey employers and funds training to eligible WDP

dislocated workers to fill immediate and future job openings in the State’s targeted

industry sectors. This employer-driven program is designed to address employer’s

concerns of not finding qualified workers. Individuals who receive training are in

direct response to actual job openings and employers provide input on the training

curriculum. In fiscal year 2013 the Department funded 14 partnerships, which include

the participation of 114 employers in a variety of industry sectors, including

advanced manufacturing, health care and financial services. These partnerships

enrolled 444 individuals. In response to employers hiring needs data indicates that

approximately 223 trainees were hired.

Training is still in progress for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 with an expected

completion date of August 2015 for most fiscal year 2014 trainees. Fiscal year 2015

awarded its first contract in February 2015. Recruiting for this program is in progress.

Applications for FY15 continue to be received monthly until the end of the fiscal year.

Smart STEPS



44

In FY 2014 the program served 428 participants.

Youth Transition to Work (YTTW)

In FY14 LWD funded 8 contacts for 7 grantees totaling $1,280,700 (9/1/13 –

8/31/14). As part of the awareness campaign for YTTW, 3,403 students attended

227 outreach sessions to learn about the program. Of those students, 183 were

accepted into the program and 31 were placed into union and non-union

apprenticeship programs. In addition, 7 were placed into trade-related employment).

17. The New Jersey Workforce Development Partnership Fund (WDPF) was created

pursuant to P.L.1992, c.43 (C.34:15D-1 et seq.) to provide training grants to disadvantaged

and displaced workers and to employers to provide training to their employees. The WDP

program is funded by worker and employer payroll taxes on wages subject to UI taxes.

WDPF moneys are statutorily allocated as follows: Customized Training, 45 percent;

Individual Training Grants for Dislocated Workers, 25 percent; Individual Training Grants for

Disadvantaged Workers, 6 percent; Occupational Safety and Health Training, 3 percent;

Youth Transitions to Work Program, 5 percent; administration, 10.5 percent; and individual

programs approved by the Commissioner, 5.5 percent.

The department estimated, in response to the OLS Discussion Points during the FY

2015 budget process, that the payroll tax revenues plus investment earnings would generate

approximately $103 million in FY 2015. The Governor’s FY 2016 Budget Recommendation

includes multiple language provisions transferring a total of $80.5 million (78 percent) of the

revenue to other purposes, including: $1.85 million to the New Jersey Youth Corps (page D-

236); approximately $64.7 million total to the Work First New Jersey Programs (pages D-236

and D-212); and $14 million to Vocational Rehabilitation Services (D-236).

Question: a. For FY 2014, please provide the following actual data for each

component of the WDP program (customized training, dislocated worker

training, disadvantaged worker training, youth training, occupational safety

and health training, program administration, and transfers to programs other

than WDP) and provide estimates of the same information for FY 2015 and FY

2016, based on the assumption that the current percentages, which are

required by statute to be deposited in accounts for each component, will

remain in effect:

1) The amount the department was required to spend under the WDP law's

mandated allocations (from FY 2013 forward, the amounts required to be

deposited in the accounts for each allocation), and the amount actually

spent;



45

2) The amount transferred out of the fund for each purpose not indicated in

the WDP law (such as the Work First New Jersey and New Jersey Youth

Corps programs);

3) The balance at the end of the year; and the amount encumbered as a

reserve for future payments of multi-year grants for each WDP program

component.

Response:

See Schedule XV.

b. Please explain the $5 million increase to Vocational Rehabilitation Services.

Response:

There is no change to the level of funding for the Vocational Rehabilitation

Services program. The $5.0 million from the WDP fund reflects a shift in funding

source in lieu of being funded from the UI Auxiliary Fund.

18. The Supplemental Workforce Fund for Basic Skills (SWFBS) was created pursuant to

P.L.2001, c.152 (C.34:15D-21 et seq.) to provide basic skills training to the workforce. The

fund is supported by a 0.0175 percent tax on wages subject to the unemployment insurance

tax ($32,000 in 2015). The funds collected are statutorily allocated in the following manner:

24 percent to support basic skills training delivered by State Civil Service employees at the

State’s One-Stop Career Centers; 28 percent for Workforce Investment Boards to give grants

to individuals needing basic skills training; 25 percent for the Office of Customized Training

(CT) to give grants to consortia of labor, business, and community groups providing basic

skills training; 13 percent for a grant to the New Jersey Community College Consortium for

Workforce and Economic Development to provide basic skills training; and 10 percent for

administrative costs.

The department estimated, in response to the OLS Discussion Points during the FY

2015 budget process, that the payroll tax revenues, plus investment earnings, would

generate approximately $29.5 million in FY 2015. The FY 2014 Appropriations Act included

language authorizing the transfer of $21 million (70 percent) of this revenue from the fund

to: $2.2 million to the New Jersey Youth Corps (page B-125); and, $18.8 million to county

colleges for operating aid (page B-175). The FY 2016 Budget Recommendation contains

identical language authorizing the transfer of $2.2 million from the SWFBS to the New Jersey

Youth Corps (page D-236) and $18.8 million from the SWFBS to county colleges for

operating aid (page D-374).



46

The 25 percent of funds dedicated to the CT program are primarily used to support

the Skills4Jersey and Recovery4Jersey programs into the future. However, of the $5 million

dedicated to CT in FY 2014, $2 million was diverted to fund a Literacy4Jersey program, a

one-time effort to support the Workforce Learning Link programs at 14 One Stop Career

Centers throughout the State.

Question: a. Please list by category how the funds from the SWFBS were

utilized in FY 2014, FY 2015, and an estimate for FY 2016, using the same

format used in Schedule XVI in the department’s response to the OLS

Discussion Points during the review of the FY 2015 budget.

Response:

See Schedule XVI.

b. Please detail any new programs that have been funded in FY 2015 and will be

funded in FY 2016 from the SWFBS monies.

Response:

The programs funded in FY 2015 were in compliance with the SWFB enabling

legislation. We do not anticipate any new programs will be funded in FY 2016 with

SWFB funds.



47

c. Please provide a report of the monies provided to each county college from

the SWFBS and the clients served by each county college with these funds.

Response:

Please refer to the response to 18. e below.

d. How has the $18.8 million allocation from the SWFBS to the county colleges

been used by the county colleges to assist the department in reaching the basic

skills program goals?

Response:

Please refer to the response to 18. c above.



48

e. How does the department monitor the county colleges’ use of the SWFBS

funds each year? Please provide a report of the monies provided to each county

college from the SWFBS and the clients served by each county college with

these funds.

Response:

Please refer to the response to Question 18b above and the clients served. Additional

information can also be found via the weblink below.

http://www.state.nj.us/highereducation/IP2014/index.html#CC

19a. The Customized Training (CT) program is an employer training program that was

established in 1992 and is, according to the department, “a powerful economic development

tool designed to create and retain high-skill, high-wage private sector jobs in New Jersey as

a means to ensure a productive, globally competitive workforce.”

The funding for CT grants is generated from the tax allocated to the WDPF and the

Supplemental Workforce Fund for Basic Skills (SWFBS). Although 45 percent of funding for

the WDPF and 25 percent of the funding for the SWFBS are dedicated to the CT programs,

there are numerous diversions from the WDPF and the SWFBS, primarily to the Department

of Human Services, and the money dedicated to the statutorily established CT program is

being depleted.

In December 2012, after Hurricane Sandy, the CT program and the other employer

training programs of the department were “rebranded” to provide a single application

process for employers’ and training groups to access training funds. Previously, employers or

community organizations applied separately for CT grants, Basic Skills grants (discussed

more in the following Discussion Point), and Safety Training grants. The department shifted

the program to a new format, as Recovery4Jersey, Skills4Jersey and Opportunity4Jersey. The

department stated in OLS Discussion Points during the FY 2015 budget process that the

Recovery4Jersey had evolved into the Recovery4Jersey On-the-Job (OTJ) program. “This

program supplies employers seeking new hires resulting from or for the purposes of

recovery post Superstorm Sandy.”

According to the department’s responses to the OLS Discussion Points during the FY

2014 budget process, employers now apply for one grant for training and the department

determines which funding source best meets the needs of the employers’ requested

programs and allocates the funding in the appropriate manner. The funding sources for

these programs will be the sum of the funding that is dedicated to the CT program, (45

percent of the WDPF revenue; 25 percent of the SWFBS revenue), Safety Training Funds (6

percent of the WDPF revenue) and Individual Training Grant funds (31percent of the WDPF

http://www.state.nj.us/highereducation/IP2014/index.html#CC



49

revenue). The IT grant funds (25 percent of the WDPF revenue) will only be used for

Opportunity4Jersey awards.

Question: a. Please provide the number of grants issued, the amounts issued,

the number of employees trained, and the average cost per trainee for the CT

program in, FY 2012, FY 2013, FY 2014, and estimated for FY 2015.

Response:

SKILLS 4 JERSEY (Blends both WDP-CT and SWFBS-Employer Lit)

Fiscal Year # of Grants Grant Amounts Est. # of Trainees

Average cost per Trainee

2013 216 $18,246,300 68,096 $268

2014 114 $10,128,504 30,217 $335

2015 215 $17,423,043 54,515 $320

2016 (est) 150 $15,000,000 50,000 $300

WDP-CT Only



2011 367 $17,473,199 48,605 $359.50

2012 225 $18,025,182 51,989 $346.72

SWFBS-Employer Literacy Only



2011 27 $1,521,350 4,755 $319.95

2012 32 $4,611,330 11,746 $392.59

b. Please provide an up-to-date program description for Skills4Jersey,

Recovery4Jersey OJT and Opportunity4Jersey in FY2015 and planned for

FY2016.

Response:

This is the Department’s incumbent worker training program and supplies matching

grants to employers for the purpose of training their existing workforce.



50

c. Please list each of the grantee’s names, their location, the amount granted

and details of each of the grants awarded through the Recovery4Jersey OJT,

Skills4Jersey and Opportunity4Jersey grant opportunities, including the

number of new and existing employees trained or hired under the grant. Which

of these grantees had not previously received grants through WDP funding?

Response:

Please refer to the website below which provides the information requested for the

S4J grants.

http://jobs4jersey.com/jobs4jersey/employers/training/grantawardlist.html

Please refer to Schedule XIIA for the Opportunity4Jersey data.

d. How many total jobs were funded through these grants?

Response:

Opportunity4Jersey (O4J) training program

The combined results for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 are as follows: approximate

number of students completing training year to date is 531; approximate number of

job placements year to date is 303. It should be noted that approximately 147

students could be added to the job placement number because 90 are still receiving

training and 57 have recently completed training. Potentially, this would bring the job

placement number to 450.

The FY15 grant process was launched in February 2015. Grantee recruitment is in

process.

e. How many applications were submitted and how many were approved?

Response:

O4J

FY14 received 33 applications and funded 9 grants.

FY15 receive 14 applications and funded 1 grant. Applications are continuing to be

accepted for the remainder of FY 2015.

S4J

FY 14 received 132 applications and funded 114.

FY 15 received 344 applications and funded 215.

http://jobs4jersey.com/jobs4jersey/employers/training/grantawardlist.html



51

f. How much funding is remaining for the rest of FY 2015 and anticipated for

FY2016 for these programs?

Response:

Refer to Schedules XV and XVI.

g. What funding streams are dedicated to each of these programs in FY2015

and anticipated for FY 2016?

Response:

Refer to Schedules XV and XVI.

19b. In February 2015, the Christie Administration announced a DLWD commitment of

approximately $500,000 for workforce development training programs specific to the

Camden region. These funds are made available through an open, competitive process and

assist with incumbent worker training, pre-employment training and pre-apprenticeship

programs. The department has made the grants available through Skills4Jersey,

Opportunity4Jersey, and NJBUILD (discussed in more detail in Discussion Point #20).

Skills4Jersey is “the department’s incumbent worker training program and supplies

matching grants to employers for the purpose of training their existing workforce.” These

training programs are generally focused on upgrading the occupations, literacy and safety

skills of their current employees and training new workers for purposes of retaining highly

skilled and high wage jobs in the State. Approximately $15 million in grants was awarded to

169 grantees in FY 2014. These funds were intended to train 70,622 employees and 23,866

new hires.

Recovery4Jersey OTJ is “a program that encourages employers to hire from the

unemployed by assisting with the costs of training new workers. In exchange, former job

seekers get a full-time job and an opportunity to learn a new skill while employers rebuild

their businesses and reimbursement for half of the new hire’s salary (up to $10,000) for up to

six months. (Positions must pay at least $10.00 an hour and cannot be commission based.)”

Opportunity4Jersey “supplies grants to approved training providers working in

partnership with New Jersey employers to supply training to eligible WDP-dislocated

workers to fill immediate and future job openings in the State’s targeted industry sectors.”

The original grant announcement in the wake of Hurricane Sandy designated $4 million for

the program, but only $440,000 was approved in grants, of which $2 million of those funds



52

were refocused to train qualified dislocated and disadvantaged workers with disabilities. The

remaining $1.6 million was to be used for another round of grants in FY 2014.

Question: Please detail how these programs are being utilized in the Camden

region. What kind of training services will be provided? How many individuals

does the department anticipate receiving assistance?

Response:

The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“LWD”) is

committed to assisting the residents of Camden as the Economic Opportunity Act of

2013 (“EOA”) has helped to create job opportunities in the city. LWD will commit

approximately $500,000 for workforce development programs aimed at training city

residents. This commitment will increase the likelihood that companies taking

advantage of the EOA will hire and retain local residents.

Training funds will be available through a continuous open, competitive process and

will apply to the following categories of training programs:

Incumbent Worker Training (Skills4Jersey)

Pre-employment Training (Opportunity4Jersey)

Pre-apprenticeship Programs (NJBUILD)

The first investment through this commitment is an Opportunity4Jersey grant for

pre-employment training. Camden County College and three local employers have

worked together to develop a job readiness training program that will prepare

dislocated workers for job opportunities in those specific companies. This training

program will help train 20 job seekers who will be interviewed by the three

companies following completion of the program.

In addition, LWD has released a competitive Notice of Grant Opportunity in the

amount of $150,000 to fund a pre-apprenticeship program to prepare women and

minorities in the building trades. In the city of Camden, significant activity is expected

in the coming year due to an increase in economic development associated with the

EOA. This increase in construction will produce job opportunities in the building

trades industry. These funds will be used to train and place in this industry.

Throughout the coming year, LWD will work to develop more opportunities to train

job seekers in the city of Camden. As more employers make the decision to relocate

to Camden, these programs will help to encourage them to hire city residents. LWD

has made a commitment to Camden and will continue to work to ensure these

programs are successful.



53

20. With the exception of certain programs, most proprietary or vocational schools that

operate in New Jersey are licensed by the Training Evaluation Unit (TEU) within the Center

for Occupational Employment Information (Center) within the Department of Labor and

Workforce Development. Furthermore, in order for a school to receive State or federal

funding, the school must be included on the State Eligible Training Provider List and provide

certain information to be published by the Center in a consumer report card available on line

at http://www.njtopps.com/.

The TEU, in conjunction with the Department of Education’s Bureau of Program

Review, is responsible for evaluating and approving private vocational schools, out-of-state

private vocational schools and correspondence schools that wish to operate within New

Jersey’s workforce readiness system. All approved providers are subject to annual reviews in

order to maintain continued approval. Any school “which does business in New Jersey and

which recruits adult students from the general public; charges tuition and/or fees; offers

instruction to a group or groups of four or more adult students at one time; and offers

preparatory instruction for entry-level employment or for upgrading in a specific

occupational field” must complete a private vocational school initial application. The

application and the various checklists and forms can be found at the following website

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lwdhome /coei/teu.html.

However, in order to be eligible to receive State or federal job training funds, the

school must also be included on the State Eligible Training Provider List (SETPL) established

by P.L.2005, c.354, s.14 (C.34:15C-10.2). The SETPL is a list maintained by the Center of

approved training providers and entities on the list are required to share certain information

about trainees. P.L.2013, c.208 expanded the information that schools must provide to the

State to include, but not be limited to, the participant's Social Security number, gender, date

of birth, date of enrollment, any date of completion, date of termination, date of start in a

job, date of application for a license, licensing examination result, date of issue of a license,

and any credentials issued. Additionally, the school must provide information to the Center

for use in a consumer report card, such as: the number of enrollees; the completion rate;

placement in employment information, including the names and locations of employers

where placements are made; licensing information; examination results; enrollee

demographic information; and information showing the long-term success of former

trainees of each provider and school in obtaining permanent employment and increasing

earnings over one or more time periods following the completion or other termination of

training, including a period of two years following the completion or other termination of

training. All of this information is required to be available to the general public and be

placed on a website that is accessible at http://www.njtopps.com/. The department, in its

response to OLS Discussion Points in FY 2015, stated that the njtopps website would require

a technical overhaul to display information pursuant to P.L. 2013, c. 208.

http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lwdhome



54

The Center was given the responsibility for maintaining the SETPL pursuant to

P.L.2005, c. 354 (C. 34:1A-86). According to the Center, the school must submit evidence of

approval from an appropriate government entity to the Center in order to be included on

the SETPL. Appropriate government entities include the following: Board of Cosmetology;

Board of Nursing; NJ Board of Real Estate Appraisers; the Federal Aviation Administration;

the Motor Vehicle Commission, the New Jersey State Police; the Office of the Secretary of

Higher Education and the New Jersey Departments of Education, Health, Banking and

Insurance, Labor and Workforce Development and Environmental Protection. If a school is

not covered by an agency then the TEU reviews the school as a private vocational school

through the application process as outlined in paragraph 2 of this Discussion Point.

Furthermore, there are eight proprietary (or for-profit) institutions with degree

granting authority for certain programs offered by the school. The degree granting authority

is conferred by the Office of the Secretary of Higher Education

http://www.state.nj.us/highereducation/colleges/schools_sector.shtml. All of these

institutions had to follow the same steps for licensure as any other college or university

would have to complete to become a degree granting institution. Those steps are clearly

explained on the Office of the Secretary of Higher Education’s website and can be accessed

at http://www.state.nj.us/highereducation/documents/pdf/Licensure/LicensureRules.pdf .

Question: a. Please provide the number of vocational/proprietary schools that

were reviewed and approved by the TEU in FY 2014, thus far in FY2015, and

estimated for FY2016. Please provide, for those years, the number of such

schools reviewed and rejected.

Response:

FY 2014: 295

FY 2015: 214 (as of March 31, 2015)

FY 2016: We estimate 290 schools will be reviewed in 2016.

COEI provides technical assistance and works with the applicants until they make the

necessary revisions to come into compliance.

b. Please provide the number of staff dedicated to the vocational/proprietary

school reviews. What is the amount of funding for the staff that conducts the

approval process for vocational and proprietary schools?

Response:

There are 2.67 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) charged to this activity at LWD. These FTEs

are supported by Workforce Development Partnership funds budgeted at $350,509.



55

c. Please provide a budget and funding source for the Center for Occupational

Employment. Please detail how many staff are dedicated to the Center’s

activities and include the number that are dedicated to maintaining the

Consumer Report Card available at www.njtopps.com. Please provide

information in regard to the Consumer Report Card and its current status.

Response:

The Center of Occupational Employment Information (COEI) is supported by

Workforce Investment Act funding with an annual budget of $240,969 and 2.0

(FTEs). From the 2.0 FTEs, .28 FTEs are dedicated to Consumer Report Card.

There are currently 817 approved training providers represented on the Eligible

Training Provider List (ETPL) and Consumer Report Card (CRC) at www.njtopps.com.

The types of training providers included on the ETPL are: apprenticeship programs;

aviation and flight schools; community-based organizations; cosmetology schools;

customized training providers; WIA Title II Adult programs; driving schools; four-year

colleges and universities; hospital-based programs; internet-based programs; law

enforcement academies; nursing-home based programs; private business and

technical schools; public adult schools with occupational programs; public secondary

schools; special needs programs; two-year, technical and community colleges;

vocational rehabilitation supported employment programs; and WIA/WDP/Welfare-

to-Work programs. These providers currently offer a combined total of 8,381

approved programs.

d. Please update the Legislature on the department’s efforts to comply with

P.L.2013, c. 208. Has the department overhauled the njtopps website? If so, does

it display the new data collected pursuant to P.L.2013, c. 208?

Response:

The Center for Occupational Employment Information has engaged in business

requirements gathering in preparation for a technical overhaul of the njtopps website.

Specifically, the Center has engaged in a thorough in-house review of the current

njtopps system with the Division of Information Technology. The Center also hosted a

discussion with the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers

University, a collaborator with the Center in producing the Consumer Report Card,

regarding the technical requirements for a new system. The Center has also conducted

extensive information gathering to explore the existence and availability of external

resources to complete the njtopps overhaul. During the Center’s research and

information gathering process, the federal government passed the Workforce

Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) which makes significant changes to the

http://www.njtopps.com/

http://www.njtopps.com/



56

reporting requirements on Eligible Training Provider List and the Consumer Report

Card. In addition to the reporting requirements established by P.L.2013, c.208, WIOA

requires the reporting of the percentage of participants who obtain a recognized post-

secondary credential or a secondary school diploma or equivalent during participation

or within one year after exit from the program; percentage of participants who, during

a program year, are in an education or training program leading to a recognized post-

secondary credential or employment and are achieving a measurable skills gain toward

such a credential or employment; and indicators of effectiveness in serving employers.

The changes established in WIOA placed the Center’s activities surrounding the

implementation of a new njtopps system on hold until the requirements of WIOA

could be fully clarified. The federal government expects to produce regulations in

spring of 2015. Further, the Department has established a Performance Accountability

workgroup which has met biweekly since January 2015 with the goal of producing a

blueprint outlining the key action items the Department must address under WIOA,

inclusive of the njtopps technical overhaul.

21. In April, 2011, the department launched a new website, Jobs4Jersey.com. The

Jobs4Jersey’s OnRamp is dedicated to linking job-seekers and employers throughout the

State. For job-seekers, the site includes an interactive job bank, information about available

training, links to assessment and training sites and resume building information. For

employers, it offers a job bank of applicants, “expert” advice, and information on available

training and incentive programs.

The site has been available for both job seekers and employers since April 2011 and

as of March 2014 had a total of 300,701 individual registrations using the site. In its response

to the OLS Discussion Points during the FY 2014 budget, the department stated that it

conducts an employer outreach program through employer groups, talent networks and

through job fairs and hiring events, as well as through an employer hotline. The website was

funded with federal ARRA funds, federal Wagner-Peyser grants, and a one-time federal

“Green-Grant” initiative.



57

Question: a. Please provide the number of individuals who have created an

account on Jobs4Jersey.com to search for employment by calendar year since

inception.

Response:

Jobseeker accounts created by year since inception of Jobs4Jersey.com

Calendar Year Accounts

2011 83,600

2012 106,927

2013 78,396

2014 54,040

2015 (YTD) 11,598

Total 334,561

b. Please provide the number of jobs currently advertised on Jobs4Jersey. Has

the department considered tracking how many new jobs were posted during a

discreet calendar year?

Response:

As of March 29, 2015, the number of J4J.com job postings for the last 60 days totaled

209,687 in New Jersey and 336,949 jobs in the state or within 50 miles of New Jersey.

The department currently tracks the number of online jobs postings over the

previous 60 days, and reports it monthly. Tracking the number of postings by

calendar year will be investigated.

c. Please detail the funding sources currently used to maintain the site. Please

address plans to secure new funding in the future.

Response:

The funding source is allocated across the various Workforce programs (i.e.

WorkFirst, WIA, ES and WDP).



58

22. The federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) (Pub.L.105-220) provides the

framework for a national workforce preparation and employment system designed to meet

both the needs of the nation’s businesses and the needs of job seekers and those who want

to enhance their careers.

WIA is based on the following elements: training and employment programs are

designed and managed at the local level where the needs of businesses and individuals are

best understood; individuals must be able to access the employment, education, training,

and information services they need at a single, local location; individuals controlling their

own career development should be able to choose a training program and the organizations

that will provide that service; individuals have a right to information about the success or

failure of training providers in preparing people for jobs; and businesses will provide

information and leadership, thus playing an active role in ensuring that the system prepares

people for current and future jobs.

P.L.1992, c.48, (C.34:15B-35 et al) imposed State standards on programs using federal

job training funds, including programs funded under the federal Job Training Partnership Act

(Pub.L.97 – 300), which was in effect in 1992, and programs funded under WIA since 1998.

The programs are under the auspices of the department and the department is responsible

for distributing the federal funding to the local Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs) and for

administering certain programs funded through WIA on the local level.

Each WIB, with membership that includes local businesses, helps plan and direct

federal, state and local investment in workforce development programs. WIBs work with the

State’s 34 One-Stop Career Centers, where job seekers can get employment information and

learn about career training opportunities, and where employers can come for information on

the labor market, job training programs, business incentives and to hire new employees.

On July 22, 2014, President Barack Obama signed the “Workforce Innovation and

Opportunity Act” (WIOA) into law. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the

“Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act” is designed to help job seekers access

employment, education, training, and support services to succeed in the labor market and to

match employers with the skilled workers they need to compete in the global economy.7

The law supersedes the “Workforce Investment Act” and takes effect on July 1, 2015.8

According to the Governor’s FY 2016 Budget Recommendation, the DLWD

anticipates approximately $125.4 million in FY 2016 (page C-20) in federal funds to support

the WIA activities throughout the State. The majority of the money is to be distributed to

local WIBs through a federal funding formula. Additionally, the State may apply for

discretionary federal grants for Statewide programs.

7 “Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act” – http://www.doleta.gov/wioa 8 http://www.doleta.gov/wioa/pdf/WIOA-Key-Implementation-Dates.pdf



59

Question: a. Please detail the WIA funding received and retained at the State

level in Program Years 2013, 2014, and 2015. Please detail the uses of these

funds, including the names of recipient organizations or programs.

Response:

See Schedule XVII

b. Please provide the following data: funding levels allocated to the State and

to local funding recipients (local WIBS or other entities) for WIA Adult,

Dislocated Workers and Youth programs, by funding entity, by program for

Program Year 2013, 2014 and 2015. How will the enactment of WIOA affect

these programs?

Response:

See Schedule XIII regarding Program Year 2013, 2014 and 2015 funding.

WIOA does not materially affect services. Funding will still flow to the same entities

based on federal formulas. WIOA calls for an employer driven system with emphasis

on credentials, skills and pathways. Proposed regulations providing more specificity

are to be published on April 16, 2015.

c. Has the department previously applied for and/or received any discretionary

federal WIA grant monies in FY 2014 or FY 2015? Does the department

anticipate applying for any discretionary federal WIA grants for FY 2016? If so,

please provide information on these grant applications, including budget and

program proposal.

Response:

During FY 2015 the Department applied to the USDOL and received a National

Emergency Grant (NEG) in the amount of $29,385,743 to aid workers that lost their

jobs as a result of the casino closing in Atlantic City. At this time, the Department

does not anticipate applying for additional discretionary WIA grants in FY 16.



60

d. What has the department done to prepare for the implementation of WIOA?

Does the department anticipate any issues?

Response:

LWD and SETC have partnered to address the implementation of WIOA. Work

Groups were created to address each of the New Jersey Department of Labor and

Workforce Development's (LWD) key WIOA components:

Governance

Planning

Performance Accountability

One-Stop Operations

Career Pathways and Industry Partnerships

Services to Individuals with Disabilities

Services to Youth

Each Work Group includes LWD staff, SETC staff, state partners and key stakeholders

and will engage in the following:

Perform an in-depth review of all relevant WIOA provisions;

Work closely with the SETC and with SETC committees;

Conduct outreach to key stakeholders and review input;

Make recommendations to LWD and the SETC on implementation issues;

Identify key policy issues for consideration by the SETC.

LWD and SETC held a two day conference on March 31st and April 1st 2015 at Mercer

Community College. Key stakeholders participated in the conference. Each work

group conducted working sessions to assist LWD and SETC on a path forward to

implement WIOA. Approximately over 250 stakeholders attended the conference.

23. One-Stop Career Centers (OSCCs) are designed to provide a full range of assistance

to job seekers under one roof. Established under the Workforce Investment Act, the centers

offer training referrals, career counseling, job listings, and similar employment-related

services. Customers can visit a center in person or connect to the center's information

through PC or kiosk remote access.

Many of the workforce development training programs in New Jersey are accessed

and managed through OSCCs located in all 21 counties in the State. The OSCCs are funded

through a variety of State and federal sources. Each OSCC is unique in the services it offers

and therefore its funding sources.

http://lwd.state.nj.us/labor/wioa/workgroups/governance/index.html

http://lwd.state.nj.us/labor/wioa/workgroups/planning/index.html

http://lwd.state.nj.us/labor/wioa/workgroups/accountability/index.html

http://lwd.state.nj.us/labor/wioa/workgroups/onestop/index.html

http://lwd.state.nj.us/labor/wioa/workgroups/partnerships/index.html

http://lwd.state.nj.us/labor/wioa/workgroups/disabilities/index.html

http://lwd.state.nj.us/labor/wioa/workgroups/youth/index.html



61

Overall, most OSCCs offer consumers the ability to access unemployment insurance

staff (federally funded), employment services (State and federal funding), and other Social

Service programs. However, research indicates that the OSCCs are not uniformly operated,

and within each center, are not centrally managed. That is, each service provided at the

center has its own manager, either on site or by region.

Question: Please provide, for each OSCC location, the annual budget and

funding sources for the OSCC. For each OSCC, please indicate: the programs or

services provided on site, a description of each program or service, and the

number of staff. How is it determined which services or programs to provide or

exclude from the individual centers?

Response:

The core of the One-stop Career Centers is the Workforce Investment Act program.

Please refer to Schedule XIII for the allocations.

24. P.L. 2009, c. 313 (C.52:38-7 et seq.) requires that any State or local public body, upon

entering into any public works contract in excess of $1,000,000 funded, in whole or in part,

by funds of the public body, or any public works contract of any size which is funded, in

whole or in part, by funds provided to the public body pursuant to the American Recovery

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), must transfer an amount equal to 0.5 percent of the portion

of the contract amount to the DLWD.

The department is required to use the transferred funds to provide on-the-job or off-

the-job outreach and training programs, including programs of preparation for admission

into registered apprenticeships, for minority group members and women in the construction

trades, with opportunities for long-term trade and professional employment providing

economic self-sufficiency for the minority group members and women.

The law excludes certain Statewide authorities from the requirement to transfer the

funds to the department. A Statewide authority which enters into an eligible public works

contract and administers a program providing outreach and training programs for minority

group members and women in the construction trades may retain the funds as necessary for

the program.

P.L.2009, c.335 (C.52:40 -1 et seq.) requires the Contract Compliance and Audit Unit

to determine whether each of the State entities whose performance it monitors has properly

allocated and released to the DLWD, as authorized by law, one-half of one percent of the

total cost o a construction contract of $1,000,000 or more, to be used by the department as

required by that law. This unit, transferred to the DLWD in 2012, but formerly within the

Division of Purchase and Property in the Department of the Treasury, monitors the New



62

Jersey Builders Utilization Initiative for Labor Diversity (NJBUILD) program to ensure that the

set-aside is used to train minorities and women for employment in construction trades.

Additionally, the statute establishes certain reporting requirements and contractual

obligations for businesses contracting with the State regarding the use of small and minority

and women-owned businesses.


department detailed the following programs that were funded or anticipated to be funded

by the department with NJBUILD funds in FY 2015: $210,000 to continue the Helmet to

Hardhats programs, serving 40 participants; $100,000 per grantee to two Youth Build

programs that have been funded by the USDOL, serving 170 participants; the issuance of a

Notice of Grant Opportunity to seek new and innovative programs to train and place women

and minorities in the various construction trades; $221,250 for an Individual Training

Account program for women and minorities in the construction trades (38 grants and 3

workers trained in FY 2014).

The FY 2016 Budget Recommendation contains language authorizing the

appropriation of $470,000 from the NJBUILD Fund for Administration and Support Services

(page D-226), a $10,000 increase over the amount appropriated for this purpose in the

current year. According to the department, this funding is to support the six staff members

and related costs of the Office of Contract Compliance Audit and Equal Employment

Opportunity in Public Contracts.

Question: a. Please provide the amount of revenue the department anticipates

from the 0.5 percent transfer required pursuant to P.L.2009, c.313 in FY 2014 and

estimated for FY 2015. Please detail this revenue by source, be specific as to local

entity, authority, State entity, educational entity, etc.

Response:

See Schedule XVIII



63

b. Please provide information on the programs to be funded with this revenue,

including the approximate budget of each program and clients anticipated to be

served, in FY 2016.

Response:

Our plans depending on the availability of NJBUILD Funding are as follows:

1 - Continue the Helmet to Hardhats (H2H) program at an estimated amount of

$210,000. We estimate this grant would serve 58 participants and place 35 participants;

2 – Continue the NJBUILD-Camden grant opportunity at $150,000 for one grant to

provide pre-apprenticeship services to 20.

3 - Continue to provide State matching funds ($100,000 per grantee) to two Youth Build

programs that have been funded by the US Department of Labor. The Youth Build

programs are expected to serve approximately 170 participants;

4 – Continue to provide $52,500 to the County Apprenticeship Coordinators to market

and provide apprenticeship-training related services to women and minorities in the

building and construction trades.

5 – Issue a Notice of Grant Opportunity (NGO) for NJBUILD Hudson County for $250,000

to train and place 40 individuals. This NGO is similar to the NJ BUILD Camden program.

We anticipate issuing this NGO in the Spring of 2015.

6 - Issue an NGO to seek new and innovative programs to train and place women and

minorities in the various construction trades.

c. What new programs were proposed in FY 2015? What new programs will be

proposed for FY 2016?

Response:

The NJBUILD Program has included multiple components over the years. In FY 2015,

programs include a Helmets to Hardhats (H2H) grant, funding for the County

Apprenticeship Coordinators grants; and NJBUILD Camden and Hudson grants similar to

the previous NJBUILD Newark grant program.

Refer to the response to question 24b for proposed programs in FY 2016.



64

d. Please detail the use of any remaining funds in the NJBUILD account.

Response:

We will use any balances remaining to carry out the plans enumerated in the response to

24b. above.

e. Please account for all of the funds collected for NJBUILD since its inception, by

year and source. Please account for all revenues expended by the NJBUILD fund, by

year and by funded program. Please include any administrative or costs incurred in

addition to the funded programs.

Response:

See Schedule XVIII

25. P.L.2009, c. 200 established the New Jersey Pathways Leading Apprentices to a

College Education (NJ PLACE) program in the State Employment and Training Commission.

This program, in part, facilitated the placement of individuals in apprenticeship programs

that were transferred as academic credit towards the completion of associate degree

programs and in certain instances, baccalaureate degree programs. The law also required

public institutions of higher education, in consultation with the NJ Commission on Higher

Education and the NJ Presidents Council, to establish and enter into a collective Statewide

transfer agreement to provide for the “seamless” transfer of apprenticeship-related associate

degree credits to baccalaureate degree programs, with the Statewide agreement to be fully

operational by September 1, 2011. P.L.2009, c.200 authorized the use for NJ PLACE of WIA

and WDP funds, while P.L.2009, c.313 authorized the use for NJ PLACE of available NJBUILD

funds (of which $13.5 million, as noted in Discussion Point 25 above, was lapsed into the

General Fund.

NJ PLACE was coordinated by Rutgers University and had begun in 2004 “with the

backing of some government entities, a few registered apprenticeship partners and a

handful of interested community colleges. In the years since, NJ PLACE has grown to include

12 apprenticeship partners, all 19 New Jersey community colleges, several key state and

federal government stakeholders, and Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.” In

August 2012, NJ PLACE was honored by the United States Department of Labor as a 21st

Century Apprenticeship Trailblazer and Innovator. As of January 2014, NJ PLACE is being

administered by the SETC and the department has expressed its intention to re-engineer

NJPLACE.



65

Question: a. Please provide the total amount of funding for NJPLACE provided

by the department since inception. Please provide which account or funding

stream supported NJPLACE, specifying the amounts of any funds from WDP,

WIA, or NJBUILD programs, or any other source.

Response:

Total funding used for the NJPLACE program since inception was $1.3 million.

Funding for NJPLACE was previously derived from the Workforce Development

Partnership Fund.

b. Please explain what the department has done to re-engineer NJPLACE.

Please provide details for any new programs that have been created by the

SETC.

Response:

Current Program Operation

The NJPLACE Program remains active and since January 2014 has been

administered by the SETC. The intention is to re-engineer NJPLACE to ensure its

viability and strength as a critical workforce strategy for the 21st Century through

experiential learning strategies and the new federal WIOA law.

NJPLACE operations are housed within the SETC, under the leadership of the

Executive Director and an SETC staff person with significant experience with

NJPLACE, stackable credentials and organized labor.

NJPLACE inquiries, community partners and registered participants are

responded to and managed through both staff and virtual resources (NJPLACE

website, dedicated email, and phone). The program has responded to 75

inquiries for the period 1/2014 – 1/2015.

Although NJPLACE dedicated funding was not available for FY2015, the SETC

redeployed existing staff resources to provide interim leadership for NJPLACE.

This was done to ensure that current and future students had access to the

program during the NJPLACE transition period.

Community College agreements and credit evaluations are in effect for those

current students (NJPLACE/Apprenticeship Programs) who enrolled during the

period the credit evaluation were active evaluation period (2007-2010). While the

credit evaluations for most of the apprenticeship programs expired in 2013, many



66

of the NJ Community Colleges continue to honor the credit evaluation

agreements enrolled individuals.

Industry credentials evaluated in 2012-2013, under an SETC federal training grant,

remain active through 2017-2018 at Thomas Edison State College. Those

credentials focused on Building Performance Industry, Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design, Solar and Geothermal.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

26a. The Governor’s FY 2016 Budget Recommendation provides $42.648 million in Grants-

in-Aid funding for Vocational Rehabilitation Services, of which $14 million is appropriated

through budget language, from the Workforce Development Partnership Fund (D-236) and

$9.114 million is appropriated from the Unemployment Compensation Auxiliary Fund (D-

236).

The FY 2016 Budget Recommendation does not include previous budget language that was

in the FY 2015 Appropriation Act, which appropriated an additional $5 million from the

WDPF to Vocational Rehabilitation Services for Extended Employment activities. This

language was included by the Legislature at the end of the FY 2015 budget process.

Grants-In-Aid funding for Vocational Rehabilitation Services is awarded to

community service providers to support programs such as: Sheltered Workshop

Transportation; Supported Employment Services; Sheltered Workshop Support; and

Independent Living Centers. Prior to the FY 2011 budget, appropriations for each of these

program areas were reflected as individual line items in the Budget Recommendation and

the Appropriations Act. Since the FY 2011 budget, all of these programs have been

consolidated in the more general Vocational Rehabilitation Services line.

As part of the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which was enacted

in July 2014 and takes effect this year, various changes have been made to Vocational

Rehabilitation Services, including two key provisions. The first provision requires state

vocational rehabilitation programs to spend at least 15 percent of their federal allotment on

transition services. Transition services include vocational counseling and guidance,

placement services, job seeking skills, supported employment, and skills training. There was

no prior minimum requirement that states had to spend on transitional services. The second

provision institutes limitations on the use of special wage certificates to employ individuals

with disabilities under the age of 24. This provision is meant to reduce the number of

students with disabilities who move directly from an educational placement to extended

employment services compensated at a subminimum wage.



67

Question: a. For FY 2014, FY 2015 and anticipated for FY 2016, please provide

the amount of Vocational Rehabilitation Services funding received by each

program area as itemized in the FY 2016 Budget Recommendation.

Response:

b. Why was the $5 million appropriation from WDPF for Extended Employment

activities not included in the FY 2016 Budget Recommendation?

Response:

The $5.0 million was added to the Department’s budget during the legislative review

process.

c. What percentage of the department’s federal allotment for state vocational

rehabilitation services has been spent on transition services? Has the

department historically spent more or less than the new 15 percent

requirement?

Response:

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act requires the DVRS to set aside 15%

of its federal grant to provide pre-employment transition services to students with

disabilities. This is a new requirement for the division. Under WIA the DVRS spent

approximately 30% on services to youth. In FFY 2014 the DVRS provided 12,087

technical consultations, attended 870 Individualized Education Program meetings,

and gave 2,683 presentations to school personnel and/or parents/students.

Division of Vocational Rehabilitation BudgetNAME FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016(est)

Vocational Rehabilitation Services - DSS $2,446,000 $2,633,000 $2,704,000

Extended Employment (EE) Transportation $2,788,560 $2,788,560 $2,788,560

Supported Employment Services $5,400,000 $5,400,000 $5,400,000

EE Employment Program 21,406,440 21,406,440 21,406,440

Individuals with Hearing Loss 170,000 170,000 170,000

Independent Living Centers 625,000 625,000 625,000

In Service Training (State Match) 4,000 4,000 4,000

Service to Clients 4,286,000 4,286,000 4,286,000

EE Transportation - Casino Revenue Fund 2,196,000 2,196,000 2,196,000

Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD) 5,540,000 5,772,000

Appr by language from the WDP fund 5,000,000

Total VR Services Grant In Aid 36,876,000 47,416,000 42,648,000

Total VR Budget $39,322,000 $50,049,000 $45,352,000



68

d. How many employers in the State have been issued special wage certificates

to employ individuals with disabilities below minimum wage and how many

employees are paid less than minimum wage under these certificates?

Response:

Based on survey letters mailed last year, there are 86 active sheltered

workshop certificates. The Department does not track the number of workers per

certificate being paid less than minimum wage.

26b. The FY 2015 Appropriation Act included a $5.54 million increase in Grants-in-Aid

funding for Vocational Rehabilitation Services. This increase reflected the implementation of

a plan required by language included in the FY 2014 Appropriations Act (see page B-117 of

the FY 2014 Appropriations Handbook). The language directed the Commissioner of Human

Services and the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development to jointly develop a

plan for the transition of extended employment services, also referred to as Sheltered

Workshop services, and related ancillary services from the Department of Human Services

(DHS) to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.

The language was necessary because DHS had developed new guidelines that

proposed eliminating the funding for clients who chose to be employed in extended

employment programs, as opposed to community settings during the day. The language

required that all clients currently choosing to be employed in extended employment

programs and receiving services from DHS must continue to be able to access extended

employment programs and be provided transportation to these programs. Additionally, any

new clients served by DHS must be provided with the opportunity to access extended

employment programs and be provided transportation to these programs.

The departments’ plan provided for changes to current structures that inhibited the

clients of DHS services from accessing DVR services. For example, regulations (N.J.A.C.12:51–

4.1 and 12:51-8.1) providing that clients enrolled in extended employment through DVR

funding must meet a 20 percent production rate were waived. Some clients, who were being

served by DHS, did not meet the 20 percent production rate.



69

Question: a. Please provide any additional costs incurred by DLWD to facilitate

the placement of clients into extended employment coordinated by DLWD, as

opposed to DHS.

Response:

DVRS received a transfer in the amount of $5,517,285 from DHS for 677 slots. The

amount includes $4,469,565 for extended employment and $1,047,720 for

transportation.

b. What have been the ancillary costs for these clients to transition to DLWD

from DHS?

Response:

DVRS monitors all facilities. Two additional central office staff were hired to provide

extended employment program oversight at $300,000 per year estimated.

c. What are the transportation costs, total and per individual, for clients? What

are the funding sources for transportation costs?

Response:

Total transportation cost was $1,047,720 or an average of $1,547.59 per client per

year. The funding was provided by a transfer of funds by DHS.

WORKPLACE STANDARDS:

27. The Division of Workplace Standards, more recently referred to as Labor Standards

and Safety Enforcement, enforces statutes and rules by inspecting work premises and

conditions. Additionally, the division develops and interprets rules, issues formal variances,

and hears appeals. It also issues certain licenses and permits and issues approval for the

operation of boilers, pressure vessels, and nuclear components.

The department has numerous fees for licenses, permits and inspections. The FY

2016 Budget (page D-222) recommends an appropriation of $16.985 million in non-State

and $4.366 million in State funds next fiscal year for the division. This is approximately

$500,000 more than the amounts appropriated in FY 2015.

According to budget data, for FY2016, it is anticipated that the division will have 171

funded positions, a decrease of one position from the number filled in the current year, but a

reduction of 51 positions since the peak staffing level of 222 in FY2005.



70

Question: a. Please list the revenue collected by the division in FY 2013, FY

2014 and anticipated in FY 2015. Please specify this revenue by the source of

collection, such as fines, license fees, annual fees, etc.

Response:

Please refer to Schedule XIX.

b. Please detail the sources of all non-State funds.

Response:

Please refer to Schedule XIX.

c. For FY 2014, 2015 and the estimate for 2016, how many of the filled positions are

allocated for each of the following categories:

Wage and Hour law enforcement; Child Labor law enforcement; Apparel

Registration and related enforcement; Public Works Prevailing Wage law

enforcement; construction contractor registration; Service Prevailing Wage law

enforcement; Mechanical, Crane Operator, Mine, Pit, Quarry, and Explosive

inspections; Asbestos Control and Licensing; Public Employees Safety; OSHA

Consultant Services; and Mine Safety Training.

For each category, indicate how many of the filled positions are supported by

State funding, federal funding, or other funding.

Response:

2013 2014 actual

2015 estimated

2016 estimated

Funding Source

Wage & Hour 67 64 66 66 State

Child Labor 3 3 3 3 State

Apparel 1 1 1 1 State

Prevailing Wage 15 15 16 17 State

Contractor Registration

10 9 9 10 State

Mechanical (Boiler)

27 28 28 28 State

Cranes 3 4 3 3 State

Mine, Pit, Quarry & Explosives

6 6 5 6 State



71

(includes MSHA Training)

Asbestos Control & Licensing

11 11 13 10 State

PEOSH Safety 20 19 19 19 50% State 50% Federal

OSHA Consultation 13 13 14 14 10% State 90% Federal

Total 176 172 177 177

28. The Division of Workplace Standards is responsible for registering, investigating,

auditing, and penalizing any contractors acting under the Prevailing Wage Act, the State

Building Service Contracts Act, and the Public Works Contractor Registration Act. According

to the department’s response to the OLS Discussion Points in the FY 2014 budget process,

the department received 364 cases of reported violations of the Prevailing Wage Act in FY

2014 and 655 cases for FY 2013. The vast majority of these cases result in violations.

The “New Jersey Prevailing Wage Act,” (P.L.1963, c. 150 (C.34:11-56.25et seq.))

established “a prevailing wage level for workmen engaged in public works in order to

safeguard their efficiency and general well being and to protect them as well as their

employers from the effects of serious and unfair competition resulting from wage levels

detrimental to efficiency and well-being.” Prevailing wage applies to every contract for

public works in excess of $2,000 awarded in whole or in part by the State of New Jersey, any

of its political subdivisions, any authority created by the Legislature of the State of New

Jersey and any instrumentality or agency of the State of New Jersey or any of its political

subdivisions. In addition, prevailing wage applies to every contract for public works in

excess of $15,444 awarded in whole or in part by a municipal public body and to every

subcontract to the contract. “Public works” means construction, reconstruction, demolition,

alteration, custom fabrication, or repair work, or maintenance work, including painting and

decorating, done under contract and paid for by public funds or the same work done on

property or premises owned by the public body or if at least 55% of the property or

premises are leased by a public body and the premises or property is more than 20,000

square feet (N.J.S.A.34:11-56.26).

The commissioner is charged with establishing the prevailing wage rate in each

locality for each craft or trade or classification for all workers needed to perform public work

contracts. (C.34:11-56.30). Prevailing wage rates are based on collective bargaining

agreements established for a particular craft or trade in the locality in which the public work

is performed. The commissioner reviews these rates and establishes them as the prevailing

wage rate for specific localities. Rates vary by county and Statewide and by the type of work

performed. All rates must include the hourly wage rate and fringe benefits. The Public

Contracts Section of the Division of Wage and Hour Compliance in the department makes

the rates available to contractors and to the public



72

(http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/wagehour/wagerate/wage_rates. html). Contractors are

required to maintain records under the Prevailing Wage Act and file a payroll certification

with the public body or lessor. The public body must then retain the payroll certification

records.

Furthermore, P.L.2005,c.379, also known as the State Building Service Contracts Act

(C.34:11-56.58 et seq.) establishes prevailing wage standards for the employees of

contractors and subcontractors furnishing building services for any property or premises

owned or leased by the State. The employer must maintain records of name, classification,

and actual hourly rate of wages and any benefits paid for each employee for at least two

years. The department is responsible for investigating and auditing any employer that is

engaged in a public works contact. The department is given statutory authority to

investigate the employers’ records and workplace. The department may also fine the

employer for any violations.

Question: a. How many complaints has the department received on prevailing

wage violations in FY 2014 and thus far in FY 2015? How many violations of the

Prevailing Wage Act has the department determined in FY 2014 and thus far in

FY 2015?

Response:

FY 2014: 804 complaints with 381 violations. All complaints were investigated.

FY 2015 to date: 521 complaints with 175 violations. All complaints were

investigated.

b. How many complaints has the department received on State Building Service

Contracts Act violations in FY 2014 and thus far in FY 2015? How many

violations of the State Building Service Contracts Act has the department

determined in FY 2014and thus far in FY 2015?

Response:

FY 2014: 1 complaint

FY 2015 to date: 0 complaints

29. Anyone interested in bidding on or engaging in any contract (or part thereof) for

public work which is subject to the provisions of the Prevailing Wage Act must register with

the Division of Wage and Hour Compliance in the department as required by “The Public

Works Contractor Registration Act” (PWCRA), P.L. 1999, c.238 (C.34:11-56.48 et seq.) which

establishes a unified procedure for the registration of contractors and subcontractors

engaged in public works building projects. The PWCRA requires an annual registration fee of



73

$300. After successful completion of two consecutive years of registration, a contractor may

elect to register for a two year period and pay a registration fee of $500. Upon registration,

the contractor and/or subcontractor will be issued a certificate indicating compliance with

the requirements of the act. Public bodies are expected to require proof of registration of all

contractors bidding on the project and all subcontractors identified in such bids.” Following

are the fees and number of registrations per year, for the last six years, from budget data

(page D-231 through D-234 in FY 2016):

Public Works Contractor Registration Act Registrations Issued

State Available

State Expended

State Receipts

Re-appropriated

FY 2014 8,112 $3,272 $2,367 $2,764 $58

FY 2013 7,973 $3,269 $2,086 $2,325 $494

FY 2012 8,464 $4,895 $1,903 $610 $3,835

FY 2011 8,487 $5,510 $3,175 $2,775 $2,825

FY 2010 8,853 $5,943 $3,657 $2,602 $2,891

FY 2009 8,345 $4,989 $2,114 $2,519 $2,020

Question: Is this revenue entirely reflective of the number of registrations issued each

year or is there any other revenue being reported in the State receipts? How much has

been appropriated from the Public Works Contractor Registration Act fund?

Response:

The State receipts displayed above are in addition to the amounts appropriated from the

PWCRA fund. From FY 2008 to FY 2011 and FY 2013 and FY 2014, $500,000 per year was

appropriated from the PWCRA account. In FY 2012, $2.5 million was appropriated from the

PWCRA account.

MINIMUM WAGE

30. The voters of New Jersey approved SCR1 SCS of 2012 on November 5, 2013. This

Constitutional Amendment added paragraph 23 to Article I of the State Constitution, setting

the minimum wage at $8.25 per hour and permitting cost of living increases based on

increase in the consumer price index. The cost of living increases are added to any

subsequent increase in the minimum wage rate made by State or federal law. The cost of

living increases are based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical

Workers (CPI-W). On January 1, 2015, the minimum wage for New Jersey increased from

$8.25 to $8.38 per hour.

Furthermore, the New Jersey Minimum Wage Advisory Commission was established

on April 12, 2005, by P.L.2005, c.70 (N.J.S.A.34:11-56a4.7). The commission is charged with



74

reporting annually to the Governor and the Legislature on its findings regarding the

adequacy of the minimum wage and its recommendations as to whether the minimum wage

should be increased and to what level. The law required the first annual report to be

submitted between October 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007, and requires subsequent

reports to be provided in one-year intervals thereafter. The last report from the commission

was submitted on January 2012.

Question: a. What impact, if any, did the increase in the minimum wage have

on employment levels in New Jersey?

Response:

This is a complex question for which we do not have the resources at our disposal to

provide a response. The answer to this question would be better suited to a New

Jersey college or university that has the appropriate expertise and resources at its

disposal to properly analyze and evaluate the impact of the legislation.

b. As of December 31, 2014 how many persons were employed in New Jersey

earning less than the minimum wage, earning $8.38 per hour, and earning more

than the minimum wage?

Response:

Data for this measurement is derived from the New Jersey portion of monthly

Current Population Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. A 12-month

moving average of the monthly data ending in December 2014 estimates that there

were 73,400 residents in New Jersey earning the minimum wage at that time of $8.25

per hour. It is also estimated that 2,000 residents were earning between $8.26 and

$8.37 per hour. Therefore, the change in the minimum wage to $8.38 potentially

affected 75,400 New Jersey residents.

c. Please provide the department’s best estimate of the automatic annual

increases of the minimum wage in 2015 and 2016.

Response:

The annual adjustment in New Jersey’s minimum wage is based on the change in the

CPI-W U.S. City Average (not seasonally adjusted), produced by the U. S. Bureau of

Labor Statistics, for the prior one-year period, August – August. The data to calculate

the 2016 and 2017 changes are not yet available, however, if we assume that the rate

of inflation remains constant at the rate of change used for the 2015 calculation (1.59

percent increase) the rates for 2016 and 2017 will be $8.51 and $8.65 respectively.



75

d. Please provide a status update on the New Jersey Minimum Wage Advisory

Commission. Why has the commission not released a report for CY 2013 and CY

2014? Will the commission issue a report in CY 2015?

Response:

On November 5, 2013, New Jersey voters approved a constitutional amendment

implementing a process for annually setting the New Jersey minimum hourly wage

and also raising it to $8.25 starting on January 1, 2014.

The amendment tied future annual minimum wage adjustments to changes in the

Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). As a result of this process, the 2015 minimum wage

was raised to $8.38 on January 1, 2015.

Since the role of the Minimum Wage Commission to analyze and suggest changes

and adjustments to the minimum wage was unnecessary after the process was

codified, the Commission did not meet after December 2012.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION:

31. In FY 2013, the Office of Workforce Initiatives and Development (OWID) was

transferred from the Department of the Treasury to the Civil Service Commission (CSC)

located in, but not of, the DLWD.

The OWID compiles information on the human resources and training needs of State

government; provides online training courses to employees of State government agencies;

offers basic guidance and referrals through the Employee Advisory Services; and investigates

and hears appeals related to Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action

requirements for public employers and employees. The Office generates revenue through

fees paid by other State departments and municipalities to utilize the services of the Office.

In FY 2012, prior to the transfer of the Office from the Department of the Treasury to

the CSC, the operations of the Human Resource Development Institute (HRDI) were shifted

from an in-classroom training program to an online management system offering

mandatory training to all State government employees on policy issues such as ethics,

workplace violence, and diversity. However, according to the OWID’s responses to the OLS

Discussion Points during the FY 2014 budget process, after the transfer of OWID to the CSC

in FY 2013, a combined learning approach including e-learning and more traditional

instructor-led training was implemented. The OWID formed a partnership with the NJ

Community College Consortium for Workforce and Economic Development to deliver

training.



76

In FY 2012, the Office initiated a fee schedule charged to all State agencies, based on

the number of employees. As of March 2013, the Office had collected $1.1 million in FY 2013

and $1.8 million in FY 2014.

Question: a. Please provide the fee schedule charged to each State agency for

the Office’s services.

Response:

Number of Agency Employees Annual Fees

Less than 200 $ 1,500.00

201 to 300 $ 5,000.00

301 to 500 $ 7,500.00

501 to 900 $ 15,000.00

901 to 1200 $ 20,000.00

1201 to 2500 $ 35,000.00

2501 to 3500 $ 60,000.00

3501 to 5000 $ 80,000.00

Over 5000 $ 100,000.00



77

b. How much revenue was collected through these fees in FY 2014, thus far in

FY 2015 and anticipated in the remainder of FY 2015 and for FY 2016?

Response:

Civil Service Commission

Fees - Training and Development

FY 2014 FY 15 Actual FY 15 Balance Total FY 2016

Development Fees Actual as of 3/30/15 Projected FY 2015 Projected

Training

LMS Licenses* 783,000 717,000 750 717,750 600,000

Course Fees - Federal** 483,417 364,724 141,919 506,643

Course fees - Other 920,339 323,519 148,000 471,519 250,000

Total Training 2,186,756 1,405,243 290,669 1,695,912 850,000

Employee Advisory Service 199,395 112,290 37,710 150,000 150,000

Total Development Fees 2,386,151 1,517,533 328,379 1,845,912 1,000,000

Notes:

*LMS Licenses in FY 2014 were inflated due to collections posted from the previous year.

**Course Fees - Federal revenues from grants may not be available in FY 2016.

c. How many State employees have accessed the online training offered

through the Office in FY 2014, thus far in FY 2015 and anticipated in the

remainder of FY 2015 and for FY 2016?

Response:

In FY 2014, there were approximately 51,625 users who have licenses for the

learning management system. In FY 2015, there are approximately 49,084

users who have licenses for the learning management system as of 3/31/15.

It is anticipated that the number of State employees who have LMS licenses

will remain constant in the remainder of FY 2015 and in FY 2016.



78

d. What are the costs for employees to attend trainings coordinated by the NJ

Community College Consortium for Workforce and Economic Development?

Are these costs reimbursed on a per employee basis or on a contractually

agreed upon annual fee?

Response:

The partnership between the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the NJ Community

College Consortium (NJCC Consortium) separates the training and development

tasks between the two entities. CSC performs the customer contact, training needs

analysis, course and guide development and evaluation, while the Consortium does

the actual training delivery and supplemental materials. The average price per

student is $159 for single day courses prices are subject to change based upon

program presented. Agencies may also choose to contract with CSC for a class and

reduced pricing.

Schedules

SCHEDULE I

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

TALENT NETWORK PERFORMANCE METRICS ‐ JULY 2014 ‐ FEBRUARY 2015

Advanced M

anufacturing

Financial Servies

Health Care

Life Sciences

Transportation Logistics & Distribution

Technology & Entrepreneurship

Retail/Hospitality/Tourism

‐ North

Retail/Hospitality/Tourism

‐ South

Recovery (Ended

Dec 31, 2014)

Connections to Business(1) Participate in all industry specific Rapid

Response events6 3 6 8 7 0 5 51 0

(2) Educate businesses on State programs and

services51 44 82 66 55 147 76 48 56

(3) Educate sector businesses on issues such as

salary data, wage trends and the cost of turnover

based on industry information provided by LWD51 44 82 66 55 147 76 48 56

(4) Promote the use of Jobs4Jersey.com (or other

similar LWD tools) for listing job openings and

searching for job candidates

51 44 82 66 55 147 76 48

(5) Host a Statewide Industry Week Sept 28‐Oct

2015

Jan 12‐16

2015

Apr 6‐10

2015

Apr 20‐25

2015

May11‐15

2015

Apr 13‐17

2015

May 5‐9

2015

May 4‐8

2015N/A

(6) Number of sector businesses that utilize On‐

the‐Job Training (OJT)73 34 43 3 27 36 N/A

Connections to Jobseekers

(1) Provide re‐employment information, tools

and opportunities for dislocated workers6 12 17 14 14 38 29 27 2

(2) Host networking events for jobseekers 6 12 17 14 14 38 29 27 2

(3) Provide sector‐specific workshops at each

Jersey Job Club13 27 18 12 9 15 12 13 8

(1) Attend monthly Talent Network director

meetings held by LWD7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 5

(3) Provide professional development trainings

on the sector to all OSCC staff and partners

throughout all regions (north/central/south)(4) Meet and partner with other state

agencies/departments to address business needs

as coordinated by LWD25 11 9 20 14 16 24 14 9

Connections to Higher Education and Training Providers

(1) Broker the delivery of customized workforce

group training curriculums, participants and

training courses that result in job placement

1 12 3 7 5 2 2 3 4

(2) Build relationships with higher institutions'

career placement staff to education staff and

students on job opportunities within the industry

sector and to promote the use of

Jobs4Jersey.com as the exclusive job portal

30 32 23 27 10 25 16 11 10

(3) Partner with educators and school counselors

in high schools as well as colleges to create

career awareness for the industry sector to their

students describing the types and availability of

jobs, internship opportunities, the training needs

required, and the career paths of the sector

30 32 23 27 10 25 16 11 10

Connections to Social Media

(1) Maintain a Talent Network website that

promotes LWD, Jobs4Jersey.com, Jersey Job

Clubs and other LWD programs and services

(2) Maintain a LinkedIn group (2/1/14‐3/1/15)587 467 339 2,919 90+ 293 531 341 152

(3) Maintain a Talent Network Twitter account

(2/1/14‐3/1/15)566 59 374 568 57+ 245 431 345 1,583

Connections to the State of NJ including LWD, the

WIBs and One‐Stop Career Center staff

April ‐ June 2015

ONGOING

72

Qeustion 1b

Schedule II

ACTUAL ACTUAL EST. EST. EST. EST.7/13 7/14 7/15 7/16 7/17 7/18

UCTF Account 3/31 32.4$ 32.6$ 277.8$ 867.3$ 1,398.5$ 1,732.3$ Accrued Contributions 1,232.6 1,179.5 1,116.8 1,132.6 1,037.2 952.2 Benefits Payable (UI only) (42.2) (43.6) (43.0) (43.0) (43.0) (43.0) Reed Act & Stimulus Admin (32.4) (32.6) (32.6) (10.6) - - Loan Balance 3/31 (1,142.0) (409.0) - - - - All other assets & liabilities 126.6 65.2 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 Fund Balance 175.0$ 792.1$ 1,379.0$ 2,006.3$ 2,452.7$ 2,701.5$

Taxable Wages 75,229.8$ 77,797.2$ 80,106.5$ 82,429.6$ 85,232.2$ 85,644.3$

Reserve Rate statutory 1.02% 1.72% 2.43% 2.88% 3.15%

Table E E E D C B

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION FUNDTAX TABLE COMPUTATIONS

JULY 2013 - JULY 2019(in millions)

Question 2a

SCHEDULE III

BEG EMPLOYER WORKER TOTAL FUTA INTEREST REED ACT END LOANMONTH BLNCE CONT CONT CONT CREDITS INCOME OTHER STIM ADM BENEFITS LOAN BLNCE BALANCE

JULY 2013 $32.4 609.3$ 88.4$ 697.7$ (0.2)$ -$ 17.5$ -$ 207.4$ (351.4)$ 188.6$ -$ AUGUST 188.6 59.4 (0.2) 59.2 (0.6) 22.3 (0.2) 188.3 - 81.4 - SEPTEMBER 81.4 6.4 - 6.4 0.2 12.4 - 172.9 105.1 32.6 105.1 OCTOBER 32.6 382.2 53.0 435.2 - 0.4 17.6 - 192.9 (105.1) 187.8 - NOVEMBER 187.8 28.3 2.9 31.2 0.1 0.1 31.9 - 165.3 85.8 - DECEMBER 85.8 3.6 0.1 3.7 0.5 0.4 6.4 - 210.0 145.8 32.6 145.8 JANUARY 2014 32.6 284.7 39.7 324.4 0.2 0.1 18.0 - 250.3 (92.4) 32.6 53.4 FEBRUARY 32.6 (7.6) (4.8) (12.4) - 59.2 - 216.4 169.6 32.6 223.0 MARCH 32.6 37.1 5.8 42.9 1.0 2.9 (14.9) - 217.9 186.0 32.6 409.0 APRIL 32.6 144.4 31.1 175.5 - 0.8 (0.8) - 215.8 40.3 32.6 449.3 MAY 32.6 852.9 114.6 967.5 0.2 - 36.6 - 169.4 (449.3) 418.2 - JUNE 418.2 9.5 0.2 9.7 0.6 2.7 5.4 - 163.0 273.6 - TOTAL $32.4 2,410.2$ 330.8$ 2,741.0$ 2.0$ 7.4$ 211.6$ (0.2)$ 2,369.6$ (351.4)$ 273.6$

ASSUMPTIONS: 1. Table E was used. 2. The UI taxable wages will increase by 3.4% in CY 2014.3. The disbursements are net of RBC and CWC benefits.4. Actual information used for July - February.5. March data reflects actual information 3/1-3/11.

BEG EMPLOYER WORKER TOTAL INTEREST ENDMONTH BLNCE CONT CONT CONT INCOME OTHER BENEFITS BLNCE IUR TUR

JULY 2014 $273.6 595.0$ 86.3$ 681.3$ -$ 30.7$ 198.4$ 787.2$ 3.3% 6.5%AUGUST 787.2 40.1 5.0 45.1 28.0 195.6 664.7 3.2 6.6 SEPTEMBER 664.7 (1.6) (1.4) (3.0) 3.0 14.1 169.4 509.4 3.1 6.5 OCTOBER 509.4 376.7 56.5 433.2 (1.0) 170.4 771.2 3.2 6.6 NOVEMBER 771.2 28.1 3.1 31.2 17.8 154.4 665.8 3.1 6.4 DECEMBER 665.8 7.0 0.6 7.6 3.5 18.6 199.1 496.4 3.1 6.2 JANUARY 2015 496.4 56.8 10.0 66.8 (6.2) 213.9 343.1 3.1 6.3 FEBRUARY 343.1 238.4 33.7 272.1 40.5 205.6 450.1 3.1 6.3 MARCH 450.1 11.0 0.4 11.4 2.4 5.0 191.1 277.8 3.1 6.3 APRIL 277.8 65.6 9.4 75.0 5.0 170.7 187.1 3.0 6.1 MAY 187.1 884.0 137.4 1,021.4 15.0 146.3 1,077.2 3.0 6.1 JUNE 1,077.2 18.0 2.4 20.4 4.0 15.0 153.3 963.3 3.0 6.1 TOTAL $273.6 2,319.1$ 343.4$ 2,662.5$ 12.9$ 182.5$ 2,168.2$ 963.3$

ASSUMPTIONS: 1. Table E is used.2. Actual information used July - February.3. $32.6 million is reserved for Reed Act & Stimulus Adm.4. The UI taxable wages will increase by 2.9% in CY 2015.5. The disbursements March - June are net of RBC and CWC benefits.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TRUST FUND ACCOUNTCASH FLOW ANALYSIS

(in millions)

FY 2014

FY 2015

Question 2aa Page 1 of 2

SCHEDULE III ‐CONTINUED

BEG EMPLOYER WORKER TOTAL INTEREST REED ENDMONTH BLNCE CONT CONT CONT INCOME ACT BENEFITS BLNCE IUR TUR

JULY 2015 $963.3 511.0$ 76.2$ 587.2$ -$ 1.0$ 183.3$ 1,367.2$ 3.0% 6.1%AUGUST 1,367.2 61.0 11.0 72.0 2.0 164.3 1,274.9 3.0 6.1 SEPTEMBER 1,274.9 22.6 0.6 23.2 - 2.0 151.5 1,146.6 3.0 6.1 OCTOBER 1,146.6 59.8 11.0 70.8 2.0 149.5 1,067.9 3.0 6.0 NOVEMBER 1,067.9 325.0 44.2 369.2 3.0 154.9 1,282.2 3.0 6.0 DECEMBER 1,282.2 8.8 2.6 11.4 - 3.0 187.5 1,106.1 3.0 6.0 JANUARY 2016 1,106.1 57.4 8.0 65.4 3.0 193.7 977.8 3.0 6.0 FEBRUARY 977.8 221.2 31.0 252.2 3.0 193.9 1,036.1 3.0 6.0 MARCH 1,036.1 11.0 0.4 11.4 - 3.0 199.7 847.8 3.0 6.0 APRIL 847.8 66.4 9.6 76.0 3.0 162.9 760.9 2.9 5.8 MAY 760.9 894.0 142.0 1,036.0 3.6 152.9 1,644.0 2.9 5.8 JUNE 1,644.0 18.2 2.4 20.6 - 4.0 153.1 1,511.5 2.9 5.8 TOTAL $963.3 2,256.4$ 339.0$ 2,595.4$ -$ 32.6$ 2,047.2$ 1,511.5$

ASSUMPTIONS: 1. Table E is used.2. The disbursements are net of RBC and CWC benefits.3. The UI taxable wages will increase by 2.9% in CY 2015 and 3.4% in CY 2016.4. Reed Act & Stimulus Adm Expense will be $32.6 million.

BEG EMPLOYER WORKER TOTAL INTEREST ENDMONTH BLNCE CONT CONT CONT INCOME BENEFITS BLNCE IUR TUR

JULY 2016 $1,511.5 61.8$ 11.4$ 73.2$ -$ 167.3$ 1,417.4$ 2.9% 5.8%AUGUST 1,417.4 516.8 78.8 595.6 179.7 1,833.3 2.9 5.8 SEPTEMBER 1,833.3 22.8 0.6 23.4 - 151.5 1,705.2 2.9 5.8 OCTOBER 1,705.2 290.0 45.6 335.6 142.7 1,898.1 2.9 5.7 NOVEMBER 1,898.1 53.2 11.4 64.6 162.1 1,800.6 2.9 5.7 DECEMBER 1,800.6 7.8 2.8 10.6 - 179.3 1,631.9 2.9 5.7 JANUARY 2017 1,631.9 197.2 32.2 229.4 202.9 1,658.4 2.9 5.7 FEBRUARY 1,658.4 51.2 8.2 59.4 184.9 1,532.9 2.9 5.7 MARCH 1,532.9 9.8 0.4 10.2 - 199.9 1,343.2 2.9 5.7 APRIL 1,343.2 59.4 10.0 69.4 155.3 1,257.3 2.8 5.5 MAY 1,257.3 801.2 147.6 948.8 159.7 2,046.4 2.8 5.5 JUNE 2,046.4 16.4 2.6 19.0 - 153.1 1,912.3 2.8 5.5 TOTAL $1,511.5 2,087.6$ 351.6$ 2,439.2$ -$ 2,038.4$ 1,912.3$

ASSUMPTIONS: 1. Table D is used.2. The disbursements are net of RBC and CWC benefits.3. The UI taxable wages will increase by 3.4% in CY 2016 and 3.9% in CY 2017.

BEG EMPLOYER WORKER TOTAL INTEREST ENDMONTH BLNCE CONT CONT CONT INCOME BENEFITS BLNCE IUR TUR

JULY 2017 $1,912.3 463.2$ 82.0$ 545.2$ -$ 167.3$ 2,290.2$ 2.8% 5.4%AUGUST 2,290.2 55.4 11.8 67.2 179.5 2,177.9 2.8 5.4 SEPTEMBER 2,177.9 20.4 0.8 21.2 - 144.5 2,054.6 2.8 5.4 OCTOBER 2,054.6 258.2 47.4 305.6 149.3 2,210.9 2.8 5.4 NOVEMBER 2,210.9 47.4 11.8 59.2 162.1 2,108.0 2.8 5.4 DECEMBER 2,108.0 7.0 2.8 9.8 - 171.1 1,946.7 2.8 5.4 JANUARY 2018 1,946.7 175.6 33.4 209.0 212.3 1,943.4 2.8 5.3 FEBRUARY 1,943.4 45.6 8.6 54.2 185.1 1,812.5 2.8 5.3 MARCH 1,812.5 8.8 0.4 9.2 - 191.7 1,630.0 2.8 5.3 APRIL 1,630.0 53.2 10.6 63.8 168.9 1,524.9 2.8 5.3 MAY 1,524.9 717.0 154.2 871.2 165.5 2,230.6 2.8 5.3 JUNE 2,230.6 14.6 2.6 17.2 - 151.5 2,096.3 2.8 5.3 TOTAL $1,912.3 1,866.4$ 366.4$ 2,232.8$ -$ 2,048.8$ 2,096.3$

ASSUMPTIONS: 1. Table C is used.2. The disbursements are net of RBC and CWC benefits.3. The UI taxable wages will increase by 3.9% in CY 2017 and 4.4% in CY 2018.

FY 2017

FY 2018

(in millions)

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION TRUST FUND ACCOUNTCASH FLOW ANALYSIS

FY 2016

Question 2aa page 2 of 2

SCHEDULE IV

2013 2014 2015 2016Actual Estimated Estimated Estimated

Fund Balance July 1 $4,226 $2,955 $4,759 $4,520Fund Balance June 30 $2,955 $4,759 $4,520 $281

Actual Actual Estimated EstimatedFY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016

Administration $538 $550 $538 $538

Administration (language) 550 550

UC Earned Income Tax Credit Costs 150 150

UI Activities 2,500 5,000 16,000 DVR - DSS 2,446 2,259 2,704 2,704 Disadvantaged Youth Employment Opportunities Council

50 50

Board of Mediation 484 393 491 491

Council on Gender Parity 72 67 72 72

DVR - GIA 14,114 14,114 14,114 9,114 (1)NJ Youth Corps 475 475 475 475

Total $18,129 $20,358 $24,144 $30,144

(1)$5.0 milllion in funding for DVR is being charged to the WDP fund in FY 2016.

Unemployment Compensation Auxiliary Fund Balances(Accrual Basis)

(thousands of dollars)

Unemployment Compensation Auxiliary Fund Expenditures(thousands of dollars)

Question 3a

Schedule V

SHARED COSTS TAX COLLECTION ALLOCATION

100.00% 35.85% 17.90% 1.49% 55.24% 44.76% 100.00%Joint Tax Total Costs TDI FLI WDPF (6) Cat Ill RTK PP Sbtl UI TotalFY 2010 21,038,871 7,542,435 3,765,958 313,479 11,621,872 9,416,999 21,038,871

FY 2011 21,553,891 7,727,070 3,858,147 321,153 11,906,370 9,647,521 21,553,891

FY 2012 21,786,078 7,810,309 3,899,709 324,613 12,034,630 9,751,448 21,786,078

FY 2013 21,530,673 7,718,746 3,853,990 320,807 11,893,544 9,637,129 21,530,673

FY 2014 21,778,791 7,819,893 3,849,793 360,918 12,030,604 9,748,187 21,778,791

Revised Allocations (5) 100.00% 24.23% 5.60% 11.55% 1.05% 0.10% 0.10% 42.63% 57.37% 100.00%FY 2015 (1) 21,817,445 5,286,367 1,221,777 2,519,915 229,083 21,817 21,817 9,300,776 12,516,669 21,817,445

FY 2016 (2) 22,253,793 5,392,094 1,246,213 2,570,313 233,665 22,253 22,253 9,486,791 12,767,002 22,253,793

100.00% 35.76% 17.88% 1.54% 0.89% 0.06% 0.06% 56.19% 43.81% 100.00%Division of Revenue Total Costs TDI FLI WDPF Cat Ill RTK PP Sbtl UI TotalFY 2010 2,869,619 1,026,176 513,088 44,192 25,540 1,722 1,722 1,612,440 1,257,179 2,869,619

FY 2011 2,641,998 944,779 472,389 40,687 23,514 1,585 1,585 1,484,539 1,157,459 2,641,998

FY 2012 2,897,359 1,036,096 518,048 44,619 25,786 1,738 1,738 1,628,025 1,269,334 2,897,359

FY 2013 2,443,911 873,943 436,971 37,636 21,751 1,466 1,466 1,373,233 1,070,677 2,443,910

FY 2014 1,879,819 672,222 336,111 28,949 17,604 1,128 1,128 1,057,142 822,674 1,879,816

Revised Allocations (5) 100.00% 29.92% 24.76% 11.98% 2.77% 0.27% 0.26% 69.96% 30.04% 100.00%FY 2015 (3) 1,917,415 573,691 474,752 229,706 53,112 5,177 4,985 1,341,423 575,991 1,917,414

FY 2016 (4) 1,955,763 585,165 484,247 234,300 54,174 5,281 5,085 1,368,252 587,511 1,955,763

Total Shared Costs Total Costs TDI FLI WDPF Cat Ill RTK PP Sbtl UI TotalFY 2010 23,908,490 8,568,611 4,279,046 357,671 25,540 1,722 1,722 13,234,312 10,674,178 23,908,490

FY 2011 24,195,889 8,671,849 4,330,536 361,840 23,514 1,585 1,585 13,390,909 10,804,980 24,195,889

FY 2012 24,683,437 8,846,405 4,417,757 369,232 25,786 1,738 1,738 13,662,655 11,020,782 24,683,437

FY 2013 23,974,583 8,592,689 4,290,961 358,443 21,751 1,466 1,466 13,266,777 10,707,806 23,974,583

FY 2014 23,658,607 8,492,115 4,185,904 389,867 17,604 1,128 1,128 13,087,746 10,570,861 23,658,607

FY 2015 23,734,859 5,860,058 1,696,529 2,749,621 282,195 26,994 26,802 10,642,199 13,092,660 23,734,859

FY 2016 24,209,556 5,977,259 1,730,460 2,804,613 287,839 27,534 27,338 10,855,043 13,354,513 24,209,556

(1) Joint Tax for FY 2015 represents actual costs for July 2014 to December 2014 projected through June 2015.(2) Joint Tax costs for FY 2016 are based on FY 2015 projections with a 2.0% COLA built in.(3) Division of Revenue costs for FY 2015 are based on FY 2014 with a 2.0% COLA built in.(4) Division of Revenue costs for FY 2016 are based on FY 2015 projections with a 2.0% COLA built in.(5) In accordance with USDOL TEGL 06-05, an updated Joint Cost Allocation Plan was developed for SFY 2015 which revises allocation percentages among the programs.(6) WDPF includes WDP and SWFBS

Question 11b

BEG INTEREST ADM SUPP LOAN TRF TO TRF FR ENDCY BLNCE ASSMT INCOME EXP BENEFITS BENEFITS TO UEF GEN FND ADJ GEN FND BLNCE

2005 28.7$ 160.3$ 1.3$ 23.7$ 90.8$ 53.3$ 0.3$ -$ -$ -$ 22.2$ 2006 22.2 154.9 1.7 15.8 99.0 51.7 (0.8) 5.0 8.1 2007 8.1 167.5 1.0 5.3 113.1 50.6 0.1 7.7 2008 7.7 182.5 0.3 23.5 116.0 48.3 4.8 7.5 2009 7.5 180.2 0.1 25.1 121.4 49.4 (8.1) 2010 (8.1) 167.9 23.6 126.2 50.1 (40.1) 2011 (40.1) 183.1 25.4 135.1 45.4 17.5 (45.4) 2012 (45.4) 220.9 33.0 140.7 41.7 (39.9) 2013 (39.9) 230.5 19.7 148.0 38.0 (15.1) 2014 (15.1) 232.7 37.8 155.9 32.3 (8.4) 2015 est (8.4) 242.9 0.1 39.0 155.2 34.9 5.5 2016 est 5.5 224.3 1.4 26.5 161.6 31.4 11.7 2017 est 11.7 225.5 1.7 27.0 167.6 28.4 15.9

NOTE:

Schedule VI

The Compensation Rating and Inspection Bureau determines the yearly assessment rate. The rate is multiplied by the Earned Modified Premium to determine the surcharge an employer is charged for the Second Injury fund.

CASH FLOW INFORMATIONCALENDAR YEARS 2005 - 2017

(in millions)

SECOND INJURY FUND

Question 12a

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR THE SECOND INJURY FUND

CY 2005‐2016Schedule VI A

Minor Object Name Minor 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Obj.

Salaries 12 11,249,776$ 11,061,129$ 11,964,813$ 12,745,701$ 12,040,479$ 12,524,017$ 11,788,239$ 12,258,520$ 11,760,489$ 11,663,676$ 12,014,000$ 12,374,000$

Fringe Benefits 19 3,711,035 4,219,082 3,862,316 4,995,304 4,610,424 4,525,115 5,074,501 5,720,761 6,401,458 6,890,690 4,995,000 5,673,000

Total PS & PB 14,960,811 15,280,211 15,827,129 17,741,005 16,650,903 17,049,132 16,862,740 17,979,281 18,161,947 18,554,366 17,009,000 18,047,000

Supplies 21 57,695 23,114 150,744 21,166 43,890 24,558 121,032 116,192 109,689 102,202 104,000 106,000

24 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,680 109 ‐ ‐

Total Supplies 57,695 23,114 150,744 21,166 43,890 24,558 121,032 116,192 111,369 102,311 104,000 106,000

Travel 30 26,268 21,815 21,744 13,227 32,220 23,932 22,866 23,843 28,088 37,271 38,000 39,000

Telephone 31 143,593 114,585 147,501 114,759 114,917 93,664 (221,315) 290,591 199,195 157,738 161,000 164,000

Postage 32 200,381 158,747 192,133 335,660 282,374 196,824 85,095 170,342 151,763 183,908 188,000 192,000

Software / Comp. Rental 34 158,403 78,346 89,934 142,670 111,722 441,345 485,930 676,390 614,343 575,487 587,000 599,000

Household & Security 35 122,899 178,607 136,821 252,206 313,629 386,764 405,833 422,629 387,612 421,046 429,000 438,000

Prof Services 36 199,327 255,339 91,535 26,685 135,512 53,179 8,198 868 9,409 (118) ‐ ‐

Other 38 349,611 100,408 1,200,550 1,051,008 1,312,053 1,027,983 1,374,152 1,046,895 1,279,272 1,108,046 1,130,000 1,153,000

Office Info Technology 39 123,868 329,869 165,029 588,787 858,168 319,939 449,814 471,152 454,760 394,824 403,000 411,000

Total Services 1,324,350 1,237,715 2,045,247 2,525,002 3,160,595 2,543,630 2,610,573 3,102,710 3,124,442 2,878,202 2,936,000 2,996,000

Maint ‐ Bldg Grounds 40 95 3,666 204 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 500 16,515 17,000 17,000

Maint ‐ Equipment 41 13,102 5,392 8,305 17,349 7,885 30,783 10,324 2,566 9,147 10,610 11,000 11,000

Rent ‐ Bldg Grounds 44 3,242,070 3,565,481 4,047,787 3,555,178 3,862,202 3,903,800 2,801,929 2,917,668 4,381,904 2,443,243 3,481,000 3,551,000

Rent ‐ CMP 45 2,815 1,387 347 775 495 223 39 26 14,157 78 ‐ ‐

Rent ‐ Other 47 13,590 15,618 15,564 17,472 18,741 15,907 15,875 22,626 19,123 19,618 20,000 20,000

Total Rental 3,271,672 3,591,544 4,072,207 3,590,774 3,889,323 3,950,713 2,828,167 2,942,886 4,424,832 2,490,064 3,529,000 3,599,000

Indirect Costs 5810 89,672 82,698 150,291 141,543 70,706 135,063 102,976 161,363 271,013 75,312 77,000 79,000

NPS ‐ AS&T 5815 241,255 309,416 282,689 233,557 232,565 181,344 262,928 65,917 36,199 167,323 171,000 174,000

Total Indirects 330,927 392,114 432,980 375,100 303,271 316,407 365,904 227,280 307,212 242,635 248,000 253,000

Other Equipment 76 154,370 158,457 15,406 108,765 4,311 2,355 3,027 16,418 6,675 19,262 20,000 20,000

Info Proc Equipment 77 81,265 99,612 15,622 16,468 35,367 1,446 44,559 81,436 13,579 7,284 20,000 20,000

Total Equipment 235,635 258,069 31,028 125,233 39,678 3,801 47,586 97,854 20,254 26,546 40,000 40,000

Grand Total 20,181,090$ 20,782,767$ 22,559,336$ 24,378,279$ 24,087,660$ 23,888,241$ 22,836,002$ 24,466,203$ 26,150,056$ 24,294,124$ 23,866,000$ 25,041,000$

2005 to 2014 are actual. 2015 & 2016 are estimated.

Question 12a

NJDLWD ‐ Second Injury Fund

Individuals Eligible for Benefits

After 1979

Schedule VII

CY of Fund Average Weekly Average

Eligibility # Benefit Age

1980 16 $623.03 81.07

1981 13 $638.49 81.53

1982 32 $601.16 83.32

1983 21 $506.29 82.22

1984 33 $465.33 80.29

1985 39 $432.25 79.84

1986 50 $430.78 80.64

1987 46 $363.36 80.23

1988 67 $319.24 79.65

1989 74 $268.46 78.20

1990 64 $217.73 77.25

1991 85 $245.53 75.29

1992 102 $235.28 77.11

1993 135 $235.31 76.39

1994 141 $243.47 74.96

1995 166 $267.24 74.96

1996 198 $267.24 74.31

1997 224 $290.26 72.93

1998 291 $294.16 71.83

1999 277 $311.99 70.49

2000 322 $316.05 69.94

2001 334 $324.04 68.96

2002 370 $329.39 68.40

2003 409 $346.61 68.34

2004 463 $352.05 66.87

2005 495 $350.99 65.94

2006 534 $362.04 64.95

2007 510 $356.13 63.93

2008 528 $359.79 63.33

2009 523 $356.83 63.15

2010 515 $376.09 62.22

2011 500 $367.17 61.08

2012 443 $379.18 60.99

2013 404 382,24 59.98

2014 355 $406.97 59.52

2015 43 $405.41 58.07

Total 8,822

Averages 245.06 $361.30 71.62

Note: Table contains data on all SIF beneficiaries initially eligibile for benefits after 1979 and receiving benefits as of 3/27/2015.

Question 12 b

Schedule VIII NJDLWD ‐ Second Injury Fund

Total Disability Dependency Cases

Receiving Benefits

at 3/31/2014

CY of

Injury/Death # Cases Base Suppl Avg Age #Cases Base(1) Suppl Avg Age # Cases Base(1) Suppl Avg Age # Cases Base Suppl Avg Age

1950 1 $20.00 $594.94 81.46 1 $20.00 $594.94 81.46

1951 1 $29.33 $764.05 83.15 1 $30.00 $704.35 88.42 2 $29.67 $734.20 85.79

1952 1 $30.00 $785.79 92.05 1 $26.92 $615.48 81.81 2 $28.46 $700.64 86.93

1954 1 $30.00 $676.03 80.98 1 $30.00 $676.03 80.98

1955 1 $30.00 $698.88 83.74 1 $30.00 $698.88 83.74

1957 1 $40.00 $674.67 95.07 1 $40.00 $674.67 95.07

1958 1 $40.00 $588.47 102.30 1 $40.00 $588.47 102.30

1959 2 $36.50 $636.32 85.22 3 $40.00 $723.29 86.28 1 $40.00 $745.48 67.70 6 $38.83 $698.00 82.83

1960 1 $29.00 $534.57 86.60 2 $36.00 $652.21 87.82 3 $33.67 $613.00 87.41

1961 2 $37.00 $681.75 81.03 3 $40.00 $706.08 78.63 1 $40.00 $701.12 85.05 6 $39.00 $697.14 80.50

1962 2 $33.00 $538.20 92.07 3 $40.67 $744.26 84.58 5 $37.60 $661.84 87.58

1963 1 $36.00 $589.33 88.76 1 $40.00 $595.49 84.13 2 $38.00 $592.41 86.45

1964 1 $34.00 $537.61 81.67 5 $41.20 $642.75 85.72 6 $40.00 $625.23 85.05

1965 2 $41.50 $663.00 78.90 1 $38.00 $636.89 70.66 3 $40.33 $654.30 76.15

1966 5 $42.80 $682.99 79.90 11 $43.45 $704.80 82.70 2 $14.20 $522.68 91.60 18 $40.02 $678.51 82.91

1967 8 $60.60 $578.77 81.69 9 $58.34 $477.61 79.18 23 $67.92 $613.59 83.59 40 $64.30 $576.03 82.22

1968 9 $73.90 $596.81 80.20 11 $60.91 $476.32 76.55 16 $66.96 $538.91 84.74 36 $66.85 $534.26 81.10

1969 9 $62.77 $495.25 78.75 7 $70.57 $525.83 79.27 30 $72.07 $571.90 80.50 46 $70.02 $549.89 79.97

1970 14 $78.60 $564.46 81.32 17 $78.71 $586.18 77.09 20 $79.87 $587.84 82.92 51 $79.13 $580.87 80.54

1971 14 $85.65 $585.59 84.89 27 $85.78 $570.13 78.95 44 $83.35 $579.72 80.36 85 $84.50 $577.64 80.66

1972 21 $86.37 $540.19 80.80 33 $87.56 $580.71 75.02 41 $91.10 $591.85 81.84 95 $88.82 $576.56 79.24

1973 27 $93.32 $560.34 80.68 30 $91.52 $537.52 76.95 48 $99.92 $605.98 79.01 105 $95.82 $574.68 78.85

1974 26 $95.80 $534.23 84.52 42 $97.19 $528.01 78.09 44 $92.67 $526.04 81.23 112 $95.09 $528.68 80.82

1975 29 $96.17 $500.41 81.40 57 $102.15 $538.33 76.90 29 $106.08 $550.54 82.74 115 $101.63 $531.85 79.51

1976 27 $120.78 $525.47 84.32 51 $111.17 $535.24 75.99 35 $113.24 $566.65 77.54 113 $114.11 $542.63 78.46

1977 27 $121.09 $509.08 82.62 38 $119.89 $510.64 74.91 42 $118.17 $521.13 80.73 107 $119.52 $514.36 79.14

1978 27 $131.37 $528.70 80.68 48 $134.67 $544.83 74.70 35 $136.05 $551.29 80.32 110 $134.30 $542.93 77.96

1979 49 $129.47 $474.86 80.21 52 $134.89 $488.58 75.02 43 $130.55 $488.00 79.24 144 $131.75 $483.74 78.05

Tot/Avg 305 $113.46 $589.64 92.42 457 $110.34 $584.58 83.69 455 $105.68 $583.31 85.94 1,217 $109.38 $585.37 86.72

(1) Base benefits are paid by insurance carriers or self‐insured employers.

Note: Table contains data on all active SIF, total disability and dependency cases receiving supplemental benefits as of 3/27/2015.

SIF Total Disability Dependency All Cases

Question 12c

Schedule IX

BEG EMPL WORKER NET ST PLAN 4F DI FLI FLI FLI ENDMONTH BLNCE CONT CONT CONT ASSMTS OTHER BNFS BNFS ADM EXPADM EXP CONT BNF BLNCE

JULY 2014 86.2$ 58.3$ 65.4$ 123.7$ 13.9$ -$ 37.8$ 1.8$ -$ -$ 24.0$ 6.7$ 201.5$ AUGUST 201.5 6.7 7.2 13.9 5.6 14.8 36.7 1.7 3.1 6.3 194.2 SEPTEMBER 194.2 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.1 35.0 2.1 2.7 6.3 - 7.3 142.5 OCTOBER 142.5 36.5 42.1 78.6 0.7 36.2 1.9 15.0 8.5 190.2 NOVEMBER 190.2 5.9 5.8 11.7 0.1 0.1 30.9 1.7 1.1 6.8 163.8 DECEMBER 163.8 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 33.6 2.0 0.1 8.4 120.8 JANUARY 2015 120.8 5.9 7.5 13.4 0.3 0.1 33.7 1.3 2.7 6.5 95.8 FEBRUARY 95.8 24.7 27.5 52.2 0.1 - 29.7 1.3 9.5 6.3 120.3 MARCH 120.3 5.5 (2.3) 3.2 0.2 - 34.2 1.8 - 6.6 81.1 APRIL 81.1 12.9 7.9 20.8 0.2 - 35.5 1.8 8.2 6.6 66.4 MAY 66.4 83.8 61.9 145.7 0.1 - 39.9 2.4 32.3 9.0 193.2 JUNE 193.2 - - - 4.7 0.1 34.6 2.2 36.0 7.0 0.2 8.7 109.7 TOTAL 86.2$ 241.0$ 223.5$ 464.5$ 27.0$ 15.3$ 417.8$ 22.0$ 38.7$ 13.3$ 96.2$ 87.7$ 109.7$

BEG EMPL WORKER NET ST PLAN 4F ADMIN FLI FLI FLI ENDMONTH BLNCE CONT CONT CONT ASSMTS OTHER BNFS BNFS EXP ADM EXP CONT BNF BLNCE

JULY 2015 109.7$ 60.0$ 44.3$ 104.3$ 13.9$ 0.1$ 38.9$ 1.9$ -$ -$ 22.2$ 6.9$ 202.5$ AUGUST 202.5 6.9 4.9 11.8 5.6 - 37.8 1.8 2.9 6.5 176.7 SEPTEMBER 176.7 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.8 - 36.1 2.2 - 7.5 132.4 OCTOBER 132.4 37.6 28.5 66.1 0.7 - 37.3 2.0 13.9 8.8 165.0 NOVEMBER 165.0 6.1 3.9 10.0 0.7 - 31.8 1.8 1.0 7.0 136.1 DECEMBER 136.1 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.7 - 34.6 2.1 0.1 8.7 92.0 JANUARY 2016 92.0 6.1 5.1 11.2 0.7 - 34.7 1.3 2.5 6.7 63.7 FEBRUARY 63.7 25.4 18.6 44.0 0.7 - 30.6 1.3 8.8 6.5 78.8 MARCH 78.8 5.7 (1.6) 4.1 0.7 - 35.2 1.8 - 6.8 39.8 APRIL 39.8 13.3 8.4 21.7 0.5 - 36.6 1.8 9.5 6.8 26.3 MAY 26.3 86.6 66.5 153.1 0.5 - 41.1 2.4 37.1 9.2 164.3 JUNE 164.3 - - - 5.0 - 35.6 2.2 36.0 7.0 0.2 8.9 79.8 TOTAL 109.7$ 248.5$ 179.0$ 427.5$ 30.5$ 0.1$ 430.3$ 22.6$ 36.0$ 7.0$ 98.2$ 90.3$ 79.8$

Question 13 a Page 1 of 2

CASH FLOW ANALYSIS

(in millions)

TEMPORARY DISABILITY INSURANCE FUND

FY 2016(in millions)

CASH FLOW ANALYSIS


FY 2015

Schedule IX


JULY 2016 79.8$ 62.0$ 47.6$ 109.6$ 13.9$ 0.1$ 40.1$ 1.9$ -$ -$ 25.5$ 7.1$ 179.8$ AUGUST 179.8 7.1 5.2 12.3 5.6 - 38.9 1.8 3.3 6.7 153.6 SEPTEMBER 153.6 0.4 0.3 0.7 2.0 - 37.1 2.2 - 7.7 109.3 OCTOBER 109.3 38.8 30.6 69.4 1.0 - 38.4 2.0 15.9 9.0 146.2 NOVEMBER 146.2 6.3 4.2 10.5 0.7 - 32.8 1.8 1.2 7.2 116.8 DECEMBER 116.8 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.7 - 35.6 2.1 0.1 8.9 71.5 JANUARY 2017 71.5 6.3 5.5 11.8 0.7 - 35.8 1.4 2.9 6.9 42.8 FEBRUARY 42.8 26.3 20.0 46.3 0.7 - 31.5 1.4 10.1 6.7 60.3 MARCH 60.3 5.8 (1.7) 4.1 0.7 - 36.3 1.9 - 7.0 19.9 APRIL 19.9 13.8 9.8 23.6 0.5 - 37.7 1.9 8.8 7.0 6.2 MAY 6.2 90.0 77.1 167.1 0.5 - 42.3 2.5 34.7 9.5 154.2 JUNE 154.2 0.1 - 0.1 5.0 - 36.7 2.3 36.0 7.0 0.2 9.2 68.3 TOTAL 79.8$ 257.3$ 198.7$ 456.0$ 32.0$ 0.1$ 443.2$ 23.2$ 36.0$ 7.0$ 102.7$ 92.9$ 68.3$


JULY 2017 68.3$ 64.4$ 55.2$ 119.6$ 13.9$ 0.1$ 41.3$ 2.0$ -$ -$ 23.9$ 7.3$ 175.2$ AUGUST 175.2 7.4 6.1 13.5 5.6 - 40.1 1.9 3.1 6.9 148.5 SEPTEMBER 148.5 0.4 0.3 0.7 2.0 - 38.2 2.3 - 8.0 102.7 OCTOBER 102.7 40.4 35.5 75.9 1.0 - 39.6 2.1 14.9 9.3 143.5 NOVEMBER 143.5 6.5 4.9 11.4 0.7 - 33.8 1.9 1.1 7.4 113.6 DECEMBER 113.6 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.7 - 36.7 2.2 0.1 9.2 66.8 JANUARY 2018 66.8 6.5 6.3 12.8 0.7 - 36.8 1.4 2.7 7.1 37.7 FEBRUARY 37.7 27.3 23.2 50.5 0.7 - 32.5 1.4 9.4 6.9 57.5 MARCH 57.5 6.1 (2.0) 4.1 0.7 - 37.4 1.9 - 7.2 15.8 APRIL 15.8 14.4 10.2 24.6 0.5 - 38.8 1.9 9.2 7.2 2.2 MAY 2.2 93.9 80.5 174.4 0.5 - 43.6 2.6 36.2 9.8 157.3 JUNE 157.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 5.0 - 37.8 2.4 36.0 7.0 0.2 9.5 70.0 TOTAL 68.3$ 267.8$ 220.4$ 488.2$ 32.0$ 0.1$ 456.6$ 24.0$ 36.0$ 7.0$ 100.8$ 95.8$ 70.0$

Question 13a Page 2 of 2

CASH FLOW ANALYSIS

(in millions)FY 2018


CASH FLOW ANALYSIS



SCHEDULE IX A

Percent Average Average

REVISED of Duration Gross

Cases Cases (days) Benefits

Major Morbidity Group (code)

Infectious and parasitic diseases (01) 1,387 1.40% 64 $3,987

Neoplasms (02) 8,290 8.3 79 4,930

Allergic, endocrine, metabolic

and nutritional (03) 2,453 2.4 63 3,845

Diseases of blood and blood

forming organs (04) 325 0.3 60 3,464

Mental, psychoneurotic and

personality disorders (05) 6,229 6.2 80 5,144

Nervous system and sense organs (06) 3,510 3.5 69 4,290

Circulatory system (07) 6,201 6.2 80 4,966

Respiratory system (08) 2,450 2.4 43 2,615

Digestive system (09) 7,037 7 44 2,729

Genitourinary system (10) 2,835 2.8 46 2,776

Pregnancy and complications

of childbirth (11) 23,942 23.8 67 3,897

Skin and cellular tissue (12) 1,152 1.1 46 2,758

Bones and organs of movement (13) 18,619 18.5 83 5,131

Congenital malformations (14) 86 0.1 88 4,952

Hysterectomy (15) 555 0.6 51 3,093

Accidents, poisoning and violence (17) 13,461 13.4 74 4,421

Other ill‐defined and

unknown causes (16 & 18) 1,868 1.9 53 3,190

Total 100,400 100.00% 70 $4,263

TEMPORARY DISABILITY INSURANCE – STATE PLAN

SUMMARY OF MORBIDITY DATA FOR COMPLETED CASES*

Calendar Year 2012

* Completed cases include those claims formally closed in the TDI database in 2012, as well as

those with no payment activity for 90 days.

QUESTION 13 e page 1 of 2

SCHEDULE IXA

Number Percent

of of Average Average

Major Morbidity Group (code) Cases Cases Duration Gross

Infectious and parasitic diseases (01) 1,487 1.50% 65 $4,159

Neoplasms (02) 7,948 8 80 5,019

Allergic, endocrine, metabolic

and nutritional (03) 2,602 2.6 62 3,861

Diseases of blood and blood

forming organs (04) 281 0.3 61 3,609

Mental, psychoneurotic and

personality disorders (05) 6,085 6.1 81 5,282

Nervous system and sense organs (06) 3,457 3.5 67 4,259

Circulatory system (07) 5,879 5.9 83 5,159

Respiratory system (08) 2,547 2.6 41 2,554

Digestive system (09) 6,715 6.8 44 2,793

Genitourinary system (10) 2,829 2.9 47 2,847

Pregnancy and complications

of childbirth (11) 24,334 24.5 66 3,894

Skin and cellular tissue (12) 1,099 1.1 45 2,835

Bones and organs of movement (13) 18,504 18.7 84 5,233

Congenital malformations (14) 97 0.1 99 6,173

Hysterectomy (15) 476 0.5 50 2,963

Accidents, poisoning and violence (17) 13,134 13.2 76 4,571

Other ill‐defined and

unknown causes (16 & 18) 1,703 1.7 53 3,197

Total 99,177 100.00% 71 $4,334

TEMPORARY DISABILITY INSURANCE – STATE PLAN

SUMMARY OF MORBIDITY DATA FOR COMPLETED CASES*

Calendar Year 2013

* Completed cases include those claims formally closed in the TDI database in 2013, as well as those with no

payment activity for 90 days.

Question 13e page 2 of 2

Schedule X

BEG END BEG END BEG ENDMONTH BLNCE CONT OTHER BNF ADM BLNCE MONTH BLNCE CONT OTHER BNF ADM BLNCE MONTH BLNCE CONT OTHER BNF ADM BLNCE

JULY 2013 15.1$ 25.0$ -$ 6.1$ -$ 34.0$ JULY 2014 21.9$ 24.0$ -$ 6.7$ -$ 39.2$ JULY 2015 19.5$ 22.2$ -$ 6.9$ -$ 34.8$ AUGUST 34.0 1.3 6.0 29.3 AUGUST 39.2 3.1 2.4 6.3 - 38.4 AUGUST 34.8 2.9 6.5 - 31.2 SEPTEMBER 29.3 - 6.1 6.9 16.3 SEPTEMBER 38.4 - 7.3 6.3 24.8 SEPTEMBER 31.2 - 7.5 - 23.7 OCTOBER 16.3 14.3 9.3 21.3 OCTOBER 24.8 15.0 8.5 - 31.3 OCTOBER 23.7 13.9 8.8 - 28.8 NOVEMBER 21.3 1.1 6.8 15.6 NOVEMBER 31.3 1.1 6.8 - 25.6 NOVEMBER 28.8 1.0 7.0 - 22.8 DECEMBER 15.6 - 6.8 8.8 DECEMBER 25.6 0.1 8.4 - 17.3 DECEMBER 22.8 0.1 8.7 - 14.2 JANUARY 2014 8.8 6.2 6.5 8.5 JANUARY 2015 17.3 2.7 6.5 - 13.5 JANUARY 2016 14.2 2.5 6.7 - 10.0 AUGUST 8.5 4.7 5.6 7.6 FEBRUARY 13.5 9.5 6.3 - 16.7 FEBRUARY 10.0 8.8 6.5 - 12.3 SEPTEMBER 7.6 0.3 6.4 1.5 MARCH 16.7 - 6.6 - 10.1 MARCH 12.3 - 6.8 - 5.5 OCTOBER 1.5 8.8 6.4 3.9 APRIL 10.1 8.2 6.6 - 11.7 APRIL 5.5 9.5 6.8 - 8.2 NOVEMBER 3.9 34.9 8.7 30.1 MAY 11.7 32.3 9.0 - 35.0 MAY 8.2 37.1 9.2 - 36.1 DECEMBER 30.1 0.2 8.4 21.9 JUNE 35.0 0.2 8.7 7.0 19.5 JUNE 36.1 0.2 8.9 7.0 20.4 TOTAL 15.1$ 96.8$ -$ 83.1$ 6.9$ 21.9$ TOTAL 21.9$ 96.2$ 2.4$ 87.7$ 13.3$ 19.5$ TOTAL 19.5$ 98.2$ -$ 90.3$ 7.0$ 20.4$

-


TEMPORARY DISABILITY INSURANCE FUNDFAMILY LEAVE ACCOUNTCASH FLOW ANALYSIS



Question14a

SCHEDULE XI

Adopted Total Other TotalNewborn Child Bonding Child Spouse Family Care Total

Eligible Claims1 24,934 145 25,079 1,459 1,751 2,603 5,813 30,892

Gross Benefits (Millions) $66.2 $0.4 $66.7 $2.6 $3.3 $4.9 $10.8 $77.5

Average Cost

per Eligible Claim2 $2,656 $2,867 $2,658 $1,791 $1,897 $1,884 $1,864 $2,508

Estimated Average Duration

per Eligible Claim (weeks)3 5.4 5.2 5.4 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.1 5.2

1Eligible claims are defined as eligible original determinations, plus eligible redeterminations, less ineligible redeterminations.

2Average cost per eligible claim is calculated as gross benefits divided by eligible claims.

Adopted Total Other TotalNewborn Child Bonding Child Spouse Family Care Total

Eligible Claims1 26,055 111 26,166 1,459 1,825 2,615 5,899 32,065

Gross Benefits (Millions) $70.9 $0.3 $71.2 $2.6 $3.5 $5.0 $11.1 $82.3

Average Cost

per Eligible Claim2 $2,721 $2,703 $2,721 $1,782 $1,918 $1,912 $1,882 $2,567

Estimated Average Duration

per Eligible Claim (weeks)3 5.4 5.4 5.4 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.1 5.2

1Eligible claims are defined as eligible original determinations, plus eligible redeterminations, less ineligible redeterminations.

2Average cost per eligible claim is calculated as gross benefits divided by eligible claims.

3Duration data may reflect claimants who are just beginning a claim or who are intermittent claimants and therefore have not

collected their potential week of benefits.

Family Leave Insurance (FLI) Program - State Plan Average Cost and Estimated Average Duration for Eligible Claims

Calendar Year 2012

Bonding Claims Care Claims

3Duration data may reflect claimants who are just beginning a claim or who are intermittent claimants and therefore have not

collected their potential week of benefits.

Family Leave Insurance (FLI) Program - State PlanAverage Cost and Estimated Average Duration for Eligible Claims

Calendar Year 2013

Bonding Claims Care Claims

question 14b

SCHEDULE XII

PROGRAM FY13 FY13 FY 14 FY 14FY 15

ProjectionFY 15

ProjectionFY 16

ProjectionFY 16

Projection

(Served) (Received Training) (Served)(Received Training)

(Served)(Received Training)

(Served)(Received Training)

Workforce Development Partnership 58,008 57,453 37,053 35,905 60,052 59,232 55,820 55,000

Customized Training 1,2 51,989 51,898 $347

CT # when including CT-Literacy funds 68,096 68,096 268 30,217 30,217 $335 54,515 54,515 $320 50,000 50,000 $300

Indv. Train.for DW (WDP-ITG) 3 397 397 4,454 657 657 4,948 647 647 6,600 800 800 6,600

YTTW 660 196 5,612 1,331 183 5,003 1,000 180 4,705 1,000 180 4,705

Smart STEPS 338 338 2,065 428 428 2,321 390 390 3,969 520 520 2,884

OSHA Safety Training 4,624 4,624 83 4,420 4,420 TBD 3,500 3,500 TBD 3,500 3,500 TBD

Workforce Investment Act (Total) 4 169,647 11,514 332 125,774 10,106 339 147,928 8,658 339 149,900 9,100 339

Adult 156,396 3,795 92 114,194 3,214 67 138,300 2,669 67 138,300 2,900 67

Dislocated Workers 8,548 4,882 1,839 7,085 4,272 2,334 5,429 3,724 2,334 6,000 3,900 2,334

Youth 4,703 2,837 2,836 4,495 2,620 3,429 4,199 2,265 3,429 5,600 2,300 3,429

Work First New Jersey 26,344 8,532 3,034 23,850 7,678 3,265 28,856 10,143 2,680 28,856 10,143 2,680

TANF 16,610 5,320 3,470 15,797 5,148 3,063 16,405 5,974 2,927 16,405 5,974 2,927

General Assist/SNAP(Food Stamps) 9,734 3,212 2,916 8,053 2,530 3,663 12,451 4,169 2,355 12,451 4,169 2,355

All Workforce Development Programs 253,999 77,499 186,677 53,689 236,836 78,033 234,576 74,243

2 The CT program numbers reflect actual projections.

4 Adult served Includes 152,601 self‐service only participants. Cost per reflects the same.

FY 2015 FY 2016 (est.)WDP - Ind. Grants (DW) $11,828,324 $8,214,677

WDP - Disadvantage-Smart Steps 2,203,758 2,564,811

WDP - Customized Training 18,859,739 12,924,117

WDP - OSHA 1,453,079 1,456,615

WDP - YTTW 2,405,858 1,781,100

WIA - Dislocated Worker 38,580,867 38,580,867

WIA - Adult 24,644,654 24,644,654

WIA - Youth 25,513,414 25,513,414

WFNJ - TANF 48,024,797 48,024,797

WFNJ - SNAP/GA 29,331,203 29,331,203

Total: $202,127,113 $193,036,255

Cost per Participant

Served


Served


Served

1 Effective in FY13 the Customized Training program delivered grants with blended funding streams which include SWFBS‐25% funds traditionally deployed


Served

3 The revised WDP‐ITG fund effective in FY13, is now deployed as Opportunity4Jersey and "Recovery4Jersey‐OJT".

QUESTIONS 16a and 16b

Schedule XIIA

Enrolled Completed Placed

Previous

Grant

Recipient

HealthCare American Institute $40,000 10 10 4 2 Y

Finance American School of Business $300,000 50 40 39 23 Y

Finance America's Mortgage Institute $300,000 50 22 22 17 Y

Finance Camden County College $100,000 25 25 25 24 Y

Finance Globecon Group Holding, LLC $291,600 50 50 31 8 N

Retail‐Food Service Gloucester Co. Coll. $150,000 25 2 2 0 NAdv.

ManufacturingGloucester Co. Coll. $150,000 25 7 4 2 N

Technology Kaizen Technologies, Inc. $204,000 34 24 16 12 N

Manufacturing Middlesex County College $39,937 10 5 5 4 Y

HealthCare Rutgers $767,284 150 114 113 71 Y

HealthCareSalem County Vocational Technical

Schools$300,000 80 24 22 17 Y

HealthCare The Institute for Health Education $299,112 88 44 39 10 Y

Manufacturing Union County College $108,000 18 18 16 9 Y

Health CareWorkforce Advantage ‐ Funding FY

13 (Final)$290,000 100 59 57 24 Y


Previous

Grant

Recipient

Health Care Academy of Training $300,000 120 95 80 59 Y

Finance Burlington County College $105,000 28 8 7 0 Y

Transportation Burlington County College $90,000 15 5 0 0 Y

Adv. Mfg. Burlington County College $300,000 50 30 28 3 Y

Health Care Jersey City/Liberty EMT Training Ctr. $43,831 20 5 3 3 Y

TransportationNew Community Workforce

Development $259,633 50 50 0 0 Y

FinanceNew Jersey Council of Community

Colleges $96,000 24 14 14 14 Y

Transportation Urban League of Essex County $178,064 30 20 3 0 Y

Technology Urban Renewal Corporation $48,000 8 4 1 1 Y


Previous

Grant

Recipient

Retail Camden County College $10,000 20 N/A N/A N/A Y

Target

No.Contracted

345

Achievement to Date

Grant Award

Grant Award

$3,339,933

Target

No.Contracted

FY13 Opportunity 4 Jersey Awards *

Industry Grantee

Industry Grantee

Achievement to Date

FY 14 Opportunity 4 Jersey Awards **

444715

** All active grants

* All grants ended

FY 15 Opportunity 4 Jersey Awards

Industry GranteeTarget

No.Contracted

Achievement to Date

Grant Award

136231

395 223

$1,420,528 80

Question 19ac

Schedule XIII

LOCAL AREA ADULT ADULT ADULT YOUTH YOUTH YOUTH DISLOCATED DISLOCATED DISLOCATED TOTALS

PY 2013 PY 2014 PY 2015 PY 2013 PY 2014 PY 2015 WORKER WORKER WORKER

Estimated Estimated PY 2013 PY 2014 PY 2015

Estimated

Atlantic 1,030,172$ 1,088,624$ 1,088,624$ 1,088,947$ 1,170,648$ 1,170,648$ 1,154,905$ 1,571,798$ 1,571,798$ 10,936,164$

Cape May 616,656 652,489 652,489 617,277 656,911 656,911 372,972 404,799 404,799 5,035,303

(Atlantic/Cape May) 1,646,828 1,741,113 1,741,113 1,706,224 1,827,559 1,827,559 1,527,877 1,976,597 1,976,597 15,971,467

Bergen 1,256,141 1,541,522 1,541,522 1,197,552 1,481,566 1,481,566 2,042,803 2,162,531 2,162,531 14,867,734

Burlington 721,661 890,294 890,294 738,692 916,661 916,661 1,258,845 1,300,178 1,300,178 8,933,464

Camden 1,294,004 1,434,188 1,434,188 1,301,848 1,454,217 1,454,217 1,530,827 1,521,050 1,521,050 12,945,589

Cumberland 856,450 908,098 908,098 830,992 886,494 886,494 660,913 681,181 681,181 7,299,901

Salem 166,661 177,551 177,551 169,678 180,419 180,419 216,538 216,520 216,520 1,701,857

(Cumberland/Salem) 1,023,111 1,085,649 1,085,649 1,000,670 1,066,913 1,066,913 877,451 897,701 897,701 9,001,758

Essex 969,602 1,134,907 1,134,907 972,271 1,142,342 1,142,342 1,289,271 1,372,227 1,372,227 10,530,096

Gloucester 530,543 633,800 633,800 595,183 707,941 707,941 787,469 813,812 813,812 6,224,301

Somerset 363,741 445,686 445,686 352,098 437,853 437,853 832,550 916,607 916,607 5,148,681

Hunterdon 158,965 191,318 191,318 154,144 186,085 186,085 273,815 270,570 270,570 1,882,870

(Greater Raritan) 522,706 637,004 637,004 506,242 623,938 623,938 1,106,365 1,187,177 1,187,177 7,031,551

Hudson 989,103 1,144,767 1,144,767 935,552 1,099,238 1,099,238 942,112 999,051 999,051 9,352,879

Jersey City 954,152 1,011,445 1,011,445 988,262 1,053,550 1,053,550 566,817 613,272 613,272 7,865,765

Mercer 695,082 793,874 793,874 878,131 973,732 973,732 936,845 962,204 962,204 7,969,678

Middlesex 1,306,632 1,568,855 1,568,855 1,568,929 1,902,958 1,902,958 2,223,810 2,462,021 2,462,021 16,967,039

Monmouth 1,002,958 1,203,045 1,203,045 988,218 1,190,876 1,190,876 1,497,694 1,503,456 1,503,456 11,283,624

Morris 566,325 688,485 688,485 642,418 796,016 796,016 1,220,339 1,304,042 1,304,042 8,006,168

Sussex 235,431 282,833 282,833 233,638 282,638 282,638 366,751 369,909 369,909 2,706,580

Warren 166,568 191,259 191,259 175,825 204,128 204,128 374,893 335,442 335,442 2,178,944

(Mor/Sus/Warren) 968,324 1,162,577 1,162,577 1,051,881 1,282,782 1,282,782 1,961,983 2,009,393 2,009,393 12,891,692

Newark 2,040,793 2,162,627 2,162,627 2,055,012 2,188,463 2,188,463 870,416 939,688 939,688 15,547,777

Ocean 1,009,067 1,218,801 1,218,801 962,813 1,179,406 1,179,406 1,319,971 1,373,389 1,373,389 10,835,043

Passaic 1,735,055 1,831,954 1,831,954 1,798,551 1,914,231 1,914,231 1,727,953 1,817,952 1,817,952 16,389,833

Union 1,133,144 1,291,825 1,291,825 1,105,340 1,274,617 1,274,617 1,527,955 1,648,125 1,648,125 12,195,573

Total WIB Level: 19,798,906 22,488,247 22,488,247 20,351,371 23,280,990 23,280,990 23,996,464 25,559,824 25,559,824 206,804,863

State Level: 1,042,048 2,156,405 2,156,405 1,071,125 2,232,424 2,232,424 10,284,198 13,021,043 13,021,043 47,217,115

Total WIA: 20,840,954$ 24,644,652$ 24,644,652$ 21,422,496$ 25,513,414$ 25,513,414$ 34,280,662$ 38,580,867$ 38,580,867$ 254,021,978$

WIA Funding Allocated to State and Local Recipients

Question 16d

Question 22b

SCHEDULE XIV

LOCAL AREA TANF TANF TANF SNAP/GA SNAP/GA SNAP/GA TOTALS

FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Actual Actual Estimated Actual Actual Estimated

Atlantic 1,651,735 1,752,095 1,752,095 966,456 1,067,109 1,067,109 8,256,599

Cape May 326,414 311,121 311,121 293,542 300,980 300,980 1,844,158

(Atlantic/Cape May) 1,978,149 2,063,216 2,063,216 1,259,998 1,368,089 1,368,089 10,100,757

Bergen 1,081,971 1,132,603 1,132,603 463,736 499,112 499,112 4,809,137

Burlington 1,107,472 1,160,326 1,160,326 564,740 612,044 612,044 5,216,952

Camden 3,839,722 3,798,144 3,798,144 1,775,455 1,759,890 1,759,890 16,731,245

Cumberland 1,396,125 1,481,725 1,481,725 766,719 762,560 762,560 6,651,414

Salem 633,026 636,938 636,938 209,496 190,640 190,640 2,497,678

(Cumberland/Salem) 2,029,151 2,118,663 2,118,663 976,215 953,200 953,200 9,149,092

Essex 6,167,772 6,452,952 6,452,952 1,770,950 2,050,281 2,050,281 24,945,188

Gloucester 1,278,693 1,346,474 1,346,474 524,822 568,002 568,002 5,632,467

Somerset 571,773 576,871 576,871 196,517 203,500 203,500 2,329,032

Hunterdon 149,541 119,944 119,944 86,980 87,215 87,215 650,839

(Greater Raritan) 721,314 696,815 696,815 283,497 290,715 290,715 2,979,871

Hudson 4,570,671 4,565,131 4,565,131 1,236,731 1,408,715 1,408,715 17,755,094

Jersey City 861,042 823,434 823,434 289,099 307,009 307,009 3,411,027

Mercer 2,273,232 2,587,371 2,587,371 1,049,550 1,039,550 1,039,550 10,576,624

Middlesex 1,336,981 1,409,843 1,409,843 747,563 767,563 767,563 6,439,356

Monmouth 1,165,760 1,223,696 1,223,696 472,296 510,050 510,050 5,105,548

Morris 245,239 219,822 219,822 188,218 199,956 199,956 1,273,013

Sussex 170,166 145,872 145,872 64,515 62,949 62,949 652,323

Warren 298,623 280,441 280,441 112,886 107,384 107,384 1,187,159

(Mor/Sus/Warren) 714,028 646,135 646,135 365,619 370,289 370,289 3,112,495

Newark 662,853 662,853 662,853 553,551 596,806 596,806 3,735,722

Ocean 1,242,263 1,192,426 1,192,426 670,698 728,947 728,947 5,755,707

Passaic 3,697,645 3,905,050 3,905,050 1,933,859 1,957,554 1,957,554 17,356,712

Union 1,701,281 1,783,476 1,783,476 891,621 897,062 897,062 7,953,978

Total WIB Level: 36,430,000 37,568,608 37,568,608 15,830,000 16,684,878 16,684,878 160,766,972

State Level: 11,962,345 10,456,189 10,456,189 13,711,175 12,646,325 12,646,325 71,878,548

Total WFNJ: 48,392,345 48,024,797 48,024,797 29,541,175 29,331,203 29,331,203 232,645,520

WorkFirst Funding Allocated to State and Local Recipients

Question 16d

continued

Schedule XV

Fiscal Year 2014 Allocation Total Admin Ind. Grants Disadvantage Cust. Trng. OSHA YTTW Comm. Dis.Available Carryforward 26,616,399$ -$ 11,499,020$ 4,512,235$ 5,163,504$ 749,515$ 1,115,480$ 3,576,645$ Estimated Receipts 99,000,000$ 10,395,000$ 24,750,000$ 5,940,000$ 44,550,000$ 2,970,000$ 4,950,000$ 5,445,000$ Appropriated Transfers 7,905,000$ 4,543,899$ 1,022,923$ -$ 1,605,157$ 671,428$ 61,593$ -$ Diversion for DVR 9,000,000$ 945,000$ 2,250,000$ 540,000$ 4,050,000$ 270,000$ 450,000$ 495,000$ Allocation of Diversion 66,540,000$ 4,906,101$ 18,715,599$ 3,992,400$ 29,943,000$ 1,996,200$ 3,327,000$ 3,659,700$ Available to Allocate: 42,171,399$ -$ 14,260,498$ 5,919,835$ 14,115,347$ 781,887$ 2,226,887$ 4,866,945$

Fiscal Year 2014 - CFRATotal Fund Balance July 1, 2013 47,569,665$ -$ 12,812,041$ 5,058,229$ 20,861,680$ 1,702,330$ 1,847,085$ 5,288,300$ Revenue 107,852,517$ 11,324,514$ 26,963,129$ 6,471,151$ 48,533,633$ 3,235,576$ 5,392,626$ 5,931,888$ Expenditures @ 6/30/14 34,010,061$ 2,709,883$ 5,255,577$ 3,509,235$ 17,797,806$ 1,307,132$ 1,808,435$ 1,621,993$ CFRA Adjustment 110,169$ 11,568$ 27,542$ 6,610$ 49,576$ 3,305$ 5,508$ 6,059$ Diversion for DVR 9,000,000$ 945,000$ 2,250,000$ 540,000$ 4,050,000$ 270,000$ 450,000$ 495,000$ To Work and other Diversions 65,526,222$ 6,880,253$ 16,381,556$ 3,931,573$ 29,486,800$ 1,965,787$ 3,276,311$ 3,603,942$ Fund Balance @ 6/30/14 46,996,068$ 800,946$ 15,915,580$ 3,555,182$ 18,110,283$ 1,398,292$ 1,710,473$ 5,505,313$ Encumbrances @ 6/30/14 20,921,179$ 0 5,835,932$ 2,887,415$ 10,054,496$ 628,150$ 677,386$ 837,801$ Undesignated Fund Balance 26,074,889$ 800,946$ 10,079,648$ 667,767$ 8,055,786$ 770,142$ 1,033,087$ 4,667,512$

Fiscal Year 2015 Est. Allocation Total Admin. Ind. Grants Disadvant. Cust. Trng OSHA YTTW Comm. Dis.Available Carryforward 26,074,889$ 800,946$ 10,079,648$ 667,767$ 8,055,786$ 770,142$ 1,033,087$ 4,667,512$ Estimated Receipts 103,000,000$ 10,815,000$ 25,750,000$ 6,180,000$ 46,350,000$ 3,090,000$ 5,150,000$ 5,665,000$ Appropriated Transfers (Administration) 7,905,000$ 4,543,899$ 1,022,923$ -$ 1,605,157$ 671,428$ 61,593$ -$ Diversion for DVR 14,000,000$ 1,470,000$ 3,500,000$ 840,000$ 6,300,000$ 420,000$ 700,000$ 770,000$ Allocation of Diversion 66,540,000$ 3,668,525$ 20,501,324$ 3,804,009$ 29,246,407$ 1,987,063$ 3,077,229$ 4,255,443$ Available to Allocate: 48,534,889$ 6,477,421$ 11,828,324$ 2,203,758$ 18,859,379$ 1,453,079$ 2,405,858$ 5,307,069$

Fiscal Year 2015 - Est. AnalysisTotal Fund Balance July 1, 2014 46,996,068$ 800,946$ 15,915,580$ 3,555,182$ 18,110,283$ 1,398,292$ 1,710,473$ 5,505,313$ Estimated Revenue 108,040,000$ 11,344,200$ 27,010,000$ 6,482,400$ 48,618,000$ 3,241,200$ 5,402,000$ 5,942,200$ Estimated Expenditures @ 6/30/15 27,975,632$ 4,263,102$ 6,866,210$ 2,064,310$ 9,006,151$ 1,411,662$ 1,302,326$ 3,061,871$ CFRA Adjustment -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Diversion for DVR 14,000,000$ 1,470,000$ 3,500,000$ 840,000$ 6,300,000$ 420,000$ 700,000$ 770,000$ To Work and other Diversions 66,540,000$ 3,043,525$ 21,126,324$ 3,804,009$ 29,246,407$ 1,987,063$ 3,077,229$ 4,255,443$ Fund Balance @ 6/30/15 46,520,436$ 3,368,519$ 11,433,046$ 3,329,263$ 22,175,725$ 820,767$ 2,032,918$ 3,360,199$ Encumbrances @ 6/30/15 33,137,514$ 0 8,685,306$ 2,112,052$ 19,358,608$ 37,952$ 1,402,817$ 1,540,779$ Undesignated Fund Balance 13,382,922$ 3,368,519$ 2,747,740$ 1,217,211$ 2,817,117$ 782,815$ 630,101$ 1,819,420$

Fiscal Year 2016 Est. Allocation Total Admin. Ind. Grants Disadvant. Cust. Trng OSHA YTTW Comm. Dis.Available Carryforward 13,382,922$ 3,368,519$ 2,747,740$ 1,217,211$ 2,817,117$ 782,815$ 630,101$ 1,819,420$ Estimated Receipts 103,000,000$ 10,815,000$ 25,750,000$ 6,180,000$ 46,350,000$ 3,090,000$ 5,150,000$ 5,665,000$ Appropriated Transfers (Administration) 7,905,000$ 4,545,000$ 1,023,000$ -$ 1,605,000$ 670,000$ 62,000$ -$ Diversion for DVR 14,000,000$ 2,059,937$ 3,648,063$ 840,000$ 6,300,000$ 420,000$ 672,000$ 60,000$ Allocation of Diversion 66,540,000$ 6,361,700$ 17,260,000$ 3,992,400$ 29,943,000$ 1,996,200$ 3,327,000$ 3,659,700$ Available to Allocate: 35,842,922$ 5,136,882$ 8,214,677$ 2,564,811$ 12,924,117$ 1,456,615$ 1,781,101$ 3,764,720$

Fiscal Year 2016 - Est. AnalysisTotal Fund Balance July 1, 2015 46,520,436$ 3,368,519$ 11,433,046$ 3,329,263$ 22,175,725$ 820,767$ 2,032,918$ 3,360,199$ Estimated Revenue 110,040,000$ 11,554,200$ 27,510,000$ 6,602,400$ 49,518,000$ 3,301,200$ 5,502,000$ 6,052,200$ Estimated Expenditures @ 6/30/16 29,978,000$ 4,348,000$ 7,210,000$ 2,200,000$ 10,100,000$ 1,500,000$ 1,400,000$ 3,220,000$ Diversion for DVR 14,000,000$ 2,059,937$ 3,648,063$ 840,000$ 6,300,000$ 420,000$ 672,000$ 60,000$ To Work and other Diversions 66,540,000$ 6,986,700$ 16,635,000$ 3,992,400$ 29,943,000$ 1,996,200$ 3,327,000$ 3,659,700$ Fund Balance @ 6/30/16 46,042,436$ 1,528,082$ 11,449,983$ 2,899,263$ 25,350,725$ 205,767$ 2,135,918$ 2,472,699$ Encumbrances @ 6/30/16 33,980,000$ 0 8,500,000$ 2,160,000$ 19,500,000$ 40,000$ 1,430,000$ 2,350,000$ Undesignated Fund Balance 12,062,436$ 1,528,082$ 2,949,983$ 739,263$ 5,850,725$ 165,767$ 705,918$ 122,699$

Workforce DevelopmentFund Allocation

Final FY 2014 and Preliminary FY 2015 and FY 2016

Question 17a

Final FY 2014, Preliminary FY2015 and 2016

Fiscal Year 2014 Allocation Total Admin One Stop WIB Employers NJCCAvailable Carryforward @ 7/1/13 4,001,509 542,068 188,826 1,314,344 1,678,155 278,116

Estimated Receipt 26,000,000 2,600,000 6,240,000 7,280,000 6,500,000 3,380,000

OMB Handbook Administration (2,000,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) 0 0 0

Allocation Diversion for Comm. Colleges (18,800,000) (1,880,000) (4,512,000) (5,264,000) (4,700,000) (2,444,000)

Youth Corps (2,200,000) (220,000) (528,000) (616,000) (550,000) (286,000)

Available to Allocate: 7,001,509 42,068 388,826 2,714,344 2,928,155 928,116

Fiscal Year 2014 Final - CFRA AnalysisTotal Fund Balance @ July 1, 2013 9,440,852 891,829 626,078 2,086,256 5,558,372 278,316

Revenue 30,220,615 3,022,062 7,252,948 8,461,772 7,555,154 3,928,680

Expenditures @ 6/30/14 9,258,368 1,635,624 1,367,776 1,951,988 3,322,780 980,200

CFRA Adjustment (Cash Management) 836,186 83,619 200,685 234,132 209,047 108,704

Youth Corp Diversion Exp@ 6/30/14 2,003,258 200,326 480,782 560,912 500,815 260,424

Comm College Diversion Exp @ 6/30/14 18,800,000 1,880,000 4,512,000 5,264,000 4,700,000 2,444,000

Fund Balance June 30, 2014 8,763,655 114,322 1,317,783 2,536,996 4,380,885 413,668

Encumbrances June 30, 2014 2,053,161 0 436,456 317,608 1,299,097 0

Undesignated Fund Balance @ June 30, 2014 6,710,494 114,322 881,327 2,219,388 3,081,788 413,668

Fiscal Year 2015 AllocationAvailable Carryforward @ July 1, 2014 6,710,494 114,322 881,327 2,219,388 3,081,788 413,668


OMB Handbook Administration (2,000,000) (714,322) (1,285,678) 0 0 0


Youth Corps (2,200,000) (220,000) (528,000) (616,000) (550,000) (286,000)

Available to Allocate: 10,710,494 0 1,035,649 3,899,388 4,581,788 1,193,668

Fiscal Year 2015 Projected AnalysisTotal Fund Balance @ July 1, 2014 8,763,655 114,322 1,317,783 2,536,996 4,380,885 413,668

Projected Revenue 30,506,834 3,050,683 7,321,640 8,541,914 7,626,709 3,965,888

Projected Expenditures @ June 30, 2015 6,798,124 1,090,822 1,706,810 1,499,029 1,424,249 1,077,214

Projected Youth Corp Diversion Exp@ June 30, 2015 1,520,879 152,088 365,011 425,846 380,220 197,714

Comm College Diversion Exp @ June 30, 2015 18,800,000 1,880,000 4,512,000 5,264,000 4,700,000 2,444,000


Projected Encumbrances June 30, 2015 7,557,534 42,096 495,701 3,035,852 3,778,257 205,628

Undesignated Fund Balance @ June 30, 2015 4,593,952 (0) 1,559,901 854,182 1,724,867 455,000

Fiscal Year 2016 AllocationAvailable Carryforward @ July 1, 2015 4,593,952 (0) 1,559,901 854,182 1,724,867 455,000


OMB Handbook Administration (2,000,000) (600,000) (1,400,000) 0 0 0


Youth Corps (2,200,000) (220,000) (528,000) (616,000) (550,000) (286,000)

Available to Allocate: 8,593,952 (0) 1,599,901 2,534,182 3,224,867 1,235,000

Fiscal Year 2016 Projected AnalysisTotal Fund Balance @ July 1, 2015 12,151,486 42,096 2,055,602 3,890,034 5,503,124 660,628

Projected Revenue 31,006,834 3,100,683 7,441,640 8,681,914 7,751,709 4,030,888

Projected Expenditures @ June 30, 2016 15,850,000 1,155,000 2,620,000 5,010,000 5,625,000 1,440,000

Projected Youth Corp Diversion Exp@ June 30, 2016 1,720,879 108,045 477,054 481,846 430,220 223,714

Comm College Diversion Exp @ June 30, 2016 18,800,000 1,480,000 4,912,000 5,264,000 4,700,000 2,444,000


Projected Encumbrances June 30, 2016 2,790,000 0 531,000 698,000 1,498,000 63,000

Undesignated Fund Balance @ June 30, 2016 3,997,442 399,734 957,189 1,118,102 1,001,613 520,803

Schedule XVISupplemental Workforce - Literacy Fund

Fund Analysis

Question 18a

SCHEDULE XVII

Workforce Investment Act

Summary of Statewide Activity

FY 2013 thru FY 2015

Estimated

Programs FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

One Stop Program and Support Administration 2,541,153$ 3,029,354$ 3,657,236$

Eligible Training Provider List ‐ ORI 205,702 215,178 259,658

State Employment and Training Commission 179,006 0 314,041

New Jersey Institute of Technology 108,870 13,800 14,800

Rutgers ‐ Consumer Report Card 23,521 25,265 25,500

Project Self Suffiency Program 32,785 0 0

Rutgers ‐ Grants Evaluation 0 0 49,920

Rapid Response Client Universe 0 695,462 700,000

Project Reemployment Opportunity Services 2,939,898 2,567,580 2,795,561

Rapid Response Team 4,262,010 4,457,706 4,579,119

Jersey Job Club 2,378,198 2,497,971 2,636,506

Talent Networks (Que. 1b.a) 666,080 1,035,973 1,280,000

Total: $13,337,223 $14,538,289 $16,312,341

Question 22a

SCHEDULE XVIII

Actual and Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimated

Agencies that provided funds FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015 *

Dept of the Treasury 149,294$ 143,171$ 108,379$ 278,516$ 174,797$ 164,299$ 134,032 Dept of Transportation 996,976 1,565,756 1,345,105 937,623 860,858 247,341 414,979 NJ Transit 136,537 76,317 201,839 136,932 29,424 25,863 Casino Rdvlpt. Authority 12,570 - 239,277 - - NJ Turnpike Authority - 1,226,296 4,744,132 3,447,530 3,624,522 1,142,585 1,175,416 Other - - 40,150 157,446 7,157 58,855 5,299 Anticipated Revenues to end of FY - - - - - 370,000

Total Revenues 1,295,377$ 3,011,540$ 6,678,883$ 4,958,047$ 4,696,758$ 1,638,943$ 2,099,726$

Actual andActual Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Estimated

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

Salaries and other costs 34,287$ 24,797$ 90,727$ 166,460$ 201,072$ 246,509$ 190,000 AA/ EEO Enforcement 450,000$ 460,000 Training Grants (Expended/Obligated) 88,972 351,557 466,040 902,434 731,230 821,764 952,000

Total Expenditures 123,260$ 376,354$ 556,767$ 1,068,894$ 932,302$ 1,518,273$ 1,602,000$

Amount Lapsed to General Revenue 1,500,000$ 5,000,000$ 6,000,000$ 4,900,000$ -$ 800,000$

Amount carried forward to next FY 1,172,117$ 2,307,303$ 3,429,418$ 1,318,571$ 183,027$ 303,697$ 1,423$

* Actual receipts as of March 6, 2015

Expenditures

NJ BUILD PROGRAMRevenues Collected

Questions 24 a and e

SCHEDULE XIX

ACTUAL ACTUAL PROJECTED

REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE

LABOR STANDARDS THRU 6-30-13 THRU 6-30-14 THRU 6-30-15

Miscellaneous Fines and Penalties 502,575$ 403,020$ 403,020$

Crane Operators 107,315 114,559 114,559

Boiler Fees and Penalties 6,187,647 6,347,191 6,347,191

Asbestos Fees and Penalties 1,455,287 1,474,411 1,474,411

Wage and Hour Fees and Penalties 3,596,793 3,767,154 3,767,154

Apparel Fees and Penalties 92,850 85,420 85,420

Public Works Contractors Registration 2,825,094 3,263,879 3,263,879

Total 14,767,561$ 15,455,633$ 15,455,633$

Amount

FY 2014 Expended

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY HEALTH ACT, ON‐SITE CONSULTATION 1,709$

FEDERAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT 974

2,683$

FY 2015 and FY 2016

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY HEALTH ACT, ON‐SITE CONSULTATION 2,600$

MINE SAFETY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM 100

FEDERAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT 2,754

Sub‐Total Federal (Non State Funds) 5,454

Additional Revenues 11,531

Total 16,985$

Description

LABOR STANDARDS

REVENUE WORKSHEET

STATE FISCAL YEARS 2013- 2015

Question 27a

Question 27b

Questions 27 a and b

department of labor and workforce development fy 2015-2016 · department of labor and workforce...

Documents