[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 98 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27974-27981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-13473]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the Secretary Assistant Secretary for Planning and 
Evaluation Notice Inviting Applications for New Award for Fiscal Year 
1998

AGENCY: The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 
Evaluation (ASPE), Office of the Secretary (OS).

ACTION: Announcement of the availability of funds and request for 
applications from states to determine the status of Temporary 
Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) recipients after they leave the 
TANF caseload, eligible families who are diverted before being 
enrolled, or eligible families who fail to enroll.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 
Evaluation (ASPE), with support from the U.S. Department of Labor and 
the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
announces the availability of funds and invites applications for 
research into the status of individuals and families who leave the TANF 
program, who apply for cash welfare but are never enrolled because of 
non-financial eligibility requirements or diversion programs, and/or 
who appear to be eligible but are not enrolled (hereafter jointly 
referred to as welfare leavers). Approximately eight to ten States or 
counties will receive funding that will enable them to track and 
monitor how individuals and their families do in the first year after 
they leave welfare and provide a foundation for longer follow-up. 
States may choose any method for such tracking, including the linking 
of administrative data, surveys or other methods as appropriate. We are 
particularly interested in learning about individuals' ability to 
obtain employment and the support provided by their earnings, public 
programs besides TANF, and other sources. The funds could support a 
newly designed project or could be used to add new data sources and 
analyses to an existing project.
    In addition, ASPE announces the availability of supplementary 
funding from the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) of 
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to track the 
consequences of welfare reform for low-income families with children 
who receive housing assistance. These funds will only be available to 
ASPE Grantees.
CLOSING DATE: The deadline for submission of applications under this 
announcement is July 6, 1998.

MAILING ADDRESS: Application instructions and forms should be requested 
from and submitted to: Grants Officer, Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human 
Services, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 405F, Hubert H. Humphrey 
Building, Washington, D.C. 20201, Telephone: (202) 690-8794. Copies of 
this program announcement and many of the required forms may also be 
obtained electronically at the ASPE World Wide Web Page: http://
aspe.os.dhhs.gov. Requests for forms and administrative questions will 
be accepted and responded to up to 10 working days prior to closing 
date of receipt of applications. Application submissions may not be 
faxed or submitted electronically.
    The printed Federal Register notice is the only official program 
announcement. Although reasonable efforts are taken to assure that the 
files on the ASPE World Wide Web Page containing electronic copies of 
this Program Announcement are accurate and complete, they are provided 
for information only. The applicant bears sole responsibility to assure 
that the copy downloaded and/or printed from any other source is 
accurate and complete.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administrative questions should be 
directed to the Grants Officer at the address or phone number listed 
above. Technical questions should be directed to Christopher Snow, 
DHHS, ASPE, Telephone, 202-690-6888 E-mail, [email protected]. 
Written technical questions may also be faxed to 202-690-6562 or may be 
addressed to

[[Page 27975]]

Mr. Snow at the following address. Office of the Assistant Secretary 
for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services, 
200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 404E, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 
Washington, D.C. 20201.

Part I  Supplementary Information

Legislative Authority

    This grant is authorized by Section 1110 of the Social Security Act 
(42 U.S.C. 1310) and awards will be made from funds appropriated under 
PL 105-78 Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act, 
1998.

Eligible Applicants

    Given the nature of the research involved, competition is open only 
to State agencies and counties that administer TANF programs with 
populations greater than 500,000. Consortia of States are also 
encouraged to apply, as long as a single State agency is identified as 
the lead and agrees to handle grant funds and sub-granting. Public or 
private nonprofit organizations, including universities and other 
institutions of higher education, may collaborate with States in 
submitting an application, but the principal Grantee will be the State. 
Private for-profit organizations may also apply jointly with States, 
with the recognition that grant funds may not be paid as profit to any 
recipient of a grant or subgrant.

Available Funds

    Approximately $2,350,000 is available from ASPE, in funds 
appropriated for fiscal year 1998. ASPE anticipates providing 
approximately eight to ten awards of between $200,000 and $250,000 
each. If additional funding becomes available in fiscal years 1998 or 
1999 additional projects may be funded or some projects may receive 
second year funding to allow extended tracking of families who left the 
TANF caseload or were diverted from the roles.
    The Economic Research Service (ERS) of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture has provided a portion of the total funding in order to 
support analyses of outcomes for families in rural areas, particularly 
rural areas with historically high concentrations of poverty. ERS 
funding under this ASPE announcement is separate from the ERS grant 
program--``Status of Households who Leave the Food Stamp Program.'' If 
applicant is applying to both grant programs (ASPE and ERS) the 
application should specify how the projects will be coordinated. The 
U.S. Department of Labor has also provided a portion of the total 
funding, in order to support greater use of in-depth, in-person 
interviews.
    Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) of the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) expects to make 
available up to $350,000 over and above the ASPE awards through 
supplemental grants for analyses including assisted housing recipients.

Background

    Since 1993, AFDC caseloads have seen unprecedented declines. A 
portion of the decline can be attributed to increasing numbers of 
former recipients leaving the rolls. The remainder is comprised of 
fewer families entering the rolls than in previous periods. While it is 
likely that a strong economy has enabled many people to move in to the 
workplace, or to remain there, there is little beyond anecdotes to 
indicate for certain what has happened to them. Under the Personal 
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), with 
its time limits and emphasis on employment, the trend in caseload 
declines may continue.
    The studies funded under this announcement build on previous ASPE 
sponsored data-linkage and research projects. In FY 1996 and 1997, ASPE 
awarded grants to five states (and one county) for the purpose of 
linking administrative databases from multiple programs in order to 
study the interactions between programs and the use of multiple sources 
of assistance by recipients. Also in FY 1997, ASPE and ACF sponsored a 
study on the effects of formal and informal TANF diversion programs on 
recipients and on participation in other public programs, particularly 
Medicaid.
    Administrative records provide a reliable estimate of individuals 
receiving benefits. Historically, however, AFDC administrative records 
have only tracked the status of individuals and families while they 
were receiving welfare. Examining the situation of recipients once they 
leave, or of applicants who never receive cash welfare, takes 
additional efforts by welfare agencies, such as linking public 
assistance databases to those that store earnings data (e.g. 
unemployment insurance records) and data on other public programs (e.g. 
Food Stamps, Medicaid, Child Care).
    A number of issues may be identified using linked administrative 
data, including whether the adults are employed, how long they are 
employed, how much they are earning, whether their earnings have 
increased, and whether they have returned to TANF. It may also be 
possible to provide an indication whether family well-being has 
improved, worsened or been maintained, by examining families' 
involvement with the child welfare system, whether they continue to 
receive Medicaid and child care subsidies, have any food or housing 
insecurity, and receive other federal, state or community sources of 
support they have, etc. (See suggested topical areas below).
    Many states have begun planning or implementing efforts to track 
welfare reform outcomes on recipients. These efforts have employed a 
range of methods, which include linking administrative databases, 
telephone or in person interviews or surveys, and focus groups--
Maryland and South Carolina, for example, have recently released 
preliminary reports tracking some characteristics of families who have 
left their public assistance programs, using very different 
methodologies.
    Maryland's report relied on linked administrative data from TANF, 
Child Welfare and the Unemployment Insurance system to look at: history 
of welfare receipt; reasons for case closure, including sanctions; 
employment and earnings over time both before and after case closure; 
the industries in which welfare leavers were employed; and the 
incidence of child welfare investigations and foster care placements 
among children in families who had left welfare.
    Although the Maryland study was not intended to attribute cause and 
effect, it allowed cross-tabulations of workforce success and 
recidivism against length of last welfare spell and months of lifetime 
welfare receipt, and against work history before, during and after 
welfare. In the summer of 1998, Maryland plans to supplement and enrich 
these results with a survey to explore outcomes that cannot be measured 
with administrative data.
    South Carolina tracked welfare leavers who had been subject to work 
requirements or who had voluntarily sought work using two state-
designed and administered sample surveys. An important feature of South 
Carolina's approach was the great effort made to achieve a high 
response rate and therefore reduce response bias. Surveyors attempted 
to contact former welfare families several times by telephone, and if 
still unsuccessful, sent out interviewers for in person interviews. 
These techniques resulted in 77% and 78% response rates for the two 
surveys.
    Because survey instruments were used rather than administrative 
data,

[[Page 27976]]

South Carolina has been able to gather rich information on former 
welfare recipients and their families. For example, they were able to 
determine whether the recipients' perceived reasons for case closure 
corresponded to the administrative record. When they examined 
employment outcomes, they gathered a much richer set of employment 
outcomes than is typically available through administrative data (e.g. 
Unemployment Insurance wage records). They were also able to get 
reasons for unemployment and barriers to work, wages and work hours, 
rather than aggregated earnings, and to determine the actual jobs held 
by former recipients, rather than simply the industry in which they 
worked.
    Another area that South Carolina examined through their surveys was 
child care, including availability, type and location (family, 
neighbors, commercial centers, etc.), costs and funding sources, and 
the barrier that lack of child care or child care problems presented in 
finding and maintaining employment. Other areas included medical 
insurance coverage, transportation, children's educational status, and 
use of and knowledge of other public services, including Medicaid, Food 
Stamps, child care subsidies, rent subsidies or public housing, adult 
education, mental health and substance abuse services.
    Finally, South Carolina asked recipients about deprivations that 
they had encountered, whether while on welfare or since exit, including 
inability to pay for rent, utilities or food, homelessness, car 
repossessions, lack of needed medical treatment and changes in 
children's schools or living arrangements.

Part II  Purpose and Responsibilities

Purpose

    The purpose of this announcement is to partner with States and 
support State efforts to track former TANF recipients and their 
families, families who apply for cash welfare but are never enrolled 
because of non-financial eligibility requirements or diversion 
programs, and/or families who appear to be eligible but are not 
enrolled. In particular, ASPE would like to support State efforts to 
ascertain the sources of support used by these families, including 
employment, their use of public programs, their well-being, the extent 
of any resource insecurity or deprivation and the circumstances of 
children.
    A proposed study should include at least two cohorts. For example, 
the first cohort of families could be those who left the roles or were 
diverted at least one full year before the second calendar quarter of 
1998. This would allow the Grantee to immediately look retrospectively 
at a full year of families' experiences, and to complete their initial 
analysis of this cohort in time for the interim report. The Grantee 
should record the characteristics of families at the point of closure, 
including the reason for closure. The former recipients and their 
families should then be identified and tracked in administrative 
records from multiple programs and/or through other data-gathering 
techniques for the subsequent 12 months. In the interest of cross-State 
comparability, ASPE would prefer that if possible this cohort be drawn 
from families who left or were diverted during the last quarter of 
calendar year 1996 and tracked during the full calendar year 1997.
    The data sources and analysis used for the second cohort may be 
more extensive than those used for the first, since more time is 
available. For example, applicants may propose to enrich their 
administrative data by linking individual records with survey data or 
other data sources. Additionally, the Grantee would be able to follow 
this cohort during the term of the project, at least in part, rather 
than looking solely retrospectively. Richness of data will be an 
important criterion under which proposals are evaluated.
    ASPE understands that there is a great degree of variation in State 
programs and in the amount and scope of data available to states. It is 
therefore highly unlikely that every applicant would be able to address 
all of the issues and questions raised in the following section. It is 
also unlikely that every applicant can propose a study that includes 
both welfare leavers and families diverted from the rolls.
    However, subgroup analyses contrasting cases that close due to 
earnings, sanctions and time limits, as well as those which are never 
enrolled due to formal or informal diversion practices are strongly 
encouraged. Comparisons of characteristics and outcomes of rural versus 
urban populations and analyses special populations (e.g. the disabled, 
substance abusers) are also of interest.
    One type of possible subgroup analysis would involve HUD assisted 
families. Approximately 1.1 million households receiving AFDC benefits 
before the enactment of PRWORA were also receiving HUD housing 
assistance. Because of this substantial overlap in populations served, 
PD&R wishes to obtain reliable evidence about the interaction of 
welfare reform with housing programs. Grantees receiving supplementary 
funding from PD&R will receive, subject to satisfactory execution of 
confidentiality agreements, a file containing identifiers of families 
with children, (or a more narrowly targeted group, as defined by the 
Grantee) living in public and assisted housing in the state as of a 
month designated by the Grantee. PD&R is interested in the experience 
of these families relative to families not assisted; it is also 
interested in the experience of families living in public housing 
relative to the experience of families receiving tenant-based 
assistance or families receiving Section 8 project-based assistance.
    Because the focus of TANF is moving families to work, and because 
employment and earnings levels are such important precursors to well-
being, the one required focus will be on the employment and earnings 
status of the affected individuals. All applicants must describe how 
they intend to address employment issues. Examples of questions of 
interest regarding employment and earnings include:
     How long does it take recipients and former recipients to 
find jobs? What types of jobs do they hold? How long do they stay in 
their jobs? If they are not employed, why not? What level of wages do 
they receive and how much do they receive in total earnings? What sort 
of work schedules do they have? What, if any, employer provided fringe 
benefits and training are available to them? What fringe benefits do 
they actually receive? Are there any significant barriers to accessing 
these fringe benefits?
    Additional policy relevant topical areas which States may wish to 
address include child care usage, medical insurance coverage, receipt 
of other public benefits and child and family well-being. While each of 
the topical areas presented below present a range of issues, the 
suggested questions are in no way meant to be exhaustive. If 
prospective applicants have additional questions which they feel are 
relevant within the context of welfare reform, they are encouraged to 
raise them in their proposal. Again, richness of data is strongly 
encouraged and will be an important criterion under which proposals are 
evaluated.
    Topical areas which applicants may wish to address, with examples 
of potential questions.
     Food Stamps--What role do food stamps play in supporting 
welfare leavers?
     Family support--What role do family resources and support 
play? What role do child support payments play?

[[Page 27977]]

     Health insurance--Do families have access to health 
insurance? From what source (employer provided, Medicaid, CHIP)? Are 
premiums or copays are required? Which family members are covered?
     Child care--To what extent is child care available to 
welfare leavers and what are the most common arrangements? What is the 
source of payment for childcare? What is the quality of these 
arrangements? To what extent are eligible child care recipients taking 
advantage of services? How do child care arrangements change once 
people leave welfare, either via work or due to sanctions and time 
limits?
     Child Welfare/Foster Care--What is the incidence of 
children found to have been neglected or abused, or to enter foster 
care, following the elimination of financial assistance to a family? 
How does this compare with their experiences while on welfare?
     Child living arrangements/Kinship Care--Do we observe 
changes in child living arrangements that are correlated with the 
imposition of time limits, sanctions and work requirements? For 
instance, do we find that increasing numbers/proportions of children 
are being cared for by relatives other than parents (either as 
assistance units headed by relatives or as child-only assistance 
units)?
     Diverted cases--What types of families are diverted and 
for what reasons? Of cases diverted, how many later come onto welfare? 
What alternative sources of support do they have?
     Awareness of benefits--To what extent are families aware 
of the availability of transitional and other benefits available to 
welfare leavers and those diverted from ongoing cash assistance? To 
what extent do they avail themselves of these benefits?
     Recidivism--How many families return to welfare, when and 
why? What effect do other issues listed here appear to have on 
recidivism?
     Attitudes--What are former recipients attitudes toward 
work, TANF, leaving TANF, and their situation?
     Health Insecurity--What is the health status of each 
family member? Do they have difficulties accessing health care?
     Food Insecurity--Do families report having enough money 
for food? Do they rely on food pantries?
     Housing Insecurity--Have families been forced to double-up 
or move in with relatives? Do they report not always having enough 
money to pay the rent? Have they experienced periods of homelessness?
     Barriers to self-sufficiency--Do former recipients appear 
to face any of the following barriers to employment: disability, 
illiteracy, limited English proficiency, domestic violence, mental 
illness or substance abuse.
     Reasons for case closure--What reason is recorded in the 
case record? What reason is reported by the recipient?

Grantee Responsibilities

    1. Prior to completion of the final work plan (analysis plan), the 
Grantee should meet with relevant federal personnel, other Grantees and 
invited experts in Washington, D.C., to discuss the preliminary 
methodology and design of the research project including what research 
questions will be answered and what methodology the Grantee will employ 
to answer the questions.
    As part of this process, all the Grantees will take part in a joint 
discussion of their proposed study designs. This will encourage a level 
of comparability of issues to be addressed and data created across the 
various projects, as well as allow for peer-to-peer contacts and 
technical assistance among Grantees.
    2. No later than 30 days after this meeting and consultation the 
Grantee should submit an outline progress to date, if any, and a final 
work plan that is based on and updates the work plan submitted in the 
original application.
    3. A second meeting will be planned later in the grant period in 
Washington, D.C., to discuss preliminary findings and the format for 
the interim and final reports (for Grantees outside the Washington, 
D.C. area this may take place by telephone). A preliminary draft of the 
interim report, including initial results, if any, and a plan for any 
further data collection and analysis, should be delivered to the 
Federal Project Officer within 90 days of submission of the final work 
plan. The Federal Project Officer will return comments on the draft 
interim report to the Grantee and a minimum of three (3) copies of an 
interim report should be delivered to the Grants Officer within 30 
days. One of these copies must be unbound, suitable for photocopying; 
if only one is the original (has the original signature, is attached to 
a cover letter, etc.), it should not be this copy.
    4. After completing their analysis, the Grantee will prepare a 
final report describing the procedures used to conduct the analysis, 
barriers encountered in completing the project and the results of the 
analysis. A draft of this report should be delivered to the Federal 
Project Officer before the completion of the project. The Federal 
Project Officer will return comments on the draft report to the Grantee 
and at least three (3) copies of a final report should be delivered to 
the Grants Officer before the completion of the project. One of these 
copies must be unbound, suitable for photocopying; if only one is the 
original (has the original signature, is attached to a cover letter, 
etc.), it should not be this copy.
    5. To encourage wider analysis, Grantee will make all data 
available to the research community. ASPE prefers that this result in a 
public-use data file. In preparing the public-use data file, data 
should be edited as appropriate to ensure confidentiality of 
individuals. If the applicant feels that provision of a public-use data 
file is impossible, the application should explain why and should fully 
articulate how the applicant will make the data available to qualified 
researchers and to ASPE. In either case, the plan for data 
dissemination will be evaluated and scored during the evaluation of 
proposals.

ASPE Responsibilities

    1. ASPE will convene one to two meetings of Grantees, federal 
personnel, and relevant experts in the areas the Grantees choose to 
address. The first meeting will take place within 60 days of award and 
will allow for technical assistance and peer-to-peer contacts before 
final research design decisions have been made, as well as assuring 
that data constructs meet some standard of validity and comparability. 
A second meeting may be held approximately 6 to 8 months into the grant 
period to provide Grantees the ability to meet and discuss their 
progress to date, and assess and receive assistance with any problems 
that have arisen.
    3. ASPE will provide consultation and technical assistance in 
planning, and operating grant activities.
    4. ASPE will assist in information exchange and the dissemination 
of reports to appropriate Federal, state and local entities.

Part III  Application Preparation and Evaluation Criteria

    This section contains information on the preparation of 
applications for submission under this announcement, on the forms 
necessary for submission, and on the evaluation criteria under which 
the applications will be reviewed. Potential applicants should read 
this section carefully in conjunction with the information provided 
above. The application must contain the required Federal forms, title 
page, table of contents, and the sections

[[Page 27978]]

listed below. All pages of the narrative should be numbered.
    The application should include the following elements:
    1. Abstract: A one page summary of the proposed project.
    2. Goals and objective of the project: An overview that describes 
(1) the project, (2) the specific research questions to be 
investigated, (3) proposed accomplishments, and (4) knowledge and 
information to be gained from the project by the applicant, the 
government, and the research community. If the applicant is also 
applying for a grant to study the outcomes of welfare reform on Food 
Stamp Program leavers through the Economic Research Service, U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, then the applicant should specify here how 
the two activities would be coordinated. If the planned project builds 
on any current project, the application should describe how funding 
under this announcement will enhance, not substitute for, current state 
or local efforts.
    3. Methodology and Design: Provide a description and justification 
of how the proposed research project will be implemented, including 
methodologies, chosen approach, data sources, and a research plan 
consistent with a descriptive, tabular analysis. The proposed research 
plan should:
    (a) Describe in detail how the applicant plans to define welfare 
leavers, families who apply for cash welfare but are never enrolled 
because of non-financial eligibility requirements or diversion 
programs, and/or families who appear to be eligible but are not 
enrolled.
    (b) Identify how the proposed datasets and variables will be used 
by the Grantee to answer each of the research questions described in 
the proposal.
    (c) Identify important questions/issues for which data currently 
are not available, and strategies for dealing with this lack of data 
when it pertains to the research questions in the proposal.
    (d) Describe in detail the methodology the applicant will use to 
extract samples of all families who leave the TANF program, families 
who apply for cash welfare but are never enrolled because of non-
financial eligibility requirements or diversion programs, and/or 
families who appear to be eligible but are not enrolled. Applicants are 
encouraged to use a full population sample, but at minimum, a 
successful application will use a scientifically acceptable probability 
sampling method in which every sampling unit in the population has a 
known, non-zero chance to be included in the sample and a sample size 
large enough to make statistically reliable comparisons between planned 
subgroups.
    (e) If administrative data-linking is planned, describe the 
criteria for the selection of existing data sets, as well as the 
methods used to clean, standardize and link the case level data from 
the different sources. Applicants should discuss thoroughly how they 
intend to match case records from different data sources, and what 
internal validity checks will ensure the accuracy of the matches. The 
architecture for the resulting data set should also be discussed in 
detail.
    (f) If survey data collection is planned, identify and describe the 
methodology used to gather survey data. In particular, identify the 
sampling plan, the survey mode (e.g. telephone, in-person, mail), and 
the steps that will be taken to address any biases inherent in each. 
This should include steps planned to ensure a high response rate, such 
as a mixed mode design, multiple attempts to contact sample members, or 
respondent payments. Because of the importance of a high response rate 
in ensuring reliability, these procedures will be an important part of 
the evaluation of proposals.
    (g) If qualitative research or focus groups are planned, the 
application should include a complete plan for data collection 
procedures and analysis, including the planned composition of groups, 
planned discussion topics or facilitator's questions, a plan for 
summarizing and organizing the results, and what this part of the 
project is expected to add to the interim and final reports. The 
application should demonstrate a familiarity with the difficulties and 
potential biases of this approach, and plans to avoid or resolve them.
    (h) Identify the methodology the Grantee will use to analyze the 
data and organize the interim and final reports. Complex data analysis 
is neither expected nor preferred. Simple tabular analysis and 
descriptive statistics are appropriate. The description should include 
subgroup analyses planned, report organization and proposed 
tabulations, including table shells illustrating how the results will 
be presented.
    To the extent that the analysis uses data on individuals from 
multiple, separate sources, such as administrative databases from 
several State agencies, the proposal should discuss measures taken to 
maintain confidentiality, as well as demonstrate that the Grantee has 
obtained authorized access to those data sources. The preferred form of 
proof is a signed interagency agreement with each of the relevant 
agencies/departments. Though not preferable, letters of support from 
the appropriate agencies are acceptable, provided that the letter 
clearly states that the proposing agency has the authorization to 
access and link all necessary data. Applicants must assure that the 
collected data will only be used for management and research purposes, 
and that all identifying information will be kept completely 
confidential, and should present the methods that will be used to 
ensure confidentiality of records and information once data are made 
available for research purposes.
    4. Experience, capacity, qualifications, and use of staff: Briefly 
describe the applicant's organizational capabilities and experience in 
conducting pertinent research projects. If the proposal involves 
linking administrative databases from multiple programs the proposal 
should detail the applicant's experience in conducting relevant 
projects using linked administrative program data or identify key 
subcontractors with such experience. If the proposal involves survey 
work, the proposal should describe the applicant's experience in 
conducting relevant surveys or identify key subcontractors with such 
experience. Similarly, if the proposal involves qualitative data 
collection or analysis, the experience of the applicant or key 
subcontractors with this type of research and with these populations 
must be described in detail. If the applicant plans to contract for any 
of the work (e.g. data-linking, survey design or administration, 
qualitative analysis), and the contractors have not been retained, 
describe the process by which they will be selected. Identify the key 
staff who are expected to carry out the project and provide a resume or 
curriculum vitae for each person. Provide a discussion of how key staff 
will contribute to the success of the project, including the percentage 
of their time which will be devoted to the project.
    Applicants should demonstrate access to computer hardware and 
software for storing and analyzing the data necessary to complete this 
project.
    5. Work plan: A work plan should be included which describes the 
start and end dates of the project, the responsibilities of each of the 
key staff, and a time line which indicates the sequence of tasks 
necessary for the completion of the project. It should identify other 
time commitments of key staff members such as other projects and/or 
teaching or managerial responsibilities in absolute and percentage 
terms. The work plan should

[[Page 27979]]

include a discussion of plans for dissemination of the results of the 
study, e.g., articles in journals and presentations to the State 
legislature or at conferences. It should also discuss in detail how 
resulting data and analysis will be made available to qualified 
researchers and to ASPE. As noted above, ASPE prefers that the data be 
edited as appropriate for confidentiality and issued as a public-use 
data file. If the applicant believes that provision of a public-use 
file would be impossible, the application should explain why and should 
fully articulate how the applicant will make the data available to 
qualified researchers and to ASPE.
    6. Budget: Applicants must submit a request for federal funds using 
Standard Form 424A and include a detailed breakdown of all Federal line 
items. A narrative explanation of the budget should be included which 
explains fund usage in more detail. The applicant should clearly state 
how the funds associated with this announcement will be used and 
describe the extent to which these funds will be used for purposes that 
would not otherwise be incorporated within the project. The applicant 
should also document the level of funding from other sources, if any, 
and describe how these funds will be utilized.
    All applicants must budget for two trips to the Washington, D.C., 
area, for at least two people on each trip. As part of this grant, ASPE 
will schedule one to two meetings for all funded projects. The first 
meeting will be for planning purposes, where applicants will have the 
opportunity to meet, discuss their projects, and receive feedback from 
both the other Grantees and from ASPE staff and invited experts. This 
meeting will occur not more than 60 days after the proposals are 
funded. The second meeting will be approximately 6 to 8 months into the 
grant period, and will provide Grantees the ability to meet and discuss 
their progress to date, and assess and receive assistance with any 
problems that have arisen.
    Optional PD&R supplement: Applicants who wish to be considered for 
the PD&R supplement should attach an appendix to the main proposal. The 
appendix must contain a proposal to analyze the experience of families 
assisted by the different HUD programs relative to families not 
assisted and relative to each other, using state agency files matched 
with the file provided by HUD. The supplementary proposal should 
identify the subsets of low-income families with children in the state 
that the applicant considers of greatest policy interest. The elements 
of this supplementary proposal should be the same as the elements of 
the main proposal, i.e., abstract; goals and objectives; methodology 
and design; experience, capacity, qualifications, and use of staff; 
work plan; and budget.

Review Process and Funding Information

    Applications will be initially screened for compliance with the 
timeliness and completeness requirements. Three (3) copies of each 
application are required. One of these copies must be in an unbound 
format, suitable for copying. If only one of the copies is the original 
(i.e. carries the original signature and is accompanied by a cover 
letter) it should not be this copy.
    A Federal panel will review and score all applications that are 
submitted by the deadline date and which meet the screening criteria 
(all information and documents as required by this Announcement.) The 
panel will review the applications using the evaluation criteria listed 
below to score each application. These review results will be the 
primary element used by the ASPE in making funding decisions. The 
Department reserves the option to discuss applications with other 
Federal or State staff, specialists, experts and the general public. 
Comments from these sources, along with those of the reviewers, will be 
kept from inappropriate disclosure and may be considered in making an 
award decision.
    As a result of this competition, between 8 and 10 grants are 
expected to be made from funds appropriated for fiscal year 1998. 
Additional awards may be made depending on the policy relevance of 
proposals received and the available funding, including funds that may 
become available in FY99. The Department reserves the right to make 
fewer awards. The average grant is expected to be between $200,000 and 
$250,000.
    After ASPE has decided to fund a proposal from a particular state, 
PD&R will decide whether to fund the optional proposal related to HUD-
assisted families, if there is one. In making this determination, PD&R 
will use all of the criteria listed below except item 5 (ability to 
sustain project after funding).
Reports
    As noted in the Grantee Responsibilities, three substantive reports 
are required under the grant. (1) A final work plan is due 30 days 
after the initial consultation meeting. (2) An interim report including 
initial results, if any, and a plan for any further data collection and 
analysis is due 90 days later. (3) A final report including all results 
and analysis is due before the end of the project.
    In addition, Grantees shall provide concise quarterly progress 
reports. The specific format and content for these reports will be 
provided by the project officer.
State Single Point of Contact (E.O. No. 12372)
    DHHS has determined that this program is not subject to Executive 
Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.'' 
Applicants are not required to seek intergovernmental review of their 
applications within the constraints of E.O. 12372.
Deadline for Submission of Applications
    The closing date for submission of applications under this 
announcement is July 6, 1998. Hand-delivered applications will be 
accepted Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays during the 
working hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the lobby of the Hubert H. 
Humphrey building located at 200 Independence Avenue, SW in Washington, 
D.C. When hand-delivering an application, call (202) 690-8794 from the 
lobby for pick up. A staff person will be available to receive 
applications. Application submissions may not be faxed or submitted 
electronically.
    An application will be considered as meeting the deadline if it is 
either (1) received at, or hand-delivered to, the mailing address on or 
before July 6, 1998, or (2) postmarked before midnight five days prior 
to July 6, 1998 and received in time to be considered during the 
competitive review process (within two weeks of the deadline date).
    When mailing applications, applicants are strongly advised to 
obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier (such as UPS, 
Federal Express, etc.) or from the U.S. Postal Service as proof of 
mailing by the deadline date. If there is a question as to when an 
application was mailed, applicants will be asked to provide proof of 
mailing by the deadline date. When proof is not provided, an 
application will not be considered for funding. Private metered 
postmarks are not acceptable as proof of timely mailing.
    Applications which do not meet the deadline will be considered late 
applications and will not be considered or reviewed in the current 
competition. DHHS will send a letter to this effect to each late 
applicant.
    DHHS reserves the right to extend the deadline for all proposals 
due to natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, or

[[Page 27980]]

earthquakes; or if there is a widespread disruption of the mail; or if 
DHHS determines a deadline extension to be in the best interest of the 
government. However, DHHS will not waive or extend the deadline for any 
applicant unless the deadline is waived or extended for all applicants.
Application Forms
    Copies of applications should be requested from and submitted to: 
Grants Officer, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 
Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence 
Avenue, SW., Room 405F, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Washington, D.C. 
20201, Telephone: (202) 690-8794. Requests for forms and questions 
(administrative and technical) will be accepted and responded to up to 
10 working days prior to closing date of receipt of applications.
    Copies of this program announcement and many of the required forms 
may also be obtained electronically at the ASPE World Wide Web Page 
http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov. You may fax your request to (202) 690-6518 to 
the attention of the Grants Officer. Application submissions may not be 
faxed or sent electronically.
    The printed Federal Register notice is the only official program 
announcement. Although reasonable efforts are taken to assure that the 
files on the ASPE World Wide Web Page containing electronic copies of 
this Program Announcement are accurate and complete, they are provided 
for information only. The applicant bears sole responsibility to assure 
that the copy downloaded and/or printed from any other source is 
accurate and complete.
    Also see section entitled ``Components of a Complete Application.'' 
All of these documents must accompany the application package.
Length of Application
    Applications should be as brief as possible but should assure 
successful communication of the applicant's proposal to the reviewers. 
In no case shall an application for the primary ASPE grant (excluding 
the resumes, appendices and other appropriate attachments) be longer 
than 30 single spaced pages. Applications should be neither unduly 
elaborate nor contain voluminous supporting documentation. Applications 
for the supplemental PD&R grant should be no longer than 12 single-
spaced pages, and should make frequent reference to the primary 
application for purposes of brevity.
Selection Process and Evaluation Criteria
    Selection of the successful applicant will be based on the 
technical and financial criteria described in this announcement. 
Reviewers will determine the strengths and weaknesses of each 
application in terms of the evaluation criteria listed below, provide 
comments and assign numerical scores. The review panel will prepare a 
summary of all applicant scores and strengths/weaknesses and 
recommendations and submit it to the ASPE for final decisions on the 
award.
    The point value following each criterion heading indicates the 
maximum numerical weight that each section will be given in the review 
process. An unacceptable rating on any individual criterion may render 
the application unacceptable. Consequently, applicants should take care 
to ensure that all criteria are fully addressed in the applications. 
Applications will be reviewed as follows:
    1. Goals, Objectives, and Potential Usefulness of the Analyses (25 
points). The potential usefulness of the objectives and how the 
anticipated results of the proposed project will advance policy 
knowledge and development. If the proposed project builds on previous 
work the application should explain how. Applications will be judged on 
the quality and policy relevance of the proposed questions. 
Applications which do not address employment and earnings factors will 
not be considered fundable.
    2. Quality and Soundness of Methodology and Design (30 points). The 
appropriateness, soundness, and cost-effectiveness of the methodology, 
including the research design, selection of existing data sets, data 
gathering procedures, statistical techniques, and analytical 
strategies. Richness of policy relevant data will be an important 
scoring factor in this criterion.
    If administrative data-linking is planned, a critical scoring 
element will be the proposal's discussion of the methods used to clean, 
standardize and link the case level data from the different sources, 
including any proposed links between administrative data and surveys. 
Applicants should discuss thoroughly how they intend to match case 
records from different data sources, and what internal validity checks 
will ensure the accuracy of the matches. The architecture for the 
resulting data set should also be discussed thoroughly. Other design 
considerations include whether the agency applying has already obtained 
authorization to obtain and use data from the state or local agencies 
whose data would be linked, and how confidentiality of the records and 
information will be ensured. If applicants are unable to ensure the 
security of information included in the project, then it is highly 
unlikely that they will receive funding.
    If survey data collection is planned, reviewers will evaluate the 
methodology proposed to gather survey data. In particular, reviewers 
will evaluate the sampling plan, the survey mode (e.g. telephone, in-
person, mail), and the steps that will be taken to address any biases 
inherent in each. This will include evaluating steps planned to ensure 
a high response rate, such as a mixed mode design, multiple attempts to 
contact sample members, or respondent payments. Because of the 
importance of a high response rate in ensuring reliability, these 
procedures will be an important part of the evaluation of proposals 
containing surveys.
    If qualitative research or focus groups are planned, reviewers will 
evaluate the plan for data collection and analysis, including the 
planned composition of groups, planned discussion topics or 
facilitator's questions, a plan for summarizing and organizing the 
results, and what this part of the project is expected to add to the 
interim and final reports. The extent to which the application 
demonstrates a familiarity with the difficulties and potential biases 
of this approach, and plans to avoid or resolve them, will also be a 
scoring factor.
    3. Qualifications of Personnel and Organizational Capability. (20 
points). The qualifications of the project personnel for conducting the 
proposed research as evidenced by professional training and experience, 
and the capacity of the organization to provide the infrastructure and 
support necessary for the project. Reviewers will evaluate the 
applicant's principal investigator and staff on research experience and 
demonstrated research skills. Proposals which involve linking of 
administrative data and assembling of large databases will also be 
evaluated in terms of the experience of the applicant's or 
subcontractor's experience with such linking efforts. Proposals which 
involve survey work will be evaluated in terms of the applicant's or 
subcontractor's's experience in conducting relevant surveys. Similarly, 
if the proposal involves qualitative data collection or analysis, it 
will be evaluated in terms of the experience of the applicant or key 
subcontractors with this type of research and with these populations. 
If the applicant plans to contract for any of the

[[Page 27981]]

work (e.g. data-linking, survey design or administration, qualitative 
analysis), and the contractors have not been retained, reviewers will 
consider the process by which they will be selected. Ratings may 
consider references on prior research projects. Principal investigator 
and staff time commitments also will be a factor in the evaluation. 
Reviewers will rate the applicant's pledge and ability to work in 
collaboration with other scholars or organizations in search of similar 
goals. Reviewers also will evaluate the applicant's demonstrated 
capacity to work with a range of government agencies.
    4. Ability of the Work Plan and Budget to Successfully Achieve the 
Project's Objectives. (20 points). Reviewers will examine if the work 
plan and budget are reasonable and sufficient to ensure timely 
implementation and completion of the study and whether the application 
demonstrates an adequate level of understanding by the applicant of the 
practical problems of conducting such a project. Adherence to the work 
plan is particularly important because it is necessary in order to 
produce results in the time frame desired; demonstration of an 
applicant's ability to meet the schedule will be an important part of 
this criterion. Reviewers will also examine the use of any additional 
funding and the role that funds provided under this announcement will 
play in the overall project. The proposed strategy for dissemination of 
analysis results and data will also be considered. It should also 
discuss in detail how resulting data will be made available to 
qualified researchers and to ASPE. As noted above, ASPE prefers that 
the data be edited as appropriate for confidentiality and issued as a 
public-use data file. If the applicant believes that provision of a 
public-use file would be impossible, the application should explain why 
and should fully articulate how the applicant will make the data 
available to qualified researchers and to ASPE.
    5. Ability to Sustain Project After Funding (5 points). Reviewers 
will consider whether the proposal adequately addresses the following 
questions: How will the tracking of outcomes for these populations 
become an institutionalized function within the agency once the grant 
funding expires? Where will the newly created data set reside? What 
agency(ies) will have responsibility for and jurisdiction over the 
resulting data? What are the sources of financial and staff support for 
maintaining the database? How will the data be used for future policy 
planning, research and evaluation?
Disposition of Applications
    1. Approval, disapproval, or deferral. On the basis of the review 
of the application, the Assistant Secretary will either (a) approve the 
application as a whole or in part; (b) disapprove the application; or 
(c) defer action on the application for such reasons as lack of funds 
or a need for further review.
    2. Notification of disposition. The Assistant Secretary for 
Planning and Evaluation will notify the applicants of the disposition 
of their applications. If approved, a signed notification of the award 
will be sent to the business office named in the ASPE checklist.
    3. The Assistant Secretary's Discretion. Nothing in this 
announcement should be construed as to obligate the Assistant Secretary 
for Planning and Evaluation to make any awards whatsoever. Awards and 
the distribution of awards among the priority areas are contingent on 
the needs of the Department at any point in time and the quality of the 
applications which are received.
    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93-239.
Components of a Complete Application
    A complete application consists of the following items in this 
order:
    1. Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424);
    2. Budget Information--Non-construction Programs (Standard Form 
424A);
    3. Assurances--Non-construction Programs (Standard From 424B);
    4. Table of Contents;
    5. Budget Justification for Section B Budget Categories;
    6. Proof of Non-profit Status, if appropriate;
    7. Copy of the applicant's Approved Indirect Cost Rate Agreement, 
if necessary;
    8. Project Narrative Statement, organized in five sections 
addressing the following topics:
    (a) Abstract,
    (b) Goals, Objectives and Usefulness of the Project,
    (c) Methodology and design,
    (d) Background of the Personnel and Organizational Capabilities and
    (e) Work plan (timetable);
    9. Any appendices or attachments;
    10. Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace;
    11. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, or other 
Responsibility Matters;
    12. Certification and, if necessary, Disclosure Regarding Lobbying;
    13. Supplement to Section II--Key Personnel;
    14. Application for Federal Assistance Checklist.

    Dated: May 13, 1998.
Margaret A. Hamburg,
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
[FR Doc. 98-13473 Filed 5-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4151-04-P