[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 245 (Tuesday, December 22, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70795-70805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33822]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Job Training Partnership Act: Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker 
Programs; Proposed Allocation Formula

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice of a proposed updated allocation formula described 
herein, and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is publishing 
a notice of a description of and rationale for a new allocation formula 
for the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), Section 402 and the 
Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Section 167, adult migrant and seasonal 
farmworker programs, and a presentation of preliminary State planning 
estimates derived therefrom for Program Year (PY) 1999 (July 1, 1999 
through June 30, 2000). Public comment is requested.

DATES: Written comments on this notice are invited and must be received 
on or before February 5, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments shall be submitted to Ms. Anna Goddard, 
Director, Office of National Programs, Employment and Training 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-4641, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ross S. Shearer, Jr. on (202) 219-
8216, Ext. 102 (this is not a toll-free number) or via e-mail at 
<[email protected]> or Mr. Michael S. Jones on (202) 219-8216, Ext. 
103 (this is not a toll-free number) or via e-mail at 
<[email protected]>.

I. Introduction, Scope and Purpose of Notice

    This notice is published pursuant to Section 162(d) of the JTPA, 
which states:
    Whenever the Secretary utilizes a formula to allot or allocate 
funds made available for distribution at the Secretary's discretion 
under the Act, the Secretary shall, not less than 30 days prior to 
allotment or allocation, publish such formula in the Federal Register 
for comment along with the rationale for the formula and the proposed 
amount to be distributed to each State and area. After consideration of 
any comments received, the Secretary shall publish final allotments and 
allocations in the Federal Register.
    Thus, this notice represents the first stage of a two-stage 
process. Upon receipt of comments from the public regarding this 
notice, modifications to the proposed formula and preliminary planning 
estimates will be considered. In the second stage, the final formula 
and planning estimates will be published in the Federal Register.
    The formula is developed for the purpose of distributing funds 
geographically by State service area, on the basis of each State 
service area's relative share of persons eligible for the program. 
Beginning with PY 1999, a revised allocation formula is proposed which 
will improve and update the methodology for allocating funds among the 
States by using more relevant and current data on the distribution of 
the farmworker population. The revised

[[Page 70796]]

formula is the result of work done by an Interagency Task Force on 
Farmworker Population Data (Task Force) and the Department's response 
to public comments received in response to a January 16, 1997 Federal 
Register notice of a proposed updated allocation formula for the JTPA 
Section 402 program.
    Part II of this notice provides a discussion for public comment of 
the issues associated with farmworker population data, including: the 
Interagency Task Force on Farmworker Population Data, a description of 
available farmworker data sources; a discussion of the background of 
the allocation formula development; an overview of the peer review 
report; a detailed description of the proposed allocation formula; and 
a discussion of factors affecting formula development.
    Part III describes a hold-harmless provision which is proposed to 
be put into place for three years following the implementation of the 
revised allocation formula. The hold-harmless provision is designed to 
provide a staged transition from old to new funding levels for State 
service areas.
    Part IV describes proposed minimum funding provisions to address 
State service areas which would receive less than $60,000 and State 
service areas which would receive from between $60,000 and $119,999 as 
a result of the implementation of the allocation formula.
    Part V describes the proposed application of the formula and the 
hold-harmless provision using the PY 1999 appropriation for the JTPA, 
Section 402 program.

II. Description of Proposed Allocation Formula

A. Interagency Task Force on Farmworker Population Data

    In April 1994, a special task force was convened to explore options 
for revising the existing formula and its data bases. The Interagency 
Task Force on Farmworker Population Data consisted of specialists in 
the fields of demography, economics, sociology, survey research, 
statistics, an employment and training program representative and a 
representative of JTPA, Section 402 grantees. Staff from ETA, the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Economic Research Service of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of the Census of the U.S. 
Department of Commerce were represented in this group. The Task Force 
was formulated to include three members of the 1986 Interagency Task 
Force that developed the original allocation formula, which the 
proposed formula in this notice revises and updates.
    The Task Force examined a wide variety of issues in considering 
those most important to developing a funding formula. The formula 
proposed in this notice is intended to be responsive to the many 
concerns about and to the high degree of interest in farmworker 
population data. It represents the Task Force's best efforts at 
crafting a funding methodology which meets the following statutory and 
administrative requirements:
    (1) The need to use the most current data available on the 
farmworker population distribution among States;
    (2) The need to employ detailed data which enumerates the 
farmworker population at the State level, to correlate such detailed 
data with the State-by-State geographical level at which funds are 
allocated;
    (3) The need to use data which are descriptive and relevant that 
is, which address the socio-economic conditions, particularly the 
occupations and incomes, experienced by the farmworker population 
served by the JTPA, Section 402 and WIA, Section 167 programs.
    Moreover, the allocation formula described herein is also informed 
by the results of public comment received in response to an earlier 
notice describing an allocation formula proposal. As a result of those 
comments and the feedback from the Task Force, the Department chose not 
to proceed with the formula proposed at that time, and instead 
reconvened the Task Force, developed an approach for a revised, updated 
JTPA, Section 402 allocation formula responsive to the comments 
received, consulted with an expert in the field of labor and 
agricultural economics, and conducted an extensive dialogue and 
consultation with its JTPA, Section 402 grantee partners.

B. Discussion of Data Sources

    In developing both the initial and this proposed allocation 
formula, eight data bases were evaluated and considered for possible 
use in a formula distribution of JTPA, Section 402 funds. In evaluating 
the appropriateness of using any of the eight data bases, three 
measures of suitability were applied to each one. First, a measure of 
currency determined whether the data bases were composed of more recent 
or more obsolete data. Second, a measure of detail determined whether 
the data bases offered descriptions of the farmworker population at 
national, State and county levels. Third, a measure of relevance 
determined whether the data bases contained meaningful data on the 
socio-economic conditions experienced by the population. These measures 
were applied to each data source separately, and in combination with 
others, to determine which one or ones would be suitable for a revised 
formula.
    What follows is a discussion of each of the eight data bases 
considered.
1. Census of Population
    Presently, the Decennial Census of Population (COP) is the only 
source of data on the farmworker population that provides information 
on their socio-economic characteristics which is equally available at 
national, State and county levels. Geographic breadth is perhaps its 
greatest strength for the purpose at hand. The COP, among other things, 
counts individuals by occupation, industry, income level, and provides 
the number of family members for respondents. All of these are factors 
associated with participant eligibility in the JTPA, Section 402 and 
WIA Section 167 programs. Finally, the COP has been used, in whole or 
in part, for the past decade to allocate JTPA, Section 402 funds. The 
relative funding levels to the grant programs which now comprise the 
JTPA, Section 402 system have been relatively stable as a result.
    The COP also has a number of recognized weaknesses with regard to 
counting the farmworker population. These have been discussed at length 
elsewhere, by numerous, knowledgeable critics and this notice contains 
only a brief recapitulation of these problems. The 1990 COP was 
conducted during one reference week period during the first week in 
April. The enumeration in early Spring occurred at a time during which 
agricultural activity across the country was limited. Occupational 
questions on the Census form concerned the chief job activity during 
the survey week. Consequently, those farmworkers who were unemployed 
due to the seasonal nature of agriculture, or who were employed for a 
majority of hours in a nonfarm occupation, would not be counted as 
farmworkers by Census enumerators.
    Exacerbating the nonidentification of individuals as farmworkers 
was the problem of undercounting this elusive population. Farmworkers 
as a group are characterized by many members who have no fixed address; 
are highly migratory; have limited English speaking abilities; have low 
educational levels; work intermittently in various agricultural and 
non-agricultural occupations during a single year; have only casual 
employer-employee links; live in rural, often remote areas; and are 
unfamiliar with or actively distrustful of

[[Page 70797]]

government agencies and agents, such as Census enumerators. Therefore, 
the results are biased against this population.
    The COP's weaknesses as a measuring instrument also include the 
fact that it occurs decennially, and there are no intervening surveys 
of equivalent breadth. Additionally, measures of the farmworker (or any 
occupationally-defined) population, are the result of projections made 
from a smaller (in that case, 17 percent of households), not the 
universe of respondents. However, it should be noted that virtually all 
farmworker data sources suffer this weakness. As a mitigating factor, 
the COP is based on a much larger sample of households than any other 
data set.
2. Census of Agriculture
    The Census of Agriculture (COA), conducted every five years by the 
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,1 measures 
total hired and contract labor expenses incurred in the operation of 
farms during the entire year. The COA combined tallies of labor 
expenditures capture nearly all farmworkers who worked for wages. The 
COA also offers the most complete geographic coverage of hired and 
contract farm labor in its measure of labor expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For 1992 and before, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau 
of the Census was responsible for the COA. For the 1997 COA and 
beyond, that responsibility has been transferred to the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical 
Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The weaknesses of the COA include the fact that no measures of 
individual worker earnings nor demographic data are available. 
Therefore, it is not possible to determine, with these data alone, the 
number and distribution of the economically disadvantaged farmworkers 
who are the target population for JTPA, Section 402 and WIA Section 167 
services. Neither does the COA record data based on discrete 
occupations within agriculture, or the number of farmworker dependents. 
The COA expenditure data include farm managers, secretaries, clerks and 
others who are not eligible for program services based on their 
occupation. In the COA's tally of hired farmworkers, there is a 
duplicate count given the high level of turnover in this industry. (The 
count is not used in the proposed formula.) Finally, there is a 
potential problem of using expenditure data as a proxy for the number 
of farmworkers in the States, since areas with substantial agribusiness 
may have different unit costs, and different expenditure levels which 
may not necessarily yield equivalent numbers of workers.
3. National Agricultural Worker Survey
    The National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), published by the 
Department of Labor, is conducted three times annually at peak and 
slack agricultural seasons (January, May and September) and surveys a 
random sample of agricultural crop workers. The NAWS is rich in 
demographic and socio-economic detail, and includes income and family 
member data.
    The principal weakness of the NAWS is that it is not designed to 
estimate either the size or the distribution of the farmworker 
population among the States. A secondary weakness is that its 
description of the farmworker population is based on a relatively small 
annual sample of between 2,000 and 2,700 respondents located in 288 
predominantly agricultural counties in 25 States. Additionally, the 
surveyed respondents work only in crop agriculture thus the NAWS does 
not survey farmworkers engaged in livestock production who may be 
eligible for JTPA, Section 402 program services.
4. Current Population Survey
    The Current Population Survey (CPS), published by the Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, is a monthly probability survey based on a random 
sample of about 57,000 households. But very few of these have 
farmworkers. Annual summaries of the monthly CPS yield less than 1,300 
farmworkers. Earnings questions are asked of a subset of the sample 
households. Although this is the most timely of the data sources 
considered, with regard to the farmworker population, the extremely 
small sample size limits its applicability to the entire farmworker 
population. Furthermore, because of low statistical reliability, DOL 
does not publish State estimates directly from the CPS for most States.
5. Farm Labor Survey
    The Farm Labor Survey (FLS), published by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, is a quarterly 
estimate (for California, Florida, and the entire United States) of the 
employment level of all hired labor on the farm, including clerical, 
maintenance workers, etc. Agricultural service workers and contract 
workers are reported separately. The FLS is a probability survey based 
on a sample of roughly 15,000 farms. It projects from this sample the 
average number of persons engaged in agriculture in 17 regions, two of 
which are States. No income or demographic information is available 
from FLS data. However, the FLS reports separately annual average 
hourly wages for all field, livestock, and hourly workers. The hourly 
wage rates are available for all States except Alaska. The District of 
Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are also excluded. These 
annual wage rates are averages of the wage rates for each survey week 
weighted by the number of hours worked during the week. The annual 
average is based on data collected for one week each in January, April, 
July and October.
6. Farm Costs and Returns Survey
    The U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural 
Statistical Service's annual Farm Costs and Returns Survey (FCRS) 
2, data reflect total hired and contract labor expenses 
incurred in the operation of the farm during the entire year, including 
expenses for secretaries, and maintenance workers. No individual income 
or demographic data are available from the FCRS, nor are State 
estimates of the farmworker population derived directly from the FCRS. 
Instead, the FCRS data are used to calculate a national estimate which 
is then distributed among the States primarily by using data from the 
Census of Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This report is now called the Agricultural Resource 
Management Study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Bureau of Economic Analysis
    U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data 
consist of annual estimates of all wage and salary workers, including 
farmworkers and others working on a farm, such as clerical and 
maintenance workers, but excluding contract workers. The BEA estimates 
are based on data from the Farm Labor Survey, the Farm Costs and 
Returns Survey, the NAWS, and the Census of Agriculture discussed 
above, and Unemployment Insurance Program data.
8. Migrant Enumeration Project
    The Migrant Enumeration Project (MEP) data on the number of 
farmworkers are developed from a Demand for Labor study sponsored by 
the Office of Migrant Health of the Department of Health and Human 
Services in 1991-92. The formula used in the study is constructed from 
information on crop acreage, hours needed to perform a specific 
operation (e.g., harvest) on one acre of the crop, work hours per 
farmworker per day, and season length for peak work activity. This 
information was collected in counties with a migrant presence. Inter-

[[Page 70798]]

and intra-State duplicate counts are likely with this methodology. The 
number of dependents found by the MEP was calculated based on NAWS 
data. No farmworker income information is available from the MEP.

C. Background of Allocation Formula Development

    The formula used in allocating funds for the current 1998 Program 
Year is based on the 1980 COP, adjusted by the Special Agricultural 
Workers administrative data that accounted for the amnesty provisions 
of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. Continued application of 
this formula is questionable in terms of its poor relevancy and aging 
data; consequently, its continued use has grown less defensible with 
each passing year.
    The COP is an unsatisfactory methodology for counting economically 
disadvantaged migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Consequently, the 
obstacle to be overcome has been that of choosing and developing the 
best demographic sources for accurately measuring the farmworker 
population within each State and Puerto Rico and adjusting the results 
for the JTPA, Section 402 eligible farmworker population.
    One problem with using the COP for counting farmworkers is derived 
from the fact that it takes a single ``snap-shot'' in April that misses 
many farmworkers due to factors such as migration and to the low 
farmwork labor demand at that time of year. Other important 
contributors to the inaccurate count of farmworkers by the COP, relate 
to language, cultural barriers and non-traditional housing 
arrangements. The inability of the COP design to estimate the 
distribution of migrant and seasonal farmworkers is forcefully 
acknowledged in an October 25, 1994 letter from the Under Secretary for 
Economic Affairs and Statistical Services, U.S. Department of Commerce.
    The ETA, Division of Seasonal Farmworker Programs assembled a Task 
Force that included social scientists specializing in farm labor, to 
advise on how to achieve the funds allocation objective. This Task 
Force, the Interagency Task Force on Farmworker Population Data, 
reviewed available data sources and recommended a formula to ETA. The 
formula was published in the January 16, 1997, issue of the Federal 
Register. The proposed formula based 50 percent of the allocation on 
the COP's farmworker count, adjusted for poverty, and 50 percent of the 
allocation on a ratio of the total State farmwork labor expenses taken 
from the COA divided by the average farmwork wage rate in each State, 
taken from the FLS. The COA/FLS ratio actually computes the total 
number of farmworker labor hours worked in each State. There was no 
adjustment of the COA/FLS labor hours for poverty or for other JTPA, 
Section 402 eligibility criteria because at that time no means for 
doing so had been recognized for incorporation into the formula.
    Although the COA/FLS ratio is a proxy measure, the social 
scientists on the Task Force contend that the application is an 
accurate measure and that the inherent deficiencies, such as unreported 
wages, occur consistently across the United States. The COA data 
provide the cost of agricultural labor in each State. These figures are 
derived from tax reports on wages paid by farmers, and the data are 
accepted within the social science research community as being accurate 
measures of agricultural activity. When the figures are divided by each 
State's average agricultural wage rate, the results are indices 
representing the relative measures of agricultural labor activity in 
each State. The State average farm labor wage rates for hired workers 
are published quarterly by the National Agricultural Statistics 
Service, USDA as part of the Farm Labor Survey (FLS).
    The public comments on the January 1997 Federal Register Notice 
were primarily critical of the published formula for the biases 
inherent in its reliance on the COP. The criticism is largely based on 
the recognized deficiencies of the COP in counting seasonal 
farmworkers; and the primary conclusion of the critics, that there are 
inherent geographical biases underlying the deficiencies of the COP, is 
convincing. Additionally, many of those that provided comments critical 
of the COP also advocated using the NAWS to refine the COA data for 
JTPA, Section 402 eligibility (of crop workers). Following the comment 
period, the Task Force was convened on May 15, 1997 to evaluate the 
public responses.
    Pursuant to the thrust of the public comments, the Task Force 
discussion explored the feasibility of reducing reliance on COP and on 
a methodology for applying NAWS to refine the COA data. As discussion 
progressed, a strategy was proposed for an integrated application of 
the COA, NAWS, FLS and COP data sources. The design would refine the 
COA/FLS proxy, which is available separately for crop and livestock 
workers, to account for JTPA, Section 402 eligibility factors by 
applying the NAWS data to adjust the crop workers proxy and applying 
COP data to adjust the livestock workers proxy. This design would serve 
as the primary measures of JTPA, Section 402 eligible farmworkers. The 
COP would be retained as a general feature and for refining the measure 
of livestock workers. The Task Force approved the proposal for 
development.
    It should be emphasized that the underlying distributive criterion 
is the relative size of the crop and livestock labor bills across the 
States. Thus, the underlying relative weight of a State starts with the 
number of farmwork hours performed in that State. This relative 
distribution is used as a baseline, to which certain adjustments are 
made, as explained below.
    Over the course of the ensuing months, details of the formula were 
resolved by ETA, and the results were presented to the Task Force on 
February 19, 1998 for its review. The formula was approved for its 
general approach--specifically, its selection of data sources and its 
design for applying those sources as a tool for gauging the relative 
geographic demand for JTPA, Section 402 services. However, the Task 
Force withheld its final approval, pending implementation of three 
concerns raised during the discussion and summarized immediately below:
    (1) The Task Force recommended expanding the number of years used 
to offset possible effects of the size of the NAWS sample. It was 
agreed to expand the sample size by using the four years 1992-1995.
    (2) NAWS data are organized by ``Farm Labor Areas'' published in 
the Guide to Farm Jobs. One Farm Labor Area is comprised of the two 
States of Texas and Oklahoma. Because NAWS profiles only crop workers, 
the Task Force recommended separation of Oklahoma and Texas, making 
Texas a single-State Farm Labor Area (Florida and California are the 
two others) and combining Oklahoma with the ``Delta South-East'' Farm 
Labor Area that includes Arkansas, where there is greater similarity 
with the crops grown in Oklahoma than in Texas.
    (3) The number resulting from the computation of the COA's total 
agricultural labor costs divided by the wage rate is the total number 
of agricultural hours worked annually. The result of the refinements by 
NAWS is the estimated number for each State of agricultural hours 
worked in crops by JTPA, Section 402 eligible workers. These aggregate 
figures could be converted into annual units for each State, but such 
units do not translate directly into the number of farmworkers. This is 
due to regional variations in the seasonal, short-term nature of these 
jobs and the likelihood of farmworkers holding many farmwork

[[Page 70799]]

jobs in an agricultural season. For example, during any given year, a 
number of workers in a State are represented in a gross unit of hours, 
such as 10,000, but it is not the same number of workers for every 
region and State.
    These three required changes, upon which Task Force approval of the 
formula was conditioned, have been accomplished.

D. Peer Review and Report

    The Division of Seasonal Farmworker Programs (DSFP) contracted for 
and received a Peer Review of the proposed allocation formula and its 
methodology from Dr. Philip Martin--an expert in the fields of labor 
and agricultural economics. Dr. Martin, a Professor of Agricultural and 
Resource Economics at the University of California at Davis, has 
published extensively on labor migration, economic development, and 
immigration policy issues, and has testified before Congress and State 
and local agencies numerous times on these issues.
    In evaluating the proposed allocation formula and its methodology, 
Dr. Martin was asked to: (1) Determine whether or not a single reliable 
source of data exists from which a count or distribution among grantee 
jurisdictions within the United States of migrant and seasonal 
farmworkers approximating the JTPA, Section 402 eligibility criteria 
could be derived; and, (2) determine the adequacy of the proposed 
allocation formula for the distribution of JTPA, Section 402 funds 
among grantee jurisdictions in a manner which approximates the 
distribution of farmworkers within the United States who meet the JTPA, 
Section 402 eligibility criteria. Dr. Martin was also asked to provide 
recommendations, as applicable, for methods by which the allocation 
formula might be enhanced.
    As a result of his review, Dr. Martin reached the following 
conclusions:
    (1) The population of eligible [migrant and seasonal farmworkers 
(MSFWs)] can be thought of as a room of unknown size and shape. Each 
source of data on MSFWs can be considered a window that permits a look 
inside the room. Since no data source or window provides a clear view 
of the number or distribution JTPA, Section 402-eligible persons across 
States, data from several sources should be combined to obtain the best 
allocation formula [for] eligible MSFWs.
    (2) The proposed JTPA, Section 402-allocation formula (1) is better 
than the current formula and (2) represents the best combination of 
available data sources. It satisfies the major requirements for 
allocation formulae: accuracy, transparency (it is understandable), and 
it is based mostly on published data, and thus can be updated 
efficiently.
    (3) There is no better allocation formula available. As 
unemployment insurance coverage is extended to more farm workers, DOL 
may want to consider using UI data on wages paid rather than [Census of 
Agriculture] data, and thus avoid issues related to payments made to 
family members and fringe benefits.
    Dr. Martin's report describes two broad approaches to allocating 
funds among geographic areas. He describes them as top-down--
``according to the eligible population present in the area'' and 
bottoms-up--``according to eligible persons identified or served in the 
area.'' Dr. Martin notes that in a 1988 book, he reviewed the top-down 
and bottoms-up approaches for determining the number and distribution 
of farmworkers who satisfied various criteria. He was critical of the 
bottoms-up approach because it tends to compound errors. Further, 
bottoms-up based allocation methodologies reward recruitment and not 
the provision of service and they are not sensitive to migration. Dr. 
Martin notes that most bottoms-up approaches have been abandoned.
    Dr. Martin states that he had developed a top-down approach 
conceptually similar to the proposed JTPA, Section 402 allocation 
formula. He noted that ``[t]he proposed [JTPA, Section] 402 allocation 
formula improves on [his] top-down formula. Its base is the same COA 
labor expense divided by the average hourly earnings. However, the 
proposed [JTPA, Section] 402 formula is able to use the NAWS to more 
closely determine that State's shares of [JTPA, Section] 402-eligible 
workers.''

E. Proposed Allocation Formula Overview

    The proposed JTPA, Section 402-allocation formula can be summarized 
in five calculations:
    (1) Standardized or adjusted hours of farm work by State--COA farm 
labor expenses for directly hired and contract labor are separated into 
crop and livestock components and divided, respectively, by average 
hourly earnings for crop and livestock workers in the State/region 
reported in U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) FLS. The result is 
each State's share of adjusted or standardized hours of work on (a) 
crop and (b) livestock farms.
    (2) Crop hours adjustments--First, each State's share of 
standardized crop hours is adjusted to reflect that State's or region's 
share of JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible hours of work, 
i.e., the share of hours of crop work done in the State or region by 
JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible workers. JTPA, Section 402 
eligibility criteria are set forth at 20 CFR 633.107. Regulations for 
WIA Section 167 are forthcoming. Four JTPA, Section 402-/WIA, Section 
167 eligibility criteria from the NAWS are used to determine how many 
standardized hours were contributed in each of the 12 regions: (a) At 
least 50 percent of earnings must be from farmwork,3 (b) 
workers eligible for JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 services must 
have done at least 25 days of farm work in the previous 12 months or 
had farm earnings of $400 or more in the previous 24 
months,4 (c) family income must be below the Lower Living 
Standard Income Level (LLSIL) level,5 and (d) workers must 
be legally present in the U.S.6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \ 3\ NAWS obtains employment and earnings histories from the 
workers interviewed. The 50 percent of earnings from farm work 
criterion is approximated by ensuring that the ratio of the mid-
point of farm to total earnings categories exceeds 0.5. For example, 
if farm earnings are self-reported to be in the $7,500 to $9,999 
category, and total earnings in the $10,000 to $12,499, dividing the 
midpoints of these categories: $8,750/$11,250 yields 0.78.
    \ 4\ NAWS obtains detailed employment histories from workers for 
the preceding 12 months; for months 13 through 24 prior to the 
interview, respondents report whether they did farm work in any 
month. The JTPA, Section 402/WIA Section 167-eligible population was 
estimated using NAWS data on workers interviewed who satisfied at 
least one of three criteria: the interviewed worker (1) was employed 
in farm work 25 days or more in the 12 months prior to the 
interview; or (2) worked two months during the 13 through 24 month 
period prior to the interview; or (3) earned $500 or more from farm 
work in the 12 months prior to the interview.
    \ 5\ NAWS obtains earnings and income data in categories rather 
than as continuous variables, and interviewed workers reporting 
family incomes of less than $20,000 for a family of four were 
considered JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible.
    \ 6\ If male and over 18, workers receiving JTPA, Section 402/
WIA, Section 167 services must be registered with the Selective 
Service. However, data on the number or percent of farmworkers 
failing to register for the draft is not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the NAWS obtains individual data on how time was spent 
during the preceding 12 months, so that each worker's time spent doing 
farm work, nonfarm work, unemployment, and time out of the US can be 
determined. Eligible farm and nonfarm hours (including unemployment) 
are divided by eligible farm hours to determine the extent to which a 
State/region includes JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible 
workers who are not doing farm work. This nonfarm adjustment is

[[Page 70800]]

always greater than one, with greater ratios reflecting more nonfarm 
time spent in the area.
    Third, NAWS data are used to determine the ratio of eligible 
workers to eligible work days by region `` a ``turnover ratio.'' To 
account for these variations by State and region, the Task Force 
recommended use of an adjustment for differences in the length of 
employment (turnover rate) in crop jobs. The specific adjustment is the 
ratio of the number of eligible workers in the region divided by the 
number of eligible days. To be consistent with adjustment 2, the number 
of eligible days is the sum of days worked in farmwork, days worked in 
non-farmwork and days not worked. The resulting calculation adjusts the 
data so that States with a relatively larger number of workers 
represented by a given amount of eligible farmworker time are favored 
over States with a smaller number of workers needed to make up the same 
amount of eligible time in the State. Consequently, high turnover 
States (with more people per day of eligible farmworker presence) are 
favored by this adjustment.
    (3) Livestock adjustments--Each State's share of standardized 
livestock hours of work is adjusted with Census of Population (COP) 
data to reflect the percentage of livestock workers in the COP in 1990 
who were economically disadvantaged, i.e., those with family incomes 
below the LLSIL. There were 286,555 livestock workers in the 1990 COP, 
and 18 percent were deemed JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligible. 
The relative State JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligibility rates 
ranged from 34 percent in New Mexico to 1 percent in Connecticut.
    Each State's share of standardized livestock hours was multiplied 
by the percent of livestock workers deemed eligible in that State 
(i.e., the State JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligibility rate), 
and the resulting total was distributed across States, giving each 
State its percentage share of the national total of JTPA, Section 402/
WIA, Section 167-eligible livestock hours.
    (4) Forestry/Fishery--The forestry and fishery category comprises 
each State's share of eligible workers employed in Standard Industrial 
Classification codes 08 (forestry) and 09 (fishing, hunting, trapping). 
Eligible workers are those employed in these SICs as reported in the 
COP with family incomes below the LLSIL.
    (5) Combining the State distributions of the farm occupations--COP 
data on farmworkers who had incomes below the LLSIL are used to 
determine the weights assigned to the three occupational classes of 
farm labor to provide a rational basis for making the combined final 
distribution of state distributions: the crop distribution receives a 
weight of 77 percent, livestock (19 percent), and other (5 percent).

F. Proposed Allocation Formula--Detailed Description

    A detailed description of the proposed JTPA, Section 402/WIA, 
Section 167 allocation formula is as follows:
1. Standardized or Adjusted Hours of Farmwork by State
    The standardized or adjusted hours of farmwork by State involves 
determining the relative number of hours worked by Crop Workers and by 
Livestock Workers in each State.
(a) Establish The Total Wage Bill for Each State for Crop and Livestock 
Work
    Data from the 1992 Census of Agriculture provide the total 
agricultural labor wages (SICs 01 and 02) by State, and the total crop 
labor (SIC 01) wages, by State. The livestock labor (SIC 02) wages are 
calculated by subtracting the crop labor wages from the total labor 
wages.7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This reported data includes hired and contract labor and the 
contract labor data includes contractor's management expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Calculate the Hours Worked in Crop Work and in Livestock Work for 
Each State
    The Farm Labor Survey (FLS) as reported in USDA's Farm Labor 
provides information by region on the average hourly wage, separately, 
for crop workers and livestock workers. To calculate an approximate 
number of hours worked by crop workers and livestock workers, the total 
of labor wages for each State is divided by the hourly wage for that 
State's region. These calculations were made for both crop workers and 
livestock workers. This calculation was done for all States except for 
Alaska and Hawaii.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Certain pieces of information on two States were unavailable 
in the QALS for 1991, and substitutions were made.
     Hawaii does not have hourly wage information for 
livestock workers in the QALS for 1991. Hourly wage information was 
available for crop workers and for crop and livestock workers 
combined. The hourly wage for the workers combined was used as a 
substitute for the livestock hourly wage.
     Alaska does not have hourly wage information either for 
crop or for livestock workers in the QALS for 1991. The hourly wage 
information for the United States was substituted: the U.S. hourly 
wage for crop workers was used for Alaska crop workers, and the U.S. 
hourly wage for livestock workers was used for Alaska livestock 
workers.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE98.028

(c) Determination of the Relative Share of Labor Hours for Each State
    The percentage of labor hours (for crop work, and for livestock 
work) that each State contributes to the United States' total was 
calculated. This is done by dividing each State's total for crop labor 
bill by the State's average for crop wages and each State's total for 
livestock labor bill by the State's average for livestock wages. The 
percentage for crop and livestock hours of each State is calculated by 
dividing the State's hours for each into the total for all States for 
each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Data organized under the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
Regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Crop Hours Adjustments
    The crop hours adjustment involves determining the number of hours 
spent by JTPA-eligible crop workers in each State adjusted for 
``turnover'' variation. The result is expressed as the percentages of 
total national eligible hours for each jurisdiction corrected for 
``turnover'' variation by each

[[Page 70801]]

jurisdiction's ratio of eligible workers to eligible days.
(a) Adjustment 1--Eligibility for JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 
Program
    Adjustment 1 applies JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligibility 
criteria to the NAWS information for the purpose of adjusting the crop 
worker figures for JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligibility.
(1) 50 Percent of Income Derived From Crop Farmwork
    Eligibility for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 program 
requires that at least 50 percent of a farmworker's income be derived 
from agricultural employment.
    The NAWS collects information from all respondents regarding their 
total personal income, including their income derived exclusively from 
agricultural employment. In lieu of specifying an exact dollar amount, 
the NAWS respondents are asked to choose from among a number of stated 
ranges within which he or she believes his/her total family income 
falls (most ranges cover a span of $2,500).
    To determine the percentage of a farmworker's income that is 
derived from agricultural employment, reported agricultural income was 
divided by total earned income. A result of 50 percent or greater 
indicates that half or more of the farmworker's income came from 
agricultural employment.
    In order to formulate a number that could be used in such an 
equation, the midpoint of the income range was assigned as the dollar 
value of the farmworker's income. For example, a respondent indicates 
that his total income for the previous year fell in the range of 
$10,000 to $12,499, and his income from agricultural employment fell 
within the $7,500 to $9,999 range. The dollar value assigned as the 
respondent's total income would be the midpoint of $10,000 to $12,499, 
or $11,250, and the dollar value assigned as the respondent's 
agricultural income would be the midpoint of the $7,500 to $9,999 
range, or $8,750. The percentage of total income that came from 
agricultural income would be calculated using the two mid-point figures 
by dividing the agricultural income figure of $8,750 by the total 
income figure of $11,250. The result in this example being 78 percent, 
would qualify the hypothetical farmworker as meeting this eligibility 
criterion.
    The LLSIL poverty criteria values used are the highest national 
(except Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico) non-metro limit for each family 
size. The calculation uses the higher of the HHS or LLSIL values. For 
example, for family sizes of 1 to 6, the values applied, are as 
follows: $7,360, $10,520, $14,440, $17,820, $21,030, and $24,600.
(2) 25 Days or $400 of Crop Farmwork in Previous 24 Months
    To be eligible for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 program a 
farmworker must be employed at least 25 days in farmwork for any 
consecutive 12-month period within the 24 months preceding application 
for enrollment, or have earned $400 in farmwork and have been primarily 
employed in farmwork on a seasonal basis.
    The NAWS collects information on farmworkers' periods of employment 
and non-employment for the twelve months prior to the interview. From 
this information, one is able to construct the number of days during 
these twelve months that the NAWS respondent worked in farmwork.
    For months 13 through 24 prior to the interview, the respondent is 
asked to estimate the number of months in which he or she worked in 
farmwork; one day or more worked per month equals one month. A NAWS 
respondent who stated that he/she had worked for two or more months in 
farmwork during the 13 through 24 month period is considered to have 
worked 25 days in agricultural employment.
    As mentioned previously, the NAWS collects information on 
farmworkers' income from agricultural employment from the previous 
year. As the responses to this question are categorical (as discussed 
above), NAWS does not have exact amounts earned by farmworkers. The 
lowest category is ``under $500.'' Thus, $500 is used as the minimum 
amount earned from farmwork (rather than $400). Income information is 
available only for the one year period preceding the NAWS interview.
    To satisfy this criterion for eligibility for the JTPA, Section 
402/WIA, Section 167 program, a farmworker must fulfill one of the 
three standards elaborated above: either he/she worked 25 days or more 
in the 12 months prior to the interview; or he/she worked two months 
during the 13 through 24 month period prior to the interview; or he/she 
earned $500 or more from farmwork in the past year.
(3) Below the LLSIL Poverty Line
    Eligibility for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 program 
requires that a crop farmworker and his/her family fall below the LLSIL 
poverty line. Because the NAWS collects information on the number of 
members in a farmworker's household as well as the farmworker's total 
family income, NAWS is able to estimate whether the income of the 
farmworker's family places the family below the LLSIL poverty line. A 
family was determined to fall within the LLSIL poverty line when the 
family income fell within an income category below the one in which the 
LLSIL poverty line fell. For example, the LLSIL poverty line for a 
family of 4 individuals was $18,740. This amount falls in the income 
range of $17,500 to $19,999. Thus, a family of 4 individuals whose 
family income falls below this range was considered to satisfy the 
criterion of falling below the LLSIL poverty line.10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The LLSIL consists of differing metropolitan and rural 
levels reflective of varying costs-of-living among differing 
metropolitan and rural regions. However, to facilitate the 
application of the NAWS data to this formula, and since many 
farmworkers earn income in more than one State, a single national 
standard is applied for each family size that is the highest rural 
level for each family size except that the OMB poverty level for a 
family size of one is used, as it is higher than the LLSIL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Legal or Pending Status
    The NAWS collects information on crop farmworkers' citizenship and 
work authorization status. A farmworker was considered to satisfy the 
criterion of legal status for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 
program if he/she was determined to be a citizen or a legal permanent 
resident, or if he/she held a valid form of work authorization. A 
farmworker who was determined to be undocumented was not considered to 
fulfill this eligibility criterion.
    Individuals who met all four of the criteria stated above were 
coded as eligible for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 program.
    In summary, adjustment 1 (the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-
eligibility ratio) is a ratio which adjusts total crop hours worked to 
account for hours worked by JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible 
farmworkers. This ratio is the total number of farmwork days worked by 
JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible crop workers divided by the 
total number of farmwork days worked by all crop workers. This ratio is 
always less than one, and it is multiplied by the hours worked by all 
crop workers to produce the estimated hours worked by JTPA, Section 
402/WIA, Section 167 eligible farmworkers.

[[Page 70802]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE98.029


(b) Adjustment 2--Time and Location of Activities
    For all NAWS respondents, the following data are collected 
separately by geographic location:
    The number of days that respondents spent doing crop farmwork and 
doing the other activities reported under NAWS, consisting of non-
farmwork, not working, or living abroad.
    These data permit adjusting for State-to-State movements of crop 
workers during a 12 month period. For each of these items except living 
abroad, the days were accumulated under the regions 11 in 
which the respondents indicated they occurred. These regions are the 
regions used for the wages in the previous step.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Regions were used because there were some States with 
few or no observations. Alaska and Hawaii, each single State 
regions, were not included in this calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Adjustment 2 (time and location of activity) accounts for the time 
spent by crop workers in non-agricultural employment and time not 
employed to provide a percentage of JTPA, Section 402-/WIA, Section 167 
eligible non-crop work time in each region. This is a ratio always 
greater than 1 that is calculated for each USDA region by dividing the 
sum of the number of days JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible 
respondents reported working as crop workers, not working and working 
in nonagricultural work by the total number of days reported working as 
crop workers.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE98.030

    To compute the total time that crop workers spent in each State, 
the number of hours worked by JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-
eligible crop workers (the result of applying adjustment (1) is 
multiplied by Adjustment 2 to provide the time spent in each State by 
eligible crop workers.

Time and location computation = (adjustment 1 * adjustment 2)
(c) Adjustment 3--Annual Crop Employment
    To this point, the figures are aggregations that could be converted 
into annual units of eligible hours for each State, but such units do 
not translate directly into the numbers of jobs or of farmworkers. This 
is due to regional variations in the seasonal, short-term nature of 
farmwork employment and the high probability of farmworkers holding 
multiple farmwork jobs during each agricultural season. The number of 
workers needed to make up the eligible worker hours in an annualized 
unit (e.g., 2,000 hrs.) varies from region to region. Although a number 
of workers are represented in an annualized unit (i.e., a year's worth 
of hours), due to the regional differences in crop agriculture, there 
are fractional differences in every 1,000 hours of eligible crop work 
represented for each region and State. As already stated, the NAWS 
records have the total number of eligible farmworkers in each region 
and the total number of days worked annually (in agriculture and non-
agricultural employment) and the total number of days present but not 
working by the eligible farmworkers. These data provide the total sum 
of time eligible crop workers are present in each region/State. The 
ratio of the total number of these farmworkers to the total number of 
days present in each region/State jurisdiction is an expression of the 
annual average number of days worked per farmworker in crop work. 
Differences among the regions that are due to the geographic 
differences in employment and residency/presence in the jurisdiction, 
are accounted for by the application of this ratio.
    Adjustment 3 (annual crop employment) accounts for relative 
differences in the length of time engaged in crop employment and other 
eligible activities by eligible workers annually. This is the ratio of 
the number of eligible workers divided by the number of eligible days. 
The longer the annual number of days worked in crops, the lower the 
ratio and the fewer the number of workers represented by every time 
unit, such as 10,000 hours or an estimated annualized unit. (The 
reciprocal produces an estimated annual number of days worked in crops 
per eligible farm worker.) Adjustment 3 converts the final COA/FLS 
numbers into a people denominated index.
3. Livestock Adjustments
    Livestock adjustments involve determining the State relative share 
of livestock workers expressed as percentages.
    The State relative share of livestock hours from the Standardized 
or Adjusted Hours of Farmwork, described above, is adjusted by the COP 
data for economically disadvantaged criteria. The number of 
economically disadvantaged livestock workers in each State is divided 
by the total number falling below the LLSIL (both of these figures are 
available from the COP) to calculate the portion of livestock workers 
in each State (expressed as a percentage) that are members of families 
falling within the LLSIL. This JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-
eligibility rate for livestock workers in each State is multiplied by 
the State's percentage share of livestock worker hours. This product 
expresses the share of livestock worker hours performed by those living 
below the LLSIL. The products of these calculations for each State are 
adjusted to sum to 100 so that they express the percentage each State's 
JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible livestock workers comprise 
of the national total.
4. Forestry/Fishery
    This step involves a determination of the State percentages of 
other categories of JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible 
farmworkers.
    Other seasonal farmworker consists of occupations in the Standard 
Industrial Classification codes 008 (forestry) and 009 (fishing, 
hunting, trapping). The Census of Agriculture does not include these 
SICs. Since the occupations are relatively nonmigratory, it is believed 
the COP is a reliable source and that any deficiency within the COP 
occurs consistently from State-to-State. (Arguing the merits of using 
the COP data sources for measuring the other categories of farmworkers 
is not useful since there is no other data source to consider.) The 
data are those workers

[[Page 70803]]

whose family income falls below the LLSIL required for JTPA, Section 
402/WIA, Section 167 eligibility.
5. Combining the State Distributions of the Farm Occupations
    The formula computes the ratio of JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 
167-eligible crop workers to livestock workers to other workers. 
Because differing approaches are used for determining each State's 
relative shares of crop workers, livestock workers and other 
farmworkers, it is necessary to weight the relative relationship of the 
three groups of data. The COP is the only available source that counts 
all three groups of workers, thus it is used to determine the relative 
distribution of the three, as follows. Using COP data on farmworkers 
meeting the LLSIL criteria, the formula computes the percentage that 
the U.S. total of economically disadvantaged (LLSIL) crop workers 
(216,704) comprise of total (LLSIL) farmworkers (282,625). Similarly, 
the percentage that LLSIL livestock workers comprise of total LLSIL 
farmworkers and that the other LLSIL farmworkers comprise of total 
LLSIL farmworkers is computed. The sum of the State percentages is the 
relative weight of each group, expressed as the percentage the group 
represents of the total. The sum of the three national percentages 
equals 100 percent (71.29662 + 25.60457 + 3.09881 = 100).

G. Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico

    FLS (QALS) data on Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico are either 
incomplete or nonexistent. The COA is not taken in Puerto Rico and the 
NAWS data are not available for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, where 
Census data must be relied on for measuring the populations of crop and 
livestock workers as well as other farmworkers. The basic objection to 
the Census, its failure to adequately locate and count migratory 
farmworkers, would not appear to be as significant an issue for the two 
island jurisdictions where, relative to conditions found on the 
mainland, the farmworker population tend to live at fixed addresses. 
However, there is a potential bias of Census under-count that remains 
for those areas, but at present we have no data set to address this 
deficiency. Consequently, the necessity of relying on Census data for 
determining the numbers of combined crop and livestock workers in these 
two jurisdictions is considered to be the best alternative to 
complement the approach in the conterminous 48 States.

H. Special Tabulation of COP Data

    To collect data for the COP portion of the proposed formula the 
Department used a special tabulation of 1990 COP data from the Bureau 
of the Census in the form of a selection of Standard Occupational 
Classification (SOC) and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 
for farmworkers falling below 70 percent of the LLSIL poverty 
guidelines.

I. SOC and SIC Codes

    COP equivalents were used to capture individuals in the following 
Standard Occupational Classification codes:

477--supervisors, farm workers
479--farm workers
483--marine life cultivation workers
484--nursery workers
485--supervisors, related agricultural occupations
488--graders and sorters, agricultural products
489--inspectors, agricultural products
494--supervisors, forestry and logging workers
495--forestry workers, except logging
498--fishers

    COP equivalents were used to capture individuals in the following 
Standard Industrial Classification codes:

001--agricultural production, crops
002--agricultural production, livestock
007--agricultural services
008--forestry
009--fishing, hunting and trapping

    The Department attempted to examine the widest possible range of 
workers in agricultural activities in designing its special tabulation. 
Some of the SOC and SIC categories that were considered are new, e.g., 
SOC codes 494-498 and SIC codes 008, 009, 241 and 515. Of these, SOC 
496--timber cutting and logging occupations; SOC 497--captains and 
other officers, fishing vessels; SIC 241--logging; and SIC 515--farm 
products, raw materials were discarded as not being representative of 
the population served by the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 
program. One result of the codes selected for the proposed formula is 
that funds would be allocated for Alaska. This is almost solely due to 
a significant number of low income individuals in fishing occupations. 
Under the current formula, Alaska does not receive JTPA, Section 402 
funds because of the minimal level of farmwork activity.

J. Future Revisions to Allocation Formula-Based Allotments

    One of the principal advantages associated with the use of the 
proposed formula, over the formula currently in place, is the 
capability to revise the allotment more frequently as the data bases 
used in the formula are updated. In doing so, the currency and 
continued relevance of the allocation formula and resulting allotment 
to the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible population is 
maintained.
    Therefore, to maintain the currency and relevance of the allotments 
resulting from this proposed allocation formula, the Department plans 
to update the JTPA, Section 402/WIA Section 167 allotments as any of 
the data bases which comprise the proposed allocation formula are 
changed. Similarly, the Department plans to revise the allotments as 
significant refinements to the data bases which comprise the allocation 
formula allow for greater precision.

III. Description of the Hold-Harmless Provision

    For Program Years 1999, 2000 and 2001, the Department intends to 
apply a hold-harmless provision to the allocation formula in order to 
allow a staged transition from the application of the old formula to 
the new one. The staged transition of the hold-harmless provision is 
proposed specifically as follows:
    (1) In PY 1999, each State service area will receive an amount 
equal to at least 90 percent of their PY 1998 allotments, as applied to 
the PY 1999 formula funds available. In the event the total amount 
available for PY 1999 allotments is less than the total amount 
available for PY 1998 allotments, each State will receive an amount 
equal to at least 90 percent of what they would have received had the 
PY 1998 allotment been equal to the PY 1999 allotment.
    (2) In PY 2000, each State service area will receive an amount 
equal to at least 70 percent of their PY 1998 allotments, as applied to 
the PY 2000 formula funds available. In the event the total amount 
available for PY 2000 allotments is less than the total amount 
available for PY 1998 allotments, each State will receive an amount 
equal to at least 70 percent of what they would have received had the 
PY 1998 allotment been equal to the PY 2000 allotment.
    (3) In PY 2001, each State service area will receive an amount 
equal to at least 50 percent of their PY 1998 allotments as applied to 
the PY 2001 formula funds available. In the event the total amount 
available for PY 2001 allotments is less than the total amount 
available for PY 1998 allotments, each State will receive an amount 
equal to at least 50 percent of what they would have received had the 
PY 1998 allotment been equal to the PY 2001 allotment.
    Thereafter, allocations to each State service area would be for an 
amount

[[Page 70804]]

resulting from a direct allocation of the proposed funding formula 
without adjustment.

IV. Minimum Funding Provisions

    Current regulations, at 20 CFR 633.105(b)(2)(i), allow the 
Department, at its option, not to allocate funds to any jurisdiction 
whose allocation is less than $120,000. The Department has used its 
discretion to provide $120,000 in funding to any jurisdictions whose 
allocation would fall between $60,000 and $120,000.
    Through this issuance, the Department is proposing a change to the 
current application of the minimum funding provision. This proposed 
change is designed to promote equity in terms of the per capita 
distribution of funds among jurisdictions. Under the revised proposal, 
a State area which would receive less than $60,000 by application of 
the formula will, at the option of the Department, receive no 
allocation or, if practical, be combined with another adjacent State 
area. Funding below $60,000 is deemed insufficient for sustaining an 
independently administered program. However, if practical, State 
jurisdictions which would receive less than $60,000 would be combined 
with another adjacent State area.
    Although the Department has the authority under 20 CFR 
633.105(b)(2) not to allocate any funds for use in State jurisdictions 
whose State allocation is less than $120,000, it is proposed that any 
State jurisdiction which would receive more than $60,000 but less than 
$120,000 under the proposed formula would be combined with another 
adjacent State area. In doing so, program services would continue to be 
available to farmworkers in State service areas with relatively small 
funding allocations while maintaining an equitable basis for the 
allocation of funds among each of the State service areas.

V. Program Year 1999 Preliminary State Planning Estimates

    The state allotments set forth in the Table appended to this notice 
reflect the distribution resulting from the allocation formula 
described above. For PY 1998, $71,017,000 was appropriated for JTPA, 
Section 402 migrant and seasonal farmworker programs, of which 
$67,123,818 was allocated on the basis of the old formula. The 
remaining $3,893,182 of the PY 1998 JTPA, Section 402 appropriation was 
retained in the JTPA, Section 402 national account to fund the 
farmworker housing program; the Hope, Arkansas Migrant Rest Center; 
Training and Technical Assistance Mini-Grants; and other training and 
technical assistance projects and initiatives. The figures in the first 
numerical column show the actual PY 1998 formula allocations to State 
service areas. The next column shows the percentage of each allocation.
    For PY 1999, $71,571,000 was appropriated for the JTPA, Section 402 
migrant and seasonal farmworker program, of which $67,596,408 will be 
allocated. The remaining $3,974,592 will be retained in the National 
account for farmworker housing ($3,000,000) and other training and 
technical assistance projects and initiatives ($974,592). For purposes 
of illustrating the effects of the proposed allocation formula, the 
third column of the Table shows the allocations based on the proposed 
formula without the application of the hold-harmless or minimum funding 
provisions. The percentages are reported in column 4. The State service 
area allocations with the application of the first-year (90%) hold-
harmless and minimum funding provisions, followed by the percentages, 
are shown in columns 5 and 6.

A. Proposed Formula Allocation (Without Hold-Harmless Provision)

    The $71,571,000 formula total is proposed for allocation in the 
manner described in Part II, Section E of this notice and set forth in 
Column 3 of the Table appended to this notice.

B. Proposed Formula Allocation (With Hold-Harmless Provision)

    To transition State service areas from the current formula to the 
revised formula funding levels, a graduated hold-harmless provision 
would be applied to the first three years: at 90 percent the first 
year, at 70 percent the second year, and at 50 percent the third. For 
PY 1999, the State service areas will receive at least 90 percent of 
their relative share of the PY 1998 formula, as applied to the 1999 
formula total. Since the PY 1998 and PY 1999 formula total are actually 
the same, the proposed PY 1999 revised formula funding of State service 
areas will result in no less than 90 percent of the actual PY 1998 
funding that was actually allocated under the current formula.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 15th day of December, 1998.
Raymond Bramucci,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

 U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Program--Impact of Proposed PY 1999 Formula Allotments
                                                                        to States
 
                                                                      PY 1988                                    Proposed PY 1999
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                With hold harmless             Without hold harmless
                                                                            Percentage   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Allotment         share                        Percentage                      Percentage
                                                                                            Allocation         share        Allocation         share
                                                                     (1)             (2)             (3)             (4)             (5)             (6)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................        $791,835         1.23853        $712,652         1.10880        $600,334         0.93405
Arizona.................................................       1,519,645         2.37692       1,633,011         2.54078       1,639,376         2.55068
Arkansas................................................       1,167,409         1.82598       1,050,668         1.63472         811,923         1.26326
California..............................................      14,591,138        22.82241      15,878,912        24.70576      18,622,408        28.97432
Colorado................................................         805,523         1.25994         848,731         1.32053         848,731         1.32053
Connecticut.............................................         206,024         0.32225         224,903         0.34992         273,009         0.42477
Delaware................................................         118,334         0.18509         121,415         0.18891         121,415         0.18891
District of Columbia....................................               0         0.00000               0         0.00000               0         0.00000
Florida.................................................       4,631,415         7.24413       4,168,274         6.48535       3,039,926         4.72977
Georgia.................................................       1,711,615         2.67719       1,540,454         2.39677         865,528         1.34666
Idaho...................................................         877,438         1.37243         956,821         1.48870       1,147,954         1.78608
Illinois................................................       1,425,808         2.23015       1,459,797         2.27128       1,459,798         2.27128
Indiana.................................................         781,615         1.22255         847,127         1.31803         947,361         1.47398
Iowa....................................................       1,314,394         2.05588       1,182,955         1.84054       1,125,745         1.75153
Kansas..................................................         697,839         1.09151         762,841         1.18689         939,990         1.46252

[[Page 70805]]

 
Kentucky................................................       1,352,613         2.11566       1,217,352         1.89406       1,023,974         1.59319
Louisiana...............................................         796,032         1.24510         860,171         1.33833         927,503         1.44309
Maine...................................................         327,397         0.51209         294,657         0.45845         210,646         0.32774
Maryland................................................         306,291         0.47908         334,922         0.52110         414,039         0.64420
Massachusetts...........................................         351,027         0.54905         320,632         0.49887         320,632         0.49887
Michigan................................................         878,641         1.37431         955,539         1.48671       1,112,009         1.73016
Minnesota...............................................       1,274,775         1.99391       1,147,298         1.78506         865,373         1.34642
Mississippi.............................................       1,449,044         2.26649       1,304,140         2.02909         742,463         1.15519
Missouri................................................       1,094,524         1.71198         985,072         1.53266         919,414         1.43050
Montana.................................................         667,189         1.04357         600,470         0.93426         516,002         0.80284
Nebraska................................................         774,884         1.21202         844,183         1.31345       1,002,129         1.55920
Nevada..................................................         200,795         0.31407         180,716         0.28117         115,538         0.17976
New Hampshire...........................................         112,600         0.17612         101,340         0.15767          79,764         0.12410
New Jersey..............................................         400,038         0.62571         446,639         0.69492         673,899         1.04851
New Mexico..............................................         598,720         0.93647         660,467         1.02761         892,928         1.38929
New York................................................       1,850,667         2.89468       1,665,600         2.59148       1,307,027         2.03358
North Carolina..........................................       3,006,003         4.70177       2,705,403         4.20930       1,833,494         2.85271
North Dakota............................................         468,362         0.73258         510,194         0.79380         604,929         0.94120
Ohio....................................................         904,951         1.41546         989,242         1.53915       1,218,930         1.89651
Oklahoma................................................         608,145         0.95122         547,331         0.85158         518,624         0.80692
Oregon..................................................       1,087,697         1.70130       1,191,616         1.85402       1,502,764         2.33813
Pennsylvania............................................       1,221,441         1.91049       1,333,176         2.07427       1,615,794         2.51399
Rhode Island............................................               0         0.00000           3,481         0.00542          50,339         0.07832
South Carolina..........................................       1,080,106         1.68942         972,095         1.51247         434,082         0.67538
South Dakota............................................         692,869         1.08374         623,582         0.97022         434,085         0.67539
Tennessee...............................................         957,799         1.49812         862,019         1.34120         716,714         1.11512
Texas...................................................       5,979,800         9.35317       6,444,689        10.02719       6,722,732        10.45980
Utah....................................................         245,354         0.38377         264,204         0.41107         272,596         0.42413
Vermont.................................................         213,134         0.33337         191,821         0.29845         112,229         0.17462
Virginia................................................       1,036,441         1.62113         932,797         1.45132         853,339         1.32770
Washington..............................................       1,705,576         2.66774       1,870,742         2.91066       2,388,466         3.71618
West Virginia...........................................         219,325         0.34305         197,393         0.30712         121,869         0.18961
Wisconsin...............................................       1,229,201         1.92263       1,106,281         1.72125       1,067,498         1.66090
Wyoming.................................................         201,911         0.31581         218,285         0.33963         236,788         0.36841
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Continental U.S.....................................      63,933,384       100.00000      64,272,110       100.00000      64,272,110       100.00000
                                                         ===============================================================================================
Alaska..................................................               0         0.00000         264,479         7.95594         264,479         7.95594
Hawaii..................................................         251,607         7.88629         277,897         8.35957         277,897         8.35957
Puerto Rico.............................................       2,938,827        92.11371       2,781,922        83.68450       2,781,922        83.68450
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Non-Continental U.S.................................       3,190,434       100.00000       3,324,298       100.00000       3,324,298       100.00000
                                                         ===============================================================================================
      Total.............................................      67,123,818  ..............      67,596,408  ..............      67,596,408  ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 98-33822 Filed 12-21-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P