[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 105 (Friday, June 1, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30639-30641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-10558]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR


Proposed Collection for Data Validation Requirement for 
Employment and Training Programs; Comment Request

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a preclearance 
consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies 
with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing 
collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to 
ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, 
reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, 
collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of 
collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. 
Currently, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is 
soliciting comments concerning a revision of a data validation 
requirement for the following employment and training programs: 
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA), National Farmworker Jobs (NFJP), Indian 
and Native American Employment and Training, and Senior Community 
Service Employment (SCSEP).
    A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be 
obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section 
of this notice or by accessing: http://www.doleta.gov/OMBCN/OMBControlNumber.cfm.

DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the 
addressee's section below on or before July 31, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the U.S. Department of Labor, 
Employment and Training Administration, Office of Performance and 
Technology, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-5206, Washington, DC 
20210, Attention: Karen A. Staha, Director, Division of System 
Accomplishments. Telephone number: (202) 693-3031 (this is not a toll-
free number). Fax: (202) 693-3490. E-mail: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Traci DiMartini, Office of Performance 
and Technology, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department 
of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-5206, Washington, DC 
20210; telephone: (202) 693-3698 (this is not a toll-free number); fax: 
(202) 693-3490; e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    The accuracy and reliability of program reports submitted by states 
and grantees using Federal funds are fundamental elements of good 
public administration, and are necessary tools for maintaining and 
demonstrating system integrity. The President's Management Agenda to 
improve the management and performance of the Federal government has 
emphasized the importance of complete information for program 
monitoring and improving program results. States and grantees receiving 
funding under WIA Title IB, Wagner-Peyser Act, TAA, and the Older 
Americans Act (i.e., SCSEP) are required to maintain and report 
accurate program and financial information (WIA section 185 (29 U.S.C. 
2935) and WIA Regulations 20 CFR 667.300(e)(2), Wagner-Peyser Act 
section 10 (29 U.S.C. 49i), Older Americans Act section 503(f)(3) and 
(4) (42 U.S.C. 3056a(f)(3) and (4)), and TAA regulations 20 CFR 
617.57). Further, all states and grantees receiving funding from ETA 
and the Veterans' Employment and Training Service are required to 
submit reports or participant records and attest to the accuracy of 
these reports and records.
    Performance audits conducted by the Department of Labor's Office of 
Inspector General, however, found that the accuracy of reported 
performance outcomes could not be assured due to insufficient local, 
state, and Federal oversight. To address this concern and meet the 
Agency's goal for accurate and reliable data, ETA implemented a data 
validation process in order to ensure the accuracy of data collected 
and reported on program activities and outcomes.
    Data Validation. The data validation requirement for employment and 
training programs strengthens the workforce system by ensuring that 
accurate and reliable information on program activities and outcomes is 
available. Data validation is intended to accomplish the following 
goals:
     Ensure that critical performance data are accurate.
     Detect and identify specific problems with a state's or 
grantee's reporting process, including software and data issues, to 
enable the state or grantee to correct the problems.
     Help states and grantees analyze the causes of performance 
successes and failures by displaying participant data organized by 
performance outcomes. In addition, the process allows states and 
grantees to select appropriate validation samples necessary to compute 
statistically significant error rates.
    Data validation consists of two parts:
    1. Report validation evaluates the validity of aggregate reports 
submitted to ETA by checking the accuracy of the reporting software 
used to calculate the reports. Report validation is conducted by 
processing a complete file of participant records into validation 
counts and comparing the validation counts to those reported by the 
state or grantee.
    2. Data element validation assesses the accuracy of participant 
data records.

[[Page 30640]]

Data element validation is conducted by reviewing samples of 
participant records against source documentation to ensure compliance 
with Federal definitions.
    Data Validation Background. WIA Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, and TAA 
program staff have been conducting data validation for three years. The 
states received training prior to beginning validation and receive 
ongoing training and technical assistance from ETA throughout the 
validation process. NFJP grantees have been conducting data validation 
for two years, and have received ongoing training and technical 
assistance during this period. SCSEP grantees will begin data 
validation by the end of Calendar Year (CY) 2007. Indian and Native 
American program grantees will pilot validation by 2008.
    Resources. The requirement to perform validation derives from 
states' and grantees' responsibility to provide accurate information on 
program activities and outcomes to ETA. States and grantees are 
expected to provide resources for conducting validation from their 
administrative funds. Validation of program performance is a basic 
responsibility of grantees, who are required to report on program 
performance, in accordance with statutory provisions and Department of 
Labor regulations (29 CFR 95.51 and 97.40). ETA has taken a number of 
steps to minimize the resources needed for data validation, including 
developing tools that states and grantees can use to conduct 
validation. The estimates provided below indicate that annual staff 
requirements for a state to continue data validation operations for WIA 
Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, and TAA programs will be on average 792 hours 
each year (or less than \1/2\ of a staff year) for all three programs 
combined. For the NFJP, Indian and Native American program, and SCSEP 
grantees, the annual staff requirements will be on average 103 hours 
(or about \1/20\ of a staff year) for each grant.
    Data Validation Tools. To reduce the startup costs of implementing 
data validation, there are standardized software and user handbooks 
that states and grantees can use to conduct data validation. Software 
and handbooks have already been developed for the state programs and 
the NFJP, and will be developed for the Indian and Native American 
program and the SCSEP.
     Software generates samples, worksheets, and reports on 
data accuracy. For report validation, the software validates the 
accuracy of aggregate reports that are generated by the state's or 
grantee's reporting software and produces an error rate for each 
reported count. For data element validation, the software generates a 
sample of the participant records and data elements for the state or 
grantee to validate. The software produces worksheets on which the 
validator records information after checking the source documentation 
in the sampled case files. The software calculates error rates for each 
data element, with confidence intervals of 3.5 percent for large 
states/grantees and 4 percent for small states/grantees.
     User handbooks provide detailed information on software 
installation, building and importing a validation file, and completing 
report and data element validation. The handbooks also explain the 
validation methodology, including sampling specifications and data 
element validation instructions for each data element to be validated.
    Data Recording and Reports. States and grantees submit their 
validation results electronically to ETA in the same manner as other 
reports. The results are stored in a data base in ETA's headquarters in 
Washington, DC, and compiled in an annual validation accuracy report.
    Training and Technical Assistance. ETA has provided validation 
training and technical assistance to states in regional sessions on an 
ongoing basis since the summer of 2003. Technical assistance has also 
been provided on an ongoing basis to the NFJP grantees. Training for 
the SCSEP will take place in CY 2007. Indian and Native American 
program grantees will receive training prior to implementation. States 
and grantees may obtain technical assistance on validation procedures 
and the use of the validation tools by contacting ETA's Office of 
Performance and Technology.
    Revisions have been made for two reasons. First, for the initial 
information collection request, ETA combined the burden estimates for 
all the programs since all would be incurring start-up burden. This 
time, ETA has disaggregated the estimates for each program to 
distinguish those that are just beginning to implement data validation 
and have yet to incur a startup burden, from those that have already 
implemented data validation and will incur no new start-up burden when 
the information collection is extended.
    Second, some of the data elements to be validated have been revised 
to reflect the changes made to specific program reporting requirements 
and the definitions of the performance measures. These changes include: 
The addition of WIA Title IB validation requirements for the National 
Emergency Grants (NEG) and older youth funding streams; the deletion of 
data elements from the WIA Title IB adult, dislocated worker, and 
younger youth program validation requirements; and the deletion of data 
elements from the TAA validation requirements. The new data element 
requirements are documented in the programs' data validation user 
handbooks.

II. Review Focus

    The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments 
which:
     Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
     Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the 
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
     Minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate 
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting 
electronic submissions of responses.

III. Current Actions

    Type of Review: Revision of Approved Collection.
    Agency: Employment and Training Administration.
    Title: Data Validation Requirement for Employment and Training 
Programs
    OMB Number: 1205-0448.
    Recordkeeping: States and grantees must maintain complete records 
of all validation activities for three years. The retention requirement 
will apply to records of all validation activities, including files, 
worksheets, reports, and source documentation.
    Affected Public: State, local and tribal government entities and 
private non-profit organizations.
    Total Respondents: 318 (53 states and 265 grantees).
    Frequency: Complete data validation annually.
    Total Responses: 424 (3 responses each for the 53 states and 1 
response for each of the 265 grantees).
    Average Annual Time per Respondent: 792 hours for states' 
validations for WIA Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, and TAA combined, and 103 
hours per grantee for the NFJP, Indian

[[Page 30641]]

and Native American program, and the SCSEP.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 41,970 for all 53 states plus 27,361 for 
all 265 grantees when fully implemented.
    Average Annual Cost per Respondent/Total Burden Cost (operating/
maintaining): $25,736 on average per state and $1,364,025 per year for 
all states to complete validation for the WIA Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, 
and TAA programs. The estimated annual cost of conducting validation 
for the NFJP, Indian and Native American program, and the SCSEP 
grantees is $1,960 on average per grantee and $519,301 total.
    Total Burden Hours (start-up): There is no startup burden for WIA 
Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, and TAA programs because this was incurred 
when data validation was first implemented three years ago. NFJP 
grantees have been conducting data validation for two years and have 
received ongoing training and technical assistance during this period 
SCSEP grantees will begin data validation by the end of CY 2007. Indian 
and Native American program grantees will pilot validation by 2008. 
Startup activities for the Indian and Native American program and SCSEP 
will require an additional 75 hours on average per grantee in the 
initial year of validation for a total of 16,072 start-up burden hours.
    Total Burden Cost (start-up): $1,311 for each of the 74 SCSEP 
grants and $847 for each of the 141 Indian and Native American program 
grantee for 281,931 combined for the 215 grantees in the initial year 
of validation for both the Indian and Native American program and the 
SCSEP, and $0 for NFJP and the WIA Title IB, Wagner-Peyser, and TAA 
programs.
    Data validation, when fully implemented, is estimated to require an 
annual burden of 69,331 hours and $1,883,326 for operating all six 
programs subject to the validation requirement. And as stated earlier, 
an additional 16,072 hours and $281,931 in start-up burden in the 
initial year of validation is estimated for the Indian and Native 
American and SCSEP grantees. These estimates represent a significant 
decrease in costs and a slight increase in hours from the current OMB 
inventory for ETA data validation. The change is attributable to three 
factors:
     The elimination of start-up costs for WIA, Wagner-Peyser, 
and TAA programs, and the NFJP validation;
     Updates in the number of grantees required to conduct data 
validation; and
     Updates to the hourly cost of conducting data validation 
for grantee staff.
    Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be 
summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and 
Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also 
become a matter of public record.

    Dated: May 21, 2007.
John R. Beverly, III,
Administrator, Office of Performance and Technology.
[FR Doc. E7-10558 Filed 5-31-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P