[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 94 (Monday, May 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27584-27599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11610]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
Notice of Availability of Funds and Solicitation for Grant
Applications (SGA) to Fund Demonstration Projects
Agency: Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor.
Announcement Type: New, Notice of Solicitation for Grant
Applications (SGA).
Funding Opportunity Number: SGA/DFA PY 09-10.
Catalog of Federal Assistance Number: 17.261.
Summary: The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training
Administration (ETA), announces the availability of $12.2 million from
funds made available through the FY 2010 DOL budget for Training and
Employment Services for grants to State Workforce Agencies (SWA) to
develop the Workforce Data Quality Initiative (WDQI). Grants awarded
will provide SWAs the opportunity to develop and use State workforce
longitudinal administrative data systems. These State longitudinal data
systems will, at a minimum, include information on programs that
provide training, employment services, and unemployment insurance and
will be linked longitudinally at the individual level to allow for
analysis which will lead to enhanced opportunity for program evaluation
and lead to better information for customers and stakeholders of the
workforce system. Where such longitudinal systems do not exist or are
incipient, WDQI grant assistance may be used to design and develop
workforce data systems that are longitudinal and which are designed to
link with relevant education data or longitudinal education data
systems. WDQI grant assistance may also be used to improve upon and
more effectively use existing State longitudinal systems.
This solicitation provides background information on workforce
longitudinal database systems, describes the application submission
requirements, outlines the process that eligible entities must use to
apply for funds covered by this solicitation, and details how grantees
will be selected.
DATES: Key Dates: The closing date for receipt of applications under
this announcement is August 16, 2010. Applications must be received at
the address below no later than 4 p.m. (Eastern Time). Application and
submission information is explained in detail in Section IV of this
SGA. A pre-recorded Webinar for prospective applicants will be online
at: http://www.workforce3one.org and available for viewing on June 21,
2010, by 3 p.m. ET, and accessible any time after that date. Reviewing
this Webinar is not mandatory but applicants are encouraged to take
advantage of this resource to get questions answered.
ADDRESSES: Mailed applications must be addressed to the U.S. Department
of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Division of Federal
Assistance, Attention: Willie E. Harris, Grant Officer, Reference SGA/
DFA PY 09-10, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N4716, Washington, DC
20210. Applications sent via facsimile (fax), telegram or e-mail will
not be accepted. Information about applying online also can be found in
Section IV.C of this document. Applicants are advised that mail
delivery in the Washington, DC area may be delayed due to mail
decontamination procedures. Hand-delivered proposals will be received
at the above address.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Grant Purpose
The WDQI will provide funding to selected SWAs to accomplish a
combination of the following objectives:
i. Develop or improve State workforce longitudinal data systems.
Workforce data are already reported by localities, States, and
nationally so grantees will not be creating entirely new data
collection systems. What will be new, however, is coordinating, or
expanding/strengthening the coordination of these workforce data
sources so individual-level records can be matched to one another
across programs and over time.
ii. Enable workforce data to be matched with education data, to
ultimately create longitudinal data systems with individual-level
information from pre-kindergarten (pre-K) through post-secondary and
into the workforce system to build capacity to measure outcomes while
protecting individual privacy. For many years DOL has supported efforts
to create workforce longitudinal administrative databases linked to
data from other programs, including education data. The WDQI will
greatly extend and expand this effort and complement the Statewide
Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) grant program administered by the
Department of Education (ED).
iii. Improve the quality and breadth of the data in workforce
longitudinal data systems. It is important that data in the
longitudinal systems are complete and accurate and include an array of
performance information in order to enhance knowledge about the
workforce system and the impact of State workforce development
programs. Data collection systems might also be improved to strengthen
data validity and to minimize the reporting burden on State agencies
and training providers.
iv. Use longitudinal data to provide useful information about
program operations and analyze the performance of education and
training programs. Policymakers and practitioners can use this data
analysis to make programmatic adjustments that improve the workforce
system.
v. Provide user-friendly information to consumers to help them
select the education and training programs that best suit their needs.
For example, Washington State displays information about training
program outcomes at http://www.careerbridge.wa.gov, allowing consumers
to compare the performance of different training providers.
The relative prominence of each objective for a given State will
primarily be determined by the State's ``launch-point'' for developing
a workforce longitudinal data system that will ultimately be linkable
to education data and will reflect high data quality standards while
protecting individual privacy (see the Section I.A.5). Additional
details on the ``launch point'' for States can be found in the section
of this SGA in Section I.A.1.
B. Background
President Obama's FY 2010 Budget requested $15 million and the
Congress
[[Page 27585]]
appropriated over $12 million for the development of workforce
longitudinal data systems. Single-state applicants can qualify for up
to $1 million in funding. Multi-state consortium applicants are
eligible for a grant amount of up to $3 million (see Section III.A for
more information on funding eligibility).
These funds will be made available through competitive WDQI grants
administered by DOL in support of a parallel and much larger effort,
the SLDS grants. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery
Act) appropriated $245 million to ED to support statewide (or in some
cases, multi-State consortia) longitudinal education data systems with
data on individuals participating in pre-K through grade 12 as well as
post-secondary education and the workforce. The grant instructions for
ED's SLDS program expressly include provisions to capture the data on
workforce participation of students before and after they leave
education systems. A request for applications was issued by ED on July
24, 2009, and applications were due December 4, 2009. The grants are
scheduled to be awarded in May 2010.
Some innovative States already have shown the advantages of SWAs
partnering with education and other entities to create comprehensive,
longitudinal data systems. The State of Florida, for example, has
developed a comprehensive system that links individuals' demographic
information, high school transcripts, college transcripts, quarterly
unemployment insurance (UI) wage data, and workforce services data.
Such data systems can provide valuable information to consumers,
practitioners, policymakers, and researchers about the performance of
education and workforce development programs.
As with the above section and for the remainder of this document,
reference to the databases being created under the WDQI may be called
``workforce longitudinal administrative databases'' or ``workforce
longitudinal databases'' interchangeably.
C. Classification of Workforce System Data
Workforce system administrative data are collected as part of the
operations of a variety of programs administered at the State and local
level. These programs provide employment and training services, pay UI
benefits to unemployed workers, and collect employer-paid UI payroll
taxes that pay for UI benefits. The employment and training data come
from a number of large and small workforce programs that provide
employment and/or training services to employed and unemployed workers.
Information is available for each service that is provided to each
worker by each program. Below are examples of the most common types of
workforce data.
i. Wage Records: The UI administrative data come from State UI
programs through regular employer reporting on contributions to the UI
payroll tax system. An important source of data on the employment and
earnings of American workers comes from these UI wage record reports
that are derived from the tax forms on covered establishments' wage and
salary employment filed quarterly by employers. UI wage record reports
include: The number of workers, worker names, Social Security numbers,
earnings, and employers' industry codes and locations. UI wage records
are comprehensive, as over 90 percent of wage and salary employment is
in covered establishments. Data are also available for civilian and
military Federal employees, but not for the self-employed.
ii. Employment and Training Services: Each of the workforce system
programs provides employment and/or training services to unemployed,
underemployed or employed individuals. Some programs also provide
services to new entrants to the labor market (with the exception of the
UI program). Data on types of employment and training services
received, such as self-service and informational activities,
prevocational services, and specific training services, are available
from a number of workforce programs including those authorized under
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), the Wagner-Peyser Act, from
the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, the Registered Apprenticeship
program and other workforce programs. Transaction information is
available for each service (e.g., training receipt, job referral, job
search assistance) that is provided to participants in each program,
together with their personal characteristics and other demographic
information. Not only is information provided on participation numbers
for employment services and training programs, information includes
employment status, pre-program earnings, occupation of employment, and
education participation or completion levels of individuals.
iii. Unemployment Insurance Benefits: The UI program also collects
data on applicants for and recipients of UI benefits, including the
number of persons that apply for UI benefits, the number that collect
benefits, and the amount of benefits paid. Administrative data
collected in the UI benefit claims process include worker demographic
information such as age, former occupation and industry, in addition to
residency information (including the street, city, State, and ZIP
code).
iv. The Federal Employment Data Exchange System (FEDES): This data
system provides States access to Federal civilian and military
employment and earnings records maintained by the Office of Personnel
Management, the Department of Defense and the U.S. Postal Service.
Data for all of these programs can be linked for any worker because
all of these programs collect the Social Security Number of the
participating individual. Workforce data can determine whether
individuals have been employed, what their earnings and industry of
employment are if they work, whether they become unemployed, whether
they collect unemployment insurance upon unemployment, what employment
services they receive from SWAs, and whether they use training
services.
D. Workforce Longitudinal Administrative Data Systems That Are in Place
or in Progress
From a recent survey conducted by the National Association of State
Workforce Agencies (NASWA), DOL received information about the current
extent of matching State education agency data with SWA data. The
information was compiled from responses from the SWA research
directors. Thirty-one responses were received from the 53 jurisdictions
that have UI programs. These results are supported by recent data
gathered through Carl D. Perkins Act accountability reporting which
found that 31 States use UI wage records to determine employment after
leaving post-secondary education.
DOL also has supplementary information on the development of
workforce longitudinal databases from a consortium of nine States that
currently maintain longitudinal administrative data. ETA has had a
longstanding contractual relationship with this consortium of States to
conduct workforce research, analysis, and evaluations. This group is
called the Administrative Data Research and Evaluation Project (ADARE)
alliance,\1\ and the members are California, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Maryland, Missouri,
[[Page 27586]]
Ohio, Texas, and Washington. DOL has funded the ADARE project since
1998.\2\ However, recently funds have not been available to support
research and analysis to make full use of the linkage between
longitudinal workforce and education data. Nonetheless, the ADARE
partners have developed working relationships with State education or
research entities (except for the Florida ADARE partner which is the
State education agency).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Administrative Data Research and Evaluation (ADARE) Alliance
Web site. 2009. http://www2.ubalt.edu/jfi/adare/.
\2\ Stevens, David W. 2004. Responsible Use of Administrative
Records for Performance Accountability: Features of Successful
Partnerships. http://www.ubalt.edu/jfi/adare/reports/ADAREcookbook504.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These two sources of information (the NASWA survey and the ADARE
States) indicate that the extent of data matching and development of
longitudinal data systems varies:
i. About 20 States currently do not have their State workforce data
arranged in longitudinal databases, nor do they match their workforce
data with education data.
ii. Almost 20 States do conduct some workforce data matching with
State educational data, but they do not have State workforce data
collected and arranged longitudinally.
iii. About a dozen States have substantial State workforce
longitudinal databases, and almost all of these databases have been
linked to available State educational data (both longitudinal and non-
longitudinal data sets). Most of these States are part of the ADARE
consortium.
The goal of the WDQI is to substantially reduce this variation and
build stronger longitudinal data systems through workforce data
matching which can link to education data.
E. Existing State Examples of Workforce Longitudinal Data Systems
Altogether, about a dozen States (including the nine ADARE States)
have developed substantial State workforce longitudinal data systems.
Most of these States created these systems using State funds for a
variety of applications, including tracking program performance,
analyzing program activities and conducting research and analysis. A
small number of these States have accumulated workforce and other
longitudinal data for several decades.
As of 2009, nine States continued to participate in the ADARE
alliance--California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri,
Ohio, Texas and Washington. All but two--Florida and Washington--use a
State research university to assemble, house, and analyze their data.
In all cases, cooperative arrangements through memoranda of
understanding and data-sharing agreements have been developed, to
enable the State WIA, Wagner-Peyser Act, and unemployment insurance
programs to share their workforce data as input to the workforce
longitudinal administrative database.
In all cases, State agencies receive analyses and reports derived
from the databases that can be used to understand and improve workforce
programs. However, each State has initiated and operated its workforce
longitudinal data system in a different manner.
WDQI applicants may be able to learn from the various approaches of
the ADARE States. These ADARE models form a useful set of examples for
any SWA considering applying for a WDQI grant. While innovation is
encouraged, applicants should make full use of the existing knowledge
and various models for building workforce longitudinal databases that
have been developed in this field. Provided below is a brief
description of four different State approaches that highlight
successful workforce longitudinal databases models and applications of
the information these databases provide.
1. University-led Partnership to Manage Statewide Data-Sharing--
Maryland: In Maryland, the research component of longitudinal data-
sharing was prioritized at the outset of the partnership between the
Jacob France Institute of the University of Maryland-Baltimore County
and the Maryland SWA, now the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing
and Regulation (DLLR). The Jacob France Institute has been authorized
through data-sharing agreements with DLLR and various other State
agencies to hold primary performance evaluation responsibilities for
Maryland's WIA Title I-B (Adult, Dislocated Worker and Youth employment
and training services), Title II (Adult Education and Literacy) and
Title IV (Vocational Rehabilitation) programs, TANF High Performance
Bonus Indicator Calculations, and core indicators of the Carl D.
Perkins Act secondary and post-secondary adult vocational education and
training services. As the steward of this performance reporting system,
the Jacob France Institute has formed partnerships with the Governor's
Workforce Investment Board, the Maryland Higher Education Commission,
the Maryland State Department of Education, the Maryland Department of
Business and Economic Development, the Maryland Department of Human
Resources, the University System of Maryland, and locally with the
Montgomery County Public Schools, the Baltimore City Public Schools,
the Empower Baltimore Management Corporation, and individual community
colleges.
In addition to statewide data-sharing, the Jacob France Institute
has been awarded grant funds to develop multi-state longitudinal data-
sharing systems among Delaware, the District of Columbia, New Jersey,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. This model of
interstate data-sharing captures workforce and education data for
individuals who are mobile in their pursuit of employment, training or
education.
2. University-led Partnership With Common Performance Management
System--Illinois: The longitudinal data system developed in Illinois is
an example of a productive evolution of data-sharing among State
agencies and educational institutions. In the mid-1980s the Center for
Governmental Studies (Center) at Northern Illinois University connected
with the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA) and the
Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES) to link UI wage
records to program participant records under the Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA). Less than a decade later, after having
established themselves as an authority on linking administrative
databases, the Center was awarded a grant to fund a project linking UI
administrative data from multiple States.
Beginning in 1994, the Center undertook a project to develop and
implement a common performance management framework which led to the
Illinois Common Performance Management System (ICPMS) linking UI wage
records with client data from JTPA workforce development programs,
adult education, primary and secondary vocational education, and
welfare-to-work. With the implementation of WIA, the Center began a
project to expand its administrative database longitudinally to include
historical archives of UI wage records which were easily accessible.
The Center benefits from the partnership by gaining access to data
which allows for in-depth research. Likewise, the Illinois workforce
agencies benefit from being able to use the database and related
research to improve system performance. The partnership is based on
transparency and cooperation and has led to analysis of longitudinal
data that has influenced frontline program management and public
policy.
3. Vendor Contracted Analysis of Longitudinal Data--Washington: The
Washington State longitudinal administrative database began as a DOL
project in the late 1970s and early
[[Page 27587]]
1980s, but has been maintained and expanded by Washington State since
that time. Today, Washington State provides an alternative model for
developing statewide longitudinal administrative databases of workforce
and education information. The State workforce investment board (the
Washington State Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board or
WTECB) collects and maintains the longitudinal State workforce data,
but has contracted with a private, non-profit research organization,
the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, to conduct analysis of
the longitudinal administrative data.
The Upjohn Institute includes a number of labor economists doing
applied research, frequently with large, longitudinal data sets. They
have experience matching longitudinal data among States (Indiana,
Georgia, Virginia, Washington and Ohio). By using a research
organization, WTECB has been able to securely and effectively manage
its commitment to accountability and performance monitoring. Through
the Upjohn Institute, WTECB is able to track the outcomes of
individuals in terms of achievement of workplace competencies,
placement in employment, increases in levels of earned income,
increased productivity, advancement out of services and overall
satisfaction with program services and outcomes. In Washington State,
there has been a focus on evaluating the returns on investment of the
State workforce system in recent years.
Aside from using a research institution instead of a research
university, Washington State is also unique because the SWA's high
level of commitment to program evaluation through longitudinal data
analysis is mirrored in the governor's office.
4. State-led Education and Workforce Longitudinal Data System--
Florida: In 1971, State legislation designed to spur improved
accountability in education resulted in creation of the Florida
Statewide Assessment Program. This program was deliberately designed to
collect a broad array of data on individuals moving through the
educational system (kindergarten through post-secondary, undergraduate
levels) for the express purpose of assessing student strengths and
weaknesses to assist with education reform efforts. In the 1980s, the
focus for data collection expanded to include career and technical
education data \3\, particularly at the post-secondary level. Since
1991, Florida State law has required community colleges and State
universities to contribute their data to this data collection system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Florida Case Study: Building a Student-Level Longitudinal
Data System. The Data Quality Campaign, August 2006. http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/State_Specific-Florida_2006_Site_Visit.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The breadth of this data system relies upon a collaborative data
collection and retention commitment from both the Office of Educational
Accountability and Information Services and the Florida Agency for
Workforce Innovation (FAWI). In addition to tracking student progress
through career or technical education, university or community college,
FAWI compiles information from workforce and social service programs
that complements the education data. This information includes data
from WIA programs, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program, and the State UI and Employment Service programs.
Not only is Florida's longitudinal data system a unique example,
but it also shows the diversity of partnerships formed in the creation
of this data system. Through the Florida Education and Training
Placement Information Program (FETPIP), agencies such as the Florida
Department of Corrections, the Florida Department of Education, the
U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
the U.S. Postal Service, the Florida Department of Management Services,
the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, Workforce Florida and
numerous others have benefitted from information sharing or analysis of
available data. The analysis from the Florida workforce longitudinal
database has resulted in a detailed performance measurement system that
goes far beyond the measures required by DOL or ED and has allowed for
in-depth evaluation of State labor and education programs.
For more information about longitudinal data systems in other ADARE
States, visit the Weblinks available in the first and second footnotes.
F. Selected Benefits and Uses of State Longitudinal Data Systems
State workforce longitudinal data systems can be used for a variety
of purposes. DOL has primarily used the data to conduct evaluation and
research. Most States have used these systems for measuring performance
of workforce and educational programs, and generally to guide program
operations and program development. Localities have been interested in
how their school district or local One-Stop Career Centers are
performing.
In recent years, DOL funded two evaluations \4\ of WIA
programs to determine the effectiveness of the program and its
components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Heinrich Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser and Ken Troske. 2009.
Workforce Investment Act Non-Experimental Evaluation: Final Report.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Labor. http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_resultDetails&pub_id=2419&mp=y.\\ Hollenbeck, Kevin, Daniel Schroeder, Christopher T.
King, and Wei-Jung Huang. 2008. Net Impact Estimates for Services
Provided Through the Workforce Investment Act. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor. http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_resultDetails&pub_id=2367&mp=y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conjunction with welfare reform in the United States,
DOL began administering grants for welfare-to-work programs. The ADARE
alliance members came together to evaluate the welfare-to-work programs
in six urban areas located in six of the ADARE States.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ King, Christopher T. and Peter R Mueser. 2005. Welfare and
Work: Experience in Six Cities. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn
Institute for Employment Research. http://www.upjohninstitute.org/publications/titles/waw.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington State had a number of its State- and Federally-
funded workforce programs evaluated by an outside research
organization, by awarding this organization a contract and giving it
access to their workforce longitudinal administrative data.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Hollenbeck, Kevin M. 2003. Net Impact Estimates of the
Workforce Development System in Washington State. Upjohn Institute
Staff Working Paper No. 03-92. http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_resultDetails&pub_id=2367.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, Maryland makes use of its longitudinal data
system for a wide variety of purposes. A recent study followed the
employment history of graduates from high schools in a single county,
for seven years. It used UI wage record data from Maryland and
surrounding States, as well as data on Federal civilian and military
employees to conduct analysis.
In 2008, a multi-state study \7\ followed the flow of TANF
leavers into the labor force, measuring their employment and earnings,
determining whether and when they became unemployed and whether they
collected unemployment insurance. Further research has extended the
analysis to examine whether they received employment services and
whether these
[[Page 27588]]
services assisted these individuals in returning to work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ O'Leary, Christopher J., and Kenneth J. Kline. 2008. UI as a
Safety Net for Former TANF Recipients. Washington, DC: Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/UI-TANF/index.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Texas, the Student Futures Project \8\ has used their
longitudinal administrative database to create a feedback system that
has led to improvements in the direct-to-college enrollment rates from
54 percent to 62 percent between 2004 and 2009 in 10 participating
local education districts. The project makes use of a number of
secondary school administrative procedures (e.g., encouraging
completion of student aid applications in class, taking of SATs,
increasing assistance with post-secondary school applications). It
assesses progress using an administrative database consisting of local
education and workforce data that are collected and analyzed by the Ray
Marshall Center at the University of Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ King, Christopher T., Deanna Schexnayder, Greg Cumpton and
Chandler Stolp. 2009. Education and Work After High School: Recent
Findings from the Central Texas Student Future Project. Bureau of
Business Research, IC2 Institute, the University of Texas at Austin.
http://centexstudentfutures.org/pubs/TBRAUG09.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The examples above show some of what can be done with State
workforce longitudinal data systems. Many other uses are possible. For
example, by developing these statewide or multi-state workforce
longitudinal databases and linking them to comparable education
databases, DOL, the States, and localities could more effectively: (1)
Determine the employment outcomes for students (for secondary and post-
secondary students alike), (2) identify education exit points that
maximize employment and earnings of former students, (3) analyze the
cost effectiveness of training programs in terms of increased earnings
for individuals, (4) relate employment outcomes to training and
education program funding, (5) illustrate the cost effectiveness of
providing employment services programs by demonstrating whether there
is a corresponding reduction in payment of UI and TANF benefits among
individuals exiting the WIA and Wagner-Peyser programs, and (6)
determine the impact of education achieved on the incidence of
individuals participating in the UI program or the TANF program.
In the future, DOL is likely to fund projects focusing on program
evaluation made possible through the development of these longitudinal
workforce databases similar to the work of the ADARE States. As these
databases are built, therefore, grantees should be prepared to address
national research queries.
In addition, SWAs (or their data analysis partner) will be expected
to use outside data resources to improve the breadth and depth of State
or multi-state workforce analysis. The following are examples of
potentially useful data sets that can either be directly incorporated
into the workforce longitudinal data system or used in conjunction with
findings generated through that data system:
i. Local Area Unemployment Statistics program (LAUS)--This is a
Federal-State joint program providing monthly estimates of total
employment and unemployment for areas including, census regions and
divisions, States, some metropolitan areas, small labor market areas,
counties and county equivalents and cities and towns of 25,000 people
or more.
ii. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) file--The
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects data on establishments
reported by UI-covered employers, including information on industry,
domain (public or private), geographic location etc., which could add
information on the type of employment held by individuals in addition
to wage levels and duration of employment. The establishment level
information in the QCEW database is protected by the Confidential
Information Protection and Statistical Efficient Act (CIPSEA) and
therefore may not be shared outside the cooperative statistical system.
However, States have the capability of generating a version of this
dataset that is not protected by CIPSEA. Further, BLS provides to the
State cooperative statistical agency the linkages of establishments
from quarter to quarter. Depending on State law and policy, the version
of the establishment data not protected by CIPSEA and the quarter-to-
quarter establishment linkages may be provided for use in the State
longitudinal data system.
iii. Business Employment Dynamics (BED)--Is a set of statistics
generated from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, or ES-202,
program. This data set is focused on employer data at the establishment
level enabling BLS to track which firms are changing hands, ceasing to
exist or acquiring additional resources. The BED file is built on the
UI tax reports of each establishment which shows employment changes
when companies form and fold. By showing quarterly gross job losses and
gains (from 1992 onward) these data can highlight the dynamic changes
occurring in the job market at a very local level or aggregated up to
the State level.
iv. Mass-Layoffs Statistics program (MLS)--BLS uses the volume of
unemployment claims reported by each establishment in the U.S. to
determine monthly mass layoff numbers. These mass layoffs are charted
by month and by quarter for regions and industries and can be an
effective tool to show major job losses affecting the local or State
workforce.
v. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD)--The U.S. Census
Bureau uses modern statistical and computing techniques to combine
Federal and State administrative data on employers and employees with
core Census Bureau censuses and surveys while protecting the
confidentiality of people and firms that provide the data. The LEHD
research program is centered on the creation and empirical analysis of
confidential, longitudinally linked employer-household micro-data for
Federal and State administrative purposes as well as confidential
Census Bureau surveys and censuses. The LEHD's Local Employment
Dynamics (LED) is a voluntary partnership between State labor market
information agencies and the U.S. Census Bureau. LED uses State UI
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wage data micro-data provided by
States. In many of the 47 participating States, longitudinal data
reaches back nearly 20 years. The LED Internet-based tools include GIS
mapping and localized workforce and industry reports.
vi. Registered Apprenticeship (RA) Program Data--An additional
source of data on individuals who may not be represented in other
workforce programs or in the education system is through the RA
program. Applicants which may include data from RA programs should note
that the DOL Office of Apprenticeship is the registration agency for RA
programs in 25 States and the data for RA programs in these States are
maintained in DOL's Registered Apprenticeship Partners Information Data
System (RAPIDS). In the other 25 States, the District of Columbia, and
U.S. Territories, the registration agency is a State Apprenticeship
Agency (SAA) recognized by DOL that has responsibility for registering
apprenticeship programs and maintaining apprenticeship data. In cases
where successful applicants propose to include apprenticeship data that
are maintained in DOL's RAPIDS, a MOU, letter of intent, data-sharing
agreement, or other supporting materials legally binding the use of
RAPIDS, are not required. DOL will work with these grantees to provide
access to apprenticeship data. Applicants should
[[Page 27589]]
visit the DOL Office of Apprenticeship's Web site (http://www.doleta.gov/oa/stateoffices.cfm and http://www.doleta.gov/oa/stateagencies.cfm) to identify the Registration Agency appropriate for
their State.
I. Funding Opportunity Description
This initiative will support development of these longitudinal
databases over a three-year grant period. Applicants will be expected
to clearly demonstrate their plans to build or expand these databases,
store and use the data in adherence to all applicable confidentiality
laws and to identify what types of analysis they will conduct with
their data while protecting individual privacy for all data collected.
A. Preparing to Apply for this Solicitation: The following are
important considerations for the development of State Workforce
Longitudinal Administrative Data Systems (for more details, please see
Section V further in this SGA).
1. Determining Capacity
In order for applicants for WDQI grants to submit plans to develop
and fully implement workforce longitudinal data systems, they will have
to identify their existing stage of development. Expectations for
grantees will differ depending on their launch point, which will fall
into one of three categories:
i. States without workforce longitudinal data systems are expected
to: (1) Develop and fully implement their systems, (2) enable their new
workforce systems to be linked to existing education longitudinal data
systems, and (3) begin conducting basic analysis and research with
their completed systems within the three-year grant period.
ii. States with partial systems are expected to: (1) Fully
implement their systems, (2) enable linkages to existing education
longitudinal data systems, and (3) conduct significant analysis and
research with their completed systems that will be accessible to
policymakers and practitioners.
iii. States with comprehensive workforce longitudinal systems are
expected to: (1) Expand and extend their systems, (2) improve linkages
with educational systems, (3) complete and publicize extensive
longitudinal analysis and research with their systems, including
developing prototype models of analysis that can be useful to other
less advanced States, and (4) develop user-friendly platforms to show
consumers performance data and analytical reports about education and
workforce service providers.
2. Collection of Longitudinal Workforce Data
Applicants will be expected to explain the scope of the
longitudinal data system which will be funded by this grant. Applicants
will be asked to describe which programs will be included in the data
system. At a minimum, the data systems should include disaggregated
individual record data for the following programs: (1) WIA Title I, (2)
Wagner-Peyser Act, (3) Trade Adjustment Assistance program data, (4) UI
wage record data, (5) UI benefit data including demographic information
associated with UI benefit payments, and (6) linkages to existing State
education agency longitudinal data. Applicants are also encouraged to
include data from other workforce programs such as Vocational
Rehabilitation or RA programs. States will need to describe any State
legislative barriers that impede the linking of data sources and
address how such impediments will be overcome. It will also be
incumbent upon SWA applicants to determine the source of all planned
workforce data used to build the workforce longitudinal databases. This
is particularly relevant in the case of the RA program as DOL is the
registration agency and collects and houses the data for many of the
State's RA programs.
Applicants should specify the planned data files--data records,
elements, and fields--that will be contained in their workforce
longitudinal data systems. Applicants should provide a detailed plan
for designing, developing, storing and using the data as well as
describe ongoing data-sharing and data storage procedures for both
security and data quality purposes.
Applicants must also describe what procedures will be implemented
to assure high standards of data quality as well as the protection of
individual privacy. WDQI grantees are expected to be a focal point for
data quality assurance and must therefore indicate what steps they will
take to assure that workforce data and data received from partner
agencies meets rigorous data quality standards.
3. Partnerships Among Agencies Within the State
Applicants will be expected to indicate which organizations will
participate in the WDQI along with their authority and willingness to
provide regular access to their data and to take an active role.
Workforce data may be supplied by organizations within the SWA as well
as from outside organizations. For example, UI wage records are kept by
the State revenue agency in some States. The WIA program is also
located outside the SWAs in some States. At a minimum, partnerships
must be made with State education agencies, but cooperation is also
encouraged with other State agencies, such as Vocational Rehabilitation
or Apprenticeship agencies (in applicable States). Applicants should be
prepared to describe potential legal or other barriers to data-sharing
among partner agencies along with the strategies to overcome such
barriers. Applicants should provide information about the firmness of
the commitment of the partners in their efforts to assemble data.
Commitments should be demonstrated by submitting descriptions or
evidence of planned or existing memoranda of understanding (MOU),
letters of intent from partners, data-sharing agreements, or other
supporting materials including legally binding agreements with
partners.
4. Working With a Research Partner
The success of most ADARE States and other States (e.g., Kentucky,
New Jersey and Wisconsin) which have worked with a State research
university for building, maintaining and using their workforce
longitudinal data systems offers an approach that States may use.
However, alternative approaches that would maintain confidentiality and
result in high-quality data systems will be considered for funding as
well.
Legislation in many States does not support data-sharing between
the State workforce and education agencies. As a result, for some SWAs,
an alternative data storing and/or data analysis intermediary may be
necessary. Private and non-profit organizations with the capacity to
safely house and manipulate large data sets in accordance with State
and Federal confidentiality provisions could serve as partners. Many
State research universities have the capacity to carry out the building
of longitudinal administrative databases and are situated
advantageously throughout the country and partnerships with a State
research university are a proven model (please refer to Section B.
above for further information).
When working with a State research university, applicants should
investigate the additional security measures that may be expected by
the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of that university. The IRB will
have to give approval for the State research institution's involvement
in this partnership that is based on its satisfaction that the plan for
[[Page 27590]]
confidential transfer, storage and usage of data is sound.
Alternative models will be considered under the WDQI grant programs
and it will be critical that the following considerations are
incorporated into any partnership model.
i. The research partner chosen by the SWA must have demonstrable
capacity to assist in the collection and storage of the longitudinal
workforce data.
ii. This research partner entity must be able to ensure that the
data collected will be stored in accordance to local, State and Federal
confidentiality provisions.
iii. This research partner will be responsible for processing data
requests, conducting in-depth data analysis, preparing standard
reports, responding to requests for additional papers and reporting on
State and local workforce and education issues and trends as requested
by external entities. It is expected, therefore, that the institution
partnering with the SWA will have the capacity to fulfill these
responsibilities.
5. Confidentiality
Applicants must describe the methods and procedures (e.g. through
demonstrating existence of or plans to develop MOUs, letters of intent,
and data-sharing agreements) for assuring the security and
confidentiality of collection, storage and use of all data contained in
the workforce longitudinal data system. Methods must describe how
confidentiality in research, evaluation and performance management will
be maintained. The responsibilities of the SWA and its partners should
be enumerated and explained. Procedures for ensuring compliance with
the State and Federal privacy and confidentiality statutes and
regulations should be discussed, especially regarding the actual
collection of data, data transmission, and the maintenance of
computerized data files. Applicants should describe confidentiality
procedures that will be used to protect personally identifiable
information, including requirements for the reporting and publication
of data. Applicants should describe under what circumstances the data
will be made available, to whom and to what level of specificity in
accordance with confidentiality laws.
The applicant should also include within their description of key
types of personnel (see Section V.A.5 further in this SGA) reference to
the level of confidentiality or access to data to which those employees
will be held based on their employment status. For example, generally
employees of State research universities are State employees, are
therefore agents of the State workforce or education agencies and are
granted access to or restricted from sensitive data based upon State
laws. In addition, they are expected to observe rules set by the State
university's IRB. It can be assumed, for the purpose of this
application, that all proposed employees will be subject to Federal
laws governing data-sharing, transfer of data and confidentiality.
6. Data-Sharing Agreements
It is to be expected that grantees in this initiative will have
partnership agreements outlining the storage, use and ongoing
maintenance of the longitudinal databases. These data-sharing
agreements must address: How data will be exchanged between partners,
the purposes for which the data will be used, how and when the data
will be disseminated, which entity maintains control of the data, which
entity actually owns the data, the intended methods of ensuring
confidential collection, use and storage of the data, and which
entities inside and outside of the data-sharing agreements will have
access to the data. Data-sharing agreements should contain specific
plans for secure data transfer and storage.
It may also be advantageous for grantees to develop data-sharing
agreements with DOL to obtain individual level data for various
programs for which the DOL is the data administrator. DOL encourages
the production of full or limited scope public use data files that will
be hosted by the SWA or an agreed upon designated host.
7. Integration of Efforts With State Education Agencies
SWAs are expected to assemble (or plan to assemble) and use
longitudinal administrative data beyond only workforce data. It is
important to connect workforce and education data to analyze
individuals' receipt of both education and training services and to
determine ways to maximize the outcomes of these services.
i. DOL encourages all SWAs which apply for WDQI grants to take
their workforce longitudinal administrative database in whatever stage
it may be in, develop it fully, and then enable the data to be matched
with similar longitudinal education databases.
ii. SWAs with longitudinal administrative databases are encouraged
to develop new approaches to link these databases with education
entities collecting comparable education data as well as with other
State agencies.
iii. SWAs which will be proposing to have their State workforce
longitudinal data systems operated by a State university should assure
that the State university staff will work closely with the State
education agency as well as the SWA.
It is important to note that many of the statewide educational data
systems supported by the ED are also in a State of development. On the
education side there may be no longitudinal data systems in place, in
which case, qualifying grantees would have to plan to link to available
non-longitudinal education data, for example, individual-level post-
secondary education data. If a State's education agency has a partially
or fully developed statewide longitudinal education data system, it
will be the responsibility of the workforce grantee to work with that
agency to link the education and the workforce data. This is one
example of the partnership that is expected between State workforce and
education agencies in developing these linked longitudinal data
systems.
Applicants must provide a description of the status of the
development of the statewide longitudinal education data system in
their State (e.g., nothing in place, statewide longitudinal data system
planned but not yet implemented, longitudinal data system partially
developed or fully developed) but they will not be penalized for
planning to incorporate education data which are not yet gathered
longitudinally.
For those States where the education statewide longitudinal data
system is incipient or undeveloped, DOL understands that it will take
time to link education data into the State workforce longitudinal
database in order to contribute to longitudinal analysis. The
expectation is that these grantees will use these education data for
analysis as soon as they have sufficient periods of longitudinal
education data matched to the workforce data.
B. Multi-State Partnerships: Collaborative approaches will result
in more complete data sets and efficient use of resources. DOL
encourages States to partner in submitting applications and work
together on developing workforce longitudinal databases. Applicants
should explain their role relative to State partners in the ``Plan
Outline'' and ``Description of Partnership Strategies'' sections of
their application. Collaborations among or between States may take
three forms:
i. Multi-state data systems: This is the most collaborative
approach and may be the most efficient, because it allows States to
share technology and
[[Page 27591]]
administrative resources. More than one State would contribute raw data
into a merged matching system, maintained by the lead administrative
agent, creating a multi-state workforce longitudinal data system. DOL
strongly encourages this approach. The following points may be helpful
in considering how to structure multi-state workforce longitudinal
administrative databases:
Look to States in close proximity whose educational
capacity is robust (particularly in the case of a major State research
university) in order to make assessments on which entities will be
approached for a proposed partnership.
Show figures on the interstate flow of residents through
education pathways and beyond to demonstrate the usefulness of
developing multi-state longitudinal databases.
Outline the contribution of data and resources of the
grant-seeking State to the multi-state longitudinal database system as
it is developing or its contribution to a system already in existence.
Anticipate what the role of this SWA will be in joining a
collaborative that is either already in progress or getting underway.
ii. Individual State data systems operated by a single entity:
States may not have the capacity to develop a workforce longitudinal
data system on their own. They may lack appropriate staff at the SWA,
State universities or other institutions to carry out this complex
process. These States can still develop data systems through
partnerships with a State education agency with sufficient capacity or
with workforce agencies and/or research universities in other States.
In such cases, two or more States would develop separate workforce
longitudinal data systems at one SWA or research entity.
iii. Coordinated data-sharing and analysis: There are many urban
labor markets that span State lines, presenting opportunities for
innovative models in this initiative. States may choose to work alone
in developing a longitudinal database, and yet still partner with
agencies across State lines to share data for expanded analysis. In
this case, applicants must demonstrate how they will ensure that the
confidentiality provisions of each State will be adhered to.
II. Award Information
A. Award Amount
Approximately $12.2 million is available for awards under this
solicitation. DOL reserves the right to award varying grant amounts
depending on the quality of the applications received, the scope of the
proposed activities, and the feasibility of the budget projections
contained in the application; and also reserves the right to award
additional grants depending on the availability of additional funds.
Grant awards may be up to $1 million but must not exceed $1 million per
grant for any single-state grantee. Grant awards may be up to $3
million per grant under a multi-state consortium model but are not to
exceed $3 million. Applications requesting funds exceeding the amounts
specified above will be found non-responsive and will not be
considered.
B. Period of Performance
The period of grant performance will be up to 36 months from the
date of execution of the grant documents. This performance period
includes all necessary implementation and start-up activities.
Applicants should plan to fully expend grant funds and submit all
reports during the period of performance, while ensuring full
transparency and accountability for all expenditures. Grants may be
extended at no additional cost to the government with adequate
justification and approval by the grant officer.
III. Eligibility Information
A. Eligible Applicants
Eligible applicants are all SWAs. These SWAs include those within
the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands. SWAs can apply for their individual State or they can
work cooperatively with one or more SWAs in other States in a multi-
state consortium or through a multi-state data-sharing agreement.
B. Cost Sharing
Cost sharing or matching funds are not required as a condition for
application, but applicants should note that their plan for WDQI
sustainability will be taken into account in the scoring under Section
V.A.2 further in this SGA.
IV. Application and Submission Information
A. How to Obtain an Application Package
This SGA contains all of the information and links to forms needed
to apply for grant funding.
B. Content and Form of Application Submission
The proposal will consist of three separate and distinct parts--(I)
a cost proposal, (II) a technical proposal, and (III) attachments to
the technical proposal. Applications that fail to adhere to the
instructions in this section will be considered non-responsive and will
not be considered. Please note that it is the applicant's
responsibility to ensure that the funding amount requested is
consistent across all parts and sub-parts of the application.
Part I. The Cost Proposal. The Cost Proposal must include the
following four items:
The Standard Form (SF)-424, ``Application for Federal
Assistance'' (available at http://www07.grants.gov/agencies/forms_repository_information.jsp and http://www.doleta.gov/grants/find_grants.cfm). The SF-424 must clearly identify the applicant and be
signed by an individual with authority to enter into a grant agreement.
Upon confirmation of an award, the individual signing the SF-424 on
behalf of the applicant shall be considered the authorized
representative of the applicant.
Applicants must supply their D-U-N-S[supreg] Number on the
SF-424. All applicants for Federal grant and funding opportunities are
required to have a Data Universal Numbering System (D-U-N-S[supreg]
Number). See Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Notice of Final
Policy Issuance, 68 FR 38402, Jun. 27, 2003. The D-U-N-S[supreg] Number
is a non-indicative, nine-digit number assigned to each business
location in the Duns & Bradstreet database having a unique, separate,
and distinct operation, and is maintained solely by D-U-N-S[supreg]
Number. The D-U-N-S[supreg] Number is used by industries and
organizations around the world as a global standard for business
identification and tracking. If you do not have a D-U-N-S[supreg]
Number, you can get one for free through the Small Business Solutions
site: http://smallbusiness.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Glossary?fLink=glossary&footerflag=y&storeId=10001&indicator=7.
The SF-424A Budget Information Form (available at http://www07.grants.gov/agencies/forms_repository_information.jsp and http://www.doleta.gov/grants/find_grants.cfm). In preparing the Budget
Information Form, the applicant must provide a concise narrative
explanation to support the request, explained in detail below.
Budget Narrative: The budget narrative must provide a
description of costs associated with each line item on the SF-424A. It
should also include leveraged resources provided to support grant
activities. In addition, the applicant should address precisely how the
administrative costs support the project goals. The entire Federal
grant amount requested should be included
[[Page 27592]]
on both the SF-424 and SF-424A (not just one year). No leveraged
resources should be shown on the SF-424 and SF-424A. Please note that
applicants that fail to provide a SF-424, SF-424A, a D-U-N-S[supreg]
Number, and a budget narrative will be removed from consideration prior
to the technical review process.
Applicants are also encouraged, but not required, to
submit OMB Survey N. 1890-0014: Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity
for Applicants, which can be found under the Grants.gov, Tips and
Resources From Grantors, Department of Labor section at http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/tips_resources_from_grantors.jsp#13
(also referred to as Faith Based EEO Survey PDF Form).
Part II. The Technical Proposal. The applicant will present the
State's overall strategy for building workforce longitudinal databases
with the capacity to link to longitudinal education databases and
consists of six parts: (1) Statement of Current Longitudinal Database
Capacity, (2) Plan Outline, (3) Description of Partnership Strategies,
(4) Description of Database Design, Data Quality Assurance and Proposed
Uses, (5) Staffing Capacity, and (6) Bonus Points--Other Data Linkages.
Applicants will be evaluated on the completeness and quality of their
submissions. A description of the criteria that will be used to
evaluate each submission and points awarded are outlined in Section V
of this SGA.
The Technical Proposal is limited to 30 double-spaced single-sided
pages with 12 point text font and 1 inch margins. Any materials beyond
these page limits will not be read. Applicants should number the
Technical Proposal beginning with page number 1. Applicants that do not
provide Part II, the Technical Proposal of the application will be
removed from consideration prior to the technical review process.
Part III. Attachments to the Technical Proposal. In addition to the
30-page Technical Proposal, the applicant must submit an Abstract, not
to exceed one page, summarizing the proposed project including
applicant name, project title, a description of the area to be served,
and the funding level requested. Consortium applications must also
clearly specify the lead State, which is the State serving as the
fiscal agent and as the administrative lead and identify each State
that is participating in the project.
The applicant may supply evidence or descriptions of planned or
existing MOUs, Letters of Intent or other statements attesting to the
formation of data-sharing partnerships as attachments to the Technical
Proposal. Detailed descriptions/qualifications for proposed staff
positions to be included in the development of these workforce
longitudinal databases may also be included as an attachment.
Attachments may not exceed 35 pages Any materials beyond this page
limit will not be read.
C. Submission Process, Date, Times, and Addresses
The closing date for receipt of applications under this
announcement is August 16, 2010. Applications must be received at the
address below no later than 4 p.m. (Eastern Time). Applications sent by
e-mail, telegram, or facsimile (FAX) will not be accepted. Applications
that do not meet the conditions set forth in this notice will not be
honored. No exceptions to the mailing and delivery requirements set
forth in this notice will be granted. Mailed applications must be
addressed to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Division of Federal Assistance, Attention: Willie E.
Harris, Grant Officer, Reference SGA/DFA, PY 09-10, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Room N4716, Washington, DC 20210. Applicants are advised
that mail delivery in the Washington area may be delayed due to mail
decontamination procedures. Hand-delivered proposals will be received
at the above address. All professional overnight delivery service will
be considered to be hand-delivered and must be received at the
designated place by the specified closing date and time.
Applicants may apply online through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov); however, due to the expected increase in system
activity applicants are encouraged to use an alternate method to submit
grant applications during this heightened period of demand. While not
mandatory, DOL encourages the submission of applications through
professional overnight delivery service.
Applications that are submitted through Grants.gov must be
successfully submitted at http://www.grants.gov no later than 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) on the closing date, and then subsequently validated by
Grants.gov. The submission and validation process is described in more
detail below. The process can be complicated and time-consuming.
Applicants are strongly advised to initiate the process as soon as
possible and to plan for time to resolve technical problems if
necessary.
It is strongly recommended that before the applicant begins to
write the proposal, applicants should immediately initiate and complete
the ``Get Registered'' registration steps at http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp. These steps may take multiple days or
weeks to complete, and this time should be factored into plans for
electronic submission in order to avoid unexpected delays that could
result in the rejection of an application. It is highly recommended
that applicants use the ``Organization Registration Checklist'' at
http://www.grants.gov/assets/Organization_Steps_Complete_Registration.pdf to ensure the registration process is complete.
Within two business days of application submission, Grants.gov will
send the applicant two e-mail messages to provide the status of
application progress through the system. The first e-mail, almost
immediate, will confirm receipt of the application by Grants.gov. The
second e-mail will indicate whether the application has been
successfully validated or has been rejected due to errors. Only
applications that have been successfully submitted by the deadline and
subsequently successfully validated will be considered. While it is not
required that an application be successfully validated before the
deadline for submission, it is prudent to reserve time before the
deadline in case it is necessary to resubmit an application that has
not been successfully validated. Therefore, sufficient time should be
allotted for submission (two business days), and if applicable,
subsequent time to address errors and receive validation upon
resubmission (an additional two business days for each ensuing
submission). It is important to note that if sufficient time is not
allotted and a rejection notice is received after the due date and
time, the application will not be considered.
To ensure consideration, the components of the application must be
saved as either .doc, .xls or .pdf files. If submitted in any other
format, the applicant bears the risk that compatibility or other issues
will prevent us from considering the application. DOL will attempt to
open the document but will not take any additional measures in the
event of problems with opening. In such cases, the non-conforming
application will not be considered for funding.
Applicants are strongly advised to use the tools and documents,
including FAQs, available on the ``Applicant Resources'' page at http://www.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp#faqs. To receive updated
information about critical issues, new tips for users and other time
sensitive updates as information is available, applicants may subscribe
to Grants.gov Updates at:
[[Page 27593]]
http://www.grants.gov/applicants/email_subscription_signup.jsp.
If applicants encounter a problem with Grants.gov and do not find
an answer in any of the other resources, call 1-800-518-4726 to speak
to a Customer Support Representative or e-mail [email protected].
Late Applications: For applications submitted on Grants.gov, only
applications that have been successfully submitted no later than 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) on the closing date and subsequently successfully
validated will be considered.
Any application received after the exact date and time specified
for receipt at the office designated in this notice will not be
considered, unless it is received before awards are made, it was
properly addressed, and it was: (a) Sent by U.S. Postal Service mail,
postmarked not later than the fifth calendar day before the date
specified for receipt of applications (e.g., an application required to
be received by the 20th of the month must be postmarked by the 15th of
that month), or (b) sent by professional overnight delivery service to
the addressee not later than one working day before the date specified
for receipt of applications. Applicants take a significant risk by
waiting to the last day to submit by grants.gov. ``Postmarked'' means a
printed, stamped or otherwise placed impression (exclusive of a postage
meter machine impression) that is readily identifiable, without further
action, as having been supplied or affixed on the date of mailing by an
employee of the U.S. Postal Service. Therefore, applicants should
request the postal clerk to place a legible hand cancellation ``bull's
eye'' postmark on both the receipt and the package. Failure to adhere
to the above instructions will be a basis for a determination of non-
responsiveness. Evidence of timely submission by a professional
overnight delivery service must be demonstrated by equally reliable
evidence created by the professional overnight delivery service
provider indicating the time and place of receipt.
D. Intergovernmental Review
This funding opportunity is not subject to Executive Order 12372,
``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.''
E. Funding Restrictions
Determinations of allowable costs will be made in accordance with
the applicable Federal cost principles. Disallowed costs are those
charges to a grant that the grantor agency or its representative
determines not to be allowed in accordance with the applicable Federal
cost principles or other conditions contained in the grant. Successful
and unsuccessful applicants will not be entitled to reimbursement of
pre-award costs.
1. Indirect Costs
As specified in OMB Circular Cost Principles, indirect costs are
those that have been incurred for common or joint objectives and cannot
be readily identified with a particular final cost objective. In order
to use grant funds for indirect costs incurred, the applicant must
obtain an Indirect Cost Rate Agreement with its Federal cognizant
agency either before or shortly after grant award. State agencies
should already have such agreements in place.
2. Administrative Costs
Under this SGA, an entity that receives a grant to carry out a
project or program may not use more than 10 percent of the amount of
the grant to pay administrative costs associated with the program or
project. Administrative costs could be direct or indirect costs, and
are defined at 20 CFR 667.220. Administrative costs do not need to be
identified separately from program costs on the SF-424A Budget
Information Form. They should be discussed in the budget narrative and
tracked through the grantee's accounting system. To claim any
administrative costs that are also indirect costs, the applicant must
obtain an Indirect Cost Rate agreement from its Federal cognizant
agency.
3. Salary and Bonus Limitations
Under Public Law 109-234, none of the funds appropriated in Public
Law 109-149, or prior Acts under the heading ``Employment and
Training'' that are available for expenditure on or after June 15,
2006, may be used by a recipient or sub-recipient of such funds to pay
the salary and bonuses of an individual, either as direct costs or
indirect costs, at a rate in excess of Executive Level II. Public Laws
111-8 and 111-117 contain the same limitations with respect to funds
appropriated under each of those Laws. These limitations also apply to
grants funded under this SGA. The salary and bonus limitation does not
apply to vendors providing goods and services as defined in OMB
Circular A-133 (codified at 29 CFR parts 96 and 99). See Training and
Employment Guidance Letter number 5-06 for further clarification:
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DCON=2262.
4. Intellectual Property Rights
The Federal Government reserves a paid-up, nonexclusive and
irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to
authorize others to use for Federal purposes: (1) The copyright in all
products developed under the grant, including a subgrant or contract
under the grant or subgrant; and (2) any rights of copyright to which
the grantee, subgrantee or a contractor purchases ownership under an
award (including but not limited to curricula, training models,
technical assistance products, and any related materials). Such uses
include, but are not limited to, the right to modify and distribute
such products worldwide by any means, electronically or otherwise.
Federal funds may not be used to pay any royalty or licensing fee
associated with such copyrighted material, although they may be used to
pay costs for obtaining a copy which are limited to the developer/
seller costs of copying and shipping. If revenues are generated through
selling products developed with grant funds, including intellectual
property, these revenues are program income. Program income is added to
the grant and must be expended for allowable grant activities.
If applicable, the following statement must be included on all
products developed in whole or in part with grant funds:
``This workforce solution was funded by a grant awarded by the U.S.
Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. The
solution was created by the grantee and does not necessarily reflect
the official position of the U.S. Department of Labor. The Department
of Labor makes no guarantees, warranties, or assurances of any kind,
express or implied, with respect to such information, including any
information on linked sites and including, but not limited to, accuracy
of the information or its completeness, timeliness, usefulness,
adequacy, continued availability, or ownership. This solution is
copyrighted by the institution that created it. Internal use by an
organization and/or personal use by an individual for non-commercial
purposes is permissible. All other uses require the prior authorization
of the copyright owner.''
F. Other Submission Requirements
Withdrawal of Applications: Applications may be withdrawn by
written notice at any time before an award is made.
V. Application Review Information
[[Page 27594]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criterion Points
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Statement of Current Capacity........................... 10
2. Plan Outline............................................ 15
3. Description of Partnership Strategies................... 30
4. Description of Database Design, Data Quality Assurance 35
and Proposed Uses.........................................
5. Staffing Capacity....................................... 10
6. Bonus Points--Other Data Linkages....................... 3
------------
Total Possible Points.................................. 103
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Evaluation Criteria
This section identifies required application elements that will be
used to evaluate proposals for the WDQI grants. The application
requirements and maximum point values are described below. Please refer
back to Section I.A of this SGA for more information on the components
of the application requirements listed below. Please keep in mind that
the Attachments to the Technical proposal may serve as space to include
additional details on components such as the planned or existing MOUs,
data-sharing agreements, letters of intent or job descriptions of key
staff positions, however, a brief description of such must be included
in the relevant sections below.
1. Statement of Current Capacity (10 Points)
Applicants must submit a Statement of Capacity (for more
information, please refer back to Section I.1) that clearly outlines
the applicant's launch point, which is the extent to which the SWA (or
the lead research/data-sharing entity) has developed or plans to
develop data-sharing partnerships, established or plans to establish
longitudinal linkages among the different data sources, and produced or
plans to produce useful analysis based on linked data. Proposals from
applicants with new or partially developed data systems will be
evaluated based on the thoroughness of their descriptions of the
potential capacity existing in their States to create a longitudinal
workforce data system based on the factors below. Applicants with
planned or partially developed workforce longitudinal databases are
encouraged to use this section to discuss the opportunities that exist
in their State for formation of the longitudinal database. Scoring for
this criterion will be based on the applicant's ability to clearly
demonstrate the following:
i. The capacity for maintaining secure data storage, including any
partnerships that have or will be established between the SWA and
another entity capable of maintaining secure data storage, such as a
research entity (State university or otherwise). Partnerships are
demonstrable through MOUs, data-sharing agreements or other legally
binding contracts. Descriptions of existing agreements or plans to
enter into agreements may be submitted as an attachment to the
application, subject to the page limitations stated in Section IV.B of
this SGA.
ii. Any planned or established partnerships between the SWA and the
State education agency that are demonstrable through planned or
existing MOUs, data-sharing agreements or other legally binding
contracts. Descriptions of these may be submitted as an attachment to
the application, subject to the page limitations stated in Section IV.B
of this SGA. Applicants with new or partially developed longitudinal
workforce databases should provide a detailed description of the steps
they plan to take to develop these partnerships.
iii. Any existing or planned data linkages for data sets such as
(but not limited to) wage record data, employment and training services
data, UI benefits data, TANF data, WIA, Wagner-Peyser and Trade
Adjustment Assistance program data.
iv. The extent to which the existing or proposed data-sharing
partnerships have yielded or will yield statistical analysis and/or
reporting on the State workforce system to inform stakeholders such as
employment services customers, educators, policy makers, service
providers and elected officials. Applicants with new or partially
developed longitudinal workforce databases may also describe the need
to have such data available for research and analysis.
v. Any partnerships with agencies in neighboring States which have
come about through a commitment to share data in an effort to gather
information on individuals traveling over State lines in pursuit of
education or employment. Partnerships are demonstrable through MOUs,
data-sharing agreements, or other legally binding contracts. Applicants
with new or partially developed longitudinal workforce databases should
provide a detailed description of the steps they plan to take to
develop these partnerships. Descriptions of these planned or existing
agreements may be submitted as an attachment to the application,
subject to the page limitation stated in Section IV.B of this SGA.
Responses to the criteria in this section establish the baseline
status of each applicant. A thorough statement will give the applicant
as well as the grant reviewers valuable insight into the true scope of
the project design.
2. Plan Outline (15 Points)
Once an assessment of capacity is complete, it will be possible to
make a plan for expanding or improving workforce longitudinal
databases. It is important that the applicant integrate information
about the current status of any existing longitudinal workforce
database with the plan to proceed forward under this grant opportunity.
For this section applicants should provide a complete, but brief
overview since many of the same requirements listed below will be
expanded upon in Sections V.A.3 through V.A.6. Scoring of this section
will be based on of the ability of the applicant demonstrate a sound
structural plan. The plan outline must:
i. Describe the State's objectives for creating or upgrading and
using its workforce longitudinal data system and explain how the State
plans to achieve these objectives. The appropriateness of the
objectives and plans will be judged relative to the State's current
data system capacity. Depending on the State's launch point, objectives
should include a description of the plans for:
Creating or expanding workforce longitudinal databases.
Improving the quality of workforce data.
Developing or expanding the capacity to match workforce
and education data.
Using data for analysis that will help policymakers and
practitioners understand the performance of workforce and education
programs.
For applicants with a partially or fully developed
workforce longitudinal database, creating user-friendly portals to
publicize the data in ways that help
[[Page 27595]]
consumers choose between different education and training programs.
ii. Describe the status of the statewide longitudinal education
data system in their State. Applicants will have to work with the State
education agency to determine whether that State has begun to plan for
their SLDS, has a partially developed or fully implemented SLDS
program. The application should include a description of the SLDS plan
and which sets of education data are part of the SLDS. If neither of
these exist, the applicant must be prepared to indicate what education
data sets (consistent with the requirements of Section V.A.4 in the
SGA) they will incorporate into their workforce longitudinal data
system until the State education agency is able to generate
longitudinal education data to match with. (For basic information on
the SLDS, see the following ED Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/Programs/SLDS/ and the following Data Quality Campaign Web site: http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/.)
iii. Specify whether the State is applying alone or as a member of
a multi-state consortium or whether it plans to develop joint data-
sharing or cooperative data analysis agreements with neighboring
States.
If applicants will be working with another State(s) to
develop their workforce longitudinal database, the application must
include: (1) Which States are part of the collaboration, (2) which
State will take the lead role in developing the workforce longitudinal
databases and which State(s) will be providing their workforce data,
(3) how confidentiality will be protected in the case of multiple
States in accordance with each State's confidentiality regulations, and
(4) brief descriptions of any planned or existing legally binding
agreements (e.g., MOUs, data-sharing agreements) between/among the
partner States which ensure that each State is aware of its role and
the expectations of workload in the event that a grant is awarded.
If applicants will be planning on sharing and/or using
another State's longitudinal data to produce analysis on a shared labor
market, the following must be included in the application: (1) A list
of the State(s) involved in the data-sharing partnership, (2) a clear
outline of which State will be providing data (in this case, both or
all States may provide data) and which will be receiving data (again,
both or all States may receive data in this role), (3) identification
of which State will be the lead fiscal agent and the lead
administrative agent, and (4) a brief description of any planned or
existing legally binding agreements (e.g. MOUs, data-sharing
agreements) between/among partner States that outline the expectations
of the data-sharing and explaining in detail how confidentiality will
be protected according to Federal and State laws.
iv. Explain plans for sustaining these workforce longitudinal
databases beyond the three-year grant period. Applicants should
consider how their planned or existing MOUs and Data-Sharing Agreements
will be renewed with their partners to ensure continued maintenance and
analysis of the longitudinal workforce data. Continued Federal funding
cannot be guaranteed, so applicants are expected to research viable
alternative funding sources and describe them in this section.
3. Description of Partnership Strategies (30 Points)
Applicants must describe their strategy to create, sustain,
strengthen or expand partnerships and maintain working relationships
within and outside the State workforce system. In each of these partner
relationships, the SWA applicants are expected to document their
proposed arrangements with State education agencies, which may include
providing brief descriptions of existing or proposed MOUs, letters of
support, and/or detailed plans for working relationships and shared
responsibilities.
SWAs without the internal capacity to operate the longitudinal data
system will need to partner with an external entity (such as a research
university or a private or non-profit organization) to develop,
maintain and use the longitudinal database, both operationally and for
research purposes.
Multi-state applicants must demonstrate capacity to either
establish or improve upon established partnerships that enable sharing
workforce data with other States. In the case of a multi-state
application, the lead fiscal agent/State should be the same as the lead
administrative agent/State and must be identified along with a complete
list of additional State partners. Multi-state applicants must also
identify the partnerships among agencies/entities within each of the
member States in response to the points listed below.
In all cases partnerships must be forged in gathering relevant
workforce and education data. The applicant must clearly describe the
existing or proposed partnerships and briefly describe the data that
the partner will be providing for the initiative (for more details,
please refer back to Section I.A of this SGA).
Note that States with a developed or partially developed workforce
longitudinal database should focus on describing maintenance and
expansion of partnerships, as a description of existing partnerships
should have already been provided in the Statement of Current Capacity.
Scoring under this section will be based on the extent to which the
applicant demonstrates an effective plan to execute or to expand the
following:
i. Partnerships Within State Workforce Systems
The applying SWA must demonstrate capacity to either establish or
improve arrangements for sharing workforce data.
ii. Partnerships With State Education Agencies
The applicant must demonstrate capacity to establish or maintain a
relationship with the State education agency leading the SLDS
initiative. Partnerships must be established that will create the
capacity to link data between education and workforce databases to
support longitudinal data analyses and to provide performance
information from secondary and post-secondary training providers to the
workforce system and consumers.
iii. Partnerships With Research Universities or Other Research Entities
If the applicant does not have internal capacity to develop or
operate a longitudinal data system, it must demonstrate the ability to
establish or further develop a relationship with the research entity
(State university or otherwise) or other entities that will be/are
engaged in the development of longitudinal data systems. Partnerships
must be established/expanded that will ensure that the collection of
longitudinal workforce data adheres to local, State and Federal
confidentiality laws. Further, these partnerships must support the
ongoing security and confidentiality of these databases for as long as
they are in existence. This research university or other entity will be
expected to conduct in-depth analysis of this longitudinal data and to
produce standard reports and conduct specialized research projects and
ongoing analysis.
iv. Partnerships With Additional State Agencies
This includes (but is not restricted to) agencies such as the State
revenue department, in such instances where UI, WIA or other programs
are administered in full or in part in such an agency or another agency
outside of the SWA.
[[Page 27596]]
Moreover, it may be advantageous for SWAs to partner with State
economic, human services or other agencies in the event that such a
partnership may provide an opportunity to match individual level data
to the workforce longitudinal database.
4. Description of Database Design, Data Quality Assurance and Proposed
Uses (35 Points)
Applicants must provide the details of the existing or proposed
database design and explain how the design will help achieve the
applicant's objectives. States with a developed or partially developed
workforce longitudinal database should describe the existing database
design, confidentiality measures and data analysis, and provide a
detailed description of the intended design of or expansions to data
content and usage. Applicants will be scored under this section on the
extent to which they are able to demonstrate the actual or intended use
of the following elements:
i. Personal Identifier
Applicants must explain how the database will be developed or has
been developed using the Social Security Number (SSN) as a unique
personal identifier for individuals entering into the workforce system,
in addition to jobseekers and employees already in the workforce
system. The SSN is already in use throughout the workforce system and
will allow States to gather this data longitudinally in order to
accurately track movement into and out of workforce and education
systems. Collection of the client's SSN is not required throughout the
workforce system and may not be required as a condition of receiving
workforce development services, and though it is nearly uniformly
collected on a voluntary basis, DOL recognizes that the workforce
longitudinal databases will be restricted to those individuals having
supplied their SSN and will therefore not represent a complete database
of all persons receiving workforce development services. These
longitudinal databases should also include the capacity to link to
unique identifiers developed by the ED statewide longitudinal data
systems.
ii. Data Quality Measures
The applicant must provide a description of development or
improvement of data validation measures and other quality assurance
measures used to promote the quality, completeness, validity, and
reliability of the data collected.
iii. Scope of the Longitudinal Data
Applicants must describe which programs are or will be included in
the data system and the extent to which the following data will or can
be matched through their longitudinal data system:
Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Title I.
Wagner-Peyser Act.
Trade Adjustment Assistance and Trade Readjustment
Allowances program data.
UI wage record information from quarter to quarter
measuring employment and income earning gains.
UI benefit claims and demographic data.
FEDES data.
Existing State education agency data (including early
childhood, K-12, and post-secondary education student demographic data,
test scores, teachers, graduation rates, and transcripts).
Applicants must also include a description of the types of analysis
and research projects that will be conducted with the workforce
longitudinal database to improve program performance and enhance
customer choice. For examples of effective uses of workforce
longitudinal databases, please refer above to ``Selected Benefits and
Uses of State Longitudinal Data Systems'' in the ``Background'' section
of this SGA.
iv. Security Measures
Applicants must specify the plans they will develop or improve to
protect the confidentiality of these records. The method for storing,
transferring, analyzing and sharing data must be detailed in accordance
with State and Federal confidentiality provisions. Applicants should
also specify the planned data files--data records, elements, and
fields--that will be contained in their workforce longitudinal data
systems. Applicants should describe who will be designing, developing,
storing, protecting and using the data.
v. Planned Reports/Deliverables
Applicants creating the longitudinal database must include in this
section of the application their plans to produce reports that provide
information about statewide performance of the workforce system.
Applicants with partially or fully developed workforce longitudinal
databases must describe the extensive research and analysis products
that will be generated beyond the regular reporting and analysis
requirements. Applicants must address how data from each partner will
be incorporated into these reports, and how stakeholders can use the
reports to improve the workforce system. Applicants should also
describe their plan for disseminating reports and materials to the
general public. These deliverables are for statewide or multi-state use
and though DOL reserves the right to request access to these planned
reports, submission of these deliverables to DOL is not required.
(Required reports on performance in development of the workforce
longitudinal databases to be submitted to DOL are outlined in Section
VI.C below)
5. Staffing Capacity (10 Points)
Applicants must describe the proposed or existing staffing
structure for this project, including project manager(s) and support
staffing needs. Applicants will be scored on this section based on the
thoroughness of their description of the following:
i. The workforce longitudinal database must be overseen by a
Database Manager who is qualified to work with large and complex
administrative longitudinal databases. The applicant must clearly list
the duties and responsibilities of this position. The applicant must
also describe the kinds of prior experience that the Database Manager
(or other key managerial staff member) must possess in order to fulfill
these duties and responsibilities.
ii. The duties and responsibilities of a data analyst(s).
iii. The identification and qualifications of proposed staff
positions including knowledge, skills and abilities as well as examples
of the kinds of previous experience that make a candidate for the
position highly qualified to assist with planning, implementing and
conducting analysis with these longitudinal databases. Detailed
position descriptions may be included in the ``Attachments to the
Technical Proposal'' within the page limits.
iv. How each staff member will be expected to facilitate or
contribute to the various data-sharing partnerships. Be sure to include
a brief discussion of how the applicant will ensure that any staff of
this project will comply with State and Federal confidentiality laws.
Please verify that State employees (with the workforce agency, other
agencies or a State research institution for example) are already
subject to State and institutional laws, regulations or procedures
governing confidential data-sharing and/or transfer (please refer back
to Section I.A.5 for more details) and be sure to include this in your
description of such staff under this section.
v. What entity is to be the actual employer of each proposed staff
[[Page 27597]]
member. For those who are not direct employees of the SWA, discuss how
these individuals will contribute to the project and describe what
their compensation levels will be.
6. Bonus Points--Other Data Linkages (3 Points)
Up to three additional points may be awarded to applicants based on
the extent to which they demonstrate concrete and feasible plans to
include additional sources of data in their proposed longitudinal data
system. These additional data sources may include Vocational
Rehabilitation program information, Registered Apprenticeship program
data, TANF records, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food
Stamps) records, and data from other similar programs which may yield
workforce-related outcomes. These points will be awarded based on the
ability of applicants to demonstrate their ability and their intentions
to incorporate additional data sets and also on the number of
additional data sets they intend to include into their proposed or
existing longitudinal databases.
B. Review and Selection Process
Applications for grants under this solicitation will be accepted
after the publication of this announcement and until the closing date.
A technical review panel will make a careful evaluation of applications
against the criteria. These criteria are based on the policy goals,
priorities, and emphases set forth in this SGA. Up to 103 points may be
awarded to an application, depending on the quality of the responses to
the required information described in Section V.A above. The ranked
scores will serve as the primary basis for selection of applications
for funding, in conjunction with other factors such as geographical
balance; the availability of funds; and which proposals are most
advantageous to the government. The panel results are advisory in
nature and not binding on the Grant Officer, and the Grant Officer may
consider any information that comes to his/her attention. The
government may elect to award the grant(s) with or without discussions
with the applicants. Should a grant be awarded without discussions, the
award will be based on the applicant's signature on the SF-424, which
constitutes a binding offer by the applicant including electronic
signature via E-Authentication on http://www.grants.gov.
Part VI. Award Administration Information
A. Award Notices
All award notifications will be posted on the ETA Homepage (http://www.doleta.gov). Applicants selected for award will be contacted
directly before the grant's execution and non-selected applicants will
be notified by mail. Selection of an organization as a grantee does not
constitute approval of the grant application as submitted. Before the
actual grant is awarded, the Department may enter into negotiations
about such items as program components, staffing and funding levels,
and administrative systems in place to support grant implementation. If
the negotiations do not result in a mutually acceptable submission, the
Grant Officer reserves the right to terminate the negotiation and
decline to fund the application.
B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
1. Administrative Program Requirements
All grantees will be subject to all applicable Federal laws,
regulations, and the applicable OMB Circulars. The grant(s) awarded
under this SGA will be subject to the following administrative
standards and provisions:
i. Non-Profit Organizations--OMB Circulars A-122 (Cost Principles)
and 29 CFR part 95 (Administrative Requirements).
ii. Educational Institutions--OMB Circulars A-21 (Cost Principles)
and 29 CFR part 95 (Administrative Requirements).
iii. State and Local Governments--OMB Circulars A-87 (Cost
Principles) and 29 CFR part 97 (Administrative Requirements).
iv. Profit Making Commercial Firms--Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR)--48 CFR part 31 (Cost Principles), and 29 CFR Part 95
(Administrative Requirements).
v. All entities must comply with 29 CFR Parts 93 and 98, and, where
applicable, 29 CFR parts 96 and 99.
vi. 29 CFR part 2, subpart D--Equal Treatment in Department of
Labor Programs for Religious Organizations, Protection of Religious
Liberty of Department of Labor Social Service Providers and
Beneficiaries.
vii. 29 CFR part 31--Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted
Programs of the Department of Labor--Effectuation of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.
viii. 29 CFR part 32--Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in
Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial
Assistance.
iv. 29 CFR part 33--Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis
of Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Department of
Labor.
x. 29 CFR part 35-- Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in
Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from the
Department of Labor.
xi. 29 CFR part 36--Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in
Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial
Assistance.
The following administrative standards and provisions may be
applicable:
i. The Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Public Law 105-220, 112
Stat. 939 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) and 20 CFR
part 667 (General Fiscal and Administrative Rules).
ii. 29 CFR part 29 and 30--Apprenticeship and Equal Employment
Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training; and
iii. 29 CFR Part 37--Implementation of the Nondiscrimination and
Equal Opportunity Provisions of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
The Department notes that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
(RFRA), 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000bb, applies to all Federal law and its
implementation. If your organization is a faith-based organization that
makes hiring decisions on the basis of religious belief, it may be
entitled to receive Federal financial assistance under Title I of the
Workforce Investment Act and maintain that hiring practice even though
section 188 of the Workforce Investment Act contains a general ban on
religious discrimination in employment. If you are awarded a grant, you
will be provided with information on how to request such an exemption.
iv. Under WIA section 181(a)(4), health and safety standards
established under Federal and State law otherwise applicable to working
conditions of employees are equally applicable to working conditions of
participants engaged in training and other activities. Applicants that
are awarded grants through this SGA are reminded that these health and
safety standards apply to participants in these grants.
In accordance with section 18 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995 (Pub. L. 104-65) (2 U.S.C. 1611) non-profit entities incorporated
under Internal Revenue Service Code section 501(c) (4) that engage in
lobbying activities are not eligible to receive Federal funds and
grants.
[[Page 27598]]
Except as specifically provided in this SGA, DOL's acceptance of a
proposal and an award of Federal funds to sponsor any programs(s) does
not provide a waiver of any grant requirements and/or procedures. For
example, the OMB Circulars require that an entity's procurement
procedures must ensure that all procurement transactions are conducted,
as much as practical, to provide open and free competition. If a
proposal identifies a specific entity to provide services, DOL's award
does not provide the justification or basis to sole source the
procurement, i.e., avoid competition, unless the activity is regarded
as the primary work of an official partner to the application.
2. Special Program Requirements
DOL will require that the program or project participate in a
formal evaluation of overall grant performance. DOL will provide both a
technical assistance and evaluation provider to assist grantees in
developing and implementing each State's WDQI to ensure smooth
implementation and execution. To measure the success of the grant
program, DOL will conduct an independent evaluation of the outcomes and
benefits of the grants. Grantees must agree to work with DOL's
designated evaluation and technical assistance providers and to provide
access to program operating and technical personnel, as specified by
the evaluator(s) under the direction of DOL, including after the
expiration date of the grant.
C. Reporting
The grantee must submit quarterly financial reports, quarterly
progress reports, and Management Information System (MIS) data
electronically. The grantee is required to provide the regular reports
and documents listed below:
1. Quarterly Financial Reports
A Quarterly Financial Status Report (ETA 9130) is required until
such time as all funds have been expended or the grant period has
expired. Quarterly reports are due 45 days after the end of each
calendar year quarter. Grantees must use DOL's On-Line Electronic
Reporting System and information and instructions will be provided to
grantees.
2. Quarterly Progress Reports
The grantee must submit a quarterly progress report within 45 days
after the end of each calendar year quarter. In the quarterly progress
reports, grantees will be expected to address the status of developing
MOUs with their intended partners as outlined in their grant
application in addition to other partnerships they foster. Grantees
should also take this opportunity to share the progress they are making
with obtaining access to longitudinal workforce data (please see
Section V.4.A.4 above of this SGA for a list of the data elements
required). If the grantee is working with a developed or partially
developed workforce longitudinal database, it must briefly describe the
capacity of its database, and how it is being securely maintained and
then explain in much greater depth the status of its plans to expand
upon its present capacity.
3. Design Plan
The first report to be furnished on this project will be a detailed
design plan which will expand upon and operationalize the activities
proposed in this grant application as outlined in Part V of this SGA.
This report must include a timeline which incorporates all project
stages, milestones, targets and proposed schedule of deliverables
stemming from the analysis of State workforce data for statewide
dissemination. The grantee must submit a budget allotting the
expenditure of this grant over the three year period including, but not
limited to, considerations for equipment, personnel, fees and fixed
costs. This report will be due to DOL 60 days after execution of final
grant award.
4. Final Report
A draft final report must be submitted no later than 60 days before
the expiration date of the grant. This report must summarize project
activities, outcomes, and related results of the project, and should
thoroughly document approaches. After responding to DOL questions and
comments on the draft report, an original and two copies of the final
report must be submitted no later than the grant expiration date.
Grantees must agree to use a designated format specified by DOL for
preparing the final report.
This information must be presented in narrative form and must
include description of: Activities within the quarter being reported
on, how problems or barriers from the previous quarter, if any, were
addressed, any problems or challenges in the current quarter, how
milestones or activities were successfully completed in the current
quarter and plans for the next quarter. Also, reports should include
updates on expected products or deliverables both for statewide
dissemination and those to be submitted to DOL. Reports should include
lessons learned in the areas of project administration and management,
project implementation, partnership relationships, and other related
information. DOL will provide grantees with guidance and tools to help
develop the quarterly reports once the grants are awarded. Grantees
must agree to meet DOL reporting requirements.
5. Record Retention
Applicants should be aware of Federal guidelines on record
retention, which require grantees to maintain all records pertaining to
grant activities for a period of not less than three years from the
time of final grant close-out.
VII. Agency Contacts
For further information regarding this SGA, please contact Willie
E. Harris, Grant Officer, Division of Federal Assistance, at (202) 693-
3344 (this is not a toll-free number). Applicants should e-mail all
technical questions to [email protected] and must specifically
reference SGA/DFA PY 09-10, and along with question(s), include a
contact name, fax and phone number.
This announcement is being made available on the ETA Web site at
http://www.doleta.gov/grants and at http://www.grants.gov.
VIII. Additional Resources of Interest to Applicants
A. Resources for the Applicant
OMB Information Collection No. 1225-0086.
Expires November 30, 2012.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are
required to respond to a collection of information unless such
collection displays a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden
for this collection of information is estimated to average 20 hours per
response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing
and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding
the burden estimated or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the
U.S. Department of Labor, to the attention of Darrin A. King,
Departmental Clearance Officer, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room
N1301, Washington, DC 20210. Comments may also be e-mailed to [email protected]. Please do not return the completed applications to
this address. Send it to the sponsoring agency as specified in this
solicitation.
This information is being collected for the purpose of awarding a
grant. The
[[Page 27599]]
information collected through this SGA will be used by DOL to ensure
that grants are awarded to the applicant best suited to perform the
functions of the grant. Submission of this information is required in
order for the applicant to be considered for award of this grant.
Unless otherwise specifically noted in this announcement, information
submitted in the respondent's application is not considered to be
confidential.
Willie E. Harris is the grant officer overseeing this SGA.
Signed at Washington, DC this 11th day of May, 2010.
Eric Luetkenhaus,
Grant Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-11610 Filed 5-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P