[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∓=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∓=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