[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27390-27402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12554]
[[Page 27389]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Labor
_______________________________________________________________________
Employment and Training Administration
_______________________________________________________________________
Job Training Partnership Act: Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Programs;
Final Allocation Formula; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 96 / Wednesday, May 19, 1999 /
Notices
[[Page 27390]]
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
Job Training Partnership Act: Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker
Programs; Final Allocation Formula
AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, DOL.
ACTION: Notice of Final Allocation Formula.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 22, 1998, the Employment and Training
Administration (ETA) published a notice in the Federal Register (63 FR
70795 (Dec. 22, 1998)) of a description of and rationale for a new
allocation formula for the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), section
402 and the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Section 167, migrant and
seasonal farmworker program and presented preliminary State planning
estimates derived therefrom for Program Year (PY) 1999 (July 1, 1999
through June 30, 2000). Public comments were requested at that time.
The public comment period closed on February 5, 1999. This notice
responds to the comments and publishes a new allocation formula.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael S. Jones on (202) 219-
8216, Ext. 103 (this is not a toll free number) or via e-mail at
mjones@doleta.gov>, or Mr. Ross Shearer, Jr. on (202) 219-8216, Ext.
102 (this is not a toll free number) or via e-mail at
rshearer@doleta.gov>.
I. Introduction, Scope and Purpose of Notice
This notice is published pursuant to Section 162(d) of the JTPA,
which states:
Whenever the Secretary utilizes a formula to allot or allocate
funds made available for distribution at the Secretary's discretion
under the Act, the Secretary shall, not less than 30 days prior to
allotment or allocation, publish such formula in the Federal Register
for comment along with the rationale for the formula and the proposed
amount to be distributed to each State and area. After consideration of
any comments received, the Secretary shall publish final allotments and
allocations in the Federal Register.
Thus, this notice represents the second stage of a two-stage
process. The first stage of the process involved the consideration of
comments from the public regarding the notice which was published on
December 22, 1998. As a result of these considerations, the Department
of Labor (DOL) plans to make modifications to the proposed formula. In
this second stage, the final allocation formula description is
published in this notice. The resulting planning estimates are
published herein and include data from updated sources. These data have
been processed in accordance with the allocation formula methodology
with adjustments as described herein.
The formula is developed for the purpose of distributing funds
geographically by State service area, on the basis of each State
service area's relative share of persons eligible for the program.
Beginning with PY 1999, the revised allocation formula will be
implemented which will improve and update the methodology for
allocating funds among the States by using more relevant and current
data on the distribution of the farmworker population.
The revised formula is the result of work done by an Interagency
Task Force on Farmworker Population Data (Interagency Task Force) and
the DOL's response to public comments received in response to a January
16, 1997 Federal Register notice of a proposed updated allocation
formula for the JTPA, Section 402 program and a December 22, 1998
Federal Register notice of a proposed updated allocation formula for
the JTPA, Section 402 and the WIA, Section 167 Migrant and Seasonal
Farmworker (MSFW) program.
In developing an allocation formula for the MSFW Program, the DOL
has a responsibility to use the most current and reliable data
available. To do so, the DOL sought the advice of experts in
agricultural economics. This process led to the development of a
formula which combines data from the Census of Agriculture (COA), the
Farm Labor Survey (FLS), the National Agricultural Workers Survey
(NAWS), and the Census of Population (COP). As a result of our
consideration of the public comments received pursuant to the December
22, 1998 notice, the DOL will incorporate Unemployment Insurance (UI)
contributions data from the DOL Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) ES 202
report into the allocation formula.
Enumerating farmworkers and estimating their proportion among the
States is a daunting task. Farmworkers migrate extensively--often
traveling nearly the length or breadth of the United States during a
single agricultural season--live in non-standard housing (even seasonal
farmworkers and migrants who are at their home base), and supplement
their agricultural wages with nonagricultural employment and
unemployment insurance (when they are determined eligible). Moreover,
many farmworkers, including citizens and noncitizens authorized to work
in the United States, are wary of government. These factors and many
more, severely complicate the task of allocating funds among the States
in relationship to potentially eligible farmworkers.
The current JTPA, Section 402 allocation formula is based primarily
on the 1980 COP. After passage of the Immigration Reform and Control
Act (IRCA), the JTPA, Section 402 allocation formula was supplemented
by incorporating data about the number and site of application for
Special Agricultural Workers (SAW) whose status was adjusted as a
result of IRCA. At this time, it is obvious that the 1980 COP and the
IRCA-based SAW data are neither correct nor relevant.
From the time the current allocation formula was first introduced,
it was the subject of concern. Concerns were expressed about the
current allocation formula methodology because, among other reasons:
It relied, at least initially, exclusively on the 1980
COP;
The only means available to adjust the COP data for the
JTPA, Section 402 program eligibility was in the inclusion of
farmworkers employed in certain specifically eligible agricultural
occupations who also met the Lower Living Standard Income Level (LLSIL)
poverty guideline;
The COP was not (and still is not) designed to allow for
the identification of otherwise JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167
eligible farmworkers who are either absent from the United States
during the time the COP is taken, or who are engaged in nonagricultural
activities or unemployed during the COP-reference week;
The COP was not (and still is not) designed to identify
persons living in difficult-to-find housing, ``back-of-the house''
residences and other non-standard dwellings and living arrangements;
and,
The COP did not (and still does not) accommodate
consideration of other factors relevant to the JTPA, Section 402/WIA,
Section 167 farmworker population such as specific program eligibility
criteria.
Most experts, including officials from the Bureau of the Census at
the Department of Commerce, acknowledge that the COP does not provide
an effective enumeration of farmworkers. Consequently, reliance on the
COP data should be subordinate to the application of other data sources
that are recognized as providing greater reliability for this purpose.
While the ETA has been attentive to these concerns, data sources
and
[[Page 27391]]
scholarship available when the current allocation formula was
developed, did not offer nationally relevant alternatives. In
developing this allocation formula, the DOL has sought to allocate MSFW
program funds in a way that accounts nationally for:
The identification of JTPA, Section 402-eligible
farmworkers;
The time and location of their activities (including the
amount of time spent by eligible farmworkers doing farmwork versus non-
farmwork); and
Their turnover rates.
In developing the new allocation formula, the DOL has not operated
in a vacuum. The DOL has sought the opinion of experts in the field,
grantee representatives, and the general public. The DOL is pleased to
have received comments, input and participation from individuals in
seventeen States.
In an effort to ensure that the principals in every JTPA, Section
402 grantee organization had a thorough understanding of the proposed
allocation formula and an opportunity to offer meaningful input, the
Division of Seasonal Farmworker Programs (DSFP) sponsored four
educational campaign conferences during the summer of 1998--including
support for the travel and lodging expenses of every attendee. Also,
throughout the educational campaign process, the DSFP has entertained
questions and comments from JTPA, Section 402 grantee staff and other
interested persons via telephone, e-mail and during grantee-sponsored
and other conferences. This input was considered in the development of
the proposed allocation formula that was published on December 22,
1998.
To achieve an equitable basis for an allocation formula, the DOL
has sought to draw from a combination of data sources available on
MSFW's. In devising the proposed allocation formula, the DOL is
satisfied that the appropriate combination of the best choices of
available sources of data on MSFW has been achieved.
The development of this allocation formula was guided by a Task
Force convened by the ETA's DSFP in 1994. This Interagency Task Force
included representatives from the DOL's Office of Policy and its Bureau
of Labor Statistics. Representation from outside the DOL included the
Bureau of the Census at the Commerce Department, the Economic Research
Service at the Agriculture Department and the Executive Director of the
Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs--an association of MSFW
Program grantees.
To satisfy our concern about the reasonableness and equity of this
proposed allocation formula, ETA engaged Dr. Phillip Martin--a widely
recognized expert in the field of agricultural economics--to review the
formula proposal and its methodology. He is a Professor of Agricultural
and Resource Economics at the University of California at Davis, and
has published extensively on labor migration, economic development, and
immigration policy issues.
In evaluating the proposed allocation formula and its methodology,
Dr. Martin was asked to: (1) determine whether or not a single reliable
source of data exists from which a count or distribution among grantee
jurisdictions within the United States of MSFWs approximating the MSFW
program eligibility criteria could be derived; and, (2) determine the
adequacy of the proposed allocation formula for the distribution of
MSFW program funds among grantee jurisdictions in a manner which
approximates the distribution of farmworkers within the United States
who meet the MSFW program eligibility criteria. Dr. Martin was also
asked to provide recommendations, as applicable, for methods by which
the allocation formula might be enhanced.
As a result of his review, Dr. Martin concluded that there is no
better allocation formula available, essentially because the proposed
allocation formula is better than the current formula, represents the
best combination of available data sources and satisfies the major
requirements for allocation formulae of accuracy, transparency (it is
understandable), and reliance on published data.
The DOL knows of no single data source that purports to be the
definitive and comprehensive count of MSFW's in the United States.
While the DOL is not in a position to make a definitive statement about
the total number of farmworkers in the United States, the proposed
allocation formula provides the most accurate means currently available
to estimate the relative proportion of eligible farmworkers among the
States.
II. Response to Public Comments
A total of 66 timely comments were received. Of those, 7 were
generally supportive and 59 generally expressed opposition to some part
or all of the allocation formula. Twenty-five letters were received
after the February 5, 1999 deadline. They were not considered. However,
the proportions of these letters in terms of factors such as the degree
of support, the sector represented by the author and the message were
roughly similar to those of the letters that were received prior to the
deadline.
The following is an analysis of the public comments received and
ETA's response.
A. General Comments
1. Impact of the Allocation Formula and Reduced Funding on Existing
Programs
Almost all individuals commenting about or on behalf of program
jurisdictions where the amount of funding would be reduced as a result
of the application of this allocation formula, expressed concern about
the impact of the allocation formula and funding reductions on the
program in place. A few individuals questioned the validity of the
proposed allocation formula based on the difference between the results
of the current and proposed allocation formula.
The DOL is also concerned about the impact of the allocation
formula on jurisdictions where funding amounts would be reduced as a
result of the application of this formula. Accordingly, the
implementation of this allocation formula incorporates a hold-harmless
provision to provide for an orderly phase-in to full implementation.
Similarly, DOL is also concerned about the impact of continuing to use
an allocation formula based on data, portions of which, are almost
twenty years old.
Initially, the DOL had planned to phase in the implementation of
the allocation formula over a three year period. In doing so (assuming
future funding as at least equal to PY 1998 levels), states would
receive no less than 90, 70 and 50 percent, respectively, of PY 1998
funding during the three program years following implementation. The
formula would then be fully implemented during the fourth year. Since
the total amount of funds available to Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico
are based solely on those jurisdictions' share of LLSIL farmworker as
reported in the 1990 COP, as applicable, the hold harmless provision
will be applied to those jurisdictions to the extent practicable. To
minimize disruption, the DOL has decided to phase in the implementation
of this allocation formula over a four year period. In doing so
(assuming future funding as at least equal to PY 1998 levels), states
would receive no less than 95, 90, 85 and 80 percent, respectively, of
PY 1998 funding during the four program years following implementation.
In 2003, it is expected that updated information will be available from
most of the data sources used in this formula.
The current allocation data is based on the 1980 COP and IRCA SAW
data
[[Page 27392]]
which are almost 20 and 13 years old, respectively. Unlike the current
formula, this revised formula does not simply rely on a static, one-
time snap-shot of the population. The methodology employed in this
revised formula takes more factors that are specifically relevant to
the MSFW population into account, such as program eligibility, time and
location of activity and turnover. In the current formula, the only
adjustment factor available was for LLSIL poverty for eligible
farmworker occupations identified in the COP. While it is likely that
most IRCA SAW applicants met LLSIL poverty guidelines, data was not
available to make that determination or to screen for other relevant
eligibility factors.
2. Allocation Formula Results Differ From Results of Locally Available
Scientific and Survey Research Data and Other Administrative Data
Sources
Several individuals commented that local State sources of survey
research data on farmwork, agricultural industry, National and local-
level administrative data sources on farmworkers and other locally
available information tended to support different conclusions as to the
appropriate allocation percentage for their State. In a few instances,
individuals offered JTPA, Section 402 participant characteristics or
other sources of data, usually resulting from significant outreach
efforts, as evidence of their claim. Some individuals argued that, for
this reason, the data sources used in the allocation formula should be
reconsidered.
For the purposes of a nationally applicable MSFW funding formula,
there are several problems with using national or locally developed
administrative data resulting from program outreach or service
delivery. Administrative data based on outreach or service delivery are
often influenced by available services; program biases, resources,
capabilities and operating methods; and other factors. Statistically
valid conclusions about the universe of farmworkers cannot be developed
from a sample drawn from such data. Typically, such data is not derived
from random sampling or other techniques designed to ensure that the
sample is representative of the population. Statistically sound locally
available State data, to be useful, must be nationally available.
Accordingly, the use of such data would not provide a consistent basis,
across jurisdictions, for allocating program funds. According to Dr.
Martin--the independent consultant engaged by the DOL to review the
allocation formula--one of the positive qualities of the allocation
formula is its reliance on published data.
3. Impact of Section 182 of WIA on Allocation Formula
Several commenters expressed their belief that Section 182 of the
WIA requires that this allocation formula be based either exclusively
or significantly on the COP. In recognition of the deficiencies
associated with the use of the COP as a primary ingredient in the
development of the allocation formula, some have recommended that the
DOL seek a technical amendment from the Congress to remove any doubt
about Congressional intent. Others suggest that the DOL base the
allocation exclusively on the COP.
By its own terms, WIA sec. 182(a) applies only to formula
``allotments to States and grants to outlying areas'' and does not
apply to grants made under sec. 167. Moreover, even if sec. 182(a) were
applicable to sec. 167 grants, it does not mandate that the allocation
formula derive exclusively from Census data. Instead, the statute
requires that data relating to disadvantaged adults and disadvantaged
youth be based on the most recent satisfactory Census data available.
The formula set forth in this notice is indeed based in part on Census
data. However, as discussed in this notice and in the December 22, 1998
notice proposing the formula, Census data alone is not a satisfactory
means to accurately determine the number of migrant and seasonal
farmworkers in an area. Because of this, it is appropriate and
necessary for DOL to supplement the Census data with more accurate data
sources. The use of Census data supplemented by other accurate data
sources in this formula not only complies with WIA sec. 182(a) it also
allocates funds in the most rational manner.
4. Modular Nature of Formula Components
Several individuals commented favorably about the use of the COA
and the NAWS and the ability to revise the allocation as these data
sources are updated. It was also recommended that the DOL use the 1997
COA as soon as it is available.
One of the characteristics of the revised allocation formula,
designed to promote continued currency, is the ability to incorporate
revised data from the allocation formula data sources as they are
updated. In this regard, the DOL concurs with the recommendation and
will use the 1997 COA data for hired and contract crop and livestock
workers for the PY 1999 allocation. As other allocation formula data
sources are updated and revised, the DOL plans to incorporate that data
as well.
5. Supportive Comments
Those who favored the revised allocation formula expressed their
support, agreed with the conclusion by the DOL contractor (who
conducted the independent evaluation about the adequacy of the
allocation formula) that there is no better allocation formula
available, stated their opposition to the continued use of a formula
based on 1980 COP data, and recommended the implementation of the
formula for PY 1999 with a hold harmless provision.
Other supportive comments acknowledged that the revised formula is
an improvement over the current formula and can be easily updated. In
addition, the DOL's use of an Interagency Task Force and an independent
review was praised.
One comment urged the DOL and the MSFW Employment and Training
Advisory Committee to use the development of this allocation formula as
an opportunity to redefine the size and needs of the customer base.
This recommendation will be submitted to the Advisory Committee.
B. Allocation Formula Methodology
1. Differential Treatment of Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico
In the design of the allocation formula, DOL used a different
method for allocating funds to Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico than was
used in the 48 contiguous States. As described in the December 22, 1998
issuance, this differential treatment was due to the fact that all of
the data sources applied to the formula for the contiguous 48 States
were not available for those jurisdictions.
One individual expressed opposition to the differential treatment
of Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Several other individuals offered
evidence intended to demonstrate that anomalies in the data sources, as
related to their program jurisdictions, were sufficient to justify
treatment similar to that which is being applied to Alaska, Hawaii and
Puerto Rico.
As much as the DOL would like to treat all jurisdictions exactly
the same with respect to the data sources used to allocate funds, since
all data sources used in the formula are not available for Alaska,
Hawaii and Puerto Rico, it is not possible to accord those
jurisdictions similar treatment. Conversely, all of the data sources
used in the allocation formula are available for the 48 contiguous
states. Furthermore, the DOL does not believe that any limitations in
[[Page 27393]]
the quality of the data available for the 48 contiguous states warrant
treatment similar to that which is being applied to Alaska, Hawaii and
Puerto Rico. As explained in the December 22, 1998 proposal, the DOL
believes that the treatment for Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico is a
reasonable and equitable alternative.
2. Inclusion of the State of Oklahoma in Delta Southeast Agricultural
Region
We received comments in opposition to ETA's decision to include the
State of Oklahoma with the Delta Southeast (DSE) agricultural region
for the purpose of this allocation formula. The State of Oklahoma is in
the Southern Plains (SP) agricultural region. However, when the
Interagency Task Force reviewed preliminary allocation formula data,
some task force members expressed a concern that because of differences
between Oklahoma and Texas in terms of the characteristics of farm
laborers, that Oklahoma should be either treated as a separate
agricultural region or included with an agricultural region with more
similar agricultural labor patterns. Available data was not sufficient
to treat Oklahoma as a separate agricultural region. Accordingly, the
Task Force recommended, and ETA concurred, that Oklahoma should be
included with the DSE agricultural region because of similarities in
agricultural labor.
Commenters offered comparisons of crop, labor, harvesting,
cultural, and weather patterns and practices between Oklahoma and the
SP agricultural region versus Oklahoma and the DSE region to show that
Oklahoma had more similarities with the SP region than the DSE region
and should, as a result, be included with the SP agricultural region.
The validity and applicability of some of the arguments provided was
equivocal; however, ETA discussions with USDA and other private
agricultural labor specialists suggest that while there are noticeable
differences between the agricultural labor patterns in Oklahoma and
Texas, there are more similarities between Oklahoma and SP than there
are between Oklahoma and DSE. Moreover, since there is not overwhelming
evidence to support the decision to include Oklahoma with DSE, the
transparency of the allocation formula is enhanced and the principle of
consistent treatment is reinforced by not making ad hoc alterations in
the agricultural regions for the purpose of this formula. Accordingly,
ETA has decided to revise the allocation formula to include Oklahoma
within the SP agricultural region.
3. Complexity
Several individuals expressed concern about the complexity of the
allocation formula. We acknowledge that the formula is complex.
Primarily, this complexity is a result the nature of agricultural labor
in the United States, the current status of scholarship on this topic
and the lack of a single source of data on JTPA, Section 402/WIA,
Section 167 eligible hired and contract farm labor that account for
factors such as program eligibility, time and location of activity and
turnover. The current approach and an earlier allocation formula
proposal relied on a much simpler design. Critiques of both have
focused on their lack of relevance to the population. As described
earlier, to promote a greater understanding of the formula, DSFP
sponsored a series of workshops for representatives of JTPA, Section
402 grantee organizations.
4. Equity and Validity
Another comment suggested that the allocation formula should not be
used because it results in unfair allotments among recipients. However,
no specific inequities were identified. A comment suggested that, since
the number of eligible farmworkers cannot be known, the accuracy of the
formula cannot be evaluated.
The DOL believes that, considering the status of scholarship on
this topic and the availability of data, the proposed allocation
formula is as fair and equitable as possible. The DOL plans to make
several adjustments in the allocation formula based on comments from
the public and follow-up research. The additional adjustments will
enhance the precision and accuracy of the formula. Further, the DOL
believes that this allocation formula is vastly superior to the one
that is currently in place.
5. Future Consideration
One comment expressed disagreement with a recommendation by Dr.
Martin, the DOL contractor who provided the independent evaluation of
the allocation formula. Dr. Martin recommended that ``as UI coverage is
extended to more farm workers, the DOL may want to consider using UI
data on wages paid rather than COA data and thus avoid the issues
related to payments made to family members and fringe benefits.'' The
commenter objected to this recommendation because of concerns about
limited availability of data at the State level and differences in UI
coverage for MSFWs among the States. Dr. Martin and the DOL understand
the current limitations associated with using UI data for wages paid
rather than COA data. However, in the future, these limitations may be
overcome. Accordingly, the DOL concurs with Dr. Martin's recommendation
and will consider the appropriateness of using UI data as a component
of the allocation formula in the future when such use is feasible.
C. Census of Agriculture
1. Appropriateness of Using COA Hired Farm and Contract Labor Farm
Production Expense Data
A number of comments questioned the validity and/or appropriateness
of using COA hired farm and contract labor farm production expense data
for crop and livestock farmworkers as a proxy for wage data. Those
commenting on this point raised a number of issues.
Many argued that COA hired and contract labor production expenses
are not exclusively wages, and, therefore, include workers'
compensation, unemployment insurance, other fringe benefits and payroll
taxes, and the related salaries, fringe benefits and payroll costs of
officers, managers and administrative personnel--which might tend to
overstate the relative proportion of wages in some areas and understate
them in others. Among those making this point, some suggested that
these expenses were greater in Western States where the prevalence of
large corporate agricultural establishments is more significant. Others
suggested that farmworkers in other parts of the country--the East,
Southeast and elsewhere--generally did not receive UI, workers'
compensation and other employment benefits to the same degree as
farmworkers in the Western States. Further, some commented that it was
more likely that hired and contract labor production expenses
associated with payments to officers, managers and administrative
personnel would be more significant in States with larger agricultural
establishments.
A number of recommendations were made. They included:
Identification and subtraction of UI and workers'
compensation payments by State--made on behalf of hired and contract
crop and livestock workers from COA hired and contract labor farm
production expenses.
Collaboration with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to
collect and use wage only data for crop and livestock workers.
Use hired labor figures instead of production figures and
work with USDA to obtain unduplicated count of hired labor.
[[Page 27394]]
It is possible to identify and extract UI payroll tax payments made
on behalf of hired crop and livestock workers from COA data. The DOL
intends to accomplish this by using 1996 BLS State-level ES-202 data
for hired crop and livestock workers to determine the amount of UI
payroll tax payments to be subtracted from the COA farm production
expense totals for crop and livestock workers in each State.
A similar adjustment is not possible for contract workers because
ES-202 data collection and reporting does not always associate UI tax
payments made on behalf of contract crop workers with the State where
the corresponding work is performed. The State or States where UI
payroll tax is reported by labor contractors on behalf of their workers
depends on many factors including where the labor contractors form
their crews; when and where UI tax liability is established; when and
where additional members are added to a crew; and whether or not, where
and how often, the crew leader and members function as employees of an
agricultural establishment.
The DOL also explored the feasibility of identifying and extracting
workers' compensation insurance premiums from COA farm production
expenses for crop and livestock hired and contract labor. Unlike with
UI, there is no central workers' compensation insurance premium data
collection apparatus at the federal level. Data on premiums paid or due
is not available by SIC code in every State. Moreover, some
agricultural establishments use liability insurance in lieu of workers'
compensation. Those premium costs are even more elusive. (These non-
workers' compensation insurance costs are also likely to be reported as
labor expenses to the COA.) Inasmuch as workers' compensation insurance
premiums paid on behalf of hired and contract crop and livestock
workers cannot be identified in a uniform manner across the States, an
adjustment based on workers compensation premiums will not be made.
Currently, the COA does not include a question that requires
agricultural establishments to report only the wages of crop and
livestock hired and contract laborers. It is theoretically possible to
add a question to the COA requesting agricultural establishments to
provide the wages of their hired workers.
Obtaining the wages of contract workers through a question posed to
agricultural establishments would present a significant challenge,
since owners of agricultural establishments would only have access to
their cost of procuring contract labor and not the wages paid by the
contractor to the crew. As such, the value of data resulting from such
a question would be limited.
Obtaining wage-only information for hired farmworkers could be done
by adding the question to a future sample survey of agricultural
producers or adding the question to the 2002 COA. The costs associated
with adding a wage question to a future sample survey or the next COA
is prohibitive given the size of the appropriation for this program.
However, the USDA could decide to add such a question in the future if
that action was consistent with its research interest or if the
addition of such a question satisfied a significant public interest. At
this point, wage-only data is not available and the DOL is not prepared
to defer the implementation of this allocation formula pending the
possible future availability of this data.
It was also suggested that the DOL consider using the number of
hired farm labor workers reported in the COA who worked less than 150
days in lieu of using farm production expenses. This suggestion was
considered and rejected, since the suggested data are actually the
number of job slots that were filled for less than 150 days. It is not
reasonable to use this figure as a count of farmworkers as it is rife
with duplication. Further, these data exclude contract labor. Another
comment suggested that the DOL work with USDA to eliminate the
duplication from the hired farm labor worker figure. This is a daunting
task and no one consulted by the DOL had a clear idea of how it could
be accomplished in an economically reasonable fashion.
Some of those commenting expressed a concern about piece rate wages
relative to hourly wages because of potential under-reporting of hours
by employers in order to mask potential wage and hour violations. The
DOL is not aware of any data available to adjust COA production expense
data for hired and contract labor which can account for under-reporting
of labor hours worked paid at piece rate wages. In addition, the
severity of this problem varies from region to region. The DOL is not
aware of any data which allows adjustments to the geographic variances
in the under-reporting of piece rate labor hours.
Some of those commenting expressed concerns about the use of COA
production expense data for hired and contract labor because it is
based on a 25 percent sample of agricultural employers. Despite these
concerns, the COA sample size is adequate to produce statistically
valid production expense data for hired and contract labor.
Many individuals expressed concerns that COA hired and contract
labor expense data may not include:
Sharecroppers, farmworkers paid for their agricultural
labor in cash, farmworkers paid for their agricultural labor with
commodities and services, and other individuals who perform farmwork
through unspecified informal arrangements;
Farmworkers employed by third-party harvesters (processing
firms and packing houses) and independent buyers (pinhookers),
intermediaries (bird dogs), crew leaders, and other similar
agricultural entrepreneurs; and
Farmwork performed by homeless individuals.
With respect to the requirement to report the production expense
costs associated with the labor of crop workers hired by third-party
harvesters and independent buyers in the COA, the following has been
learned. Where the employer is a third-party harvester or independent
buyer and also operates an agricultural establishment, the production
expenses associated with the crop workers employed to do harvesting,
are includable in that harvester's or buyer's COA survey. Where the
employer is an independent buyer, who does not operate an agricultural
establishment but purchases the crops harvested by the producer, labor
costs are reportable by the producer.
The DOL is not aware of any data that could be used to adjust the
COA hired or contract labor production expense data to account for the
degree to which owners of agricultural establishments might fail to
report or inaccurately report production expenses for farm labor costs
in the COA for some types of workers. Similarly, the DOL is not aware
of any scientific data which would provide a basis for adjustment for
crop or livestock workers who are paid in cash or through other
informal means. Therefore, while this is a valid concern, we are unable
to perform a statistically valid adjustment to account for this kind of
labor practice.
D. National Agricultural Workers Survey
Generally, comments received pertaining to the NAWS can be grouped
in two categories: (1) methodology and limitations, and (2)
applicability to the allocation formula. Comments pertaining to the
NAWS and DOL's response are described below.
[[Page 27395]]
1. National Agricultural Workers Survey Methodology and Limitations
(a) Lack of Public Access to the NAWS Raw Data
Some comments expressed concerns about the lack of public access to
the NAWS raw data. The NAWS raw data is protected by privacy
restrictions, and therefore cannot be provided.
(b) Scope of the NAWS
Some of those providing comments argue that the NAWS was designed
to develop a National estimate of demographic earnings and mobility
patterns, etc. and was never intended to count farmworkers or provide
State and local labor market information.
Some commenters expressed concerns about using the NAWS in the
allocation formula because the NAWS surveys were not done in every
State within every agricultural region. Generally, those comments
questioned the validity of the result of the NAWS-based adjustments
because they do not agree that agricultural labor and cultural
practices within their State and/or among the States in their
respective agricultural regions are sufficiently homogeneous to support
the use of the methodology employed in this allocation formula. Related
to this concern, one commenter suggested that, because of the limited
scope of the NAWS, the eligibility adjustment should only be used as a
temporary measure until the quality of the survey data are verified as
reasonable and consistent across States.
In response to this concern, the DOL will provide information on
the statistical validity of the NAWS adjustments at the time the PY
1999 preliminary state planning estimates are published.
(c) Inclusiveness of the NAWS Data
Some of those commenting suggest that the NAWS does not include
dependents of farmworkers, misidentifies female farmworkers, and fails
to include fruit packinghouse workers. A few of those noted that they
based this conclusion on a comparison of the characteristics of JTPA,
Section 402 participants served by their program and the NAWS survey
results. Contrary to these concerns, the NAWS survey does include
farmworkers who may also be dependents, properly identifies females and
includes fruit packinghouse workers. The NAWS also includes information
on family size and composition. It should be noted, however, that the
DOL made the determination not to explicitly include dependents, other
than those who also are identified consequent to their own farmwork
status.
It is not surprising that the results from the NAWS would tend to
be different from JTPA, Section 402 administrative records. The NAWS is
a scientifically drawn sample of the universe of MSFW. Conversely,
administrative records of participants served are not a representative
sample of the population and as such cannot be used to draw valid
conclusions about the composition of the universe.
(d) Expansion of the NAWS to Include Livestock and Other Workers
One individual recommended that the NAWS be expanded to incorporate
livestock and other workers. This recommendation was provided to the
DOL economist responsible for the NAWS.
2. Use of the National Agricultural Workers Survey in This Allocation
Formula
(a) NAWS-Based Adjustment Factors
A substantial number of comments were received about the DOL's use
of the NAWS data in the allocation formula to make adjustments for
program eligibility, time and location of activity, and turnover. One
comment suggested that the use of the NAWS data for adjustment purposes
is a weakness in the formula. Some recommended that the DOL should not
use the NAWS in the allocation formula. A number of people suggested
that the NAWS should only be used to adjust to COA data for program
eligibility and not for migration and turnover--which were
characterized by some as so-called policy-driven adjustments.
Some of those commenting believe Florida is penalized by these
adjustments because of its long growing season and internal migration.
Some advocate that a special adjustment be made for Florida. Some
advocate that Florida should be treated in the same manner as Alaska,
Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Others advocate either that all adjustments or
adjustments 2 and 3 only, not be applied to COA data for Florida. Other
comments suggested that the result of adjustment 2 and 3 was to place a
higher value on migrants.
Adjustment 2 (time and location of activity or ``downtime'')
accounts for time spent by eligible crop workers in a particular region
while they are engaged in non-agricultural employment or are not
working. This adjustment is relevant to an allocation formula related
to the distribution of resources for a migrant and seasonal farmworker
program because these farmworkers are JTPA 402/WIA 167 eligible when
not doing farmwork. Unlike a more single-point-in-time or snap-shot
type data source such as the COP, this NAWS-based adjustment accounts
for the time an eligible farmworker spends in a region while he or she
is not engaged in agriculture.
Adjustment 3 (turnover rate) accounts for the difference in length
of employment by crop farmworkers. This adjustment is relevant to an
allocation formula related to the distribution of funds for a migrant
and seasonal farmworker program because not all farmwork jobs are for
the same duration of time and the number of farmworkers employed for a
unit of time varies by agricultural region. This adjustment allows the
formula to determine the relative number of eligible workers in each
region as opposed to total time spent by eligible workers in the
region. As with Adjustment 2, a snap-shot data source, such as the COP,
is not capable of accounting for this variance.
Using data from the COA alone, such adjustments would not be
possible. If any of the three NAWS-based adjustments were eliminated
from the allocation formula methodology, there would be far less
relationship between the resulting allocations and the distribution of
the farmworker population in terms of MSFW program eligibility,
migration patterns, and regional/State characteristics of agricultural
employment.
Florida is not penalized by the adjustments because of its long
growing season or internal migration pattern. A major influence on
Florida's allocation is based on the tendency of Florida farmworkers to
leave the State immediately after their agricultural employment.
Moreover, the data show that a relatively high percentage of Florida
farmworkers do not meet program eligibility. Furthermore, the DOL does
not believe that any limitations in the quality of the data available
for the 48 contiguous states warrant treatment similar to that which is
being applied to Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
(b) Work Authorization
Some comments expressed concerns about the high percentage of crop
workers in their respective region who, according to the NAWS data,
lack work authorization.
Statistically valid conclusions pertaining to work authorization
and other related factors can be drawn from the NAWS data. The
statistical validity of the NAWS findings related to their use in this
allocation formula are
[[Page 27396]]
presented in Section II. D1 (b) of this notice.
(c) Relationship Between the NAWS Data and JTPA, Section 402/WIA,
Section 167 Eligibility
Some comments expressed concern with the use of the NAWS data for
eligibility adjustment purposes because the NAWS data does not exactly
match the JTPA, Section 402 eligibility criteria.
Available NAWS data does not exactly match the JTPA, Section 402/
WIA, Section 167 eligibility criteria. Under JTPA, Section 402/WIA,
Section 167, a determination of qualifying farmwork can include any
consecutive 12 month period out of the 24-month period prior to
enrollment.1 The NAWS respondent work history only includes
the 12-month period prior to the conduct of the survey interview.
Further, under JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167, to be considered a
farmworker, an individual would have to have earned at least $400 from
farmwork. The NAWS can determine if someone earned at least $500 from
farmwork.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Under certain circumstances (military service,
hospitalization, incapacitation, incarceration, etc.), the period in
which the 12-month eligibility determination is made may be extended
beyond two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NAWS is the only relevant, statistically valid, national source
of demographic and socio-economic information on the farmworker
population. Since there is no source of data specifically designed to
enumerate JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligible farmworkers, it
is not surprising that there would not be an exact match between data
source elements and MSFW eligibility criteria. The DOL is aware of the
differences between the NAWS data elements and MSFW program
eligibility. The differences are considered to be minor and
insignificant.
(d) Other NAWS Use Issues
Some comments challenge the validity of the allocation formula
based on a comparison of the relative geographical sizes of States. No
component of this allocation formula is based on the relationship among
States in terms of geographical size. The relevant issue is a State's
proportional share of the relative number of eligible farmworkers and
not the size of an area.
Another comment expressed a concern about a NAWS finding that the
DSE agricultural region has a higher than average wage rate. However,
the finding question was not derived from the NAWS. The finding results
from FLS and COA data.
E. Other Farmworkers
One individual recommended the elimination of forestry and fishery
workers from the allocation formula and that the weight assigned to
crop and livestock workers be redistributed excluding other workers.
The individual argued that forestry and fishery workers are not
farmworkers. Including forestry and fishery workers as farmworkers
would confuse the definition of farmwork and stretch its credibility.
The DOL concurs with this comment. Accordingly, the final
allocation formula will not include forestry and fishery workers. The
weight assigned to crop workers and livestock workers in the final
allocation will be based on the relative share of COP LLSIL crop and
livestock workers only.
F. Minimum Funding Provision
Several individuals commented that the DOL should continue the use
of the minimum funding level. Using arguments based on economy of scale
and the practices of other funding sources, those commenting on this
issue suggested that the minimum funding amount be increased from
$120,000 to between $240,000 and $300,000.
This allocation formula is designed to allocate funds based on the
DOL's best assessment of the relative distribution of MSFW's among the
States. If the existing $120,000 minimum funding allocation strategy
were used, based on the results of the allocation formula, some States
would receive funding in excess of twice the amount of their formula-
based allocation. In situations where the allocation for a particular
area would be insufficient to qualify it for a separate grant, the DOL
does not believe that reasonable combinations of geographically-
contiguous jurisdictions would compromise the provision of high quality
workforce investment activities benefitting farmworkers.
III. Final Allocation Formula--Detailed Description
A detailed description of the proposed JTPA, Section 402/WIA,
Section 167 allocation formula follows:
A. Standardized or Adjusted Hours of Farmwork by State
The standardized or adjusted hours of farmwork by State involves
determining the relative number of hours worked by Crop Workers and by
Livestock Workers in each State.
1. Establish The Total Wage 2 Bill for Each State for Crop
and Livestock Work
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Hired and contract labor agricultural production expenses
for crop and livestock farmworkers are used as a proxy for wages as
wage only is not available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture 3 provide the
total agricultural labor production expenses (SICs 01 and 02) by State,
and the total crop labor (SIC 01) production expenses, by State. The
livestock labor (SIC 02) production expenses are calculated by
subtracting the crop labor production expenses from the total labor
production expenses. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture was not available
when the allocation formula proposal was published.
\4\ This reported data includes hired and contract labor. The
contract labor data includes the contractor's management expenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COA production expense data is used as a proxy for agricultural
wages as data on wages paid to hired and contract agricultural crop and
livestock workers is not available on a National basis. It has been
argued that agricultural production expense data include elements that
are not applied on a uniform basis to all crop and livestock worker
wages. Since it is possible to identify unemployment insurance
contributions paid on behalf of hired crop and livestock workers by
State, with a strong degree of precision, Unemployment Insurance
payments made on behalf of hired crop and livestock workers will be
subtracted from the State production expense totals.
2. Calculate the Hours Worked in Crop Work and in Livestock Work for
Each State
The Farm Labor Survey (FLS) as reported in USDA's Farm Labor
provides information by region on the average hourly wage, separately,
for crop workers and livestock workers. To calculate an approximate
number of hours worked by crop workers and livestock workers, the total
production expense for each State is divided by the hourly wage for
that State's region. These calculations were made for both crop workers
and livestock workers. This calculation was done for all States except
for Alaska and Hawaii. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In the design of the allocation formula, DOL used a
different method for allocating funds to Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto
Rico than was used in the 48 contiguous States because all of the
data sources applied to the formula for the contiguous 48 States
were not available for those jurisdictions.
[[Page 27397]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY99.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY99.016
3. Determination of the Relative Share of Labor Hours for Each State
The percentage of labor hours (for crop work, and for livestock
work) that each State contributes to the United States' total was
calculated. This is done by dividing each State's total for crop labor
bill by the State's average for crop wages and each State's total for
livestock labor bill by the State's average for livestock wages. The
percentage for crop and livestock hours of each State is calculated by
dividing the State's hours for each into the total for all States for
each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Data organized under the US Department of Agriculture
Regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Crop Hours Adjustments
The crop hours adjustment accounts for JTPA, Section 402/WIA,
Section 167 program eligibility, time and location of activity by
eligible farmworkers and turnover rate.
1. Adjustment 1--Eligibility for JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167
Program
Adjustment 1 applies JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligibility
criteria to the NAWS information for the purpose of adjusting the crop
worker figures for JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligibility.
(a) Primary Employment in Agriculture: 50 Percent of Income Derived
From Crop Farmwork
Eligibility for the JTPA, Section 402 program requires that at
least 50 percent of a farmworker's income be derived from agricultural
employment. For the WIA, Section 167 program, the comparable
requirement calls for primary employment in agriculture. For the
purpose of this allocation formula, deriving at least 50 percent of
income from crop farmwork, is being used as the basis for this facet of
the adjustment.
The NAWS collects information from all respondents regarding their
total personal income, including their income derived exclusively from
agricultural employment. In lieu of specifying an exact dollar amount,
the NAWS respondents are asked to choose from among a number of stated
ranges within which he or she believes his/her total family income
falls (most ranges cover a span of $2,500).
To determine the percentage of a farmworker's income that is
derived from agricultural employment, reported agricultural income was
divided by total earned income. A result of 50 percent or greater
indicates that half or more of the farmworker's income came from
agricultural employment.
In order to formulate a number that could be used in such an
equation, the midpoint of the income range was assigned as the dollar
value of the farmworker's income. For example, a respondent indicates
that his total income for the previous year fell in the range of
$10,000 to $12,499, and his income from agricultural employment fell
within the $7,500 to $9,999 range. The dollar value assigned as the
respondent's total income would be the midpoint of $10,000 to $12,499,
or $11,250, and the dollar value assigned as the respondent's
agricultural income would be the midpoint of the $7,500 to $9,999
range, or $8,750. The percentage of total income that came from
agricultural income would be calculated using the two mid-point figures
by dividing the agricultural income figure of $8,750 by the total
income figure of $11,250. The result in this example being 78 percent,
would qualify the hypothetical farmworker as meeting this eligibility
criterion.
The LLSIL poverty criteria values used are the highest national
(except Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico) non-metro limit for each family
size. The calculation uses the higher of the Health and Human Services
or LLSIL values. For example, for family sizes of 1 to 6, the values
applied, are as follows: $7,360, $10,520, $14,440, $17,820, $21,030,
and $24,600.
(b) Primary Employment in Agriculture: 25 Days or $400 of Crop Farmwork
in Previous 24 Months
To be eligible for the JTPA, Section 402 program, a farmworker must
be employed at least 25 days in farmwork for any consecutive 12-month
period within the 24 months preceding application for enrollment, or
have earned $400 in farmwork and have been primarily employed in
farmwork on a seasonal basis. For the WIA, Section 167 program, the
comparable requirement calls for primary employment in agricultural
labor characterized by chronic unemployment or underemployment
(seasonal employment). For the purpose of this allocation formula,
working at least 25 days in crop agriculture or earning at least $400
from crop agriculture during the previous 12 months, is being used as
the basis for this facet of the adjustment.
The NAWS collects information on farmworkers' periods of employment
and non-employment for the twelve months prior to the interview. From
this information, one is able to construct the number of days during
these twelve months that the NAWS respondent worked in farmwork.
For months 13 through 24 prior to the interview, the respondent is
asked to estimate the number of months in which he or she worked in
farmwork; one day or more worked per month equals one month. A NAWS
respondent who stated that he/she had worked for two or more months in
farmwork during the 13 through 24 month period is considered to have
worked 25 days in agricultural employment.
As mentioned previously, the NAWS collects information on
farmworkers' income from agricultural employment from the previous
year. As the responses to this question are categorical (as discussed
above), the NAWS does not have exact amounts earned by farmworkers. The
lowest category is ``under $500.'' Thus, $500 is used as the minimum
amount earned from farmwork (rather than $400). Income information is
available only for the one year period preceding the NAWS interview.
To satisfy this criterion for eligibility for the JTPA, Section
402/WIA, Section 167 program, a farmworker must fulfill one of the
three standards elaborated above: either he/she worked 25 days or more
in the 12 months prior to the interview; or he/she worked two months
during the 13 through 24 month period prior to the interview; or he/she
earned $500 or more from farmwork in the past year.
(c) Below the LLSIL Poverty Line
Eligibility for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 program
requires that a crop farmworker and his/her family fall below the LLSIL
poverty line. Because the NAWS collects information
[[Page 27398]]
on the number of members in a farmworker's household as well as the
farmworker's total family income, the NAWS is able to estimate whether
the income of the farmworker's family places the family below the LLSIL
poverty line. A family was determined to fall within the LLSIL poverty
line when the family income fell within an income category below the
one in which the LLSIL poverty line fell. For example, the LLSIL
poverty line for a family of 4 individuals was $18,740. This amount
falls in the income range of $17,500 to $19,999. Thus, a family of 4
individuals whose family income falls below this range was considered
to satisfy the criterion of falling below the LLSIL poverty line.
7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The LLSIL consists of differing metropolitan and rural
levels reflective of varying costs-of-living among differing
metropolitan and rural regions. However, to facilitate the
application of the NAWS data to this formula, and since many
farmworkers earn income in more than one State, a single national
standard is applied for each family size that is the highest rural
level for each family size. For a family size of one, however, the
HHS poverty level was used, as it is higher than the LLSIL.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Legal or Pending Status
The NAWS collects information on crop farmworkers' citizenship and
work authorization status. A farmworker was considered to satisfy the
criterion of legal status for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167
program if he/she was determined to be a citizen or a legal permanent
resident, or if he/she held a valid form of work authorization. A
farmworker who was determined to be undocumented was not considered to
fulfill this eligibility criterion.
Individuals who met all four of the criteria stated above were
coded as eligible for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 program.
In summary, adjustment 1 (the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167
eligibility ratio) is a ratio which adjusts total crop hours worked to
account for hours worked by JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligible
farmworkers. This ratio is the total number of farmwork days (as
measured in the NAWS) worked by JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167
eligible crop workers divided by the total number of farmwork days
worked by all crop workers. This ratio is always less than one, and it
is multiplied by the hours worked by all crop workers to produce the
estimated hours worked by JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligible
farmworkers for each region.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY99.017
2. Adjustment 2--Time and Location of Activities
For all the NAWS respondents, the following data are collected
separately by geographic location:
the number of days that respondents spent doing crop farmwork and
doing the other activities reported under the NAWS, consisting of
non-farmwork, not working, or living abroad.
These data permit adjusting for State-to-State movements of crop
workers during a 12 month period. For each of these items except living
abroad, the days were accumulated under the regions 8 in
which the respondents indicated they occurred. These regions are the
regions used for the wages in the previous step.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Regions were used because there were some States with
few or no observations and the data is not reliable below the
regional level. Alaska and Hawaii, each single State regions, were
not included in this calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjustment 2 (time and location of activity) accounts for the time
spent by crop workers in non-agricultural employment and time not
employed to provide a percentage of JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167
eligible non-crop work time in each region. This is a ratio always
greater than 1 that is calculated for each USDA region by dividing the
sum of the number of days JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligible
respondents reported working as crop workers, not working and working
in nonagricultural work by the total number of days reported working as
crop workers.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY99.018
To compute the total time that crop workers spent in each State,
the number of hours worked by JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167
eligible crop workers (the result of applying adjustment 1) is
multiplied by Adjustment 2 to provide the time spent in each State by
eligible crop workers.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY99.019
3. Adjustment 3--Annual Crop Employment
To this point, the figures are aggregations that could be converted
into annual units of eligible hours for each State, but such units do
not translate directly into the numbers of jobs or of farmworkers. This
is due to regional variations in the seasonal, short-term nature of
farmwork employment and the high probability of farmworkers holding
multiple farmwork jobs during each agricultural season. The number of
workers needed to make up the eligible worker hours in an annualized
unit (e.g., 2,000 hrs.) varies from region to region. Although a number
of workers are represented in an annualized unit (i.e., a year's worth
of hours), due to the regional differences in crop agriculture, there
are fractional differences in every 1,000 hours of eligible crop work
represented for each region/State. As already stated, the NAWS records
have the total number of eligible farmworkers in each region and the
total number of days worked annually (in agriculture and non-
agricultural employment) and the total number of days present, but not
working by the eligible farmworkers. These data provide the total sum
of time eligible crop workers are present in each region/
[[Page 27399]]
State. The ratio of the total number of these farmworkers to the total
number of days present in each region/State jurisdiction is an
expression of the annual average number of days worked per farmworker
in crop work. Differences among the regions that are due to the
geographic differences in employment and residency/presence in the
jurisdiction, are accounted for by the application of this ratio.
Adjustment 3 (annual crop employment) accounts for relative
differences in the length of time engaged in crop employment and other
eligible activities by eligible workers annually. This is the ratio of
the number of eligible workers divided by the number of eligible days.
The longer the annual number of days worked in crops, the lower the
ratio and the fewer the number of workers represented by every time
unit, such as 10,000 hours or an estimated annualized unit. (The
reciprocal produces an estimated annual number of days worked in crops,
or present in other eligible activities, per eligible farm worker.)
Adjustment 3 converts the final COA/FLS numbers into a people
denominated index.
C. Livestock Adjustments
Livestock adjustments involve determining the State relative share
of livestock workers expressed as percentages.
The State relative share of livestock hours from the Standardized
or Adjusted Hours of Farmwork, described above, is adjusted by the COP
data for economically disadvantaged criteria. The number of
economically disadvantaged (LLSIL) livestock workers is divided by the
total number of livestock workers in each State. This JTPA, Section
402/WIA, Section 167-eligibility rate for livestock workers in each
State is multiplied by the State's percentage share of livestock worker
hours. This product expresses the share of livestock worker hours
performed by those living below the LLSIL. The products of these
calculations for each State are adjusted to sum to 100 so that they
express the percentage each State's JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-
eligible livestock workers comprise of the national total.
D. Combining the State Distributions of the Farm Occupations
The formula computes the ratio of JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section
167-eligible crop workers to livestock workers. Because differing
approaches are used for determining each State's relative shares of
crop workers and livestock workers, it is necessary to weight the
relative relationship of the two groups of data. The COP counts crop
and livestock workers, thus it is used to determine the relative
distribution of the two, as follows. Using COP data on farmworkers
meeting the LLSIL criteria, the formula computes the percentage that
the US total of economically disadvantaged (LLSIL) crop workers
comprise of total (LLSIL) farmworkers. Similarly, the percentage that
LLSIL livestock workers comprise of total LLSIL farmworkers and that
the other LLSIL farmworkers comprise of total LLSIL farmworkers is
computed. The sum of the State percentages is the relative weight of
each group, expressed as the percentage the group represents of the
total. The sum of the two national percentages equals 100 percent.
E. Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico
FLS (QALS) data on Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico are either
incomplete or nonexistent. The COA is not taken in Puerto Rico and the
NAWS data are not available for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, where
Census data must be relied on for measuring the populations of crop and
livestock workers as well as other farmworkers. The basic objection to
the Census, its failure to adequately locate and count migratory
farmworkers, would not appear to be as significant an issue for the two
island jurisdictions where, relative to conditions found on the
mainland, the farmworker population tend to live at fixed addresses.
However, there is a potential bias of Census under-count that remains
for those areas, but at present the Department has no data with which
to address this deficiency. Consequently, the necessity of relying on
Census data for determining the numbers of combined crop and livestock
workers in these two jurisdictions is considered to be the best
alternative to complement the approach in the contiguous 48 States.
F. Special Tabulation of COP Data
To collect data for the COP portion of the proposed formula the DOL
used a special tabulation of 1990 COP data from the Bureau of the
Census in the form of a selection of Standard Occupational
Classification (SOC) and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes
for farmworkers falling below 70 percent of the LLSIL poverty
guidelines.
G. SOC and SIC Codes
COP equivalents were used to capture individuals in the following
Standard Occupational Classification codes:
477--supervisors, farm workers
479--farm workers
484--nursery workers
485--supervisors, related agricultural occupations
488--graders and sorters, agricultural products
489--inspectors, agricultural products
COP equivalents were used to capture individuals in the following
Standard Industrial Classification codes:
001--agricultural production, crops
002--agricultural production, livestock
007--agricultural services
IV. Description of the Hold-Harmless Provision
For Program Years 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 the DOL intends to
apply a hold-harmless provision to the allocation formula in order to
allow a staged transition from the application of the old formula to
the new one. Since the total amount of funds available to Alaska,
Hawaii and Puerto Rico are based solely on those jurisdictions' share
of LLSIL farmworker as reported in the 1990 COP, as applicable, the
hold harmless provision will be applied to those jurisdictions to the
extent practicable. The staged transition of the hold-harmless
provision will be implemented as follows:
(1) In PY 1999, each State service area will receive an amount
equal to at least 95 percent of their PY 1998 allotments, as applied to
the PY 1999 formula funds available. In the event the total amount
available for PY 1999 allotments is less than the total amount
available for PY 1998 allotments, each State will receive an amount
equal to at least 95 percent of what they would have received had the
PY 1998 allotment been equal to the PY 1999 allotment.
(2) In PY 2000, each State service area will receive an amount
equal to at least 90 percent of their PY 1998 allotments, as applied to
the PY 2000 formula funds available. In the event the total amount
available for PY 2000 allotments is less than the total amount
available for PY 1998 allotments, each State will receive an amount
equal to at least 90 percent of what they would have received had the
PY 1998 allotment been equal to the PY 2000 allotment.
(3) In PY 2001, each State service area will receive an amount
equal to at least 85 percent of their PY 1998 allotments as applied to
the PY 2001 formula funds available. In the event the total amount
available for PY 2001 allotments is less than the total amount
available for PY 1998 allotments, each State will receive an amount
equal to at least 85 percent of what they would have received had the
PY 1998 allotment been equal to the PY 2001 allotment.
(4) In PY 2002, each State service area will receive an amount
equal to at least 80 percent of their PY 1998 allotments
[[Page 27400]]
as applied to the PY 2002 formula funds available. In the event the
total amount available for PY 2002 allotments is less than the total
amount available for PY 1998 allotments, each State will receive an
amount equal to at least 80 percent of what they would have received
had the PY 1998 allotment been equal to the PY 2002 allotment.
Thereafter, allocations to each State service area would be for an
amount resulting from a direct allocation of the proposed funding
formula without adjustment.
V. Minimum Funding Provisions
A State area which would receive less than $60,000 by application
of the formula will, at the option of the DOL, receive no allocation
or, if practical, be combined with another adjacent State area. Funding
below $60,000 is deemed insufficient for sustaining an independently
administered program. However, if practical, a State jurisdiction which
would receive less than $60,000 would be combined with another adjacent
State area.
VI. Program Year 1999 Preliminary State Planning Estimates
The state allotments set fourth in the Table appended to this
notice reflect the distribution resulting from the allocation formula
described above. For PY 1998, $71,017,000 was appropriated for JTPA,
Section 402 migrant and seasonal farmworker programs, of which
$67,123,818 was allocated on the basis of the old formula. The
remaining $3,893,182 of the PY 1998 JTPA, Section 402 appropriation was
retained in the JTPA, Section 402 national account to fund the
farmworker housing program; the Hope, Arkansas Migrant Rest Center;
Training and Technical Assistance Mini-Grants; and other training and
technical assistance projects and initiatives. The figures in the first
numerical column show the actual PY 1998 formula allocations to State
service areas. The next column shows the percentage of each allocation.
For PY 1999, $71,571,000 was appropriated for the JTPA, Section 402
migrant and seasonal farmworker program, of which $67,596,408 will be
allocated. The remaining $3,974,592 will be retained in the National
account for farmworker housing ($3,000,000) and other training and
technical assistance projects and initiatives ($974,592). For purposes
of illustrating the effects of the proposed allocation formula, the
third column of the Table shows the allocations based on the proposed
formula without the application of the hold-harmless or minimum funding
provisions. The percentages are reported in column 4. The State service
area allocations with the application of the first-year (95 percent)
hold-harmless and minimum funding provisions, followed by the
percentages, are shown in columns 5 and 6.
Signed at Washington, D.C., this 14th day of May, 1999.
Raymond Bramucci,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
[[Page 27401]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY99.020
[[Page 27402]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY99.021
[FR Doc. 99-12554 Filed 5-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-C
