[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 62 (Thursday, April 1, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15758-15767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8069]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Office of the Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation
Notice Inviting Applications for New Award for Fiscal Year 1999
AGENCY: The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation (ASPE), DHHS.
ACTION: Announcement of the availability of funds and request for
applications from States and large counties to determine the status of
applicants and potential applicants to the Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families (TANF) program, individuals and families entering the
TANF caseload, and individuals and families who leave TANF.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation (ASPE) announces the availability of funds and invites
applications for research into the status of applicants and potential
applicants to the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)
program, individuals and families entering the TANF caseload, and
individuals and families who leave TANF. Approximately four to six
States or large counties will receive funding that will enable them to
monitor and conduct research into the progress of individuals who apply
for TANF benefits and their families. ASPE is particularly interested
in targeting those applicants who apply for cash assistance but are
never enrolled because of non-financial eligibility requirements,
participation in up-front job search or other diversion programs, or
failure to complete the application process. Proposed studies of new
entrants onto the TANF program and of individuals leaving welfare also
will be given consideration. Research topics could fall into the broad
categories of employment and earnings, participation in government
assistance programs, and child and family well-being. Grant applicants
may choose any method for their proposed studies, including the linking
of administrative data, surveys, or other methods as appropriate. The
funds could either support a newly designed project or could be used to
add new data sources and analyses to an existing project.
CLOSING DATE: The deadline for submission of applications under this
announcement is May 17, 1999.
MAILING ADDRESS: Application instructions and forms should be requested
from and submitted to: Adrienne Little, Grants Officer, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health
and Human Services, Room 405F, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: (202) 690-
8794. Requests for forms and administrative questions will be accepted
and responded to up to ten (10) working days prior to the closing date.
Copies of this program announcement and many of the required forms
may also be obtained electronically at the ASPE World Wide Web Page:
http://aspe.hhs.gov. You may fax your request to the attention of the
Grants Officer at (202) 690-6518. Applications may not be faxed or
submitted electronically.
The printed Federal Register notice is the only official program
announcement. Although reasonable efforts are taken to assure that the
files on the ASPE World Wide Web Page containing electronic copies of
this program announcement are accurate and complete, they are provided
for information only. The applicant bears sole responsibility to assure
that the copy downloaded and/or printed from any other source is
accurate and complete.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administrative questions should be
directed to the Grants Officer at the address or phone number listed
above. Technical questions should be directed to Matthew Lyon, Office
of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of
Health and Human Services, Room 404E, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: (202) 401-
3953. Questions may be faxed to (202) 690-6562 or e-mailed to
mlyon@osaspe.dhhs.gov.
Part I. Supplemental Information
Legislative Authority
This grant is authorized by section 1110 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1310) and awards will be made from funds appropriated under
Pub.L. 105-277, Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations
Act, 1999.
Eligible Applicants
Given the nature of the research involved, competition is open only
to State agencies that administer TANF programs and to counties with
total populations greater than 500,000 that administer TANF programs.
Consortia of States and counties are also encouraged to apply, as long
as their combined total populations exceed 500,000 and a single agency
is identified as the lead to handle grant funds and
[[Page 15759]]
sub-granting. Public or private nonprofit organizations, including
universities and other institutions of higher education, may
collaborate with States in submitting an application, but the principal
Grantee will be the State. Private for-profit organizations may also
apply jointly with States, with the recognition that grant funds may
not be paid as profit to any recipient of a grant or subgrant.
The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Part 92 defines a State
as: ``Any of the several States of the United States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession
of the United States, or any agency or instrumentality of a State
exclusive of local governments. The term does not include any public
and Indian housing agency under United States Housing Act of 1937.''
Available Funds
Approximately $1,200,000 is available from ASPE, in funds
appropriated for fiscal year 1999. ASPE anticipates providing
approximately four to six awards of between $200,000 and $250,000 each.
If additional funding becomes available in fiscal years 1999 or 2000,
further projects may be funded or some projects may receive second year
funding. However, applications for funding under this announcement
should describe projects that can be completely carried out with one
year of funding at the above anticipated level.
Background
Welfare caseloads have declined precipitously in recent years.
Since January 1993, the number of people receiving federally funded
assistance under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act has fallen from
14.1 million to just under 8 million recipients, a reduction of 44
percent. This decline has occurred in response to the Administration's
grants of Federal waivers to 43 States, the provisions of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub.L.
104-193), and the strong economy. In response to the demand from the
public and policymakers, many studies have been and are currently being
carried out to study the circumstances of the large numbers of people
who have left welfare. There has been less attention, however, to
applicants and potential applicants to TANF, some of whom are formally
or informally diverted from receiving cash assistance.
ASPE is interested in focusing on applicants and potential
applicants to TANF for a number of reasons. First, some of the
reduction in the welfare rolls has likely been caused by the reduced
number of individuals and families applying for and enrolling in TANF.
Little is known about the economic and employment status of applicants
who are diverted from receiving assistance by new policies or
procedures, or the well-being of their children and families. Moreover,
the Department of Health and Human Services has a particular policy
interest in learning about the degree to which TANF applicants are
aware of their potential eligibility for Medicaid and other programs
and services that are important in helping families make a successful
transition to work. The extent to which low-income families diverted
from or leaving cash welfare programs are receiving health insurance
from private or public sources should also inform efforts to reduce the
number of uninsured families.
The studies funded under this announcement build on previous ASPE-
sponsored data-linkage and research projects to study the outcomes of
welfare reform. These include projects involving linking of
administrative data, research on state diversion programs, and an
earlier round of grants to States and large counties to study the
outcomes of welfare reform.
In FY 1996 and 1997, ASPE awarded grants to five States and one
county for the purpose of linking administrative databases from
multiple programs in order to study the interactions between programs
and the use of multiple sources of assistance by recipients. As a
result of this funding, the Grantees have significantly increased their
ability to conduct research using administrative data.
In FY 1997, ASPE and the Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) sponsored a study by the Center for Health Policy Research at The
George Washington University to examine State diversion policies and
practices and the potential effects of formal and informal TANF
diversion programs on recipients and on participation in other
government programs, particularly Medicaid. The study found that States
are using three major methods to formally divert applicants from
entering cash assistance: lump sum payment programs, mandatory
applicant job search, and policies encouraging the use of alternative
resources. In addition, some potential applicants are informally
diverted, or discouraged from applying for TANF at all by strict
expectations placed on recipients. Both the interim report, released in
August 1998, and the final report, to be released in March 1999, raise
questions about whether TANF diversion policies may reduce access to
Medicaid for many low-income individuals who may be unaware of their
eligibility for Medicaid under Section 1931 of the Social Security Act.
The final report also stresses the need to gather more information
about the population diverted from TANF and other public assistance
programs.
Finally, the projects funded on this announcement will build
closely on the ongoing ASPE-funded grants to study welfare outcomes. In
FY 1998, ASPE awarded approximately $2.9 million in grants to study the
outcomes of welfare reform on individuals and families who leave the
TANF program, who apply for cash welfare but are never enrolled because
of non-financial eligibility requirements or diversion programs, and/or
who appear to be eligible but are not enrolled. These grants were
funded by money earmarked by Congress for crosscutting research on the
outcomes of welfare reform and interagency transfers from the
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, and the
Administration for Children and Families.
Grants were awarded to ten States (including the District of
Columbia), two counties, and one consortium of counties under the FY
1998 announcement. In addition, a grant was made to South Carolina
under a different program announcement to conduct a similar study
tracking welfare families. Families leaving welfare are being studied
by all fourteen of the FY 1998 welfare outcome Grantees--Arizona,
District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts,
Missouri, New York, South Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin, Los Angeles
County in California, Cuyahoga County in Ohio, and a consortium of
three contiguous counties in the Bay Area of California (San Mateo,
Santa Cruz, and Santa Clara). Research topics vary among Grantees, but
include: employment and earnings, other income supports, health
insurance, child care, child well-being, barriers to self-sufficiency,
insecurity/deprivation, and other topics. In addition, five of the
fourteen Grantees (Florida, South Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin, and
the San Mateo County consortia) are including analysis of individuals
who have been formally or informally diverted from receiving welfare.
The Wisconsin study, for example, includes an applicant diversion
study undertaken by the Institute for Research on Poverty (IRP) at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. HHS funding has allowed IRP to expand
a study of individuals applying for Wisconsin
[[Page 15760]]
Works (W-2) assistance in Milwaukee. The project focuses on three
subgroups of applicants: (1) Those who request assistance and
subsequently participate in the W-2 program; (2) those who request
assistance but are determined to be ineligible for program
participation; and, (3) those who request assistance, appear to be
eligible, but do not participate in W-2. A six-month cohort of
applicants is being tracked through a combination of linked
administrative data (e..g, public assistance, quarterly earnings, child
support, foster care, and mental health data) and two waves of surveys.
In order to address the difficult issue of identifying and surveying
individuals who never enroll in the program and thus may not be
regularly entered in the state public assistance administrative
database, IRP researchers are approaching individuals on the day that
they apply for cash assistance, immediately after they have been
screened for potential welfare eligibility and before they meet with
employment specialists. By conducting in-person interviews with
applicants while they are still in the welfare office, IRP hopes to
achieve a response rate of 90 percent for the first wave of interviews
and gather sufficient information to be able to locate respondents for
a follow-up interview twelve months later. Analysis of the applicants
will take place across a variety of sub-topics, including the local
welfare office, respondent demographics, welfare status over the twelve
months, prior welfare receipt, and receipt of any support services.
The study of applicants in San Mateo County, California, differs
somewhat from the IRP study. San Mateo County is able to take advantage
of California's Case Data System (CDS), which includes every TANF
application that is initiated in the state. Researchers in San Mateo
County and at the SPHERE Institute in Palo Alto are using this system
both to link all applicants with other administrative databases and to
draw their survey sample. Because the Case Data System includes all
applications, and not just those individuals who received TANF, San
Mateo County can study individuals who began the application process
but were diverted, as well as individuals who leave TANF. The work plan
calls for administrative data linkage and a two-wave survey,
administered at six and twelve months after ``case closure'' (when
either the applicant withdraws from the application process or the TANF
recipient leaves the program).
Another approach to studying diversion is being taken in Florida,
South Carolina, and Washington. In addition to studying individuals who
complete their applications for welfare but do not enroll in the
program, each of these states is using Food Stamps and/or Medicaid
enrollment data to identify those individuals and their families that
appear to be eligible for cash assistance but are not enrolled in TANF.
These individuals will be tracked through administrative databases or,
in some cases, studied through a combination of administrative data and
surveys.
As stated above, all fourteen welfare outcomes Grantees receiving
FY 1998 funding are analyzing families that leave the TANF program.
Each of the ``leavers'' studies includes at least two cohorts: one for
which administrative data is retrieved and the other for which the
Grantee compiles both administrative and survey data. The most common
administrative data sets being used are public assistance data (TANF,
Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc.) and wage data (usually Unemployment
Insurance). Several of the Grantees also are using child welfare, child
support, child care, JOBS or JOBS successor, and other human services
data sets.
To supplement the information gathered through data linking, all
1998 Grantees are surveying at least one cohort of leavers. Most
surveys are mixed mode (telephone interviews with an in-person follow-
up when necessary), and most of the Grantees have acknowledged that a
response rate of at least 70 to 80 percent is needed to avoid potential
biases of their studies' results. Grantees are each developing their
own survey instruments, generally drawing items from national surveys
developed by the Census Bureau (e.g., the Survey of Income and Program
Participation (SIPP), the Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD), the Food
Insecurity Module used on the Current Population Survey (CPS)), other
national surveys, existing state instruments (e.g., a survey used in an
early South Carolina study of welfare leavers), and items developed by
their own researchers. Variation across the Grantees exists in terms of
the timing of cohorts, administrative data sets, and survey
instruments. However, the Grantees have come to agreement on certain
issues, including a common definition of ``leavers'' as individuals who
leave cash assistance for a period of two months or longer.
Part II. Purpose and Responsibilities
Purpose
The purpose of this announcement is to support the efforts of
States and large counties to research the circumstances of applicants
and potential applicants to the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF) program, individuals and families entering the TANF caseload,
and individuals and families who leave TANF. ASPE is committed to using
the research funds appropriated by Congress to help build state and
local capacity to conduct studies of the outcomes of welfare reform.
Through these grants, ASPE hopes to support State efforts to gather a
variety of information about the above individuals and their families,
including their economic and non-economic well-being and participation
in government programs.
More specifically, ASPE hopes to learn what happens to families who
apply for welfare but are formally or informally diverted before
enrollment. How are such families faring economically and in other
measures of well-being? To what extent are such families still
participating in Medicaid, Food Stamp, and child support programs (and
if not, why not)? Similar questions can be asked about individuals and
families who have left TANF. Finally, a study of TANF entrants provides
still another perspective from which to analyze the outcomes of welfare
reform.
A proposed study should include at least one cohort of applicants/
potential applicants (with an emphasis on those formally or informally
diverted from receiving cash assistance), entrants, or leavers. The
Grantee has the option of studying just one of these types of
populations, or of studying two or more. However, preference will be
given to those Grantees that include a study of applicants and
potential applicants to TANF, including diverted individuals and
families.
The Grantee should clearly identify how the study population is
defined. For example, applicants and potential applicants could include
one or more of the following groups, as defined by the Grantee:
individuals participating in a State or county's formal
diversion program (lump-sum payment, mandatory applicant job search,
and/or alternative resources),
individuals that begin the application process but fail to
complete it,
individuals that complete the process and are determined
to be eligible for cash assistance, but who withdraw from the program
before receiving any benefits, and
individuals who apply for cash assistance but are
determined to be ineligible based on non-financial requirements.
[[Page 15761]]
Grantees studying individuals and families that leave TANF are
encouraged to use the ``leaving cash assistance for two months or
longer'' definition being used by the fourteen grantees funded in 1998.
Grantees studying families that enter TANF should clearly define that
population, and should explain how they will study the experiences of
welfare entrants while they are enrolled in the TANF program.
Each Grantee will be expected to use administrative records from
multiple programs and/or other data-gathering techniques to identify
and conduct research into the experiences of the study population (as
defined by the Grantee) over time. For example, applicants and
potential applicants could be tracked through the application process,
after eligibility is determined, and in subsequent months; former
recipients and their families could be monitored after the point of
closure; and entrants onto TANF could be studied throughout their
participation in the program. An administrative data analysis could be
enhanced through the use of retrospective data (i.e., prior welfare
receipt, employment history), as well as data on characteristics at the
time of cohort identification (point of application, case entry, or
case closure) and over subsequent months.
Applicants for the ASPE grants may propose to augment their
administrative data by linking individual records with survey data or
other data sources. For example, surveys of applicants and those that
have been diverted from applying can determine the individual's
perceptions of the application process and reasoning for participating
or not participating in different benefit programs. The combination of
linked administrative data sets and surveys provide researchers with
the answers to a wide range of research questions. Another possible
enrichment of the data might involve providing contextual information
by briefly documenting or describing the application process facing
TANF applicants in the county or State studied (or the case closure
procedures, if appropriate). This might include the role of the TANF
agency in ensuring that applicants for cash assistance are enrolled
into the Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Child Support Enforcement programs,
where appropriate. The richness of the data the Grantee is able to
provide will be an important criterion under which proposals are
evaluated.
Studies of applicants, entrants, and leavers will benefit from
tracking individuals and families over time. To this end, applicants
may submit proposals for studies lasting up to seventeen months from
the date the grant is awarded. While ASPE will obligate funds for
studies as lengthy as seventeen months, proposals that allot this
maximum time period will receive no preference over shorter studies,
including those that last the conventional twelve months. If additional
funding becomes available in fiscal year 2000, some projects may be
considered for second year funding, allowing for an even longer time
frame.
ASPE understands that there is a great degree of variation in State
programs, and in the amount and scope of data available to states.
Grantees also will vary in their identification of a study population
and in the types of subgroup analyses that can be conducted. Subgroup
analyses contrasting different types of diverted cases (e.g.,
participants in formal diversion programs, nonparticipating eligible
individuals and families, and those that are non-financially
ineligible), different types of closed cases (e.g., because of
earnings, sanctions, time limits), and special populations (e.g., the
disabled, substance abusers) are of interest. ASPE also has a strong
interest in studying urban and rural subgroups. Comparisons across
other demographic characteristics, including race and age and number of
children, would also be helpful.
Topical areas that applicants may wish to address, with examples of
potential policy questions, are listed below, grouped in three general
categories for ease of presentation. Given the diversity of expected
proposals, it is highly unlikely that every applicant would be able to
address all of the issues and policy questions. Further, while the list
represents the topics that are most important to ASPE researchers and
policymakers, the suggested questions are in no way meant to be
exhaustive. However, we would expect that applicants for funding will
cover each of these three broad areas in their applications. If
prospective applicants have additional questions which they feel are
relevant within the context of welfare reform, they are encouraged to
raise them in their proposal. Please note that though many of the
questions focus on TANF applicants and potential applicants, they may
be suggestive of similar issues that could be investigated in studies
that focus on TANF entrants or individuals and families that leave the
TANF program. Again, richness of data is strongly encouraged and will
be an important criterion under which proposals are evaluated.
1. Employment and Economic Well-being
Employment and earnings: What is the employment status of
individuals at time of application for welfare? At time of case
closure? Six to twelve months later? What types of jobs are held? What
level of wages do they receive and how much do they receive in total
earnings? What sort of work schedules do they have? What, if any,
employer-provided fringe benefits and training are available to them,
including health insurance? What fringe benefits do they and their
family members actually receive? If applicants/entrants/leavers are not
employed, why not? What was the cause of the most recent job loss? How
long between job loss and application for welfare?
Household income: What is total household income? Does
this income fall below the poverty threshold? Are there earnings or
other income from other members of the applicant's household? What are
the sources of this income? Do they include disability payments? What
financial support do they receive from extended family members or
friends that live outside of the household?
Child support: Do families have child support orders? Do
they receive regular child support payments? If so, what proportion of
family income does child support income represent? Is there evidence
that the non-custodial parent provides some financial support,
including in-kind goods and services, even if there is no ``formal''
child support?
Barriers to self-sufficiency: Do applicants appear to face
any barriers to employment, including disability, illiteracy, limited
English proficiency, domestic violence, mental illness, or substance
abuse? Are barriers to employment identified at time of application and
do they influence the applicants' placement or ability to participate
in an up-front job search or other component to a work-based approach
to welfare (see also Child care section below)?
2. Participation in Government Programs
TANF: What types of families are placed in formal
diversion programs and for what reason? What types of families are
eligible but do not enroll? What families are enrolled? Are there
differences in the experiences of single and two-parent families? What
are patterns of prior receipt for TANF applicants? For individuals
leaving TANF, what are the reasons for closure (as identified in case
records and
[[Page 15762]]
reported by recipient)? How many families return to welfare, when, and
why? For individuals entering TANF, what is their experience while
receiving cash assistance? What services are they receiving, and how
has their participation in the TANF program affected their ability to
become self-sufficient?
Medicaid and other health insurance: Are individuals and/
or their children enrolled in Medicaid? To what extent are individuals
aware of the eligibility guidelines and application procedures for
Medicaid for themselves and/or their children? What information or
guidance have they received from the State or local TANF or Medicaid
agency? From other agencies or from health providers? Are applications
for Medicaid routinely accepted and processed, even as applicants
cooperate with work-search requirements to become eligible for TANF? Do
adults and children in families have access to other health insurance,
and if so, from what source? Are premiums or co-payments required? Are
respondents aware of their children's potential eligibility for health
coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Plan (CHIP)? Are those
that are working aware of how to qualify for potential Transitional
Medicaid benefits?
Food Stamps: Do some or all family members participate in
the Food Stamp program? To what extent are individuals aware of their
potential eligibility for Food Stamps and of the application
procedures? What information or guidance have they received from State
or local agencies? Are Food Stamp applications processed, even as
applicants cooperate with work-search requirements to become eligible
for TANF?
Child care: What child care arrangements are being used by
families when parents are working, seeking work, or in employment and
training programs? Does the family make any payments? Does the
government or anyone else help pay for the child care? To what extent
are families aware of their potential eligibility for child care
subsidies and/or transitional child care, and of the application
procedures? Did individuals lose any work because of child care
problems, or conversely, lose child care due to work requirements? Do
individuals require care for their children during non-traditional
hours, such as weekends and after-school?
Child Support Enforcement: Are all families, including
those that are diverted from cash assistance, referred to Child Support
Enforcement services? How are families that do not receive cash
assistance treated by the Child Support Enforcement agency, as compared
with TANF families (e.g., application fees, longer processing period,
receipt of awards)? Are non-custodial parents being made aware of
services that may be available to them?
SSI and other government programs: Are TANF applicants
referred to Supplemental Security Income (SSI)? What happens to
applicants during the waiting period between referral and determination
of SSI eligibility? To what extent are TANF applicants referred to and/
or relying on other government programs, such as Unemployment
Insurance, housing subsidies, free or reduced price school meals, WIC,
and Head Start? Are applicants also referred to programs run by state
and local governments or not-for-profit agencies?
Attitudes: What are the attitudes of applicants,
recipients, and former recipients toward the TANF application process,
applicant job search and other diversion programs, TANF, work, and
their current situation?
3. Family Well-being
Food insecurity: Does the family have enough food to eat?
Does the family run out of money to buy food? Were any family members
forced to turn to food pantries for meals? Did any adults in the family
skip meals? Did any children?
Health insecurity: What is the health status of each
family member? Do they have difficulties accessing health care? Did
family members not get care or postpone getting care when they needed
it for financial reasons? Has the family been forced to access
emergency services, and if so, have they been able to obtain the needed
assistance?
Housing insecurity: Have families been forced to double-up
or move in with relatives? Does the family run out of money to pay the
rent? Have they been evicted or recently experienced periods of
homelessness? Have families stayed in homeless shelters for any period
of time?
Family support: To what extent do individuals turn to
extended family members, friends, and informal resource networks for
support (including, but not limited to, the financial support discussed
in the section relating to economic well-being)? During the application
process, are applicants encouraged to seek the support of family
members and friends as a potential alternative to welfare?
Household composition and child living arrangements: How
does household composition change over time, and how is this related to
entry onto and exit from welfare? Are there changes in marital status?
Changes in the number of adults living in the household? Pregnancies
and births? Do any children enter or exit from foster care programs? Do
children move to and from care between parents, or by relatives other
than parents (e.g., informal arrangements, formal kinship care
programs, child-only TANF cases)? How often have families moved?
Child well-being: What are child health status and access
to health care (see also Medicaid section above)? How are children
faring in school? In child care? To what extent are there signs of
positive behaviors/activities or behavior problems? What is the
incidence of child abuse or neglect (see also Barriers to self-
sufficiency section above)? Are there signs of maternal depression? Is
there non-resident parent involvement with the child/children? If so,
what types of involvement exist (e.g. amount of contact, participation
in school, church, or other community events)?
Grantee Responsibilities
1. Prior to completion of the final work plan, the Grantee shall
meet with relevant federal personnel, other Grantees, and invited
experts in Washington, D.C., to discuss the preliminary methodology and
design of the research project. As part of this process, the Grantees
will take part in a joint discussion of their proposed study designs
and research questions, and receive technical assistance from ASPE
staff. This will allow for knowledge sharing across the various
projects, as well as encourage peer-to-peer contacts among each of the
Grantees.
2. No later than ninety (90) days after the date of award, the
Grantee shall submit an outline of progress to date, if any, and a
final work plan that is based on and updates the work plan submitted in
the original application.
3. A second meeting may be planned later in the grant period in
Washington, D.C., to discuss preliminary findings and the format for
the final report (for Grantees outside the Washington, D.C. area, this
may take place by telephone).
4. After completing the analysis, the Grantee shall prepare a final
report describing the results of the study, including the procedures
and methodology used to conduct the analysis, the research questions
answered, the knowledge and information gained from the project, and
any barriers encountered in completing the project. A draft of this
report shall be delivered to the Federal Project Officer no later than
thirty (30) days before the completion of the project. After receiving
comments on the draft report from the Federal Project Officer,
[[Page 15763]]
the Grantee shall deliver at least three (3) copies of a final report
to the Grants Officer before the completion of the project. One of
these copies must be unbound, suitable for photocopying; if only one is
the original (has the original signature, is attached to a cover
letter, etc.), it should not be this copy.
5. To encourage wider analysis, the Grantee shall make all data
available to the research community. ASPE prefers that this result in a
public-use data file. In preparing the public-use data file, data shall
be edited as appropriate to ensure confidentiality of individuals. If
the applicant feels that provision of a public-use data file is
impossible, the application should explain why and should fully
articulate how the applicant will make the data available to qualified
researchers and to ASPE. In either case, the plan for data
dissemination will be evaluated and scored during the evaluation of
proposals.
ASPE Responsibilities
1. ASPE shall convene one to two meetings of Grantees, federal
personnel, and relevant experts in the areas the Grantees choose to
address. The first meeting will allow for technical assistance and
peer-to-peer contacts before final research design decisions have been
made, and will assure that data constructs meet some standard of
validity. A second meeting may be held approximately eight to ten
months into the grant period to allow Grantees to meet, discuss and
assess their progress to date, and receive assistance with any problems
that have arisen.
2. ASPE shall provide consultation and technical assistance in the
planning and operation of grant activities.
3. ASPE shall assist in information exchange and the dissemination
of reports to appropriate Federal, State, and local entities.
Part III. Application Preparation and Evaluation Criteria
This section contains information on the preparation of
applications for submission under this announcement, the forms
necessary for submission, and the evaluation criteria under which the
applications will be reviewed. Potential grant applicants should read
this section carefully in conjunction with the information provided
above. The application must contain the required Federal forms, title
page, table of contents, and sections listed below. All pages of the
narrative should be numbered.
The application should include the following elements:
1. Abstract: A one page summary of the proposed project.
2. Goals and objective of the project: An overview that describes
(1) the project; (2) the specific research questions to be
investigated; (3) proposed accomplishments; and (4) knowledge and
information to be gained from the project by the applicant, the
government, and the research community. If the proposal builds on any
current project, the application should describe how funding under this
announcement will enhance, not substitute for, current State or local
efforts. Applications from States and counties that received funding
from ASPE under the FY 1998 welfare outcomes grants are not precluded
from submitting proposals under this announcement, provided they are
proposing a new line of research, and not simply a continuation or
extension of their current project. However, such proposals will be
graded only on the Evaluation Criteria listed below and will receive no
preferential treatment during the award process.
3. Methodology and Design: Provide a description and justification
of how the proposed research project will be implemented, including
methodologies, chosen approach, definition of study populations, data
sources, and a research plan consistent with a descriptive, tabular
analysis. The proposed research plan should:
(a) describe in detail how the applicant plans to define the study
population, which should include one or more of the following:
applicants and potential applicants to the TANF program (with an
emphasis on those diverted from receiving cash assistance), individuals
and families entering the TANF caseload, and individuals and families
who leave TANF. Applications that propose studies of TANF applicants
should include a description of the TANF application process in the
State or large county to be sampled. This will assist reviewers in
understanding when and how the sample population will be chosen.
(b) identify how the proposed data sets and variables will be used
by the Grantee to answer each of the research questions described in
the proposal.
(c) identify important issues for which data currently are not
available, and strategies for dealing with this lack of data when it
pertains to the research questions in the proposal.
(d) describe in detail the methodology the applicant will use to
extract samples of TANF applicants and potential applicants,
individuals and families entering the TANF caseload, and recipients who
leave TANF. Grant applicants are encouraged to use a full population
sample, but at a minimum, a successful applicant will use a
scientifically acceptable probability sampling method in which every
sampling unit in the population has a known, non-zero chance to be
included in the sample and a sample size large enough to make
statistically reliable comparisons between planned subgroups. If,
however, the grant applicant proposes to sample applicants and
potential applicants that live in certain geographic regions or are
subject to a particular set of diversion programs, they may propose a
sampling plan that covers only those regions in question.
(e) if administrative data-linking is planned, describe the
criteria for the selection of existing data sets, as well as the
methods used to clean, standardize and link the case-level data from
the different sources. Applicants should discuss thoroughly how they
intend to match case records from different data sources, and the
internal validity checks that will be used to ensure the accuracy of
the matches. The architecture for the resulting data set should also be
discussed in detail.
(f) if survey data collection is planned, identify and describe the
methodology used to gather survey data. In particular, identify the
sampling plan, the survey mode (e.g., telephone, in-person, mail), and
the steps that will be taken to address any biases inherent in each.
These should include steps planned to ensure a high response rate, such
as a mixed mode design, multiple attempts to contact sample members, or
incentive payments to respondents, and steps taken to analyze
differences between respondents and non-respondents, such as
comparisons through linked administrative data. Because of the
importance of a high response rate in ensuring reliability, these
procedures will be an important part of the evaluation of proposals. In
addition, grant applicants are encouraged, but not required, to include
a draft of their proposed survey instrument as a supplement to their
application.
(g) if qualitative research such as focus groups or a qualitative
description of the TANF application, enrollment, and closure policies
and procedures are planned, the application should include a complete
plan for data collection procedures and analysis. This plan should
include an approach for reviewing written documents, identification of
key informants, the composition of any proposed focus groups, planned
discussion topics, a plan for summarizing and organizing the results,
and the value that this part
[[Page 15764]]
of the project will add to the final report. The application should
demonstrate a familiarity with the difficulties and potential biases of
qualitative research, and include plans to avoid or resolve them.
(h) identify the methodology the Grantee will use to analyze the
data and organize the final report. Complex data analysis is neither
expected nor preferred. Simple tabular analysis and descriptive
statistics are appropriate. The description should include subgroup
analyses planned, report organization and proposed tabulations,
including table shells illustrating how the results will be presented.
The application should explain how different data sources (e.g., data
from administrative sources, survey data collection, other research)
will be synthesized to enhance the proposed analyses.
To the extent that the analysis uses data on individuals from
multiple, separate sources, such as administrative databases from
several State agencies, the proposal should discuss measures taken to
maintain confidentiality, as well as demonstrate that the Grantee has
obtained authorized access to those data sources. The preferred form of
proof is a signed interagency agreement with each of the relevant
agencies/departments. Though not preferable, letters of support from
the appropriate agencies are acceptable, provided that the letter
clearly states that the proposing agency has the authorization to
access and link all necessary data. Grant applicants must assure that
the collected data will only be used for management and research
purposes, and that all identifying information will be kept completely
confidential, and should present the methods that will be used to
ensure confidentiality of records and information once data are made
available for research purposes.
4. Experience, capacity, qualifications, and use of staff: Briefly
describe the grant applicant's organizational capabilities and
experience in conducting pertinent research projects. If the proposal
involves linking administrative databases from multiple programs, the
proposal should detail the applicant's experience in conducting
projects using linked administrative program data or identify key
subcontractors with such experience. If the proposal involves survey
work, the proposal should describe the applicant's experience in
conducting relevant surveys or identify key subcontractors with such
experience. Similarly, if the proposal involves qualitative data
collection or analysis, the experience of the applicant or key
subcontractors with this type of research and with these populations
must be described in detail.
If the grant applicant plans to contract for any of the work (e.g.,
data-linking, survey design or administration, qualitative analysis),
and the contractors have not been retained, the applicant should
describe the process by which they will be selected. Identify the key
staff who are expected to carry out the project and provide a resume or
curriculum vitae for each person. Provide a discussion of how key staff
will contribute to the success of the project, including the percentage
of each staff member's time that will be devoted to the project.
Finally, applicants should demonstrate access to computer hardware and
software for storing and analyzing the data necessary to complete this
project.
5. Work plan: A work plan should be included which lists the start
and end dates of the project, a time line which indicates the sequence
of tasks necessary for the completion of the project, and the
responsibilities of each of the key staff. The plan should identify the
time commitments of key staff members in both absolute and percentage
terms, including other projects and teaching or managerial
responsibilities. Due to the complicated nature of the study of
applicants and potential applicants for welfare, work plans with time
lines of twelve to seventeen months will be accepted.
The work plan also should include plans for dissemination of the
results of the study (e.g., articles in journals, presentations to
State legislatures or at conferences). As noted above, ASPE prefers
that the data be edited as appropriate for confidentiality and issued
as a public-use data file. The work plan should detail how resulting
data and analysis will be made available to qualified researchers and
to ASPE. If the grant applicant believes that provision of a public-use
file would be impossible, the application should explain why and should
fully articulate how the applicant will make the data available to
qualified researchers and to ASPE.
6. Budget: Grant applicants must submit a request for federal funds
using Standard Form 424A and include a detailed breakdown of all
Federal line items. A narrative explanation of the budget should be
included that states clearly how the funds associated with this
announcement will be used and describes the extent to which funds will
be used for purposes that would not otherwise be incorporated within
the project. The applicant should also document the level of funding
from other sources and describe how these funds will be expended.
As noted above, all applicants must budget for two trips to the
Washington, D.C., area, for at least two members of the research team.
At the first meeting, Grantees will have the opportunity to meet,
discuss their projects, and receive feedback from both the other
Grantees and from ASPE staff and invited experts. The second meeting
will be approximately eight to ten months into the grant period, and
will provide Grantees with the ability to meet and discuss their
progress to date, and assess and receive technical assistance with any
problems that have arisen.
Review Process and Funding Information
Applications will initially be screened for compliance with the
timeliness and completeness requirements. Three (3) copies of each
application are required. One of these copies must be in an unbound
format, suitable for copying. If only one of the copies is the original
(i.e., carries the original signature and is accompanied by a cover
letter) it should not be this copy. Applicants are encouraged to send
an additional two (2) copies to ease processing, but the application
will not be penalized if these extra copies are not included. The grant
applicant's Standard Form 424 must be signed by a representative of the
applicant who is authorized to act with full authority on behalf of the
applicant.
A Federal review panel will review and score all applications
submitted by the deadline date that meet the screening criteria (all
information and documents as required by this announcement). The panel
will use the evaluation criteria listed below to score each
application. The panel results will be the primary element used by the
ASPE when making funding decisions. The Department reserves the option
to discuss applications with other Federal or State staff, specialists,
experts and the general public. Comments from these sources, along with
those of the reviewers, will be kept from inappropriate disclosure and
may be considered in making an award decision.
As a result of this competition, between four and six grants of
$200,000 to $250,000 each are expected to be made from funds
appropriated for fiscal year 1999. Additional awards may be made
depending on the policy relevance of proposals received and the
available funding, including funds that may become available in fiscal
years 1999 or 2000.
[[Page 15765]]
Reports
As noted in the Grantee Responsibilities, two substantive reports
are required under the grant: a final work plan (due no later than
ninety (90) days after the date of award), and a final report
containing all results and analysis (draft version due no later than
thirty (30) days before the end of the project and final version due at
the conclusion of the project).
In addition, Grantees shall provide concise quarterly progress
reports. The specific format and content for these reports will be
provided by the Federal Project Officer.
State Single Point of Contact (E.O. No. 12372)
DHHS has determined that this program is not subject to Executive
Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.''
Applicants are not required to seek intergovernmental review of their
applications within the constraints of E.O. 12372.
Deadline for Submission of Applications
The closing date for submission of applications under this
announcement is May 17, 1999. Hand-delivered applications will be
accepted Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, during the
working hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the lobby of the Hubert H.
Humphrey building, located at 200 Independence Avenue, SW in
Washington, D.C. When hand-delivering an application, call (202) 690-
8794 from the lobby for pick up. A staff person will be available to
receive applications.
An application will be considered as having met the deadline if it
is either received at, or hand-delivered to, the mailing address on or
before May 17, 1999, or postmarked before midnight three days prior to
May 17, 1999 and received in time to be considered during the
competitive review process (within two weeks of the deadline).
When mailing applications, applicants are strongly advised to
obtain a legibly dated receipt from the U.S. Postal Service or from a
commercial carrier (such as UPS, Federal Express, etc.) as proof of
mailing by the deadline date. If there is a question as to when an
application was mailed, applicants will be asked to provide proof of
mailing by the deadline date. If proof cannot be provided, the
application will not be considered for funding. Private metered
postmarks will not be accepted as proof of timely mailing. Applications
which do not meet the deadline will be considered late applications and
will not be considered or reviewed in the current competition. DHHS
will send a letter to this effect to each late applicant.
DHHS reserves the right to extend the deadline for all proposals
due to: (1) Natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, or
earthquakes; (2) a widespread disruption of the mail; or, (3) if DHHS
determines a deadline extension to be in the best interest of the
Federal government. The Department will not waive or extend the
deadline for any applicant unless the deadline is waived or extended
for all applicants.
Application forms
Application instructions and forms should be requested from and
submitted to: Adrienne Little, Grants Officer, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human
Services, Room 405F, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: (202) 690-8794. Requests
for forms and questions (administrative and technical) will be accepted
and responded to up to ten (10) working days prior to closing date of
receipt of applications.
Copies of this program announcement and many of the required forms
may also be obtained electronically at the ASPE World Wide Web Page:
http://aspe.hhs.gov. You may fax your request to the attention of the
Grants Officer at (202) 690-6518. Grant applications may not be faxed
or submitted electronically.
The printed Federal Register notice is the only official program
announcement. Although reasonable efforts are taken to assure that the
files on the ASPE World Wide Web Page containing electronic copies of
this program announcement are accurate and complete, they are provided
for information only. The applicant bears sole responsibility to assure
that the copy downloaded and/or printed from any other source is
accurate and complete.
Also see section entitled ``Components of a Complete Application.''
All of these documents must accompany the application package.
Length of application
In no case shall an application for the ASPE grant (excluding the
resumes, appendices and other appropriate attachments) be longer than
thirty (30) single-spaced pages. Applications should not be unduly
elaborate, but should fully communicate the applicant's proposal to the
reviewers.
Selection process and evaluation criteria
Selection of successful applicants will be based on the technical
and financial criteria described in this announcement. Reviewers will
determine the strengths and weaknesses of each application in terms of
the evaluation criteria listed below, provide comments, and assign
numerical scores. The review panel will prepare a summary of all
applicant scores, strengths and weaknesses, and recommendations and
submit it to the ASPE for final decisions on the award.
The point value following each criterion heading indicates the
maximum numerical weight that each section will be given in the review
process. An unacceptable rating on any individual criterion may render
the application unacceptable. Consequently, grant applicants should
take care to ensure that all criteria are fully addressed in the
applications. Applicants are reminded that preference will be given to
those proposals that include a study of TANF applicants and/or
potential TANF applicants. Grant applications will be reviewed as
follows:
1. Goals, Objectives, and Potential Usefulness of the Analyses (25
points). The potential usefulness of the objectives and how the
anticipated results of the proposed project will advance policy
knowledge and development. If the proposed project builds on previous
work, the application should explain how. Applications will be judged
on the quality and policy relevance of the proposed research questions,
study populations, and analyses (including subgroup analyses).
2. Quality and Soundness of Methodology and Design (30 points). The
appropriateness, soundness, and cost-effectiveness of the methodology,
including the research design, selection of existing data sets, data
gathering procedures, statistical techniques, and analytical
strategies. Richness of policy-relevant data will be an important
scoring factor in this criterion.
If analysis of linked administrative data is planned, a critical
scoring element will be the proposal's discussion of the methods used
to clean, standardize, and link the individual-level or case-level data
from different sources, including any proposed links between
administrative data and surveys. Applicants should thoroughly discuss
how they intend to match case records from different data sources, what
internal validity checks will ensure the accuracy of the matches, and
the architecture for the resulting data
[[Page 15766]]
set. Other design considerations include whether the applicant has
already obtained authorization to obtain and use the data to be linked
from State or local agencies, and how confidentiality of the records
and information will be ensured. If applicants are unable to ensure the
privacy and confidentiality of information included in the project,
then it is highly unlikely that they will receive funding.
If surveys are planned, reviewers will also evaluate the
methodology proposed to gather survey data. In particular, reviewers
will evaluate the sampling plan, the survey mode (e.g., telephone, in-
person, mail), and the steps that will be taken to address any biases
inherent in each. This will include evaluating steps planned to ensure
a high response rate, such as a mixed mode design, multiple attempts to
contact sample members, or respondent payments, and steps planned to
analyze differences between respondents and non-respondents, such as
comparisons of linked administrative data. Because of the importance of
a high response rate in ensuring reliability, these procedures will be
an important part of the evaluation of proposals containing surveys.
If qualitative research such as focus groups or a qualitative
description of the TANF application, enrollment and closure policies
and procedures are planned, reviewers will evaluate the plan for data
collection procedures and analysis, including the planned approach for
reviewing written documents, identification of key informants, the
composition of any proposed focus groups, planned discussion topics, a
plan for summarizing and organizing the results, and the value that
this part of the project is expected to add to the final report. The
extent to which the application demonstrates a familiarity with the
difficulties and potential biases of this approach, and plans to avoid
or resolve them, will also be a scoring factor.
Reviewers also will evaluate the proposed data analysis, including
the proposed tabulations and table shells, the planned organization of
the final report, and the proposal's discussion of how different data
sources (e.g., data from administrative sources, survey data
collection, other research) will be synthesized to enhance the proposed
analyses.
3. Qualifications of Personnel and Organizational Capability. (20
points). The qualifications of the project personnel for conducting the
proposed research as evidenced by professional training and experience,
and the capacity of the organization to provide the infrastructure and
support necessary for the project. Reviewers will evaluate the
principal investigator and staff on research experience and
demonstrated research skills.
Proposals that involve linking of administrative data and
assembling of large databases will be scored on the applicant's or
subcontractor's experience with such linking efforts. Proposals that
involve survey work will be evaluated in terms of the applicant's or
subcontractor's experience in conducting relevant surveys, including
experience in securing high response rates from welfare recipients or
other low-income populations. Similarly, if the proposal involves
qualitative data collection or analysis, it will be evaluated in terms
of the experience of the applicant or key subcontractors with this type
of research and with these populations. If the applicant plans to
contract for any of the work (e.g., data-linking, survey design or
administration, qualitative analysis), and the contractors have not
been retained, reviewers will consider the process by which they will
be selected.
Reviewers may consider references for work completed on prior
research projects. Principal investigator and staff time commitments
also will be a factor in the evaluation. Reviewers will rate the
applicant's pledge and ability to work in collaboration with other
scholars or organizations in search of similar goals. Reviewers also
will evaluate the applicant's demonstrated capacity to work with a
range of government agencies.
4. Ability of the Work Plan and Budget to Successfully Achieve the
Project's Objectives. (20 points). Reviewers will examine if the work
plan and budget are reasonable and sufficient to ensure timely
implementation and completion of the study and whether the application
demonstrates an adequate level of understanding by the applicant of the
practical problems of conducting such a project. Adherence to the work
plan is necessary in order to produce results in the time frame
desired; demonstration of an applicant's ability to meet the schedule
will therefore be an important part of this criterion. Reviewers will
also examine the use of any additional funding and the role that funds
provided under this announcement will play in the overall project.
The proposal should also discuss in detail how resulting data will
be made available to qualified researchers and to ASPE. As noted above,
ASPE prefers that the data be edited as appropriate for confidentiality
and issued as a public-use data file. If the applicant believes that
provision of a public-use file would be impossible, the application
should explain why and should fully articulate how the applicant will
make the data available to qualified researchers and to ASPE.
5. Ability To Sustain Project After Funding (5 points). One of the
ASPE's goals is to help States and large counties build their capacity
to study the outcomes of welfare reform. For projects requiring
significant follow-up studies, especially those tracking applicants,
potential applicants, and entrants, grant applicants should identify an
ability to continue their studies after the funding period closes. To
this end, reviewers will consider whether the proposal adequately
addresses questions such as the following: What will happen to the
linked administrative data sets after the project period expires? What
agency(ies) will have responsibility for and jurisdiction over linked
administrative data sets after they are created? Are there any sources
of financial and staff support for maintaining the database? To what
extent could the administrative data linkages performed on the cohort
under study be duplicated for later cohorts? To what extent could
additional data linkages be performed to follow the initial cohort for
additional years?
Disposition of Applications
1. Approval, disapproval, or deferral. On the basis of the review
of the application, the Assistant Secretary will either (a) approve the
application as a whole or in part; (b) disapprove the application; or
(c) defer action on the application for such reasons as lack of funds
or a need for further review.
2. Notification of disposition. The Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation will notify the applicants of the disposition
of their applications. If approved, a signed notification of the award
will be sent to the business office named in the ASPE checklist.
3. The Assistant Secretary's Discretion. Nothing in this
announcement should be construed as to obligate the Assistant Secretary
for Planning and Evaluation to make any awards whatsoever. Awards and
the distribution of awards among the priority areas are contingent on
the needs of the Department at any point in time and the quality of the
applications that are received.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93-239.
Components of a Complete Application
A complete application consists of the following items in this
order:
[[Page 15767]]
1. Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424);
2. Budget Information--Non-construction Programs (Standard Form 424A);
3. Assurances--Non-construction Programs (Standard From 424B);
4. Table of Contents;
5. Budget Justification for Section B Budget Categories;
6. Proof of Non-profit Status, if appropriate;
7. Copy of the applicant's Approved Indirect Cost Rate Agreement, if
necessary;
8. Project Narrative Statement, organized in five sections, addressing
the following topics (limited to thirty (30) single-spaced pages):
(a) Abstract,
(b) Goals, Objectives and Usefulness of the Project,
(c) Methodology and design,
(d) Background of the Personnel and Organizational Capabilities and
(e) Work plan (timetable);
9. Any appendices or attachments;
10. Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace;
11. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, or other
Responsibility Matters;
12. Certification and, if necessary, Disclosure Regarding Lobbying;
13. Supplement to Section II--Key Personnel;
14. Application for Federal Assistance Checklist.
Dated: March 26, 1999.
Margaret A. Hamburg,
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
[FR Doc. 99-8069 Filed 3-31-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-P
