Job Training Partnership Act: Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Programs; Proposed Allocation Formula

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

Job Training Partnership Act: Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker

Programs; Proposed Allocation Formula

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice of a proposed updated allocation formula described

herein, and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration is publishing a

notice of a description of and rationale for a new allocation formula

for the Job Training Partnership Section 402 migrant and seasonal

farmworker programs, and a presentation of preliminary State planning

estimates derived therefrom for Program Year (PY) 1997 (July 1, 1997

through June 30, 1998). Public comment is requested.

DATES: Written comments on this notice are invited and must be received

on or before March 3, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments shall be submitted to Director, Office of

Special Targeted Programs, Employment and Training Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, Room N-4641, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Charles C. Kane, Chief, Division of Seasonal Farmworker Programs.

Telephone: (202) 219-5500 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail:

[email protected]>.

I. Introduction, Scope and Purpose of Notice

This notice is published pursuant to Section 162(d) of the Act,

which states:

Whenever the Secretary utilizes a formula to allot or allocate

funds made available for distribution at the Secretary's discretion

under this Act, the Secretary shall, not later than 30 days prior to

such allotment or allocation, publish such formula in the Federal

Register for comments along with the rationale for the formula and the

proposed amounts 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 first part of a two-stage process.

Upon receipt of comments from the public regarding this notice,

modifications to the proposed formula and preliminary planning

estimates will be considered. In the second stage, the final formula

and planning estimates will be published in the Federal Register.

The formula is developed for the purpose of distributing funds

geographically by State service areas, on the basis of each State

service area's relative share of persons eligible for the program.

Beginning with PY 1997, a revised allocation formula is proposed which

will update the allocation of funds among the States by using more

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 (Task Force). The Task Force was convened

by ETA in an effort to refine the allocation formula used since 1986.

Part II of this notice provides a discussion for public comment of

the issues associated with farmworker population data, including: a

description of available farmworker population data sources; a

discussion of the factors affecting formula construction; and the

rationale for the proposed formula.

Part III describes a hold-harmless provision which is proposed to

be put into place for three years following the implementation of the

revised allocation formula. The hold-harmless provision is designed to

provide a staged transition from old to new funding levels for State

service areas.

Part IV describes the proposed application of the formula and the

hold-harmless provision using the PY 97 appropriation. These results

are presented in a Table appended to this notice.

II. Description of Proposed Allocation Formula

A. Interagency Task Force on Farmworker Population Data

In April 1994, a special task force was convened to explore options

for revising the existing formula and its data bases. The Interagency

Task Force on Farmworker Population Data consisted of specialists in

the fields of demography, economics, sociology, survey research,

statistics; an employment and training programs specialist; and a

representative of JTPA Section 402 grantees. Staff from ETA, the Bureau

of Labor Statistics, the Economic Research Service of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of the Census of the U.S.

Department of Commerce were represented in this group. The Task Force

was fortunate to include three members of the 1986 Interagency Task

Force that developed the original allocation formula, which the

proposed

[[Page 2388]]

formula in this notice revises and updates.

The Task Force examined a wide variety of issues in considering

those most important to developing a funding formula. The formula

proposed in this notice is intended to be responsive to the many

concerns about and interest in farmworker population data. It

represents the Task Force's best effort at crafting a funding

methodology which meets the following statutory and administrative

requirements:

(1) The need to use the most current data available on the

farmworker population distribution among States and counties;

(2) The need to employ detailed data which enumerate the farmworker

population at the State level, to correlate with the State-by-State

geographical level at which funds are allocated; and

(3) The need to use data which are descriptive and relevant--that

is, which address the socio-economic conditions, particularly the

occupations and incomes, experienced by the farmworker population

served by the JTPA Section 402 program.

B. Discussion of Data Sources

The following eight data bases were evaluated for possible use in

the formula distribution of JTPA Section 402 funds: Census of

Population, Census of Agriculture, National Agricultural Workers

Survey, Current Population Survey, Farm Labor Survey, Farm Costs and

Returns Survey, Bureau of Economic Analysis data, and Migrant

Enumeration Project data. Each is discussed separately below. Three

measures were applied to each of the data bases. A measure of currency

determined whether the data bases were composed of more recent or more

obsolete data. A measure of detail determined whether data bases

offered descriptions of the farmworker population at national, State

and county levels. A measure of relevance determined whether data bases

contain meaningful data on the socio-economic conditions experienced by

the population. These measures were applied to each data source

separately, and in combination with others to determine which one or

ones would be suitable for a revised formula.

1. Census of Population

Presently, the Decennial Census of Population (COP) is the only

source of data on the farmworker population that provides information

on their socio-economic characteristics which is equally available at

national, State, and county levels. This is perhaps its greatest

strength. The COP, among other things, counts individuals by

occupation, industry, income level, and provides the number of family

members for respondents. All of these are factors associated with

participant eligibility in the JTPA Section 402 program. Finally, the

COP has been used, in whole or in part, for the past decade to allocate

JTPA Section 402 funds. The funding levels to the grant programs which

now comprise the JTPA Section 402 system have been relatively stable as

a result.

The COP also has a number of recognized weaknesses with regard to

counting the farmworker population. These have been described

elsewhere, by numerous, knowledgeable critics and this notice contains

only a brief recapitulation of these problems. The 1990 COP was

conducted during one reference week period, generally the last week in

March or the first week in April. The enumeration in early Spring

occurred at a time during which agricultural activity across the

country was limited. Occupational questions on the Census form

concerned the chief job activity during the survey week. Consequently,

those farmworkers who were unemployed due to the seasonal nature of

agricultural, or who were employed for a majority of hours in a nonfarm

occupation, would not be counted as farmworkers by Census enumerators.

Migrant and seasonal farmworkers as a group, are characterized by

many members who: have no fixed address; are highly migratory; have

limited English-speaking abilities; have low educational levels; work

intermittently in various agricultural and non-agricultural occupations

during a single year; have only casual employer-employee links; live in

rural, often remote, areas; and are unfamiliar with or actively

distrustful of government agencies and agents, such as Census

enumerators. The consequent non-identification of such individuals as

farmworkers tended to exacerbate the problem of under-counting this

population.

The COP's weaknesses as a measuring instrument also include the

fact that it occurs decennially and there are no intercensal surveys of

equivalent breadth. Additionally, measures of the farmworker (or any

occupationally-defined) population, are the result of projections made

from a sample (in that case 17 percent of households), not the universe

of respondents. However, it should be noted that virtually all

farmworker data sources suffer this weakness. As a mitigating factor,

the COP is based on a much larger sample of households than any other

data set.

2. Census of Agriculture

The Census of Agriculture (COA) conducted every five years,

measures total hired and contract labor expenses incurred in the

operation of farms during an entire year. Additionally, there is a

periodic enumeration of the number of hired (but not contract) workers

on farms. The COA combined tallies of labor expenditures and number of

workers, capture virtually all farmworkers who worked for wages. The

COA also offers the most complete geographic coverage of hired and

contract farm labor, as measured by labor expenses.

The weakness of the COA include the fact that no measures of

individual worker earnings are available. Therefore, it is not possible

to determine, without additional refinement of these data, the number

and distribution of the economically disadvantaged farmworkers who are

the target population for JTPA Section 402 services. Neither does the

COA record data based on discrete occupations within agriculture, or

the number of farmworker dependents. The COA expenditure data include

farm owners/managers, secretaries, clerks and others who are not

eligible for program services based on their occupation. In the tally

of hired farmworkers, there is a potential for a duplicate count given

the high level of turnover in this industry. Finally, there is a

potential problem of using expenditure data as a proxy for the number

of farmworkers in the States, since areas with substantial agribusiness

may have higher unit costs, and higher expenditures do not necessarily

equate with larger numbers of workers.

3. National Agricultural Worker Survey

The National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), published by the

Department, is conducted three times annually at peak and slack

agricultural seasons (January, May and September) and surveys a random

sample of agricultural workers. The NAWS is rich in demographic and

socio-economic detail, and includes income and family member data.

The principal weakness of the NAWS is that it does not provide an

estimate of either the size or the distribution of the farmworker

population among the States. A secondary weakness is that its

description of the farmworker population is based on a relatively small

sample of between 2,000 and 2,700 respondents located in 72

predominantly agricultural counties in 25 States. Additionally, the

surveyed respondents work only in perishable

[[Page 2389]]

commodities and the NAWS does not survey farmworkers in livestock

production; thus, it excludes those livestock workers who may be

eligible for JTPA Section 402 program services.

4. Current Population Survey

The Current Population Survey (CPS), published by the Bureau of

Labor Statistics, is a monthly probability survey based on a random

sample of about 57,000 households. Earnings questions are directed to a

subset of the sample households. Although this is the most timely of

the data sources considered, with regard to the farmworker population,

the extremely small sample size limits its applicability to the whole

farmworker population. Furthermore, because of low statistical

reliability, DOL does not publish State estimates directly from the CPS

for most States.

5. Farm Labor Survey

The Farm Labor Survey (FLS), published by the National Agricultural

Statistics Service, is a quarterly count (for California, Florida, and

the full United States) of all wage and salary workers on the farm,

including clerical and maintenance workers, but excluding contract

workers. The FLS is a probability survey based on a sample of roughly

15,000 farms. It projects from this sample the average number of

persons engaged in agriculture in 16 States and 15 regions comprised of

two or more States. No income information is available from FLS data.

However, the FLS reports annual average hourly wages for all hired,

field, field and livestock, and hourly workers. Agricultural service

workers and contract workers are excluded. The hourly wage rates are

available for all States except Alaska. The District of Columbia and

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico also are excluded. These annual wage

rates are averages of the wage rates for each survey week, weighted by

the number of hours worked during the week. The annual average is based

on data collected for January, April, July and October.

6. Farm Costs and Returns Survey

The annual Farm Costs and Returns Survey (FCRS) data reflect total

hired and contract labor expenses incurred in the operation of farms

during the entire year, including expenses for secretaries and

maintenance workers. No individual income data are available from the

FCRS, nor are State estimates of the farmworker population derived

directly from the FCRS. The FCRS data are used to calculate a national

estimate which is then distributed to the States, primarily by using

data from the Census of Agriculture.

7. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data consist of annual estimates

of all wage and salary workers, including farmworkers and others

working on a farm, such as clerical and maintenance workers, but

excluding contract workers. The BEA estimates are based on data from

the Farm Labor Survey, the Farm Costs and Returns Survey, the Census of

Agriculture discussed above, and Unemployment Insurance Program data.

8. Migrant Enumeration Project

The Migrant Enumeration Project (MEP) data on the number of

farmworkers are developed from a Demand for Labor study sponsored by

the Office of Migrant Health of the Department of Health and Human

Services in 1991-92. The formula used in the study is constructed from

information on crop acreage, hours needed to perform a specific

operation (e.g. harvest) on one acre of the crop, work hours per

farmworker per day, and season length for peak work activity. This

information was collected in counties with a migrant presence. Inter-

and intra-State duplicate counts are likely with this methodology. The

number of dependents found by the MEP was calculated based on NAWS

data. No farmworker income information is available from the MEP.

C. Data Correlation

To test the cohesion of the various data bases, the Task Force made

a comparison of relative distributions for those data bases able to

provide estimates on a State-by-State level. The NAWS was excluded

because it does not provide estimates of the distribution of

farmworkers. Analysis revealed a surprising degree of correlation

(ranging from 0.8 to 0.99) among the data bases as to the relative

distribution of farmworkers, despite their differing methodologies,

timing, definitions of farmworkers and scope. The degree of correlation

deteriorates when data on the large agricultural States of California,

Florida and Texas are excluded. In particular, with these States

excluded, MEP and CPS data correlate very poorly with other data sets.

Even so, the data sets which are proposed for the formula--the COP, the

FLS and the COA--range in correlation from 0.86 to 0.91 with all States

included and from 0.64 to 0.80 with California, Florida and Texas

excluded.

D. Proposed Allocation Formula

Based on evaluation of the data bases, the Department proposes that

the data for the allocation of JTPA Section 402 funds among the States

in PY 1997 will come from the 1990 Census of Population, the 1992

Census of Agriculture, and the 1992 Farm Labor Survey. These three data

bases, while limited in the aspects discussed in this notice,

nevertheless meet the tests of currency, detail, and relevance. The

Department's decision to continue to use 1990 COP data is, in part,

based on Section 162(a) of the Act which provides:

All allotments and allocations under this Act shall be based on the

latest available data and estimates satisfactory to the Secretary. All

data relating to economically disadvantaged and low-income persons

shall be based on 1980 Census or later data.

One set of data obtained from the 1990 COP and proposed for use in

the formula, is the number of workers in certain occupational and

industrial codes associated with agriculture, who reported on the

Census questionnaire that they earned an income at or below 70 percent

of the Lower Living Standard Income Level (LLSIL) set by the Bureau of

Labor Statistics.

A second component of the formula is labor expenditure from the

Census of Agriculture 1992. Labor expenditure data are a function of

wages times hours worked. Since wage rates vary widely by geographic

area, the proposed formula converts expenditures from an absolute to a

relative measure by dividing State expenditures by the annual average

hired farmworker's wage rate in each State to derive an hours-worked

figure. The wage rate data are from the 1992 Farm Labor Survey. Because

the FLS does not report on Puerto Rico annual average wages, data for

on-the-job training hourly wages in agriculture, from the JTPA Section

402 grantee for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, were used as a

substitute. Although the COA/FLS data set does not directly measure the

number of farmworkers, it does provide a measure of total work supplied

farmworkers, and the Department believes it will serve as an effective

proxy.

Of the amounts available for allocation by formula for each program

year and which will not be set aside for use in technical assistance or

special projects pursuant to 20 CFR 633.105(b)(2)--

(1) Fifty percent of the funds would be allocated on a State-by-

State basis using 1990 Census data on the relative share distribution

of farmworkers

[[Page 2390]]

among the States who: (a) performed eligible farmwork, and (b) were

economically disadvantaged, defined as family income at or below 70

percent of the Lower Living Standard Income Level; and

(2) Fifty percent of the funds would be allocated on a State-by-

State basis according to the relative share distribution of an estimate

of the total number of hours of farmwork in each State, determined by

using Census of Agriculture data on the total labor expenditures in

each State, adjusted by the average annual hourly wage in agriculture,

derived from the FLS.

This two-part formula is intended to provide an equitable

distribution of the funds available for PY 1997 and beyond.

E. Special Tabulation of COP Data

The State data from the 1992 Census of Agriculture and the Farm

Labor Survey portions of the formula were taken from published reports

with no further refinement of data.

To collect data for the COP portion of the proposed formula,

several steps were taken. The Department requested 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 which contain information

somewhat different from that used in the current formula.

F. SOC and SIC Codes

COP equivalents were used to capture individuals in the following

Standard Occupational Classification codes:

473--farmers, except horticultural

474--horticultural specialty farmers

475--managers, farms except horticultural

476--managers, horticultural specialty farms

477--supervisors, farm workers

479--farm workers

483--marine life cultivation workers

484--nursery workers

485--supervisors, related agricultural occupations

488--graders and sorters, agricultural products

489--inspectors, agricultural products

494--supervisors, forestry and logging workers

495--forestry workers, except logging

496--timber cutting and logging occupations

497--captains and other officers, fishing vessels

498--fishers

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

008--forestry

009--fishing, hunting and trapping

241--logging

515--farm products, raw materials

The Department attempted to examine the widest possible range of

workers in agricultural activities in designing its special tabulation.

Some of the SOC and SIC categories that were considered are new, e.g.,

SOC codes 494-498 and SIC codes 008, 009, 241 and 515. The following

SOC and SIC codes were deleted as not being representative of the

population served by the JTPA Section 402 program: SOC 496--timber

cutting and logging occupations; SOC 497--captains and other officers,

fishing vessels; SIC 241--logging; and SIC 515--farm products, raw

materials. One result of the codes selected for the proposed formula is

that funds would be allocated for Alaska. This is almost solely due to

a significant number of low income individuals in fishing occupations.

Under the current formula, Alaska does not receive JTPA Section 402

funds because of the minimal level of farmwork activity. The Department

specifically requests comment on which of the above SOC and SIC codes

are appropriate to be retained for the farmworker population database.

The special tabulation was built around a number of tables which

provide discrete information on the farmworker population. Data are

available on:

(1) The whole count of farmworkers;

(2) The count of farmworkers falling below the Poverty Index;

(3) The count of farmworkers falling below 70 percent of the LLSIL;

(4) The count of individuals who did any farmwork in 1989; this

table attempts to capture individuals who, at the time of the Census in

April 1990 were farmworkers, but who were unemployed and whose last

chief job was in farmwork;

(5) The count of farmworker families falling below the Poverty

Index;

(6) The count of farmworker families falling below 70 percent of

the LLSIL;

(7) The count of farmworker family members falling below the

Poverty Index; this table is a proxy for farmworker dependents who are

potentially eligible for JTPA Section 402 program services; and

(8) The count of farmworker family members falling below 70 percent

of the LLSIL; this table is a proxy for farmworker dependents who are

potentially eligible for JTPA Section 402 program services.

G. Other Formula Design Issues

Following are some of the ancillary issues which surfaced or were

revisited (from the 1986 formula deliberations) during the preparation

of the proposed new formula.

1. LLSIL v. Poverty Index

The special tabulation from the COP provides counts of farmworkers

falling under the Poverty Index and farmworkers falling under 70

percent of the LLSIL. In 1986, the Department decided to change from

the Poverty Index to the LLSIL. The Rationale at the time was that this

change was consistent with program regulations and the practice of

programs funded through other Titles of the JTPA. That rationale

continues to be applicable to the proposed formula. As well, the LLSIL

count captures a larger absolute number of farmworkers in all States

with the exception of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode

Island. These States experience a large reduction in their relative

share under the LLSIL count. Rhode Island has not received any funding

under the JTPA Section 402 program, because, under the formula

currently in place and under the proposed new formula, its share of

program funds has not been deemed sufficient to effectively operate a

program. The Department proposes to continue to use the LLSIL as a

factor in the farmworker count but specifically invites comment on the

effect of using the LLSIL count with regard to Connecticut, Maine, and

Massachusetts.

2. SOC v. SIC

In 1986, the Department opted to use SOC codes to define

agricultural occupations. The rationale was to exclude those persons

working in clerical, administrative and technical positions on a farm.

These latter persons are captured in the SIC codes. The special

tabulation of 1990 Census data on the farmworker population took a

different approach to this issue and did a cross-tabulation of

farmworkers against both the SOC and SIC codes. This process is

intended to identify all farmworkers, by occupation and by industry,

and still exclude clerical, administrative and technical workers.

3. Farmworkers v. Family Member (Dependent) Distribution

The special tabulation of COP data provided a count of farmworker

family members. Because family members who are dependents of

farmworkers are eligible for JTPA Section 402 seervices, an argument

can be made for using the family member distribution, as a proxy for

dependents, as the basis for

[[Page 2391]]

allocating funds. An analysis of the relationship between the

farmworker and the family member LLSIL distributions indicates that

these two distributions track each other very closely. Nineteen States

would increase their relative shares only slightly under a family

member distribution from the COP. For these States, the collective

increase in relative share is less than six percent. Therefore, since

there are only small differences in the distribution pattern, and

because it is not possible to separate actual dependents from the COP

family member count, the Department proposes to use the farmworker

distribution from the COP in the Section 402 allocation formula.

H. Rationale for Formula Methodology

The Department proposes to use data from the COP, in part, to

create a new funding formula because the level of detail, particularly

for occupation and income, of COP data at the national, State and local

level is not matched by other data bases. It is the Department's

position that the strong probability of undercounts and non-

identification inherent in the COP design is remediated by the more

periodic information collected by the COA and FLS. While use of labor

expenditure data as a proxy for the number of hired and contract

farmworkers is less than ideal, no other data are available which reach

this group. Finally, the COA offers the most complete geographic

coverage of hired and contract labor use, as measured by labor

expenditures. The proposed weights of 50 percent for the COP data and

50 percent for COA/FLS data are suggested as a balanced approach for

equitably measuring the distribution of the farmworker population.

The Department's proposed formula is intended to be responsive to

the statutory and administrative design requirements of currency,

detail and relevance. In testing the new formula, certain allocation

differences emerge from the allocation process presently in place. The

Table appended to the notice compares the States' relative shares for

the PY 1996 allocation under the current formula and the relative

shares under the proposed formula. This Table shows some shifts in

funds, including counter-intuitive shifts of funds from large

agricultural States to States with a lower presumed presence of

farmworkers.

A significant source of differences between funding under the old

and proposed formulas is the adjustment that was made to the old

formula as the result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

(IRCA). Following the enactment of IRCA, Congress appropriated

additional sums each year for the JTPA Section 402 program above the

statutory levels. Conference language each year also directed the

Department to use some of these additional funds to serve those newly

legalized individuals admitted under the Special Agricultural Worker

(SAW) provisions of IRCA. In response, the Department modified the

purely Census-driven allocation formula to incorporate Immigration and

Naturalization Service data on SAW applications in the States. The

States of California, Texas, and Florida, among others, received

additional sums much above the amount they would have received using a

straight application of 1980 Census data. SAW data are not proposed for

use in the new formula because these data are no longer current and no

longer collected.

The hold-harmless provision described in Part III of this notice is

intended to act as a staged transition from old to new funding levels

which result from the application of the proposed formula.

III. Description of the Hold-Harmless Provision

For Program Years 1997, 1998, and 1999, the Department 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. The staged transition of the hold-harmless provision is

proposed specifically as follows:

(1) In PY 1997, each State service area will receive an amount

equal to at least 90 percent of its relative share of the PY 1996

allotments as applied to the PY 1997 formula funds available;

(2) In PY 1998, each State service area will receive an amount

equal to at least 80 percent of its relative share of the PY 1997

allotments as applied to the PY 1998 formula funds available; and

(3) In PY 1999, each State service area will receive an amount

equal to at least 70 percent of its relative share of the PY 1998

allotments as applied to the PY 1999 formula funds available.

Thereafter, allocations to each State service area would be for the

amount resulting from a direct application of the proposed funding

formula without adjustment.

A State area which would receive less than $60,000 by application

of the formula will receive no allocation because this amount is deemed

insufficient for sustaining an independently administered program.

Although the Department has the authority under 20 CFR 633.105(b)(2)

not to allocate any funds for use in a State jurisdiction whose

allocation is less than $120,000, it is proposed that any State

jurisdictions which would receive more than $60,000 but less than

$120,000 under the proposed formula will be awarded a minimum

allocation of $120,000 both during and after the hold-harmless period.

The Department specifically invites comments on the above

application of the funding floors provided for at 20 CFR 633.105(b)(2).

IV. Program Year 1997 Preliminary State Planning Estimates

The allocations set forth in the Table appended to this Notice

reflect the allocation formula described above. For PY 1996,

$69,285,000 were appropriated for Section 402 migrant and seasonal

farmworker programs, of which $65,486,767 were allocated on the basis

of the old formula. The remaining $3,798,233 of the PY 1996 Section 402

appropriation retained in the Section 402 national account to fund the

housing program ($2,400,409), the Hope, Arkansas, Migrant Rest Center

($266,524), and other training and technical assistance projects

($1,131,300). The figures in the first numerical column show the actual

PY 1996 formula allocations to State service areas. The next column

shows the percentage of each allocation.

The amount appropriated for PY 1997 is the same as it was for PY

1996 and the amount available for formula allocation remains at

$65,486,767. For the purpose of illustrating the effects of the

proposed formula, the third column of the Table shows the allocations

based on the proposed formula without the application of the hold-

harmless or funding minimum provisions, with the percentages reported

in column 4. The State service area allocations with the application of

the first-year (90%) hold-harmless and funding minimum provisions,

followed by the percentages, are shown in columns 5 and 6.

A. Proposed Formula Allocations (Without Hold-Harmless Provision)

The $65,486,767 formula total is proposed for allocation in the

following manner:

(1) $32,743,383 (fifth percent of the formula total) would be

allocated on a State-by-State basis using 1990 Census data on the

relative share distribution of farmworkers among the States who: (a)

performed eligible farmwork; and (b) were economically disadvantaged,

defined as family income at or below 70 percent of the Lower Living

Standard Income Level; and

[[Page 2392]]

(2) $32,743,383 (fifty percent of the formula total) would be

allocated on a State-by-State basis according to the relative share

distribution of an estimate of the total number of hours of farmwork in

each State, determined by using 1992 Census of Agriculture data on the

total wages paid to hired and contract farmworkers in each State,

adjusted by the average annual hourly wage in agriculture, taken from

the 1992 Farm Labor Survey.

B. Allocations With Hold-Harmless Provision

To transition State service areas from the current formula to the

revised formula funding levels, a graduated hold-harmless provision

would be applied the first three years: at 90 percent the first year,

at 80 percent the second year, and at 70 percent the third. For PY

1997, the State service areas will receive at least 90 percent of their

relative share of the PY 1996 formula, as applied to the PY 1997

formula total. Since the PY 1996 formula total and the PY 1997 formula

total are actually the same, the proposed PY 1997 revised formula

funding of State service areas will result in no less than 90% of the

PY 1996 funding that was actually allocated under the current formula.

For the purpose of comparisons, please refer to the table.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 31st day of December, 1996.

Timothy M. Barnicle,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

BILLING CODE 4510-30-M

[[Page 2393]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16JA97.019

[[Page 2394]]

[FR Doc. 97-1101 Filed 1-15-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-C