Office of the Secretary Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Notice Inviting Applications for New Award for Fiscal Year 1998

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

1998

AGENCY: The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and

Evaluation (ASPE), Office of the Secretary (OS).

ACTION: Announcement of the availability of funds and request for

applications from states to determine the status of Temporary

Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) recipients after they leave the

TANF caseload, eligible families who are diverted before being

enrolled, or eligible families who fail to enroll.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and

Evaluation (ASPE), with support from the U.S. Department of Labor and

the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

announces the availability of funds and invites applications for

research into the status of 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 (hereafter jointly

referred to as welfare leavers). Approximately eight to ten States or

counties will receive funding that will enable them to track and

monitor how individuals and their families do in the first year after

they leave welfare and provide a foundation for longer follow-up.

States may choose any method for such tracking, including the linking

of administrative data, surveys or other methods as appropriate. We are

particularly interested in learning about individuals' ability to

obtain employment and the support provided by their earnings, public

programs besides TANF, and other sources. The funds could support a

newly designed project or could be used to add new data sources and

analyses to an existing project.

In addition, ASPE announces the availability of supplementary

funding from the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) of

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to track the

consequences of welfare reform for low-income families with children

who receive housing assistance. These funds will only be available to

ASPE Grantees.

CLOSING DATE: The deadline for submission of applications under this

announcement is July 6, 1998.

MAILING ADDRESS: Application instructions and forms should be requested

from and submitted to: Grants Officer, Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human

Services, 200 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 405F, Hubert H. Humphrey

Building, Washington, D.C. 20201, Telephone: (202) 690-8794. 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.os.dhhs.gov. Requests for forms and administrative questions will

be accepted and responded to up to 10 working days prior to closing

date of receipt of applications. Application submissions 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 Christopher Snow,

DHHS, ASPE, Telephone, 202-690-6888 E-mail, [email protected].

Written technical questions may also be faxed to 202-690-6562 or may be

addressed to

[[Page 27975]]

Mr. Snow at the following address. Office of the Assistant Secretary

for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services,

200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 404E, Hubert H. Humphrey Building,

Washington, D.C. 20201.

Part I Supplementary 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

PL 105-78 Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations Act,

1998.

Eligible Applicants

Given the nature of the research involved, competition is open only

to State agencies and counties that administer TANF programs with

populations greater than 500,000. Consortia of States are also

encouraged to apply, as long as a single State agency is identified as

the lead and agrees to handle grant funds and 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.

Available Funds

Approximately $2,350,000 is available from ASPE, in funds

appropriated for fiscal year 1998. ASPE anticipates providing

approximately eight to ten awards of between $200,000 and $250,000

each. If additional funding becomes available in fiscal years 1998 or

1999 additional projects may be funded or some projects may receive

second year funding to allow extended tracking of families who left the

TANF caseload or were diverted from the roles.

The Economic Research Service (ERS) of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture has provided a portion of the total funding in order to

support analyses of outcomes for families in rural areas, particularly

rural areas with historically high concentrations of poverty. ERS

funding under this ASPE announcement is separate from the ERS grant

program--``Status of Households who Leave the Food Stamp Program.'' If

applicant is applying to both grant programs (ASPE and ERS) the

application should specify how the projects will be coordinated. The

U.S. Department of Labor has also provided a portion of the total

funding, in order to support greater use of in-depth, in-person

interviews.

Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) of the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) expects to make

available up to $350,000 over and above the ASPE awards through

supplemental grants for analyses including assisted housing recipients.

Background

Since 1993, AFDC caseloads have seen unprecedented declines. A

portion of the decline can be attributed to increasing numbers of

former recipients leaving the rolls. The remainder is comprised of

fewer families entering the rolls than in previous periods. While it is

likely that a strong economy has enabled many people to move in to the

workplace, or to remain there, there is little beyond anecdotes to

indicate for certain what has happened to them. Under the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), with

its time limits and emphasis on employment, the trend in caseload

declines may continue.

The studies funded under this announcement build on previous ASPE

sponsored data-linkage and research projects. 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. Also in FY 1997, ASPE and ACF sponsored a

study on the effects of formal and informal TANF diversion programs on

recipients and on participation in other public programs, particularly

Medicaid.

Administrative records provide a reliable estimate of individuals

receiving benefits. Historically, however, AFDC administrative records

have only tracked the status of individuals and families while they

were receiving welfare. Examining the situation of recipients once they

leave, or of applicants who never receive cash welfare, takes

additional efforts by welfare agencies, such as linking public

assistance databases to those that store earnings data (e.g.

unemployment insurance records) and data on other public programs (e.g.

Food Stamps, Medicaid, Child Care).

A number of issues may be identified using linked administrative

data, including whether the adults are employed, how long they are

employed, how much they are earning, whether their earnings have

increased, and whether they have returned to TANF. It may also be

possible to provide an indication whether family well-being has

improved, worsened or been maintained, by examining families'

involvement with the child welfare system, whether they continue to

receive Medicaid and child care subsidies, have any food or housing

insecurity, and receive other federal, state or community sources of

support they have, etc. (See suggested topical areas below).

Many states have begun planning or implementing efforts to track

welfare reform outcomes on recipients. These efforts have employed a

range of methods, which include linking administrative databases,

telephone or in person interviews or surveys, and focus groups--

Maryland and South Carolina, for example, have recently released

preliminary reports tracking some characteristics of families who have

left their public assistance programs, using very different

methodologies.

Maryland's report relied on linked administrative data from TANF,

Child Welfare and the Unemployment Insurance system to look at: history

of welfare receipt; reasons for case closure, including sanctions;

employment and earnings over time both before and after case closure;

the industries in which welfare leavers were employed; and the

incidence of child welfare investigations and foster care placements

among children in families who had left welfare.

Although the Maryland study was not intended to attribute cause and

effect, it allowed cross-tabulations of workforce success and

recidivism against length of last welfare spell and months of lifetime

welfare receipt, and against work history before, during and after

welfare. In the summer of 1998, Maryland plans to supplement and enrich

these results with a survey to explore outcomes that cannot be measured

with administrative data.

South Carolina tracked welfare leavers who had been subject to work

requirements or who had voluntarily sought work using two state-

designed and administered sample surveys. An important feature of South

Carolina's approach was the great effort made to achieve a high

response rate and therefore reduce response bias. Surveyors attempted

to contact former welfare families several times by telephone, and if

still unsuccessful, sent out interviewers for in person interviews.

These techniques resulted in 77% and 78% response rates for the two

surveys.

Because survey instruments were used rather than administrative

data,

[[Page 27976]]

South Carolina has been able to gather rich information on former

welfare recipients and their families. For example, they were able to

determine whether the recipients' perceived reasons for case closure

corresponded to the administrative record. When they examined

employment outcomes, they gathered a much richer set of employment

outcomes than is typically available through administrative data (e.g.

Unemployment Insurance wage records). They were also able to get

reasons for unemployment and barriers to work, wages and work hours,

rather than aggregated earnings, and to determine the actual jobs held

by former recipients, rather than simply the industry in which they

worked.

Another area that South Carolina examined through their surveys was

child care, including availability, type and location (family,

neighbors, commercial centers, etc.), costs and funding sources, and

the barrier that lack of child care or child care problems presented in

finding and maintaining employment. Other areas included medical

insurance coverage, transportation, children's educational status, and

use of and knowledge of other public services, including Medicaid, Food

Stamps, child care subsidies, rent subsidies or public housing, adult

education, mental health and substance abuse services.

Finally, South Carolina asked recipients about deprivations that

they had encountered, whether while on welfare or since exit, including

inability to pay for rent, utilities or food, homelessness, car

repossessions, lack of needed medical treatment and changes in

children's schools or living arrangements.

Part II Purpose and Responsibilities

Purpose

The purpose of this announcement is to partner with States and

support State efforts to track former TANF recipients and their

families, families who apply for cash welfare but are never enrolled

because of non-financial eligibility requirements or diversion

programs, and/or families who appear to be eligible but are not

enrolled. In particular, ASPE would like to support State efforts to

ascertain the sources of support used by these families, including

employment, their use of public programs, their well-being, the extent

of any resource insecurity or deprivation and the circumstances of

children.

A proposed study should include at least two cohorts. For example,

the first cohort of families could be those who left the roles or were

diverted at least one full year before the second calendar quarter of

1998. This would allow the Grantee to immediately look retrospectively

at a full year of families' experiences, and to complete their initial

analysis of this cohort in time for the interim report. The Grantee

should record the characteristics of families at the point of closure,

including the reason for closure. The former recipients and their

families should then be identified and tracked in administrative

records from multiple programs and/or through other data-gathering

techniques for the subsequent 12 months. In the interest of cross-State

comparability, ASPE would prefer that if possible this cohort be drawn

from families who left or were diverted during the last quarter of

calendar year 1996 and tracked during the full calendar year 1997.

The data sources and analysis used for the second cohort may be

more extensive than those used for the first, since more time is

available. For example, applicants may propose to enrich their

administrative data by linking individual records with survey data or

other data sources. Additionally, the Grantee would be able to follow

this cohort during the term of the project, at least in part, rather

than looking solely retrospectively. Richness of data will be an

important criterion under which proposals are evaluated.

ASPE understands that there is a great degree of variation in State

programs and in the amount and scope of data available to states. It is

therefore highly unlikely that every applicant would be able to address

all of the issues and questions raised in the following section. It is

also unlikely that every applicant can propose a study that includes

both welfare leavers and families diverted from the rolls.

However, subgroup analyses contrasting cases that close due to

earnings, sanctions and time limits, as well as those which are never

enrolled due to formal or informal diversion practices are strongly

encouraged. Comparisons of characteristics and outcomes of rural versus

urban populations and analyses special populations (e.g. the disabled,

substance abusers) are also of interest.

One type of possible subgroup analysis would involve HUD assisted

families. Approximately 1.1 million households receiving AFDC benefits

before the enactment of PRWORA were also receiving HUD housing

assistance. Because of this substantial overlap in populations served,

PD&R wishes to obtain reliable evidence about the interaction of

welfare reform with housing programs. Grantees receiving supplementary

funding from PD&R will receive, subject to satisfactory execution of

confidentiality agreements, a file containing identifiers of families

with children, (or a more narrowly targeted group, as defined by the

Grantee) living in public and assisted housing in the state as of a

month designated by the Grantee. PD&R is interested in the experience

of these families relative to families not assisted; it is also

interested in the experience of families living in public housing

relative to the experience of families receiving tenant-based

assistance or families receiving Section 8 project-based assistance.

Because the focus of TANF is moving families to work, and because

employment and earnings levels are such important precursors to well-

being, the one required focus will be on the employment and earnings

status of the affected individuals. All applicants must describe how

they intend to address employment issues. Examples of questions of

interest regarding employment and earnings include:

How long does it take recipients and former recipients to

find jobs? What types of jobs do they hold? How long do they stay in

their jobs? If they are not employed, why not? 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? What fringe benefits do

they actually receive? Are there any significant barriers to accessing

these fringe benefits?

Additional policy relevant topical areas which States may wish to

address include child care usage, medical insurance coverage, receipt

of other public benefits and child and family well-being. While each of

the topical areas presented below present a range of issues, the

suggested questions are in no way meant to be exhaustive. 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. Again, richness of data is strongly

encouraged and will be an important criterion under which proposals are

evaluated.

Topical areas which applicants may wish to address, with examples

of potential questions.

Food Stamps--What role do food stamps play in supporting

welfare leavers?

Family support--What role do family resources and support

play? What role do child support payments play?

[[Page 27977]]

Health insurance--Do families have access to health

insurance? From what source (employer provided, Medicaid, CHIP)? Are

premiums or copays are required? Which family members are covered?

Child care--To what extent is child care available to

welfare leavers and what are the most common arrangements? What is the

source of payment for childcare? What is the quality of these

arrangements? To what extent are eligible child care recipients taking

advantage of services? How do child care arrangements change once

people leave welfare, either via work or due to sanctions and time

limits?

Child Welfare/Foster Care--What is the incidence of

children found to have been neglected or abused, or to enter foster

care, following the elimination of financial assistance to a family?

How does this compare with their experiences while on welfare?

Child living arrangements/Kinship Care--Do we observe

changes in child living arrangements that are correlated with the

imposition of time limits, sanctions and work requirements? For

instance, do we find that increasing numbers/proportions of children

are being cared for by relatives other than parents (either as

assistance units headed by relatives or as child-only assistance

units)?

Diverted cases--What types of families are diverted and

for what reasons? Of cases diverted, how many later come onto welfare?

What alternative sources of support do they have?

Awareness of benefits--To what extent are families aware

of the availability of transitional and other benefits available to

welfare leavers and those diverted from ongoing cash assistance? To

what extent do they avail themselves of these benefits?

Recidivism--How many families return to welfare, when and

why? What effect do other issues listed here appear to have on

recidivism?

Attitudes--What are former recipients attitudes toward

work, TANF, leaving TANF, and their situation?

Health Insecurity--What is the health status of each

family member? Do they have difficulties accessing health care?

Food Insecurity--Do families report having enough money

for food? Do they rely on food pantries?

Housing Insecurity--Have families been forced to double-up

or move in with relatives? Do they report not always having enough

money to pay the rent? Have they experienced periods of homelessness?

Barriers to self-sufficiency--Do former recipients appear

to face any of the following barriers to employment: disability,

illiteracy, limited English proficiency, domestic violence, mental

illness or substance abuse.

Reasons for case closure--What reason is recorded in the

case record? What reason is reported by the recipient?

Grantee Responsibilities

1. Prior to completion of the final work plan (analysis plan), the

Grantee should 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 including what research

questions will be answered and what methodology the Grantee will employ

to answer the questions.

As part of this process, all the Grantees will take part in a joint

discussion of their proposed study designs. This will encourage a level

of comparability of issues to be addressed and data created across the

various projects, as well as allow for peer-to-peer contacts and

technical assistance among Grantees.

2. No later than 30 days after this meeting and consultation the

Grantee should submit an outline 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 will be planned later in the grant period in

Washington, D.C., to discuss preliminary findings and the format for

the interim and final reports (for Grantees outside the Washington,

D.C. area this may take place by telephone). A preliminary draft of the

interim report, including initial results, if any, and a plan for any

further data collection and analysis, should be delivered to the

Federal Project Officer within 90 days of submission of the final work

plan. The Federal Project Officer will return comments on the draft

interim report to the Grantee and a minimum of three (3) copies of an

interim report should be delivered to the Grants Officer within 30

days. 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.

4. After completing their analysis, the Grantee will prepare a

final report describing the procedures used to conduct the analysis,

barriers encountered in completing the project and the results of the

analysis. A draft of this report should be delivered to the Federal

Project Officer before the completion of the project. The Federal

Project Officer will return comments on the draft report to the Grantee

and at least three (3) copies of a final report should be delivered 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, Grantee will 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

should 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 will convene one to two meetings of Grantees, federal

personnel, and relevant experts in the areas the Grantees choose to

address. The first meeting will take place within 60 days of award and

will allow for technical assistance and peer-to-peer contacts before

final research design decisions have been made, as well as assuring

that data constructs meet some standard of validity and comparability.

A second meeting may be held approximately 6 to 8 months into the grant

period to provide Grantees the ability to meet and discuss their

progress to date, and assess and receive assistance with any problems

that have arisen.

3. ASPE will provide consultation and technical assistance in

planning, and operating grant activities.

4. ASPE will 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, on the forms

necessary for submission, and on the evaluation criteria under which

the applications will be reviewed. Potential 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 the sections

[[Page 27978]]

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 applicant is also

applying for a grant to study the outcomes of welfare reform on Food

Stamp Program leavers through the Economic Research Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, then the applicant should specify here how

the two activities would be coordinated. If the planned project builds

on any current project, the application should describe how funding

under this announcement will enhance, not substitute for, current state

or local efforts.

3. Methodology and Design: Provide a description and justification

of how the proposed research project will be implemented, including

methodologies, chosen approach, 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 welfare

leavers, families who apply for cash welfare but are never enrolled

because of non-financial eligibility requirements or diversion

programs, and/or families who appear to be eligible but are not

enrolled.

(b) Identify how the proposed datasets and variables will be used

by the Grantee to answer each of the research questions described in

the proposal.

(c) Identify important questions/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 all families who leave the TANF program, families

who apply for cash welfare but are never enrolled because of non-

financial eligibility requirements or diversion programs, and/or

families who appear to be eligible but are not enrolled. Applicants are

encouraged to use a full population sample, but at minimum, a

successful application 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.

(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 what

internal validity checks will 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.

This should include steps planned to ensure a high response rate, such

as a mixed mode design, multiple attempts to contact sample members, or

respondent payments. Because of the importance of a high response rate

in ensuring reliability, these procedures will be an important part of

the evaluation of proposals.

(g) If qualitative research or focus groups are planned, the

application should include a complete plan for data collection

procedures and analysis, including the planned composition of groups,

planned discussion topics or facilitator's questions, a plan for

summarizing and organizing the results, and what this part of the

project is expected to add to the interim and final reports. The

application should demonstrate a familiarity with the difficulties and

potential biases of this approach, and plans to avoid or resolve them.

(h) Identify the methodology the Grantee will use to analyze the

data and organize the interim and final reports. 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.

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. 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 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 relevant

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 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,

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 their time which will be devoted to the project.

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 describes the

start and end dates of the project, the responsibilities of each of the

key staff, and a time line which indicates the sequence of tasks

necessary for the completion of the project. It should identify other

time commitments of key staff members such as other projects and/or

teaching or managerial responsibilities in absolute and percentage

terms. The work plan should

[[Page 27979]]

include a discussion of plans for dissemination of the results of the

study, e.g., articles in journals and presentations to the State

legislature or at conferences. It should also discuss in detail how

resulting data and analysis 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.

6. Budget: 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 which

explains fund usage in more detail. The applicant should clearly state

how the funds associated with this announcement will be used and

describe the extent to which these 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, if any,

and describe how these funds will be utilized.

All applicants must budget for two trips to the Washington, D.C.,

area, for at least two people on each trip. As part of this grant, ASPE

will schedule one to two meetings for all funded projects. The first

meeting will be for planning purposes, where applicants will have the

opportunity to meet, discuss their projects, and receive feedback from

both the other Grantees and from ASPE staff and invited experts. This

meeting will occur not more than 60 days after the proposals are

funded. The second meeting will be approximately 6 to 8 months into the

grant period, and will provide Grantees the ability to meet and discuss

their progress to date, and assess and receive assistance with any

problems that have arisen.

Optional PD&R supplement: Applicants who wish to be considered for

the PD&R supplement should attach an appendix to the main proposal. The

appendix must contain a proposal to analyze the experience of families

assisted by the different HUD programs relative to families not

assisted and relative to each other, using state agency files matched

with the file provided by HUD. The supplementary proposal should

identify the subsets of low-income families with children in the state

that the applicant considers of greatest policy interest. The elements

of this supplementary proposal should be the same as the elements of

the main proposal, i.e., abstract; goals and objectives; methodology

and design; experience, capacity, qualifications, and use of staff;

work plan; and budget.

Review Process and Funding Information

Applications will be initially 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.

A Federal panel will review and score all applications that are

submitted by the deadline date and which meet the screening criteria

(all information and documents as required by this Announcement.) The

panel will review the applications using the evaluation criteria listed

below to score each application. These review results will be the

primary element used by the ASPE in 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 8 and 10 grants are

expected to be made from funds appropriated for fiscal year 1998.

Additional awards may be made depending on the policy relevance of

proposals received and the available funding, including funds that may

become available in FY99. The Department reserves the right to make

fewer awards. The average grant is expected to be between $200,000 and

$250,000.

After ASPE has decided to fund a proposal from a particular state,

PD&R will decide whether to fund the optional proposal related to HUD-

assisted families, if there is one. In making this determination, PD&R

will use all of the criteria listed below except item 5 (ability to

sustain project after funding).

Reports

As noted in the Grantee Responsibilities, three substantive reports

are required under the grant. (1) A final work plan is due 30 days

after the initial consultation meeting. (2) An interim report including

initial results, if any, and a plan for any further data collection and

analysis is due 90 days later. (3) A final report including all results

and analysis is due before the end 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 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 July 6, 1998. 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. Application submissions may not be faxed or submitted

electronically.

An application will be considered as meeting the deadline if it is

either (1) received at, or hand-delivered to, the mailing address on or

before July 6, 1998, or (2) postmarked before midnight five days prior

to July 6, 1998 and received in time to be considered during the

competitive review process (within two weeks of the deadline date).

When mailing applications, applicants are strongly advised to

obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier (such as UPS,

Federal Express, etc.) or from the U.S. Postal Service 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. When proof is not provided, an

application will not be considered for funding. Private metered

postmarks are not acceptable 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 natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, or

[[Page 27980]]

earthquakes; or if there is a widespread disruption of the mail; or if

DHHS determines a deadline extension to be in the best interest of the

government. However, DHHS will not waive or extend the deadline for any

applicant unless the deadline is waived or extended for all applicants.

Application Forms

Copies of applications should be requested from and submitted to:

Grants Officer, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and

Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence

Avenue, SW., Room 405F, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Washington, D.C.

20201, Telephone: (202) 690-8794. Requests for forms and questions

(administrative and technical) will be accepted and responded to up to

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.os.dhhs.gov. You may fax your request to (202) 690-6518 to

the attention of the Grants Officer. Application submissions may not be

faxed or sent 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

Applications should be as brief as possible but should assure

successful communication of the applicant's proposal to the reviewers.

In no case shall an application for the primary ASPE grant (excluding

the resumes, appendices and other appropriate attachments) be longer

than 30 single spaced pages. Applications should be neither unduly

elaborate nor contain voluminous supporting documentation. Applications

for the supplemental PD&R grant should be no longer than 12 single-

spaced pages, and should make frequent reference to the primary

application for purposes of brevity.

Selection Process and Evaluation Criteria

Selection of the successful applicant 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 and strengths/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, applicants should take care

to ensure that all criteria are fully addressed in the applications.

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 questions.

Applications which do not address employment and earnings factors will

not be considered fundable.

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 administrative data-linking is planned, a critical scoring

element will be the proposal's discussion of the methods used to clean,

standardize and link the case level data from the different sources,

including any proposed links between administrative data and surveys.

Applicants should discuss thoroughly how they intend to match case

records from different data sources, and what internal validity checks

will ensure the accuracy of the matches. The architecture for the

resulting data set should also be discussed thoroughly. Other design

considerations include whether the agency applying has already obtained

authorization to obtain and use data from the state or local agencies

whose data would be linked, and how confidentiality of the records and

information will be ensured. If applicants are unable to ensure the

security of information included in the project, then it is highly

unlikely that they will receive funding.

If survey data collection is planned, reviewers will 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. 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 or focus groups are planned, reviewers will

evaluate the plan for data collection and analysis, including the

planned composition of groups, planned discussion topics or

facilitator's questions, a plan for summarizing and organizing the

results, and what this part of the project is expected to add to the

interim and final reports. 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.

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

applicant's principal investigator and staff on research experience and

demonstrated research skills. Proposals which involve linking of

administrative data and assembling of large databases will also be

evaluated in terms of the experience of the applicant's or

subcontractor's experience with such linking efforts. Proposals which

involve survey work will be evaluated in terms of the applicant's or

subcontractor's's experience in conducting relevant surveys. 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

[[Page 27981]]

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. Ratings may

consider references 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 particularly important because it is necessary in order to

produce results in the time frame desired; demonstration of an

applicant's ability to meet the schedule will 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 proposed strategy for dissemination of

analysis results and data will also be considered. It 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). Reviewers

will consider whether the proposal adequately addresses the following

questions: How will the tracking of outcomes for these populations

become an institutionalized function within the agency once the grant

funding expires? Where will the newly created data set reside? What

agency(ies) will have responsibility for and jurisdiction over the

resulting data? What are the sources of financial and staff support for

maintaining the database? How will the data be used for future policy

planning, research and evaluation?

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 which 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:

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:

(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: May 13, 1998.

Margaret A. Hamburg,

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

[FR Doc. 98-13473 Filed 5-20-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4151-04-P