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 (ETA) is publishing

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

for the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), Section 402 and the

Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Section 167, adult migrant and seasonal

farmworker programs, and a presentation of preliminary State planning

estimates derived therefrom for Program Year (PY) 1999 (July 1, 1999

through June 30, 2000). Public comment is requested.

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

on or before February 5, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Written comments shall be submitted to Ms. Anna Goddard,

Director, Office of National Programs, Employment and Training

Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-4641, 200 Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ross S. Shearer, Jr. on (202) 219-

8216, Ext. 102 (this is not a toll-free number) or via e-mail at

[email protected]> or Mr. Michael S. Jones on (202) 219-8216, Ext.

103 (this is not a toll-free number) or via e-mail at

[email protected]>.

I. Introduction, Scope and Purpose of Notice

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

which states:

Whenever the Secretary utilizes a formula to allot or allocate

funds made available for distribution at the Secretary's discretion

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

allotment or allocation, publish such formula in the Federal Register

for comment along with the rationale for the formula and the proposed

amount to be distributed to each State and area. After consideration of

any comments received, the Secretary shall publish final allotments and

allocations in the Federal Register.

Thus, this notice represents the first stage 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 area, on the basis of each State

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

Beginning with PY 1999, a revised allocation formula is proposed which

will improve and update the methodology for allocating funds among the

States by using more relevant and current data on the distribution of

the farmworker population. The revised

[[Page 70796]]

formula is the result of work done by an Interagency Task Force on

Farmworker Population Data (Task Force) and the Department's response

to public comments received in response to a January 16, 1997 Federal

Register notice of a proposed updated allocation formula for the JTPA

Section 402 program.

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

the issues associated with farmworker population data, including: the

Interagency Task Force on Farmworker Population Data, a description of

available farmworker data sources; a discussion of the background of

the allocation formula development; an overview of the peer review

report; a detailed description of the proposed allocation formula; and

a discussion of factors affecting formula development.

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 proposed minimum funding provisions to address

State service areas which would receive less than $60,000 and State

service areas which would receive from between $60,000 and $119,999 as

a result of the implementation of the allocation formula.

Part V describes the proposed application of the formula and the

hold-harmless provision using the PY 1999 appropriation for the JTPA,

Section 402 program.

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 program representative 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 formulated to include three members of the 1986 Interagency Task

Force that developed the original allocation formula, which the

proposed 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 to the high degree of interest in farmworker

population data. It represents the Task Force's best efforts 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;

(2) The need to employ detailed data which enumerates the

farmworker population at the State level, to correlate such detailed

data with the State-by-State geographical level at which funds are

allocated;

(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 and WIA, Section 167 programs.

Moreover, the allocation formula described herein is also informed

by the results of public comment received in response to an earlier

notice describing an allocation formula proposal. As a result of those

comments and the feedback from the Task Force, the Department chose not

to proceed with the formula proposed at that time, and instead

reconvened the Task Force, developed an approach for a revised, updated

JTPA, Section 402 allocation formula responsive to the comments

received, consulted with an expert in the field of labor and

agricultural economics, and conducted an extensive dialogue and

consultation with its JTPA, Section 402 grantee partners.

B. Discussion of Data Sources

In developing both the initial and this proposed allocation

formula, eight data bases were evaluated and considered for possible

use in a formula distribution of JTPA, Section 402 funds. In evaluating

the appropriateness of using any of the eight data bases, three

measures of suitability were applied to each one. First, a measure of

currency determined whether the data bases were composed of more recent

or more obsolete data. Second, a measure of detail determined whether

the data bases offered descriptions of the farmworker population at

national, State and county levels. Third, a measure of relevance

determined whether the data bases contained 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.

What follows is a discussion of each of the eight data bases

considered.

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. Geographic breadth is perhaps its

greatest strength for the purpose at hand. 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 and

WIA Section 167 programs. Finally, the COP has been used, in whole or

in part, for the past decade to allocate JTPA, Section 402 funds. The

relative 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 discussed at length

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 during 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 agriculture, or who were employed for a

majority of hours in a nonfarm occupation, would not be counted as

farmworkers by Census enumerators.

Exacerbating the nonidentification of individuals as farmworkers

was the problem of undercounting this elusive population. 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

[[Page 70797]]

government agencies and agents, such as Census enumerators. Therefore,

the results are biased against this population.

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

fact that it occurs decennially, and there are no intervening surveys

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

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

from a smaller (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 by the

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,1 measures

total hired and contract labor expenses incurred in the operation of

farms during the entire year. The COA combined tallies of labor

expenditures capture nearly all farmworkers who worked for wages. The

COA also offers the most complete geographic coverage of hired and

contract farm labor in its measure of labor expenses.

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

\1\ For 1992 and before, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau

of the Census was responsible for the COA. For the 1997 COA and

beyond, that responsibility has been transferred to the U.S.

Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistical

Service.

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

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

individual worker earnings nor demographic data are available.

Therefore, it is not possible to determine, with these data alone, the

number and distribution of the economically disadvantaged farmworkers

who are the target population for JTPA, Section 402 and WIA Section 167

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 managers, secretaries, clerks and

others who are not eligible for program services based on their

occupation. In the COA's tally of hired farmworkers, there is a

duplicate count given the high level of turnover in this industry. (The

count is not used in the proposed formula.) 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 different unit costs, and different expenditure levels which

may not necessarily yield equivalent numbers of workers.

3. National Agricultural Worker Survey

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

Department of Labor, is conducted three times annually at peak and

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

random sample of agricultural crop 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 is not designed to

estimate 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

annual sample of between 2,000 and 2,700 respondents located in 288

predominantly agricultural counties in 25 States. Additionally, the

surveyed respondents work only in crop agriculture thus the NAWS does

not survey farmworkers engaged in livestock production 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. But very few of these have

farmworkers. Annual summaries of the monthly CPS yield less than 1,300

farmworkers. Earnings questions are asked of 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 entire 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 U.S. Department of

Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, is a quarterly

estimate (for California, Florida, and the entire United States) of the

employment level of all hired labor on the farm, including clerical,

maintenance workers, etc. Agricultural service workers and contract

workers are reported separately. 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 17 regions, two of

which are States. No income or demographic information is available

from FLS data. However, the FLS reports separately annual average

hourly wages for all field, livestock, and hourly workers. The hourly

wage rates are available for all States except Alaska. The District of

Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are also 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 one week each in January, April,

July and October.

6. Farm Costs and Returns Survey

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural

Statistical Service's annual Farm Costs and Returns Survey (FCRS)

2, data reflect total hired and contract labor expenses

incurred in the operation of the farm during the entire year, including

expenses for secretaries, and maintenance workers. No individual income

or demographic data are available from the FCRS, nor are State

estimates of the farmworker population derived directly from the FCRS.

Instead, the FCRS data are used to calculate a national estimate which

is then distributed among the States primarily by using data from the

Census of Agriculture.

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

\2\ This report is now called the Agricultural Resource

Management Study.

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

7. Bureau of Economic Analysis

U.S. Department of Commerce, 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 NAWS, and 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-

[[Page 70798]]

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. Background of Allocation Formula Development

The formula used in allocating funds for the current 1998 Program

Year is based on the 1980 COP, adjusted by the Special Agricultural

Workers administrative data that accounted for the amnesty provisions

of the Immigration Reform and Control Act. Continued application of

this formula is questionable in terms of its poor relevancy and aging

data; consequently, its continued use has grown less defensible with

each passing year.

The COP is an unsatisfactory methodology for counting economically

disadvantaged migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Consequently, the

obstacle to be overcome has been that of choosing and developing the

best demographic sources for accurately measuring the farmworker

population within each State and Puerto Rico and adjusting the results

for the JTPA, Section 402 eligible farmworker population.

One problem with using the COP for counting farmworkers is derived

from the fact that it takes a single ``snap-shot'' in April that misses

many farmworkers due to factors such as migration and to the low

farmwork labor demand at that time of year. Other important

contributors to the inaccurate count of farmworkers by the COP, relate

to language, cultural barriers and non-traditional housing

arrangements. The inability of the COP design to estimate the

distribution of migrant and seasonal farmworkers is forcefully

acknowledged in an October 25, 1994 letter from the Under Secretary for

Economic Affairs and Statistical Services, U.S. Department of Commerce.

The ETA, Division of Seasonal Farmworker Programs assembled a Task

Force that included social scientists specializing in farm labor, to

advise on how to achieve the funds allocation objective. This Task

Force, the Interagency Task Force on Farmworker Population Data,

reviewed available data sources and recommended a formula to ETA. The

formula was published in the January 16, 1997, issue of the Federal

Register. The proposed formula based 50 percent of the allocation on

the COP's farmworker count, adjusted for poverty, and 50 percent of the

allocation on a ratio of the total State farmwork labor expenses taken

from the COA divided by the average farmwork wage rate in each State,

taken from the FLS. The COA/FLS ratio actually computes the total

number of farmworker labor hours worked in each State. There was no

adjustment of the COA/FLS labor hours for poverty or for other JTPA,

Section 402 eligibility criteria because at that time no means for

doing so had been recognized for incorporation into the formula.

Although the COA/FLS ratio is a proxy measure, the social

scientists on the Task Force contend that the application is an

accurate measure and that the inherent deficiencies, such as unreported

wages, occur consistently across the United States. The COA data

provide the cost of agricultural labor in each State. These figures are

derived from tax reports on wages paid by farmers, and the data are

accepted within the social science research community as being accurate

measures of agricultural activity. When the figures are divided by each

State's average agricultural wage rate, the results are indices

representing the relative measures of agricultural labor activity in

each State. The State average farm labor wage rates for hired workers

are published quarterly by the National Agricultural Statistics

Service, USDA as part of the Farm Labor Survey (FLS).

The public comments on the January 1997 Federal Register Notice

were primarily critical of the published formula for the biases

inherent in its reliance on the COP. The criticism is largely based on

the recognized deficiencies of the COP in counting seasonal

farmworkers; and the primary conclusion of the critics, that there are

inherent geographical biases underlying the deficiencies of the COP, is

convincing. Additionally, many of those that provided comments critical

of the COP also advocated using the NAWS to refine the COA data for

JTPA, Section 402 eligibility (of crop workers). Following the comment

period, the Task Force was convened on May 15, 1997 to evaluate the

public responses.

Pursuant to the thrust of the public comments, the Task Force

discussion explored the feasibility of reducing reliance on COP and on

a methodology for applying NAWS to refine the COA data. As discussion

progressed, a strategy was proposed for an integrated application of

the COA, NAWS, FLS and COP data sources. The design would refine the

COA/FLS proxy, which is available separately for crop and livestock

workers, to account for JTPA, Section 402 eligibility factors by

applying the NAWS data to adjust the crop workers proxy and applying

COP data to adjust the livestock workers proxy. This design would serve

as the primary measures of JTPA, Section 402 eligible farmworkers. The

COP would be retained as a general feature and for refining the measure

of livestock workers. The Task Force approved the proposal for

development.

It should be emphasized that the underlying distributive criterion

is the relative size of the crop and livestock labor bills across the

States. Thus, the underlying relative weight of a State starts with the

number of farmwork hours performed in that State. This relative

distribution is used as a baseline, to which certain adjustments are

made, as explained below.

Over the course of the ensuing months, details of the formula were

resolved by ETA, and the results were presented to the Task Force on

February 19, 1998 for its review. The formula was approved for its

general approach--specifically, its selection of data sources and its

design for applying those sources as a tool for gauging the relative

geographic demand for JTPA, Section 402 services. However, the Task

Force withheld its final approval, pending implementation of three

concerns raised during the discussion and summarized immediately below:

(1) The Task Force recommended expanding the number of years used

to offset possible effects of the size of the NAWS sample. It was

agreed to expand the sample size by using the four years 1992-1995.

(2) NAWS data are organized by ``Farm Labor Areas'' published in

the Guide to Farm Jobs. One Farm Labor Area is comprised of the two

States of Texas and Oklahoma. Because NAWS profiles only crop workers,

the Task Force recommended separation of Oklahoma and Texas, making

Texas a single-State Farm Labor Area (Florida and California are the

two others) and combining Oklahoma with the ``Delta South-East'' Farm

Labor Area that includes Arkansas, where there is greater similarity

with the crops grown in Oklahoma than in Texas.

(3) The number resulting from the computation of the COA's total

agricultural labor costs divided by the wage rate is the total number

of agricultural hours worked annually. The result of the refinements by

NAWS is the estimated number for each State of agricultural hours

worked in crops by JTPA, Section 402 eligible workers. These aggregate

figures could be converted into annual units for each State, but such

units do not translate directly into the number of farmworkers. This is

due to regional variations in the seasonal, short-term nature of these

jobs and the likelihood of farmworkers holding many farmwork

[[Page 70799]]

jobs in an agricultural season. For example, during any given year, a

number of workers in a State are represented in a gross unit of hours,

such as 10,000, but it is not the same number of workers for every

region and State.

These three required changes, upon which Task Force approval of the

formula was conditioned, have been accomplished.

D. Peer Review and Report

The Division of Seasonal Farmworker Programs (DSFP) contracted for

and received a Peer Review of the proposed allocation formula and its

methodology from Dr. Philip Martin--an expert in the fields of labor

and agricultural economics. Dr. Martin, a Professor of Agricultural and

Resource Economics at the University of California at Davis, has

published extensively on labor migration, economic development, and

immigration policy issues, and has testified before Congress and State

and local agencies numerous times on these issues.

In evaluating the proposed allocation formula and its methodology,

Dr. Martin was asked to: (1) Determine whether or not a single reliable

source of data exists from which a count or distribution among grantee

jurisdictions within the United States of migrant and seasonal

farmworkers approximating the JTPA, Section 402 eligibility criteria

could be derived; and, (2) determine the adequacy of the proposed

allocation formula for the distribution of JTPA, Section 402 funds

among grantee jurisdictions in a manner which approximates the

distribution of farmworkers within the United States who meet the JTPA,

Section 402 eligibility criteria. Dr. Martin was also asked to provide

recommendations, as applicable, for methods by which the allocation

formula might be enhanced.

As a result of his review, Dr. Martin reached the following

conclusions:

(1) The population of eligible [migrant and seasonal farmworkers

(MSFWs)] can be thought of as a room of unknown size and shape. Each

source of data on MSFWs can be considered a window that permits a look

inside the room. Since no data source or window provides a clear view

of the number or distribution JTPA, Section 402-eligible persons across

States, data from several sources should be combined to obtain the best

allocation formula [for] eligible MSFWs.

(2) The proposed JTPA, Section 402-allocation formula (1) is better

than the current formula and (2) represents the best combination of

available data sources. It satisfies the major requirements for

allocation formulae: accuracy, transparency (it is understandable), and

it is based mostly on published data, and thus can be updated

efficiently.

(3) There is no better allocation formula available. As

unemployment insurance coverage is extended to more farm workers, DOL

may want to consider using UI data on wages paid rather than [Census of

Agriculture] data, and thus avoid issues related to payments made to

family members and fringe benefits.

Dr. Martin's report describes two broad approaches to allocating

funds among geographic areas. He describes them as top-down--

``according to the eligible population present in the area'' and

bottoms-up--``according to eligible persons identified or served in the

area.'' Dr. Martin notes that in a 1988 book, he reviewed the top-down

and bottoms-up approaches for determining the number and distribution

of farmworkers who satisfied various criteria. He was critical of the

bottoms-up approach because it tends to compound errors. Further,

bottoms-up based allocation methodologies reward recruitment and not

the provision of service and they are not sensitive to migration. Dr.

Martin notes that most bottoms-up approaches have been abandoned.

Dr. Martin states that he had developed a top-down approach

conceptually similar to the proposed JTPA, Section 402 allocation

formula. He noted that ``[t]he proposed [JTPA, Section] 402 allocation

formula improves on [his] top-down formula. Its base is the same COA

labor expense divided by the average hourly earnings. However, the

proposed [JTPA, Section] 402 formula is able to use the NAWS to more

closely determine that State's shares of [JTPA, Section] 402-eligible

workers.''

E. Proposed Allocation Formula Overview

The proposed JTPA, Section 402-allocation formula can be summarized

in five calculations:

(1) Standardized or adjusted hours of farm work by State--COA farm

labor expenses for directly hired and contract labor are separated into

crop and livestock components and divided, respectively, by average

hourly earnings for crop and livestock workers in the State/region

reported in U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) FLS. The result is

each State's share of adjusted or standardized hours of work on (a)

crop and (b) livestock farms.

(2) Crop hours adjustments--First, each State's share of

standardized crop hours is adjusted to reflect that State's or region's

share of JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible hours of work,

i.e., the share of hours of crop work done in the State or region by

JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible workers. JTPA, Section 402

eligibility criteria are set forth at 20 CFR 633.107. Regulations for

WIA Section 167 are forthcoming. Four JTPA, Section 402-/WIA, Section

167 eligibility criteria from the NAWS are used to determine how many

standardized hours were contributed in each of the 12 regions: (a) At

least 50 percent of earnings must be from farmwork,3 (b)

workers eligible for JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 services must

have done at least 25 days of farm work in the previous 12 months or

had farm earnings of $400 or more in the previous 24

months,4 (c) family income must be below the Lower Living

Standard Income Level (LLSIL) level,5 and (d) workers must

be legally present in the U.S.6

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

\ 3\ NAWS obtains employment and earnings histories from the

workers interviewed. The 50 percent of earnings from farm work

criterion is approximated by ensuring that the ratio of the mid-

point of farm to total earnings categories exceeds 0.5. For example,

if farm earnings are self-reported to be in the $7,500 to $9,999

category, and total earnings in the $10,000 to $12,499, dividing the

midpoints of these categories: $8,750/$11,250 yields 0.78.

\ 4\ NAWS obtains detailed employment histories from workers for

the preceding 12 months; for months 13 through 24 prior to the

interview, respondents report whether they did farm work in any

month. The JTPA, Section 402/WIA Section 167-eligible population was

estimated using NAWS data on workers interviewed who satisfied at

least one of three criteria: the interviewed worker (1) was employed

in farm work 25 days or more in the 12 months prior to the

interview; or (2) worked two months during the 13 through 24 month

period prior to the interview; or (3) earned $500 or more from farm

work in the 12 months prior to the interview.

\ 5\ NAWS obtains earnings and income data in categories rather

than as continuous variables, and interviewed workers reporting

family incomes of less than $20,000 for a family of four were

considered JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible.

\ 6\ If male and over 18, workers receiving JTPA, Section 402/

WIA, Section 167 services must be registered with the Selective

Service. However, data on the number or percent of farmworkers

failing to register for the draft is not available.

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

Second, the NAWS obtains individual data on how time was spent

during the preceding 12 months, so that each worker's time spent doing

farm work, nonfarm work, unemployment, and time out of the US can be

determined. Eligible farm and nonfarm hours (including unemployment)

are divided by eligible farm hours to determine the extent to which a

State/region includes JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible

workers who are not doing farm work. This nonfarm adjustment is

[[Page 70800]]

always greater than one, with greater ratios reflecting more nonfarm

time spent in the area.

Third, NAWS data are used to determine the ratio of eligible

workers to eligible work days by region `` a ``turnover ratio.'' To

account for these variations by State and region, the Task Force

recommended use of an adjustment for differences in the length of

employment (turnover rate) in crop jobs. The specific adjustment is the

ratio of the number of eligible workers in the region divided by the

number of eligible days. To be consistent with adjustment 2, the number

of eligible days is the sum of days worked in farmwork, days worked in

non-farmwork and days not worked. The resulting calculation adjusts the

data so that States with a relatively larger number of workers

represented by a given amount of eligible farmworker time are favored

over States with a smaller number of workers needed to make up the same

amount of eligible time in the State. Consequently, high turnover

States (with more people per day of eligible farmworker presence) are

favored by this adjustment.

(3) Livestock adjustments--Each State's share of standardized

livestock hours of work is adjusted with Census of Population (COP)

data to reflect the percentage of livestock workers in the COP in 1990

who were economically disadvantaged, i.e., those with family incomes

below the LLSIL. There were 286,555 livestock workers in the 1990 COP,

and 18 percent were deemed JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligible.

The relative State JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligibility rates

ranged from 34 percent in New Mexico to 1 percent in Connecticut.

Each State's share of standardized livestock hours was multiplied

by the percent of livestock workers deemed eligible in that State

(i.e., the State JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligibility rate),

and the resulting total was distributed across States, giving each

State its percentage share of the national total of JTPA, Section 402/

WIA, Section 167-eligible livestock hours.

(4) Forestry/Fishery--The forestry and fishery category comprises

each State's share of eligible workers employed in Standard Industrial

Classification codes 08 (forestry) and 09 (fishing, hunting, trapping).

Eligible workers are those employed in these SICs as reported in the

COP with family incomes below the LLSIL.

(5) Combining the State distributions of the farm occupations--COP

data on farmworkers who had incomes below the LLSIL are used to

determine the weights assigned to the three occupational classes of

farm labor to provide a rational basis for making the combined final

distribution of state distributions: the crop distribution receives a

weight of 77 percent, livestock (19 percent), and other (5 percent).

F. Proposed Allocation Formula--Detailed Description

A detailed description of the proposed JTPA, Section 402/WIA,

Section 167 allocation formula is as follows:

1. Standardized or Adjusted Hours of Farmwork by State

The standardized or adjusted hours of farmwork by State involves

determining the relative number of hours worked by Crop Workers and by

Livestock Workers in each State.

(a) Establish The Total Wage Bill for Each State for Crop and Livestock

Work

Data from the 1992 Census of Agriculture provide the total

agricultural labor wages (SICs 01 and 02) by State, and the total crop

labor (SIC 01) wages, by State. The livestock labor (SIC 02) wages are

calculated by subtracting the crop labor wages from the total labor

wages.7

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

\7\ This reported data includes hired and contract labor and the

contract labor data includes contractor's management expenses.

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

(b) Calculate the Hours Worked in Crop Work and in Livestock Work for

Each State

The Farm Labor Survey (FLS) as reported in USDA's Farm Labor

provides information by region on the average hourly wage, separately,

for crop workers and livestock workers. To calculate an approximate

number of hours worked by crop workers and livestock workers, the total

of labor wages for each State is divided by the hourly wage for that

State's region. These calculations were made for both crop workers and

livestock workers. This calculation was done for all States except for

Alaska and Hawaii.8

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

\8\ Certain pieces of information on two States were unavailable

in the QALS for 1991, and substitutions were made.

Hawaii does not have hourly wage information for

livestock workers in the QALS for 1991. Hourly wage information was

available for crop workers and for crop and livestock workers

combined. The hourly wage for the workers combined was used as a

substitute for the livestock hourly wage.

Alaska does not have hourly wage information either for

crop or for livestock workers in the QALS for 1991. The hourly wage

information for the United States was substituted: the U.S. hourly

wage for crop workers was used for Alaska crop workers, and the U.S.

hourly wage for livestock workers was used for Alaska livestock

workers.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE98.028

(c) Determination of the Relative Share of Labor Hours for Each State

The percentage of labor hours (for crop work, and for livestock

work) that each State contributes to the United States' total was

calculated. This is done by dividing each State's total for crop labor

bill by the State's average for crop wages and each State's total for

livestock labor bill by the State's average for livestock wages. The

percentage for crop and livestock hours of each State is calculated by

dividing the State's hours for each into the total for all States for

each.

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

\9\ Data organized under the U.S. Department of Agriculture

Regions.

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

2. Crop Hours Adjustments

The crop hours adjustment involves determining the number of hours

spent by JTPA-eligible crop workers in each State adjusted for

``turnover'' variation. The result is expressed as the percentages of

total national eligible hours for each jurisdiction corrected for

``turnover'' variation by each

[[Page 70801]]

jurisdiction's ratio of eligible workers to eligible days.

(a) Adjustment 1--Eligibility for JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167

Program

Adjustment 1 applies JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligibility

criteria to the NAWS information for the purpose of adjusting the crop

worker figures for JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 eligibility.

(1) 50 Percent of Income Derived From Crop Farmwork

Eligibility for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 program

requires that at least 50 percent of a farmworker's income be derived

from agricultural employment.

The NAWS collects information from all respondents regarding their

total personal income, including their income derived exclusively from

agricultural employment. In lieu of specifying an exact dollar amount,

the NAWS respondents are asked to choose from among a number of stated

ranges within which he or she believes his/her total family income

falls (most ranges cover a span of $2,500).

To determine the percentage of a farmworker's income that is

derived from agricultural employment, reported agricultural income was

divided by total earned income. A result of 50 percent or greater

indicates that half or more of the farmworker's income came from

agricultural employment.

In order to formulate a number that could be used in such an

equation, the midpoint of the income range was assigned as the dollar

value of the farmworker's income. For example, a respondent indicates

that his total income for the previous year fell in the range of

$10,000 to $12,499, and his income from agricultural employment fell

within the $7,500 to $9,999 range. The dollar value assigned as the

respondent's total income would be the midpoint of $10,000 to $12,499,

or $11,250, and the dollar value assigned as the respondent's

agricultural income would be the midpoint of the $7,500 to $9,999

range, or $8,750. The percentage of total income that came from

agricultural income would be calculated using the two mid-point figures

by dividing the agricultural income figure of $8,750 by the total

income figure of $11,250. The result in this example being 78 percent,

would qualify the hypothetical farmworker as meeting this eligibility

criterion.

The LLSIL poverty criteria values used are the highest national

(except Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico) non-metro limit for each family

size. The calculation uses the higher of the HHS or LLSIL values. For

example, for family sizes of 1 to 6, the values applied, are as

follows: $7,360, $10,520, $14,440, $17,820, $21,030, and $24,600.

(2) 25 Days or $400 of Crop Farmwork in Previous 24 Months

To be eligible for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 program a

farmworker must be employed at least 25 days in farmwork for any

consecutive 12-month period within the 24 months preceding application

for enrollment, or have earned $400 in farmwork and have been primarily

employed in farmwork on a seasonal basis.

The NAWS collects information on farmworkers' periods of employment

and non-employment for the twelve months prior to the interview. From

this information, one is able to construct the number of days during

these twelve months that the NAWS respondent worked in farmwork.

For months 13 through 24 prior to the interview, the respondent is

asked to estimate the number of months in which he or she worked in

farmwork; one day or more worked per month equals one month. A NAWS

respondent who stated that he/she had worked for two or more months in

farmwork during the 13 through 24 month period is considered to have

worked 25 days in agricultural employment.

As mentioned previously, the NAWS collects information on

farmworkers' income from agricultural employment from the previous

year. As the responses to this question are categorical (as discussed

above), NAWS does not have exact amounts earned by farmworkers. The

lowest category is ``under $500.'' Thus, $500 is used as the minimum

amount earned from farmwork (rather than $400). Income information is

available only for the one year period preceding the NAWS interview.

To satisfy this criterion for eligibility for the JTPA, Section

402/WIA, Section 167 program, a farmworker must fulfill one of the

three standards elaborated above: either he/she worked 25 days or more

in the 12 months prior to the interview; or he/she worked two months

during the 13 through 24 month period prior to the interview; or he/she

earned $500 or more from farmwork in the past year.

(3) Below the LLSIL Poverty Line

Eligibility for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 program

requires that a crop farmworker and his/her family fall below the LLSIL

poverty line. Because the NAWS collects information on the number of

members in a farmworker's household as well as the farmworker's total

family income, NAWS is able to estimate whether the income of the

farmworker's family places the family below the LLSIL poverty line. A

family was determined to fall within the LLSIL poverty line when the

family income fell within an income category below the one in which the

LLSIL poverty line fell. For example, the LLSIL poverty line for a

family of 4 individuals was $18,740. This amount falls in the income

range of $17,500 to $19,999. Thus, a family of 4 individuals whose

family income falls below this range was considered to satisfy the

criterion of falling below the LLSIL poverty line.10

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

\10\ The LLSIL consists of differing metropolitan and rural

levels reflective of varying costs-of-living among differing

metropolitan and rural regions. However, to facilitate the

application of the NAWS data to this formula, and since many

farmworkers earn income in more than one State, a single national

standard is applied for each family size that is the highest rural

level for each family size except that the OMB poverty level for a

family size of one is used, as it is higher than the LLSIL.

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

(4) Legal or Pending Status

The NAWS collects information on crop farmworkers' citizenship and

work authorization status. A farmworker was considered to satisfy the

criterion of legal status for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167

program if he/she was determined to be a citizen or a legal permanent

resident, or if he/she held a valid form of work authorization. A

farmworker who was determined to be undocumented was not considered to

fulfill this eligibility criterion.

Individuals who met all four of the criteria stated above were

coded as eligible for the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167 program.

In summary, adjustment 1 (the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-

eligibility ratio) is a ratio which adjusts total crop hours worked to

account for hours worked by JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible

farmworkers. This ratio is the total number of farmwork days worked by

JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible crop workers divided by the

total number of farmwork days worked by all crop workers. This ratio is

always less than one, and it is multiplied by the hours worked by all

crop workers to produce the estimated hours worked by JTPA, Section

402/WIA, Section 167 eligible farmworkers.

[[Page 70802]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE98.029

(b) Adjustment 2--Time and Location of Activities

For all NAWS respondents, the following data are collected

separately by geographic location:

The number of days that respondents spent doing crop farmwork and

doing the other activities reported under NAWS, consisting of non-

farmwork, not working, or living abroad.

These data permit adjusting for State-to-State movements of crop

workers during a 12 month period. For each of these items except living

abroad, the days were accumulated under the regions 11 in

which the respondents indicated they occurred. These regions are the

regions used for the wages in the previous step.

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

\11\ The Regions were used because there were some States with

few or no observations. Alaska and Hawaii, each single State

regions, were not included in this calculation.

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

Adjustment 2 (time and location of activity) accounts for the time

spent by crop workers in non-agricultural employment and time not

employed to provide a percentage of JTPA, Section 402-/WIA, Section 167

eligible non-crop work time in each region. This is a ratio always

greater than 1 that is calculated for each USDA region by dividing the

sum of the number of days JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible

respondents reported working as crop workers, not working and working

in nonagricultural work by the total number of days reported working as

crop workers.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN22DE98.030

To compute the total time that crop workers spent in each State,

the number of hours worked by JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-

eligible crop workers (the result of applying adjustment (1) is

multiplied by Adjustment 2 to provide the time spent in each State by

eligible crop workers.

Time and location computation = (adjustment 1 * adjustment 2)

(c) Adjustment 3--Annual Crop Employment

To this point, the figures are aggregations that could be converted

into annual units of eligible hours for each State, but such units do

not translate directly into the numbers of jobs or of farmworkers. This

is due to regional variations in the seasonal, short-term nature of

farmwork employment and the high probability of farmworkers holding

multiple farmwork jobs during each agricultural season. The number of

workers needed to make up the eligible worker hours in an annualized

unit (e.g., 2,000 hrs.) varies from region to region. Although a number

of workers are represented in an annualized unit (i.e., a year's worth

of hours), due to the regional differences in crop agriculture, there

are fractional differences in every 1,000 hours of eligible crop work

represented for each region and State. As already stated, the NAWS

records have the total number of eligible farmworkers in each region

and the total number of days worked annually (in agriculture and non-

agricultural employment) and the total number of days present but not

working by the eligible farmworkers. These data provide the total sum

of time eligible crop workers are present in each region/State. The

ratio of the total number of these farmworkers to the total number of

days present in each region/State jurisdiction is an expression of the

annual average number of days worked per farmworker in crop work.

Differences among the regions that are due to the geographic

differences in employment and residency/presence in the jurisdiction,

are accounted for by the application of this ratio.

Adjustment 3 (annual crop employment) accounts for relative

differences in the length of time engaged in crop employment and other

eligible activities by eligible workers annually. This is the ratio of

the number of eligible workers divided by the number of eligible days.

The longer the annual number of days worked in crops, the lower the

ratio and the fewer the number of workers represented by every time

unit, such as 10,000 hours or an estimated annualized unit. (The

reciprocal produces an estimated annual number of days worked in crops

per eligible farm worker.) Adjustment 3 converts the final COA/FLS

numbers into a people denominated index.

3. Livestock Adjustments

Livestock adjustments involve determining the State relative share

of livestock workers expressed as percentages.

The State relative share of livestock hours from the Standardized

or Adjusted Hours of Farmwork, described above, is adjusted by the COP

data for economically disadvantaged criteria. The number of

economically disadvantaged livestock workers in each State is divided

by the total number falling below the LLSIL (both of these figures are

available from the COP) to calculate the portion of livestock workers

in each State (expressed as a percentage) that are members of families

falling within the LLSIL. This JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-

eligibility rate for livestock workers in each State is multiplied by

the State's percentage share of livestock worker hours. This product

expresses the share of livestock worker hours performed by those living

below the LLSIL. The products of these calculations for each State are

adjusted to sum to 100 so that they express the percentage each State's

JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible livestock workers comprise

of the national total.

4. Forestry/Fishery

This step involves a determination of the State percentages of

other categories of JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible

farmworkers.

Other seasonal farmworker consists of occupations in the Standard

Industrial Classification codes 008 (forestry) and 009 (fishing,

hunting, trapping). The Census of Agriculture does not include these

SICs. Since the occupations are relatively nonmigratory, it is believed

the COP is a reliable source and that any deficiency within the COP

occurs consistently from State-to-State. (Arguing the merits of using

the COP data sources for measuring the other categories of farmworkers

is not useful since there is no other data source to consider.) The

data are those workers

[[Page 70803]]

whose family income falls below the LLSIL required for JTPA, Section

402/WIA, Section 167 eligibility.

5. Combining the State Distributions of the Farm Occupations

The formula computes the ratio of JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section

167-eligible crop workers to livestock workers to other workers.

Because differing approaches are used for determining each State's

relative shares of crop workers, livestock workers and other

farmworkers, it is necessary to weight the relative relationship of the

three groups of data. The COP is the only available source that counts

all three groups of workers, thus it is used to determine the relative

distribution of the three, as follows. Using COP data on farmworkers

meeting the LLSIL criteria, the formula computes the percentage that

the U.S. total of economically disadvantaged (LLSIL) crop workers

(216,704) comprise of total (LLSIL) farmworkers (282,625). Similarly,

the percentage that LLSIL livestock workers comprise of total LLSIL

farmworkers and that the other LLSIL farmworkers comprise of total

LLSIL farmworkers is computed. The sum of the State percentages is the

relative weight of each group, expressed as the percentage the group

represents of the total. The sum of the three national percentages

equals 100 percent (71.29662 + 25.60457 + 3.09881 = 100).

G. Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico

FLS (QALS) data on Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico are either

incomplete or nonexistent. The COA is not taken in Puerto Rico and the

NAWS data are not available for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, where

Census data must be relied on for measuring the populations of crop and

livestock workers as well as other farmworkers. The basic objection to

the Census, its failure to adequately locate and count migratory

farmworkers, would not appear to be as significant an issue for the two

island jurisdictions where, relative to conditions found on the

mainland, the farmworker population tend to live at fixed addresses.

However, there is a potential bias of Census under-count that remains

for those areas, but at present we have no data set to address this

deficiency. Consequently, the necessity of relying on Census data for

determining the numbers of combined crop and livestock workers in these

two jurisdictions is considered to be the best alternative to

complement the approach in the conterminous 48 States.

H. Special Tabulation of COP Data

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

Department used a special tabulation of 1990 COP data from the Bureau

of the Census in the form of a selection of Standard Occupational

Classification (SOC) and Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes

for farmworkers falling below 70 percent of the LLSIL poverty

guidelines.

I. SOC and SIC Codes

COP equivalents were used to capture individuals in the following

Standard Occupational Classification codes:

477--supervisors, farm workers

479--farm workers

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

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

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. Of these, 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 were discarded as not being representative of

the population served by the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167

program. 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.

J. Future Revisions to Allocation Formula-Based Allotments

One of the principal advantages associated with the use of the

proposed formula, over the formula currently in place, is the

capability to revise the allotment more frequently as the data bases

used in the formula are updated. In doing so, the currency and

continued relevance of the allocation formula and resulting allotment

to the JTPA, Section 402/WIA, Section 167-eligible population is

maintained.

Therefore, to maintain the currency and relevance of the allotments

resulting from this proposed allocation formula, the Department plans

to update the JTPA, Section 402/WIA Section 167 allotments as any of

the data bases which comprise the proposed allocation formula are

changed. Similarly, the Department plans to revise the allotments as

significant refinements to the data bases which comprise the allocation

formula allow for greater precision.

III. Description of the Hold-Harmless Provision

For Program Years 1999, 2000 and 2001, 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 1999, each State service area will receive an amount

equal to at least 90 percent of their PY 1998 allotments, as applied to

the PY 1999 formula funds available. In the event the total amount

available for PY 1999 allotments is less than the total amount

available for PY 1998 allotments, each State will receive an amount

equal to at least 90 percent of what they would have received had the

PY 1998 allotment been equal to the PY 1999 allotment.

(2) In PY 2000, each State service area will receive an amount

equal to at least 70 percent of their PY 1998 allotments, as applied to

the PY 2000 formula funds available. In the event the total amount

available for PY 2000 allotments is less than the total amount

available for PY 1998 allotments, each State will receive an amount

equal to at least 70 percent of what they would have received had the

PY 1998 allotment been equal to the PY 2000 allotment.

(3) In PY 2001, each State service area will receive an amount

equal to at least 50 percent of their PY 1998 allotments as applied to

the PY 2001 formula funds available. In the event the total amount

available for PY 2001 allotments is less than the total amount

available for PY 1998 allotments, each State will receive an amount

equal to at least 50 percent of what they would have received had the

PY 1998 allotment been equal to the PY 2001 allotment.

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

amount

[[Page 70804]]

resulting from a direct allocation of the proposed funding formula

without adjustment.

IV. Minimum Funding Provisions

Current regulations, at 20 CFR 633.105(b)(2)(i), allow the

Department, at its option, not to allocate funds to any jurisdiction

whose allocation is less than $120,000. The Department has used its

discretion to provide $120,000 in funding to any jurisdictions whose

allocation would fall between $60,000 and $120,000.

Through this issuance, the Department is proposing a change to the

current application of the minimum funding provision. This proposed

change is designed to promote equity in terms of the per capita

distribution of funds among jurisdictions. Under the revised proposal,

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

the formula will, at the option of the Department, receive no

allocation or, if practical, be combined with another adjacent State

area. Funding below $60,000 is deemed insufficient for sustaining an

independently administered program. However, if practical, State

jurisdictions which would receive less than $60,000 would be combined

with another adjacent State area.

Although the Department has the authority under 20 CFR

633.105(b)(2) not to allocate any funds for use in State jurisdictions

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

State jurisdiction which would receive more than $60,000 but less than

$120,000 under the proposed formula would be combined with another

adjacent State area. In doing so, program services would continue to be

available to farmworkers in State service areas with relatively small

funding allocations while maintaining an equitable basis for the

allocation of funds among each of the State service areas.

V. Program Year 1999 Preliminary State Planning Estimates

The state allotments set forth in the Table appended to this notice

reflect the distribution resulting from the allocation formula

described above. For PY 1998, $71,017,000 was appropriated for JTPA,

Section 402 migrant and seasonal farmworker programs, of which

$67,123,818 was allocated on the basis of the old formula. The

remaining $3,893,182 of the PY 1998 JTPA, Section 402 appropriation was

retained in the JTPA, Section 402 national account to fund the

farmworker housing program; the Hope, Arkansas Migrant Rest Center;

Training and Technical Assistance Mini-Grants; and other training and

technical assistance projects and initiatives. The figures in the first

numerical column show the actual PY 1998 formula allocations to State

service areas. The next column shows the percentage of each allocation.

For PY 1999, $71,571,000 was appropriated for the JTPA, Section 402

migrant and seasonal farmworker program, of which $67,596,408 will be

allocated. The remaining $3,974,592 will be retained in the National

account for farmworker housing ($3,000,000) and other training and

technical assistance projects and initiatives ($974,592). For purposes

of illustrating the effects of the proposed allocation formula, the

third column of the Table shows the allocations based on the proposed

formula without the application of the hold-harmless or minimum funding

provisions. The percentages are reported in column 4. The State service

area allocations with the application of the first-year (90%) hold-

harmless and minimum funding provisions, followed by the percentages,

are shown in columns 5 and 6.

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

The $71,571,000 formula total is proposed for allocation in the

manner described in Part II, Section E of this notice and set forth in

Column 3 of the Table appended to this notice.

B. Proposed Formula Allocation (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 to the first three years: at 90 percent the first

year, at 70 percent the second year, and at 50 percent the third. For

PY 1999, the State service areas will receive at least 90 percent of

their relative share of the PY 1998 formula, as applied to the 1999

formula total. Since the PY 1998 and PY 1999 formula total are actually

the same, the proposed PY 1999 revised formula funding of State service

areas will result in no less than 90 percent of the actual PY 1998

funding that was actually allocated under the current formula.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this 15th day of December, 1998.

Raymond Bramucci,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Program--Impact of Proposed PY 1999 Formula Allotments

to States

PY 1988 Proposed PY 1999

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

With hold harmless Without hold harmless

Percentage ---------------------------------------------------------------

Allotment share Percentage Percentage

Allocation share Allocation share

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

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

Alabama................................................. $791,835 1.23853 $712,652 1.10880 $600,334 0.93405

Arizona................................................. 1,519,645 2.37692 1,633,011 2.54078 1,639,376 2.55068

Arkansas................................................ 1,167,409 1.82598 1,050,668 1.63472 811,923 1.26326

California.............................................. 14,591,138 22.82241 15,878,912 24.70576 18,622,408 28.97432

Colorado................................................ 805,523 1.25994 848,731 1.32053 848,731 1.32053

Connecticut............................................. 206,024 0.32225 224,903 0.34992 273,009 0.42477

Delaware................................................ 118,334 0.18509 121,415 0.18891 121,415 0.18891

District of Columbia.................................... 0 0.00000 0 0.00000 0 0.00000

Florida................................................. 4,631,415 7.24413 4,168,274 6.48535 3,039,926 4.72977

Georgia................................................. 1,711,615 2.67719 1,540,454 2.39677 865,528 1.34666

Idaho................................................... 877,438 1.37243 956,821 1.48870 1,147,954 1.78608

Illinois................................................ 1,425,808 2.23015 1,459,797 2.27128 1,459,798 2.27128

Indiana................................................. 781,615 1.22255 847,127 1.31803 947,361 1.47398

Iowa.................................................... 1,314,394 2.05588 1,182,955 1.84054 1,125,745 1.75153

Kansas.................................................. 697,839 1.09151 762,841 1.18689 939,990 1.46252

[[Page 70805]]

Kentucky................................................ 1,352,613 2.11566 1,217,352 1.89406 1,023,974 1.59319

Louisiana............................................... 796,032 1.24510 860,171 1.33833 927,503 1.44309

Maine................................................... 327,397 0.51209 294,657 0.45845 210,646 0.32774

Maryland................................................ 306,291 0.47908 334,922 0.52110 414,039 0.64420

Massachusetts........................................... 351,027 0.54905 320,632 0.49887 320,632 0.49887

Michigan................................................ 878,641 1.37431 955,539 1.48671 1,112,009 1.73016

Minnesota............................................... 1,274,775 1.99391 1,147,298 1.78506 865,373 1.34642

Mississippi............................................. 1,449,044 2.26649 1,304,140 2.02909 742,463 1.15519

Missouri................................................ 1,094,524 1.71198 985,072 1.53266 919,414 1.43050

Montana................................................. 667,189 1.04357 600,470 0.93426 516,002 0.80284

Nebraska................................................ 774,884 1.21202 844,183 1.31345 1,002,129 1.55920

Nevada.................................................. 200,795 0.31407 180,716 0.28117 115,538 0.17976

New Hampshire........................................... 112,600 0.17612 101,340 0.15767 79,764 0.12410

New Jersey.............................................. 400,038 0.62571 446,639 0.69492 673,899 1.04851

New Mexico.............................................. 598,720 0.93647 660,467 1.02761 892,928 1.38929

New York................................................ 1,850,667 2.89468 1,665,600 2.59148 1,307,027 2.03358

North Carolina.......................................... 3,006,003 4.70177 2,705,403 4.20930 1,833,494 2.85271

North Dakota............................................ 468,362 0.73258 510,194 0.79380 604,929 0.94120

Ohio.................................................... 904,951 1.41546 989,242 1.53915 1,218,930 1.89651

Oklahoma................................................ 608,145 0.95122 547,331 0.85158 518,624 0.80692

Oregon.................................................. 1,087,697 1.70130 1,191,616 1.85402 1,502,764 2.33813

Pennsylvania............................................ 1,221,441 1.91049 1,333,176 2.07427 1,615,794 2.51399

Rhode Island............................................ 0 0.00000 3,481 0.00542 50,339 0.07832

South Carolina.......................................... 1,080,106 1.68942 972,095 1.51247 434,082 0.67538

South Dakota............................................ 692,869 1.08374 623,582 0.97022 434,085 0.67539

Tennessee............................................... 957,799 1.49812 862,019 1.34120 716,714 1.11512

Texas................................................... 5,979,800 9.35317 6,444,689 10.02719 6,722,732 10.45980

Utah.................................................... 245,354 0.38377 264,204 0.41107 272,596 0.42413

Vermont................................................. 213,134 0.33337 191,821 0.29845 112,229 0.17462

Virginia................................................ 1,036,441 1.62113 932,797 1.45132 853,339 1.32770

Washington.............................................. 1,705,576 2.66774 1,870,742 2.91066 2,388,466 3.71618

West Virginia........................................... 219,325 0.34305 197,393 0.30712 121,869 0.18961

Wisconsin............................................... 1,229,201 1.92263 1,106,281 1.72125 1,067,498 1.66090

Wyoming................................................. 201,911 0.31581 218,285 0.33963 236,788 0.36841

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

Continental U.S..................................... 63,933,384 100.00000 64,272,110 100.00000 64,272,110 100.00000

===============================================================================================

Alaska.................................................. 0 0.00000 264,479 7.95594 264,479 7.95594

Hawaii.................................................. 251,607 7.88629 277,897 8.35957 277,897 8.35957

Puerto Rico............................................. 2,938,827 92.11371 2,781,922 83.68450 2,781,922 83.68450

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

Non-Continental U.S................................. 3,190,434 100.00000 3,324,298 100.00000 3,324,298 100.00000

===============================================================================================

Total............................................. 67,123,818 .............. 67,596,408 .............. 67,596,408 ..............

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

[FR Doc. 98-33822 Filed 12-21-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-30-P