Notice Inviting Applications for New Award for Fiscal Year 1999

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Planning and

Evaluation

Notice Inviting Applications for New Award for Fiscal Year 1999

AGENCY: The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and

Evaluation (ASPE), DHHS.

ACTION: Announcement of the availability of funds and request for

applications from States and large counties to determine the status of

applicants and potential applicants to the Temporary Assistance to

Needy Families (TANF) program, individuals and families entering the

TANF caseload, and individuals and families who leave TANF.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and

Evaluation (ASPE) announces the availability of funds and invites

applications for research into the status of applicants and potential

applicants to the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)

program, individuals and families entering the TANF caseload, and

individuals and families who leave TANF. Approximately four to six

States or large counties will receive funding that will enable them to

monitor and conduct research into the progress of individuals who apply

for TANF benefits and their families. ASPE is particularly interested

in targeting those applicants who apply for cash assistance but are

never enrolled because of non-financial eligibility requirements,

participation in up-front job search or other diversion programs, or

failure to complete the application process. Proposed studies of new

entrants onto the TANF program and of individuals leaving welfare also

will be given consideration. Research topics could fall into the broad

categories of employment and earnings, participation in government

assistance programs, and child and family well-being. Grant applicants

may choose any method for their proposed studies, including the linking

of administrative data, surveys, or other methods as appropriate. The

funds could either support a newly designed project or could be used to

add new data sources and analyses to an existing project.

CLOSING DATE: The deadline for submission of applications under this

announcement is May 17, 1999.

MAILING ADDRESS: Application instructions and forms should be requested

from and submitted to: Adrienne Little, Grants Officer, Office of the

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health

and Human Services, Room 405F, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: (202) 690-

8794. Requests for forms and administrative questions will be accepted

and responded to up to ten (10) working days prior to the closing date.

Copies of this program announcement and many of the required forms

may also be obtained electronically at the ASPE World Wide Web Page:

http://aspe.hhs.gov. You may fax your request to the attention of the

Grants Officer at (202) 690-6518. Applications may not be faxed or

submitted electronically.

The printed Federal Register notice is the only official program

announcement. Although reasonable efforts are taken to assure that the

files on the ASPE World Wide Web Page containing electronic copies of

this program announcement are accurate and complete, they are provided

for information only. The applicant bears sole responsibility to assure

that the copy downloaded and/or printed from any other source is

accurate and complete.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administrative questions should be

directed to the Grants Officer at the address or phone number listed

above. Technical questions should be directed to Matthew Lyon, Office

of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of

Health and Human Services, Room 404E, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: (202) 401-

3953. Questions may be faxed to (202) 690-6562 or e-mailed to

[email protected].

Part I. Supplemental Information

Legislative Authority

This grant is authorized by section 1110 of the Social Security Act

(42 U.S.C. 1310) and awards will be made from funds appropriated under

Pub.L. 105-277, Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations

Act, 1999.

Eligible Applicants

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

to State agencies that administer TANF programs and to counties with

total populations greater than 500,000 that administer TANF programs.

Consortia of States and counties are also encouraged to apply, as long

as their combined total populations exceed 500,000 and a single agency

is identified as the lead to handle grant funds and

[[Page 15759]]

sub-granting. Public or private nonprofit organizations, including

universities and other institutions of higher education, may

collaborate with States in submitting an application, but the principal

Grantee will be the State. Private for-profit organizations may also

apply jointly with States, with the recognition that grant funds may

not be paid as profit to any recipient of a grant or subgrant.

The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Part 92 defines a State

as: ``Any of the several States of the United States, the District of

Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, any territory or possession

of the United States, or any agency or instrumentality of a State

exclusive of local governments. The term does not include any public

and Indian housing agency under United States Housing Act of 1937.''

Available Funds

Approximately $1,200,000 is available from ASPE, in funds

appropriated for fiscal year 1999. ASPE anticipates providing

approximately four to six awards of between $200,000 and $250,000 each.

If additional funding becomes available in fiscal years 1999 or 2000,

further projects may be funded or some projects may receive second year

funding. However, applications for funding under this announcement

should describe projects that can be completely carried out with one

year of funding at the above anticipated level.

Background

Welfare caseloads have declined precipitously in recent years.

Since January 1993, the number of people receiving federally funded

assistance under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act has fallen from

14.1 million to just under 8 million recipients, a reduction of 44

percent. This decline has occurred in response to the Administration's

grants of Federal waivers to 43 States, the provisions of the Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub.L.

104-193), and the strong economy. In response to the demand from the

public and policymakers, many studies have been and are currently being

carried out to study the circumstances of the large numbers of people

who have left welfare. There has been less attention, however, to

applicants and potential applicants to TANF, some of whom are formally

or informally diverted from receiving cash assistance.

ASPE is interested in focusing on applicants and potential

applicants to TANF for a number of reasons. First, some of the

reduction in the welfare rolls has likely been caused by the reduced

number of individuals and families applying for and enrolling in TANF.

Little is known about the economic and employment status of applicants

who are diverted from receiving assistance by new policies or

procedures, or the well-being of their children and families. Moreover,

the Department of Health and Human Services has a particular policy

interest in learning about the degree to which TANF applicants are

aware of their potential eligibility for Medicaid and other programs

and services that are important in helping families make a successful

transition to work. The extent to which low-income families diverted

from or leaving cash welfare programs are receiving health insurance

from private or public sources should also inform efforts to reduce the

number of uninsured families.

The studies funded under this announcement build on previous ASPE-

sponsored data-linkage and research projects to study the outcomes of

welfare reform. These include projects involving linking of

administrative data, research on state diversion programs, and an

earlier round of grants to States and large counties to study the

outcomes of welfare reform.

In FY 1996 and 1997, ASPE awarded grants to five States and one

county for the purpose of linking administrative databases from

multiple programs in order to study the interactions between programs

and the use of multiple sources of assistance by recipients. As a

result of this funding, the Grantees have significantly increased their

ability to conduct research using administrative data.

In FY 1997, ASPE and the Administration for Children and Families

(ACF) sponsored a study by the Center for Health Policy Research at The

George Washington University to examine State diversion policies and

practices and the potential effects of formal and informal TANF

diversion programs on recipients and on participation in other

government programs, particularly Medicaid. The study found that States

are using three major methods to formally divert applicants from

entering cash assistance: lump sum payment programs, mandatory

applicant job search, and policies encouraging the use of alternative

resources. In addition, some potential applicants are informally

diverted, or discouraged from applying for TANF at all by strict

expectations placed on recipients. Both the interim report, released in

August 1998, and the final report, to be released in March 1999, raise

questions about whether TANF diversion policies may reduce access to

Medicaid for many low-income individuals who may be unaware of their

eligibility for Medicaid under Section 1931 of the Social Security Act.

The final report also stresses the need to gather more information

about the population diverted from TANF and other public assistance

programs.

Finally, the projects funded on this announcement will build

closely on the ongoing ASPE-funded grants to study welfare outcomes. In

FY 1998, ASPE awarded approximately $2.9 million in grants to study the

outcomes of welfare reform on individuals and families who leave the

TANF program, who apply for cash welfare but are never enrolled because

of non-financial eligibility requirements or diversion programs, and/or

who appear to be eligible but are not enrolled. These grants were

funded by money earmarked by Congress for crosscutting research on the

outcomes of welfare reform and interagency transfers from the

Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, and the

Administration for Children and Families.

Grants were awarded to ten States (including the District of

Columbia), two counties, and one consortium of counties under the FY

1998 announcement. In addition, a grant was made to South Carolina

under a different program announcement to conduct a similar study

tracking welfare families. Families leaving welfare are being studied

by all fourteen of the FY 1998 welfare outcome Grantees--Arizona,

District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts,

Missouri, New York, South Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin, Los Angeles

County in California, Cuyahoga County in Ohio, and a consortium of

three contiguous counties in the Bay Area of California (San Mateo,

Santa Cruz, and Santa Clara). Research topics vary among Grantees, but

include: employment and earnings, other income supports, health

insurance, child care, child well-being, barriers to self-sufficiency,

insecurity/deprivation, and other topics. In addition, five of the

fourteen Grantees (Florida, South Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin, and

the San Mateo County consortia) are including analysis of individuals

who have been formally or informally diverted from receiving welfare.

The Wisconsin study, for example, includes an applicant diversion

study undertaken by the Institute for Research on Poverty (IRP) at the

University of Wisconsin-Madison. HHS funding has allowed IRP to expand

a study of individuals applying for Wisconsin

[[Page 15760]]

Works (W-2) assistance in Milwaukee. The project focuses on three

subgroups of applicants: (1) Those who request assistance and

subsequently participate in the W-2 program; (2) those who request

assistance but are determined to be ineligible for program

participation; and, (3) those who request assistance, appear to be

eligible, but do not participate in W-2. A six-month cohort of

applicants is being tracked through a combination of linked

administrative data (e..g, public assistance, quarterly earnings, child

support, foster care, and mental health data) and two waves of surveys.

In order to address the difficult issue of identifying and surveying

individuals who never enroll in the program and thus may not be

regularly entered in the state public assistance administrative

database, IRP researchers are approaching individuals on the day that

they apply for cash assistance, immediately after they have been

screened for potential welfare eligibility and before they meet with

employment specialists. By conducting in-person interviews with

applicants while they are still in the welfare office, IRP hopes to

achieve a response rate of 90 percent for the first wave of interviews

and gather sufficient information to be able to locate respondents for

a follow-up interview twelve months later. Analysis of the applicants

will take place across a variety of sub-topics, including the local

welfare office, respondent demographics, welfare status over the twelve

months, prior welfare receipt, and receipt of any support services.

The study of applicants in San Mateo County, California, differs

somewhat from the IRP study. San Mateo County is able to take advantage

of California's Case Data System (CDS), which includes every TANF

application that is initiated in the state. Researchers in San Mateo

County and at the SPHERE Institute in Palo Alto are using this system

both to link all applicants with other administrative databases and to

draw their survey sample. Because the Case Data System includes all

applications, and not just those individuals who received TANF, San

Mateo County can study individuals who began the application process

but were diverted, as well as individuals who leave TANF. The work plan

calls for administrative data linkage and a two-wave survey,

administered at six and twelve months after ``case closure'' (when

either the applicant withdraws from the application process or the TANF

recipient leaves the program).

Another approach to studying diversion is being taken in Florida,

South Carolina, and Washington. In addition to studying individuals who

complete their applications for welfare but do not enroll in the

program, each of these states is using Food Stamps and/or Medicaid

enrollment data to identify those individuals and their families that

appear to be eligible for cash assistance but are not enrolled in TANF.

These individuals will be tracked through administrative databases or,

in some cases, studied through a combination of administrative data and

surveys.

As stated above, all fourteen welfare outcomes Grantees receiving

FY 1998 funding are analyzing families that leave the TANF program.

Each of the ``leavers'' studies includes at least two cohorts: one for

which administrative data is retrieved and the other for which the

Grantee compiles both administrative and survey data. The most common

administrative data sets being used are public assistance data (TANF,

Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc.) and wage data (usually Unemployment

Insurance). Several of the Grantees also are using child welfare, child

support, child care, JOBS or JOBS successor, and other human services

data sets.

To supplement the information gathered through data linking, all

1998 Grantees are surveying at least one cohort of leavers. Most

surveys are mixed mode (telephone interviews with an in-person follow-

up when necessary), and most of the Grantees have acknowledged that a

response rate of at least 70 to 80 percent is needed to avoid potential

biases of their studies' results. Grantees are each developing their

own survey instruments, generally drawing items from national surveys

developed by the Census Bureau (e.g., the Survey of Income and Program

Participation (SIPP), the Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD), the Food

Insecurity Module used on the Current Population Survey (CPS)), other

national surveys, existing state instruments (e.g., a survey used in an

early South Carolina study of welfare leavers), and items developed by

their own researchers. Variation across the Grantees exists in terms of

the timing of cohorts, administrative data sets, and survey

instruments. However, the Grantees have come to agreement on certain

issues, including a common definition of ``leavers'' as individuals who

leave cash assistance for a period of two months or longer.

Part II. Purpose and Responsibilities

Purpose

The purpose of this announcement is to support the efforts of

States and large counties to research the circumstances of applicants

and potential applicants to the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families

(TANF) program, individuals and families entering the TANF caseload,

and individuals and families who leave TANF. ASPE is committed to using

the research funds appropriated by Congress to help build state and

local capacity to conduct studies of the outcomes of welfare reform.

Through these grants, ASPE hopes to support State efforts to gather a

variety of information about the above individuals and their families,

including their economic and non-economic well-being and participation

in government programs.

More specifically, ASPE hopes to learn what happens to families who

apply for welfare but are formally or informally diverted before

enrollment. How are such families faring economically and in other

measures of well-being? To what extent are such families still

participating in Medicaid, Food Stamp, and child support programs (and

if not, why not)? Similar questions can be asked about individuals and

families who have left TANF. Finally, a study of TANF entrants provides

still another perspective from which to analyze the outcomes of welfare

reform.

A proposed study should include at least one cohort of applicants/

potential applicants (with an emphasis on those formally or informally

diverted from receiving cash assistance), entrants, or leavers. The

Grantee has the option of studying just one of these types of

populations, or of studying two or more. However, preference will be

given to those Grantees that include a study of applicants and

potential applicants to TANF, including diverted individuals and

families.

The Grantee should clearly identify how the study population is

defined. For example, applicants and potential applicants could include

one or more of the following groups, as defined by the Grantee:

individuals participating in a State or county's formal

diversion program (lump-sum payment, mandatory applicant job search,

and/or alternative resources),

individuals that begin the application process but fail to

complete it,

individuals that complete the process and are determined

to be eligible for cash assistance, but who withdraw from the program

before receiving any benefits, and

individuals who apply for cash assistance but are

determined to be ineligible based on non-financial requirements.

[[Page 15761]]

Grantees studying individuals and families that leave TANF are

encouraged to use the ``leaving cash assistance for two months or

longer'' definition being used by the fourteen grantees funded in 1998.

Grantees studying families that enter TANF should clearly define that

population, and should explain how they will study the experiences of

welfare entrants while they are enrolled in the TANF program.

Each Grantee will be expected to use administrative records from

multiple programs and/or other data-gathering techniques to identify

and conduct research into the experiences of the study population (as

defined by the Grantee) over time. For example, applicants and

potential applicants could be tracked through the application process,

after eligibility is determined, and in subsequent months; former

recipients and their families could be monitored after the point of

closure; and entrants onto TANF could be studied throughout their

participation in the program. An administrative data analysis could be

enhanced through the use of retrospective data (i.e., prior welfare

receipt, employment history), as well as data on characteristics at the

time of cohort identification (point of application, case entry, or

case closure) and over subsequent months.

Applicants for the ASPE grants may propose to augment their

administrative data by linking individual records with survey data or

other data sources. For example, surveys of applicants and those that

have been diverted from applying can determine the individual's

perceptions of the application process and reasoning for participating

or not participating in different benefit programs. The combination of

linked administrative data sets and surveys provide researchers with

the answers to a wide range of research questions. Another possible

enrichment of the data might involve providing contextual information

by briefly documenting or describing the application process facing

TANF applicants in the county or State studied (or the case closure

procedures, if appropriate). This might include the role of the TANF

agency in ensuring that applicants for cash assistance are enrolled

into the Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Child Support Enforcement programs,

where appropriate. The richness of the data the Grantee is able to

provide will be an important criterion under which proposals are

evaluated.

Studies of applicants, entrants, and leavers will benefit from

tracking individuals and families over time. To this end, applicants

may submit proposals for studies lasting up to seventeen months from

the date the grant is awarded. While ASPE will obligate funds for

studies as lengthy as seventeen months, proposals that allot this

maximum time period will receive no preference over shorter studies,

including those that last the conventional twelve months. If additional

funding becomes available in fiscal year 2000, some projects may be

considered for second year funding, allowing for an even longer time

frame.

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

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

Grantees also will vary in their identification of a study population

and in the types of subgroup analyses that can be conducted. Subgroup

analyses contrasting different types of diverted cases (e.g.,

participants in formal diversion programs, nonparticipating eligible

individuals and families, and those that are non-financially

ineligible), different types of closed cases (e.g., because of

earnings, sanctions, time limits), and special populations (e.g., the

disabled, substance abusers) are of interest. ASPE also has a strong

interest in studying urban and rural subgroups. Comparisons across

other demographic characteristics, including race and age and number of

children, would also be helpful.

Topical areas that applicants may wish to address, with examples of

potential policy questions, are listed below, grouped in three general

categories for ease of presentation. Given the diversity of expected

proposals, it is highly unlikely that every applicant would be able to

address all of the issues and policy questions. Further, while the list

represents the topics that are most important to ASPE researchers and

policymakers, the suggested questions are in no way meant to be

exhaustive. However, we would expect that applicants for funding will

cover each of these three broad areas in their applications. If

prospective applicants have additional questions which they feel are

relevant within the context of welfare reform, they are encouraged to

raise them in their proposal. Please note that though many of the

questions focus on TANF applicants and potential applicants, they may

be suggestive of similar issues that could be investigated in studies

that focus on TANF entrants or individuals and families that leave the

TANF program. Again, richness of data is strongly encouraged and will

be an important criterion under which proposals are evaluated.

1. Employment and Economic Well-being

Employment and earnings: What is the employment status of

individuals at time of application for welfare? At time of case

closure? Six to twelve months later? What types of jobs are held? What

level of wages do they receive and how much do they receive in total

earnings? What sort of work schedules do they have? What, if any,

employer-provided fringe benefits and training are available to them,

including health insurance? What fringe benefits do they and their

family members actually receive? If applicants/entrants/leavers are not

employed, why not? What was the cause of the most recent job loss? How

long between job loss and application for welfare?

Household income: What is total household income? Does

this income fall below the poverty threshold? Are there earnings or

other income from other members of the applicant's household? What are

the sources of this income? Do they include disability payments? What

financial support do they receive from extended family members or

friends that live outside of the household?

Child support: Do families have child support orders? Do

they receive regular child support payments? If so, what proportion of

family income does child support income represent? Is there evidence

that the non-custodial parent provides some financial support,

including in-kind goods and services, even if there is no ``formal''

child support?

Barriers to self-sufficiency: Do applicants appear to face

any barriers to employment, including disability, illiteracy, limited

English proficiency, domestic violence, mental illness, or substance

abuse? Are barriers to employment identified at time of application and

do they influence the applicants' placement or ability to participate

in an up-front job search or other component to a work-based approach

to welfare (see also Child care section below)?

2. Participation in Government Programs

TANF: What types of families are placed in formal

diversion programs and for what reason? What types of families are

eligible but do not enroll? What families are enrolled? Are there

differences in the experiences of single and two-parent families? What

are patterns of prior receipt for TANF applicants? For individuals

leaving TANF, what are the reasons for closure (as identified in case

records and

[[Page 15762]]

reported by recipient)? How many families return to welfare, when, and

why? For individuals entering TANF, what is their experience while

receiving cash assistance? What services are they receiving, and how

has their participation in the TANF program affected their ability to

become self-sufficient?

Medicaid and other health insurance: Are individuals and/

or their children enrolled in Medicaid? To what extent are individuals

aware of the eligibility guidelines and application procedures for

Medicaid for themselves and/or their children? What information or

guidance have they received from the State or local TANF or Medicaid

agency? From other agencies or from health providers? Are applications

for Medicaid routinely accepted and processed, even as applicants

cooperate with work-search requirements to become eligible for TANF? Do

adults and children in families have access to other health insurance,

and if so, from what source? Are premiums or co-payments required? Are

respondents aware of their children's potential eligibility for health

coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Plan (CHIP)? Are those

that are working aware of how to qualify for potential Transitional

Medicaid benefits?

Food Stamps: Do some or all family members participate in

the Food Stamp program? To what extent are individuals aware of their

potential eligibility for Food Stamps and of the application

procedures? What information or guidance have they received from State

or local agencies? Are Food Stamp applications processed, even as

applicants cooperate with work-search requirements to become eligible

for TANF?

Child care: What child care arrangements are being used by

families when parents are working, seeking work, or in employment and

training programs? Does the family make any payments? Does the

government or anyone else help pay for the child care? To what extent

are families aware of their potential eligibility for child care

subsidies and/or transitional child care, and of the application

procedures? Did individuals lose any work because of child care

problems, or conversely, lose child care due to work requirements? Do

individuals require care for their children during non-traditional

hours, such as weekends and after-school?

Child Support Enforcement: Are all families, including

those that are diverted from cash assistance, referred to Child Support

Enforcement services? How are families that do not receive cash

assistance treated by the Child Support Enforcement agency, as compared

with TANF families (e.g., application fees, longer processing period,

receipt of awards)? Are non-custodial parents being made aware of

services that may be available to them?

SSI and other government programs: Are TANF applicants

referred to Supplemental Security Income (SSI)? What happens to

applicants during the waiting period between referral and determination

of SSI eligibility? To what extent are TANF applicants referred to and/

or relying on other government programs, such as Unemployment

Insurance, housing subsidies, free or reduced price school meals, WIC,

and Head Start? Are applicants also referred to programs run by state

and local governments or not-for-profit agencies?

Attitudes: What are the attitudes of applicants,

recipients, and former recipients toward the TANF application process,

applicant job search and other diversion programs, TANF, work, and

their current situation?

3. Family Well-being

Food insecurity: Does the family have enough food to eat?

Does the family run out of money to buy food? Were any family members

forced to turn to food pantries for meals? Did any adults in the family

skip meals? Did any children?

Health insecurity: What is the health status of each

family member? Do they have difficulties accessing health care? Did

family members not get care or postpone getting care when they needed

it for financial reasons? Has the family been forced to access

emergency services, and if so, have they been able to obtain the needed

assistance?

Housing insecurity: Have families been forced to double-up

or move in with relatives? Does the family run out of money to pay the

rent? Have they been evicted or recently experienced periods of

homelessness? Have families stayed in homeless shelters for any period

of time?

Family support: To what extent do individuals turn to

extended family members, friends, and informal resource networks for

support (including, but not limited to, the financial support discussed

in the section relating to economic well-being)? During the application

process, are applicants encouraged to seek the support of family

members and friends as a potential alternative to welfare?

Household composition and child living arrangements: How

does household composition change over time, and how is this related to

entry onto and exit from welfare? Are there changes in marital status?

Changes in the number of adults living in the household? Pregnancies

and births? Do any children enter or exit from foster care programs? Do

children move to and from care between parents, or by relatives other

than parents (e.g., informal arrangements, formal kinship care

programs, child-only TANF cases)? How often have families moved?

Child well-being: What are child health status and access

to health care (see also Medicaid section above)? How are children

faring in school? In child care? To what extent are there signs of

positive behaviors/activities or behavior problems? What is the

incidence of child abuse or neglect (see also Barriers to self-

sufficiency section above)? Are there signs of maternal depression? Is

there non-resident parent involvement with the child/children? If so,

what types of involvement exist (e.g. amount of contact, participation

in school, church, or other community events)?

Grantee Responsibilities

1. Prior to completion of the final work plan, the Grantee shall

meet with relevant federal personnel, other Grantees, and invited

experts in Washington, D.C., to discuss the preliminary methodology and

design of the research project. As part of this process, the Grantees

will take part in a joint discussion of their proposed study designs

and research questions, and receive technical assistance from ASPE

staff. This will allow for knowledge sharing across the various

projects, as well as encourage peer-to-peer contacts among each of the

Grantees.

2. No later than ninety (90) days after the date of award, the

Grantee shall submit an outline of progress to date, if any, and a

final work plan that is based on and updates the work plan submitted in

the original application.

3. A second meeting may be planned later in the grant period in

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

the final report (for Grantees outside the Washington, D.C. area, this

may take place by telephone).

4. After completing the analysis, the Grantee shall prepare a final

report describing the results of the study, including the procedures

and methodology used to conduct the analysis, the research questions

answered, the knowledge and information gained from the project, and

any barriers encountered in completing the project. A draft of this

report shall be delivered to the Federal Project Officer no later than

thirty (30) days before the completion of the project. After receiving

comments on the draft report from the Federal Project Officer,

[[Page 15763]]

the Grantee shall deliver at least three (3) copies of a final report

to the Grants Officer before the completion of the project. One of

these copies must be unbound, suitable for photocopying; if only one is

the original (has the original signature, is attached to a cover

letter, etc.), it should not be this copy.

5. To encourage wider analysis, the Grantee shall make all data

available to the research community. ASPE prefers that this result in a

public-use data file. In preparing the public-use data file, data shall

be edited as appropriate to ensure confidentiality of individuals. If

the applicant feels that provision of a public-use data file is

impossible, the application should explain why and should fully

articulate how the applicant will make the data available to qualified

researchers and to ASPE. In either case, the plan for data

dissemination will be evaluated and scored during the evaluation of

proposals.

ASPE Responsibilities

1. ASPE shall convene one to two meetings of Grantees, federal

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

address. The first meeting will allow for technical assistance and

peer-to-peer contacts before final research design decisions have been

made, and will assure that data constructs meet some standard of

validity. A second meeting may be held approximately eight to ten

months into the grant period to allow Grantees to meet, discuss and

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

that have arisen.

2. ASPE shall provide consultation and technical assistance in the

planning and operation of grant activities.

3. ASPE shall assist in information exchange and the dissemination

of reports to appropriate Federal, State, and local entities.

Part III. Application Preparation and Evaluation Criteria

This section contains information on the preparation of

applications for submission under this announcement, the forms

necessary for submission, and the evaluation criteria under which the

applications will be reviewed. Potential grant applicants should read

this section carefully in conjunction with the information provided

above. The application must contain the required Federal forms, title

page, table of contents, and sections listed below. All pages of the

narrative should be numbered.

The application should include the following elements:

1. Abstract: A one page summary of the proposed project.

2. Goals and objective of the project: An overview that describes

(1) the project; (2) the specific research questions to be

investigated; (3) proposed accomplishments; and (4) knowledge and

information to be gained from the project by the applicant, the

government, and the research community. If the proposal builds on any

current project, the application should describe how funding under this

announcement will enhance, not substitute for, current State or local

efforts. Applications from States and counties that received funding

from ASPE under the FY 1998 welfare outcomes grants are not precluded

from submitting proposals under this announcement, provided they are

proposing a new line of research, and not simply a continuation or

extension of their current project. However, such proposals will be

graded only on the Evaluation Criteria listed below and will receive no

preferential treatment during the award process.

3. Methodology and Design: Provide a description and justification

of how the proposed research project will be implemented, including

methodologies, chosen approach, definition of study populations, data

sources, and a research plan consistent with a descriptive, tabular

analysis. The proposed research plan should:

(a) describe in detail how the applicant plans to define the study

population, which should include one or more of the following:

applicants and potential applicants to the TANF program (with an

emphasis on those diverted from receiving cash assistance), individuals

and families entering the TANF caseload, and individuals and families

who leave TANF. Applications that propose studies of TANF applicants

should include a description of the TANF application process in the

State or large county to be sampled. This will assist reviewers in

understanding when and how the sample population will be chosen.

(b) identify how the proposed data sets and variables will be used

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

the proposal.

(c) identify important issues for which data currently are not

available, and strategies for dealing with this lack of data when it

pertains to the research questions in the proposal.

(d) describe in detail the methodology the applicant will use to

extract samples of TANF applicants and potential applicants,

individuals and families entering the TANF caseload, and recipients who

leave TANF. Grant applicants are encouraged to use a full population

sample, but at a minimum, a successful applicant will use a

scientifically acceptable probability sampling method in which every

sampling unit in the population has a known, non-zero chance to be

included in the sample and a sample size large enough to make

statistically reliable comparisons between planned subgroups. If,

however, the grant applicant proposes to sample applicants and

potential applicants that live in certain geographic regions or are

subject to a particular set of diversion programs, they may propose a

sampling plan that covers only those regions in question.

(e) if administrative data-linking is planned, describe the

criteria for the selection of existing data sets, as well as the

methods used to clean, standardize and link the case-level data from

the different sources. Applicants should discuss thoroughly how they

intend to match case records from different data sources, and the

internal validity checks that will be used to ensure the accuracy of

the matches. The architecture for the resulting data set should also be

discussed in detail.

(f) if survey data collection is planned, identify and describe the

methodology used to gather survey data. In particular, identify the

sampling plan, the survey mode (e.g., telephone, in-person, mail), and

the steps that will be taken to address any biases inherent in each.

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

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

incentive payments to respondents, and steps taken to analyze

differences between respondents and non-respondents, such as

comparisons through linked administrative data. Because of the

importance of a high response rate in ensuring reliability, these

procedures will be an important part of the evaluation of proposals. In

addition, grant applicants are encouraged, but not required, to include

a draft of their proposed survey instrument as a supplement to their

application.

(g) if qualitative research such as focus groups or a qualitative

description of the TANF application, enrollment, and closure policies

and procedures are planned, the application should include a complete

plan for data collection procedures and analysis. This plan should

include an approach for reviewing written documents, identification of

key informants, the composition of any proposed focus groups, planned

discussion topics, a plan for summarizing and organizing the results,

and the value that this part

[[Page 15764]]

of the project will add to the final report. The application should

demonstrate a familiarity with the difficulties and potential biases of

qualitative research, and include plans to avoid or resolve them.

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

data and organize the final report. Complex data analysis is neither

expected nor preferred. Simple tabular analysis and descriptive

statistics are appropriate. The description should include subgroup

analyses planned, report organization and proposed tabulations,

including table shells illustrating how the results will be presented.

The application should explain how different data sources (e.g., data

from administrative sources, survey data collection, other research)

will be synthesized to enhance the proposed analyses.

To the extent that the analysis uses data on individuals from

multiple, separate sources, such as administrative databases from

several State agencies, the proposal should discuss measures taken to

maintain confidentiality, as well as demonstrate that the Grantee has

obtained authorized access to those data sources. The preferred form of

proof is a signed interagency agreement with each of the relevant

agencies/departments. Though not preferable, letters of support from

the appropriate agencies are acceptable, provided that the letter

clearly states that the proposing agency has the authorization to

access and link all necessary data. Grant applicants must assure that

the collected data will only be used for management and research

purposes, and that all identifying information will be kept completely

confidential, and should present the methods that will be used to

ensure confidentiality of records and information once data are made

available for research purposes.

4. Experience, capacity, qualifications, and use of staff: Briefly

describe the grant applicant's organizational capabilities and

experience in conducting pertinent research projects. If the proposal

involves linking administrative databases from multiple programs, the

proposal should detail the applicant's experience in conducting

projects using linked administrative program data or identify key

subcontractors with such experience. If the proposal involves survey

work, the proposal should describe the applicant's experience in

conducting relevant surveys or identify key subcontractors with such

experience. Similarly, if the proposal involves qualitative data

collection or analysis, the experience of the applicant or key

subcontractors with this type of research and with these populations

must be described in detail.

If the grant applicant plans to contract for any of the work (e.g.,

data-linking, survey design or administration, qualitative analysis),

and the contractors have not been retained, the applicant should

describe the process by which they will be selected. Identify the key

staff who are expected to carry out the project and provide a resume or

curriculum vitae for each person. Provide a discussion of how key staff

will contribute to the success of the project, including the percentage

of each staff member's time that will be devoted to the project.

Finally, applicants should demonstrate access to computer hardware and

software for storing and analyzing the data necessary to complete this

project.

5. Work plan: A work plan should be included which lists the start

and end dates of the project, a time line which indicates the sequence

of tasks necessary for the completion of the project, and the

responsibilities of each of the key staff. The plan should identify the

time commitments of key staff members in both absolute and percentage

terms, including other projects and teaching or managerial

responsibilities. Due to the complicated nature of the study of

applicants and potential applicants for welfare, work plans with time

lines of twelve to seventeen months will be accepted.

The work plan also should include plans for dissemination of the

results of the study (e.g., articles in journals, presentations to

State legislatures or at conferences). As noted above, ASPE prefers

that the data be edited as appropriate for confidentiality and issued

as a public-use data file. The work plan should detail how resulting

data and analysis will be made available to qualified researchers and

to ASPE. If the grant applicant believes that provision of a public-use

file would be impossible, the application should explain why and should

fully articulate how the applicant will make the data available to

qualified researchers and to ASPE.

6. Budget: Grant applicants must submit a request for federal funds

using Standard Form 424A and include a detailed breakdown of all

Federal line items. A narrative explanation of the budget should be

included that states clearly how the funds associated with this

announcement will be used and describes the extent to which funds will

be used for purposes that would not otherwise be incorporated within

the project. The applicant should also document the level of funding

from other sources and describe how these funds will be expended.

As noted above, all applicants must budget for two trips to the

Washington, D.C., area, for at least two members of the research team.

At the first meeting, Grantees will have the opportunity to meet,

discuss their projects, and receive feedback from both the other

Grantees and from ASPE staff and invited experts. The second meeting

will be approximately eight to ten months into the grant period, and

will provide Grantees with the ability to meet and discuss their

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

problems that have arisen.

Review Process and Funding Information

Applications will initially be screened for compliance with the

timeliness and completeness requirements. Three (3) copies of each

application are required. One of these copies must be in an unbound

format, suitable for copying. If only one of the copies is the original

(i.e., carries the original signature and is accompanied by a cover

letter) it should not be this copy. Applicants are encouraged to send

an additional two (2) copies to ease processing, but the application

will not be penalized if these extra copies are not included. The grant

applicant's Standard Form 424 must be signed by a representative of the

applicant who is authorized to act with full authority on behalf of the

applicant.

A Federal review panel will review and score all applications

submitted by the deadline date that meet the screening criteria (all

information and documents as required by this announcement). The panel

will use the evaluation criteria listed below to score each

application. The panel results will be the primary element used by the

ASPE when making funding decisions. The Department reserves the option

to discuss applications with other Federal or State staff, specialists,

experts and the general public. Comments from these sources, along with

those of the reviewers, will be kept from inappropriate disclosure and

may be considered in making an award decision.

As a result of this competition, between four and six grants of

$200,000 to $250,000 each are expected to be made from funds

appropriated for fiscal year 1999. Additional awards may be made

depending on the policy relevance of proposals received and the

available funding, including funds that may become available in fiscal

years 1999 or 2000.

[[Page 15765]]

Reports

As noted in the Grantee Responsibilities, two substantive reports

are required under the grant: a final work plan (due no later than

ninety (90) days after the date of award), and a final report

containing all results and analysis (draft version due no later than

thirty (30) days before the end of the project and final version due at

the conclusion of the project).

In addition, Grantees shall provide concise quarterly progress

reports. The specific format and content for these reports will be

provided by the Federal Project Officer.

State Single Point of Contact (E.O. No. 12372)

DHHS has determined that this program is not subject to Executive

Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.''

Applicants are not required to seek intergovernmental review of their

applications within the constraints of E.O. 12372.

Deadline for Submission of Applications

The closing date for submission of applications under this

announcement is May 17, 1999. Hand-delivered applications will be

accepted Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays, during the

working hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. in the lobby of the Hubert H.

Humphrey building, located at 200 Independence Avenue, SW in

Washington, D.C. When hand-delivering an application, call (202) 690-

8794 from the lobby for pick up. A staff person will be available to

receive applications.

An application will be considered as having met the deadline if it

is either received at, or hand-delivered to, the mailing address on or

before May 17, 1999, or postmarked before midnight three days prior to

May 17, 1999 and received in time to be considered during the

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

When mailing applications, applicants are strongly advised to

obtain a legibly dated receipt from the U.S. Postal Service or from a

commercial carrier (such as UPS, Federal Express, etc.) as proof of

mailing by the deadline date. If there is a question as to when an

application was mailed, applicants will be asked to provide proof of

mailing by the deadline date. If proof cannot be provided, the

application will not be considered for funding. Private metered

postmarks will not be accepted as proof of timely mailing. Applications

which do not meet the deadline will be considered late applications and

will not be considered or reviewed in the current competition. DHHS

will send a letter to this effect to each late applicant.

DHHS reserves the right to extend the deadline for all proposals

due to: (1) Natural disasters, such as floods, hurricanes, or

earthquakes; (2) a widespread disruption of the mail; or, (3) if DHHS

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

Federal government. The Department will not waive or extend the

deadline for any applicant unless the deadline is waived or extended

for all applicants.

Application forms

Application instructions and forms should be requested from and

submitted to: Adrienne Little, Grants Officer, Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human

Services, Room 405F, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone: (202) 690-8794. Requests

for forms and questions (administrative and technical) will be accepted

and responded to up to ten (10) working days prior to closing date of

receipt of applications.

Copies of this program announcement and many of the required forms

may also be obtained electronically at the ASPE World Wide Web Page:

http://aspe.hhs.gov. You may fax your request to the attention of the

Grants Officer at (202) 690-6518. Grant applications may not be faxed

or submitted electronically.

The printed Federal Register notice is the only official program

announcement. Although reasonable efforts are taken to assure that the

files on the ASPE World Wide Web Page containing electronic copies of

this program announcement are accurate and complete, they are provided

for information only. The applicant bears sole responsibility to assure

that the copy downloaded and/or printed from any other source is

accurate and complete.

Also see section entitled ``Components of a Complete Application.''

All of these documents must accompany the application package.

Length of application

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

resumes, appendices and other appropriate attachments) be longer than

thirty (30) single-spaced pages. Applications should not be unduly

elaborate, but should fully communicate the applicant's proposal to the

reviewers.

Selection process and evaluation criteria

Selection of successful applicants will be based on the technical

and financial criteria described in this announcement. Reviewers will

determine the strengths and weaknesses of each application in terms of

the evaluation criteria listed below, provide comments, and assign

numerical scores. The review panel will prepare a summary of all

applicant scores, strengths and weaknesses, and recommendations and

submit it to the ASPE for final decisions on the award.

The point value following each criterion heading indicates the

maximum numerical weight that each section will be given in the review

process. An unacceptable rating on any individual criterion may render

the application unacceptable. Consequently, grant applicants should

take care to ensure that all criteria are fully addressed in the

applications. Applicants are reminded that preference will be given to

those proposals that include a study of TANF applicants and/or

potential TANF applicants. Grant applications will be reviewed as

follows:

1. Goals, Objectives, and Potential Usefulness of the Analyses (25

points). The potential usefulness of the objectives and how the

anticipated results of the proposed project will advance policy

knowledge and development. If the proposed project builds on previous

work, the application should explain how. Applications will be judged

on the quality and policy relevance of the proposed research questions,

study populations, and analyses (including subgroup analyses).

2. Quality and Soundness of Methodology and Design (30 points). The

appropriateness, soundness, and cost-effectiveness of the methodology,

including the research design, selection of existing data sets, data

gathering procedures, statistical techniques, and analytical

strategies. Richness of policy-relevant data will be an important

scoring factor in this criterion.

If analysis of linked administrative data is planned, a critical

scoring element will be the proposal's discussion of the methods used

to clean, standardize, and link the individual-level or case-level data

from different sources, including any proposed links between

administrative data and surveys. Applicants should thoroughly discuss

how they intend to match case records from different data sources, what

internal validity checks will ensure the accuracy of the matches, and

the architecture for the resulting data

[[Page 15766]]

set. Other design considerations include whether the applicant has

already obtained authorization to obtain and use the data to be linked

from State or local agencies, and how confidentiality of the records

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

privacy and confidentiality of information included in the project,

then it is highly unlikely that they will receive funding.

If surveys are planned, reviewers will also evaluate the

methodology proposed to gather survey data. In particular, reviewers

will evaluate the sampling plan, the survey mode (e.g., telephone, in-

person, mail), and the steps that will be taken to address any biases

inherent in each. This will include evaluating steps planned to ensure

a high response rate, such as a mixed mode design, multiple attempts to

contact sample members, or respondent payments, and steps planned to

analyze differences between respondents and non-respondents, such as

comparisons of linked administrative data. Because of the importance of

a high response rate in ensuring reliability, these procedures will be

an important part of the evaluation of proposals containing surveys.

If qualitative research such as focus groups or a qualitative

description of the TANF application, enrollment and closure policies

and procedures are planned, reviewers will evaluate the plan for data

collection procedures and analysis, including the planned approach for

reviewing written documents, identification of key informants, the

composition of any proposed focus groups, planned discussion topics, a

plan for summarizing and organizing the results, and the value that

this part of the project is expected to add to the final report. The

extent to which the application demonstrates a familiarity with the

difficulties and potential biases of this approach, and plans to avoid

or resolve them, will also be a scoring factor.

Reviewers also will evaluate the proposed data analysis, including

the proposed tabulations and table shells, the planned organization of

the final report, and the proposal's discussion of how different data

sources (e.g., data from administrative sources, survey data

collection, other research) will be synthesized to enhance the proposed

analyses.

3. Qualifications of Personnel and Organizational Capability. (20

points). The qualifications of the project personnel for conducting the

proposed research as evidenced by professional training and experience,

and the capacity of the organization to provide the infrastructure and

support necessary for the project. Reviewers will evaluate the

principal investigator and staff on research experience and

demonstrated research skills.

Proposals that involve linking of administrative data and

assembling of large databases will be scored on the applicant's or

subcontractor's experience with such linking efforts. Proposals that

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

subcontractor's experience in conducting relevant surveys, including

experience in securing high response rates from welfare recipients or

other low-income populations. Similarly, if the proposal involves

qualitative data collection or analysis, it will be evaluated in terms

of the experience of the applicant or key subcontractors with this type

of research and with these populations. If the applicant plans to

contract for any of the work (e.g., data-linking, survey design or

administration, qualitative analysis), and the contractors have not

been retained, reviewers will consider the process by which they will

be selected.

Reviewers may consider references for work completed on prior

research projects. Principal investigator and staff time commitments

also will be a factor in the evaluation. Reviewers will rate the

applicant's pledge and ability to work in collaboration with other

scholars or organizations in search of similar goals. Reviewers also

will evaluate the applicant's demonstrated capacity to work with a

range of government agencies.

4. Ability of the Work Plan and Budget to Successfully Achieve the

Project's Objectives. (20 points). Reviewers will examine if the work

plan and budget are reasonable and sufficient to ensure timely

implementation and completion of the study and whether the application

demonstrates an adequate level of understanding by the applicant of the

practical problems of conducting such a project. Adherence to the work

plan is necessary in order to produce results in the time frame

desired; demonstration of an applicant's ability to meet the schedule

will therefore be an important part of this criterion. Reviewers will

also examine the use of any additional funding and the role that funds

provided under this announcement will play in the overall project.

The proposal should also discuss in detail how resulting data will

be made available to qualified researchers and to ASPE. As noted above,

ASPE prefers that the data be edited as appropriate for confidentiality

and issued as a public-use data file. If the applicant believes that

provision of a public-use file would be impossible, the application

should explain why and should fully articulate how the applicant will

make the data available to qualified researchers and to ASPE.

5. Ability To Sustain Project After Funding (5 points). One of the

ASPE's goals is to help States and large counties build their capacity

to study the outcomes of welfare reform. For projects requiring

significant follow-up studies, especially those tracking applicants,

potential applicants, and entrants, grant applicants should identify an

ability to continue their studies after the funding period closes. To

this end, reviewers will consider whether the proposal adequately

addresses questions such as the following: What will happen to the

linked administrative data sets after the project period expires? What

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

administrative data sets after they are created? Are there any sources

of financial and staff support for maintaining the database? To what

extent could the administrative data linkages performed on the cohort

under study be duplicated for later cohorts? To what extent could

additional data linkages be performed to follow the initial cohort for

additional years?

Disposition of Applications

1. Approval, disapproval, or deferral. On the basis of the review

of the application, the Assistant Secretary will either (a) approve the

application as a whole or in part; (b) disapprove the application; or

(c) defer action on the application for such reasons as lack of funds

or a need for further review.

2. Notification of disposition. The Assistant Secretary for

Planning and Evaluation will notify the applicants of the disposition

of their applications. If approved, a signed notification of the award

will be sent to the business office named in the ASPE checklist.

3. The Assistant Secretary's Discretion. Nothing in this

announcement should be construed as to obligate the Assistant Secretary

for Planning and Evaluation to make any awards whatsoever. Awards and

the distribution of awards among the priority areas are contingent on

the needs of the Department at any point in time and the quality of the

applications that are received.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93-239.

Components of a Complete Application

A complete application consists of the following items in this

order:

[[Page 15767]]

1. Application for Federal Assistance (Standard Form 424);

2. Budget Information--Non-construction Programs (Standard Form 424A);

3. Assurances--Non-construction Programs (Standard From 424B);

4. Table of Contents;

5. Budget Justification for Section B Budget Categories;

6. Proof of Non-profit Status, if appropriate;

7. Copy of the applicant's Approved Indirect Cost Rate Agreement, if

necessary;

8. Project Narrative Statement, organized in five sections, addressing

the following topics (limited to thirty (30) single-spaced pages):

(a) Abstract,

(b) Goals, Objectives and Usefulness of the Project,

(c) Methodology and design,

(d) Background of the Personnel and Organizational Capabilities and

(e) Work plan (timetable);

9. Any appendices or attachments;

10. Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace;

11. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, or other

Responsibility Matters;

12. Certification and, if necessary, Disclosure Regarding Lobbying;

13. Supplement to Section II--Key Personnel;

14. Application for Federal Assistance Checklist.

Dated: March 26, 1999.

Margaret A. Hamburg,

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.

[FR Doc. 99-8069 Filed 3-31-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4150-04-P