WDQI SGA - As submitted by DOL

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
Notice of Availability of Funds and Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGA) to
fund demonstration projects.

Announcement type: New, Notice of Solicitation for Grant Applications.
Funding Opportunity Number: SGA/DFA PY 09-10
Catalog of Federal Assistance Number: [to be inserted]

Key Dates:
The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is
[DATE 90 DAYS FROM DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER]. Applications must be received at the address below no later than
4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time). Application and submission information is explained
in detail in Part IV of this SGA. A Webinar for prospective applicants will be
held for this grant competition approximately 30 days from date of publication in
the Federal Register. Access information for the Webinar will be posted on the
U.S. Department of Labor’s, Employment and Training Administration web site
at: http://www.workforce3one.org.

1

Address:
Mailed applications must be addressed to the U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration, Division of Federal Assistance,
Attention: Willie E. Harris, Grant Officer, Reference SGA/DFA PY 09-10, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N4716, Washington, DC 20210. Facsimile (fax)
applications will not be accepted. Information about applying online also can be
found in Part IV, Section C of this document. Applicants are advised that mail
delivery in the Washington, D.C. area may be delayed due to mail
decontamination procedures. Hand delivered proposals will be received at the
above address.

Summary:
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training
Administration (ETA), announces the availability of $12.5 million for grants to
state workforce agencies to develop the Workforce Data Quality Initiative
(WDQI) through the FY2010 DOL budget for Training and Employment Services.
Grants awarded will provide state workforce agencies the opportunity to
develop and utilize state workforce longitudinal administrative data systems.
These state longitudinal data systems will, at a minimum, include information on
programs that provide training, employment services, and unemployment
insurance and will be linked longitudinally at the individual level to allow for
analysis which will lead to enhanced opportunity for program evaluation and

2

lead to better information for customers and stakeholders of the workforce
system. Where such longitudinal systems do not exist or are incipient, WDQI
grant assistance may be used to design and develop workforce data systems that
are longitudinal and which are designed to link with relevant education data or
longitudinal education data systems. WDQI grant assistance may also be used to
improve upon and more effectively utilize existing state longitudinal systems.
This solicitation provides background information on workforce
longitudinal database systems, describes the application submission
requirements, outlines the process that eligible entities must use to apply for
funds covered by this solicitation, and details how grantees will be selected.

Supplementary Information:
A. Grant Purpose
The WDQI will provide funding to selected state workforce agencies to
accomplish a combination of the following objectives:
i. Develop or improve state workforce longitudinal data systems.
Workforce data are already reported by localities, states, and nationally so
grantees will not be creating entirely new data collection systems. What will be
new, however, is coordinating, or expanding/strengthening the coordination of
these workforce data sources so individual-level records can be matched to one
another across programs and over time.

3

ii. Enable workforce data to be matched with education data, to ultimately
create longitudinal data systems with individual-level information from prekindergarten (pre-K) through post-secondary and into the workforce system to
build capacity to measure outcomes while protecting individual privacy. For
many years DOL has supported efforts to create workforce longitudinal
administrative databases linked to data from other programs, including
education data. The WDQI will greatly extend and expand this effort and
complement the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) grant program
administered by the Department of Education (ED).
iii. Improve the quality and breadth of the data in workforce longitudinal
data systems. It is important that data in the longitudinal systems are complete
and accurate and include an array of performance information in order to
enhance knowledge about the workforce system and the impact of state
workforce development programs. Data collection systems might also be
improved to strengthen data validity and to minimize the reporting burden on
state agencies and training providers.
iv. Utilize longitudinal data to provide useful information about program
operations and analyze the performance of education and training programs.
Policymakers and practitioners can use this data analysis to make programmatic
adjustments that improve the workforce system.
v. Provide user-friendly information to consumers to help them select the
education and training programs that best suit their needs. For example,

4

Washington State displays information about training program outcomes at
www.careerbridge.wa.gov, allowing consumers to compare the performance of
different training providers.
The relative prominence of each objective for a given state will primarily
be determined by the state’s “launch-point” for developing a workforce
longitudinal data system that will ultimately be linkable to education data and
will reflect high data quality standards while protecting individual privacy (see
the section 1.A(5)). Additional details on the “launch point” for states can be
found in the section of this SGA in section 1.A(1).

B. Background
President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2010 Budget requested $15.5 million and
the Congress appropriated $12.5 million for the development of workforce
longitudinal data systems. Single state applicants can qualify for up to $1 million
in funding. Multi-state consortium applicants are eligible for a grant amount of
up to $3 million (see Section III.A for more information on funding eligibility).
These funds will be made available through competitive WDQI grants
administered by DOL in support of a parallel and much larger effort, the SLDS
grants. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act)
appropriated $245 million to ED to support statewide (or in some cases, multistate consortia) longitudinal education data systems with data on individuals
participating in pre-K through grade 12 as well as post-secondary education and

5

the workforce. The grant instructions for ED’s SLDS program expressly include
provisions to capture the data on workforce participation of students before and
after they leave education systems. A request for applications was issued by ED
on July 24, 2009, and applications were due December 4, 2009. The grants are
scheduled to be awarded in May 2010.
Some innovative states already have shown the advantages of state
workforce agencies partnering with education and other entities to create
comprehensive, longitudinal data systems. The State of Florida, for example, has
developed a comprehensive system that links individuals’ demographic
information, high school transcripts, college transcripts, quarterly
unemployment insurance (UI) wage data, and workforce services data. Such
data systems can provide valuable information to consumers, practitioners,
policymakers, and researchers about the performance of education and
workforce development programs.
As with the above section and for the remainder of this document,
reference to the databases being created under the WDQI may be called
“workforce longitudinal administrative databases” or “workforce longitudinal
databases” interchangeably.

C. Classification of Workforce System Data
Workforce system administrative data are collected as part of the
operations of a variety of programs administered at the state and local level.

6

These programs provide employment and training services, pay UI benefits to
unemployed workers, and collect employer-paid UI payroll taxes that pay for UI
benefits. The employment and training data come from a number of large and
small workforce programs that provide employment and/or training services to
employed and unemployed workers. Information is available for each service
that is provided to each worker by each program. Below are examples of the
most common types of workforce data.
i. Wage Records: The unemployment insurance administrative data come
from state unemployment insurance programs through regular employer
reporting on contributions to the UI payroll tax system. An important source of
data on the employment and earnings of American workers comes from these UI
wage record reports that are derived from the tax forms on covered
establishments’ wage and salary employment filed quarterly by employers. UI
wage record reports include: the number of workers, worker names, Social
Security numbers, earnings, and employers’ industry codes and locations. UI
wage records are comprehensive, as over 97 percent of wage and salary
employment is in covered establishments. Data are also available for civilian and
military Federal employees, but not for the self-employed.
ii. Employment and Training Services: Each of the workforce system
programs provides employment and/or training services to unemployed,
underemployed or employed individuals. Some programs also provide services
to new entrants to the labor market (with the exception of the UI program).

7

Transaction information is available for each service (e.g., training receipt, job
referral, job search assistance) that is provided to participants in each program,
together with their personal characteristics and other demographic information.
Not only is information provided on participation numbers for employment
services and training programs, information includes employment status, preprogram earnings, occupation of employment, and education participation or
completion levels of individuals. Data on types of employment and training
services received, such as self-service and informational activities, prevocational
services, and specific training services, are also available from a number of
workforce programs including those in the Workforce Investment Act (WIA),
Wagner-Peyser Act, Trade Adjustment Assistance, Registered Apprenticeship
and other workforce programs.
iii. Unemployment Insurance Benefits: The UI program also collects data
on applicants for and recipients of UI benefits, including the number of persons
that apply for UI benefits, the number that collect benefits, and the amount of
benefits paid. Administrative data collected in the UI benefit claims process
include worker demographic information such as age, former occupation and
industry, in addition to residency information (including the street, city, state,
and zip code).
iv. The Federal Employment Data Exchange System (FEDES): This data
system provides states access to Federal civilian and military employment and

8

earnings records maintained by the Office of Personnel Management, the
Department of Defense and the U.S. Postal Service.
Data for all of these programs can be linked for any worker because all of
these programs collect the Social Security Number of the participating
individual. Workforce data can determine whether individuals have been
employed, what their earnings and industry of employment are if they work,
whether they become unemployed, whether they collect unemployment
insurance upon unemployment, what employment services they receive from
state workforce agencies, and whether they utilize training services.

D. Workforce Longitudinal Administrative Data Systems That Are In
Place or In Progress
From a recent survey conducted by the National Association of State
Workforce Agencies (NASWA), DOL received information about the current
extent of matching state education agency data with state workforce agency data.
The information was compiled from responses from the state workforce agency
research directors. Thirty-one responses were received from the 53 jurisdictions
that have UI programs. These results are supported by recent data gathered
through Carl D. Perkins Act accountability reporting which found that 31 states
use UI wage records to determine employment after leaving post-secondary
education.

9

DOL also has supplementary information on the development of
workforce longitudinal databases from a consortium of nine states that currently
maintain longitudinal administrative data. ETA has had a longstanding
contractual relationship with this consortium of states to conduct workforce
research, analysis, and evaluations. This group is called the Administrative Data
Research and Evaluation Project (ADARE) alliance1, and the members are
California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, and
Washington. DOL has funded the ADARE project since 1998.2 However,
recently funds have not been available to support research and analysis to make
full use of the linkage between longitudinal workforce and education data.
Nonetheless, the ADARE partners have developed working relationships with
state education or research entities (except for the Florida ADARE partner which
is the state education agency).
These two sources of information (the NASWA survey and the ADARE
states) indicate that the extent of data matching and development of longitudinal
data systems varies:
i. About 20 states currently do not have their state workforce data
arranged in longitudinal databases, nor do they match their workforce data with
education data.

1

Administrative Data Research and Evaluation (ADARE) Alliance Website. 2009.
http://www2.ubalt.edu/jfi/adare/
2 Stevens, David W. 2004. Responsible Use of Administrative Records for Performance Accountability:
Features of Successful Partnerships. http://www.ubalt.edu/jfi/adare/reports/ADAREcookbook504.pdf

10

ii. Almost 20 states do conduct some workforce data matching with state
educational data, but they do not have state workforce data collected and
arranged longitudinally.
iii. About a dozen states have substantial state workforce longitudinal
databases, and almost all of these databases have been linked to available state
educational data (both longitudinal and non-longitudinal data sets). Most of
these states are part of the ADARE consortium.
The goal of the WDQI is to substantially reduce this variation and build
stronger longitudinal data systems through workforce data matching which can
link to education data.

E. Existing State Examples of Workforce Longitudinal Data Systems
Altogether, about a dozen states (including the nine ADARE states) have
developed substantial state workforce longitudinal data systems. Most of these
states created these systems using state funds for a variety of applications,
including tracking program performance, analyzing program activities and
conducting research and analysis. A small number of these states have
accumulated workforce and other longitudinal data for several decades.
As of 2009, nine states continued to participate in the ADARE alliance –
California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, Texas and
Washington. All but two – Florida and Washington – use a state research
university to assemble, house, and analyze their data. In all cases, cooperative

11

arrangements through Memoranda of Understanding and Data-Sharing
Agreements have been developed, such that the state WIA, Wagner-Peyser Act,
and unemployment insurance programs share their workforce data as input to
the workforce longitudinal administrative database.
In all cases, state agencies receive analyses and reports derived from the
databases that can be used to understand and improve workforce programs.
However, each state has initiated and operated its workforce longitudinal data
system in a different manner.
WDQI applicants may be able to learn from the various approaches of the
ADARE states. These ADARE models form a useful set of examples for any state
workforce agency considering applying for a WDQI grant. While innovation is
encouraged, applicants should make full use of the existing knowledge and
various models for building workforce longitudinal databases that have been
developed in this field. Provided below is a brief description of four different
state approaches that highlight successful workforce longitudinal databases
models and applications of the information these databases provide.

1. University-led Partnership to Manage State-wide Data Sharing–
Maryland: In Maryland, the research component of longitudinal data sharing
was prioritized at the outset of the partnership between the Jacob France Institute
of the University of Maryland-Baltimore County and the Maryland state
workforce agency, now the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and

12

Regulation (DLLR). The Jacob France Institute has been authorized through data
sharing agreements with DLLR and various other state agencies to hold primary
performance evaluation responsibilities for Maryland’s WIA Title I-B (Adult,
Dislocated Worker and Youth employment and training services), Title II (Adult
Education and Literacy) and Title IV (Vocational Rehabilitation) programs,
TANF High Performance Bonus Indicator Calculations, and core indicators of the
Carl D. Perkins Act secondary and post-secondary adult vocational education
and training services. As the steward of this performance reporting system, the
Jacob France Institute has formed partnerships with the Governor’s Workforce
Investment Board, the Maryland Higher Education Commission, the Maryland
State Department of Education, the Maryland Department of Business and
Economic Development, the Maryland Department of Human Resources, the
University System of Maryland, and locally with the Montgomery County Public
Schools, the Baltimore City Public Schools, the Empower Baltimore Management
Corporation, and individual community colleges.
In addition to statewide data sharing, the Jacob France Institute has been
awarded grant funds to develop multi-state longitudinal data sharing systems
among Delaware, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Virginia and West Virginia. This model of interstate data sharing captures
workforce and education data for individuals who are mobile in their pursuit of
employment, training or education.

13

2. University-led Partnership with Common Performance Management
System – Illinois: The longitudinal data system developed in Illinois is an
example of a productive evolution of data sharing among state agencies and
educational institutions. In the mid-1980’s the Center for Governmental Studies
(Center) at Northern Illinois University connected with the Department of
Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA) and the Illinois Department of
Employment Security (IDES) to link UI wage records to program participant
records under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). Less than a decade later,
after having established themselves as an authority on linking administrative
databases, the Center was awarded a grant to fund a project linking UI
administrative data from multiple states.
Beginning in 1994, the Center undertook a project to develop and
implement a common performance management framework which led to the
Illinois Common Performance Management System (ICPMS) linking UI wage
records with client data from JTPA workforce development programs, adult
education, primary and secondary vocational education, and welfare-to-work.
With the implementation of WIA, the Center began a project to expand its
administrative database longitudinally to include historical archives of UI wage
records which were easily accessible. The Center benefits from the partnership
by gaining access to data which allows for in-depth research. Likewise, the
Illinois workforce agencies benefit from being able to use the database and
related research to improve system performance. The partnership is based on

14

transparency and cooperation and has led to analysis of longitudinal data that
has influenced frontline program management and public policy.

3. Vendor Contracted Analysis of Longitudinal Data – Washington: The
Washington State longitudinal administrative database began as a DOL project
in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but has been maintained and expanded by
Washington State since that time. Today, Washington State provides an
alternative model for developing statewide longitudinal administrative
databases of workforce and education information. The state workforce
investment board (the Washington State Workforce Training and Education
Coordinating Board or WTECB) collects and maintains the longitudinal state
workforce data, but has contracted with a private, non-profit research
organization, the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, to conduct analysis
of the longitudinal administrative data.
The Upjohn Institute includes a number of labor economists doing applied
research, frequently with large, longitudinal datasets. They have experience
matching longitudinal data among states (Indiana, Georgia, Virginia,
Washington and Ohio). By using a research organization, WTECB has been able
to securely and effectively manage its commitment to accountability and
performance monitoring. Through the Upjohn Institute, WTECB is able to track
the outcomes of individuals in terms of achievement of workplace competencies,
placement in employment, increases in levels of earned income, increased

15

productivity, advancement out of services and overall satisfaction with program
services and outcomes. In Washington State, there has been a focus on
evaluating the returns on investment of the state workforce system in recent
years.
Aside from using a research institution instead of a research university,
Washington State is also unique because the state workforce agency’s high level
of commitment to program evaluation through longitudinal data analysis is
mirrored in the governor’s office.

4. State-led Education and Workforce Longitudinal Data System –
Florida: In 1971, state legislation designed to spur improved accountability in
education resulted in creation of the Florida Statewide Assessment Program.
This program was deliberately designed to collect a broad array of data on
individuals moving through the educational system (kindergarten through postsecondary, undergraduate levels) for the express purpose of assessing student
strengths and weaknesses to assist with education reform efforts. In the 1980s
the focus for data collection expanded to include career and technical education
data3, particularly at the post-secondary level. Since 1991, Florida state law has
required community colleges and state universities to contribute their data to
this data collection system.

3

Florida Case Study: Building a Student-Level Longitudinal Data System. The Data Quality Campaign,
August 2006. http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/State_Specific-Florida_2006_Site_Visit.pdf

16

The breadth of this data system relies upon a collaborative data collection
and retention commitment from both the Office of Educational Accountability
and Information Services and the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation
(FAWI). In addition to tracking student progress through career or technical
education, university or community college, FAWI compiles information from
workforce and social service programs that complements the education data.
This information includes data from WIA programs, the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) program, and the state UI and Employment Service
programs.
Not only is Florida’s longitudinal data system a unique example, but it
also shows the diversity of partnerships formed in the creation of this data
system. Through the Florida Education and Training Placement Information
Program (FETPIP), agencies such as the Florida Department of Corrections, the
Florida Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Office
of Personnel Management, the U.S. Postal Service, the Florida Department of
Management Services, the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation, Workforce
Florida and numerous others have benefitted from information sharing or
analysis of available data. The analysis from the Florida workforce longitudinal
database has resulted in a detailed performance measurement system that goes
far beyond the measures required by DOL or ED and has allowed for in-depth
evaluation of state labor and education programs.

17

For more information about longitudinal data systems in other ADARE
states, visit the weblinks available in the first and second footnotes.

F. Selected Benefits and Uses of State Longitudinal Data Systems
State workforce longitudinal data systems can be used for a variety of
purposes. DOL has primarily used the data to conduct evaluation and research.
Most states have used these systems for measuring performance of workforce
and educational programs, and generally to guide program operations and
program development. Localities have been interested in how their school
district or local One-Stop Career Centers are performing.
•

In recent years, DOL funded two evaluations4 of WIA programs to
determine the effectiveness of the program and its components.

•

In conjunction with welfare reform in the United States, DOL began
administering grants for welfare-to-work programs. The ADARE alliance
members came together to evaluate the welfare-to-work programs in six
urban areas located in six of the ADARE states5.

4

Heinrich Carolyn J., Peter R. Mueser and Ken Troske. 2009. Workforce Investment Act NonExperimental Evaluation: Final Report. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_resultDetails&pub_id=2419&mp=y
Hollenbeck, Kevin, Daniel Schroeder, Christopher T. King, and Wei-Jung Huang. 2008. Net Impact
Estimates for Services Provided Through the Workforce Investment Act. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Labor. http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_resultDetails&pub_id
=2367&mp=y
5
King, Christopher T. and Peter R Mueser. 2005. Welfare and Work: Experience in Six Cities.
Kalamazoo MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
http://www.upjohninstitute.org/publications/titles/waw.html

18

•

Washington State had a number of its state and Federally funded
workforce programs evaluated by an outside research organization, by
awarding this organization a contract and giving it access to their
workforce longitudinal administrative data6.

•

Currently, Maryland makes use of its longitudinal data system for a wide
variety of purposes. A recent study followed the employment history of
graduates from high schools in a single county, for seven years. It used UI
wage record data from Maryland and surrounding states, as well as data
on Federal civilian and military employees to conduct analysis.

•

In 2008, a multi-state study7 followed the flow of TANF leavers into the
labor force, measuring their employment and earnings, determining
whether and when they became unemployed and whether they collected
unemployment insurance. Further research has extended the analysis to
examine whether they received employment services and whether these
services assisted these individuals in returning to work.

•

In Texas, the Student Futures Project8 has used their longitudinal
administrative database to create a feedback system that has led to

6

Hollenbeck, Kevin M. 2003. Net Impact Estimates of the Workforce Development System in Washington
State. Upjohn Institute Staff Working Paper No. 03-92.
http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/keyword.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_resultDetails&pub_id=2367
7
O’Leary, Christopher J., and Kenneth J. Kline. 2008. UI as a Safely Net for Former TANF Recipients.
Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services. http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/UI-TANF/index.htm
8
King, Christopher T., Deanna Schexnayder, Greg Cumpton and Chandler Stolp. 2009. Education and
Work After High School: Recent Findings from the Central Texas Student Future Project. Bureau of
Business Research, IC2 Institute, the University of Texas at Austin.
http://centexstudentfutures.org/pubs/TBRAUG09.pdf

19

improvements in the direct-to-college enrollment rates from 54 percent to
62 percent between 2004 and 2009 in 10 participating local education
districts. The project makes use of a number of secondary school
administrative procedures (e.g., encouraging completion of student aid
applications in class, taking of SATs, increasing assistance with postsecondary school applications). It assesses progress using an
administrative database consisting of local education and workforce data
that are collected and analyzed by the Ray Marshall Center at the
University of Texas.
The examples above show some of what can be done with state workforce
longitudinal data systems. Many other uses are possible. For example, by
developing these statewide or multistate workforce longitudinal databases and
linking them to comparable education databases, DOL, the states, and localities
could more effectively: 1) determine the employment outcomes for students (for
secondary and post-secondary students alike), 2) identify education exit points
that maximize employment and earnings of former students, 3) analyze the cost
effectiveness of training programs in terms of increased earnings for individuals,
4) relate employment outcomes to training and education program funding, 5)
illustrate the cost effectiveness of providing employment services programs by
demonstrating whether there is a corresponding reduction in payment of UI and
TANF benefits among individuals exiting the WIA and Wagner-Peyser

20

programs, and 6) determine the impact of education achieved on the incidence of
individuals participating in the UI program or the TANF program.
In the future, DOL is likely to fund projects focusing on program
evaluation made possible through the development of these longitudinal
workforce databases similar to the work of the ADARE states. As these databases
are built, therefore, grantees should be prepared to address national research
queries.
In addition, state workforce agencies (or their data analysis partner) will
be expected to use outside data resources to improve the breadth and depth of
state or multi-state workforce analysis. The following are examples of
potentially useful data sets that can either be directly incorporated into the
workforce longitudinal data system or used in conjunction with findings
generated through that data system:
i. Local Area Unemployment Statistics program (LAUS) – This is a
Federal-state joint program providing monthly estimates of total employment
and unemployment for areas including, census regions and divisions, states,
some metropolitan areas, small labor market areas, counties and county
equivalents and cities and towns of 25,000 people or more.
ii. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) file – the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects data on establishments reported by UI-covered
employers, including information on industry, domain (public or private),
geographic location etc., which could add information on the type of

21

employment held by individuals in addition to wage levels and duration of
employment. The establishment level information in the QCEW database are
protected by the Confidential Information Protection and Statistical Efficient Act
(CIPSEA) and therefore may not be shared outside the cooperative statistical
system. However, states have the capability of generating a version of this
dataset that is not protected by CIPSEA. Further, BLS provides to the state
cooperative statistical agency the linkages of establishments from quarter to
quarter. Depending on state law and policy, the version of the establishment
data not protected by CIPSEA and the quarter-to-quarter establishment linkages
may be provided for use in the state longitudinal data system.
iii. Business Employment Dynamics (BED) – is a set of statistics generated
from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, or ES-202, program. This
data set is focused on employer data at the establishment level enabling BLS to
track which firms are changing hands, ceasing to exist or acquiring additional
resources. The BED file is built on the UI tax reports of each establishment which
shows employment changes when companies form and fold. By showing
quarterly gross job losses and gains (from 1992 onward) these data can highlight
the dynamic changes occurring in the job market at a very local level or
aggregated up to the state level.
iv. Mass-Layoffs Statistics program (MLS) – BLS uses the volume of
unemployment claims reported by each establishment in the U.S. to determine
monthly mass layoff numbers. These mass layoffs are charted by month and by

22

quarter for regions and industries and can be an effective tool to show major job
losses affecting the local or state workforce.
v. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) – The U.S.
Census Bureau uses modern statistical and computing techniques to combine
Federal and state administrative data on employers and employees with core
Census Bureau censuses and surveys while protecting the confidentiality of
people and firms that provide the data. The LEHD research program is centered
on the creation and empirical analysis of confidential, longitudinally linked
employer-household micro-data for Federal and state administrative purposes as
well as confidential Census Bureau surveys and censuses. The LEHD’s Local
Employment Dynamics (LED) is a voluntary partnership between state labor
market information agencies and the U.S. Census Bureau. LED uses state UI
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wage data micro-data provided by states.
In many of the 47 participating states, longitudinal data reaches back nearly 20
years. The LED Internet-based tools include GIS mapping and localized
workforce and industry reports.
vi. Registered Apprenticeship (RA) Program Data – An additional source
of data on individuals who may not be represented in other workforce programs
or in the education system is through the RA program. Applicants who may
include data from RA programs should note that the DOL Office of
Apprenticeship is the registration agency for RA programs in 25 States and the
data for RA programs in these states are maintained in DOL’s Registered

23

Apprenticeship Partners Information Data System (RAPIDS). In the other 25
states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories, the registration agency is a
State Apprenticeship Agency (SAA) recognized by DOL that has responsibility
for registering apprenticeship programs and maintaining apprenticeship data. In
cases where successful applicants propose to include apprenticeship data that are
maintained by in DOL’s RAPIDS, a memorandum of understanding, letter of
intent, data sharing agreement, or other supporting materials legally binding the
use of RAPIDS, are not required. DOL will work with these grantees to provide
access to apprenticeship data. Applicants should visit the DOL Office of
Apprenticeship’s Web site (http://www.doleta.gov/oa/stateoffices.cfm and
http://www.doleta.gov/oa/stateagencies.cfm) to identify the Registration
Agency appropriate for their state.

I. Funding Opportunity Description
This initiative will support development of these longitudinal databases
over a three-year grant period. Applicants will be expected to clearly
demonstrate their plans to build or expand these databases, store and use the
data in adherence to all applicable confidentiality laws and to identify what
types of analysis they will conduct with their data while protecting individual
privacy for all data collected.
A. Preparing to Apply for this Solicitation: The following are important
Considerations for the Development of State Workforce Longitudinal

24

Administrative Data Systems (for more details, please see section V further in
this SGA).
1. Determining Capacity
In order for applicants for WDQI grants to submit plans to develop and
fully implement workforce longitudinal data systems, they will have to identify
their existing stage of development. Expectations for grantees will differ
depending on their launch point, which will fall into one of three categories:
i. States without workforce longitudinal data systems are expected to: 1)
develop and fully implement their systems, 2) enable their new workforce
systems to be linked to existing education longitudinal data systems, and 3)
begin conducting basic analysis and research with their completed systems
within the three-year grant period.
ii. States with partial systems are expected to: 1) fully implement their
systems, 2) enable linkages to existing education longitudinal data systems, and
3) conduct significant analysis and research with their completed systems that
will be accessible to policymakers and practitioners.
iii. States with comprehensive workforce longitudinal systems are
expected to: 1) expand and extend their systems, 2) improve linkages with
educational systems, 3) complete and publicize extensive longitudinal analysis
and research with their systems, including developing prototype analysis that
can be useful to other less advanced states, and 4) develop user-friendly

25

platforms to show consumers performance data and analytical reports about
education and workforce service providers.

2. Collection of Longitudinal Workforce Data
Applicants will be expected to explain the scope of the longitudinal data
system which will be funded by this grant. Applicants will be asked to describe
which programs will be included in the data system. At a minimum, the data
systems should include disaggregated individual record data for the following
programs: 1) WIA Title I, 2) Wagner-Peyser Act, 3) Trade Adjustment Assistance
programs data, 4) UI wage record data, 5) UI benefit data including demographic
information associated with UI benefit payments, and 6) linkages to existing state
education agency longitudinal data. Applicants are also encouraged to include
data from other workforce programs such as Vocational Rehabilitation or
Registered Apprenticeship programs. States will need to describe any state
legislative barriers that impede the linking of data sources and address how such
impediments will be overcome. It will also be incumbent upon SWA applicants
to determine the source of all planned workforce data used to build the
workforce longitudinal databases. This is particularly relevant in the case of the
Registered Apprenticeship (RA) program as DOL is the registration agency and
collects and houses the data for many of the state’s RA programs.
Applicants should specify the planned data files – data records, elements,
and fields - that will be contained in their workforce longitudinal data systems.

26

Applicants should provide a detailed plan for designing, developing, storing and
utilizing the data as well as describe ongoing data sharing and data storage
procedures for both security and data quality purposes.
Applicants must also describe what procedures will be implemented to
assure high standards of data quality as well as the protection of individual
privacy. WDQI grantees are expected to be a focal point for data quality
assurance and must therefore indicate what steps will be taken to assure that
workforce data and data received from partner agencies meets rigorous data
quality standards.
3. Partnerships Among Agencies Within the State
Applicants should demonstrate which organizations will participate in the
WDQI along with their authority and willingness to provide regular access to
their data and to take an active role. Workforce data may be supplied by
organizations within the state workforce agency as well as from outside
organizations. For example, UI wage records are kept by the state revenue
agency in some states. The WIA program is also located outside the state
workforce agencies in some states. At a minimum, partnerships must be made
with state education agencies, but cooperation is also encouraged with other
state agencies, such as Vocational Rehabilitation or Apprenticeship agencies (in
applicable states). Applicants should be prepared to describe potential legal or
other barriers to data sharing among partner agencies along with the strategies to

27

overcome such barriers. Applicants should provide information about the
firmness of the commitment of the partners in their efforts to assemble data.
Commitments should be demonstrated by submitting descriptions or
evidence of memorandums of understanding, letters of intent from partners, data
sharing agreements, or other supporting materials including legally binding
agreements with partners.
4. Working with a State Research University
The success of most ADARE states and other states (e.g., Kentucky, New
Jersey and Wisconsin) who have worked with a state research university for
building, maintaining and utilizing their workforce longitudinal data systems
offers an approach that states may use. However, alternative approaches that
would maintain confidentiality and result in high-quality data systems will be
considered for funding as well.
Legislation in many states does not support data sharing between the state
workforce and education agencies. As a result, for some state workforce
agencies, an alternative data storing and/or data analysis intermediary may be
necessary. Private and non-profit organizations with the capacity to safely house
and manipulate large data sets in accordance with state and Federal
confidentiality provisions could serve as partners. Many state research
universities have the capacity to carry out the building of longitudinal
administrative databases and are situated advantageously throughout the
country and partnerships with a state research university are a proven model

28

(please refer to the section above describing the ADARE states under the
“Background” section for further information).
When working with a state research university, applicants should
investigate the additional security measures that may be expected by the
Institutional Review Board (IRB) of that university. The IRB will have to give
approval for the state research institution’s involvement in this partnership that
is based on its satisfaction that the plan for confidential transfer, storage and
usage of data is sound.
Alternative models will be considered under the WDQI grant programs
and it will be critical that the following considerations are incorporated into any
partnership model.
i. The partner chosen by the state workforce agency must have
demonstrable capacity to assist in the collection and storage of the longitudinal
workforce data.
ii. This partner entity must be able to ensure that the data collected will be
stored in accordance to local, state and Federal confidentiality provisions.
iii. This institution will be responsible for processing data requests,
conducting in-depth data analysis, preparing standard reports, responding to
requests for additional papers and reporting on state and local workforce and
education issues and trends as requested by external entities. It is expected,
therefore, that the institution partnering with the state workforce agency will
have the capacity to fulfill these responsibilities.

29

5. Confidentiality
Applicants must describe the methods and procedures (e.g. through
demonstrating existence of or plans to develop memorandums of understanding,
letters of intent, and data sharing agreements) for assuring the security and
confidentiality of collection, storage and use of all data contained in the
workforce longitudinal data system. Methods should describe how the
maintenance of confidentiality in research, evaluation and performance
management will be summarized. The responsibilities of the state workforce
agency and its partners should be enumerated and explained. Procedures for
ensuring compliance with the state and Federal privacy and confidentiality
statutes and regulations should be discussed, especially regarding the actual
collection of data, data transmission, and the maintenance of computerized data
files. Applicants should describe confidentiality procedures that will be used to
protect personally identifiable information, including requirements for the
reporting and publication of data. Applicants should describe under what
circumstances the data will be made available, to whom and to what level of
specificity in accordance with confidentiality laws.
The applicant should also include within their description of key types of
personnel (see section V.A(5) further in this SGA) reference to the level of
confidentiality or access to data to which those employees will be held based on
their status of employment. For example, generally employees of state research

30

universities are state employees, are therefore agents of the state workforce or
education agencies and are granted access to or restricted from sensitive data
based upon state laws. In addition, they are expected to observe rules set by the
state university’s IRB. It can be assumed, for the purpose of this application, that
all proposed employees will be subject to Federal laws governing data sharing
and transfer.
6. Data Sharing Agreements
It is to be expected that grantees in this initiative will have partnership
agreements outlining the storage, use and ongoing maintenance of the
longitudinal databases. These data sharing agreements must address: how data
will be exchanged between partners, the purposes for which the data will be
used, how and when the data will be disseminated, which entity maintains
control of the data, which entity actually owns the data, the intended methods of
ensuring confidential collection, use and storage of the data, and which entities
inside and outside of the DSA will have access to the data. Data sharing
agreements should contain specific plans for secure data transfer and storage.
It may also be advantageous for grantees to develop data-sharing
agreements with DOL to obtain individual level data for various programs for
which the DOL is the data administrator. DOL encourages the production of full
or limited scope, public use data files that will be hosted by the state workforce
agency or an agreed upon designated host.

31

7. Integration of Efforts with State Education Agencies
State workforce agencies are expected to assemble (or plan to assemble)
and utilize longitudinal administrative data beyond only workforce data. It is
important to connect workforce and education data to analyze individuals’
receipt of both education and training services and to determine ways to
maximize the outcomes of these services.
i. DOL encourages all SWAs who apply for WDQI grants to take their
workforce longitudinal administrative database in whatever stage it may be in,
develop it fully, and then enable the data to be matched with similar longitudinal
education databases.
ii. SWAs with longitudinal administrative databases are encouraged to
develop new approaches to link these databases with education entities
collecting comparable education data as well as with other state agencies.
iii. SWAs who will be proposing to have their state workforce
longitudinal data systems operated by a state university should assure that the
state university staff will work closely with the state education agency as well as
the state workforce agency.
It is important to note that many of the statewide educational data
systems supported by the ED are also in a state of development. On the
education side there may be no longitudinal data systems in place, in which case,
qualifying workforce grantees would have to plan to link to available nonlongitudinal education data, for example, individual-level post-secondary

32

education data. If a state’s education agency has a partially or fully developed
statewide longitudinal education data system, it will be the responsibility of the
workforce grantee to work with that agency to link the education and the
workforce data. This is one example of the partnership that is expected between
state workforce and education agencies in developing these linked longitudinal
data systems.
Applicants must provide a description of the status of the development of
the statewide longitudinal education data system in their state (e.g., nothing in
place, statewide longitudinal data system planned but not yet implemented,
longitudinal data system partially developed or fully developed) but they will
not be penalized for planning to incorporate education data which are not yet
gathered longitudinally.
For those states where the education statewide longitudinal data system is
incipient or undeveloped, it is well understood by DOL that it will take time to
link education data into the state workforce longitudinal database in order to
contribute to longitudinal analysis. The expectation is that these grantees will
use these education data for analysis as soon as they have sufficient periods of
longitudinal education data matched to the workforce data.

B. Multi-State Partnerships: Collaborative approaches will result in more
complete data sets and efficient use of resources. DOL encourages states to
partner in submitting applications and work together on developing workforce

33

longitudinal databases. Applicants should explain their role relative to state
partners in the “Plan Outline” and “Description of Partnership Strategies”
sections of their application. Collaborations among or between states may take
three forms:
i. Multi-state data systems: This is the most collaborative approach and
may be the most efficient, because it allows states to share technology and
administrative resources. More than one state would contribute raw data into a
merged matching system, maintained by the lead administrative agent, creating
a multi-state workforce longitudinal data system. DOL strongly encourages this
approach. The following points may be helpful in considering how to structure
multi-state workforce longitudinal administrative databases:
•

Look to states in close proximity whose educational capacity is robust
(particularly in the case of a major state research university) in order to
make assessments on which entities will be approached for a proposed
partnership.

•

Show figures on the interstate flow of residents through education
pathways and beyond to demonstrate the usefulness of developing
multi-state longitudinal databases.

•

Outline the contribution of data and resources of the grant seeking
state to the longitudinal database system as it is developing or in
joining one already in existence.

34

•

Anticipate what the role of this state workforce agency will be in
joining a collaborative that is either already in progress or getting
underway.

ii. Individual state data systems operated by a single entity: States may
not have the capacity to develop a workforce longitudinal data system on their
own. They may lack appropriate staff at the state workforce agency, state
universities or other institutions to carry out this complex process. These states
can still develop data systems through partnerships with a state education
agency with sufficient capacity or with workforce agencies and/or research
universities in other states. In such cases, two or more states would develop
separate workforce longitudinal data systems at one state workforce agency or
research entity.
iii. Coordinated data sharing and analysis: There are many urban labor
markets that span state lines, presenting opportunities for innovative models in
this initiative. States may chose to work alone in developing a longitudinal
database, and yet still partner with agencies across state lines to share data for
expanded analysis. In this case, it would be critical to ensure that the
confidentiality provisions of each state were adhered to.

35

II. Award Information
A. Award Amount
Approximately $12.2 million is available for awards under this
solicitation. DOL reserves the right to award grant amounts depending on the
quality of the applications received, the scope of the proposed activities, and the
feasibility of the budget projections contained in the application. Grantees may
be funded up to $1 million, however, grant size shall not exceed $1 million per
grant for any single-state grantee or $3 million under a multi-state consortium
model.

B. Period of Performance
The period of grant performance will be up to 36 months from the date of
execution of the grant documents. This performance period includes all
necessary implementation and start-up activities. Applicants should plan to
fully expend grant funds and submit all reports during the period of
performance, while ensuring full transparency and accountability for all
expenditures. Grants may be extended at no additional cost to the government
with adequate justification and approval by the grant officer.

36

III. Eligibility Information

A. Eligible Applicants
Eligible applicants are all SWAs. These SWAs include those within the 50
states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. SWAs
can apply for their individual state or they can work cooperatively with one or
more other states in a multi-state consortium or through a multi-state datasharing agreement.

B. Cost Sharing
Cost sharing or matching funds are not required as a condition for
application, but leveraged resources are strongly encouraged and may affect the
applicant’s score in section V.A.2 of the evaluation criteria.

IV. Application and Submission Information
A. How to Obtain an Application Package
This SGA contains all of the information and links to forms needed to
apply for grant funding.

B. Content and Form of Application Submission.
The proposal will consist of three separate and distinct parts – (I) a cost
proposal, (II) a technical proposal, and (III) attachments to the technical proposal

37

(III). Applications that fail to adhere to the instructions in this section will be
considered non-responsive and will not be considered. Please note that it is the
applicant’s responsibility to ensure that the funding amount requested is
consistent across all parts and sub-parts of the application.

Part I. The Cost Proposal. The Cost Proposal must include the following
four items:
•

The Standard Form (SF) 424, “Application for Federal Assistance”

(available at
http://www07.grants.gov/agencies/forms_repository_information.jsp and
http://www.doleta.gov/grants/find_grants.cfm). The SF 424 must clearly
identify the applicant and be signed by an individual with authority to enter into
a grant agreement. Upon confirmation of an award, the individual signing the
SF 424 on behalf of the applicant shall be considered the authorized
representative of the applicant.
•

Applicants must supply their D-U-N-S® Number on the SF 424. All

applicants for Federal grant and funding opportunities are required to have a
Data Universal Numbering System (D-U-N-S® Number). See Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Notice of Final Policy Issuance, 68 FR 38402,
Jun. 27, 2003. The D-U-N-S ® Number is a non-indicative, nine-digit number
assigned to each business location in the D&B database having a unique,
separate, and distinct operation, and is maintained solely by D-U-N-S ®

38

Number. The D-U-N-S ® Number is used by industries and organizations
around the world as a global standard for business identification and tracking. If
you do not have a D-U-N-S ® Number, you can get one for free through the SBS
site:
http://smallbusiness.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Glossary?fLink=gl
ossary&footerflag=y&storeId=10001&indicator=7
•

The SF 424A Budget Information Form (available at

http://www07.grants.gov/agencies/forms_repository_information.jsp and
http://www.doleta.gov/grants/find_grants.cfm). In preparing the Budget
Information Form, the applicant must provide a concise narrative explanation to
support the request, explained in detail below.
•

Budget Narrative: The budget narrative must provide a description of

costs associated with each line item on the SF-424A. It should also include
leveraged resources provided to support grant activities. In addition, the
applicant should address precisely how the administrative costs support the
project goals. The entire Federal grant amount requested should be included on
both the SF 424 and SF 424A (not just one year). No leveraged resources should
be shown on the SF 424 and SF 424A. Please note that applicants that fail to
provide a SF 424, SF 424A, a D-U-N-S ® Number, and a budget narrative will be
removed from consideration prior to the technical review process.
•

Applicants are also encouraged, but not required, to submit OMB

Survey N. 1890-0014: Survey on Ensuring Equal Opportunity for Applicants,

39

which can be found under the Gramts.gov, Tips and Resources From Grantors,
Department of Labor section at
http://www07.grants.gov/applicants/tips_resources_from_grantors.jsp#13
(also referred to as Faith Based EEO Survey PDF Form).

Part II. The Technical Proposal. The applicant will present the State’s
overall strategy for building workforce longitudinal databases with the capacity
to link to longitudinal education databases and consists of six parts: 1) Statement
of Current Longitudinal Database Capacity, 2) Plan Outline, 3) Description of
Partnership Strategies, 4) Description of Database Design, Data Quality
Assurance and Proposed Uses, 5) Organizational Capacity, and 6) Bonus Points –
Other Data Linkages. Applicants will be evaluated on the completeness and
quality of their submissions. A description of the criteria that will be used to
evaluate each submission and points awarded are outlined in section V of this
SGA.
The Technical Proposal is limited to 30 double-spaced single-sided pages
with 12 point text font and 1 inch margins. Any materials beyond these page
limits will not be read. Applicants should number the Technical Proposal
beginning with page number 1. Applicants that do not provide Part II, the
Technical Proposal of the application will be removed from consideration prior
to the technical review process.

40

Part III. Attachments to the Technical Proposal. In addition to the 30page Technical Proposal, the applicant must submit an Abstract, not to exceed
one page, summarizing the proposed project including applicant name, project
title, a description of the area to be served, and the funding level requested.
Consortium applications must also clearly specify the lead State, which is the
State serving as the fiscal agent and as the administrative lead and identify each
State that is participating in the project. The abstract will not count against the
page limit for the Technical Proposal.
The applicant may supply evidence of MOUs, Letters of Intent or other
statements attesting to the formation of data-sharing partnerships as attachments
to the Technical Proposal. Detailed descriptions/qualifications for proposed
staff positions to be included in the development of these workforce longitudinal
databases may also be included as an attachment. However, the total number of
pages allowable for attachments is not to exceed 30 pages including the one-page
Abstract described above.

C. Submission Process, Date, Times, and Addresses
The closing date for receipt of applications under this announcement is
[INSERT DATE 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER]. Applications must be received at the address below no
later than 4 p.m. (Eastern Time). Applications sent by e-mail, telegram, or
facsimile (FAX) will not be accepted. Applications that do not meet the

41

conditions set forth in this notice will not be honored. No exceptions to the
mailing and delivery requirements set forth in this notice will be granted.
Mailed applications must be addressed to the U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration, Division of Federal Assistance,
Attention: Willie E. Harris, Grant Officer, Reference SGA/DFA, PY 09-10, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N4716, Washington, DC 20210. Applicants are
advised that mail delivery in the Washington area may be delayed due to mail
decontamination procedures. Hand- delivered proposals will be received at the
above address. All professional overnight delivery service will be considered to
be hand-delivered and must be received at the designated place by the specified
closing date and time.
Applicants may apply online through Grants.gov
(http://www.grants.gov); however due to the expected increase in system
activity resulting from the Recovery Act applicants are encouraged to use an
alternate method to submit grant applications during this heightened period of
demand. While not mandatory, DOL encourages the submission of applications
through professional overnight delivery service.
Applications that are submitted through Grants.gov must be successfully
submitted at http://www.grants.gov no later than 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) on [to
be inserted], and then subsequently validated by Grants.gov. The submission
and validation process is described in more detail below. The process can be
complicated and time-consuming. Applicants are strongly advised to initiate the

42

process as soon as possible and to plan for time to resolve technical problems if
necessary.
It is strongly recommended that before the applicant begins to write the
proposal, applicants should immediately initiate and complete the “Get
Registered” registration steps at
http://www.grants.gov/applicants/get_registered.jsp. These steps may take
multiple days or weeks to complete, and this time should be factored into plans
for electronic submission in order to avoid unexpected delays that could result in
the rejection of an application. It is highly recommended that applicants use the
“Organization Registration Checklist” at
http://www.grants.gov/assets/Organization_Steps_Complete_Registration.pdf
to ensure the registration process is complete.
Within two business days of application submission, Grants.gov will send
the applicant two email messages to provide the status of application progress
through the system. The first email, almost immediate, will confirm receipt of
the application by Grants.gov. The second email will indicate the application has
either been successfully validated or has been rejected due to errors. Only
applications that have been successfully submitted and successfully validated
will be considered. It is the sole responsibility of the applicant to ensure a timely
submission, therefore sufficient time should be allotted for submission (two
business days), and if applicable, subsequent time to address errors and receive
validation upon resubmission (an additional two business days for each ensuing

43

submission). It is important to note that if sufficient time is not allotted and a
rejection notice is received after the due date and time, the application will not be
considered.
To ensure consideration, the components of the application must be saved
as either .doc, .xls or .pdf files. If submitted in any other format, the applicant
bears the risk that compatibility or other issues will prevent our ability to
consider the application. DOL will attempt to open the document but will not
take any additional measures in the event of issues with opening. In such cases,
the non-conforming application will not be considered for funding.
Applicants are strongly advised to utilize the tools and documents,
including FAQs, available on the “Applicant Resources” page at
http://www.grants.gov/applicants/app_help_reso.jsp#faqs. To receive
updated information about critical issues, new tips for users and other time
sensitive updates as information is available, applicants may subscribe to
Grants.gov Updates at:
http://www.grants.gov/applicants/email_subscription_signup.jsp.
If applicants encounter a problem with Grants.gov and do not find an
answer in any of the other resources, call 1-800-518-4726 to speak to a Customer
Support Representative or email [email protected].
Late Applications: For applications submitted on Grants.gov, only
applications that have been successfully submitted no later 4 p.m. (Eastern Time)
on the closing date and successfully validated will be considered.

44

Any application received after the exact date and time specified for receipt
at the office designated in this notice will not be considered, unless it is received
before awards are made, it was properly addressed, and it was: a) sent by U.S.
Postal Service mail, postmarked not later than the fifth calendar day before the
date specified for receipt of applications (e.g., an application required to be
received by the 20th of the month must be postmarked by the 15th of that
month), or b) sent by professional overnight delivery service to the addressee not
later than one working day prior to the date specified for receipt of applications.
Applicants take a significant risk by waiting to the last day to submit by
grants.gov. ‘‘Postmarked’’ means a printed, stamped or otherwise placed
impression (exclusive of a postage meter machine impression) that is readily
identifiable, without further action, as having been supplied or affixed on the
date of mailing by an employee of the U.S. Postal Service. Therefore, applicants
should request the postal clerk to place a legible hand cancellation ‘‘bull’s eye’’
postmark on both the receipt and the package. Failure to adhere to the above
instructions will be a basis for a determination of non-responsiveness. Evidence
of timely submission by a professional overnight delivery service must be
demonstrated by equally reliable evidence created by the professional overnight
delivery service provider indicating the time and place of receipt.

D. Intergovernmental Review. This funding opportunity is not subject to
Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

45

E. Funding Restrictions
Determinations of allowable costs will be made in accordance with the
applicable Federal cost principles. Disallowed costs are those charges to a grant
that the grantor agency or its representative determines not to be allowed in
accordance with the applicable Federal cost principles or other conditions
contained in the grant. Successful and unsuccessful applicants will not be
entitled to reimbursement of pre-award costs.

1. Indirect Costs
As specified in OMB Circular Cost Principles, indirect costs are those that
have been incurred for common or joint objectives and cannot be readily
identified with a particular final cost objective. In order to use grant funds for
indirect costs incurred, the applicant must obtain an Indirect Cost Rate
Agreement with its Federal cognizant agency either before or shortly after grant
award. State agencies should already have such agreements in place.

2. Administrative Costs
Under this SGA, an entity that receives a grant to carry out a project or
program may not use more than 10 percent of the amount of the grant to pay
administrative costs associated with the program or project. Administrative
costs could be direct or indirect costs, and are defined at 20 CFR 667.220.

46

Administrative costs do not need to be identified separately from program costs
on the SF 424A Budget Information Form. They should be discussed in the
budget narrative and tracked through the grantee’s accounting system. To claim
any administrative costs that are also indirect costs, the applicant must obtain an
Indirect Cost Rate agreement from its Federal cognizant agency.

3. Salary and Bonus Limitations
Under Public Law 109-234 and Public Law 111-8, Section 111, none of the
funds appropriated in Public Law 111-5 or prior Acts under the heading
“Employment and Training” that are available for expenditure on or after June
15, 2006, shall be used by a recipient or sub-recipient of such funds to pay the
salary and bonuses of an individual, either as direct costs or indirect costs, at a
rate in excess of Executive Level II. These limitations also apply to grants funded
under this SGA. The salary and bonus limitation does not apply to vendors
providing goods and services as defined in OMB Circular A-133. See Training
and Employment Guidance Letter number 5-06 for further clarification:
http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=2262.

4. Intellectual Property Rights
The Federal Government reserves a paid-up, nonexclusive and irrevocable
license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use for
Federal purposes: 1) the copyright in all products developed under the grant,

47

including a subgrant or contract under the grant or subgrant; and 2) any rights of
copyright to which the grantee, subgrantee or a contractor purchases ownership
under an award (including but not limited to curricula, training models,
technical assistance products, and any related materials). Such uses include, but
are not limited to, the right to modify and distribute such products worldwide by
any means, electronically or otherwise. Federal funds may not be used to pay
any royalty or licensing fee associated with such copyrighted material, although
they may be used to pay costs for obtaining a copy which are limited to the
developer/seller costs of copying and shipping. If revenues are generated
through selling products developed with grant funds, including intellectual
property, these revenues are program income. Program income is added to the
grant and must be expended for allowable grant activities.
If applicable, the following statement must be included on all products
developed in whole or in part with grant funds:
“This workforce solution was funded by a grant awarded by the U.S.
Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration. The solution
was created by the grantee and does not necessarily reflect the official position of
the U.S. Department of Labor. The Department of Labor makes no guarantees,
warranties, or assurances of any kind, express or implied, with respect to such
information, including any information on linked sites and including, but not
limited to, accuracy of the information or its completeness, timeliness,
usefulness, adequacy, continued availability, or ownership. This solution is

48

copyrighted by the institution that created it. Internal use by an organization
and/or personal use by an individual for non-commercial purposes is
permissible. All other uses require the prior authorization of the copyright
owner.”

F. Other Submission Requirements
Withdrawal of Applications: Applications may be withdrawn by written
notice at any time before an award is made.

V. Application Review Information

Criterion

Points

1. Statement of Current Capacity

10

2. Plan Outline

15

3. Description of Partnership Strategies
4. Description of Database Design, Data Quality Assurance and
Proposed Uses
5. Staffing Capacity
6. Bonus Points – Other Data Linkages
Total Possible Points

30
35
10
3
103

1. Evaluation Criteria
This section identifies required application elements that will be used to
evaluate proposals for the WDQI grants. The application requirements and

49

maximum point values are described below. Please refer back to section I.A of
this SGA for more information on the components of the application
requirements listed below.

A. Statement of Current Capacity (10 points)
Applicants must submit a Statement of Capacity (for more information,
please refer back to section I.1) that clearly outlines the applicant’s launch point,
which is the extent to which the state workforce agency (or the lead
research/data-sharing entity) has developed or plans to develop data sharing
partnerships, established or plans to establish longitudinal linkages among the
different data sources, and produced or plans to produce useful analysis based
on linked data. Proposals from applicants with new or partially developed data
systems will be evaluated based on the thoroughness of their descriptions of the
potential capacity existing in their states to create a longitudinal workforce data
system based on the factors below. Applicants with planned or partially
developed workforce longitudinal databases are encouraged to use this section
to discuss the opportunities that exist in their state for formation of the
longitudinal database. Scoring for this criterion will be based on the applicant’s
ability to clearly demonstrate the following:
i. The capacity for maintaining secure data storage, including any
partnerships that have or will be established between the SWA and another
entity capable of maintaining secure data storage, such as a research entity (state

50

university or otherwise). Partnerships are demonstrable through MOUs, datasharing agreements or other legally binding contracts. Descriptions of existing
agreements or plans to enter into agreements may be submitted as an attachment
to the application, subject to the page limitations stated in the applicable section
of this SGA.
ii. Any planned or established partnerships between the SWA and the
state education agency that are demonstrable through MOUs, data sharing
agreements or other legally binding contracts. Descriptions of these may be
submitted as an attachment to the application, subject to the page limitations
stated in the applicable section of this SGA. Applicants with new or partially
developed longitudinal workforce databases should provide a detailed
description of the steps they plan to take to develop these partnerships.
iii. Any existing or planned data linkages for data sets such as (but not
limited to) wage record data, employment and training services data, UI benefits
data, TANF data, WIA, Wagner-Peyser and Trade Adjustment Assistance
program data.
iv. The extent to which the existing or proposed data sharing partnerships
have yielded or will yield statistical analysis and/or reporting on the state
workforce system to inform stakeholders such as employment services
customers, educators, policy makers, service providers and elected officials.
Applicants with new or partially developed longitudinal workforce databases
may also describe the need to have such data available for research and analysis.

51

v. Any partnerships with agencies in neighboring states which have come
about through a commitment to share data in an effort to gather information on
individuals traveling over state lines in pursuit of education or employment.
Partnerships are demonstrable through existing MOUs, data sharing agreements,
or other legally binding contracts. Applicants with new or partially developed
longitudinal workforce databases should provide a detailed description of the
steps they plan to take to develop these partnerships. Descriptions of these
planned or existing agreements may be submitted as an attachment to the
application, subject to the page limitation stated in the applicable section of this
SGA.
Responses to the criteria in this section establish the baseline status of each
applicant. A thorough statement will give the applicant as well as the grant
reviewers valuable insight into the true scope of the project design.

2. Plan Outline (15 points)
Once an assessment of capacity is complete, it will be possible to make a
plan for expanding or improving workforce longitudinal databases. It is
important that the applicant integrate information about the current status of any
existing longitudinal workforce database with the plan to proceed forward under
this grant opportunity. Scoring of this section will be based on of the ability of
the applicant demonstrate a sound structural plan. The plan outline must:

52

i. Describe the state’s objectives for creating or upgrading and utilizing its
workforce longitudinal data system and explain how the state plans to achieve
these objectives. The appropriateness of the objectives and plans will be judged
relative to the state’s current data system capacity. Depending on the state’s
starting point, objectives should include:
•

creating or expanding workforce longitudinal databases, 2)
improving the quality of workforce data

•

developing or expanding the capacity to match workforce and
education data

•

using data for analysis that will help policymakers and
practitioners understand the performance of workforce and
education programs

•

for applicants with a partially or fully developed workforce
longitudinal database, creating user-friendly portals to publicize
the data in ways that help consumers choose between different
education and training programs.

ii. Describe the status of the statewide longitudinal education data system
in their state. Applicants will have to work with the state education agency to
determine whether that state has begun to plan for their SLDS, has a partially
developed or fully implemented SLDS program. This application should include
a description of the SLDS plan and which sets of education data are part of the
SLDS. If neither of these exist, the applicant must be prepared to indicate what
53

education data sets (in section V.A(4) further in the SGA) they will be
incorporating into their workforce longitudinal data system until the state
education agency is able to generate longitudinal education data to match with.
(For basic information on the SLDS, see the following ED website:
http://nces.ed.gov/Programs/SLDS/ and the following Data Quality Campaign
Website: http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/)
iii. Specify whether the state is applying alone or as a member of a multistate consortium or whether it plans to develop joint data sharing or cooperative
data analysis agreements with neighboring states.
•

If applicants will be working with another state(s) to develop
their workforce longitudinal database, the application must
include: 1) which states are part of the collaboration, 2) which
state will take the lead role in developing the workforce
longitudinal databases and which state(s) will be providing
their workforce data, 3) how confidentiality will be protected in
the case of multiple states in accordance with each state’s
confidentiality regulations, and 4) brief descriptions of any
legally binding agreements (e.g. MOUs, data sharing
agreements) between/among the partner states which ensure
that each state is aware of its role and the expectations of
workload in the event that a grant is awarded.

54

•

If applicants will be planning on sharing and/or using another
state’s longitudinal data to produce analysis on a shared labor
market, the following must be included in the application: 1) a
list of the state(s) involved in the data sharing partnership, 2) a
clear outline of which state will be providing data (in this case,
both or all states may provide data) and which will be receiving
data (again, both or all states may receive data in this role), 3)
identification of which state will be the lead fiscal agent and the
lead administrative agent, and 4) brief description of any legally
binding agreements (e.g. MOUs, data sharing agreements)
between/among partner states that outline the expectations of
the data sharing and explaining in detail how confidentiality
will be protected according to Federal and state laws.

iv. Explain plans for sustaining these workforce longitudinal databases
beyond the three-year grant period. Applicants should consider how their
MOUs and Data Sharing Agreements will be renewed with their partners to
ensure continued maintenance and analysis of the longitudinal workforce data.
Continued Federal funding cannot be guaranteed, so applicants must describe
and enumerate viable alternative funding sources in this section.

55

3. Description of Partnership Strategies (30 points)
Applicants must describe their strategy to create, sustain, strengthen or
expand partnerships and maintain working relationships within and outside the
state workforce system. In each of these partner relationships, the SWA
applicants are expected to document their proposed arrangements with state
education agencies, which may include; providing brief descriptions of existing
or proposed MOUs, letters of support, and/or detailed plans for working
relationships and shared responsibilities.
SWAs without the internal capacity to operate the longitudinal data
system will need to partner with an external entity (such as a research university
or a private or non-profit organization) to develop, maintain and use the
longitudinal database, both operationally and for research purposes.
Multi-state applicants must demonstrate capacity to either establish or
improve upon established partnerships that enable sharing workforce data with
other states. In the case of a multi-state application, the lead fiscal agent/state
should be the same as the lead administrative agent/state and must be identified
along with a complete list of additional state partners. Multi-state applicants
must also identify the partnerships among agencies/entities within each of the
member states in response to the bullets listed below.
In all cases partnerships will be forged in gathering relevant workforce
and education data. The applicant must clearly describe the existing or proposed

56

partnerships and briefly describe the data that the partner will be providing for
the initiative (for more details, please refer back to section I.A of this SGA).
Note that states with a developed or partially developed workforce
longitudinal database should focus on describing maintenance and expansion of
partnerships, as a description of existing partnerships should have already been
provided in the Statement of Current Capacity.
Scoring under this section will be based on the extent to which the
applicant demonstrates an effective plan to execute or to expand the following:
i. Partnerships within state workforce systems
The applying SWA must demonstrate capacity to either establish or
improve arrangements for sharing workforce data.
ii. Partnerships with state education agencies
The applicant must demonstrate capacity to establish or maintain a
relationship with the state education agency leading the SLDS initiative.
Partnerships must be established that will create the capacity to link data
between education and workforce databases to support longitudinal data
analyses and to provide performance information from secondary and postsecondary training providers to the workforce system and consumers.
iii. Partnerships with research universities or other research entities
If the applicant does not have internal capacity to develop or operate a
longitudinal data system, it must demonstrate the ability to establish or further
develop a relationship with the research entity (state university or otherwise) or

57

other entities that will be/are engaged in the development of longitudinal data
systems. Partnerships must be established/expanded that will ensure that the
collection of longitudinal workforce data adheres to local, state and Federal
confidentiality laws. Further, these partnerships must support the ongoing
security and confidentiality of these databases for as long as they are in existence.
This research university or other entity will be expected to conduct in-depth
analysis of this longitudinal data and to produce standard reports and conduct
specialized research projects and ongoing analysis.
iv. Partnerships with additional state agencies
This includes (but is not restricted to) agencies such as the state revenue
department, in such instances where UI, WIA or other programs are
administered in full or in part in such an agency or another agency outside of the
state workforce agency. Moreover, it may be advantageous for SWAs to partner
with state economic, human services or other agencies in the event that such a
partnership may provide an opportunity to match individual level data to the
workforce longitudinal database.

4. Description of Database Design, Data Quality Assurance and Proposed
Uses (35 points)
Applicants must provide the details of the existing or proposed database
design and explain how the design will help achieve the applicant’s objectives.
States with a developed or partially developed workforce longitudinal database

58

should describe the existing database design, confidentiality measures and data
analysis, and provide a detailed description of the intended expansions to data
content and usage. Applicants will be scored under this section on the extent to
which they are able to demonstrate the actual or intended use of the following
elements:

i. Personal Identifier
Applicants must explain how the database will be developed or has been
developed using the Social Security Number (SSN) as a unique personal
identifier for individuals entering into the workforce system, in addition to
jobseekers and employees already in the workforce system. The SSN is already
in use throughout the workforce system and will allow states to gather this data
longitudinally in order to accurately track movement into and out of workforce
and education systems. These longitudinal databases should also include the
capacity to link to unique identifiers developed by the ED statewide longitudinal
data systems.
ii. Data Quality Measures
The applicant must provide a description of development or improvement
of data validation measures and other quality assurance measures used to
promote the quality, completeness, validity, and reliability of the data collected.

59

iii. Scope of the longitudinal data
Applicants must describe which programs are or will be included in the
data system and the extent to which the following data will or can be
demonstrated to be matched through their longitudinal data system:
•

Workforce Investment Act (WIA), Title I

•

Wagner-Peyser Act

•

Trade Adjustment Assistance and Trade Readjustment Allowances
program data

•

UI wage record information from quarter to quarter measuring
employment and income earning gains

•

UI benefit claims and demographic data

•

FEDES data

•

Existing state education agency data (including early childhood, K-12,
and post-secondary education student demographic data, test scores,
teachers, graduation rates, and transcripts)

Applicants must also include a description of the types of analysis and
research projects that will be conducted with the workforce longitudinal
database to improve program performance and enhance customer choice. For
examples of effective uses of workforce longitudinal databases, please refer
above to “Selected Benefits and Uses of State Longitudinal Data Systems” under
the “Background” section of this SGA.

60

iv. Security Measures
Applicants must specify the plans they will develop or improve to protect
the confidentiality of these records. The method for storing, transferring,
analyzing and sharing data must be detailed in accordance with state and
Federal confidentiality provisions. Applicants should also specify the planned
data files – data records, elements, and fields - that will be contained in their
workforce longitudinal data systems. Applicants should describe who will be
designing, developing, storing, protecting and utilizing the data.
v. Planned Reports/Deliverables
For those applicants creating the longitudinal database, they must include
in this section of the application their plans to produce reports that provide
information about state-wide performance of the workforce system. For those
applicants with partially or fully developed workforce longitudinal databases,
they must describe the extensive research and analysis products that will be
generated beyond the regular reporting and analysis requirements. Applicants
must address how data from each partner will be incorporated into these reports,
and how stakeholders can use the reports to improve the workforce system.
Applicants should also describe their plan for disseminating reports and
materials to the general public. These deliverables are for statewide or multistate use and though DOL reserves the right to request access to these planned
reports, submission of these deliverables to DOL is not required. (Regular

61

reports on performance in development of the workforce longitudinal databases
to be submitted to DOL are outlined in section VI.B.2 and VI.2 below)

5. Staffing Capacity (10 points)
Applicants must describe the proposed or existing staffing structure for
this project, including project manager(s) and support staffing needs. Applicants
will be scored on this section based on the thoroughness of their description of
the following:
i. The duties and responsibilities of a Database Manager – this description
should emphasize that the Database Manager (or other key staff member) have
prior experience in working with large and complex administrative longitudinal
databases.
ii. The duties and responsibilities of a data analyst(s)
iii. The identification and qualifications of proposed staff including
knowledge, skills and abilities as well as examples of previous experience that
make them uniquely suited to assist with planning, implementing and
conducting analysis with these longitudinal databases. Detailed position
descriptions are acceptable documents to include as “Attachments to the
Technical Proposal” within the page limits.
iv. How each staff member will be expected to facilitate or contribute to
the various data sharing partnerships.

62

v. What entity is to be the actual employer of each proposed staff
member. For those who are not direct employees of the SWA, discuss how these
individuals will contribute to the project and describe what their compensation
levels will be.
vi. The status of prospective employees with respect to state and
institutional laws, regulations or procedures governing confidential data sharing
and/or transfer (please refer back to section I.A(5) for more details).

6. Bonus Points – Other Data Linkages (3 points)
Up to three additional points may be awarded to applicants that have
concrete and feasible plans to include additional sources of data in their
proposed longitudinal data system. These additional data sources may include
Vocational Rehabilitation program information, Registered Apprenticeship
program data, TANF records, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food
Stamps) records, and data from other similar programs which may yield
workforce-related outcomes. These points will be awarded based on the ability
of applicants to demonstrate their intentions to incorporate additional data sets
and also on the number of additional data sets they intend to include into their
proposed or existing longitudinal databases.

63

B. Review and Selection Process
Applications for grants under this solicitation will be accepted after the
publication of this announcement and until the closing date. A technical review
panel will make a careful evaluation of applications against the criteria. These
criteria are based on the policy goals, priorities, and emphases set forth in this
SGA. Up to 110 points may be awarded to an application, depending on the
quality of the responses to the required information described in the section V
above. The ranked scores will serve as the primary basis for selection of
applications for funding. The panel results are advisory in nature and not
binding on the Grant Officer, and the Grant Officer may consider any
information that comes to his/her attention. The government may elect to award
the grant(s) with or without discussions with the applicants. Should a grant be
awarded without discussions, the award will be based on the applicant’s
signature on the SF 424, which constitutes a binding offer by the applicant
including electronic signature via E-Authentication on http://www.grants.gov.

Part VI. Award Administration Information
A. Award Notices
All award notifications will be posted on the ETA Homepage
(http://www.doleta.gov). Applicants selected for award will be contacted
directly before the grant’s execution and non-selected applicants will be notified
by mail. Selection of an organization as a grantee does not constitute approval of

64

the grant application as submitted. Before the actual grant is awarded, the
Department may enter into negotiations about such items as program
components, staffing and funding levels, and administrative systems in place to
support grant implementation. If the negotiations do not result in a mutually
acceptable submission, the Grant Officer reserves the right to terminate the
negotiation and decline to fund the application.

B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
1. Administrative Program Requirements
All grantees will be subject to all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and
the applicable OMB Circulars. The grant(s) awarded under this SGA will be
subject to the following administrative standards and provisions:
i. Non-Profit Organizations –OMB Circulars A–122 (Cost Principles) and
29 CFR part 95 (Administrative Requirements).
ii. Educational Institutions – OMB Circulars A–21 (Cost Principles) and 29
CFR part 95 (Administrative Requirements).
iii. State and Local Governments – OMB Circulars A–87 (Cost Principles)
and 29 CFR part 97 (Administrative Requirements).
iv. Profit Making Commercial Firms – Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) – 48 CFR part 31 (Cost Principles), and 29 CFR Part 95 (Administrative
Requirements).

65

v. All entities must comply with 29 CFR Parts 93 and 98, and, where
applicable, 29 CFR parts 96 and 99.
vi. 29 CFR part 2, subpart D—Equal Treatment in Department of Labor
Programs for Religious Organizations, Protection of Religious Liberty of
Department of Labor Social Service Providers and Beneficiaries.
vii. 29 CFR part 31—Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs
of the Department of Labor—Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964.
viii. 29 CFR part 32—Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in
Programs and Activities Receiving or Benefiting from Federal Financial
Assistance.
iv. 29 CFR part 33—Enforcement of Nondiscrimination on the Basis of
Handicap in Programs or Activities Conducted by the Department of Labor.
x. 29 CFR part 35— Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in Programs
or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance from the Department of
Labor.
xi. 29 CFR part 36—Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education
Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.
The following administrative standards and provisions may be
applicable
i. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 1115, 123 Stat. 115, Division A, Title VIII (February 17, 2009).

66

ii. The Green Jobs Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1748 (codified
at 29 U.S.C. § 2916).
iii. The Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat.
939 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq.) and 20 CFR part 667
(General Fiscal and Administrative Rules).
iv. 29 CFR part 29 and 30—Apprenticeship and Equal Employment
Opportunity in Apprenticeship and Training; and
v. 29 CFR Part 37—Implementation of the Nondiscrimination and Equal
Opportunity Provisions of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
The Department notes that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
(RFRA), 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000bb, applies to all Federal law and its implementation.
If your organization is a faith-based organization that makes hiring decisions on
the basis of religious belief, it may be entitled to receive Federal financial
assistance under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act and maintain that hiring
practice even though section 188 of the Workforce Investment Act contains a
general ban on religious discrimination in employment. If you are awarded a
grant, you will be provided with information on how to request such an
exemption.
vi. Under WIA section 181(a)(4), health and safety standards established
under Federal and State law otherwise applicable to working conditions of
employees are equally applicable to working conditions of participants engaged
in training and other activities. Applicants that are awarded grants through this

67

SGA are reminded that these health and safety standards apply to participants in
these grants.
In accordance with section 18 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (Pub.
L. 104-65) (2 U.S.C. 1611) non-profit entities incorporated under Internal Revenue
Service Code section 501(c) (4) that engage in lobbying activities are not eligible
to receive Federal funds and grants. Except as specifically provided in this SGA,
DOL’s acceptance of a proposal and an award of Federal funds to sponsor any
programs(s) does not provide a waiver of any grant requirements and/or
procedures. For example, the OMB Circulars require that an entity’s
procurement procedures must ensure that all procurement transactions are
conducted, as much as practical, to provide open and free competition. If a
proposal identifies a specific entity to provide services, DOL’s award does not
provide the justification or basis to sole source the procurement, i.e., avoid
competition, unless the activity is regarded as the primary work of an official
partner to the application.

2. Special Program Requirements
DOL will require that the program or project participate in a formal
evaluation of overall grant performance. DOL will provide both a technical
assistance and evaluation contractor to assist grantees in developing and
implementing each state’s WDQI to ensure smooth implementation and
execution. To measure the success of the grant program, DOL will conduct an

68

independent evaluation of the outcomes and benefits of the grants. Grantees
must agree to work with DOL’s designated evaluation and technical assistance
contractors and to provide access to program operating and technical personnel,
as specified by the evaluator(s) under the direction of DOL, including after the
expiration date of the grant.
As a condition of participation in the grant program, applicants will be
required to submit the following:
i. Design Plan: The first report to be furnished on this project will be a
detailed design plan which will expand upon and operationalize the
requirements of this grant application as outlined in Part V of this SGA. The
grantee will be expected to submit a budget allotting the expenditure of this
grant over the three year period including, but not limited to, considerations for
equipment, personnel, fees and fixed costs. This report should also include a
timeline which incorporates all project stages, milestones, targets and
deliverables. This report will be due to DOL 60 days after signing.
ii. Final Report: A draft final report must be submitted no later than 60
days prior to the expiration date of the grant. This report must summarize
project activities, outcomes, and related results of the project, and should
thoroughly document approaches. The final report should also include copies of
all deliverables. After responding to DOL questions and comments on the draft
report, three copies of the final report must be submitted no later than the grant

69

expiration date. Grantees must agree to use a designated format specified by
DOL for preparing the final report.

C. Reporting. Quarterly financial reports, quarterly progress reports, and
Management Information System (MIS) data will be submitted by the grantee
electronically. The grantee is required to provide the regular reports and
documents listed below:
1. Quarterly Financial Reports. A Quarterly Financial Status Report (ETA
9130) is required until such time as all funds have been expended or the grant
period has expired. Quarterly reports are due 45 days after the end of each
calendar year quarter. Grantees must use DOL’s On-Line Electronic Reporting
System and information and instructions will be provided to grantees.
2. Quarterly Progress Reports. The grantee must submit a quarterly
progress report within 45 days after the end of each calendar year quarter. In the
quarterly progress reports, grantees will be expected to address the status of
developing MOUs with their intended partners as outlined in their grant
application in addition to other partnerships they foster. Grantees should also
take this opportunity to share the progress they are making with obtaining access
to longitudinal workforce data (please see section V above of this SGA for a list
of the data elements required). If the grantee is working with a developed or
partially developed workforce longitudinal database, they must briefly describe
the capacity of their database, and how it is being securely maintained and then

70

explain in much greater depth the status of their plans to expand upon their
present capacity.
This information must be presented in narrative form and must include
description of: activities within the quarter being reported on, how problems or
barriers from the previous quarter, if any, were addressed, any problems or
challenges in the current quarter, how milestones or activities were successfully
completed in the current quarter and plans for the next quarter. Also, reports
should include updates on expected products or deliverables. Reports should
include lessons learned in the areas of project administration and management,
project implementation, partnership relationships, and other related information.
DOL will provide grantees with guidance and tools to help develop the quarterly
reports once the grants are awarded. Grantees must agree to meet DOL
reporting requirements.

3. Record Retention. Applicants should be aware of Federal guidelines on
record retention, which require grantees to maintain all records pertaining to
grant activities for a period of not less than three years from the time of final
grant close-out.

VII. Agency Contacts
For further information regarding this SGA, please contact [to be
inserted], Grant Management Specialist, Division of Federal Assistance, at [to be

71

inserted], (This is not a toll-free number). Applicants should e-mail all technical
questions to [to be inserted]@dol.gov and must specifically reference [to be
inserted], and along with question(s), include a contact name, fax and phone
number.
This announcement is being made available on the ETA Web site at
http://www.doleta.gov/grants and at http://www.grants.gov.

VIII. Additional Resources of Interest to Applicants

A. Resources for the Applicant
OMB Information Collection No. 1225-0086
Expires November 30, 2012
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are
required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays
a valid OMB control number. Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding the burden estimated or any other
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this
burden, to the U.S. Department of Labor, to the attention of Darrin A. King,
Departmental Clearance Officer, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N1301,

72

Washington, DC 20210. Comments may also be emailed to
[email protected]. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN THE COMPLETED
APPLICATION TO THIS ADDRESS. SEND IT TO THE SPONSORING
AGENCY AS SPECIFIED IN THIS SOLICITATION.
This information is being collected for the purpose of awarding a grant.
The information collected through this SGA will be used by DOL to ensure that
grants are awarded to the applicant best suited to perform the functions of the
grant. Submission of this information is required in order for the applicant to be
considered for award of this grant. Unless otherwise specifically noted in this
announcement, information submitted in the respondent’s application is not
considered to be confidential.

Signed at Washington, D.C., this XX day of XXXX, 2009
_______________________________
Eric Luetkenhaus
Grant Officer

73