TEGL2-02_Attach.pdf

ETA Advisory File Text

PLANNING GUIDANCE FOR PY 2002 WAGNER-PEYSER ACT AGRICULTURAL SERVICES SUBMISSION I. Summary of Submission Requirements. Each State Workforce Agency in its Agricultural Services Submission must describe the activities planned for providing services to the agricultural community both agricultural employers and MSFWs as described in 653.107. The document must contain the following A. Assessment of Need. See Part II All states must prepare a comprehensive assessment of need in accordance with Federal requirements at 20 CFR Part 653.107. B. Outreach Activities. See Part III All states shall prepare a comprehensive plan for outreach in accordance with Federal requirements at 20 CFR 653.107. C. Wagner-Peyser Act Services Provided to MSFWs through the One-Stop Delivery System. See Part IV States must provide specific information on how Wagner-Peyser Act services will be provided to MSFWs through the One-Stop delivery system and how these services will be coordinated with the core intensive and training services provided under WIA Title I. In addition states should provide information on how MSFWs will be served in an electronic environment. WIA did not revise requirements at CFR 20 653 or 685 therefore states must continue to provide services to MSFWs and collect data as required by 20 CFR 653.109. All states must meet the minimum requirements for providing services to MSFWs and must meet four of the five equity indicators. Additionally significant MSFW states must meet four of the seven minimum service level indicators. States that expect to have difficulty in meeting the MSFW performance indicators must describe the nature of the problem and the steps planned to meet the performance indicators. D. Wagner-Peyser Act Services Provided to Agricultural Employers through the One-Stop Delivery System. See Part V All states must describe efforts that will be taken to provide Wagner-Peyser Act services to agricultural employers in both those states with an adequate supply of U.S. workers and those where the supply appears to be inadequate. E. Other Requirements. 1. Status of Monitor Advocate. States must appoint a full-time Monitor Advocate as stated in 20 CFR 653.108 b . If a State Monitor Advocate is working less than full-time justification for the part-time status of the State Monitor Advocate must be provided to and approved by the United States of Department of Labor USDOL . Provisions at 20 CFR 653.108 d 1 require a full-time status for the Monitor Advocate but do allow the USDOL to approve a less than full-time i.e. part-time Monitor Advocate based on agricultural conditions the level of MSFW activity and an adequate justification provided by the state. 2. State Monitor Advocate Approval Comments. All states must provide a statement that indicates that the State Monitor Advocate has been afforded the opportunity to approve and or comment on the PY 2002 Agricultural Services Submission as stated in 20 CFR 653.111. 3. Consideration of Previous Year s Annual MSFW Monitor Advocate Report. All states must provide a statement which indicates that the state considered the State Monitor Advocate s recommendations as presented in the annual MSFW summary developed under 20 CFR 653.109 t . 4. MSFW Affirmative Action Review Comments. All states must provide a statement which indicates that as per 20 CFR 653.111 4 h the State Monitor Advocate has been afforded the opportunity to review and comment on the state s MSFW Affirmative Action Plan which should be submitted by the State Workforce Agency SWA as part of the State PY 2002 submission. 5. States with designated significant Affirmative Action local offices are required to submit an Affirmative Action Plan to USDOL in accordance with 20 CFR 653.111. 6. Review and Comment by WIA Section 167 Grantees. All states must provide information indicating that WIA Section 167 grantees other appropriate MSFW groups public agencies agricultural employer organizations and other interested employer organizations have been given the opportunity to comment on the State Agricultural Services Submission including any required significant MSFW local office Affirmative Action Plans. States must submit a list of organizations from whom information and suggestions were solicited any comments received and agency responses are to be submitted in the annual plan as indicated in 20 CFR 653.107 d . II. Assessment of Need. Under 20 CFR 653.111 d all states must submit an assessment of need. This assessment of need must take into account data supplied by WIA Section 167 grantees MSFW organizations employer organizations Federal State agencies Migrant Education Agency etc. This assessment of need must include A. A review of the previous year s agricultural activity in the state. Identify each major labor intensive crop activity in the previous year indicating the months of heavy activity and the geographic area of prime activity. B. A review of the previous year s MSFW activity in the state. Estimate the agricultural labor employed in each of the crops identified in item II.A. Estimate the number of MSFWs involved in each and indicate crop areas that experienced labor shortages. C. Projected level of agricultural activity expected in the state in the coming year. Identify any changes from last year s crop activities as described in item II.A. D. A projected number of MSFWs in the state in the coming year. Identify any changes in the numbers of MSFWs involved in each crop activity as described in item II.A. III. Outreach Activities. Each state must prepare a comprehensive outreach plan in accordance with Federal requirements at 20 CFR Part 653.107. The outreach plan must be based on the actual conditions which exist in the particular state taking into account the State Workforce Agency s SWAs history of providing outreach services the estimated number of MSFWs in the state and the need for outreach services in the state. The five states with the highest estimated year-round MSFW activities must assign full-time year-round staff to outreach activities. These states are designated each year by the Employment and Training Administration ETA . The five states designated for PY 2000 are provided in Table 5. The remainder of the top twenty significant MSFW states indicated in Table 1 must make maximum efforts to hire outreach staff with MSFW experience for year-round positions and shall assign outreach staff to work full-time during the period of highest activity. ETA will base its approval on whether the state outreach plan adequately addresses the following A. Assessment of Available Resources. The assessment of the resources available for outreach shall include 1. The number of SWA staff positions the state will assign to outreach activities. The assessment must indicate the full-time equivalent positions for each local office to which staff must be assigned and the number of staff assigned to the state office for this purpose. The significant MSFW local offices listed in Table 4 should assign full-time staff for outreach duties during the peak seasons as indicated in 20 CFR 653.107 h 3 i . 2. Where the number of SWA staff positions assigned to outreach activities is less than in the prior year please provide an explanation for the reduction and the expected effect of the reduction on direct outreach activities as indicated in 20 CFR 653.107 h 3 i . 3. Identifying resources to be made available through existing cooperative agreements with public and private community service agencies and MSFW groups. States are encouraged to initiate cooperative agreements with WIA Section 167 grantees for outreach position . B. Numerical Goals. The anticipated results of these outreach effort are provided in item A. These goals shall include 1. The number of MSFWs to be contacted by employment service staff during the program year listed by local office where outreach staff is assigned as well as the state office as indicated in 20 CFR 653.107 c 3 . 2. The number of staff days based on 8-hour days to be utilized for outreach listed by local office where outreach staff is assigned as well as the state office. 3. The number of MSFWs contacted by other agencies under cooperative arrangements. C. Proposed Outreach Activities. States must describe the outreach efforts to be provided by their Employment Service ES staff. These efforts must include those described in 20 CFR 653.107 C i-p . Also describe any coordinated activities with other agencies where a possible surplus of workers may exist. IV. Wagner-Peyser Act Services Provided to MSFWs through the One-Stop Delivery System. A. Planning Data for the Upcoming Year If a state s estimated planning data for the current year indicate difficulty in meeting equity indicators minimum services levels or planned levels of activity ETA will request the state submit a narrative regarding the difficulty. The following items must be included in a narrative 1. A description of the problems 2. Specific steps planned to meet minimum service levels and 3. Specific steps planned to meet equity level of services. Federal regulations at 20 CFR 653.112 require the establishment of performance indicators reflecting equity and the measurement of minimum levels of service. The indicators established by ETA include the seven minimum service level indicators and the five SWA-controlled indicators to measure equity of service. All states are required to meet at least four of the five equity indicators. Additionally significant MSFW states are required to meet at least four of the seven minimum service level indicators. The seven minimum service level indicators are listed in Table 3. These standards are set to encourage appropriate service to MSFWs and to assure the continuation of such services. The minimum service levels are established annually. The standards are set at a level high enough to encourage low performing states to improve their performance but not so high as to make achievement extraordinarily difficult. The five equity indicators for all states are Ratio of non-MSFWs to MSFWs referred to jobs Ratio of non-MSFWs to MSFWs for whom service is provided Ratio of non-MSFWs to MSFWs referred to supportive services Ratio of non-MSFWs to MSFWs counseled and Ratio of non-MSFWs to MSFWs for whom a job development contact was made. B. Significant MSFW Local Office Affirmative Action Plans The Department of Labor designated significant MSFW local offices for which an Affirmative Action Plan must be developed and submitted under 20 CFR 653.111. The designations for PY 2000 of Affirmative Action Plan local offices are provided in Table 2. The Affirmative Action Plan 20 CFR 653.111-1 b must include a comparison of the racial and ethnic composition of the workforce and that of the local office staff. When the comparison shows an under-representation of a racial or ethnic group in the local office the plan must establish a reasonable timetable with goals to remedy the imbalance. V. Wagner-Peyser Act Services Provided to Agricultural Employers through the One-Stop Delivery System. A. Data Analysis. 1. Previous year s history based on PY 2000 data Number of agricultural job orders and openings received Number of agricultural job orders filled Percent to be filled Number of interstate clearance orders received and Number of interstate clearance orders initiated 2. Plan for upcoming year based on estimated data Number of agricultural job orders expected to be received Number of agricultural job orders projected to be filled Percent to be filled Estimated number of interstate clearance orders the state will receive and Estimated number of interstate clearance orders the state will initiate B. Narrative Description. All states must provide a description to ETA of their efforts to provide WIA Wagner-Peyser Act services to their agricultural employers regardless of whether or not the employers have an adequate labor supply of U.S. workers. These efforts should include A description of how the SWA plans to provide labor exchange services to agricultural employers. A description of the process used to identify agricultural employers that are expected to utilize MSFWs. A description of the process for linking available workers with the employers including the cooperation with or the creation of coordinating bodies to assure programs are coordinated and to insure programs respond to local needs. These coordinating groups may consist of organizations such as the SWA WIA Section 167 grantees agricultural employers migrant education groups and migrant health groups. Describe how the state will promote labor exchange services to agricultural employers e.g. participate in employer conferences develop marketing tools and provide labor exchange information to employers recruit U.S. workers. Where an H-2A program operated in the state in the previous year explain efforts to increase U.S. worker participation. VI. Enclosures to State Planning Guidelines for Agricultural Services. Table 1. Significant MSFW States for PY 2000 Table 2. Affirmative Action Plan Significant MSFW Local Offices Table 3. Minimum Service Level Indicators for PY 2000 Table 4. Significant MSFW Local Offices and Bilingual Offices for PY 2000 Table 5. States with Highest Estimated MSFW Activity Table 1 SIGNIFICANT MSFW STATES FOR PY 2000 State MSFW Applicants 1. California 45 240 2. Texas 24 530 3. Florida 16 996 4. Washington 22 236 5. North Carolina 14 267 6. Arizona 5 187 7. Georgia 4 786 8. Michigan 9 217 9. Puerto Rico 6 500 10. South Carolina 3 542 11. Virginia 3 163 12. Oregon 3 070 13. New Mexico 2 001 14. Ohio 1 970 15. Illinois 1 734 16. Idaho 1 705 17. Wisconsin 1 230 18. Minnesota 914 19. New York 890 20. North Dakota 524 Table 2 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN SIGNIFICANT MSFW LOCAL OFFICES TOP 20 OF MSFW ACTIVITY NATIONWIDE Local Office Region MSFW Applications McAllen TX IV 14 600 Edinburg TX IV 14 004 Weslaco TX VI 16 079 Yuma AZ VI 3 473 Sunnyside WA VI 12 669 Moses Lake WA VI 15 565 Federal regulations at 20 CFR 653.111 b 1 require that Affirmative Action Plan local offices be designated each year. For purposes of this provision these local offices mean those representing the top 20 of MSFW activity nationally. Total MSFW application nationwide in PY 2000 169 702 Table 3 MINIMUM SERVICE LEVEL INDICATORS FOR PY 2002 In accordance with Federal regulations at 20 CFR 653.112 the following are the minimum service levels for PY 2000 that Significant MSFW states must meet 1 Individuals placed in a job 2 Individuals placed in a job with a wage exceeding the Federal minimum wage by at least 50 cents hour and 3 Placed in long-term over 150 days non-agricultural jobs. 1 2 3 State MSFW Placed .50 Placed in Placed Above Federal Long-term Minimum Wage Non-Ag Jobs California 42.5 14.0 4.9 Texas 42.5 14.0 8.2 Florida 42.5 14.0 6.0 Washington 42.5 14.0 3.3 North Carolina 42.5 14.0 5.0 Arizona 42.5 14.0 3.8 Georgia 42.5 14.0 3.8 Michigan 42.5 14.0 4.2 Puerto Rico 42.5 14.0 3.0 South Carolina 42.5 14.0 6.2 Virginia 42.5 14.0 5.0 Oregon 42.5 14.0 3.9 Minnesota 42.5 14.0 5.2 New Mexico 42.5 14.0 4.3 Ohio 42.5 14.0 7.3 Indiana 42.5 14.0 3.0 Idaho 42.5 14.0 4.0 Colorado 42.5 14.0 6.5 New York 42.5 14.0 3.3 Wisconsin 42.5 14.0 4.5 4 Review of significant MSFW local offices 100 for all significant states 5 Field checks on agricultural clearance orders 6 Outreach contacts per staff day as determined by the SWA and 7 Processing of complaints in accordance with 20 CFR. Table 4 SIGNIFICANT AND BILINGUAL MSFW LOCAL OFFICES FOR PY 2000 REGION I Puerto Rico Ponce Coamo Mayaguez San German Yauco Manati Caguas Humacao Aercibo Guayama Aguadilla Bayamon Fajardo Rio Piedras New York Albion Elba Hudson Kinston Lockport Pine Island Newark Riverhead New Jersey Hammontown Vineland Bridgetown Trenton REGION II Delaware Dover Maryland Salisbury Pennsylvania Chambersburg Gettysburg Virginia Onley Winchester West Virginia Martinsburg REGION III Florida Apollo Beach Belle Glade Bradenton Fort Pierce Immokalee Naples Florida City Quincy Wachula Sebring Winter Haven Georgia Americus Bainbridge Cordele Douglas Moultrie Statesboro Vadalia Tifton Valdosta Waycross North Carolina Burgau Wilmington Clinton Dunn Elizabethtown Hendersonville Kenansville Mount Olive New Bern Smithfield Washington Wilson South Carolina Beaufort Charleston Greenwood Kingstree Spartanburg Sumter REGION IV New Mexico Deming Las Cruces Texas Brownsville Canutillo Carrizo Springs Crystal City Eagle Pass Edinburg Fabens Floydada Halingen Hereford Laredo Lamesa McAllen Muleshoe Pecos Plainview Raymondville Rio Grand City Uvalde Weslaco Colorado Brighton Delta Greeley Lmar Monte Vista Rocky Ford North Dakota Grafton Montana Sidney Utah Brigham City REGION V Wisconsin Beaver Dam Wautoma Illinois Danville Kankakee Murphysboro Peoria Michigan Adrian Fremont Lapeer Hartford South Haven Holland Manistee Sparta Traverse City Minnesota Crookston East Grand Forks Mankato Moorhead Owatonna REGION VI Arizona Coolidge Douglas Wilcox Yuma Maryvale Messa California Bakersfield Blythe Chico Colusa Delano El Centro Calexico Fresno West Gilroy Hanford Hollister Huron Indio Lakeport Lamont Lodi Los Banos Madera Manteca Marysville Mendota Merce Modesto Oakdale Oxnard Porterville Salinas Greenfield Sanger Santa Maria Turlock Ukiah Wasco Watsonville Woodland Idaho Burley Canyon County Magic Valley Emmett Payette Rexburg Oregon Hood River Madras Milton-Freewater Ontario Woodburn Washington Bellingham Columbia Gorge Moses Lake Mount Vernon Okanogan Sunnyside Tri-Cities Walla Walla Wenatchee Yakima Denotes Bilingual Table 5 STATES WITH HIGHEST ESTIMATED MSFW ACTIVITY The following are the five states with the highest year-round MSFW activity California Texas Florida Washington North Carolina In accordance with Federal regulations at 20 CFR 653.107 I these states must assign full-time year-round staff to outreach duties. The remainder of the significant MSFW states shall make maximum efforts to hire outreach staff with MSFW experience for year-round positions and shall assign outreach staff to work full time during the period s of the highest activity. Such outreach staff must be bilingual if warranted by the characteristics of the MSFW population in the state and must spend a majority of their time in the field as stated in 653.107 h 3 i .