Revised 2002 agricultural services planning guidance

The letter is dated October 15, 2002, but section 5 prints a September 6, 2002 submission deadline. Both dates are reproduced from the published letter.

Official HTML letter (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2002/TEGL2-02_Ch1.html):

Employment and Training Administration Advisory System
U.S. Department of Labor
Washington, D.C. 20210
CLASSIFICATION: W-P/Strategic Five Year Plan
CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL: OWS
DATE: October 15, 2002

TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT GUIDANCE LETTER NO. 2-02 CHANGE 1

TO: ALL STATE WORKFORCE LIAISONS
ALL STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES
ALL STATE WORKER ADJUSTMENT LIAISONS
ALL ONE-STOP CENTER SYSTEM LEADS

/S/
FROM: EMILY STOVER DeROCCO, Assistant Secretary
SUBJECT: Instructions and Planning Guidelines for the Program Year (PY) 2002 Wagner-Peyser Act Agricultural Service Submission

1. Purpose. To extend the date of plan submissions and correct data figures for Table 2 Affirmative Action Plan Significant MSFW Local Offices in the attached Planning Guidance for PY 2002 Wagner-Peyser Act Agricultural Services Submissions with the Strategic Five-Year State Plan under the Workforce Investment (WIA) Act of 1998.

2. References. The Workforce Investment Act of 1998; Planning Guidance and Instructions for Submissions of the Strategic Five-Year Plan for Title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the Wagner-Peyser/Act (herein referred to as the WIA/W-P Act Planning Guidance); Final Unified Planning Guidance (Developed by the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, Agricultural, and Housing and Urban Development) (herein referred to as the Unified Planning Guidance); 20 CFR 652.211, 652.212, 652.213, 653.107, 653.112, 661.230; and Training and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) No. 27-97.

3. Background. The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 requires Wagner-Peyser Act labor exchange services to be provided through the One-Stop delivery system. Further, WIA requires that states include in their Strategic Five-Year Plan a detailed description of the Wagner-Peyser Act services that will be provided to job seekers and employers.

RESCISSIONS: [none listed]
EXPIRATION DATE: Continuing

Assurance No. 15 in the WIA/W-P Act Planning Guidance and assurance No. 14 in the Unified Planning Guidance require states to assure that they will comply with the annual Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker (MSFW) requirements in accordance with 20 CFR part 653. In line with the WIA Title I final regulations at 20 CFR part 653, the WIA/W-P Act Planning Guidance, the Unified Planning Guidance, and applicable WIA and Wagner-Peyser Act regulations, the attachment provides the guidelines for the PY 2002 Agricultural Services Submission.

4. Agricultural Services Submission. State planning for Wagner-Peyser Act Agricultural program services is an annual requirement. Accordingly, each state must provide the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) with an Agricultural Services Submission in conjunction with its WIA/Wagner-Peyser Act Strategic Five-Year Plan or Unified Plan (see 5 below), and must provide annual Agricultural Services Submissions during each of the following four program years. The Agricultural Services Submission should be an integral component of a State's Strategic WIA Title I Five-Year Plan, and its development should be coordinated with the development of the Five-Year Plan. Likewise, during the four out-years in which a WIA/Wagner-Peyser Act Strategic Five-Year Plan or Unified Plan is not submitted, the state should develop the annual Agricultural Services Submission in light of the Wagner-Peyser Act activities described in the Strategic Five-Year Plan.

5. PY 2002 Submission. States must provide their PY 2002 Agricultural Services Submission by September 6, 2002. The Agricultural Services Submission to ETA/OWS can be submitted under separate cover and should include one signed original and two copies via a letter of transmittal to the National Office, Ms. Grace Kilbane, Administrator, Office of Workforce Security, ATTN: Ms. Gay Gilbert, at U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room S-4321, Washington, D.C. 20210 and a copy to the appropriate Regional Office.

6. Inquiries. Request for technical assistance or other inquiries should be directed to the appropriate Regional Office.

7. Attachment. Planning Guidance for PY 2002 Wagner-Peyser Act Agricultural Service Submission.

Planning Guidance for PY 2002 Wagner-Peyser Act Agricultural Services Submission (https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2002/TEGL2-02_Ch1_Attach.pdf):

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. Identify 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                  6,444
Edinburg, TX                        IV                  4,327
Weslaco, TX                         VI                  4,496
Yuma, AZ                            VI                  3,473
Sunnyside, WA                       VI                  4,433
Moses Lake, WA                      VI                  4,469

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               Winchester*           Charleston*
Puerto Rico                                  Greenwood*
Ponce*                 West Virginia         Kingstree*
Coamo*                 Martinsburg           Spartanburg*
Mayaguez*                                    Sumter*
San German*            REGION III
Yauco*                 Florida               REGION IV
Manati*                Apollo Beach*         New Mexico
Caguas*                Belle Glade*          Deming*
Humacao*               Bradenton*            Las Cruces*
Aercibo*               Fort Pierce*
Guayama*               Immokalee/Naples*     Texas
Aguadilla              Florida City*         Brownsville*
Bayamon*               Quincy*               Canutillo
Fajardo*               Wachula/Sebring*      Carrizo Springs
Rio Piedras*           Winter Haven*         Crystal City
                                             Eagle Pass*
New York               Georgia               Edinburg
Albion/Elba*           Americus*             Fabens
Hudson*                Bainbridge*           Floydada
Kinston*               Cordele*              Halingen
Lockport*              Douglas*              Hereford
Pine Island*           Moultrie*             Laredo
Newark*                Statesboro*           Lamesa
Riverhead*             Vadalia*              McAllen
                       Tifton*               Muleshoe
New Jersey             Valdosta              Pecos
Hammontown*            Waycross              Plainview
Vineland/Bridgetown*                         Raymondville
Trenton                North Carolina        Rio Grand City
                       Burgau*/Wilmington    Uvalde
REGION II              Clinton*              Weslaco*
Delaware               Dunn*                 Colorado
Dover                  Elizabethtown*        Brighton*
                       Hendersonville*       Delta*
Maryland               Kenansville*          Greeley*
Salisbury              Mount Olive*          Lmar*
                       New Bern*             Monte Vista*
Pennsylvania           Smithfield*           Rocky Ford*
Chambersburg*          Washington*
Gettysburg*            Wilson*               North Dakota
                                             Grafton*
Virginia               South Carolina
Onley*                 Beaufort*             Montana

Sidney              El Centro/Calexico*   Sunnyside
                    Fresno (West)*        Tri-Cities*
Utah                Gilroy*               Walla Walla*
Brigham City        Hanford*              Wenatchee*
                    Hollister*            Yakima
REGION V            Huron*
Wisconsin           Indio*                *Denotes Bilingual
Beaver Dam*         Lakeport
Wautoma*            Lamont*
                    Lodi*
Illinois            Los Banos*
Danville*           Madera*
Kankakee*           Manteca
Murphysboro*        Marysville
Peoria*             Mendota
                    Merce*
Michigan            Modesto
Adrian              Oakdale*
Fremont             Oxnard*
Lapeer              Porterville*
Hartford            Salinas/Greenfield*
South Haven         Sanger*
Holland             Santa Maria
Manistee            Turlock*
Sparta              Ukiah
Traverse City       Wasco*
                    Watsonville*
Minnesota           Woodland*
Crookston*
East Grand Forks*   Idaho
Mankato*            Burley*
Moorhead*           Canyon County
Owatonna*           Magic Valley*
                    Emmett*
REGION VI           Payette*
Arizona             Rexburg*
Coolidge*
Douglas*            Oregon
Wilcox*             Hood River*
Yuma*               Madras*
Maryvale            Milton-Freewater*
Messa               Ontario
                    Woodburn*
California          Washington
Bakersfield         Bellingham*
Blythe*             Columbia Gorge*
Chico               Moses Lake*
Colusa              Mount Vernon
Delano*             Okanogan*

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).