Senior Community Service Employment Program; Performance Accountability, 35832-35848 [E7-12541]

Agencies

• Employment and Training Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 125 (Friday, June 29, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35832-35848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-12541]



[[Page 35831]]

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

Part III





Department of Labor





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



Employment and Training Administration



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



20 CFR Part 641



Senior Community Service Employment Program; Performance 
Accountability; Interim Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 125 / Friday, June 29, 2007 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 35832]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

20 CFR Part 641

RIN 1205-AB47


Senior Community Service Employment Program; Performance 
Accountability

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) of the 
Department of Labor (Department) is issuing this Interim Final Rule 
establishing new performance accountability measures for the Senior 
Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). New measures are 
necessary due to the 2006 Amendments to Title V of the Older Americans 
Act. Specifically, this rule amends 20 CFR part 641 Subpart G--
Performance Accountability and corresponding definitions found in 
Subpart A--Purpose and Definitions. This notice also solicits public 
comment on this Interim Final Rule which the Department will consider 
when it issues a Final Rule.

DATES: This rule is effective June 29, 2007. The Department invites 
interested persons to submit comments on this interim final rule. To 
ensure consideration, comments must be in writing and must be received 
on or before August 28, 2007. Comments received after that date will be 
considered to the extent possible.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Regulatory 
Information Number (RIN) 1205-AB47, by any of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the Web site instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: (202) 693-2766.
     Mail: Written comments, disk, and CD-Rom submissions may 
be mailed to Maria Kniesler Flynn, Administrator, Office of Policy 
Development and Research, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 
Avenue NW., Room N-5641, Washington, DC 20210.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: Maria Kniesler Flynn, 
Administrator, Office of Policy Development and Research, U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-5641, 
Washington, DC 20210.
    The Department will post all comments received on 
www.regulations.gov without making any change to the comments, 
including any personal information provided.
    The www.regulations.gov Web site is the Federal e-rulemaking portal 
and all comments posted there are available and accessible to the 
public. The Department recommends that commenters not include their 
personal information such as Social Security Numbers, personal 
addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses in their comments as 
such submitted information will become easily available to the public 
via the www.regulations.gov Web site. Comments submitted through 
www.regulations.gov will not include the e-mail address of the 
commenter unless the commenter chooses to include that information as 
part of their comment. It is the responsibility of the commenter to 
safeguard his or her information.
    Postal mail delivery in Washington, DC, may be delayed due to 
security concerns. Therefore, the Department encourages the public to 
submit comments via the Internet as indicated above.
    Docket: The Department will make all the comments it receives 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
above address. If you need assistance to review the comments, the 
Department will provide you with appropriate aids such as readers or 
print magnifiers. The Department will make copies of the rule 
available, upon request, in large print and electronic file on computer 
disk. The Department will consider providing the rule in other formats 
upon request. To schedule an appointment to review the comments and/or 
obtain the rule in an alternate format, contact the office of Maria 
Kniesler Flynn at (202) 693-3700 (VOICE) or 1-800-877-8339 TTY/ASCII. 
Please note these are not toll-free numbers. You may also contact Ms. 
Flynn's office at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adele Gagliardi, Senior Regulatory 
Specialist, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), U.S. 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-5641, 
Washington, DC 20210; E-mail gagliardi.adele@dol.gov; Telephone (202) 
693-3700 (this is not a toll-free number).
    Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the 
telephone number above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal 
Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The preamble to this Interim Final Rule is organized as follows:
I. Background--provides a brief description of the purpose and timing 
of the Interim Final Rule.
II. Summary and Explanation of the Interim Final Rule--discusses the 
substance of the rule.
III. Administrative Information--sets forth the applicable regulatory 
requirements.

I. Background

    On October 17, 2006, President Bush signed the Older Americans Act 
Amendments of 2006, Pub. L. 109-365 (2006 OAA Amendments). This law 
amended the statute authorizing the SCSEP and necessitates changes to 
the SCSEP regulations. (The Department will continue to use the name 
``Senior Community Service Employment Program'' for this program, 
although the law refers to it in various terms.) The purpose of this 
Interim Final Rule is to implement changes to the SCSEP performance 
measurement system required by the 2006 OAA Amendments. The Department 
intends to issue a separate Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, proceeding 
under related RIN 1205-AB48, to implement additional changes to the 
SCSEP regulations necessitated by the 2006 OAA Amendments.
    The SCSEP, authorized by Title V of the Older Americans Act, is the 
only federally-sponsored employment and training program targeted 
specifically to low-income older individuals who want to enter or re-
enter the workforce. Participants must be 55 years of age or older with 
incomes no more than 125 percent of the Federal poverty level. The 
program offers participants training at community service employment 
assignments in public and non-profit so that they can gain on-the-job 
experience. The goals of the program are to move SCSEP participants 
into unsubsidized employment so that they can achieve economic self-
sufficiency and to promote useful opportunities in community service 
activities. In the 2006 OAA Amendments, Congress expressed its sense of 
the benefits of SCSEP, stating, ``placing older individuals in 
community service positions strengthens the ability of the individuals 
to become self-sufficient, provides much-needed support to 
organizations that benefit from increased civic engagement, and 
strengthens the communities that are served by such organizations.'' 
Pub. L. 109-365 Sec.  516(2).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 501 of the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2006, 
Pub. L. 109-365, amended the various provisions of title V of the 
Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056 et seq.). For ease of 
reference, we will refer to the changes to title V made by the 2006 
OAA Amendments by referring to the relevant sections of title V as 
those sections were reflected in the Amendments.

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

[[Page 35833]]

    The statute requires the Department to issue definitions of the 
indicators of performance through regulation. Section 513(b)(3). The 
statute also requires the Department to establish and implement the 
performance measures referred to in the statute as ``core measures and 
additional indicators of performance'' by July 1, 2007. Section 
513(d)(4). The Department has determined that the most effective way to 
define the indicators of performance is to do so in conjunction with 
the rules that implement such definitions. Defining the performance 
measures and implementing them concurrently and in the same document is 
also more helpful to the grantees. In addition, given the importance of 
the measures in terms of corrective actions and the potential impact 
they could have on grantee funding, it is preferable to continue to 
describe and define the measures through regulation even though the 
statute only requires the Department to implement the definitions 
through regulation. Accordingly the Department is both defining and 
describing the indicators through this rule.
    The Department is unable to promulgate these regulations through 
the normal notice and comment rulemaking process because of the July 1, 
2007, statutory deadline. Development of this rule necessitated 
extensive consultation within the Department, among multiple Employment 
and Training Administration offices, the Solicitor's Office and the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy. Activities of this group 
included developing a strategy for promulgating the regulation, 
addressing policy and programmatic issues and drafting the regulatory 
text and explanatory preamble. In addition, the Department was required 
to establish and implement the new SCSEP performance measures after 
consultation with stakeholders. Pub. L. 109-365 Sec.  513(b)(3). 
Therefore, the Department drafted, cleared internally, and published a 
notice in the Federal Register (published February 8, 2007, 72 FR 5999) 
in order to provide a fair and meaningful opportunity for stakeholders 
to respond. The Department received comments during the period 
announced in the notice and fully considered these comments, which 
informed the Interim Final Rule development. This process is described 
more thoroughly below. In addition, the Department needed to examine 
potential Paperwork Reduction Act implications of this Interim Final 
rule as well as examine the Interim Final Rule under additional laws 
and Executive Orders which cover rulemaking. Finally, the Department 
needed to obtain all clearances required in rulemaking. Therefore, time 
only allowed for the Department to issue an Interim Final Rule. There 
is not time to draft, clear, and publish a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, receive and respond to comments, and draft, clear, and 
publish a Final Rule by the July 1, 2007, deadline. Because Sec.  
513(a)(2)(C) of the statute prohibits funding grants until the 
Department and the grantee have agreed upon expected levels of 
performance, it is adverse to the public interest, and to the interest 
of those served under the SCSEP program as well as the grantees who 
seek to serve them, if the rule is delayed and a gap in services to 
individuals occurs. Therefore, the rule is being published as an 
Interim Final Rule so that the performance measures and the supporting 
definitions are effective immediately upon publication and without 
further delay. This approach will enable the Department and the 
grantees to negotiate performance agreements in time for all Program 
Year 2007 grants to be funded at the beginning of the Program Year.
    Since the statute requires that the Department and each grantee 
reach agreement on the expected levels of performance for each of the 
core indicators before to the Department may fund the grants that will 
be subject to these new rules, starting with Program Year 2007, or July 
1, 2007, the Department has made every effort to issue this Interim 
Final Rule in as timely a manner as possible and to assist grantees in 
meeting their obligations under the new performance requirements. To 
further assist grantees to adjust to the changes and to enable grantees 
to prepare for and to intelligently negotiate their performance goal 
for Program Year 2007, the Department previously issued a Training and 
Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) describing the anticipated changes in 
the performance measures.
    This Interim Final Rule supersedes the previously issued TEGL. If 
the Department determines that the information in this Interim Final 
Rule conflicts in a material way with the information previously issued 
through the TEGL, and has a material impact on the grantees' negotiated 
performance level goals, grantees will be allowed to renegotiate their 
performance level goals. The Department will make this determination 
and will issue further guidance if necessary.
    The Department sought public input on the SCSEP performance 
measures during the development of this Interim Final Rule in response 
to the statutory requirement that the Department establish and 
implement the new SCSEP performance measures after consultation with 
stakeholders. Specifically, section 513(a)(1) states that ``[t]he 
Secretary shall establish and implement, after consultation with 
grantees, sub-grantees and host agencies under this title, States, 
older individuals, area agencies on aging and other organizations 
serving older individuals, core indicators of performance and 
additional indicators of performance for each grantee for projects and 
services carried out under this title.'' The statute also instructs the 
Department to consult with stakeholders prior to defining the 
performance indicators. Pub. L. 109-365 Sec.  513(b)(3). The Department 
satisfied these statutory requirements when it solicited public input 
on the definitions and implementation of the statutory performance 
measures in the Federal Register notice published February 8, 2007, 72 
FR 5999.
    The February 8, 2007, Federal Register notice specifically 
requested input on six topics: (1) The core indicators, (2) the new 
one-year retention indicator, (3) customer satisfaction, (4) other 
additional indicators including possibly retaining the SCSEP placement 
measure, (5) performance outcomes, and (6) other comments related to 
SCSEP performance measures. 72 FR 5999 (Feb. 8, 2007). The Department 
made extensive efforts to make grantees aware of the notice and inform 
them of the timeframe for submitting comments; the Department e-mailed 
every grantee and briefed grantees during several all-grantee 
conference calls. In response to the notice, the Department received 
comments from 28 persons or entities. In addition, the Department 
presented a summary of the 2006 OAA Amendments at six regional SCSEP 
grantee training conferences in January, February, and March of 2007, 
and provided an opportunity for questions and comments.
    The Department carefully considered the comments received as we 
developed the content of this rule. In the preamble discussion of the 
regulatory changes, the Department discusses input we received from 
stakeholders. A full summary of the input received on each subject is 
available on the SCSEP Web site at https://www.doleta.gov/seniors.
    Although the Department solicited stakeholder input through the 
February

[[Page 35834]]

8, 2007, notice and carefully considered the concerns raised through 
the process, the Department solicits comments on all sections of this 
Interim Final Rule. The Department particularly invites comments 
addressing any concerns that this Interim Final Rule significantly 
compromises the ability of grantees, in areas where a substantial 
population of minority individuals reside, to serve their targeted 
population of minority older individuals, in accordance with the 
requirements of section 514(f) of the 2006 OAA Amendments.
    The SCSEP performance measures have evolved over time. Program-
specific measures to monitor the performance of each SCSEP grantee were 
first codified in the 2000 Amendments to the OAA. The 2000 OAA 
Amendments required the following performance measures:
    1. The number of persons served, with particular consideration 
given to individuals with greatest economic need, greatest social need, 
or poor employment history or prospects, and individuals who are over 
the age of 60;
    2. Community services provided;
    3. Placement into and retention in unsubsidized public or private 
employment;
    4. Satisfaction of the enrollees, employers, and their host 
agencies with their experiences and the services provided; and
    5. Any additional indicators of performance that the Secretary 
determines to be appropriate to evaluate services and performance.

Pub. L. 106-501 Sec.  513(b).
    When the Department implemented the 2000 OAA Amendments, it also 
began employing the ``common measures'' in the SCSEP performance 
system. The ``common measures'' are a government-wide initiative to 
apply uniform accountability measures to federally-funded employment 
and training programs, including those administered by the Department 
of Labor. Adoption of these common measures helps implement the 
President's Management Agenda for budget and performance integration as 
well as reduce barriers to integrated service delivery through local 
One-Stop Career Centers. To date, ETA has implemented the common 
performance measures for the majority of its workforce programs, 
including the SCSEP.
    The common performance measures are:
    1. Entered employment;
    2. Retention in employment; and
    3. Average earnings.
    The value of implementing common performance measures is in the 
ability to describe in a similar manner the core purposes of the 
workforce system: How many people found jobs? Did they stay employed? 
What did they earn? Historically, multiple sets of performance measures 
have burdened grantees, as they are required to report performance 
outcomes based on varying definitions and methodologies. By minimizing 
the different reporting and performance requirements, common 
performance measures can facilitate the integration of service 
delivery, reduce barriers to cooperation among programs, and enhance 
the ability to assess the effectiveness and impact of the workforce 
investment system. Current Department guidance on the common measures 
is contained in TEGL No. 17-05, issued on February 17, 2006. This TEGL 
is available at https://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_
doc.cfm?DOCN=2195.
    The Department previously identified ``program efficiency'' as a 
common measure for federal job training and employment programs, and 
listed program efficiency as a common measure in the last SCSEP Final 
Rule. 69 FR 19015, 19064 (April 9, 2004). However, since TEGL No. 17-
05, grantees have not been required to report on program efficiency. 
Therefore, this measure is not addressed in this Interim Final Rule.
    This Interim Final Rule marks the beginning of the next phase of 
the SCSEP performance measures. The 2006 OAA Amendments direct the 
SCSEP to track the following performance measures:
    Indicators of Performance:
    (1) Core Indicators--The core indicators of performance * * * shall 
consist of--
    (A) Hours (in the aggregate) of community service employment;
    (B) Entry into unsubsidized employment;
    (C) Retention in unsubsidized employment for six months;
    (D) Earnings; and
    (E) The number of eligible individuals served, including the number 
of participating individuals described in subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii) or 
(b)(2) of section 518.
    (2) Additional Indicators--The additional indicators of performance 
* * * shall consist of--
    (A) Retention in unsubsidized employment for 1 year;
    (B) Satisfaction of the participants, employers, and their host 
agencies with their experiences and the services provided;
    (C) Any other indicators of performance that the Secretary 
determines to be appropriate to evaluate services and performance.

Pub. L. 109-365 Sec.  513(b).
    Note that core indicators B, C, and D are consistent with the 
common measures.
    All of these indicators are discussed and defined below.

II. Summary and Explanation of the Interim Final Rule

    This Interim Final Rule addresses only the SCSEP performance 
measures; it amends Subpart G, and related definitions located in 
Subpart A, of the SCSEP regulations. As discussed in the background 
section, the Department is proceeding separately with this portion of 
the regulation because of certain provisions of the 2006 OAA Amendments 
which mandate implementation of the new performance indicators during 
the Program Year 2007 grant solicitation and award process. The 
Department will be proceeding with the normal rulemaking process as it 
promulgates regulations addressing the remainder of the changes the 
2006 OAA Amendments made to the SCSEP.
    As the Department implements these performance measures, it remains 
cognizant of Congress' statement that the indicators ``shall be 
designed to promote continuous improvement in performance.'' Pub. L. 
109-365 Sec.  513(a)(2)(B). The Department remains committed to a 
system-wide continuous improvement approach grounded upon proven 
quality principles and practices. The Department is implementing these 
performance measures with the goal of further aligning the SCSEP with 
performance measures used in the rest of the workforce investment 
system. Accordingly, the Department purposely defined the entry into 
unsubsidized employment, retention in unsubsidized employment for six 
months, and earnings performance measures to be consistent with the 
common performance measures which are intended for similar, federally-
funded employment and training programs serving adults. Further, the 
Department defines the one-year retention indicator to align with the 
equivalent indicator used for ETA's Adult and Dislocated Workers 
programs.

Subpart A--Purpose and Definitions

What definitions apply to this subpart? (Sec.  641.140)
    Section 641.140 of the SCSEP regulations provides definitions for 
the SCSEP, including those definitions relevant to the SCSEP 
performance measures. This Interim Final Rule, however, includes only 
those

[[Page 35835]]

definitions relevant to the performance measures that are new or have 
been changed. Definitions relevant to performance measures that have 
not changed, as well as SCSEP definitions that are not directly related 
to performance measures, remain in the existing rule.
    This Interim Final Rule contains new definitions. Several of them 
clarify which participants satisfy the core indicator that tracks ``the 
number of participating individuals described in subsection 
(a)(3)(B)(ii) or (b)(2) of section 518.'' Pub. L. 109-365 Sec.  
513(b)(1)(E). The Department received several suggestions for these 
definitions; many aspects of that input are mentioned in the 
descriptions of each definition, below. Several commenters encouraged 
the Department to keep current definitions and/or adopt definitions 
that are familiar to the SCSEP, including the definitions from the 
SCSEP Data Collection Handbook. Our general approach to defining new 
terms in this rule is consistent with these comments; our goal was to 
minimize the number of new or potentially duplicative definitions. 
Accordingly, we attempted to define terms in a manner consistent with 
established definitions used in programs SCSEP grantees are familiar 
with, and in many cases those definitions also formed the basis for the 
definitions that exist in the Data Collection Handbook. For example, 
the definition of veteran comes from the Jobs for Veterans Act, which 
has been used by the SCSEP for years to distinguish which veterans 
qualify for a priority for SCSEP services.
    Descriptions of the new definitions follow:
    Additional indicators: Following the structure established in the 
2006 OAA Amendments, we define additional indicators to distinguish 
them from core indicators; additional indicators are those indicators 
not subject to goals and corrective action. We currently implement only 
two additional indicators--one-year retention and customer 
satisfaction. These are the additional indicators required by the 2006 
OAA Amendments. At this time, the Department declines to add any 
additional indicators, but the regulations reserve the Secretary's 
authority, under section 513(b)(2)(C), to develop new additional 
measures when the Secretary determines that such additional indicators 
are appropriate for evaluation of services and performance.
    At risk for homelessness: The Department defines at risk for 
homelessness in relation to the definition of homeless, such that a 
person is at risk for homelessness if the person is likely to become 
homeless and is unable, using his or her own resources and support 
network, to obtain housing.
    Community service employment: The 2006 OAA Amendments added a 
definition of community service employment. We took the definition here 
directly from the statute.
    Core indicators: The 2006 OAA Amendments establish core indicators 
as a new category of indicators that are subject to goal-setting and 
corrective action. The indicators in the definition are those listed in 
the statute.
    Frail: A few commenters urged various definitions from sources such 
as the Older Americans Act and the Journal of Gerontology, Another 
commenter suggested consultation with the Administration on Aging. We 
adopt the definition of frail that is in the Older Americans Act in 
order to promote consistency with other OAA programs.
    Homeless: We adopt the definition of homeless that is in the 
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; that Act's definition of 
homeless has consistently been used by the SCSEP for data collection 
purposes. One commenter recommended that we adopt a definition of 
homeless contained in a bill pending in Congress; however, the 
Department determined that the more prudent course was to adopt a 
definition already in statute.
    Limited English Proficiency: A few commenters urged various 
definitions from sources such as those used by the Department of 
Education and the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). We adopt the 
definition of limited English proficiency (LEP) that is used by the 
Federal Interagency Working Group on Limited English Proficiency. The 
LEP Working Group was created at the request of Assistant Attorney 
General for Civil Rights and includes members representing more than 35 
federal agencies; the group's focus is to ensure that limited English 
proficient persons have meaningful access to federal and federally-
assisted programs. Its Web site, maintained by the U.S. Department of 
Justice, is https://www.lep.gov. ETA and the Department's Civil Rights 
Center adopted this definition for use in official guidance to the 
workforce system in 2004. That guidance may be viewed at https://
wdr.doleta.gov/directives/corr_doc.cfm?DOCN=1488. Use of this 
definition by the SCSEP will promote consistency within the workforce 
system.
    Low employment prospects: The Department interprets the statute's 
term ``low employment prospects'' to be essentially equivalent to the 
similar phrase which also appears in the statute, ``poor employment 
prospects.'' ``Poor employment prospects'' also appeared in the prior 
OAA Amendments and was defined in the prior SCSEP rule. The Department 
developed the definition of low employment prospects from the prior 
definition of poor employment prospects.
    Low literacy skills: A few commenters urged various definitions 
such as those used by the Department of Education and WIA. In an effort 
to maintain program consistency, the Department defines low literacy 
skills based on a definition of a very similar term, ``literacy skills 
deficient,'' which is already in use in the SCSEP through the Data 
Collection Handbook.
    Most-in-need: Most-in-need is a label for the core indicator that 
tracks ``the number of participating individuals described in 
subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii) or (b)(2) of section 518.'' Pub. L. 109-365 
Sec.  513(b)(1)(E).
    Persistent Unemployment: The Department defines persistent 
unemployment by reference to the unemployment rate for a locale, as a 
rate that is more than 20 percent higher than the national average for 
two of the last three years.
    Rural: We received suggestions about this definition that cited 
sources such as the Office of Management and Budget,the Administration 
on Aging, and the Economic Research Service at the Department of 
Agriculture. We have decided to align this definition of rural with 
that of the Rural Health Service at the U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services; this is also consistent with the approach taken by the 
Economic Research Service at the Department of Agriculture. This 
definition is the broadest one available. First, the definition of 
rural includes areas not designated as metropolitan statistical areas 
by the Census Bureau. Information on which locations have been 
designated as metropolitan by the Census Bureau is available on the 
Census Bureau's Web site at census.gov/population/www/estimates/
metrodef.html. To identify a particular Census tract, visit the Web 
page at ffiec.gov/geocode/default.htm and enter a street address. 
Second, rural also includes segments of metropolitan counties that have 
been assigned a Rural Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) code between four and 
ten. To determine whether a portion of a metropolitan county has been 
so classified, readers may consult the RUCA codes, which can currently 
be located at the Web site of the Economic Research Service of the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture,

[[Page 35836]]

ers.usda.gov/data/ruralurbancommutingareacodes/. Finally, Census tracts 
that are larger than 400 square miles, have a population density of 
less than 30 people per square mile, and have been assigned RUCA codes 
2 or 3, are also considered rural. Further information on the Rural 
Health Service's rural classification system, including a list of areas 
classified by the Service as rural, can be found at their Web site, 
ruralhealth.hrsa.gov/funding/eligibilitytestv2.asp. The University of 
Washington has created a zip-code-specific approximation of rural 
status which can be downloaded at depts.washington.edu/uwruca/
data.html.
    Severe disability: We adopt the definition of severe disability 
that is in the Older Americans Act.
    Severely limited employment prospects: The Department developed the 
definition of severely limited employment prospects to relate to the 
definition of low employment prospects; a person faces severely limited 
employment prospects when that person has more than one significant 
barrier to employment.
    Veteran: We define veteran by reference to the Jobs for Veterans 
Act, 38 U.S.C. 4215(a). The SCSEP has consistently used that statute to 
distinguish precisely which veterans qualify for SCSEP priority and 
thus it was a logical source of our definition. We note that under 
certain circumstances spouses of veterans qualify as veterans under the 
Jobs for Veterans Act.
    The following terms were defined in the prior SCSEP rule but have 
been modified:
    Disability: The only change to the definition of disability 
concerns the citation. The definition comes from the Older Americans 
Act, and the paragraph number to which the definition is assigned 
changed as a result of the 2006 OAA Amendments.
    National grantee: We modify the definition of National grantee by 
removing the word ``Federal'' as a modifier to the word ``public'' to 
be consistent with the 2006 OAA Amendments, see Pub. L. 109-365 Sec.  
506(g)(5), and by making various technical corrections.

Subpart G--Performance Accountability

What performance measures/indicators apply to SCSEP grantees? (Sec.  
641.700)
    The 2006 OAA Amendments separate SCSEP performance measures into 
two categories, core and additional. The Department and each grantee 
must agree upon goals for core indicator performance levels before the 
start of each program year. A grantee that fails to meet the agreed-
upon core performance levels, which may be adjusted as discussed below, 
is subject to corrective action. Additional indicators are not subject 
to goal-setting and are, therefore, not subject to corrective action. 
However, the statute does mandate that the Department annually publish 
each grantee's performance on the additional indicators.
    Section 513(a)(3)(b)(1) of the 2006 OAA Amendments lists the core 
indicators:
    1. Hours (in the aggregate) of community service employment;
    2. Entry into unsubsidized employment;
    3. Retention in unsubsidized employment for six months;
    4. Earnings;
    5. The number of eligible individuals served, including the number 
of participating individuals described in subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii) or 
(b)(2) of section 518.
    The Department received numerous comments about whether the fifth 
core indicator should be split into two indicators. Many commenters 
supported establishing two separate measures, with one measure for 
total persons served and one for ``the number of participating 
individuals described in subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii) or (b)(2) of section 
518.'' Respondents provided a variety of rationales for this position. 
For example, several respondents noted that this would be a better 
measure of services provided to those individuals with barriers to 
employment; one noted that this would ensure service to ``high barrier 
populations''; one noted that combining measures would not give an 
accurate depiction of the individuals being served; and one noted that 
two measures can be beneficial for effective program management.
    Several commenters expressed support for one combined measure, 
rather than two separate measures. These respondents also provided a 
range of rationales for their position. For example, one noted that 
grantees cannot control who enters the program and that many of the 
individuals that have attributes cited in the priority list cannot find 
unsubsidized employment in 27 months; one noted that one measure would 
promote more effective services and ensure services to those ``at great 
risk'' but falling outside the priority of service list; and one noted 
that, based on income eligibility requirements, all individuals 
eligible for SCSEP are effectively most-in-need and so a separate 
measure for most-in-need is not necessary.
    After considering this input, the Department has decided to divide 
the fifth core indicator into two separate core indicators: (1) The 
number of eligible individuals served, described in section 
641.710(a)(5), and (2) the number of participating individuals 
described in subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii) or (b)(2) of section 518 (i.e., 
most-in-need), described in section 641.710(a)(6)). This is consistent 
with current practice in which we have a separate measure for a 
narrower group of participants in need as well as with the 
recommendation of a majority of respondents who commented on this 
measure, and it more clearly tracks relevant program data than a 
combined indicator.
    The statute then lists the additional indicators:
    1. Retention in unsubsidized employment for one year;
    2. Satisfaction of the participants, employers, and their host 
agencies with their experiences and the services provided; and
    3. Any other indicators of performance that the Secretary 
determines to be appropriate to evaluate services and performance.

Pub. L. 109-365 Sec.  513(a)(3)(b)(2).
    An agreement to be evaluated on the core indicators of performance 
and to report information on the additional indicators of performance 
is a requirement for application for, and a condition of, all SCSEP 
grants. Pub. L. 109-365 Sec.  513(a)(3).
    The Department considered an additional indicator, SCSEP Placement. 
The SCSEP Placement indicator has tracked how many exiting participants 
were employed for 30 days within the first 90 days after program exit. 
Several stakeholders, however, argued against the need for doing so. 
Some expressed the view that the SCSEP has too many measures already 
and that the SCSEP should be evaluated on only the common measures, as 
is the case with other Department programs. Other commenters focused on 
the notion that the common measure ``entered employment'' indicator is 
sufficient to track placement and that the SCSEP placement rate is 
duplicative. The Department is persuaded that the potential benefit of 
tracking the SCSEP Placement measure does not outweigh the added burden 
on grantees. Accordingly, the SCSEP Placement indicator will no longer 
be required.
    Several commenters argued in favor of retaining the SCSEP Placement 
indicator. Any grantee is welcome to continue its use, as grantees may 
use

[[Page 35837]]

additional performance measures that assist them in managing their 
SCSEP project.
    We received some comments suggesting that the Department adopt 
various other additional indicators, such as a measure to record 
recruitment; and measures related to the unique aspects of SCSEP (i.e., 
community service and service to a specific population). Other 
respondents urged us not to adopt any more indicators. Although the 
statute allows the Department to establish ``[a]ny other indicators of 
performance that the Secretary determines to be appropriate to evaluate 
services and performance'' we choose not to establish any further 
indicators at this time. Again, this course was chosen because any 
potential benefits of additional reporting do not outweigh the costs of 
that reporting.
How are the performance indicators defined? (Sec.  641.710)
Core Indicators
    1. Hours (in the aggregate) of community service employment. Hours 
(in the aggregate) of community service employment compares the total 
number of hours of community service provided by each SCSEP grantee to 
the number of community service hours funded by the grant. Current 
practice is for SCSEP grantees to report the number of hours of 
community service; that is, the number of hours that participants 
worked at host agencies. In order to provide a meaningful way to assess 
and compare performance, however, it is necessary to transform the 
number of hours into a community service participation rate. The 
Department began computing such a rate during Program Year 2006. To 
calculate the rate, the Department takes the number of community 
service hours as reported by each grantee and divides that number by 
the total community service hours funded for the grantee, adjusted for 
minimum wage differences among the States and areas.
    The Department received a variety of comments on this indicator. A 
number of these comments expressed support for this performance 
indicator because it relates to the community service goal of the 
SCSEP, and because community service employment assignments are a 
unique and vital aspect of the SCSEP that is valuable to participants 
as well as to communities. Several commenters encouraged the Department 
in its new practice of transforming the raw data provided by grantees 
into a rate that can be the subject of a performance goal. A few 
respondents suggested definitions for this indicator; these comments 
included recommendations that the performance measure for hours of 
community service employment be determined by (1) comparing the number 
of community service hours provided to the potential number of 
community service hours based on the average current participants; and 
(2) dividing the actual number of community service hours completed by 
the potential number of community service hours that could be completed 
(Enrollee Wages and Fringe Benefits divided by the hourly community 
service cost). Finally, a commenter also suggested that participant 
training for computer skills and soft skills be counted as community 
service hours because of the importance of developing such skills in 
today's workforce. Soft skills are short-term pre-vocational services, 
including development of learning skills, communication skills, 
interviewing skills, punctuality, personal maintenance skills and 
professional conduct, to prepare individuals for unsubsidized 
employment.
    At this time, the Department has decided not to change to the way 
this indicator is currently calculated. While a few commenters 
suggested slight revisions to the current definition, the Department 
declines to adopt those suggestions at present. Though we acknowledge 
that computer and soft skills are important for many jobs in current 
employment market, the 2006 OAA Amendments define community service 
employment to mean part-time, temporary employment (the full definition 
is included in the definitions section of these regulations, Sec.  
641.140). Furthermore, we concur with those commenters that find value 
in data quantifying the hours worked by SCSEP participants in service 
to their communities.
    Accordingly, grantees will continue to report the raw number of 
hours of community service as they have in the past. The Department 
clarifies, however, that hours of paid participation in non-host agency 
training such as classroom training and on-the-job experience, are 
excluded from the hours of community service reported by grantees. 
Hours spent on such paid training are also excluded from the total 
number of community service hours funded (the denominator when the 
Department calculates the rate); excluding non-host agency paid 
training from both figures avoids penalizing grantees that provide such 
training to their participants.
    2. Entry into unsubsidized employment. The 2000 OAA Amendments 
defined placement into unsubsidized employment so that it measured how 
many exited participants had obtained paid employment for 30 days 
within the 90-day period following their program exit. Pub. L. 106-501 
Sec.  513(c)(2)(A). The 2006 OAA Amendments eliminate that statutory 
definition, and instead require the Department to define each of the 
indicators by regulation after consultation with stakeholders. To more 
fully align the SCSEP with the indicators required of other federally-
funded employment and training programs, the Department has decided to 
define this core indicator in the same manner as the common measures 
entered employment indicator. We note that while we did not receive 
many comments on this indicator, the input we did receive generally 
favored adoption of the common measures and alignment with WIA.
    TEGL 17-05, which explains ETA's common measures policy, describes 
entered employment as, ``[o]f those who are not employed at the date of 
participation: the number of participants who are employed in the first 
quarter after the exit quarter divided by the number of adult 
participants who exit during the quarter.'' Grantees have been 
reporting on this indicator already, and there will not be any change 
in their reporting at this time.
    3. Retention in unsubsidized employment for six months. As with 
entry into unsubsidized employment, the 2006 OAA Amendments eliminated 
the 2000 OAA Amendments' definition of six-month retention, and charged 
the Department with defining the indicators by regulation.
    The Department has decided to define retention in unsubsidized 
employment for six months in the same manner as the common measures 
employment retention measure; this approach is generally consistent 
with the few comments we received on this indicator. Using this 
definition will decrease the burden on grantees, as the Department 
previously required grantees to report on both the former statutory 
six-month indicator (measured 180 days after program exit) as well as 
the common measures employment retention measure. Grantees will no 
longer be required to conduct a follow-up 180 days after placement, as 
they have been doing to comply with the previous statutory retention 
indicator.
    TEGL 17-05 describes the common measures employment retention 
indicator as, ``[o]f those who are employed in the first quarter after 
the exit quarter: The number of adult participants who are employed in 
both the second and third quarters after the

[[Page 35838]]

exit quarter divided by the number of adult participants who exit 
during the quarter.'' Again, grantees have already been reporting on 
this indicator, and there will be no change to their reporting at this 
time.
    4. Earnings. When SCSEP regulations were last published in April 
2004, the earnings common measure compared the difference in earnings 
pre- versus post-program participation. The Department subsequently 
revised its earnings measure in TEGL 17-05 in response to concerns that 
focusing on the change in earnings provided a disincentive to serving 
people with previous work experience, especially those with higher pre-
program wages, and that in practice the measure was more likely to 
indicate participants' previous earnings history than a measure of 
program effectiveness. With the revision, the focus of the earnings 
measure shifted to post-program earnings. The Department implemented a 
new methodology for reporting the earnings measure, which looks at 
wages over a six month period following program exit (average 
earnings). SCSEP grantees have been reporting on the average earnings 
common measure for participants who entered the program on or after 
July 1, 2005, since the first quarter of Program Year 2006 and there 
will be no change to their reporting at this time.
    The Department received a small number of comments on the earnings 
measure. Some commenters recommended eliminating this measure; however, 
the 2006 OAA Amendments require an earnings measure so the Department 
does not have the discretion to eliminate it. We also received a 
comment encouraging the Department to calculate earnings based on wages 
earned at any time during a quarter (rather than a specific date), and 
a suggestion that earnings increase should be measured from entry in 
the program to the earnings at six months.
    In order to align with similar, federally-funded employment and 
training programs, the Department has determined that earnings will be 
defined in the same manner as the average earnings common measure. TEGL 
17-05 describes average earnings as, ``[o]f those adult participants 
who are employed in the first, second and third quarters after the exit 
quarter: The total earnings in the second quarter plus total earnings 
in the third quarter after the exit quarter divided by the number of 
adult participants who exit during the quarter.'' It is important to 
note that this measure looks only at those individuals who are included 
in the retention measure, so the earnings are a reflection of what 
participants who are still working are earning. Previous earnings 
measures counted program exiters who were not still employed, which had 
the effect of lowering the outcomes and distorted the outcomes of the 
measure. By including those who were not employed in the earnings 
measure, it was difficult to determine how much those who were employed 
were actually earning.
    A few respondents encouraged the Department to facilitate grantee 
access to unemployment insurance wage records, which would make it much 
easier to capture entered employment, retention, and earnings data. The 
Department is always interested in improving data collection methods, 
and we will continue to explore the possibility of access to 
unemployment insurance wage records as an option for future 
implementation.
    5. Number of eligible individuals served. The 2006 OAA Amendments 
list ``the number of eligible individuals served, including the number 
of participating individuals described in subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii) or 
(b)(2) of section 518'' as the fifth and final core indicator. As 
discussed above, the Department has decided it will continue its 
current practice of dividing this indicator into two measures to 
clearly track relevant program data and for ease of reporting.
    The first portion of this indicator, the number of eligible 
individuals served (also referred to as the service level) has been 
reported by SCSEP grantees for years, and there is no change in the 
reporting requirements as a result of the 2006 OAA Amendments. The 
number of eligible individuals served performance measure will continue 
to be calculated by comparing the total number of participants served 
to a grantee's authorized number of positions, adjusted for the 
differences in minimum wage among the States and other areas.
    6. Most-in-need. The second portion of the statutory fifth and 
final core indicator, ``the number of participating individuals 
described in subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii) or (b)(2) of section 518'' 
establishes the most-in-need indicator.
    The Department received numerous comments concerning the most-in-
need indicator. In addition to providing feedback on the question of 
whether to divide the fifth indicator into two measures, several 
respondents discussed the list of characteristics of those to whom a 
priority of service will be given. The statutory priority list 
contributes to the most-in-need list. However, to the extent that these 
comments focused on priority requirements, we have not incorporated the 
comments into this Interim Final Rule because the scope of this rule is 
limited to the performance measurement system. Non-performance measure 
changes to the SCSEP required by the 2006 OAA Amendments, such as the 
new priority characteristics, will be addressed in a forthcoming Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking.
    Subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii) of section 518 lists the factors relevant 
to requesting a waiver to the new 48-month limit on program 
participation. It states that a grantee may request an increased period 
of participation for individuals who have a severe disability; are 
frail or are age 75 or older; meet the eligibility requirements related 
to age for, but do not receive, benefits under Title II of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.); live in an area with persistent 
unemployment and are individuals with severely limited employment 
prospects; or have limited English proficiency or low literacy skills. 
Subsection (b)(2) of section 518 lists characteristics (other than age) 
of individuals who have priority for SCSEP services. Priority is to be 
given to individuals who: Have a disability; have limited English 
proficiency or low literacy skills; reside in a rural area; are 
veterans; have low employment prospects; have failed to find employment 
after utilizing services provided under title I of WIA; or are homeless 
or at risk for homelessness.
    The statute is written in such a way that a participant with any 
one characteristic from either the waiver list or the priority list 
will be included in the most-in-need performance measure. For ease of 
administration, the Department has consolidated these two lists into 
one list of most-in-need characteristics. Some characteristics, for 
example, low literacy skills, are listed in both subsection 
(a)(3)(B)(ii) and subsection (b)(2) of section 518; such 
characteristics are only listed once in the most-in-need list. One 
statutory description of a characteristic actually contains two 
characteristics (``are frail or are age 75 or older,'' Pub. L. 109-365 
Sec.  518 (a)(3)(B)(ii)(II)), and so those characteristics are listed 
separately here. Each of the thirteen characteristics on the most-in-
need list will be given the same weight.
    Because some characteristics, such as poor employment prospects, 
are shared by most SCSEP participants, all or nearly all participants 
may qualify as most-in-need. To distinguish among the level of 
grantees' efforts to enroll participants with additional serious 
barriers to employment, and to make the most-in-need measure a more 
effective assessment of grantees' compliance with statutory priorities, 
grantees will report

[[Page 35839]]

on each characteristic and the most-in-need measure will be an average 
of the total number of characteristics per participant served. For 
example, if a 70 year-old veteran with a severe disability who lives in 
a rural area enrolls in the SCSEP, that participant will be marked as 
possessing four of the most-in-need characteristics: Veteran, 
disability, severe disability, and rural resident. To restate, then, 
the Department will define most-in-need by counting the total number of 
the most-in-need characteristics for all participants and dividing by 
the number of participants served.
    Most-in-need is a core indicator and is, therefore, subject to 
goal-setting. However, the 2006 OAA Amendments significantly expanded 
the most-in-need list of characteristics. While the most-in-need list 
used to contain four characteristics (individuals over age 60 who have 
the greatest economic need, greatest social need, or poor employment 
history or prospects), the list now contains thirteen characteristics. 
Because there is not yet a body of performance data on the new 
characteristics, it is not possible to set rational goals for the first 
program year for this indicator. Accordingly, the Department will use 
Program Year 2007 as a baseline year so that grantees and the 
Department may collect sufficient data to set a meaningful goal for 
this measure for Program Year 2008. We intend that all grantees will be 
required to negotiate goals for and be held accountable to this measure 
in Program Year 2008.
    At the conclusion of Program Year 2007, the Department will be able 
to report on the average number of most-in-need characteristics per 
participant for each grantee, as well as the total number of 
participants exhibiting each characteristic.
Additional Indicators
    1. Retention in unsubsidized employment for one year. The 2006 OAA 
Amendments include retention in unsubsidized employment for one year as 
an additional indicator. This is a new indicator for the SCSEP.
    Many respondents commented on this measure. In terms of choosing 
the time at which to measure one-year retention: no one recommended 
measuring one-year retention during the 5th quarter after the exit 
quarter, a few commenters recommended the 365th day, and many 
commenters encouraged the Department to measure this indicator during 
the 4th quarter after the exit quarter. One commenter recommended 
measuring one-year retention during the fourth quarter but not later 
than the 365th day. Another commenter suggested this indicator be 
measured during the twelfth month after the date the unsubsidized 
employment began.
    Consistent with the majority of comments received on this question, 
the Department is defining this indicator to align with the WIA one-
year retention performance measure. ETA defined the WIA one-year 
retention measure in its WIA Annual Report, General Reporting 
Instructions, Revised 2006, as, ``[o]f those who are employed in the 
first quarter after the exit quarter: the number of participants who 
are employed in the fourth quarter after the exit quarter divided by 
the number of participants who exit during the quarter.'' This measure 
looks only at those individuals who are included in the entered 
unsubsidized employment indicator.
    By examining whether participants are employed in the fourth 
quarter after the quarter of exit, grantees will be focused on whether 
participants who entered unsubsidized employment are still employed 
approximately one calendar year after exiting the SCSEP. For example, 
if a participant exits during the first quarter of the calendar year 
(between January 1 and March 31), the fourth quarter after the exit 
quarter will be the first quarter of the next calendar year (January 1 
to March 31). Retention is measured at one year, only one quarter after 
measuring retention at six months, because the one-year retention 
measure has been determined by the Department to most accurately 
capture retention twelve months after program exit.
    The Department received many comments expressing the view that 
obtaining follow-up data one year after program exit will be a 
challenge. One commenter noted that while participants are generally 
grateful for the services provided through the SCSEP, participants 
sometimes feel ``a sort of infringement'' about providing follow-up 
information. One commenter noted that employers sometimes hesitate to 
release employment and wage information despite being provided with a 
release signed by the participant. One commenter noted that in her 
experience it is difficult to maintain participant contact more than 
six months after program exit; similarly, another commenter pointed out 
that securing follow-up information becomes more difficult the longer 
the participant has been exited from the SCSEP. Another commenter 
maintained that it may be difficult for participants who satisfy the 
new priority characteristics to remain employed for one year. One 
commenter argued that grantees should not be penalized if follow-up 
data is unobtainable; another contended that grantees should not be 
punished if a participant must exit the workforce due to failing health 
before one-year retention gets measured. Finally, one commenter 
suggested that the Department delay implementation of the one-year 
retention measure until the SCSEP gains access to Unemployment 
Insurance wage records.
    The Department recognizes that obtaining one-year retention data 
may prove to be a demanding task. However, the 2006 OAA Amendments 
require a one-year indicator, and the Department must follow the 
mandates of the statute. The Department remains available to provide 
technical assistance as grantees implement this new indicator. Indeed, 
it is our intention to share with grantees whatever information we can 
that will facilitate this data collection process. And, as stated with 
regard to the earnings measure, the Department has been exploring 
options for access to unemployment insurance wage records as an option 
for future implementation. Finally, note that we have no current 
intention of altering the exclusion policies relating to participants 
that must exit the program or the workforce due to extraordinary 
circumstances such as ill health. As listed in TEGL 17-05, the 
circumstances for excluding participants in the common measures 
calculations include institutionalization, health/medical issues for 
self or family, deceased, and called to active duty from the reserves.
    2. Satisfaction of the participants, employers, and their host 
agencies with their experiences and the services provided. The 2006 OAA 
Amendments continue the customer satisfaction indicator. The Department 
envisions no change in this reporting requirement at this time. 
Grantees will continue to track three distinct measures of customer 
satisfaction: one measure for participant satisfaction, one measure for 
employer satisfaction, and one measure for host agency satisfaction. 
Customer satisfaction for all three groups will continue to be 
determined using an established methodology.
    The Department received a handful of comments on this performance 
measure. Several commenters recommended that the Department maintain 
the current system because the information received is valuable and the 
system appears to be working satisfactorily. A small number of 
commenters suggested that the Department entirely eliminate customer 
satisfaction surveys or at least not use them as a performance measure. 
Several commenters suggested that customer satisfaction surveys are 
either too costly

[[Page 35840]]

to administer, do not add value to the program, or should be 
administered less frequently than every year. There was also a range of 
comments on related issues: A small number of commenters suggested that 
the Department not conduct the satisfaction surveys in Program Year 
2006 because the recent national grant competition would lead to data 
that is not useful; some respondents offered suggestions on how to 
improve the survey instrument such as convening focus groups to refine 
survey questions, shortening the surveys, and adding more questions to 
the surveys; and one commenter suggested that the Department, rather 
than the grantees, conduct the surveys of employers.
    As stated with regard to the other statutorily-mandated performance 
measures, it is not within the scope of the Department's discretion to 
eliminate the customer satisfaction indicator, and the surveys will be 
administered during Program Year 2006. There are, however, plans for a 
pilot project in 2007 to test the feasibility of the Department 
conducting the employer surveys. The Department will take other 
commenters' suggestions under advisement.
    To summarize, the Department will now be collecting data on eight 
performance indicators, six of which are core indicators, subject to 
goal-setting:
    Core Indicators:
    (1) Hours (in the aggregate) of community service employment;
    (2) Entry into unsubsidized employment (common measure);
    (3) Retention in unsubsidized employment for six months (common 
measure);
    (4) Earnings (common measure);
    (5) Number of eligible individuals served;
    (6) The number of most-in-need individuals served/number of 
participating individuals described in subsection (a)(3)(B)(ii) or 
(b)(2) of section 518 (second part of fifth statutory core indicator, 
treated here as separate indicator).
    Additional Indicators:
    (1) Retention in unsubsidized employment for one year;
    (2) Satisfaction of the participants, employers, and their host 
agencies with their experiences and the services provided.
    By using the SCSEP Performance and Results Quarterly Progress 
Report, or SPARQ, system, grantees only need to input the raw data, and 
the data management system will complete the performance measure 
calculations. Performance measure results may be viewed at virtually 
any time by producing a grantee or sub-grantee Quarterly Progress 
Report. Grantees are also provided with data quality reports which 
indicate the existence of any missing or impermissible data values.
How will the Department and grantees initially determine and then 
adjust expected levels of performance for the core performance 
measures? (Sec.  641.720)
    The Department and SCSEP grantees have been reaching agreement on 
performance levels for several years and the Department does not 
envision any change at this time to the process for reaching agreement. 
The performance levels will continue to be agreed upon before the 
beginning of each Program Year. The Department will continue to 
initially propose a baseline performance level, taking into 
consideration such things as grantees' past performance, the need for 
continuous improvement, and the statutory adjustment factors described 
in Sec.  641.720(b). A grantee may respond with data on either the 
statutory adjustment factors or other relevant dynamics to alter the 
proposed goals. At the conclusion of this process, the parties will 
form agreement on performance levels for the coming Program Year. A 
grantee may submit comments to the Department concerning the grantee's 
satisfaction with the negotiated levels; those comments will be made 
available for public review.
    Section 641.720(a)(5) implements another new provision in the 2006 
OAA Amendments which concerns making public the agreed-upon performance 
levels. Once all agreements have been reached, the Department will make 
available for public review the final expected levels of performance 
for each grantee, including any comments submitted by any grantee about 
the grantee's satisfaction with the agreed-upon levels.
    The Department received a few comments about the process of 
reaching agreement on the expected levels of performance, and on the 
goals themselves. A small number of respondents expressed general 
support for the current process, and a small number of commenters 
suggested that in the goal-setting process more weight should be given 
to grantee input. There were also comments suggesting that the same 
performance goals be established for all national grantees or that the 
Department make public the specific criteria and rationale used to 
justify different goals for each grantee.
    The Department elects to retain its current process of reaching 
agreement on performance goals as this process already allows for 
significant grantee input, and is an objective, data-driven process. W