State Self-Assessment Review and Report

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Part 308

RIN 0970-AB96

State Self-Assessment Review and Report

AGENCY: Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), ACF, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: These proposed regulations would implement a provision of the

Social Security Act added by the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which requires each

State to annually assess the performance of its own child support

enforcement program and to provide a report of the findings to the

Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

DATES: Consideration will be given to written comments received by

December 7, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Administration for Children and Families,

Department of Health and Human Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W.,

Washington D.C. 20447. Attention: Division of Policy and Planning,

Office of Child Support Enforcement. Comments will be available for

public inspection Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the

fourth floor of the Department's offices at the address mentioned

above.

You may also transmit written comments electronically via the

Internet. To transmit comments electronically, or download an

electronic version of the proposed rule, you should access the

Administration for Children and Families Welfare Reform Home Page at

``http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/hypernews/'' and follow the instructions

provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jan Rothstein, Division of Policy &

Planning, OCSE, telephone number: (202) 401-5073, fax: (202) 401-3444,

e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

State Self-Assessment Review and Report

Statutory Authority

These proposed regulations are published under the authority of the

Social Security Act (the Act), as amended by the Personal

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

104-193). Section 454(15)(A) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 654(15)(A)) contains

a requirement for each State to annually assess the performance of the

State's child support enforcement program under title IV-D of the Act

in accordance with standards specified by the Secretary, and to provide

a report of the findings to the Secretary.

These proposed regulations are also published under the general

authority of section 1102 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1302) authorizing the

Secretary to publish regulations necessary for the efficient

administration of the title IV-D program.

Background

Prior to PRWORA, Federal law specified that States that had been

audited and found not to be in substantial compliance with Federal

requirements were subject to a financial penalty of between 1 and 5

percent of the State's funding under the title IV-A program. These

audits were performed every 3 years. The penalty could be held in

abeyance for up to one year to allow States the opportunity to

implement corrective actions to remedy the program deficiency. At the

end of the corrective action period, a follow-up audit was conducted.

If the follow-up audit showed that the deficiency had been corrected,

the penalty was rescinded. Section 342(b) of PRWORA revised section

452(a)(4) of the Act, and

[[Page 55103]]

Federal audit requirements were changed to focus on data reliability

and to assess performance outcomes instead of determining compliance

with process steps.

At the same time, section 342(a) of PRWORA amended the Act by

adding a new section 454(15)(A) of the Act to require each State to

conduct an annual review of its Child Support Enforcement (IV-D)

program to determine if Federal requirements are being met and to

provide an annual report to the Secretary of DHHS on the findings. The

changes to sections 452 and 454(a)(15) mean that the Federal

government's audit responsibilities now focus primarily on results and

fiscal accountability while States are to focus on the responsibilities

for child support service delivery in accordance with Federal mandates.

The annual self-assessment's purpose is to give a State the opportunity

to assess whether it is meeting Federal requirements for providing

child support services and providing the best services possible to

those in need of them. It is to be used as a management tool, to help a

State evaluate its program and assess its performance. These self

reviews are not tied to fiscal sanctions. Financial penalties, like

incentive rewards, will be based on program results.

Section 454(15)(A) of the Act also requires the Secretary to

establish standards and procedures for the State to use in conducting

the annual review. These proposed rules convey the Secretary's

standards and procedures for the States' self-assessment reviews.

The requirements in this proposed rule would be effective

prospectively from the effective date of the final rule. The review

period for the first self-assessment would end no later than 12 months

after the effective date of the final regulations. Subsequent annual

review periods would end every 12 months thereafter. The first self-

assessment report would be due no later than six months after the end

of the review period and each 12-month review period thereafter. If a

State fails to submit a self-assessment report, the DHHS Office of

Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) would work with that State to try to

resolve any issues that might be preventing the State from submitting a

self-assessment report. However, if a State fails to make a good faith

effort to resolve any barriers and submit a self-assessment report, we

would begin taking the steps necessary to disapprove the State plan

pursuant to sections 452(a)(3) and 455(a) of the Act and sections

301.10 and 301.13 of this chapter.

In the development of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, OCSE used

as its starting point the objectives outlined in the OCSE strategic

plan, which was endorsed by the States on February 28, 1995. The

strategic plan is available at www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/new/

spwith.htm. The three goals in the strategic plan and their

corresponding objectives are as follows:

All children have parentage established--to increase

establishment of paternities, particularly those established within one

year of birth;

All children in IV-D cases have financial and medical

support orders--to increase the percentage of IV-D cases with orders

for financial support, and to increase the percentage of cases with

orders for medical support; and

All children in IV-D cases receive financial and medical

support from both parents--to increase the collection rate, to increase

the percentage of cases where health insurance coverage is obtained

after being ordered, to increase the percentage of cases with

appropriate and up-to-date support orders, and to make the process more

efficient and responsive.

This approach is useful because it guarantees that all States have

the same goals and objectives for their self-assessment reviews and

that those goals and objectives are all focused on improving the lot of

America's children.

OCSE also believes that the self-assessment process should not

duplicate Federal audits that will be conducted by the OCSE Division of

Audit (i.e., data reliability reviews, limited cost reviews and

administrative cost audits) and should focus on agreed-upon goals.

Similarly, the self-assessment reviews should not duplicate other types

of program reviews such as automated systems certification reviews.

Following the enactment of PRWORA and to ensure broad input, OCSE

consulted with a wide variety of program stakeholders to get

recommendations on how to proceed. These recommendations addressed: the

criteria to be covered in annual reports to the Secretary; the

methodology for reviewing the criteria; and an approach for reporting

the results of these reviews. OCSE considered these recommendations in

developing these proposed rules.

OCSE received suggestions on self-assessment reviews at national

and regional meetings, including the American Public Human Services

Association, formerly known as the American Public Welfare Association

(APWA) and the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA).

In addition, several child support advocacy groups informally provided

comments. Comments were also solicited from State IV-D directors and

incorporated as deemed appropriate.

In addition, OCSE contracted with BDM, Inc., a consulting group, to

survey existing self-assessment efforts in selected States and make

recommendations for developing and implementing self-assessment

reviews. OCSE also took these recommendations into consideration in the

development of these proposed rules.

On March 31, 1998, OCSE issued Action Transmittal-98-12 to provide

the States preliminary guidance on the self-assessment review process

pending publication of this proposed rule. This action transmittal:

provides a practical methodology for implementing the self-assessment

process, covers required and optional program compliance criteria,

presents the Federal role in the process as required by the statute,

and suggests a reporting format. OCSE has appointed Amy Guzierjka to an

Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) assignment from the State of

Massachusetts, to serve as the audit liaison to assist States in

complying with the self-assessment requirements. Ms. Guzierjka has

extensive experience in this area at the State level.

These proposed rules would promulgate the Secretary's requirements

for State self-assessment reviews and annual reports. We invite public

comment concerning the proposed standards and procedures required of

States in conducting the reviews and reporting to the Secretary.

Overview of the Self-Assessment Review

The self-assessment review process proposed in this rule would

consist of an annual State-conducted self-assessment of its IV-D

program, and annual reporting of the results to the Commissioner, OCSE

and Regional Offices as designees of the Secretary. Staff in the

Regional Offices will review the self-assessment reports and work with

the States if corrective action is necessary.

OCSE proposes that the State self-assessment review consist of

three categories: Required Program Compliance Criteria, Program

Direction, and Program Service Enhancements. The first category would

be mandatory for inclusion in a State's annual self-assessment review

and report. The second and third categories would be optional for

inclusion in a State's self-assessment review and report.

The Required Program Compliance category draws upon selected areas

of the child support program that have previously been covered by

Federal

[[Page 55104]]

audits and which are addressed in regulations in Parts 302 and 303.

These criteria represent the current program requirements that most

directly relate to the major child support functions and which must be

monitored to assess program performance. These criteria also bear a

direct correlation to the goals and objectives set forth in OCSE's

strategic plan and the 15 outcome measurements in that plan. These

criteria would represent the minimum that States would be required to

include in their self-assessment reviews and in their reports to the

Secretary. A State would be able to modify the review requirements by

imposing higher standards on itself or evaluating additional Federal or

State requirements; however, a State would be required to document its

review scope in its annual report. Nothing precludes States from

expanding their reviews to include other program areas. A State may

wish to expand the review to accommodate its specific management needs.

Again, we envision these reviews as serving as management tools for the

States. A State should feel free to modify them to best suit its

program needs.

Federal financial participation (FFP) would be available to

reimburse States for the cost of carrying out all three categories of

self-assessment. States may add additional optional information to the

information listed in categories 1, 2, and 3. FFP would also be

available for gathering and reporting this additional optional

information.

Federal Role

The Federal role in the self-assessment review process would be to

receive reports submitted pursuant to section 452(a)(4)(B) of the Act

and, as appropriate, provide to the States comments, recommendations

for additional or alternative corrective action, and provide any

technical assistance that a State may need. We propose that the Federal

involvement include, but not be limited to: approving IV-D State plan

amendments certifying that the State has a self-assessment review

process; providing review requirements, guidelines, instructions and

methodologies for the review to the State; responding to requests for

help from the State; providing interpretation of compliance standards;

developing continuing partnerships; reviewing and providing appropriate

comments on self-assessment reports; developing a self-assessment

review module; overseeing the implementation of the self-assessment

process in the States; periodically analyzing self-assessment reports

to identify `best practices' to be shared with other States and

providing comments and recommendations regarding the appropriateness of

proposed corrective action or alternative correction action.

The Office of Child Support Enforcement is publishing a separate

proposed rule regarding performance incentives and penalties. As

indicated in that rule, results from State self-assessments may serve

as a basis for more in-depth audits.

Description of Regulatory Provisions

We are proposing to implement the statutory requirement that a

State annually assess the performance of its IV-D program and submit a

report of the findings to the Secretary by adding a new Part 308,

``Annual State Self-Assessment Review and Report'' to existing rules in

Chapter III governing the child support enforcement program under title

IV-D of the Act.

Proposed section 308.0 sets the scope of the regulation and

specifies it is applicable only to the annual State self-assessment

review and report process.

Proposed section 308.1 provides the components of the self-

assessment implementation methodology that States must use including

organizational placement, sampling, scope of review, the review period,

and reporting.

Proposed section 308.1(a) addresses options for the organizational

placement of the self-assessment function. Ideally, the organizational

placement would be within the IV-D agency. This would enable the agency

to draw on the experience of IV-D staff who have the skills and

qualifications needed to analyze the program, an important element of a

meaningful self-assessment of the program. However, we recognize that

this is not always possible. Therefore, the proposed regulations allow

the self-assessment unit to be placed within the title IV-D agency's

umbrella agency, or another State agency. Alternatively, a State may

consider privatizing or contracting out the self-assessment function.

However, regardless of the location of this function, the IV-D agency

must maintain the responsibility and control for all reviews, review

findings and the content of the annual report.

Proposed section 308.1(b) specifies that a State must either review

all of its cases or conduct sampling which meets the criteria

specified. Due to the differences in administrative structures in

States, we believe it would be inappropriate for OCSE to prescribe a

single sampling formula for universal use by all States. Instead, under

proposed paragraph (b), a State would have discretion in designing its

own sampling methodologies that could be tailored to meet individual

State needs. However, under proposed paragraphs (b)(2) and (3), each

State must maintain a minimum confidence level of 90 percent for each

criterion, select statistically valid samples, and assure that there

are no portions of the IV-D case universe omitted from the sample

selection process.

The following checklist has been developed to provide guidance in

the form of a series of steps that should be taken during the

development and application of a sampling methodology. This checklist

is not intended as a definitive pronouncement or mandate from OCSE, but

only as a guide outlining a generic sampling approach. We provide it

for reference and guidance only.

1. Define the reason(s) for collecting and evaluating the data:

i.e. each State must evaluate its performance with regard to each

required program compliance criterion set forth in proposed section

308.2.

2. Plan the data collection method(s):

a. Identify the criteria to be evaluated (refer to proposed section

308.2).

b. Select a method of data collection/evaluation.

c. Establish a minimally acceptable level of performance.

d. Set a desired confidence level.

e. Choose a method of random selection (e.g., simple random

selection or systematic random selection).

3. Collect required data: After selecting the sample cases, obtain

the case files and/or the pertinent computer records or data elements.

4. Process the collected data: Evaluate each case for each

criterion to determine if the desired action was taken. Tabulate the

results of the sample or samples.

5. Analyze the data. Quantify results and statistically evaluate

the results obtained.

6. Present the results for each criterion in a tabular format and

provide a narrative explanation of the results obtained.

Proposed section 308.1(c) relates to the scope of the self-

assessment review. This paragraph would require a State to review all

required criteria articulated in section 308.2 on a yearly basis. We

considered accommodating some States who have not had the experience in

conducting these types of reviews by allowing reviews for some of the

criteria on a rotational basis rather than annual reviews on all

required criteria by all States. We decided that if we permitted

reviews of some of the required criteria on a rotational basis, the

results would lose meaning and not be comparable to prior years.

Therefore, we propose that

[[Page 55105]]

each State would be required to review all criteria under section 308.2

on a yearly basis.

Proposed section 308.1(d) would provide for a 12-month review

period, ending no later than 12 months after the effective date of this

final rule and each 12 month period thereafter. We believe the proposed

12-month review period is consistent with prior audit review periods

and allows enough time to evaluate the case processing timeframes in

Part 303. We also believe that it is not necessary for all States to

match each other's review periods, provided that the case samples

selected are from the period that will be reviewed and reflected in the

report. Self-assessment reviews can be conducted in one of two ways:

historically or incrementally. Using the historical approach, a State

would not begin its self-assessment review until the end of the period

to be reviewed.

Using the incremental approach, a State would select cases from

several periods during the review period and add the results to provide

a picture of performance for the entire period. The State should draw a

separate sample for each incremental review period. The incremental

approach would enable the State to spread its review effort over time

and make more efficient use of available resources because the sample

size could be smaller, while allowing the State to identify problem

areas and take corrective action prior to the end of the review period.

For those States who review their case samples incrementally, the cases

selected must be reviewed and evaluated for the actions required at the

beginning of the review period.

Proposed section 308.1(e) would address the contents of the annual

reports and require copies to be sent to the Commissioner, OCSE and

applicable Regional Offices. We propose that the State submit its

written report no later than 6 months after the end of the review

period. For example, if the review period ends September 30, 2000, the

first report would be due by March 31, 2001.

Proposed section 308.2 lists and provides descriptions of the

required program compliance criteria. In all cases, States must have

the required procedures specified in the regulations. In this section

we are also proposing to require States to use benchmarks for

performance that are identical to those that were required when

previous Federal audit standards were in place. The benchmarks for

determining the adequacy of performance are still, we believe,

appropriate under the new system of self-assessment reviews. States can

use the benchmarks to determine if corrective action is necessary if

they fail to meet one or more benchmarks. We propose that reviews of

closed cases should demonstrate that appropriate action was taken in 90

percent of the cases reviewed. We further propose that reviews of the

other required program criteria should show that appropriate action was

taken in 75 percent of the cases reviewed.

Proposed section 308.2(a) would require reviews of closed IV-D

cases to determine whether the case met one or more Federal case

closure criteria under section 303.11.

Proposed section 308.2(b)(1) would require the review of State

actions to establish paternity and support orders. A case would meet

the review requirement if an order for support was required and

established during the review period, notwithstanding the relevant

timeframes. Section 308.2(b)(2) addresses the necessary procedures to

follow when an order was required but not established during the review

period.

Proposed section 308.2(c) would require the review of State actions

to enforce child support orders. If income withholding was appropriate,

a case would meet the review requirement if it was received during the

review period, notwithstanding the mandatory timeframes. A review of

the enforcement of orders would include all cases in which an ongoing

income withholding is in place, as well as those cases in which new or

repeated enforcement actions were required during the review period.

Proposed section 308.2(d) describes reviews of the disbursement of

collections, requiring the implementation of a State Disbursement Unit

(SDU) effective October 1, 1998, or on October 1, 1999, for those

States in which the local courts are disbursing collections. This

review would include a determination of whether States are complying

with the 2-day requirement for disbursing certain collections. The

statute had two effective dates but we anticipate that final rulemaking

would be published after October 1, 1999, the date on which all States

have to have an SDU in effect and therefore, we have not included any

reference to the effective dates in the proposed rule.

Proposed section 308.2(e) would require reviews of securing and

enforcing medical support orders. This would include measuring whether

the requirements were met for: including a medical support provision in

all new orders; taking steps to determine whether reasonable health

insurance is available when health insurance is included in the order;

informing the Medicaid agency when coverage was obtained; determining

whether the custodial parent was informed of policy information when

coverage has been obtained; determining whether employers are informing

the State of lapses in coverage; and determining whether the State

transferred notice of the health care provision to a new employer when

a noncustodial parent changed employment. The forthcoming national

medical support notice has the potential to vastly improve establishing

and enforcing medical support orders. Once it becomes available, States

should be using it and reviewing for its application in appropriate

cases.

Proposed section 308.2(f) addresses the review and adjustment of

orders. A case would meet the review requirement if it was reviewed and

met the conditions for adjustment notwithstanding the applicable

timeframes. An examination of the review and adjustment criterion would

include reviews of assistance cases, review of cases where adjustments

were not necessary, quarterly repeated location efforts, notices to the

custodial and non-custodial parents informing them of their rights to

request reviews within 180 days of determining that a review should be

conducted, and reviews of whether both parties were given 30 days to

contest adjustments if the cost-of-living or automated methods had been

utilized.

Proposed section 308.2(g) addresses the interstate services. The

review criterion would include the initiating State's responsibility to

refer cases to the responding State within 20 days of determining that

the noncustodial parent is in another State pursuant to section

303.7(b)(2); providing responses to the responding State with requested

additional information within 30 calendar days of the request pursuant

to section 303.7(b)(4); notifying the responding State of new

information within 10 working days pursuant to section 303.7(b)(5); and

sending a request for review of a child support order within 20

calendar days after receiving a request for review and adjustment under

the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) pursuant to section

303.7(b)(6).

Reviews would also include determining compliance with

responsibilities of the responding State in interstate cases, including

central registry requirements for review of submitted documentation for

completeness, forwarding the case to the State Parent Locator Service

for locate services, acknowledgment of the receipt

[[Page 55106]]

of the case and request for missing documentation from the initiating

State, and whether the IV-D agency in the initiating State was informed

of where the case was sent for action. The review would also determine

whether the central registry responded to inquiries from other States

within 5 working days of receipt of a request for a case status review

pursuant to section 303.7(a)(4).

Section 308.2(b), (c), and (f) contain language that previously

appeared in former section 305.20(d) relative to certain missed

timeframes. As we stated in the preamble to the final rule revising

Federal audit regulations in child support (59 FR 66204), the State

should not be penalized when timeframes are missed in a case if a

successful result is achieved (paternity or a support order is

established, an order is adjusted, income is withheld, or a collection

is made), since these results are the main goals of the child support

enforcement program. We emphasize that all timeframes, including those

for paternity establishment, support order establishment, review and

adjustment, and income withholding, are still Federal requirements that

States must meet.

Other timeframes that would actually be reviewed for compliance

would include: 10 days to forward the case upon locating the non-

custodial parent in a different jurisdiction pursuant to section

303.7(c)(5) and (6); 2 business days to forward any support payments

collected to the initiating State pursuant to section 303.7(c)(7)(iv);

and 10 working days to notify the initiating State upon receipt of new

information pursuant to section 303.7(c)(9).

Proposed section 308.2(h) addresses the proposed timeframes

applicable to the expedited processes criterion pursuant to section

303.101(b)(2)(i) and in keeping with previous definitions of

substantial compliance in former section 305.20, we are proposing a

benchmark of 75 percent for the number of cases to be completed within

6 months and a benchmark of 90 percent for the number of cases to be

completed within one year. The 75 and 90 percent benchmark standards

would apply to the establishment of orders from the date of service of

process to the time of disposition.

Proposed section 308.3 lists and describes the proposed optional

program areas of review, which would include program direction and

program service enhancements. Proposed section 308.3(a) pertains to the

review of State program direction.

The first optional category, Program Direction, is envisioned as an

analysis of the relationships between case results relating to program

compliance areas, and performance and program outcome indicators. While

this review category is optional, by including the information, States

have the opportunity to demonstrate how they are trying to manage their

resources to achieve the best performance possible. This evaluation

should explain the data and how the State adjusted its resources and

processes to meet goals and improve performance. In this section,

States are encouraged to discuss new laws and enforcement techniques,

etc., that are contributing to increased performance. Barriers to

success, such as State statutes, may also be discussed in this section.

Proposed section 308.3(b) pertaining to the optional review of

State program service enhancements is envisioned as a report of

practices initiated by the State that are contributing to improving

program performance and customer service.

Examples would include improvement of client services through the

use of expanded office hours, kiosks, internet, and voice response

systems. This is an opportunity for a State to promote its programs and

innovative practices. Some examples of innovative activities that a

State may elect to discuss in the report include such things as: steps

taken to make the program more efficient and effective; efforts to

improve client services; demonstration projects testing creative new

ways of doing business; collaborative efforts being taken with partners

and customers; innovative practices which have resulted in improved

program performance; actions taken to improve public image; and access/

visitation projects initiated to improve non-custodial parents'

involvement with the children. A State should also discuss in this

review area whether the State has a process for timely dissemination of

applications for IV-D services in cases that are not receiving public

assistance, when requested, and child support program information to

recipients referred to the IV-D program, as required by section

303.2(a).

Executive Order 12866

Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be drafted to

ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set

forth in the Executive Order. The Department has determined that this

proposed rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. The

proposed changes in this rule contain the Secretary's standards for

State self-assessment reviews that largely replace previously required

mandatory Federal audits.

Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations

Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a proposed

policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's

conclusion is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact

assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. These

proposed regulations will not have an impact on family well-being as

defined in the legislation.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354) requires the

Federal government to anticipate and reduce the impact of regulations

and paperwork requirements on small entities. The Secretary certifies

that these proposed regulations will not have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small entities because the primary

impact of these regulations is on State governments.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all

Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) for review and approval any reporting or recordkeeping

requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. Interested parties

may comment to OMB on these reporting requirements as described below.

This NPRM contains reporting requirements in Part 308, which the

Department has submitted, to OMB for its review.

Section 308.1(e) contains a requirement that a State report the

results of annual self-assessment reviews to the appropriate OCSE

Regional Office and to the Commissioner of OCSE. The information

submitted must be sufficient to measure State compliance with Federal

requirements for expedited procedures and to determine whether the

program is in compliance with title IV-D requirements and case

processing timeframes. The results of the report will be disseminated

via ``best practices'' to other States and also be used to determine if

technical assistance is needed and the use of resources to meet goals.

The State plan preprint page for this requirement (page 2.15, Federal

and State Reviews and Audits) was approved by OMB July 7, 1997 under

OMB Number 0970-0017.

Respondents: State child support enforcement agencies of the 50

States,

[[Page 55107]]

the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

This information collection requirement will impose the estimated

total annual burden on the States described in the table below:

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

Average burden

Information collection Number of Responses per hours per Total annual

respondents respondent response burden hours

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

Section 308.1............................... 54 1 3,866 208,764

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

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) will consider

comments by the public on the proposed information collection in order

to evaluate the accuracy of ACF's estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information. Comments by the public on this

proposed collection of information will be considered in the following

areas:

Evaluating the accuracy of the ACF's estimate of the

burden of the proposed collection[s] of information, including the

validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and

Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on

those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate

automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology, e.g.,

permitting electronic submission of responses.

OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of

information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60

days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.

Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB

receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the

deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the proposed

regulations. Written comments to OMB for the proposed information

collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of

Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, 725 17th Street,

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration

for Children and Families.

Unfunded Mandates Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires

that a covered agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before

promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result

in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one

year. If a covered agency must prepare a budgetary impact statement,

section 205 further requires that it select the most cost-effective and

least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule

and is consistent with the statutory requirements. In addition, section

203 requires a plan for informing and advising any small government

that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the proposed rule.

We have determined that the proposed rule will not result in the

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate,

or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year.

Accordingly, we have not prepared a budgetary impact statement,

specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered, or

prepared a plan for informing and advising any significantly or

uniquely impacted small government.

Congressional Review

This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C.,

Chapter 8.

List of Subjects in Part 308

Auditing, Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.563, Child

Support Enforcement Program)

Dated: April 20, 1999.

Olivia A. Golden,

Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.

Approved: June 14, 1999.

Donna E. Shalala,

Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend 45

CFR Chapter III by adding a new part 308 as set forth below:

PART 308--ANNUAL STATE SELF-ASSESSMENT REVIEW AND REPORT

Sec.

308.0 Scope.

308.1 Self-assessment implementation methodology.

308.2 Required program compliance criteria.

308.3 Optional program areas of review.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 654 (15)(a) and 1302.

Sec. 308.0 Scope.

This part establishes standards and criteria for the State self-

assessment review and report process required under section 454(15)(A)

of the Act.

Sec. 308.1 Self-assessment implementation methodology.

(a) Organizational placement. A State must:

(1) Establish a self-assessment unit within the title IV-D agency,

another State agency, or within the umbrella agency containing the IV-D

agency; or

(2) Privatize the self-assessment functions provided that the IV-D

agency maintains responsibility for and control of the results produced

and contents of the annual report.

(b) Sampling. A State must either review all of its cases or

conduct sampling which meets the following conditions:

(1) The sampling methodology maintains a minimum confidence level

of 90 percent for each criterion;

(2) The State selects statistically valid samples of cases from the

IV-D program universe of cases; and

(3) The State establishes procedures for the design of samples and

assures that no portions of the IV-D case universe are omitted from the

sample selection process.

(c) Scope of review. A State must conduct an annual review covering

all of the required criteria in Sec. 308.2.

(d) Review period. Each review period must cover a 12-month period.

The first review period shall end no later than 12 months after the

effective date of the final rule, and subsequent reviews shall cover

each 12-month period thereafter.

(e) Reporting. (1) The State must provide a report of the results

of the self-assessment review to the appropriate OCSE Regional Office,

with a copy to the Commissioner of OCSE, no later than 6 months after

the end of the review period.

(2) The report must include, but is not limited to:

(i) An executive summary, including a summary of the mandatory

program criteria findings;

(ii) A description of optional program areas covered by the review;

(iii) A description of sampling methodology used, if applicable;

(iv) The results of the self-assessment reviews; and

(v) Any corrective actions proposed and/or taken.

[[Page 55108]]

Sec. 308.2 Required program compliance criteria.

(a) Case closure. (1) The State must have and use procedures for

case closure pursuant to Sec. 303.11 of this chapter in at least 90

percent of the closed cases reviewed.

(2) If a IV-D case was closed during the review period, the State

must determine whether the case met requirements pursuant to

Sec. 303.11 of this chapter.

(b) Establishment of paternity and support order. The State must

have and use procedures required in this paragraph in at least 75

percent of the cases reviewed.

(1) If an order for support is required and established during the

review period, the case meets the requirements, notwithstanding the

timeframes for: establishment of cases as specified in Sec. 303.2(b) of

this chapter; provision of services in interstate IV-D cases per

Sec. 303.7(a), (b), (c)(4) through (6), and (c) (8) and (9) of this

chapter; and location and support order establishment under

Secs. 303.3(b)(3) and (5), and 303.4(d) of this chapter.

(2) If an order was required, but not established during the review

period, the State must determine the last required action and determine

whether the action was taken within the appropriate timeframe. The

following is a list of possible last actions:

(i) Opening a case within 20 days pursuant to Sec. 303.2(b) of this

chapter;

(ii) If location activities are necessary, using all appropriate

sources within 75 days pursuant to Sec. 303.3(b)(3) of this chapter.

This includes all the following locate sources as appropriate:

custodial parent, Federal Parent Locator Service, U.S. Postal Service,

State employment security agency, employment data, Department of Motor

Vehicles, and credit bureaus;

(iii) Repeating location attempts quarterly and when new

information is received in accordance with Sec. 303.3(b)(5) of this

chapter;

(iv) Establishing an order or completing service of process

necessary to commence proceedings to establish a support order, or if

applicable, paternity, within 90 days of locating the non-custodial

parent, or documenting unsuccessful attempts to serve process in

accordance with the State's guidelines defining diligent efforts

pursuant to Secs. 303.3(c) and 303.4(d) of this chapter.

(c) Enforcement of orders. A State must have and use procedures

required under this paragraph in at least 75 percent of the cases

reviewed. Enforcement cases include cases in which ongoing income

withholding is in place as well as cases in which new or repeated

enforcement actions were required during the review period.

(1) If income withholding was appropriate and a withholding

collection was received during the last quarter of the review period

and the case was submitted for Federal and State income tax refund

offset, if appropriate, the case meets the requirements of

Sec. 303.6(c)(3) of this chapter, notwithstanding the timeframes for:

establishment of cases in Sec. 303.2(b) of this chapter; provision of

services in interstate IV-D cases under Sec. 303.7(a), (b), (c)(4)

through (6), and (c) (8) and (9) of this chapter; and location and

income withholding in Secs. 303.3(b)(3) and (5), and 303.100 of this

chapter.

(2) If income withholding was not appropriate, and an enforcement

collection was received during the review period, and the case was

submitted for Federal and State income tax refund offset, if

appropriate, then the case meets the requirements of Sec. 303.6(c)(3)

of this chapter, notwithstanding the timeframes for: establishment of

cases in Sec. 303.2(b) of this chapter; provision of services in

interstate IV-D cases under Sec. 303.7(a), (b), (c)(4) through (6) and

(c) (8) and (9) of this chapter; and location and enforcement of

support obligations in Secs. 303.3(b)(3) and (5), and 303.6 of this

chapter.

(3) If an order needed enforcement during the review period, but

income was not withheld or other collections were not received (when

income withholding could not be implemented), the State must determine

the last required action and determine whether the action was taken

within the appropriate timeframes. The following is a list of possible

last required actions:

(i) If location activities are necessary, using all appropriate

location sources within 75 days pursuant to Sec. 303.3(b)(3) of this

chapter. This includes, at a minimum, all of the following locate

sources as appropriate: custodial parent, Federal Parent Locator

Service (FPLS), State employment security agency, Department of motor

vehicles, and credit bureaus;

(ii) Repeating attempts to locate quarterly and when new

information is received pursuant to Sec. 303.3(b)(5) of this chapter;

(iii) If there is no immediate income withholding order, initiating

income withholding upon identifying a delinquency equal to one month's

arrears, in accordance with Sec. 303.100(c) of this chapter;

(iv) If immediate income withholding is ordered, sending a notice

to the employer within 15 calendar days of the date the support order

was entered, if the employer was known, or within 2 business days after

the date information regarding a newly hired employee is entered into

the State Directory of New Hires, whichever occurs later in accordance

with Sec. 303.100(e)(2) of this chapter and section 453A(g)(1) of the

Act;

(v) If income withholding is not appropriate or cannot be

implemented, taking an appropriate enforcement action (other than

Federal and State income tax refund offset), unless service of process

is necessary, within no more than 30 days of identifying a delinquency

or identifying the location the non-custodial parent, whichever occurs

later in accordance with Sec. 303.6(c)(2) of this chapter;

(vi) If income withholding is not appropriate or cannot be

implemented and service of process is needed, taking an appropriate

enforcement action (other than Federal and State income tax refund

offset), within no more than 60 days of identifying a delinquency or

locating the non-custodial parent, whichever occurs later, or

documenting unsuccessful attempts to serve process in accordance with

the State's guidelines for defining diligent efforts and

Sec. 303.6(c)(2)of this chapter;

(vii) If the case has arrearages, submitting the case for Federal

and State income tax refund offset during the review period, if

appropriate, in accordance with Sec. Sec. 303.72, 303.102 and

303.6(c)(3) of this chapter.

(d) Disbursement of collections. A State must have and use

procedures required in this paragraph in at least 75 percent of the

cases reviewed.

(1) States must implement a State Disbursement Unit by the

statutory deadline applicable to that State.

(2) States must determine whether disbursements of collections

received in the previous quarter were made within 2 business days after

receipt by the State Disbursement Unit from the employer or other

source of periodic income in accordance with section 457(a) of the Act,

if sufficient information identifying the payee is provided pursuant to

section 454B(c) of the Act.

(3) States may delay the distribution of collections toward

arrearages until resolution of any timely appeals with respect to such

arrearages pursuant to section 454B(c)(2) of the Act.

(e) Securing and enforcing medical support orders. A State must

have and use procedures required under this paragraph in at least 75

percent of the cases reviewed. A State must:

(1) Determine whether all support orders established during the

review period included medical support. If not,

[[Page 55109]]

determine whether medical support was included in the petition for

support to the court or administrative authority pursuant to

Sec. 466(a)(19) of the Act and Sec. 303.31(b)(1) of this chapter.

(2) If a requirement for medical support is included in the order,

determine whether steps were taken to determine if reasonable health

insurance was available pursuant to Sec. 303.31(a)(1) and (b)(7) of

this chapter.

(3) If reasonable health insurance was available, but not obtained,

determine whether steps were taken to enforce the order pursuant to

Sec. 303.31(b)(7) of this chapter.

(4) Determine whether the IV-D agency informed the Medicaid agency

that coverage had been obtained when health insurance was obtained

during the review period pursuant to Sec. 303.31(b)(6) of this chapter.

(5) Determine whether the custodial parent was provided with

information regarding the policy when health insurance was obtained

pursuant to Sec. 303.31(b)(5) of this chapter.

(6) Determine whether the State requested employers providing

health coverage to inform the State of lapses in coverage pursuant to

Sec. 303.31(b)(9) of this chapter.

(7) Determine whether the State transferred notice of the health

care provision to a new employer when a noncustodial parent was ordered

to provide health insurance coverage and changed employment and the new

employer provides health care coverage.

(f) Review and adjustment of orders. A State must have and use

procedures required under this paragraph in at least 75 percent of the

cases reviewed.

(1) If a case has been reviewed and meets the conditions for

adjustment under State laws and procedures and Sec. 303.8 of this

chapter and the order is adjusted or a determination is made as a

result of a review during the self-assessment period that an adjustment

is not needed in accordance with the State's guidelines for setting

child support awards, the State will be considered to have taken

appropriate action in that case, notwithstanding the timeframes for:

establishment of cases in Sec. 303.2(b) of this chapter; provision of

services in interstate IV-D cases under Sec. 303.7(a), (b), (c)(4)

through (6), and (c) (8) and (9) of this chapter; and location and

review and adjustment of support orders contained in Secs. 303.3(b)(3)

and (5), and 303.8 of this chapter.

(2) If a case has not been reviewed, the State must determine the

last required action and determine whether the action was taken within

the appropriate timeframe. The following is a list of possible last

actions:

(i) If locate is necessary to conduct a review, using all

appropriate location sources within 75 days of opening the case

pursuant to Sec. 303.3(b)(3) of this chapter. This includes all the

following locate sources as appropriate: custodial parent, FPLS, U.S.

Postal Service, State employment security agency, unemployment data,

Department of Motor Vehicles, and credit bureaus;

(ii) Repeating location attempts quarterly and when new information

is received pursuant to Sec. 303.3(b)(5) of this chapter;

(iii) Providing the custodial and non-custodial parents notices,

not less often then once every three years, informing them of their

right to request the State to review and, if appropriate, adjust the

order;

(iv) The first notice may be included in the order pursuant to

Sec. 466(a)(10)(C) of the Act. After the initial notice, the State must

periodically (at least once every 3 years) send notices to both

parents;

(v) Within 180 calendar days of receiving a request for a review or

locating the non-requesting parent, whichever occurs later, conducting

a review of the order and adjusting the order or determining that the

order should not be adjusted pursuant to Sec. 303.8(e) of this chapter;

(vi) If an adjustment was made during the review period using cost

of living or automated methods, giving both parties 30 days to contest

any adjustment to that support order pursuant to Sec. 466(a)(10)(A)(ii)

of the Act.

(g) Interstate services. A State must have and use procedures

required under this paragraph in at least 75 percent of the cases

reviewed. For all interstate cases requiring services during the review

period, determine the last required action and determine whether the

action was taken during the appropriate timeframe:

(1) Initiating interstate cases:

(i) Except when using the State's long-arm statute for establishing

paternity, within 20 calendar days of determining that the non-

custodial parent is in another State and, if appropriate, receipt of

any necessary information needed to process the case, referring that

case to the responding State's interstate central registry for action

pursuant to Sec. 303.7(b)(2) of this chapter.

(ii) If additional information is requested, providing the

responding State's central registry with requested additional

information within 30 calendar days of the request pursuant to

Sec. 303.7(b)(4) of this chapter.

(iii) Upon receipt of new information on a case, notifying the

responding State of that information within 10 working days pursuant to

Sec. 303.7(b)(5) of this chapter.

(iv) Within 20 calendar days after receiving a request for review

and adjustment) pursuant to Sec. 303.7(b)(6) of this chapter.

(2) Responding interstate cases:

(i) Within 10 working days of receipt of an interstate IV-D case,

the central registry reviewing submitted documentation for

completeness, forwarding the case to the State Parent Locator Service

(PLS) for locate or to the appropriate agency for processing,

acknowledging receipt of the case and requesting any missing

documentation from the initiating State, and informing the IV-D agency

in the initiating State where the case was sent for action, pursuant to

Sec. 303.7(a)(2) of this chapter.

(ii) The Central registry responding to inquiries from other States

within 5 working days of a receipt of request for case status review

pursuant to Sec. 303.7(a)(4) of this chapter.

(iii) Within 10 days of locating the non-custodial parent in a

different jurisdiction or State, forwarding the case in accordance with

Federal requirements pursuant to Sec. 303.7(c)(5) and (6) of this

chapter.

(iv) Within 2 business days of receipt of collections, forwarding

any support payments to the initiating State pursuant to

Sec. 454B(c)(1) of the Act.

(v) Within 10 working days of receipt of new information notifying

the initiating State of that new information pursuant to

Sec. 303.7(c)(9) of this chapter.

(h) Expedited processes. The State must have and use procedures

required under this paragraph in the amounts specified in this

paragraph in the cases reviewed for the expedited processes criterion.

(1) In IV-D cases needing support orders established, regardless of

whether paternity has been established, action to establish support

orders must be completed from the date of service of process to the

time of disposition within the following timeframes pursuant to

Sec. 303.101(b)(2)(i) of this chapter:

(i) 75 percent in 6 months; and

(ii) 90 percent in 12 months.

(2) States may count as a success for the 6-month standard cases

where the IV-D agency uses long-arm jurisdiction and disposition occurs

within 12 months of service of process on the alleged father or non-

custodial parent.

Sec. 308.3 Optional program areas of review.

(a) Program direction. A State may include a program direction

review in its self-assessment for the purpose of analyzing the

relationships between case results relating to program compliance

areas, and performance and

[[Page 55110]]

program outcome indicators. This review is an opportunity for States to

demonstrate how they are trying to manage their resources to achieve

the best performance possible. A program direction analysis could

describe the following:

(1) Initiatives that resulted in improved and achievable

performance accompanied with supporting data;

(2) Barriers impeding progress; and

(3) Efforts to improve performance.

(b) Program service enhancement. A State may include a program

service enhancement report in its self-assessment that describes

initiatives put into practice that improved program performance and

customer service. This is an opportunity for States to promote their

programs and innovative practices. Some examples of innovative

activities that States may elect to discuss in the report include:

(1) Steps taken to make the program more efficient and effective;

(2) Efforts to improve client services;

(3) Demonstration projects testing creative new ways of doing

business;

(4) Collaborative efforts being taken with partners and customers;

(5) Innovative practices which have resulted in improved program

performance;

(6) Actions taken to improve public image; and

(7) Access/visitation projects initiated to improve non-custodial

parents' involvement with the children.

(c) A State may provide any of the optional information in

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section in narrative form.

[FR Doc. 99-25901 Filed 10-7-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184-01-P