66700 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (a)—FY 2024 PROCESSING AND FILING FEE TABLE—Continued 

Document/action FY 2024 fee 

Application for Permit to Drill .................................................................................................................................. 12,155. 

* To record a mining claim or site location, this processing fee along with the initial maintenance fee and the one-time location fee required by 

statute (43 CFR part 3833) must be paid. 

* * * * * 

Laura Daniel-Davis, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land 

and Minerals Management. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21191 Filed 9–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4331–29–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Administration for Children and 

Families 

45 CFR Part 1355 and 1356 

RIN 0970–AC91 

Separate Licensing or Approval 

Standards for Relative or Kinship 

Foster Family Homes 

AGENCY: Children’s Bureau (CB); 

Administration on Children, Youth and 

Families (ACYF); Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF); 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule finalizes revisions to 

the definition of ‘‘foster family home’’ 

proposed on February 14, 2023 (here 

after referred to as the February 2023 

NPRM). Title IV–E agencies may choose 

to claim title IV–E federal financial 

participation (FFP) for the cost of foster 

care maintenance payments (FCMP) on 

behalf of an otherwise eligible child 

who is placed in a relative or kinship 

licensed or approved foster family home 

when the agency uses different licensing 

or approval standards for relative or 

kinship foster family homes and nonrelative/non-kinship foster family 

homes. In addition, the final rule 

requires title IV–E agencies to 

periodically review the amount of 

FCMPs to also ensure that the agency 

provides a licensed or approved relative 

or kinship foster family home the same 

amount of FCMP that would have been 

made if the child was placed in a nonrelated/non-kinship foster family home. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 27, 2023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathleen McHugh, Director, Policy 

Division, Children’s Bureau, (202) 205– 

8618. Telecommunications Relay users 

may dial 711 first. Email inquiries to 

cbcomments@acf.hhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Statutory Authority 

II. Background 

III. Overview of February 2023 NPRM 

Comments 

IV. Section-by-Section Responses to 

Comments 

V. Regulatory Process Matters 

VI. Tribal Consultation Statement 

I. Statutory Authority 

This rule is published under the 

authority granted to the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services (the 

Secretary) by section 1102 of the Social 

Security Act (the Act), 42 U.S.C. 1302. 

Section 1102 of the Act authorizes the 

Secretary to publish regulations, not 

inconsistent with the Act, as may be 

necessary for the efficient 

administration of the functions with 

which the Secretary is responsible 

under the Act. 

II. Background 

Each state and tribal licensing entity 

is responsible for establishing and 

maintaining licensing or approval 

standards for foster family homes. The 

Act requires only that such standards 

established by the state or tribe are 

reasonably in accord with 

recommended standards of national 

organizations for foster family homes 

related to admission policies, safety, 

sanitation, protection of civil rights, and 

use of the reasonable and prudent 

parenting standard (section 

471(a)(10)(A) of the Act), and that the 

caregiver fully meet federal 

requirements under section 471(a)(20) of 

the Act (concerning criminal 

background checks for all foster 

parents). The Act permits a title IV–E 

agency to waive non-safety-related 

licensing or approval standards for 

relative foster family homes on a caseby-case basis (section 471(a)(10)(D) of 

the Act). The Act also requires title IV– 

E agencies to provide a periodic review 

of licensing or approval standards and 

amounts paid as foster care maintenance 

payments (FCMP) and adoption 

assistance to assure their continuing 

appropriateness (section 471(a)(11) of 

the Act; 45 CFR 1356.21(m)). 

In 2000, ACF promulgated regulations 

that interpreted the Act to require that 

each state establish and apply its 

licensing or approval standards to all 

relative and non-relative foster family 

homes (45 CFR 1355.20). In the years 

following promulgation of the 2000 rule, 

research (Miller, Jennifer, ‘‘Creating a 

Kin-First Culture,’’ American Bar 

Association, July 1, 2017) concluded 

that children in foster care often do best 

when placed with relatives and kin 

because: (1) family connections are 

critical to healthy child development 

and a sense of belonging; (2) relative 

and kinship care helps to preserve 

children’s cultural identity and 

relationship to their community; and (3) 

children living with relatives experience 

fewer behavioral problems and higher 

placement stability rates compared to 

children living with non-relatives in 

foster care (88 FR 9414; (Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. (2022). Kinship 

care and the child welfare system. U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services, Administration for Children 

and Families, Children’s Bureau. 

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/fkinshi/); Generations United and 

National Indian Child Welfare 

Association. (2020). TOOLKIT— 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

Grandfamilies: Helping Children Thrive 

Through Connection to Family and 

Cultural Identity. www.gu.org and 

www.nicwa.org; (‘‘How can we prioritize 

kin in the home study and licensure 

process, and make placement with 

relatives the norm?’’ Casey Family 

Programs, 2020). Congress subsequently 

amended title IV–E of the Act to 

prioritize placements with and 

involvement of relatives when a child is 

removed from their home (sections 

471(a)(19) and (29) of the Act). 

Consistent with the research cited 

above and Congress’s amendments, ACF 

published the February 2023 NPRM 

proposing to allow a title IV–E agency 

to adopt one set of licensing or approval 

standards for all relative or kinship 

foster family homes that is different 

from the licensing or approval standards 

used for non-relative/non-kin foster 

family homes. ACF determined relative 

and kinship care is often the best option 

for children in foster care. However, 

current licensing standards may serve as 

a barrier to such placements (Miller, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66701 

‘‘Creating a Kin-First Culture,’’ July 1, 

2017; Children’s Defense Fund. 

Recommendations to Ensure Children’s 

Well-being through Support of Kinship 

Caregivers; (‘‘How can we prioritize kin 

in the home study and licensure 

process, and make placement with 

relatives the norm?’’ Casey Family 

Programs, 2020). For example, relatives 

and kin who provide care for a child in 

foster care may be denied a foster family 

home license or approval because they 

have not met strict licensing standards, 

including non-safety standards that the 

state may waive under current federal 

law. Thus, the relative or kin caregiver 

is not eligible for FCMPs. Another 

example is that many states require the 

same time-consuming and intensive 

foster parent training classes for 

relatives and kin as they do for nonrelatives. However, relative and kin 

caregivers may require a different level 

or type of foster parent training to take 

care of their kin, particularly when they 

already know the child for whom they 

are going to provide care. Non-relative 

foster parents may need training about 

how to integrate a child into a home 

with which the child is unfamiliar, or 

how to determine the child’s interests 

and skills. Similarly, in contrast with 

non-relative foster parents, who prepare 

for the arrival of children in foster care 

over months and years, relatives often 

receive a request to care for a child in 

emergency situations. In addition, 

relatives become licensed to care for a 

child who is a relative, not because they 

want to be a foster parent to children in 

foster care. Therefore, relative and kin 

licensing standards that allow for 

training that is condensed and more 

relevant to relative and kinship families 

along with the necessary essential 

agency support for foster parents could 

pave the way to remove barriers to 

licensing relatives Allowing title IV–E 

agencies to adopt separate standards for 

relatives and kin could remove some 

barriers to licensing and increase the 

number of licensed or approved relative 

or kinship foster family homes receiving 

services and financial resources (88 FR 

9413; Foster Family-based Treatment 

Association. The Kinship Treatment 

Foster Care Initiative Toolkit. 

Hackensack, NJ: Foster Family-Based 

Treatment Association, 2015, Page 14; 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

Child Welfare and Aging Programs: HHS 

Could Enhance Support for 

Grandparents and Other Relative 

Caregivers (GAO–20–434), July 2020)). 

In anticipation of a final rule, the 

February 2023 NPRM encouraged title 

IV–E agencies to consider adopting 

licensing or approval standards for all 

relative or kinship foster family homes 

that place as few burdens on such 

families as possible, such as standards 

that meet only the requirements in 

sections 471(a)(10)(A) and (a)(20) of the 

Act, and not additional standards the 

agency requires non-relative foster 

family homes to meet (88 FR 9413). As 

noted above, the Act requires only that 

such standards established by the state 

or tribe are reasonably in accord with 

recommended standards of national 

organizations for foster family homes 

related to admission policies, safety, 

sanitation, protection of civil rights, and 

use of the reasonable and prudent 

parenting standard (section 

471(a)(10)(A) of the Act), and that the 

caregiver fully meet federal 

requirements under section 471(a)(20) of 

the Act (concerning criminal 

background checks for all foster 

parents). Or, the agency could 

implement state or tribal licensing 

standards for all relative or kinship 

foster family homes to extend age limits 

for relative or kinship foster care 

providers; allow relative children to 

share sleeping spaces; disregard certain 

income, transportation, literacy, 

language, and education requirements; 

and remove disqualifications for nonchild-related past crimes such as issuing 

bad checks (Beltran and Redlich 

Epstein, Improving Foster Care 

Licensing Standards around the United 

States: Using Research Findings to 

Effect Change, February 2013; ‘‘How can 

we prioritize kin in the home study and 

licensure process, and make placement 

with relatives the norm?’’ Casey Family 

Programs, 2020.). 

Equity Impact 

This final rule advances the 

Administration’s priority of equity for 

those historically underserved and 

adversely affected by persistent poverty 

and inequality by providing a support to 

low-income prospective relative 

caregivers, many of whom are families 

of color, are from underserved rural 

areas, or are members of other 

communities in which long-term 

systemic factors such as poverty hamper 

families from making intergenerational 

progress. 

This final rule would especially 

provide a support to low-income 

prospective relative caregivers, many of 

whom are families of color, are from 

underserved rural areas, or are members 

of other communities in which longterm systemic factors such as poverty 

hamper families from making 

intergenerational progress. Ethnically 

and culturally diverse populations are 

disproportionately represented in 

relative and kinship families. ‘‘While 

Black or African American individuals 

represent just 13% of the U.S. 

population, they make up nearly a 

quarter of all children in households 

where a grandparent is responsible for 

the needs of the child’’ (Advisory 

Council to Support Grandparents 

Raising Grandchildren with Assistance 

from the HHS Administration for 

Community Living. Supporting 

Grandparents Raising Grandchildren 

(SGRG) Act, Initial Report to Congress. 

Washington, DC: Author, p. 4, 

November 16, 2021.). ‘‘Similarly, 

American Indian and Alaska Natives 

make up only 1.3% of the U.S. 

population, but their representation in 

grandparent-led households where the 

grandparent is providing for most of 

their needs, is more than double that 

rate (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). The 

available data on grandparents 

responsible for grandchildren suggests 

that underserved racial and ethnic 

populations are disproportionately 

taking responsibility for grandchildren.’’ 

(Advisory Council to Support 

Grandparents Raising Grandchildren 

with assistance from the HHS 

Administration for Community Living. 

[November 16, 2021]. Supporting 

Grandparents Raising Grandchildren 

(SGRG) Act, Initial Report to Congress. 

Washington, DC: Author, p. 12). 

Moreover, many individuals in these 

communities face simultaneous, 

multiple barriers when attempting to 

provide care to a relative who has been 

removed from their home. 

Policies that expand access to FCMPs 

can have an especially strong impact on 

underserved groups. Encouraging and 

removing barriers to kinship placement 

also is consistent with cultural norms of 

some underserved groups that 

traditionally rely more heavily on kin 

and family in times of need. For 

example: 

• Children age 3 to 5 who are the 

subject of a child maltreatment report in 

rural areas and those in households 

with incomes less than 50 percent of 

federal poverty level were more likely to 

be placed in informal kinship settings 

than similarly situated children in 

urban areas (Walsh, W.A. Informal 

Kinship Care Most Common Out-ofHome Placement After an Investigation 

of Child Maltreatment [Fact Sheet no. 

24]. Durham, NH: University of New 

Hampshire, Carsey Institute, 2013.). 

• African American families rely on 

extended family and other informal 

systems of care not only because these 

informal systems are cultural strengths, 

but because African American children 

historically were excluded from public 

and private sector child welfare 

programs and supports (U.S. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
66702 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Government Accountability Office, 

Child Welfare and Aging Programs: HHS 

Could Enhance Support for 

Grandparents and Other Relative 

Caregivers (GAO–20–434), July 2020). 

• Traditionally, grandparents and 

other family members assume integral 

roles in raising children within 

American Indian/Alaska Native 

communities. This type of extensive 

familial support system helps parents to 

pass on to their children the knowledge 

of customs, culture, and language 

essential to community survival and 

well-being (Capacity Building Center for 

Tribes. Engaging and Supporting Native 

Grandfamilies. 2022. https://

tribalinformationexchange.org/files/ 

products/GrandfamiliesResource

List2022.pdf; Lewis, Jordan & Boyd, Keri 

& Allen, James & Rasmus, Stacy & 

Henderson, Tammy. (2018). ‘‘We Raise 

our Grandchildren as our Own:’’ Alaska 

Native Grandparents Raising 

Grandchildren in Southwest Alaska. 

Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology. 

33. 10.1007/s10823–018–9350–z.). 

III. Overview of February 2023 NPRM 

Comments 

We received submissions from 207 

commenters about the February 2023 

NPRM. We reviewed and analyzed the 

public comments and considered them 

in finalizing this rule. The comments 

are available in the docket for this 

action on Regulations.gov. We received 

comments from 27 state and local 

government child welfare agencies; 10 

American Indian/Native American 

Tribes, tribal consortia and tribal 

organizations (‘‘tribes’’) and entities 

representing tribal interests; 72 national 

advocacy, public interest, philanthropic 

and professional organizations; 20 

service providers; 2 educational 

associations; 9 members of Congress; 

and 67 individuals. Almost all 

commenters supported issuing a final 

rule and many requested clarifications, 

which we address in the Section-bySection response to comments. 

Summary of Comments by Type 

Summary of Comments from 

Individuals. We heard from 67 

individuals, most of whom identified 

themselves as relatives and kin with 

lived experience as caregivers. A few of 

the individual commenters said they 

were non-related foster parents and 

other individuals not identifying as 

caregivers. We appreciate the 

willingness of relatives, kin, non-related 

caregivers, and other individuals to 

share personal details of their lived 

experiences to help inform this 

rulemaking. The relative and kin 

commenters, most of whom identified 

themselves as grandparents caring for 

their grandchildren, overwhelmingly 

expressed that their experiences caring 

for a child who cannot safely remain 

with their parent(s) resulted in the best 

possible outcomes for the child and was 

critical to keeping their families 

together. They also said that such a 

decision was not made without 

considerable hardship. Relative and kin 

commenters noted challenges with 

meeting foster family home licensing 

standards for reasons such as too many 

people were living in the home or there 

were not enough beds or rooms for the 

children. They also discussed incurring 

financial hardship partly because they 

were not receiving financial support 

from the title IV–E agency. The relative 

and kin commenters said that caring for 

a child resulted in them delaying 

retirement, depleting savings and 

retirement funds, incurring attorney 

fees, substantial child care costs, and in 

some cases, the commenters said they 

had to file for bankruptcy and 

experienced home foreclosure. 

Summary of Comments from Tribes 

and Entities Representing Tribal 

Interests. All ten of the tribes, tribal 

organizations, consortia and 

organizations representing tribal 

interests that commented on the 

February 2023 NPRM supported the 

proposal for separate licensing or 

approval standards for relatives and kin. 

They cited various reasons including 

the necessity of involving relatives and 

kin in the determination of what is in 

the best, short and long term interests of 

tribal children; the importance of 

relative and kin placements in 

maintaining an Indian child’s 

connection to their culture, heritage, 

and traditions and the importance of 

this connection to building 

relationships that will continue 

throughout the child’s lifetime; 

supporting tribal relative and kinship 

families with resources and services; 

removing barriers to families interested 

in providing relative foster care to tribal 

children; and because placements with 

relatives and kin support strong 

attachment and bonding that can 

generate profound and long lasting 

benefits to the child. Commenters also 

said that this proposal provides an 

opportunity for state and tribal title IV– 

E agencies to collaborate on the 

development of separate licensing or 

approval standards that align the needs 

of Indian children and families with 

varied lived experiences and from 

different socioeconomic backgrounds. 

For example, commenters mentioned 

that states and tribes could collaborate 

on training options that are culturally 

appropriate. Many tribal commenters 

also said that placement with relatives 

and kin when safely possible is 

consistent with the Indian Child 

Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 

emphasizing the importance of the 

extended family in Native American 

cultures where definitions of families 

are often broader and can include 

people who are not blood relatives but 

may be members of the same clan. 

Finally, commenters emphasized that 

ensuring relative and kinship foster 

family homes receive FCMPs equal to 

those provided to non-related foster 

family homes is necessary to support a 

child’s needs to grow up safe, nurtured, 

and strong. 

Summary of Comments from States 

and Local Government Agencies. Nearly 

every state child welfare agency that 

submitted a comment supported the 

proposal for separate licensing or 

approval standards for relatives and kin 

noting that it builds on the efforts many 

of the agencies have already 

implemented to establish a ‘‘kin-first’’ 

culture that prioritizes relative and kin 

placements. Nearly all state agencies 

that commented expressed an intention 

to adopt separate licensing or approval 

standards for relatives and kin once the 

rule is final. A few state and local 

government non-child welfare agencies 

also submitted comments in support of 

the proposal. 

Summary of Comments from National 

Advocacy, Public Interest, 

Philanthropic, Professional 

Organizations and Members of 

Congress. Seventy-two national 

advocacy, public interest, philanthropic 

and professional organizations 

supported the proposal because of the 

benefits it offers to children in out-ofhome care, as explained in greater detail 

in the paragraph below. Nine members 

of Congress supported issuing a final 

rule and several suggested that states 

work collaboratively with relatives/kin 

and organizations that support relative/ 

kinship caregivers on developing 

separate licensing standards for relatives 

and kin to ensure that the lived 

experiences of those caregivers are 

appropriately reflected in the new 

licensing standards. 

General Comments in Support of the 

February 2023 NPRM 

Summary of Comments on the 

Benefits of the Final Rule. 

Overwhelmingly, commenters believed 

that the separate licensing standards 

will ensure the safety, permanency and 

well-being of children in out-of-home 

care. For example, commenters said the 

proposal: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66703 

• Aligns with research that 

demonstrates the benefits and improved 

life-long outcomes for children placed 

with relatives and kin. For example, one 

commenter cited to research that 

children and young people in kinship 

care experience improved placement 

stability, higher levels of permanency, 

and decreased behavioral problems 

(Epstein, (2017) Kinship Care is Better 

for Children and Families). Another 

commenter cited to research that found 

children raised by family members (as 

compared to non-kin foster parents) 

have better behavioral and mental 

health outcomes, rate their situation 

more favorably, and are more likely to 

report feeling loved (Generations 

United. (2016). Children Thrive in 

Grandfamilies: www.grandfamilies.org/ 

Portals/0/16- 

ChildrenThriveinGrandfamilies.pdf6 

AARP. (2022). 

• Supports relative and kin 

placements because they are more 

trauma-responsive and help maintain 

and support family, school, community 

and cultural connections for children in 

foster care. 

• Increases the number of available 

out-of-home placement resources and 

prevents unnecessary group or child 

care institution (also known as 

congregate care) placements. 

• Allows title IV–E agencies to craft 

licensing or approval standards that 

align with tribal values, culture, and 

traditions which emphasize the 

importance of the extended family to 

keep children safe and support family 

healing. 

• Removes bureaucratic barriers to 

licensing and approving relative and 

kinship foster family homes by, for 

example, reducing the number of 

variances and waivers a title IV–E 

agency must individually approve, 

which may result in a more streamlined 

process and timely licensing or approval 

of relatives/kin. 

• Helps alleviate financial hardships 

experienced by relative and kinship 

foster families. For example, one of the 

commenters explained that in their 

state, a child living with a traditional 

foster parent receives between $544 to 

$656 per month, whereas a child living 

with an unlicensed relative caregiver 

only receives $388. This disparity 

directly affects the ability of relative 

caregivers to meet the needs of these 

children. Another commenter explained 

that in one state, seniors 65–84 who are 

below the median income earn, at most, 

$41,700 annually. If they take in two 

children or youth for half a year, their 

daily costs for caring for those children 

essentially drive their income to within 

$1,000 of the poverty line for a family 

of four ($27,756). Yet another 

commenter explains that in their state, 

fewer than 30 percent of relative foster 

family homes were licensed and the 

only financial resources available to 

these families were eligible for was nonneedy TANF, which is $654 per month 

to care for three children, compared to 

the FCMP of $2,016–$2,430 per month 

to care for three children (or higher for 

higher levels of need). 

• Additionally, almost all 

commenters that addressed the proposal 

in § 1356.21(m) stated that the amount 

paid to a licensed or approved relative 

or kinship foster family home should be 

the same amount that would have been 

made if the child was placed in a 

licensed or approved non-relative/kin 

foster family home. Almost all states 

that commented confirmed they already 

provide equitable FCMPs to relative and 

kinship foster family homes and nonrelated foster family homes. 

Comments About the Equity Impact of 

the Rule. Many commenters expressed 

that the proposal would expand access 

to FCMPs, which can have an especially 

strong impact on underserved groups 

because encouraging and removing 

barriers to kinship placement also is 

consistent with cultural norms of some 

underserved groups that traditionally 

rely more heavily on kin and family in 

times of need. Some commenters noted 

the final rule may generate 

opportunities for states to collaborate 

with groups disproportionately 

represented in foster care placements 

when developing separate licensing or 

approval standards. Several commenters 

expressed support for the February 2023 

NPRM stating that it will align with the 

racial, cultural, and ethnic norms of 

African American, American Indian and 

Alaskan Native children and families. A 

few commenters emphasized that the 

rule may also benefit youth who 

identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, 

transgender, queer, and intersex 

(LGBTQI+), and who are often placed in 

institutional or congregate care. One 

commenter pointed out that for 

LGBTQI+ youth, delaying or denying 

their placement with the people who 

know and love them because their kin 

cannot meet licensure standards denies 

the youth a critical lifeline. 

Comments Not in Support of the 

February 2023 NPRM 

Less than a dozen individual 

commenters did not support allowing 

separate licensing standards for relative 

and kinship foster family homes. A few 

individuals expressed concerns that 

standards for relative and kinship 

placements are already too minimal, 

and that this would impact the children 

placed with them, creating the potential 

for placement disruption and repeated 

trauma. Rather, they suggested the 

requirements for relative placements 

should increase instead of decrease 

because relatives and kin are often 

unprepared for the kinds of trauma 

children and youth who are in foster 

care have experienced. In addition, a 

few commenters who did not support 

the proposal expressed the view that it 

is the duty of title IV–E agencies to 

ensure that each child is provided with 

a safe and loving foster home, regardless 

of the caregiver’s connection to the 

child and that if a relative is taking in 

a child, the relative should meet the 

same standards as other licensed or 

approved and paid foster parents. We 

address these comments in section IV 

below. 

Recommendations for Separate 

Licensing Standards for Relative and 

Kinship Foster Family Homes 

Many commenters from advocacy, 

public interest, and professional 

associations expressed agreement with 

ACF’s recommendations that separate 

licensing or approval standards for 

relatives and kin only include the 

requirements in the Act. Specifically, 

those commenters agree that for relative 

and kinship licensing standards, title 

IV–E agencies should not prohibit 

licensing due to crimes committed 

beyond those enumerated in section 

471(a)(20) of the Act. A couple of 

commenters noted that in some states, 

licensing or approval standards prohibit 

foster parents from becoming licensed 

or approved due to convictions for 

crimes that extend beyond those 

required by the Act, such as 

misdemeanors that may have occurred 

in the relative’s or kin’s youth. 

Comments Outside the Scope of the 

Regulation 

We received several comments 

outside the scope of this regulation, and 

therefore, we are unable to address most 

of those comments. These types of 

comments included: specific individual 

scenarios related to eligibility to receive 

FCMPs, payment or licensing issues; 

informal kinship care involving 

children who are not under the 

placement and care responsibility of the 

title IV–E agency; recommendations for 

access and availability of specific 

kinship services; questions about 

licensing procedures for relatives that 

want to care for both related and nonrelated children; interstate placements; 

application of additional nondiscrimination procedures; questions 

about how the requirements in section 

471(a)(10) of the Act would apply to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
66704 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

separate licensing standards and the 

ACF National Model Standards; 

recommendations for developing model 

standards; implementation of 

retrospective analysis and data 

collection using regulatory outcome 

measures; implementation and financial 

challenges for county administered 

states; and de-linking eligibility for title 

IV–E FCMPs from the 1996 Aid to 

Families with Dependent Children 

income and eligibility standards in 

section 472 of the Act. However, we will 

address the comments raised on 

claiming title IV–E FCMPs before all 

title IV–E requirements for foster family 

homes are met in the Section-by-Section 

Response to Comments so we can clarify 

the requirements. 

IV. Section-by-Section Responses to 

Comments 

We respond to the comments we 

received in response to the February 

2023 NPRM in this section-by-section 

discussion. 

Section 1355.20 Definitions 

The definition of ‘‘foster family 

home’’ no longer contains ‘‘[f]oster 

family homes that are approved must be 

held to the same standards as foster 

family homes that are licensed,’’ and 

‘‘the term may include group homes, 

agency-operated boarding homes or 

other facilities licensed or approved for 

the purpose of providing foster care by 

the state or tribal agency responsible for 

approval or licensing of such facilities.’’ 

The definition now includes: ‘‘Agencies 

may establish one set of foster family 

home licensing or approval standards 

for all relative or kinship foster family 

homes that are different from the set of 

standards used to license or approve all 

non-relative foster family homes.’’ 

We did not receive any specific 

recommendations for revisions to the 

definition of foster family home, 

therefore, we are not making any 

substantive changes to the proposal. We 

are, however, making a technical 

correction to the second sentence of the 

definition to add the terminology ‘‘or 

approval’’ for consistency with the rest 

of the paragraph. The regulation text 

would read as follows: ‘‘The licensing or 

approval authority must be a state 

authority in the state in which the foster 

family home is located, a tribal 

authority with respect to a foster family 

home on or near an Indian Reservation, 

or a tribal authority of a tribal title IV– 

E agency with respect to a foster family 

home in the tribal title IV–E agency’s 

service area.’’ 

As described earlier, we received very 

few comments that did not support the 

proposal, and numerous comments in 

support of the revisions to the definition 

of foster family home to allow for 

separate licensing and approval 

standards for relatives and kin from 

non-relatives/kin. In addition, there 

were commenters who provided 

suggestions and recommendations for 

changes to regulations that are outside 

the scope of this proposal, but we 

address them here. 

Comment: A few commenters 

expressed concern that states would 

develop separate licensing standards for 

relatives and kin that will impose more 

requirements than for non-relatives and 

non-kin standards. They requested 

explicit language that kinship licensing 

standards cannot be more stringent or 

demanding than non-relative foster 

family licensing. 

Response: This is not the intent of the 

proposal as we fully explained in the 

preamble to the February 2023 NPRM. 

However, foster family home licensing 

and approval standards are determined 

by states and tribes. ACF does not have 

authority to mandate standards beyond 

what is required by the Act. 

Comment: Many of the commenters 

recommended expanding the definition 

of relative and kin to include 

individuals related to a child by tribal 

custom. They explained that tribal 

custom often defines who is considered 

a relative in tribal communities and 

many relatives and kin already have 

existing relationships established with 

their relative children. Some 

commenters recommended a broader 

expansion of the definition of relative 

and kin to include individuals who may 

not have a relationship with the child 

but may have strong relationships 

established with the child’s family. 

Response: We would like to clarify 

that ACF did not propose a new 

definition of relative or kin. As stated in 

the February 2023 NPRM, title IV–E 

agencies have discretion to define 

‘‘relative’’ and ‘‘kin’’ when determining 

to whom they will apply the relative 

licensing and approval standards. We 

encourage agencies to define relative 

and kin in a way that is inclusive of 

tribal custom and adopt a broad 

definition of relative and kin for 

purposes of licensing and approval 

standards. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that the rule would newly 

require full licensure for relative and 

kin placements by including language 

that ‘‘anything less than full licensure or 

approval is insufficient for meeting Title 

IV–E eligibility requirements’’ and the 

ability to seek reimbursement for foster 

care maintenance payments. A few 

commenters expressed the opposite 

concern that the standards for relative 

and kinship placements are already too 

minimal. 

Response: We would like to clarify 

that it is not a new requirement for any 

foster parent to be fully licensed or 

approved in order for an otherwise 

eligible child who is placed with that 

foster parent to meet title IV–E 

eligibility requirements. Full licensure 

or approval is already required in the 

regulatory definition of ‘‘foster family 

home’’ and the February 2023 NPRM 

did not propose to amend it. 

Comment: The same commenters 

suggested the requirements for relative 

placements should increase instead of 

decrease because relatives and kin are 

often unprepared for the kinds of 

trauma children and youth who are in 

foster care have experienced and that 

this would impact the children placed 

with them, creating the potential for 

placement disruption and repeated 

trauma. 

Response: As we explained in section 

II above and in the NPRM at 88 FR 9414, 

research demonstrates that children 

living with relatives experience higher 

placement stability rates compared to 

children living with non-relatives in 

foster care. Further, the vast majority of 

commenters agree that relative and kin 

placements are more trauma-responsive 

and help maintain and support family, 

school, community and cultural 

connections for children in foster care. 

Comment: A few commenters who 

did not support the proposal expressed 

the view that it is the duty of title IV– 

E agencies to ensure that each child is 

provided with a safe and loving foster 

home, regardless of the caregiver’s 

connection to the child and that if a 

relative is taking in a child, the relative 

should meet the same standards as other 

licensed or approved and paid foster 

parents. 

Response: We agree that in order to 

receive federal foster care maintenance 

payments for title IV–E eligible 

children, title IV–E agencies must 

ensure that all licensed or approved 

foster family homes meet the same 

safety requirements in sections 

471(a)(10) and (20) of the Act. 

Comment: Many commenters 

requested that ACF clarify when title 

IV–E agencies can begin to claim FFP 

for FCMPs made on behalf of children 

placed in relative foster family homes 

that are pursuing licensing or approval 

under separate standards. The 

commenters suggested that ACF allow a 

title IV–E agency to adopt separate 

licensing or approval standards wherein 

the agency may begin claiming FFP for 

children placed with relatives and kin, 

often in emergency circumstances, once 

in-state criminal background checks 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66705 

show that the applicant does not have 

a relevant felony conviction and the 

fingerprint background check of the 

national criminal database has been 

initiated. 

Response: While the suggestions are 

outside the scope of the February 2023 

NPRM, we would like to clarify that title 

IV–E agencies may claim foster care 

maintenance payment costs from the 

first day of the child’s placement in the 

month in which all title IV–E eligibility 

criteria are met. However, in accordance 

with the statute: (1) anything less than 

full licensure or approval is insufficient 

for meeting title IV–E eligibility 

requirements as the foster family home 

must be fully licensed or approved as 

meeting the standards the agency 

establishes in accordance with the 

definition of ‘‘foster family home’’ and; 

(2) title IV–E FCMPs can be claimed for 

an eligible child only for the days that 

the foster parents’ criminal records 

check have been completed and the 

records reveal that the parents did not 

commit any prohibited felonies in 

section 471(a)(20)(A)(i) and (ii) of the 

Act. (See the Children’s Bureau Child 

Welfare Policy Manual section 8.4F, Q/ 

A #38). 

Section 1356.21(m) Review of Payments 

and Licensing Standards 

Section 1356.21(m) requires that 

during a title IV–E agency’s periodic 

review of FCMPs and licensing 

standards as required in 471(a)(11) of 

the Act, the agency must also review the 

amount paid to a licensed or approved 

relative or kinship foster family home to 

ensure it is the same amount that would 

have been paid if the child was placed 

in a licensed or approved non-relative 

foster family home. As described earlier, 

we received numerous comments 

supporting equal FCMPs to licensed or 

approved relative and kinship foster 

family homes and non-relative/kin 

foster family homes and are therefore 

not making any changes in the final 

rule. 

V. Regulatory Process Matters 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health, and safety 

effects; distributive impacts; and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 is 

supplemental to, and reaffirms the 

principles, structures, and definitions 

governing regulatory review as 

established in Executive Order 12866, 

emphasizing the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, of 

reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, 

and of promoting flexibility. This rule 

meets the criteria for a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866 and subject to OMB review. 

Based on ACF’s estimates of the likely 

costs associated with this rule, OMB 

designated this rule as a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866, as amended by 

Executive Order 14094. The estimated 

cost and transfer impacts of this 

regulatory proposal are provided below 

(see the sections titled ‘‘Federal cost 

estimate with implementation of this 

final rule’’ and ‘‘Estimated costs of this 

final rule to title IV–E agencies’’). 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

(see 5 U.S.C. 605(b) as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act) requires federal agencies 

to determine, to the extent feasible, a 

rule’s impact on small entities, explore 

regulatory options for reducing any 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of such entities, and explain 

their regulatory approach. This rule 

does not affect small entities because it 

is applicable only to state and tribal title 

IV–E agencies. Therefore, a regulatory 

flexibility analysis is not required for 

this rule. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4) was 

enacted to avoid imposing unfunded 

federal mandates on state, local, and 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector. That threshold level is currently 

approximately $177 million. This rule 

does not contain mandates that would 

impose spending costs on state, local, or 

tribal governments in the aggregate, or 

on the private sector, in excess of the 

threshold. 

Assessment of Federal Regulations and 

Policies on Families 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act of 2000 requires federal agencies to 

determine whether a policy or 

regulation may negatively affect family 

well-being. If the agency determines a 

policy or regulation negatively affects 

family well-being, then the agency must 

prepare an impact assessment 

addressing seven criteria specified in 

the law. This regulation does not 

impose requirements on states or 

families. This regulation will not have 

any impact on the autonomy or integrity 

of the family as an institution. 

Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132 prohibits an 

agency from publishing any rule that 

has federalism implications if the rule 

either imposes substantial direct 

compliance costs on State and local 

governments and is not required by 

statute, or the rule preempts State law, 

unless the agency meets the 

consultation and funding requirements 

of section 6 of the Executive Order. This 

rule does not have federalism impact as 

defined in the Executive Order. Shortly 

after publication of the NPRM, we held 

a briefing session with states and tribes 

and any other interested partners on the 

contents of the NPRM. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13) seeks to minimize 

government-imposed burden from 

information collections on the public. In 

keeping with the notion that 

government information is a valuable 

asset, it also is intended to improve the 

practical utility, quality, and clarity of 

information collected, maintained, and 

disclosed. 

The Paperwork Reduction Act defines 

‘‘information’’ as any statement or 

estimate of fact or opinion, regardless of 

form or format, whether numerical, 

graphic, or narrative form, and whether 

oral or maintained on paper, electronic, 

or other media (5 CFR 1320.3(h)). This 

includes requests for information to be 

sent to the government, such as forms, 

written reports and surveys, 

recordkeeping requirements, and thirdparty or public disclosures (5 CFR 

1320.3(c)). There is no burden to the 

Federal government or to title IV–E 

agencies as a result of this final 

regulation. First, it is optional for a title 

IV–E agency to develop separate 

licensing standards for relative and 

kinship foster family homes. If the 

agency elects to do so, there are no new 

reporting requirements. Second, title 

IV–E agencies are already required by 

section 471(a)(11) of the Act to conduct 

periodic reviews of the rates and 

standards related to FCMPs. Therefore, 

the final rule does not impose any new 

reporting requirements. Finally, title IV– 

E agencies were required to make 

changes consistent with Division E, 

Title VII of Public Law 115–123, the 

Family First Prevention Services Act. 

Therefore, the technical change will 

bring federal regulations up to date with 

title IV–E of the Act and does not 

impose any new reporting requirements. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
66706 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Annualized Cost to the Federal 

Government 

Total Projections to Implement Final 

Rule. The estimate for the final rule was 

derived using fiscal year (FY) 2019 data 

from the Adoption and Foster Care 

Analysis and Reporting System 

(AFCARS) on title IV–E relative foster 

family home placements and FY 2019 

claiming data from the Form CB–496 

‘‘Title IV–E Programs Quarterly 

Financial Report (Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, Guardianship Assistance, 

Prevention Services and Kinship 

Navigator Programs).’’ We did not use 

FY 2020 or 2021 data from AFCARS 

because such data would likely reflect 

anomalies due to the COVID–19 public 

health emergency period. 

ACF estimates that, as a result of this 

final rule, there will be annual increases 

in the number of title IV–E relative 

foster family home placements and 

annual increases in federal costs for 

FCMPs and administration. ACF 

estimates that the final regulation will 

cost the federal government $28,753,988 

in title IV–E FFP for FCMPs and 

administration, the first year after the 

rule becomes final and $3.085 billion 

over a total of 10 years. 

Assumptions: ACF made several 

assumptions when calculating the cost 

of FCMPs and administrative costs for 

this final rule. 

• First, we anticipate that without 

implementation of the final rule, the 

annual caseload growth rate (i.e., the 

increase in title IV–E relative and nonrelative foster family home placements) 

will be one percent, and the annual title 

IV–E claiming growth factor will be two 

percent. We retain this same annual two 

percent claiming growth factor in 

estimating the FFP to implement the 

final rule because relative and nonrelative foster family homes receive the 

same amount of title IV–E FCMPs. 

• Second, we assume a varied 

implementation rate of placements in 

title IV–E eligible relative and kinship 

foster family homes that are licensed 

and approved under separate standards. 

The estimate assumes a slow rate of 

change because agencies may not 

immediately decide to implement new 

or revised relative foster family home 

licensing or approval standards. In 

addition, states and tribes vary on 

whether policy, regulation or statutory 

change must precede such changes. 

• Finally, the title IV–E participation 

rate for relative foster family home 

placements was 27.6 percent in FY 

2019. Conversely, the title IV–E 

participation rate for other foster care 

placements was 47.7 percent in FY 

2019. We assume that this percentage 

will increase for relative and kin foster 

family home placements over time as a 

result of the final rule because it allows 

different licensing or approval standards 

for relative and kin and non-relative 

foster family home placements to 

mitigate barriers that relatives and kin 

would otherwise face. We also assume 

that the difference in the title IV–E 

participation rate of relatives and nonrelatives is almost entirely due to the 

use of the same licensing or approval 

standard for both relative and nonrelative foster family home placements. 

We anticipate incremental changes in 

the title IV–E participation rate for 

relative and kinship foster family home 

placements over a total of 10 years, and 

that by year 10, this rate would increase 

to 41.7 percent. 

Comment: One commenter disagreed 

with the way ACF determined the rate 

at which kinship foster family 

placements would increase under the 

proposed rule and the growth rate 

factor. 

Response: We made no changes to the 

annualized cost to the Federal 

government in the final rule. As 

described in the Assumptions, the 

growth rate factor we used to identify 

projected caseload over the ten-year 

estimate period consists of two separate 

factors. The first factor is the overall rate 

of change for relative and non-relative 

placements in title IV–E eligible foster 

care children in care, for which we 

reviewed caseload data for past periods. 

The second factor is the extent to which 

relative and non-relative foster care 

placements are determined as title IV– 

E eligible. To the extent that title IV–E 

agencies implement separate standards 

in the final rule, the eligibility rate for 

relative home placements will increase 

in each year based on the expected 

implementation level. We projected the 

implementation level based on our 

experiences with the implementation 

for other program changes. 

Comment: One commenter pointed 

out that the proposal does not consider 

in its analysis how adoption of a 

kinship licensing standard would 

potentially shift caseloads and costs 

from informal care paid through federal 

Temporary Aid for Needy Families 

(TANF) funding (via TANF child-only 

cases) to formal care paid through state 

and federal matching FCMPs via IV–E 

funding. The commenter requested that 

ACF assess these fiscal impacts in its 

final rulemaking. 

Response: The cost analysis prepared 

for the February 2023 NPRM addresses 

costs under the title IV–E foster care 

program. We also note that while the 

TANF program does, to some extent, 

allow use of funds for payment of foster 

care maintenance payments for a child 

in foster care when placed with a 

relative, those funds are provided 

through a block grant that would not be 

reduced if some such cases were no 

longer being paid through TANF funds. 

Therefore, the rule would not result in 

a cost impact for the TANF program. 

Average title IV–E FCMP and 

administrative costs per child. To 

determine the FY 2019 average FFP cost 

per child, we divided the total number 

of children in foster care in FY 2019 

receiving title IV–E maintenance 

payments (170,446) by the total FFP 

claimed on the Form CB–496 for this 

time period. This resulted in an average 

title IV–E FCMP cost of $9,240 per 

child; and an average title IV–E 

administrative cost of $12,907 (this is 

the baseline FFP). We used the annual 

average per child costs to calculate the 

FFP that would be claimed over a total 

of 10 years with and without 

implementation of the rule. We made an 

assumption that 15 percent of the 

increased relative placement title IV–E 

caseload in each year would have 

already been subject to title IV–E 

claiming for administrative cost 

purposes (without the rule) based on 

current law that allows these costs for 

the period specified in the law, up to 12 

months, that an application for 

licensure is pending (see section 

472(i)(1)(A) of the Act). 

Federal cost estimates without 

implementation of the rule. 

Line 1. Estimates of the number of 

title IV–E relative foster family home 

placements. As of September 30, 2019, 

there were 36,953 title IV–E relative 

foster family home placements. 

Applying our assumptions, on line 1 on 

the table below, we display the annual 

increases in title IV–E relative 

placements without implementation of 

the rule for 5 different years, beginning 

with FY 2023 and ending with FY 2032. 

Lines 2 through 5. Estimates of FFP 

for title IV–E relative foster family home 

placements. To determine increases in 

the annual FCMP and administrative 

costs of title IV–E relative foster family 

home placements, we multiplied the 

average annual federal cost per child 

(lines 2 and 3) by the annual number of 

title IV–E relative foster home 

placements on line 1. On the table 

below, line 4 displays the increased 

FCMP costs and line 5 displays 

increased administrative costs for 5 

different years beginning with 2023 and 

ending with 2032. The baseline FCMP 

costs for 2019 is $9,240 × 36,953 = 

$341,462,572. The baseline 

administrative costs for 2019 is $12,907 

× 36,953 = $476,934,437. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66707 

Federal cost estimate with 

implementation of this final rule. 

Lines 6 and 7. Number of title IV–E 

relative foster family home placements. 

On line 6 of the table below, we 

estimate the annual increases in title 

IV–E relative foster family home 

placements as a result of this final rule. 

We used a caseload growth rate of 5 

percent in year 1, 15 percent in year 2, 

25 percent in year 3, 45 percent in year 

5. By year 10, this implementation rate 

is expected to reach 70 percent based on 

our assumptions described earlier. On 

line 7 of the table below, we determined 

the annual number of new title IV–E 

relative foster family home placements 

as a result of the regulation. To calculate 

the annual number of new title IV–E 

relative foster family home placements 

due to implementation of the final rule, 

we subtracted the projected caseload 

without application of the final rule on 

line 1 from the projected caseload of the 

rule on line 6. For example, in 2023 

there would be 1,392 new title IV–E 

relative foster family home placements: 

38,714¥37,323 = 1,392. 

Lines 8 through 10. Annual federal 

costs of title IV–E relative foster family 

home placements. Lines 8 and 9 display 

the annual increases in FCMPs and 

administrative costs for the new title IV– 

E relative foster family home 

placements (on line 6) resulting from 

this final rule. To determine the annual 

federal cost of the NPRM on lines 8 and 

9, we multiplied the annual number of 

new title IV–E relative foster family 

home placements on line 6 by the 

average child costs for FCMPs and 

administration on lines 2 and 3. This 

information is displayed for 5 different 

years beginning with 2023 and ending 

with 2032. For example, on line 8, the 

cost in 2023 for FCMPs is approximately 

$13,117,787 (1,392 children × $9,425 

average FCMP). Line 10 displays the 

annual incremental federal costs of this 

final rule. 

2019 

Baseline 

2023 

(Year 1) 

2024 

(Year 2) 

2025 

(Year 3) 

2027 

(Year 5) 

2032 

(Year 10) 

Ten year 

total cost 

Estimates without regulatory changes 

1. Number of title IV–E relative placements @ 1% growth .............................. 36,953 37,323 37,696 38,073 38,838 40,819 ............................

2. Avg. title IV–E FCMP FFP claim per 

child @ 2% claiming growth factor ........ $9,240 $9,425 $9,614 $9,806 $10,202 $11,264 ............................

3. Avg. title IV–E Administrative cost FFP 

claim per child @ 2% claiming growth 

factor ...................................................... $12,907 $13,165 $13,428 $13,696 $14,250 $15,733 ............................

4. FCMP cost ............................................ $341,462,572 $351,774,691 $362,398575 $373,343,289 $396,233,652 $459,790,346 $4,036,424,435 

5. Administrative cost ................................ $476,934,437 $491,337,785 $506,176,589 $521,463,509 $553,435,395 $642,207,572 $5,637,835,507 

Estimated FFP with regulatory changes 

2019 2023 

(Year 1) 

2024 

(Year 2) 

2025 

(Year 3) 

2027 

(Year 5) 

2032 

(Year 10) 

Ten year 

total cost 

6. Number of title IV–E relative placement 

@ varied caseload growth rates ........... 36,953 38,714 41,849 45,042 51,609 61,680 ............................

7. Total annual increase in title IV–E relative placements .................................... ........................ 1,392 4,153 6,970 12,771 20,861 ............................

8. Annual increase in FCMP costs ........... ........................ $13,117,787 $39,926,838 $68,344,565 $130,295,804 $234,976,401 $1,304,789,018 

9. Increase in administrative costs ........... ........................ $15,636,201 $50,233,323 $89,758,368 $175,938,591 $324,690,283 $1,780,051,762 

10. Total incremental increase in FFP ...... ........................ $28,753,988 $90,160,161 $158,102,933 $306,234,395 $559,666,684 $3,084,840,780 

Title IV–E agency estimates with regulatory changes 

2019 2023 2024 2025 2027 

(Year 5) 

2032 

(Year 10) 

Ten year 

total cost 

11. Maintenance Portion—Incremental 

Non-Federal Share (Using FY 2019 

Avg. FMAP rate of 56.61%) .................. ........................ $10,054,421 $30,602,817 $52,384,220 $99,868,132 $180,102,915 $1,000,084,711 

12. Administration Portion—Incremental 

Non-Federal Share (50% FFP) ............. ........................ $15,636,201 $50,233,323 $89,758,368 $175,938,591 $324,960,283 $1,780,051,762 

13. Total Incremental Increase in NonFederal Share ........................................ ........................ $25,690,622 $80,836,140 $142,142,587 $275,806,723 $504,793,199 $2,780,136,473 

Estimated costs of this final rule to 

title IV–E agencies. Title IV–E agencies 

may claim reimbursement for the 

federal cost of FCMPs and 

administrative costs, and the title IV–E 

agency pays its share with state or tribal 

funds. Line 11 displays the agency’s 

estimated FCMP costs and line 12 

displays the estimated agency costs for 

administration. Line 13 displays the 

total incremental increase in cost for the 

state/tribal share. This information is 

displayed for 5 different years beginning 

with 2023 and ending with 2032. The 

estimates provided are calculated using 

the national average federal medical 

assistance percentage (FMAP) rate of 

56.61 percent for FY 2019 and an 

administrative cost FFP rate of 50 

percent. This proposal is optional; 

therefore, agencies are not required to 

incur any costs. 

Accounting Statement 

From a society-wide perspective, 

many of the effects estimated above are 

transfers. We did not receive any 

comments on the estimation of the 

portion that represents new resource use 

attributable to the proposed rule. As 

shown in the table below, for this final 

rule the full amounts are categorized as 

transfers—from either the federal 

government or Title IV–E agencies to 

Title IV–E participants. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
66708 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 

Category Primary estimate 

(millions) 

Units 

Year dollars Discount rate 

(%) 

Period covered 

(years) 

Federal Budget Transfers (annualized) ................................... $439 2019 7 10 

362 2019 3 10 

From/To ................................................................................... From: Federal government To: Title IV–E participants 

Other Transfers (annualized) ................................................... 395 2019 7 10 

326 2023 3 10 

From/To ................................................................................... From: Title IV–E agencies To: Title IV–E participants 

V. Tribal Consultation Statement 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments, requires agencies to 

consult with Indian tribes when 

regulations have substantial direct 

effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes and 

either impose substantial direct 

compliance costs on tribes or preempt 

state law. Similarly, ACF’s Tribal 

Consultation Policy says that 

consultation is triggered for a new rule 

adoption that significantly affects tribes, 

meaning the new rule adoption has 

substantial direct effects on one on more 

Indian tribes, on the amount or duration 

of ACF program funding, on the 

delivery of ACF programs or services to 

one or more Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. This 

final rule does not meet either standard 

for consultation. Rather, it provides 

tribal title IV–E agencies an option for 

implementing separate licensing or 

approval standards for relative and 

kinship foster family homes. 

Accordingly, a tribal title IV–E agency 

can adopt separate licensing or approval 

standards for relative or kinship foster 

family homes but is not required to do 

so. Shortly after publication of the 

NPRM, we held a briefing session with 

title IV–E agencies and any other 

interested partners on the contents of 

the NPRM. In developing this final rule, 

we considered comments submitted by 

Indian tribes, tribal organizations and 

consortia, and organizations that 

represent tribal interests. 

Jeff Hild, Acting Assistant Secretary of 

the Administration for Children and 

Families, approved this document on, 

2023. 

List of Subjects 

45 CFR Part 1355 

Administrative costs, Adoption 

Assistance, Child welfare, Fiscal 

requirements (title IV–E), Grant 

programs—social programs, Statewide 

information systems, Adoption and 

foster care, Child welfare, Grant 

programs—social programs. 

45 CFR Part 1356 

Adoption and foster care, Child 

welfare, Grant programs—social 

programs. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Program Number 93.658, Foster Care 

Maintenance; 93.659, Adoption Assistance; 

93.645, Child Welfare Services—State 

Grants). 

Dated: September 22, 2023. 

Xavier Becerra, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, ACF amends 45 CFR parts 

1355 and 1356 as follows: 

PART 1355—GENERAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1355 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 

670 et seq.: 42 U.S.C. 1302. 

■ 2. In § 1355.20 amend paragraph (a) 

by revising the definition of ‘‘Foster 

family home’’ to read as follows: 

§ 1355.20 Definitions. 

(a) * * * 

Foster family home means, for the 

purpose of title IV–E eligibility, the 

home of an individual or family 

licensed or approved as meeting the 

standards established by the licensing or 

approval authority(ies), that provides 

24-hour out-of-home care for children. 

The licensing or approval authority 

must be a state authority in the state in 

which the foster family home is located, 

a tribal authority with respect to a foster 

family home on or near an Indian 

Reservation, or a tribal authority of a 

tribal title IV–E agency with respect to 

a foster family home in the tribal title 

IV–E agency’s service area. Agencies 

may establish one set of foster family 

home licensing or approval standards 

for all relative or kinship foster family 

homes that are different from the set of 

standards used to license or approve all 

non-relative foster family homes. 

Anything less than full licensure or 

approval is insufficient for meeting title 

IV–E eligibility requirements. Title IV– 

E agencies may, however, claim title IV– 

E reimbursement during the period of 

time between the date a prospective 

foster family home satisfies all 

requirements for licensure or approval 

and the date the actual license is issued, 

not to exceed 60 days. 

* * * * * 

PART 1356—REQUIREMENTS 

APPLICABLE TO TITLE IV–E 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 1356 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 

670 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1302. 

■ 4. Amend § 1356.21 by revising 

paragraphs (m)(1) and (2), and adding 

paragraph (m)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 1356.21 Foster care maintenance 

payments program implementation 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(1) The amount of the payments made 

for foster care maintenance to assure 

their continued appropriateness, and 

that the amount made to a licensed or 

approved relative or kinship foster 

family home is the same as the amount 

that would have been made if the child 

was placed in a licensed or approved 

non-relative foster family home; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 187 / Thursday, September 28, 2023 / Rules and Regulations 66709 

(2) The amount of the payments made 

for adoption assistance to assure their 

continued appropriateness; and 

(3) The licensing or approval 

standards for child care institutions and 

foster family homes. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–21081 Filed 9–27–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4184–73–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1