`[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 100789-100810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29081]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Parts 302, 303, 304, and 309

RIN 0970-AD00


Employment and Training Services for Noncustodial Parents in the 
Child Support Program

AGENCY: Office of Child Support Services (OCSS), Administration for 
Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services 
(HHS or the Department).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In an effort to make the child support program more effective, 
OCSS (or the Office) issues this final rule to allow State and Tribal 
child support agencies the option to use Federal financial 
participation (FFP) available under title IV-D of the Social Security 
Act to provide the following employment and training services to 
eligible noncustodial parents: job search assistance; job readiness 
training; job development and job placement services; skills 
assessments; job retention services; work supports; and occupational 
training and other skills training directly related to employment.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 13, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chad Edinger, Program Specialist, OCSS 
Division of Regional Operations, at mail to: [email protected] or 
(303) 844-1213. Telecommunications Relay users may dial 711 first.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Statutory Authority

    This rule is published under the authority granted to the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services 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 to the efficient administration of the functions with 
which the Secretary is responsible under the Act.
    This rule is also authorized by sections 452(a)(1) and 454(13) of 
the Act (42 U.S.C. 652(a)(1) and 654(13)). Section 452(a)(1) of the Act 
expressly delegates authority to the Secretary's designee requiring the 
designee to ``establish such standards for State programs for locating 
noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, and obtaining child 
support . . . as he

[[Page 100790]]

determines to be necessary to assure that such programs will be 
effective.'' Section 454 of the Act establishes requirements that 
States must include in their title IV-D \1\ State plans, the costs of 
which are eligible for FFP under section 455 of the Act (42 U.S.C. 
655). Specifically, section 454(13) of the Act provides the Secretary 
with delegated authority to require the State's title IV-D plan to 
``provide that the State will comply with such other requirements and 
standards as the Secretary determines to be necessary to the 
establishment of an effective program for locating noncustodial 
parents, establishing paternity, obtaining support orders, and 
collecting support payments . . . .'' State plans may be updated at any 
time and a State would submit updates to their State plan at the time 
of electing to provide employment and training services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Sections 451-469B of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 651-
669b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule is further published in accordance with section 455(f) of 
the Act (42 U.S.C. 655(f)) which authorizes the Secretary to make child 
support funding available to Tribes and Tribal organizations operating 
child support programs and to issue regulations establishing 
requirements for Tribal child support programs.
    The rulemaking is also consistent with section 451 of the Act, 
which authorizes Federal funding to States for enforcing support 
obligations, obtaining child support payments, and assuring that 
assistance in obtaining support is available to all children.

Background

    The purpose of this rule is to allow State and Tribal child support 
agencies the option to use FFP under title IV-D of the Act to provide 
certain optional and nonduplicative employment and training services 
for eligible noncustodial parents in the child support program.
    In 1975, Congress established the child support program under title 
IV-D of the Social Security Act (Pub. L. 93-647) to provide funding to 
States for effective enforcement of child support obligations. The 
child support program is administered at the Federal level by the OCSS 
and functions in all States and over 60 Tribes.\2\ The program has 
evolved over the past 50 years and has been guided by the changing 
needs of families, by Federal legislation, and by research and data 
that contribute to OCSS's understanding of the standards and 
requirements necessary to establish an effective child support program. 
Today the program is focused on delivering child support services that 
improve the financial support of children, by collecting and 
facilitating consistent child support payments based on the 
noncustodial parents' ability to pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Throughout this final rule, States include the 50 States, 
the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Families and labor market opportunities have fundamentally changed 
since 1975. The percentage of children who need child support services 
has increased and the ability of noncustodial parents to pay child 
support has declined.\3\ In calendar year 2021, 40 percent of births 
were to unmarried women, up from 14 percent in 1975.\4\ In calendar 
year 2023, 25 percent of children lived with a single parent, up from 
17 percent in 1975.\5\ In fiscal year 2023, the child support program 
served one in five children in the United States, or 12.7 million 
children.\6\ The labor market has been particularly difficult for less-
educated men during this period, leaving them with significantly fewer 
job opportunities and less income than before. In 2015, the real hourly 
earnings for men 25-54 years old with only a high school degree was 18 
percent lower than it was in 1973.\7\ As of 2018, over 70 percent of 
noncustodial parents had not attended college.\8\ In 2017, more than 
one-third of noncustodial parents (3.4 million) lived in families with 
incomes below 200 percent of the official poverty thresholds, and 43 
percent did not work full-time, year-round.\9\ Stable employment is 
particularly important for a parent to be able to make reliable 
consistent child support payments for their children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National 
Center for Health Statistics, ``Nonmarital Childbearing in the 
United States, 1940-99,'' National Vital Statistics Reports, 48: 16 
(October 18, 2000), available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf. Osterman, Michelle J.K., Brady E. Hamilton, 
Joyce A. Martin, Anne K. Driscoll, and Claudia P. Valenzuela, 
``Births: Final Data for 2021,'' National Vital Statistics Reports, 
72: 1 (January 31, 2023), available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr72/nvsr72-01.pdf. U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention. ``OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book,'' (March 
2024) available at https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/population/qa01201.asp?qaDate=2023. Binder, Ariel J. and John Bound, ``The 
Declining Labor Market Prospects of Less-Educated Men,'' Journal of 
Economic Perspectives, 33: 2 (2019), available at https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.33.2.163. Sanders, Patrick, 
``Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Nonresident 
Parents,'' Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, R46942 
(October 2021) available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46942.
    \4\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (October 18, 
2000). Osterman, Michelle J.K., et al. (January 31, 2023).
    \5\ U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
(March 2024).
    \6\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration 
for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Services, ``2023 
Child Support: More Money for Families,'' undated, available at 
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/2023_infographic_national.pdf.
    \7\ Binder, Ariel J. and John Bound (2019). See page 163 of the 
article where the authors note that they use the Personal 
Consumption Expenditure deflator when reporting real hourly 
earnings.
    \8\ Sanders, Patrick (October 2021). This report uses the term 
``nonresident parent'' rather than noncustodial parent. It defines a 
nonresident parent as a person 15 years or older who does not reside 
for a majority of nights in the same household as one or more of his 
or her biological, adopted, or stepchildren under age 21. This 
definition is very similar to the definition of a noncustodial 
parent used by the child support program. For purposes of the child 
support program, a noncustodial parent is a parent who does not have 
primary care, custody, or control of the child, and who may have an 
obligation to pay child support (see Office of Child Support 
Services, Glossary of Common Terms available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/glossary#N).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other societal changes have also affected the child support 
program, including greatly elevated incarceration rates. Incarceration 
rates increased dramatically between 1980 and 2008 and have since 
declined, but the percent of the U.S. population incarcerated in 2020 
was more than double the figure in 1980.\10\ It is estimated that six 
percent of all children in the United States have a parent who is or 
has been incarcerated.\11\ Research shows that the subgroup of 
noncustodial parents who participate in employment and training 
programs have high rates of prior arrests, convictions, and 
incarceration.\12\ For example, 65 percent of noncustodial

[[Page 100791]]

parents who enrolled in a recently completed national demonstration of 
child support-led employment and training programs reported that they 
had been previously incarcerated.\13\ Having an incarceration record is 
a barrier to employment that diminishes earnings potential, reducing a 
parent's ability to work and pay child support.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Kluckow, Rich and Zhen Zeng ``Correctional Populations in 
the United States, 2020--Statistical Tables'' (March 2022), Lauren 
E. Glaze, ``Correctional Populations in the United States, 2010'' 
(December 2011), and Louis W. Jankowski, Louis W., ``Correctional 
Populations in the United States, 1990'' (July 1992), U.S. 
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, all available at https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/list?series_filter=Correctional%20Populations%20in%20the%20United%20States. Historical U.S. population data available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/popchange-data-text.html.
    \11\ The Annie E. Casey Foundation, ``Children Who Had a Parent 
Who Was Ever Incarcerated by Race and Ethnicity in United States'' 
(May 2023) available at https://datacenter.aecf.org/data/tables/9734-children-who-had-a-parent-who-was-ever-incarcerated-by-race-and-ethnicity#detailed/1/any/false/2043,1769,1696,1648,1603/10,11,9,12,1,13/18995,18996.
    \12\ Miller, Cynthia, and Virginia Knox, ``The Challenge of 
Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children: Final Lessons 
From Parents' Fair Share,'' New York: Manpower Demonstration 
Research Corporation (MDRC) (2001), available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_529.pdf. Barden, Bret, Randall 
Juras, Cindy Redcross, Mary Farrell, Dan Bloom, ``New Perspectives 
on Creating Jobs: Final Impacts of the Next Generation of Subsidized 
Employment Programs,'' New York: MDRC (May 2018), available at 
https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ETJD_STED_Final_Impact_Report_2018_508Compliant_v2.pdf.
    \13\ Maria Cancian, Maria, Angela Guarin, Leslie Hodges, and 
Daniel R. Meyer, ``Characteristics of Participants in the Child 
Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED) 
Evaluation,'' Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty 
(December 2019), Appendix Table C3, available at https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CSPED-Final-Characteristics-of-Participants-Report-2019-Compliant.pdf.
    \14\ Travis, Jeremy, Bruce Western, & Steve Redburn, (Eds.) The 
Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and 
Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, (2014), 
available at https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18613/the-growth-of-incarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1996, Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work 
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA, Pub. L. 104-193), which made 
significant changes to the child support program.\15\ These changes 
included the introduction of a new ``family first'' child support 
payment distribution policy, which required that families who 
previously received cash assistance must receive certain child support 
arrearage payments before the State and Federal governments retain 
their share of collections.\16\ PRWORA also amended the Social Security 
Act to allow courts and child support agencies to require noncustodial 
parents owing past-due child support for a child receiving assistance 
under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to 
participate in work activities. Specifically, section 466(a)(15) of the 
Act requires States to have laws and procedures under which the State 
has the authority to issue an order requiring an individual to 
participate in work activities, as defined by section 407(d) of the 
Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Legler, Paul, The Coming Revolution in Child Support 
Policy: Implications of the 1996 Welfare Act Family Law Quarterly, 
Vol. 30, No. 3 (Fall 1996), pp. 519-563, available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/25740093.
    \16\ Congressional Research Service, ``The Child Support 
Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950,'' 
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, R47630 (July 2023) 
available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47630.
    \17\ In section 407(d) of the Act, work activities are defined 
as: (1) unsubsidized employment; (2) subsidized private sector 
employment; (3) subsidized public sector employment; (4) work 
experience (including work associated with the refurbishing of 
publicly assisted housing) if sufficient private sector employment 
is not available; (5) on-the-job training; (6) job search and job 
readiness assistance; (7) community service programs; (8) vocational 
educational training (not to exceed 12 months with respect to any 
individual); (9) job skills training directly related to employment; 
(10) education directly related to employment, in the case of a 
recipient who has not received a high school diploma or a 
certificate of high school equivalency; (11) satisfactory attendance 
at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a certificate 
of general equivalence, in the case of a recipient who has not 
completed secondary school or received such a certificate; and (12) 
the provision of child care services to an individual who is 
participating in a community service program. Available at https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0407.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1997, Congress authorized a total of $3 billion for the Welfare-
to-Work (WtW) Grants program as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 
(Pub. L. 105-33). Administered by the U.S. Department of Labor, these 
grants were intended to help long-term welfare recipients and 
noncustodial parents of children whose custodial parents met certain 
criteria find and keep good jobs.\18\ Congress appropriated funds for 
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and grantees were allowed five years to 
spend their funds, which ended in 2004. OCSS encouraged IV-D and IV-A 
agencies (TANF agencies) to work together to increase the participation 
of noncustodial parents in WtW programs and encouraged States to make 
``special efforts to inform potentially eligible noncustodial parents 
about the existence and availability of WtW services.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ U.S. Department of Labor, ``Training and Employment 
Guidance Letter No. 15-01, General Program Questions,'' Reissued 
March 22, 2002, available at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2002/TEGL15-01_GP.pdf.
    \19\ See AT-00-08, available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/questions-and-responses-regarding-collaborative-efforts-iv-d-agencies-and.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, OCSS issued policy guidance in PIQ-98-03 \20\ and AT-
00-08 \21\ to respond to State inquiries about the availability of FFP 
under title IV-D to pay for the costs of work activities for 
noncustodial parents under section 466(a)(15) of the Act. OCSS 
concluded that because section 466(a)(15) of the Act did not require 
that IV-D programs establish, provide, or administer work activity 
programs for noncustodial parents, the costs of these activities could 
not be attributed to the IV-D program. In guidance, OCSS stated that 
under section 466(a)(15) of the Act FFP was available ``for the 
identification and referral of unemployed noncustodial parents to job 
training, coordination with courts regarding compliance with court 
orders, tracking participation, and data collection,'' but was not 
available for ``training and services provided by entities other than 
the IV-D agency.'' \22\ OCSS viewed the determination of eligibility 
for and cost of participation in WtW programs as ``the responsibilities 
of the WtW grantees, not the courts or the IV-D agency.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ PIQ-98-03 is available at: https://www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/default/files/ESA/dcs/documents/OCSE_PIQ_90_99.pdf.
    \21\ AT-00-08, supra note 17.
    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule allows FFP for employment and training services for 
noncustodial parents under the separate authority provided to the 
Secretary in sections 451(a)(1) and 454(13) of the Act. As mentioned 
above, sections 451(a)(1) and 454(13) of the Act provide the Secretary 
with delegated authority to establish requirements and standards that 
the Secretary determines to be necessary to the establishment of an 
effective child support program. Upon reviewing the results of research 
studies detailed below, and described in the Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, indicating that providing employment and training services 
for noncustodial parents can lead to more reliable and regular child 
support payments, the Secretary has determined that allowing funding 
under title IV-D for such services improves the effectiveness of the 
child support program.
    In the decades that followed OCSS's policy guidance of 1998 and 
2000, national demonstrations and state-based programs have examined 
the effectiveness of providing employment and training services to 
unemployed and underemployed noncustodial parents. Collectively, these 
demonstrations and programs found positive outcomes in employment 
rates, earnings, child support payment rates, the amount of child 
support paid, and payment regularity.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Miller, Cynthia, and Virginia Knox (November 2001). Perez-
Johnson, Irma, Jacqueline Kauff, Alan Hershey, ``Giving Noncustodial 
Parents Options: Employment and Child Support Outcomes of the SHARE 
Program,'' Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research (October 
2003), available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_legacy_files/39936/report.pdf. Pearson, Jessica, Nancy 
Thoennes, Lanae Davis, David Price, Jane Venohr and Tracy Griffith, 
``OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and 
Program Outcomes,'' Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research and 
Policy Studies Inc. (September 2003), available at https://www.frpn.org/asset/ocse-responsible-fatherhood-programs-client-characteristics-and-program-outcomes. Martinson, Karin, Demetra 
Smith Nightingale, Pamela A. Holcomb, Burt S. Barnow, and John 
Trutko, ``Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Projects: 
Employment and Child Support Outcomes and Trends,'' Washington, DC: 
The Urban Institute (September 2007), available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46816/411567-Partners-for-Fragile-Families-Demonstration-Projects.PDF. Schroeder, Daniel 
and Nicholas Doughty, ``Texas Non-Custodial Parent Choices: Program 
Impact Analysis,'' Austin, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public 
Affairs, University of Texas (September 2009), available at https://sites.utexas.edu/raymarshallcenter/files/2005/07/NCP_Choices_Final_Sep_03_2009.pdf. Lippold, Kye, Austin Nichols, and 
Elaine Sorensen, ``Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers: 
Final Impact Report for the Pilot Employment Programs,'' Washington, 
DC: Urban Institute (October 2011), available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/26676/412442-Strengthening-Families-Through-Stronger-Fathers-Final-Impact-Report-for-the-Pilot-Employment-Programs.PDF. Born, Catherine E., Pamela 
Caudill Ovwigho, and Correne Saunders, ``The Noncustodial Parent 
Employment Program: Employment and Payment Outcomes,'' Baltimore, 
MD: Family Welfare Research and Training Group, University of 
Maryland, School of Social Work (April 2011), available at https://www.ssw.umaryland.edu/media/ssw/fwrtg/child-support-research/cs-initiatives/npep.pdf?&. Pearson, Jessica, Lanae Davis and Jane 
Venohr, ``Parents to Work! Program Outcomes and Economic Impacts,'' 
Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research (February 2011), available at 
https://centerforpolicyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/ParentsToWork.pdf. Davis, Lanae, Jessica Pearson, and Nancy 
Thoennes. ``Evaluation of the Tennessee Parent Support Program,'' 
Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research (November 2013), available at 
https://centerforpolicyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/EvaluationTennesseeParentSupportProgram.pdf. Sorensen, Elaine, 
``What We Learned from Recent Federal Evaluations of Programs 
Serving Disadvantaged Noncustodial Parents.'' Washington, DC: Office 
of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children 
and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (November 
2020), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/OPRE%20NCP%20Employment%20Brief_508.pdf. Wasserman, 
Kyla, Lily Freedman, Zaina Rodney, and Caroline Schultz, 
``Connecting Parents to Occupational Training: A Partnership Between 
Child Support Agencies and Local Service Providers,'' New York: MDRC 
(April 2021), available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/FamiliesForward_Report_0.pdf.

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

[[Page 100792]]

    Research shows that reliable child support depends on the economic 
stability of noncustodial parents. For example, in Wisconsin, 
noncustodial fathers who paid at least 90 percent of their order during 
the first year after it was established were 9 times as likely to work 
all four quarters that year than those who paid nothing.\25\ 
Nationally, over 70 percent of child support collections are made 
through wage withholding by employers.\26\ Noncustodial parents with 
irregular employment are particularly unlikely to pay the full amount 
of their child support order.\27\ As a result, substantial arrears 
accrue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Cancian, Maria, Yoona Kim, and Daniel R. Meyer, ``Who Is 
Not Paying Child Support?'' Madison, WI: Institute for Research on 
Poverty (September 2021), available at https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CSRPA-2020-2022-T2.pdf.
    \26\ DCL-23-06, OCSS Preliminary FY 2022 Data Report and Tables, 
available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/fy-2022-preliminary-data-report-and-tables.
    \27\ Cancian, Maria, et al. (September 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data regarding unpaid child support debt shows that 78 percent of 
the $114 billion in child support arrears that was owed in fiscal year 
(FY) 2022 was owed by parents who had annual reported incomes below 
$20,000, which is consistent with earlier published research that 
examined child support debt in nine States and found a similar 
result.\28\ Studies have also shown that owing large amounts of child 
support arrears among low-income noncustodial parents can be 
counterproductive to the goals of the child support program as it can 
push these parents further away from the formal labor market, reduce 
their child support payments, and distance them from their 
children.\29\ Parents who owe large amounts of arrears can be 
discouraged from working in jobs that withhold income for child 
support, especially if they can easily turn to other means of earning 
money where child support is not typically withheld, such as self-
employment or working off the books.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The data regarding child support debt is based on a random 
sample of noncustodial parents who owed arrears in the OCSS Debtor 
File as of April 2022, which was matched to data from the National 
Directory of New Hires. Reported income is the amount of quarterly 
earnings and unemployment insurance reported for the noncustodial 
parent in the National Directory of New Hires for FY 2021. The 
$113.4 billion figure is from the Office of Child Support Services 
FY 2022 Preliminary Data Tables, Table P-98 available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/fy-2022-preliminary-data-report-and-tables. Sorensen, Elaine, Liliana Sousa, and Simon Schaner, 
``Assessing Child Support Arrears in Nine Large States and the 
Nation,'' Washington, DC: Urban Institute (2007), available at 
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/29736/1001242-Assessing-Child-Support-Arrears-in-Nine-Large-States-and-the-Nation.PDF.
    \29\ Miller, Daniel P. and Ronald B. Mincy. ``Falling Further 
Behind? Child Support Arrears and Fathers' Labor Force 
Participation,'' Social Service Review 86:4 (2012), available at 
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/668761. Cancian, 
Maria, Carolyn Heinrich, and Yiyoon Chung, ``Discouraging 
Disadvantaged Fathers' Employment: An Unintended Consequence of 
Policies Designed to Support Families,'' Journal of Policy Analysis 
and Management 32:4 (2013), available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264476066_Discouraging_Disadvantaged_Fathers'_Employment_An_Unintende
d_Consequence_of_Policies_Designed_to_Support_Families. Kimberly 
Turner and Maureen Waller, ``Indebted Relationships: Child Support 
Arrears and Nonresident Fathers' Involvement with Children.'' 
Journal of Marriage and Family 79:1 (2017), available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12361.
    \30\ Turetsky, Vicki and Maureen Waller. ``Piling on Debt: The 
Intersections Between Child Support Arrears and Legal Financial 
Obligations.'' UCLA Criminal Justice Law Review, 4(1) (2020), 
available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7vd043jw.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the previously discussed research and evidence and the 
discussion below, OCSS has a greater understanding of the effectiveness 
of providing employment and training services to noncustodial parents 
in improving their ability to obtain employment and make regular child 
support payments. In allowing FFP for such employment and training 
services, we have not disregarded our previous interpretation of 
section 466(a)(15) of the Act. Section 466(a)(15) neither authorizes 
nor prohibits the child support program from providing employment and 
training services to noncustodial parents under title IV-D, and is not 
the legal basis for this final rule. OCSS bases this rule on sections 
452(a)(1), 454(13) and 455(f), providing the Secretary with broad 
delegated express authority to establish standards and requirements for 
State and Tribal child support programs that make the program more 
effective in ensuring that children receive financial support from 
their parent. This rule allows State and Tribal expenses for providing 
these services under their IV-D plan to be eligible for FFP under 
section 455 of the Act.

Relevant Studies of Employment and Training Services

    Since the 1990s, a significant body of research has examined the 
effectiveness of providing employment and training services to 
unemployed and underemployed parents who owe child support.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Employment and training programs for noncustodial parents 
described here were evaluated using one of three evaluation methods: 
evaluating the outcomes of individuals randomly assigned to the 
program (i.e. the treatment group) or receive business as usual 
(i.e. the control group), typically referred to as a random control 
trial (RCT) or an experimental evaluation; evaluating the outcomes 
of individuals who enrolled in the program compared to a group of 
individuals who did not enroll in the program but are similar to 
those who did enroll, referred to here as a quasi-experimental 
evaluation; and evaluations that examine the outcomes of individuals 
who enrolled in the program, typically before and after they entered 
the program, which are often referred to as outcome evaluations. The 
first two evaluation methods are considered impact evaluations, 
which draw causal inferences, while the third evaluation method is 
not designed to attribute causality. Experimental evaluations are 
considered to be the most rigorous evaluation method, followed by 
quasi-experimental evaluations. Outcome evaluations are considered 
the least rigorous evaluation method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first large-scale effort was conducted by MDRC and was called 
Parents' Fair Share (PFS). PFS was first implemented as a pilot program 
in nine sites in 1992-1993, followed by a national random assignment 
demonstration implemented in seven sites in 1994-1996. More than 5,500 
noncustodial parents were randomly assigned to PFS or a control group 
during the national demonstration.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Miller, Cynthia, and Virginia Knox (November 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PFS demonstration gave participating courts and child support 
agencies the ability to refer noncustodial parents facing contempt for 
nonpayment of child support to the PFS program where they received the 
following four

[[Page 100793]]

core services: employment and training services, enhanced child support 
services, peer support, and mediation. The employment and training 
services included job search assistance/job clubs, job development, 
classroom-based education and training, on-the-job training, and job 
retention services. The enhanced child support services included 
assigning smaller caseloads to child support workers who handled PFS 
cases, expediting modification of child support orders, and offering 
flexible rules that allowed child support orders to be reduced while 
noncustodial parents participated in PFS. Peer support consisted of 
participating in a facilitated support group built around a responsible 
fatherhood curriculum developed by MDRC. The lead agency for these 
demonstration projects varied, however, two were led by a local child 
support agency.
    The PFS demonstration found that PFS significantly increased the 
likelihood of paying child support during the two-year follow-up 
period. The average quarterly payment rate was 12 percent higher for 
parents who enrolled in PFS than those who did not.\33\ While the final 
PFS report did not examine the regularity of child support payments, 
the interim report did. It found that parents who enrolled in PFS 
during the first year of the demonstration were 19 percent more likely 
than the control group to pay child support in at least four of the six 
quarters during the 18-month follow-up period.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Id.
    \34\ Doolittle, Fred, Virginia Knox, Cynthia Miller, and Sharon 
Rowser, ``Building Opportunities, Enforcing Obligations: 
Implementation and Interim Impacts of Parents' Fair Share,'' New 
York: MDRC (1998), table 6.3, available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_38.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier, in 1997, Congress authorized the WtW Grants 
program to help welfare recipients and noncustodial parents find and 
keep good jobs. A descriptive study conducted as part of the national 
evaluation of WtW grant programs examined the strategies that 11 
purposively selected WtW programs used to provide employment services 
to noncustodial parents. The study found that a variety of 
organizations could successfully operate employment and training 
programs for noncustodial parents.\35\ Eight of 11 programs partnered 
with the State or Local child support agency. Child support agencies 
provided referrals, designated specific staff to work with the program, 
and offered flexible payment options and debt reduction options for 
participants. The principal employment services that all of the WtW 
programs provided were employability assessments, individualized 
employment plans, job search assistance, job readiness activities, job 
retention services, and assistance with transportation and work 
expenses. Some of the WtW programs also provided job development and 
placement services, on-the-job training, skills training, General 
Educational Development (GED) instruction, basic skills training, and 
work experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Martinson, Karin, John Trutko, and Debra Strong, ``Serving 
Noncustodial Parents: A Descriptive Study of Welfare-to-Work 
Programs,'' Washington, DC: Urban Institute (December 2000), 
available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/62761/410340-Serving-Noncustodial-Parents-A-Descriptive-Study-of-Welfare-to-Work-Programs.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One WtW program that served noncustodial parents was evaluated as 
part of the national evaluation of the WtW grants program.\36\ This 
program, called Support Has A Rewarding Effect (SHARE), operated in 
Yakima, Kittitas, and Klickitat counties in the State of Washington 
from July 1998 through September 2001. It was led by the Tri-County 
Workforce Development Council (WDC) and involved a strong collaboration 
among Tri-County WDC, the State's Division of Child Support, and the 
office of the Yakima County prosecuting attorney (YCPA). SHARE provided 
the courts and YCPA the ability to offer WtW services to noncustodial 
parents during a child support contempt hearing for failure to pay 
child support. WtW services consisted of employability assessments, 
individualized employment plans, and other WtW services structured to 
meet the needs of the noncustodial parent. Job search workshops and 
referrals for job openings were the principal service offered, but 
noncustodial parents could be offered pre-employment education, 
vocational training, or on-the-job training. After the noncustodial 
parent had secured a job, WtW case management continued for at least 90 
days, during which time job retention services were provided. WtW funds 
were also available to help with work supports such as transportation, 
uniforms, work supplies, and other short-term emergency needs. The 
outcome evaluation examined employment and child support payment trends 
for 574 noncustodial parents who were referred to the SHARE program. 
The evaluation found that the earnings and child support payments of 
noncustodial parents referred to SHARE increased substantially after 
being referred to the program.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Perez-Johnson, Irma, et al. (October 2003).
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1998, OCSS launched an eight-State demonstration to test the 
effectiveness of fatherhood programs.\38\ The purpose of these programs 
was to assist unemployed or low-income noncustodial parents in paying 
their child support by improving their employment and earnings and 
encouraging more involved parenting. States were given wide latitude in 
program format, services provided, and client eligibility. Most States 
partnered with community-based organizations to lead the project and 
most projects offered employment services. The exact package of 
employment services varied by project, but employment services across 
all projects included job search assistance, job readiness services, 
job development and placement, work supports, and vocational skills 
training and assessments. This demonstration was evaluated by comparing 
participant outcomes before and after enrollment in the program. The 
outcome evaluation found that the percent of participants paying child 
support increased after enrollment in every participating State, by 
amounts ranging from four percent to 31 percent.\39\ The average amount 
of child support due that was paid also increased after enrollment in 
every participating State, by amounts ranging from one percent to 16 
percent.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Pearson, Jessica, et al. (June 2000).
    \39\ Pearson, Jessica, et al. (September 2003).
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2000, OCSS and the Ford Foundation launched a national 
demonstration called Partners for Fragile Families (PFF), which was 
conducted in 13 sites and ended in 2003.\41\ The goals of this 
demonstration were to promote voluntary paternity establishment; 
improve the parenting and relationship skills of young fathers; and 
help young fathers secure and retain employment. It targeted fathers 
between the ages of 16 and 25 years old who had not yet established 
paternity and did not have extensive involvement in the child support 
program. The lead agency in all 13 sites was a community-based 
organization, but each site partnered with the local child support 
agency and typically other organizations, such as workforce development 
agencies. The primary service consisted of a series of structured 
workshops on topics such as fatherhood, parenting, job readiness and

[[Page 100794]]

job search, and child support. The exact package of employment services 
varied across projects, but the following employment services were 
offered across all projects: job readiness instruction, job search 
assistance, job referral and placement, job development, on-the-job 
training, GED classes, and job skills training. PFF enrolled over 1,470 
noncustodial parents.\42\ The outcome evaluation of PFF examined child 
support outcomes of participants at the time of enrollment and over the 
next two years. It found that the percentage of participants with child 
support orders increased from 14 percent to 35 percent during the first 
two years after program enrollment.\43\ It also found that the average 
number of months participants paid child support increased from 4.2 
months to 5.2 months, and the average annual amount of child support 
paid increased by 43 percent from $1,238 to $1,775 between the first 
and second year after enrollment.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Martinson, Karin, John Trutko, Demetra Smith Nightingale, 
Pamela A. Holcomb, and Burt S. Barnow, ``The Implementation of the 
Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Projects,'' Washington, 
DC: The Urban Institute (June 2007), available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46576/411511-The-Implementation-of-the-Partners-for-Fragile-Families-Demonstration-Projects.PDF.
    \42\ Id, Exhibit 2.1.
    \43\ Martinson, Karin, et al. (September 2007).
    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2005, the Child Support Division of the Office of the Attorney 
General of Texas and the Texas Workforce Commission established the 
Noncustodial Parent (NCP) Choices program.\45\ The goal of the program 
is to help parents make regular child support payments and become 
financially stable.\46\ This program remains in operation today and is 
currently operating in 21 of the 28 workforce development board areas 
in Texas.\47\ To be eligible to receive services, noncustodial parents 
must be court-ordered to participate. When a noncustodial parent enters 
the program, workforce development staff perform an assessment of needs 
and barriers and create an individual employment plan designed to move 
that individual into a stable employment situation. Additional 
employment and training services offered to noncustodial parents mirror 
those provided to TANF recipients under the Texas' Choices Program.\48\ 
The services emphasize Work First, providing job referrals and job 
search assistance, and may include development, support services, 
short-term training, subsidized employment/work experience, GED and 
English as a Second Language classes, and job retention and career 
advancement assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty (September 2009).
    \46\ Texas Workforce Commission, Noncustodial Parent Choices 
Program, available at https://www.twc.texas.gov/programs/
noncustodial-parent-choices#:~:text=The%20goal%20of%20NCP%20Choices, 
Alamo.
    \47\ Id.
    \48\ Texas Workforce Commission, Choices Program, available at 
https://www.twc.texas.gov/programs/choices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NCP Choices was evaluated during the initial years of its 
operation.\49\ The impact evaluation was based on data from 2005 to 
2009 and ten local workforce development areas. It used a quasi-
experimental evaluation design.\50\ A total of 2,296 noncustodial 
parents who participated in NCP Choices were included in the 
evaluation. The evaluation found monthly child support collection rates 
among NCP Choices participants were 47 percent higher than the 
comparison group in the first year after program enrollment, and the 
amounts collected averaged $57 per month higher.\51\ In addition, those 
ordered into NCP Choices paid their child support 50 percent more 
consistently over time than the comparison group.\52\ All of these 
positive impacts continued well into the second through fourth years 
after program enrollment.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty (September 2009).
    \50\ Quasi-experimental designs aim to assess causal 
relationships without using random assignment. When evaluating a 
program, they compare the group of individuals who participated in 
the program to a group of individuals who did not participate in the 
program who are as similar as possible to those who participated in 
the program in terms of pre-intervention characteristics. For 
further information, see Handley, Margaret A., Courtney Lyles, 
Charles McCulloch, and Adithya Cattamanchi, ``Selecting and 
Improving Quasi-Experimental Designs in Effectiveness and 
Implementation Research'' Annual Review of Public Health 39 (2018), 
available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8011057/pdf/nihms-1671041.pdf.
    \51\ Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty (September 2009).
    \52\ Id.
    \53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2006, the New York State Legislature enacted the Strengthening 
Families Through Stronger Fathers Initiative, a pilot program to help 
low-income noncustodial parents find work and pay their child 
support.\54\ The legislation authorized funding for five programs to 
provide employment and other supportive services to low-income 
noncustodial parents, which operated from 2006 to 2009. Employment 
services offered by the five programs consisted of job search and 
placement assistance, job readiness training, job development, job 
skills training, and employment-related supports.\55\ One program 
provided subsidized employment and job retention and career enhancement 
services. The pilot programs served 3,668 noncustodial parents.\56\ The 
impact evaluation used a quasi-experimental design. It found that 
Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers increased the percent 
of parents paying child support by 22 percent, and the amount of child 
support paid by 35 percent in the first year after enrollment compared 
to the comparison group.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Tannehill, Tess G., Carolyn T. O'Brien, and Elaine J. 
Sorensen, ``Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers 
Initiative: Process Evaluation Report,'' Washington, DC: Urban 
Institute (July 2009), available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/28106/1001412-Strengthening-Families-Through-Stronger-Fathers-Initiative-Process-Evaluation-Report.PDF.
    \55\ Id.
    \56\ Lippold, Kye, et al. (October 2011).
    \57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2006, Maryland began the Noncustodial Parent Employment Program 
(NPEP), a joint effort of the Child Support Enforcement and Family 
Investment Administrations of the Maryland Department of Human 
Resources.\58\ The purpose of this program is to provide employment 
services to noncustodial parents who are behind in their child support 
so that they can be a reliable source of income for their children. 
NPEP was a statewide program in its initial years and still operates 
today, but not in all counties.\59\ During its initial phase, each NPEP 
program provided employment services similar to those offered in WtW 
grants programs. An evaluation of NPEP was conducted, which examined 
3,900 noncustodial parents referred to NPEP in 2007 and 2008.\60\ 
Outcomes for these participants were examined one year before and after 
enrollment. The outcome evaluation found that the average amount of 
child support paid increased from $1,094 in the year prior to 
enrollment to $1,246 in the year after enrollment, a 14 percent 
increase.\61\ It also found that the average number of months that a 
participant paid child support rose from 3.7 months in the year prior 
to enrollment to 4.5 months in the year after enrollment, a 22 percent 
increase.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Born, Catherine E., et al. (April 2011).
    \59\ NPEP is currently referred to as the Noncustodial Party 
Employment Program. Maryland Department of Human Services, Child 
Support Administration. ``Noncustodial Party Employment Programs,'' 
available at: https://dhs.maryland.gov/child-support-services/noncustodial-parents/noncustodial-parent-employment-programs/.
    \60\ Born, Catherine E., et al. (April 2011).
    \61\ Id.
    \62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, the Arapahoe County Division of Child Support Enforcement, 
the Arapahoe/Douglas Workforce Center, and the 18th Judicial District 
Court in Colorado established the Parents to Work program to secure 
jobs for unemployed and underemployed

[[Page 100795]]

noncustodial parents and generate child support payments.\63\ The 
program is still in operation today.\64\ An evaluation of this program 
was conducted, which examined the first two years of operation. During 
that time the following employment services were offered: intensive job 
search assistance, job readiness training, job placement, job 
development, on-the-job training, work experience, occupational and 
vocational training, subsidized employment, pre-GED or GED preparation, 
and assistance with transportation, work clothes and tools. The quasi-
experimental evaluation examined the outcomes of participants one year 
before and after enrollment and compared them to a group of 
noncustodial parents who did not participate in Parents to Work.\65\ It 
found that the average percentage of child support due that was paid by 
the treatment group rose from 36.6 percent in the year prior to 
enrollment to 41.3 percent in the year following enrollment, but it did 
not improve for the comparison group.\66\ Payment regularity also 
improved significantly for the treatment group, rising from an average 
of 5.3 payments in the year prior to enrollment to 5.7 payments in the 
year following enrollment, but again payment regularity did not improve 
for the comparison group.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Pearson, Jessica, et al. (February 2011).
    \64\ Arapahoe/Douglas Works Workforce Center. ``Parents to 
Work'', available at: https://www.adworks.org/job-seekers/programs/parents-to-work/.
    \65\ Pearson, Jessica, et al. (February 2011). Parents to Work 
was intended to be evaluated using random assignment, but the 
treatment group was disproportionately selected from case worker and 
court referrals, while the comparison group was disproportionately 
selected from ad hoc reports. Because of this difference in 
procedures, the two groups were statistically significantly 
different prior to program entry. In an effort to offset this 
limitation, the study examined the outcomes of noncustodial parents 
in both groups after controlling for observed differences in pre-
program earnings, child support payments, and other characteristics. 
The sample size for the evaluation was 601 parents in the treatment 
group and 349 in the comparison group.
    \66\ Id.
    \67\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2009, the Tennessee Department of Human Services was awarded a 
grant from OCSS to develop, implement, and evaluate a program providing 
employment, parenting time, and case management services to 
low[hyphen]income, unwed parents in the child support program in three 
Tennessee judicial districts. The program, called the Parent Support 
Program (PSP), placed child support staff known as Grant Program 
Coordinators in each of the three local child support offices to 
provide services to families. These staff were the primary providers of 
employment, parenting time, and case management services. The Grant 
Program Coordinators conducted a needs assessment at enrollment and 
developed a service plan for each participant. They also provided job 
search and job readiness assistance, job development, and financial 
assistance with work-related expenses. For other employment services, 
such as job training, participants were referred to other service 
providers. Enrollment began in January 2010 and ended in March 2013. 
During that time, PSP enrolled 1,016 noncustodial parents. The 
evaluation examined participant outcomes in the year before and after 
enrollment. The outcome evaluation found that the average percentage of 
child support due that participants paid rose from 33 percent in the 
year prior to enrollment to 36 percent in the year after 
enrollment.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Davis, Lanae, et al. (November 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many more States than those discussed above have operated 
employment and training programs for noncustodial parents, but they 
have not been able to use FFP to pay for these services. This has 
limited the potential impact and reach of these services. In February 
2014, 30 States and the District of Columbia were operating 77 
employment and training programs for noncustodial parents with active 
child support agency involvement. Three of these States were operating 
statewide programs--Georgia, Maryland, and North Dakota. But only a few 
of these programs have been able to secure resource commitments to fund 
these services in an ongoing, consistent, or statewide basis. As a 
result, many programs that were operating in 2014 are no longer in 
operation. Other programs have had to scale back because of reduced 
funding. Nonetheless, because of the continued work of child support 
agencies, some new programs have emerged but there are fewer States in 
2024 that have employment and training programs for noncustodial 
parents with active child support agency involvement than in 2014.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Office of Child Support Services. ``Child Support-led 
Employment Programs by State,'' available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/training-technical-assistance/child-support-led-employment-programs-state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Studies in Support of This Final Rule

    OCSS previously issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on November 
17, 2014, that included regulatory changes similar to those included in 
this final rule.\70\ Although the 2014 proposed rule received 
overwhelming support from States, many Members of Congress, and the 
public, FFP for employment and training services was not included in 
the final rule issued on December 20, 2016, in order to allow for 
further study. The final rule stated, ``While we appreciate the support 
the commenters expressed, we think allowing for Federal IV-D 
reimbursement for job services needs further study and would be ripe 
for implementation at a later time.'' See Flexibility, Efficiency, and 
Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs, Final Rule, 81 FR 
93492, 93496 (December 20, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ See Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child 
Support Enforcement Programs, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 79 FR 
68548, 68556 (November 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 2016, findings from two new national demonstrations that 
offered employment and training services to noncustodial parents have 
been released. They are the Child Support National Parent Employment 
Demonstration and Families Forward Demonstration (FFD). These two 
demonstrations added considerably to OCSS's understanding of the 
effectiveness of employment programs for noncustodial parents and 
further informed the development of this rule.
Child Support National Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED)
    CSPED was a randomized control trial (RCT) demonstration designed 
to test the effectiveness of child support-led employment programs for 
noncustodial parents. It was funded by OCSS, which awarded 
demonstration grants to eight State child support agencies in 2012. 
These child support agencies operated employment programs for 
noncustodial parents in 18 local jurisdictions from 2013 to 2017. A 
total of 10,173 noncustodial parents enrolled in the demonstration.\71\ 
CSPED was able to reach a large number of noncustodial parents in part 
because it recruited noncustodial parents administratively as well as 
during contempt hearings. Key services included employment services, 
enhanced child support services, and parenting classes. Employment 
services consisted of one-on-one job counseling, job search assistance, 
job readiness training, and job placement and retention services. 
Programs were encouraged to offer short-term job skills training and

[[Page 100796]]

vocational educational training, but not required to do so. Enhanced 
child support services were expected to include initiating order 
modifications if needed, removing license suspensions, and holding 
other enforcement remedies in abeyance while parents participated in 
the program, and reducing state-owed arrears if permitted by State 
law.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Cancian, Maria, Daniel R. Meyer, Robert Wood, ``Final 
Impact Findings from the Child Support Noncustodial Parent 
Employment Demonstration,'' Madison, WI: Institute for Research on 
Poverty (March 2019), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/csped_impact_report.pdf.
    \72\ Office of Child Support Enforcement, ``National Child 
Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration Projects,'' 
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 
Administration for Children and Families, HHS-2012-ACF-OCSE-FD-0297 
(2012), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/hhs-2012-acf-ocse-fd-0297_csped.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CSPED increased the effectiveness of the child support program by 
increasing noncustodial parents' employment and earnings as measured by 
quarterly earnings, which, in turn, increased the likelihood of paying 
child support through wage withholding. Specifically, it increased 
participants' employment rate by three percent during the first two 
years after enrollment, and increased their earnings by four percent 
during the first year after enrollment, both of which are measured 
using quarterly earnings.\73\ This, in turn, increased the likelihood 
of participants paying child support through income withholding by 
eight percent during the first year after enrollment.\74\ It also 
increased noncustodial parents' satisfaction with the child support 
program, increased noncustodial parent-child contact, and improved 
noncustodial parents' attitudes about responsibility for children, all 
of which contributed to an improved image of the child support program 
and helped overcome significant distrust among noncustodial parents, 
paving the way for better communication, more cooperation, and a more 
effective child support program.\75\ Finally, a benefit-cost analysis 
of CSPED found that the benefits of CSPED outweighed its costs within 
two years when the costs of employment and parenting services received 
by members of the regular-services group were taken into account.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Sorensen, Elaine (November 2020).
    \74\ Id. While CSPED was successful at increasing the likelihood 
of paying child support through income withholding, it did not 
increase the amount of child support paid. As noted in the text, 
CSPED provided both employment and enhanced child support services. 
It appears that these services worked at cross-purposes to one 
another. As part of enhanced child support services, child support 
agencies offered order modification services to participants, which 
reduced their average amount of child support orders. Reducing child 
support orders will necessarily reduce income withholding orders, 
which reduces the amount of child support paid since most child 
support is paid via income withholding. In contrast, employment 
services are designed to increase the employment and earnings of 
noncustodial parents, which, in turn, are expected to increase child 
support payments. Thus, it appears that one service reduced the 
amount of child support paid while the other increased it, resulting 
in no impact on the amount of child support paid.
    \75\ Cancian, Maria, et al. (March 2019).
    \76\ Cancian, Maria, Daniel R. Meyer, and Robert G. Wood, 
``Carrots Work Better than Sticks? Results from the National Child 
Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration,'' Journal of 
Policy Analysis and Management. 41:2 (2022), available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pam.22370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Families Forward Demonstration
    FFD was designed to test the effectiveness of offering free 
occupational training to increase reliable child support payments. It 
operated in five locations from 2018 to 2020 and enrolled 761 
noncustodial parents. FFD was funded through a grant from the W. K. 
Kellogg Foundation, local funding raised by participating child support 
agencies, and matching Federal funds through section 1115 waivers \77\ 
approved by the Office of Child Support Services.\78\ FFD provided the 
following three services to noncustodial parents: free occupational 
training, other employment services and wraparound supports, and 
responsive child support services. Free occupational training targeted 
demand-driven occupations, which varied by location. Other employment 
services focused on job search and placement assistance and career 
planning. The most common wraparound supports were work-related, such 
as assistance with work-related transportation costs or other work-
related expenses. Responsive child support services included child 
support navigation, arrears compromise programs, order modification if 
needed, and suspension of enforcement action.\79\ The evaluation of 
this demonstration consisted of an implementation study and an analysis 
of child support outcomes for program participants prior to and after 
program enrollment.\80\ It found that the trends in child support 
payments for noncustodial parent participants improved relative to 
their pre-enrollment trends.\81\ While this study was not designed to 
attribute causality, these findings suggest that offering free training 
to noncustodial parents may have a positive impact on child support 
payments, providing further evidence that offering training services to 
noncustodial parents increases the effectiveness of the child support 
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See section 1115(a) and (b) of the Social Security Act, 42 
U.S.C. 1315(a) and (b).
    \78\ The FFD program in New York was additionally supported by 
the Robin Hood Foundation.
    \79\ Wasserman, Kyla, et al. (April 2021).
    \80\ Id.
    \81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Informed by the child support program's positive experience with 
providing employment and training programs, and the positive outcomes 
of three decades of national demonstrations and State evaluations, OCSS 
has determined that providing FFP under title IV-D for employment and 
training services improves the effectiveness of the child support 
program. Thus, this final rule allows States and Tribal child support 
programs to access FFP for these services and establishes standards and 
requirements for States and Tribes or Tribal organizations when opting 
to provide federally funded employment and training services under 
their IV-D plans. This final rule provides additional stability and 
support for States and Tribal child support programs to increase the 
effectiveness of their respective programs for collecting child support 
payments.

Summary Description of Regulatory Changes

    The following is a summary of the regulatory provisions included in 
this final rule and, where applicable, how these provisions differ from 
the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM was published in the 
Federal Register on May 31, 2024 (89 FR 47109 through 47120). The 
comment period ended July 30, 2024.
    This final rule allows States and Tribes the option to use FFP to 
provide certain employment and training services designed to supplement 
traditional enforcement tools to help noncustodial parents find and 
retain employment so they can support their children.

Section 302.76 Employment and Training Services

    This rule adds a new optional State plan provision at 45 CFR 
302.76, Employment and training services, to allow States to provide 
certain employment and training services to eligible noncustodial 
parents in accordance with the newly designated Sec.  303.6(c)(5). This 
State plan provision is optional as each State will need to determine 
the level of resources the State wishes to commit in order to draw down 
Federal matching funds under title IV-D.\82\ If a State chooses this

[[Page 100797]]

option, Sec.  302.76 requires that the State include a description of 
the employment and training services and eligibility criteria in its 
State plan. In addition, to ensure the IV-D agency is providing well-
coordinated and non-duplicative employment and training services, it 
also requires that States include in their State plan an explanation of 
how the State child support program has consulted with, and taken into 
consideration services provided by, the State agencies administering 
the following programs: TANF (45 CFR part 261), the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and Training program (7 CFR 
273.7 and 273.24), the Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs 
under Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (20 CFR 
parts 675 through 688), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act 
program (34 CFR part 463), the Employment Service program (20 CFR part 
652), and the Vocational Rehabilitation program (34 CFR part 361). The 
final rule revises Sec.  302.76 by removing the reference included in 
the NPRM to the ``six core programs of the state's workforce 
development system established under the Workforce Innovation and 
Opportunity Act (WIOA)'' and instead identifies, by name, the six core 
programs. These core programs are the three programs for Adults, 
Dislocated Workers, and Youth under title I, the Adult Education and 
Family Literacy Act program under title II, the Employment Service 
program under title III, and the Vocational Rehabilitation program 
under title IV. The final rule also requires that States electing the 
option to provide employment and training services using FFP under 
title IV-D must comply with future reporting requirements prescribed by 
the Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Under section 455 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
655), the Federal government provides reimbursement to each state 
program (including the District of Columbia and territorial 
programs) of 66% of all allowable child support program 
expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States are required to consult with, and take into consideration 
services provided by, the State agencies administering the listed 
programs in order to provide the most appropriate mix of services that 
ensures effective service delivery for addressing the multiple barriers 
to employment often faced by low-income noncustodial parents in their 
caseload, while minimizing costs to the child support program. We 
strongly encourage States to partner with high-quality training 
programs and other evidence-based training models that have been shown 
to lead to sustained earnings gains--to increase noncustodial parents' 
ability to meet their financial obligations to their children. 
Partnering with other programs at the State and local level can allow 
child support programs to broaden the types of services they provide to 
noncustodial parents in their caseload. OCSS's policy goals are to make 
it possible for State child support agencies to provide employment and 
training services to noncustodial parents who need and lack access to 
services, while minimizing unnecessary duplication of services that are 
already successfully being provided by the listed federally-funded 
programs. We encourage child support agencies to partner wherever 
possible with local American Job Centers to leverage their specialized 
experience and knowledge of job development and to partner with labor 
organizations to access employment and training services that they 
provide.
    OCSS anticipates that many State child support agencies will 
purchase employment and training services by entering into contracts 
with public, private and community-based employment, fatherhood, and 
reentry programs, community action agencies, community colleges, or 
other service providers, rather than offer these services in-house, in 
accordance with 45 CFR 304.22, Federal financial participation in 
purchased support enforcement services. However, this does not preclude 
a child support agency from providing employment and training services 
to noncustodial parents directly.

Section 303.6 Enforcement of Support Obligations

    We redesignate existing Sec.  303.6(c)(5) as new Sec.  303.6(c)(6) 
and add new Sec.  303.6(c)(5) to provide program standards related to 
the optional State plan provision Sec.  302.76.
Employment and Training Services
    The final rule establishes basic eligibility requirements that must 
be met for States to provide employment and training services to 
noncustodial parents. Eligibility for employment and training services 
is limited to noncustodial parents who: have an open IV-D case; have a 
child support order or have been determined by the IV-D agency to be 
fully cooperating with the IV-D agency to establish a child support 
order; and are unemployed or underemployed or at risk of not being able 
to comply with their support order. In addition, the IV-D agency must 
have adopted policies and procedures for determining that the 
noncustodial parent is not receiving the same employment and training 
services under the following programs: TANF (45 CFR part 261), the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment and 
Training program (7 CFR 273.7 and 273.24), the Federal Pell Grant 
program (34 CFR part 690), the Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth 
programs under title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 
(20 CFR parts 675 through 688), the Adult Education and Family Literacy 
Act program (34 CFR part 463), the Employment Service program (20 CFR 
part 652), or the Vocational Rehabilitation program (34 CFR part 361). 
States may establish additional criteria not in conflict with those 
required by this rule.
    The final rule does not allow States to provide a noncustodial 
parent the same employment and training services that he or she is 
already receiving from a set list of federally-funded employment and 
training programs. Child support programs will need to adopt policies 
and procedures for determining that the noncustodial parent is not 
receiving the same employment and training services from the other 
federally-funded programs listed in Sec.  303.6(c)(5). We recognize the 
challenges for States to verify non-duplication of services due to the 
limited availability of data needed for verification. In the NPRM, OCSS 
suggested that attestation may be used to verify non-duplication of 
services. However, many commenters expressed concern that requiring 
attestation would create a barrier to program participation and 
requested that OCSS allow States flexibility to determine the 
verification approaches. In response to these comments, the final rule 
does not prescribe a verification method for child support agencies to 
use, but leaves it to States to establish a process for how best to 
confirm that a noncustodial parent is not already receiving the same 
services under the programs listed in Sec.  303.6(c)(5). For example, 
to meet this requirement, the child support agency may obtain a verbal 
or other confirmation from the noncustodial parent that the parent is 
not receiving the same employment and training services under the 
Federal programs listed in Sec.  303.6(c)(5) and document the 
confirmation in the case record. This will allow a noncustodial parent 
who may be receiving services from the American Job Center to also 
receive nonduplicated employment and training services through the 
child support program.
    Under new Sec.  303.6(c)(5), allowable employment and training 
services are limited to:
     Job search assistance;
     Job readiness training;
     Job development and job placement services;

[[Page 100798]]

     Skills assessments to facilitate job placement;
     Job retention services;
     Work supports, such as transportation assistance, 
uniforms, and tools; and
     Occupational training and other skills training directly 
related to employment, which may also include activities to improve 
literacy and basic skills, such as programs to complete high school or 
a high school equivalency certificate, or English as a second language.
    We recognize that providing these services may require case 
management. Thus, consistent with OCSS PIQ-12-02, FFP may also be used 
to provide case management for these allowable services.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ PIQ-12-02, Partnering with other programs, including 
outreach, referral, and case management activities, is available at: 
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/piq_12_02_partnering_with_other_programs_and_activities.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have included a focused set of employment and training services 
because our review of research found that employment and training 
programs for noncustodial programs tended to provide this package of 
employment and training services in their effort to improve the 
effectiveness of child support program. The list of allowable services 
includes those services that were most frequently provided in various 
demonstrations, research evaluations, and state-based programs detailed 
in the rule.
    We have included work supports and job retention services as 
allowable expenditures because, as described above, many of the 
employment and training programs for noncustodial parents that have 
been evaluated included these services as part of a package of 
employment and training services, which were found effective at 
improving child support outcomes. Work supports consist of costs 
incurred for bona fide services and assistance provided to noncustodial 
parents so that they may find and retain employment or participate in 
employment and training services. For example, a common form of work 
supports is transportation assistance, such as bus tokens and gas 
vouchers. Work supports may also include the cost of providing 
emergency child care assistance for children on the child support case 
associated with the noncustodial parent receiving employment and 
training services if that emergency inhibits participation in 
employment and training services or finding or retaining work. Other 
eligible work supports may include, but are not limited to costs 
incurred for bona fide services and assistance such as: work-related 
tools; work-related clothing or uniforms; emergency vehicle repairs if 
affordable transportation alternatives are not available; referrals for 
child care assistance; referrals to health care, mental health 
counseling or drug treatment; license fees; application fees; and other 
costs of employment and training tests or certifications. Job retention 
services are services that assist a job holder with retaining 
employment and can include regular check-ins with job holders as well 
as supporting managers who hired job holders with on-the-job issues. 
Job retention services can be offered directly to the job holder or to 
the employer to serve the job holder.
    The proposed rule included language at Sec.  303.6(c)(5)(vii) about 
an employment and training services plan. We have revised this section 
and no longer use the term ``employment and training services plan'' 
because commenters found this requirement confusing. OCSS does not 
believe an employment and training plan is necessary to meet the 
requirements of the rule.
    In the NPRM, OCSS proposed not to allow employment and training 
services for noncustodial parents with arrears-only cases because, as 
stated in the NPRM, the primary goal of offering employment and 
training services is to increase the consistency of current support 
payments to families with minor children. Many commenters urged OCSS to 
allow noncustodial parents with arrears-only cases to be eligible for 
these services, noting that many of them are of working age, 
unemployed, and could benefit from employment and training services to 
help them find work and pay their overdue child support. OCSS agrees 
with the commenters that noncustodial parents with arrears-only cases 
are still responsible for paying overdue child support and may face 
barriers to employment that limit their ability to pay and thus could 
benefit from employment and training services, which, if provided, 
could lead to employment and increased child support payments to 
custodial families. In response to comments, we removed the word 
``current'' in proposed Sec.  303.6(c)(5) describing the eligibility 
criteria to allow noncustodial parents with child support orders in 
arrears-only cases to be eligible for employment and training services 
funded under title IV-D.
    In the NPRM, a list of costs that would not be eligible for FFP was 
included in the proposed language of Sec.  303.6(c)(5). In the final 
rule, these prohibited costs are moved to Sec.  304.23, Expenditures 
for which Federal financial participation is not available, as 
described below.

Section 304.20 Availability and Rate of Federal Financial Participation

    We redesignate existing Sec.  304.20(b)(3)(vii) as new Sec.  
304.20(b)(3)(viii), and add new Sec.  304.20(b)(3)(vii) allowing FFP 
for employment and training services when they are provided in 
accordance with Sec.  303.6(c)(5).

Section 304.23 Expenditures for Which Federal Financial Participation 
Is Not Available

    The final rule adds new Sec.  304.23(k) to move the list of costs 
related to employment and training services that the NPRM said would 
not be eligible for FFP under proposed Sec.  303.6 (c)(5) to Sec.  
304.23, Expenditures for which Federal financial participation is not 
available. Specifically, under Sec.  304.23(k) this final rule 
prohibits expenditures under title IV-D for payments of cash, checks, 
reimbursements, or any other form of payment that can be legally 
converted to currency provided to the noncustodial parent. The final 
rule also prohibits FFP for costs of subsidized employment for 
noncustodial parents. The NPRM proposed that these costs not be 
eligible for FFP in Sec.  303.6(c)(5), but also requested comments on 
all of the employment and training services in Sec.  303.6(c)(5). A few 
commenters argued FFP should be available for these costs, but these 
arguments did not overcome the concerns that the Federal government has 
with allowing FFP for these costs as discussed in response to Comments 
13 and 31 below.

Section 309.65 What must a Tribe or Tribal organization include in a 
Tribal IV-D plan in order to demonstrate capacity to operate a Tribal 
IV-D program?

    In response to comments received in support of FFP for Tribes to 
offer employment and training services, we redesignate existing Sec.  
309.65(b) as new Sec.  309.65(c) and add new Sec.  309.65(b) to add a 
new optional Tribal plan provision to allow Tribes to provide certain 
employment and training services to eligible noncustodial parents.
    This Tribal plan provision is optional to Tribes and Tribal 
organizations. This final rule adds provisions in the Tribal 
regulations at part 309, specifically new Sec. Sec.  309.65(b), 
309.121, 309.145, and 309.155 to clarify, in response to comments, that 
this final rule makes

[[Page 100799]]

Federal funding available to Tribes for employment and training 
services. If a Tribe or Tribal organization chooses this option, Sec.  
309.65(b) requires that the Tribe or Tribal organization include a 
description of the employment and training services and eligibility 
criteria in its Tribal IV-D plan. In addition, to ensure the IV-D 
agency is providing well-coordinated and non-duplicative employment and 
training services, Sec.  309.65(b) also requires that the Tribe or 
Tribal organization include in its Tribal IV-D plan an explanation of 
how the Tribal child support program has consulted with, and taken into 
consideration the services provided by, federally-funded employment and 
training programs administered by the Tribe. It also requires that 
Tribes electing the option to provide employment and training services 
using FFP under title IV-D must comply with future reporting 
requirements prescribed by the Office.
    Consistent with Executive Order 14112, 88 FR 86021 (December 6, 
2023), Reforming Federal Funding and Support for Tribal Nations to 
Better Embrace Our Trust Responsibilities and Promote the Next Era of 
Tribal Self- Determination, the final rule takes into account the 
unique needs, capacity, and barriers faced by Tribal IV-D programs, and 
thus does not provide a set list of federally-funded programs that 
Tribes must coordinate with to ensure noncustodial parents are not 
receiving duplicative employment and training services. Tribes must 
consult with, and take into consideration the services provided by, 
federally-funded employment and training programs administered by the 
Tribe to ensure effective service delivery and to provide the most 
appropriate mix of services that address the multiple barriers to 
employment faced by low-income noncustodial parents in their caseload, 
while minimizing costs to the child support program. To meet this 
requirement, Tribal IV-D agencies have flexibility to coordinate with 
any of the federally-funded employment and training programs 
administered by the Tribe. OCSS's policy goals are to make it possible 
for Tribal child support agencies to provide employment and training 
services to noncustodial parents who need them but are not available to 
them, while minimizing unnecessary duplication of services that are 
already successfully being provided by other federally-funded programs 
administered by the Tribe.
    OCSS anticipates that many Tribal child support agencies will 
purchase employment and training services by entering into contracts 
with public, private and community-based employment, fatherhood, and 
reentry programs, community action agencies, community colleges, or 
other service providers, rather than offer these services in-house, in 
accordance with 45 CFR 309.60(c), Who is responsible for administration 
of the Tribal IV-D program under the Tribal IV-D plan. However, this 
does not preclude a Tribal child support agency from providing 
employment and training services to noncustodial parents directly.

Section 309.121 Employment and Training Services

    This rule adds a new optional Tribal plan provision, Sec.  309.121, 
Employment and training services, to allow Tribes to provide certain 
employment and training services to eligible noncustodial parents in 
accordance with the newly designated Sec.  309.65(b).
    The final rule establishes basic eligibility requirements that must 
be met for Tribes to provide employment and training services for 
noncustodial parents. Eligibility for employment and training services 
is limited to noncustodial parents who: have an open IV-D case; have a 
child support order or have been determined by the IV-D agency to be 
fully cooperating with the IV-D agency to establish a child support 
order; and are unemployed or underemployed or at risk of not being able 
to comply with their support order. In addition, the IV-D agency must 
have adopted policies and procedures for determining that the 
noncustodial parent is not receiving the same employment and training 
services under other federally-funded employment and training program 
administered by the Tribe. Tribes and Tribal organizations may 
establish additional criteria not in conflict with those established in 
the rule.
    Consistent with Executive Order 14112, the final rule takes into 
account the unique needs, capacity, and barriers faced by Tribal IV-D 
programs, and thus does not include a set list of programs for Tribes 
to verify non-duplication of services. Tribal child support programs 
will need to adopt policies and procedures for determining that the 
noncustodial parent is not receiving the same employment and training 
services from other federally-funded program administered by the Tribe. 
The final rule does not prescribe a method for child support agencies 
to use, but leaves it to Tribes and Tribal organizations to determine 
how best to confirm that a noncustodial parent is not already receiving 
the same services from another federally-funded program administered by 
the Tribe.
    The list of allowable services includes those services that were 
most frequently provided in various demonstrations, research 
evaluations, and state-based programs detailed in the rule. Other 
eligible work supports may include, but are not limited to costs 
incurred for bona fide services and assistance such as: work-related 
tools; work-related clothing or uniforms; emergency vehicle repairs if 
affordable transportation alternatives are not available; referrals for 
child care assistance; referrals to health care, mental health 
counseling or drug treatment; license fees; application fees; and other 
costs of employment and training tests or certifications.

Section 309.145 What costs are allowable for Tribal IV-D programs 
carried out under Sec.  309.65(a)?

    As a result of the comments received concerning the applicability 
of this rule for Tribal child support programs, we add new Sec.  
309.145(c)(5) allowing FFP for certain employment and training services 
when they are provided in accordance with Sec.  309.121.

Section 309.155 What uses of Tribal IV-D program funds are not 
allowable?

    To address comments received in support of the availability of 
funds for Tribal child support programs, we redesignate existing Sec.  
309.155(f) as new Sec.  309.155(g), and add new Sec.  309.155(f) to 
provide a list of costs related to employment and training services 
that the NPRM said would not be eligible for FFP.

Responses to Comments

    OCSS received 58 sets of comments from States, 2 previous Federal 
Office of Child Support Commissioners, national child support 
associations, fatherhood, research and other non-profit organizations, 
private companies and other interested individuals. We posted 54 sets 
of comments on www.regulations.gov, three of which were duplicates; 4 
sets of comments were not posted because they were not related to the 
NPRM. All expressed overwhelming support for the NPRM.

Section 302.76 Employment and Training Services

    Comment 1: We received multiple comments about statewide 
requirements related to the State plan. All of these commenters 
requested that the final rule not require States to implement 
employment and training services statewide. Commenters noted that the 
labor market conditions and outlook can vary substantially within a 
State,

[[Page 100800]]

affecting the need for employment and training services. Other 
commenters noted that the capacity to provide employment and training 
services can vary substantially within a State. Still others noted that 
available resources to draw matching FFP to pay the non-Federal share 
of costs for employment and training services can vary substantially by 
county within a State. For these reasons, the commenters urged OCSS to 
allow States to tailor employment and training services to local 
conditions. The commenters suggested the final rule should waive the 
statewide requirement for optional employment and training services, if 
permissible. If not permissible, they suggested the final rule should 
clarify that a State may indicate in its State plan that the option to 
use FFP for employment and training services is available to all 
counties within the State and may be used at county option.
    Response 1: OCSS appreciates the concerns about States being 
required to offer employment and training services statewide given 
these services are optional under the State plan. The regulations at 45 
CFR 302.10 implement section 454(1) of the Act and requires in Sec.  
302.10(a) the State plan be in operation on a statewide basis in 
accordance with equitable standards for administration that are 
mandatory throughout the State. The regulations at 45 CFR 302.10(c) 
require the IV-D agency will assure that the plan is continuously in 
operation in all appropriate offices or agencies through (1) methods 
for informing staff of policies, standards, procedures, and 
instructions and (2) regular planned examination and evaluation of 
operations in local offices. As 45 CFR 302.10 requires IV-D State plans 
to be in operation on a statewide basis, States electing to provide 
employment and training services using FFP must make at least a minimum 
level of services available statewide. These services for some 
jurisdictions could be virtual job readiness trainings that individuals 
could access online or at their local child support services offices 
(e.g., online training on how to interview, prepare a resume, 
navigating job announcement websites, or occupational training and 
other skills training directly related to employment such as programs 
to complete high school or a high school equivalency certificate), 
while other jurisdictions may offer more intensive employment and 
training services. States, however, will have the flexibility to 
determine what additional services are appropriate in their 
jurisdictions based on local conditions, resources, and needs. OCSS 
encourages States to review and consider successful programs operated 
by other States, some of which have included piloting employment and 
training services in select areas first and then expanding to other 
service areas.
    Comment 2: We received various comments regarding the requirement 
that States must comply with future reporting requirements prescribed 
by OCSS if they elect to provide employment and training services. Some 
commenters suggested that OCSS consult with States about any reporting 
requirements and give States the opportunity to provide feedback to 
OCSS ahead of the adoption of these requirements, especially if system 
changes would be required to meet these reporting requirements. One 
commenter suggested OCSS address the reporting requirements in the 
regulation or in supplemental guidance released before the regulation 
is finalized, while another commenter suggested reporting requirements 
be provided before States elect the option. Another commenter urged 
that the reporting requirements closely match existing IV-D agency 
requirements to reduce the likelihood of burdensome or negative impacts 
on a State's child support system, while another commenter argued that 
consideration should be given to the practical utility of the reporting 
measures and the ability of States to easily obtain and maintain the 
mandated data. Other commenters recommended that OCSS align reporting 
requirements with the performance measures of existing employment and 
training programs. Still others recommended specific items be included 
in the reporting requirements, and one commenter recommended that 
reporting be disaggregated by characteristics such as race, ethnicity, 
disability status, and gender. One commenter encouraged OCSS to include 
reporting requirements that would allow States to conduct program 
analysis and evaluation of their employment and training services. 
Other commenters suggested FFP be available for system enhancements to 
capture any required data elements.
    Response 2: OCSS clarifies there are no Federal reporting 
requirements that are specifically related to employment and training 
programs at this time. We understand that commenters are concerned 
about the potential burden that future reporting requirements may have. 
After the rule is published, we will consult with States and Tribes 
about Federal reporting requirements under this rule, and in accordance 
with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OCSS will 
publish the proposed information collection in the Federal Register 
providing States, Tribes, and the public the opportunity to comment on 
the reporting requirements.
    Comment 3: Two commenters expressed support for Tribal child 
support programs receiving FFP for employment and training services.
    Response 3: OCSS appreciates and agrees with the commenters and has 
included amendments in the Tribal child support regulations at 45 CFR 
part 309 to specifically allow FFP for Tribal child support programs' 
employment and training activities. This final rule amends part 309 to 
expressly include FFP for Tribes and Tribal organizations operating IV-
D programs that elect to implement optional employment and training 
services. This change aligns with President Biden's Executive Order 
14112.
    Allowing FFP for Tribal child support programs to provide 
employment and training services promotes equity and honors Tribal 
sovereignty and the trust relationship between the Federal Government 
and Tribal Nations. As set out by the 1977 Senate report of the 
American Indian Policy Review Commission, ``The purpose behind the 
trust is and always has been to insure the survival and welfare of 
Indian Tribes and people. This includes an obligation to provide those 
services required to protect and enhance Indian lands, resources, and 
self-government and also includes those economic and social programs 
which are necessary to raise the standard of living and social well-
being of the Indian people to a level comparable to the non-Indian 
society.'' \84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See American Indian Policy Review Commission Final Report 
(May 1977), page 130 available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED164229.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Child support programs adding employment and training services help 
Tribal communities support parental financial responsibility, so 
children receive economic support from both parents even when they live 
in separate households. Allowing Tribal child support programs to 
receive FFP for employment and training service activities will help to 
ensure that Tribal Nations can offer culturally appropriate and 
affirming services to their communities. Tribes and Tribal 
organizations exercising their sovereignty to operate their own child 
support programs is, in fact, what Congress intended when it authorized 
funding under PRWORA. Allowing FFP for Tribal child support programs to

[[Page 100801]]

deliver employment and training services helps to achieve this and to 
ensure the continued focus on promoting parenting responsibility and 
support for child well-being.
    Allowing Tribal child support programs to receive FFP for 
employment and training service activities is also important because 
many Federal programs that assist Tribal Nations and promote Tribal 
sovereignty are underfunded, according to the 2018 U.S. Commission on 
Civil Rights report on Federal funding for Native Americans.\85\ The 
changes to expressly include Tribal child support programs honors and 
reflects the trust relationship and doctrine, which requires the 
Federal Government to support Tribal self-government and economic 
prosperity.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Broken Promises: 
Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans (December 
2018) at https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf.
    \86\ See Administration for Children and Families, American 
Indians and Alaska Natives--The Trust Responsibility Fact Sheet at 
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ana/fact-sheet/american-indians-and-alaska-natives-trust-responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule allows Tribes and Tribal organizations, at their 
option, to provide employment and training services to eligible 
noncustodial parents and provides that such services are eligible for 
FFP at the applicable matching rate.
    Comment 4: We received multiple comments related to the requirement 
to coordinate with other federally-funded employment and training 
programs to ensure that noncustodial parents are receiving well-
coordinated employment and training services across these programs and 
that services are not being duplicated. Some commenters requested 
specific guidance on how to comply with coordination requirements, 
while others requested additional guidance about how to co-enroll a 
parent paying child support into multiple training programs and how to 
allocate costs across programs. Some asked for guidance about selecting 
which funding stream is utilized when and whether each program could 
pay a percentage of costs. One commenter recommended State child 
support agencies be included as optional partners of WIOA State plans 
and that State child support agencies should leverage State workforce 
agencies. Another commenter suggested requiring partnership with State 
workforce agencies and encouraged OCSS to work closely with the U.S. 
Department of Labor and other Federal agencies in the development and 
implementation of the final rule. Another commenter suggested 
eliminating the coordination requirement because it would be unduly 
burdensome. Other commenters asked if the coordination requirement 
results in an additional requirement to have cooperative agreements in 
place with the other federally-funded employment programs listed in 
Sec.  302.76 and whether the prohibition against duplicative services 
prevents a State from offering different but related services from more 
than one agency.
    Response 4: This final rule provides States and Tribes flexibility 
regarding how they will coordinate with State and Tribal agencies that 
administer federally-funded programs, as States and Tribes may 
structure their employment and training service delivery differently. 
States and Tribes have discretion to implement coordination efforts 
with other federally-funded employment and training service providers 
that best support successful program execution and stable employment 
outcomes for eligible noncustodial parents while preventing duplication 
of services. States and Tribes also have discretion to establish 
enrollment policies and processes for employment and training services 
programs they provide for eligible noncustodial parents. We encourage 
child support programs to work with partner agencies to educate 
noncustodial parents regarding partner agencies' enrollment policies. 
OCSS's website includes Knowledge Works and Tribal Employment Pathways 
resources for child support agencies who have interest or already 
provide employment and training services to noncustodial parents.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ OCSS's Knowledge Works website is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/employment-programs; OCSS's Tribal Employment 
Pathways website is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/child-support-professionals/tribal-agencies/tribal-employment-pathways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule allows States and Tribes discretion to determine the 
appropriateness of who they should target as partners to provide 
employment and training services. This final rule does not require 
child support agencies to partner with workforce agencies as the 
providers of job services, only that they consult with, and take into 
consideration the services provided by, other federally-funded 
employment and training programs. We do not want to restrict the 
ability of States, Counties, Tribes, and Tribal organizations to 
determine the most appropriate partner to offer employment and training 
services tailored to local conditions, the employment needs of 
noncustodial parents, labor market outlook, and existing capacity 
within local employment programs.
    We disagree with comments requesting that OCSS remove the 
coordination requirement as we believe it is important for a child 
support program to explain how they have consulted with, and taken into 
consideration the services provided by, other federally-funded 
employment and training programs to ensure noncustodial parents are 
receiving well-coordinated employment and training services across 
these programs, and that services provided to noncustodial parents are 
not being unnecessarily duplicated.
    The coordination requirement does not require IV-D agencies to have 
cooperative agreements in place with other federally-funded employment 
and training programs and does not prevent a State or Tribe from 
offering different services to a noncustodial parent from more than one 
agency.
    Comment 5: One commenter suggested OCSS encourage coordination with 
fatherhood programs. Another commenter suggested OCSS provide examples 
and guidance related to coordinating with criminal justice agencies, 
especially during reentry into communities, and provide guidance on how 
to align protections for individuals already in place through Civil 
Rights offices with the services in the NPRM. Another commenter said 
States are interested in opportunities for peer-to-peer learning and 
knowledge transfer and mentioned that both the National Association of 
State Workforce Agencies (NASWA) and the American Public Human Services 
Association (APHSA) have such networks.
    Response 5: We recommend that child support programs build robust 
partnerships with existing education and workforce programs and 
providers of supportive services, such as workforce agencies, TANF and 
SNAP agencies, the Native Employment Works program, Public Law 102-477 
programs, community colleges, labor organizations, criminal justice 
agencies including probation, parole and corrections, fatherhood 
programs and other community-based organizations. Partnering with other 
programs can allow child support agencies to broaden the types of 
services they provide to noncustodial parents in their caseload. States 
and Tribes are permitted and encouraged to provide additional services 
under different funding streams to complement the limited set of 
services funded under title IV-D to help noncustodial parents with 
significant barriers to employment obtain and retain stable employment 
that prevent

[[Page 100802]]

them from making full and regular child support payments.
    OCSS has Knowledge Works and Tribal Employment Pathways resources 
on our website for child support agencies who have interest or already 
provide employment and training services to noncustodial parents.\88\ 
Several of these resources assist with peer-to-peer learning and 
knowledge transfer and highlight the successful programs operating in 
various jurisdictions. These resources share documents compiled by 
various jurisdictions and include a peer-to-peer training series that 
includes an ability to view all previously recorded webinars. OCSS will 
endeavor to develop and expand both websites after the publication of 
this rule. Further we encourage child support agencies to consider 
participating in the networks of NASWA and APHSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 303.6 Enforcement of Support Obligations

    Comment 6: Numerous commenters recommended extending eligibility 
criteria for employment and training services in Sec.  303.6(c)(5) to 
noncustodial parents with arrears-only cases. Many noted that 
noncustodial parents with arrears-only cases are still responsible for 
paying child support and may face barriers to employment that limit 
their ability to pay. Many of them are of working age, unemployed, and 
could benefit from employment and training services to help them find 
work and pay their child support. Some commenters noted that they 
currently operate employment and training programs for noncustodial 
parents and do not exclude arrears-only cases and have found their 
programs to be effective at getting noncustodial parents into paying 
status. They argued that since these programs are effective, child 
support agencies should be able to provide these services regardless of 
whether the parent owes current support.
    Commenters also noted that excluding noncustodial parents with 
arrears-only cases is unfair to custodial parents who could receive 
increased arrears payments if the noncustodial parent received 
employment and training services. Some noted that these custodial 
parents went without child support payments when their children were 
young through no fault of their own, so they shouldn't be denied the 
opportunity to receive these payments simply because their children had 
emancipated. Still others noted that this exclusion was unfair to 
noncustodial parents with arrears-only cases who were never given the 
opportunity to receive employment and training services when they had a 
current support order. If they had been given that opportunity, their 
child support debt may not exist today. Thus, it is unfair to deny 
these parents employment and training services that they needed then 
and still need.
    Some commenters agreed with OCSS that noncustodial parents with a 
current support order should be given priority for employment and 
training services since they are responsible for supporting minor 
children, but they noted that both the custodial parent and the 
noncustodial parent may have other minor children that could benefit 
from the increased financial stability that noncustodial parents with 
arrears-only cases could achieve if they received employment and 
training services.
    Some commenters noted that prohibiting noncustodial parents with 
arrears-only cases from employment and training services was an 
administrative burden for the child support agency since it would 
require child support agencies to keep track of a parent's order 
status. It would also require the child support agency to terminate 
services if a noncustodial parent's child emancipates while the parent 
is receiving services, which is disruptive for the parent and may 
undermine the success of the services.
    If OCSS continues to prohibit noncustodial parents with arrears-
only cases from receiving employment and training services, some 
commenters recommended that OCSS allow certain exceptions to a strict 
prohibition. The most common exception suggested was for noncustodial 
parents who have custody of the minor children covered by the arrears-
only case.
    Response 6: OCSS is persuaded by these comments and has revised the 
eligibility criteria in Sec. Sec.  303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 to clarify 
that a noncustodial parent with an arrears-only case is eligible to 
receive employment and training services. As noted in the NPRM, OCSS 
wanted to prioritize noncustodial parents who have a current support 
order for employment and training services since the primary goal of 
offering these services is to increase the consistency of current 
support payments to families with minor children. However, we agree 
that noncustodial parents with arrears-only cases are still responsible 
for paying child support and may face barriers to employment that limit 
their ability to pay and thus could benefit from employment and 
training services, which, if provided, could lead to an improved 
employment situation and increased child support payments to custodial 
families. In response to these comments, we removed the word 
``current'' in proposed Sec.  303.6(c)(5) describing the eligibility 
criteria to allow States and Tribes the option to provide noncustodial 
to allow noncustodial parents with child support orders in arrears-only 
cases to be eligible for employment and training services funded under 
title IV-D in addition to noncustodial parents with a current support 
order.
    Comment 7: Some commenters suggested extending eligibility criteria 
for employment and training services in Sec.  303.6(c)(5) to custodial 
parents.
    Response 7: OCSS disagrees with these comments. The purpose of 
allowing child support programs to provide employment and training 
services to noncustodial parents is to obtain child support payments, 
which will benefit custodial families and that is the focus of this 
rule. OCSS encourages child support agencies to develop robust referral 
networks with other programs that provide employment and training 
services to custodial parents.
    Comment 8: One commenter suggested extending eligibility for 
employment and training services in Sec.  303.6(c)(5) to noncustodial 
parents who do not have a support order.
    Response 8: This final rule limits eligibility criteria for 
employment and training services to noncustodial parents who have a 
child support order or have been determined by the IV-D agency to be 
fully cooperating with the IV-D agency to establish a child support 
order, however the child support agency must have an open IV-D case in 
accordance with section 454(4) of the Act and 45 CFR 302.33. OCSS 
leaves it to States, Tribes, or Tribal organizations to determine if a 
noncustodial parent is fully cooperating with the IV-D agency to 
establish a child support order.
    Comment 9: We received multiple comments regarding the language in 
the preamble of the NPRM that a State may obtain an attestation from 
the noncustodial parent that he or she is not receiving the same 
employment and training service from the programs listed in Sec.  
303.6(c)(5). Some commenters suggested that OCSS should allow States to 
determine the process to confirm whether the noncustodial parent is 
receiving the same services. Other commenters suggested a verbal 
confirmation from the noncustodial parent that they are not receiving 
the same services, documented in case record, should be sufficient. 
Some commenters suggested that if attestation is required, the 
attestation requirement

[[Page 100803]]

should be added to the regulatory language.
    Response 9: OCSS disagrees with the need to prescribe the method by 
which States and Tribes confirm that duplicative services are not 
provided in any particular case, including adding specific attestation 
requirements. As indicated in response to comments above, this final 
rule provides States and Tribes flexibility to adopt policies and 
procedures for determining that the noncustodial parent is not 
receiving duplicative services from federally-funded employment and 
training programs.
    Comment 10: A commenter recommended that OCSS clarify that if a 
noncustodial parent confirms they are not receiving the same services 
from another program and is later found to have received duplicated 
services, the IV-D agency will not be liable for repayment of such 
costs.
    Response 10: OCSS appreciates the commenters concerns, and in 
response to comments regarding the non-duplication of services 
requirement for individual cases, we made changes in Sec.  303.6(c)(5) 
of the final rule to clarify that to meet this requirement States and 
Tribes must adopt policies and procedures for determining that a 
noncustodial parent is not already receiving the same services under 
federally-funded programs. States and tribes have broad discretion to 
determine what policies and procedures to adopt for determining that 
services are not being duplicated. An unallowable expenditure would not 
occur so long as the IV-D agency adopts and implements such policies 
and procedures.
    Comment 11: Two commenters recommended adding legal services or 
legal assistance to the list of allowable services in Sec.  
303.6(c)(5). While one commenter suggested including legal services 
focused solely on child support issues such as order modification and 
enforcement petitions, the other commenter suggested including legal 
assistance that addressed employment barriers more broadly, including 
help with expungement, reinstating revoked driver's licenses, and other 
common barriers people have to securing and keeping a job.
    Response 11: OCSS disagrees that legal services or legal assistance 
should be separately added to the list of allowable services in 
Sec. Sec.  303.6(c)(5) and 309.121. Child support agencies already have 
authority to initiate a review and adjustment of child support orders 
and, if necessary, enforcement actions. However, we agree that 
noncustodial parents may need legal assistance incidental to removing 
employment barriers, such as expungement or reinstating a driver's 
license, which may be considered work supports under Sec. Sec.  
303.6(c)(5)(vi) and 309.121(b)(6).
    Comment 12: One commenter suggested this rule require States to 
incorporate domestic violence prevention and awareness into employment 
and training services programs to reduce the incidence of domestic 
violence in the future and suggested that training staff about domestic 
violence and the characteristics of healthy relationships would enhance 
the delivery of services to noncustodial parents.
    Response 12: OCSS requires all States to have and use a Family 
Violence Indicator on appropriate cases, work diligently to ensure they 
appropriately screen referrals and applications, flag affected cases in 
automated systems, and restrict information sharing with other data 
collection systems. OCSS reminds child support programs they are 
responsible for providing domestic violence safeguards in operating any 
aspect of the child support program. See 45 CFR 303.21, 307.11, and 
307.13. Additionally, OCSS offers training to child support programs 
regarding domestic violence.
    Comment 13: Five commenters recommended including subsidized 
employment as an allowable service, emphasizing the need for this 
service and the multiple benefits generated by this service.
    Response 13: We are not including subsidized employment as an 
allowable service. OCSS appreciates and understands the potential need 
for subsidized employment especially for some noncustodial parents 
facing a specific set of barriers. However, including subsidized 
employment can significantly increase the cost of providing employment 
and training services. Although subsidized employment is not included 
as an allowable service under this final rule, as referenced in PIQ-12-
02,\89\ child support agencies may partner with other agencies that can 
fund subsidized employment and other employment and training activities 
beyond those allowed under this rule. Additionally, a State can 
consider submitting an exemption request to the Secretary to reinvest 
IV-D incentive payments and States, Tribes, or Tribal organizations can 
apply for a section 1115 waiver to provide subsidized employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ PIQ-12-02 is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/partnering-other-programs-including-outreach-referral-and-case-management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 14: Various commenters asked about the definitions used to 
describe the allowable employment and training services found in Sec.  
303.6(c)(5). One commenter recommended that OCSS seek to better align 
its definitions of employment and training services with existing 
programs, asking, for example, whether ``vocational education 
training,'' a core activity within the TANF program, would be 
considered within ``occupational training and other skills training 
directly related to employment.'' Another commenter asked why OCSS 
combined occupational training with activities to improve literacy and 
basic skills. A third commenter offered definitions for some of the 
employment and training services that are allowable under this rule, 
including job search assistance, job readiness training, occupational 
training, job retention services, and work supports.
    Response 14: OCSS selected the list of allowable employment and 
training services found in Sec. Sec.  303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 based on 
research that examined the effectiveness of employment and training 
programs for noncustodial parents described in this rule. Through 
further research, OCSS decided on the term ``occupational training'' 
since it is more encompassing than ``vocational education training.'' 
Thus, OCSS would consider ``vocational education training'' within 
``occupational training and other skills training directly related to 
employment.'' OCSS combined occupational training with activities to 
improve literacy and basic skills because both of these activities 
increase a person's employment skills. OCSS has included descriptions 
for job retention services and work supports in the Summary Description 
of the Regulatory Changes in the preamble to the rule. OCSS has not 
provided definitions of job search assistance, job readiness training, 
and occupational training. We defer to reasonable State and Tribal 
definitions for these terms.
    Comment 15: One commenter recommended including attainment of a 
``general educational diploma (GED)'' as an allowable training service 
in Sec.  303.6(c)(5). Another commenter recommended including 
comprehensive training programs that are aligned with market demands 
and offer certifications that enhance employability in Sec.  
303.6(c)(5).
    Response 15: OCSS has included programs to complete a high school 
or a high school equivalency certificate as an allowable training 
service, which

[[Page 100804]]

includes attainment of a ``general education diploma (GED).'' OCSS uses 
the phrase ``high school equivalency'' instead of ``General Education 
Development (GED)'' since it is a more encompassing term that includes 
GED programs as well as other programs similar to GED. OCSS has also 
included occupational training and other skills training directly 
related to employment, which includes comprehensive training programs 
that are aligned with market demands and offer certifications that 
enhance employability.
    Comment 16: One commenter asked for clarification regarding the 
term ``employment and training services plan,'' which is used in Sec.  
303.6(c)(5)(vii).
    Response 16: We have revised this section and no longer use the 
term ``employment and training services plan'' because commenters found 
this requirement confusing. OCSS does not believe an employment and 
training services plan is necessary to meet the requirements of the 
rule.
    Comment 17: One commenter recommended that the definition of job 
retention services, one of the allowable services in Sec.  303.6(c)(5), 
be expanded to include support for re-employment should a job be lost 
and advancement services to support the job holder's career growth.
    Response 17: OCSS disagrees with this recommendation. We believe 
that the list of allowable employment and training services that are 
included in Sec. Sec.  303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 are sufficient for child 
support programs to support maintaining employment or re-employment 
should the noncustodial parent experience job loss. We did not include 
job advancement services since they are not needed to find and maintain 
employment to pay child support consistently. However, we do value 
investments in career development and education as an effective route 
out of poverty for parents and their children. We encourage child 
support programs to partner with other programs and agencies with a 
long-term career development mission. States, Tribes, and Tribal 
organizations are permitted and encouraged to provide additional 
services under different funding streams to complement the limited set 
of services provided in Sec. Sec.  303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 to help 
noncustodial parents succeed in the workforce.
    Comment 18: Several commenters requested further clarification 
regarding work supports, one of the allowable services in Sec.  
303.6(c)(5). One commenter requested that OCSS provide States with 
adequate flexibility to use funding for work supports to meet 
individual and population-specific needs. One commenter asked whether 
work supports could include cell phones. Another asked if it included 
educational materials (e.g. books, supplies, reading glasses, etc.) and 
fees (e.g. motor vehicle records fees, application and enrollment fees, 
physicals, and drug screenings, etc.). One commenter asked that OCSS 
prescribe how States would determine if an ancillary expenditure is an 
approved work support.
    Response 18: OCSS describes work supports in the preamble of the 
rule as costs incurred for bona fide services and assistance provided 
to noncustodial parents so that they may find and retain employment or 
participate in employment and training services. We believe this 
description provides States, Tribes, and Tribal organizations with 
adequate flexibility to meet individual and population-specific needs. 
OCSS considers expenditures for cell phones, educational materials, and 
the fees mentioned by the commenter as allowable work supports if they 
are needed to find or retain employment or participate in employment 
and training services.
    Comment 19: One commenter asked that OCSS define ``emergency child 
care,'' which, under certain circumstances, is an allowable work 
support in Sec.  303.6(c)(5).
    Response 19: OCSS considers emergency child care to be the 
provision of child care services for a limited period of time due to a 
sudden and unplanned interruption in the regular child care routine.
    Comment 20: One commenter recommended adding financial literacy to 
the list of allowable services in Sec.  303.6(c)(5), noting that 
financial literacy can help individuals prevent devasting financial 
mistakes, prepare for financial emergencies, reach their goals, and 
gain fiscal confidence.
    Response 20: OCSS disagrees that financial literacy should be 
separately added to the list of allowable services in Sec. Sec.  
303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 as a stand-alone service. However, when 
financial literacy is integrated into job readiness training, the 
financial literacy component of the training is eligible for FFP under 
Sec. Sec.  303.6(c)(5)(ii) and 309.121(b)(2).
    Comment 21: Various commenters asked for further clarification 
regarding the eligibility criteria for receiving employment and 
training services. Two commenters asked whether noncustodial parents 
with support orders set at zero dollars were eligible for employment 
and training services. Other commenters asked for clarification 
regarding the eligibility criteria that says noncustodial parents are 
eligible if they are ``unemployed or underemployed or at risk of not 
being able to comply with their child support order''.
    Response 21: OCSS clarifies that noncustodial parents who have 
zero-dollar child support orders meet the eligibility criteria in 
Sec. Sec.  303.6(c)(5) and 309.121. OCSS hasn't defined unemployed, 
underemployed, or at risk of not being able to comply with their child 
support order. This final rule provides child support programs 
discretion and flexibility to define these terms based on the 
employment conditions in their jurisdictions.
    Comment 22: One commenter asked OCSS about the confidentiality and 
security requirements for the partner agencies that provide the 
employment and training services. Specifically, the commenter asked 
whether these agencies can use their own policies and procedures for 
confidentiality and security of program participants' data. If not, 
commenters asked if the partner agencies are required to follow IV-D 
requirements for storing, transmitting, sharing, and maintaining 
electronic and hard-copy IV-D data.
    Response 22: States need to meet the requirements of Sec.  303.21, 
Safeguarding and disclosure of confidential information, and adhere to 
all appropriate Federal, State, and local reporting and safeguarding 
requirements regarding data and information related to the provision of 
employment and training services. Tribes and Tribal organizations need 
to meet the requirements of Sec.  309.80, What safeguarding procedures 
must a Tribe or Tribal organization include in a Tribal IV-D plan, and 
adhere to all appropriate Federal and Tribal reporting and safeguarding 
requirements regarding data and information related to the provision of 
employment and training services.
    Comment 23: One commenter recommended adding an eligibility 
criterion to the rule that would permit States to exclude noncustodial 
parents who receive Social Security Administration (SSA) benefits from 
receiving employment and training services listed in Sec.  303.6(c)(5). 
Alternatively, the commenter recommended including the Ticket to Work 
Program among the federally-funded programs detailed in Sec. Sec.  
303.6(c)(5) and 302.76 to ensure child support agencies are 
establishing a coordinated, nonduplicative set of employment and 
training services with other federally-funded programs. The commenter 
noted that individuals who

[[Page 100805]]

receive Social Security Disability and/or Supplemental Security Income 
benefits are eligible to participate in the Social Security's Ticket to 
Work Program, which provides services similar to those in this rule.
    Response 23: While OCSS appreciates this commenter's interest in 
ensuring that employment and training services provided under 
Sec. Sec.  303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 are well targeted and 
nonduplicative, we do not think noncustodial parents who are receiving 
Social Security benefits should be excluded from receiving employment 
and training services in Sec. Sec.  303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 if they 
meet the other eligibility criteria for employment and training 
services. We do not see any benefit to the child support program to 
exclude parents from these services simply because they receive 
government benefits in general, or Social Security benefits in 
particular. We also think that the final rule already includes the 
major federally-funded programs that provide employment and training 
services that child support agencies need to coordinate with to ensure 
noncustodial parents are not receiving duplicative employment and 
training services. However, we note that the rule allows child support 
agencies to add eligibility criteria when offering employment and 
training services provided under Sec. Sec.  303.6(c)(5) and 309.121, 
and agencies are welcome to coordinate with other federally-funded 
programs that provide employment and training services not listed in 
Sec. Sec.  302.76 and 309.65(b).
    Comment 24: Various commenters noted the importance of implementing 
employment and training programs for noncustodial parents that are 
supportive and transparent to help overcome the apprehension and 
distrust that noncustodial parents can have toward the child support 
program. One commenter suggested lowering the monthly obligation during 
participation and establishing clear and consistent communication 
channels to inform noncustodial parents about their rights, 
obligations, and available support services. Another commenter 
suggested forgoing certain enforcement remedies for parents who are 
cooperating with the employment and training program and relaxing 
certain Federal requirements for cooperating parents, such as forgoing 
credit reporting or arrearage payments on income withholding notices. 
It was also suggested that OCSS encourages States to perform a review 
of participating noncustodial parents' child support orders.
    Response 24: OCSS agrees that it is important to implement 
employment and training programs for noncustodial parents that are 
supportive and transparent to help overcome the apprehension and 
distrust that noncustodial parents can have toward the child support 
program. States, Tribes and Tribal organizations currently have 
discretion to initiate the review and adjustment of child support 
orders where appropriate and suspend or suppress certain enforcement 
remedies during program participation. These practices were 
successfully utilized during the Child Support Noncustodial Parent 
Employment Demonstration (CSPED). OCSS encourages child support 
agencies to incorporate these practices into their employment and 
training programs. OCSS also encourages child support agencies to 
establish clear and consistent communication channels to inform 
noncustodial parents about their rights, obligations, and available 
support services. With regard to Federal requirements, a State, Tribe, 
or Tribal organization may request a waiver under section 1115 of the 
Social Security Act to waive Federal requirements for noncustodial 
parents who are cooperating with the employment and training program.
    Comment 25: One commenter recommended that OCSS should provide 
clear and detailed guidance on how to implement employment and training 
programs for noncustodial parents after the rule goes into effect so 
that States can establish effective programs and avoid costly 
challenges. Guidance was encouraged around service delivery, 
monitoring, coordination between child support agencies and other 
service providers, performance measurement, evaluation, and continuous 
improvement.
    Response 25: OCSS currently provides technical assistance to 
States, Tribes, and Tribal organizations that are implementing 
employment and training programs for noncustodial parents through its 
Knowledge Works! and Tribal Employment Pathways web pages. OCSS may 
issue additional guidance as needed to assist child support programs 
implement the rule.
    Comment 26: One commenter expressed interest in OCSS--in 
partnership with the U.S. Department of Labor--supporting opportunities 
for state workforce and human services agencies to research and 
evaluate various approaches for using FFP to deliver employment and 
training services.
    Response 26: OCSS appreciates this commenter's interest in 
continuing to develop the evidence base for delivering employment and 
training services to noncustodial parents. OCSS encourages States, 
Tribes, and Tribal organizations to use IV-D funds to evaluate the 
success of the employment and training services and make adjustments 
accordingly to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of such 
services in increasing child support payments to families. These 
activities are allowable under 45 CFR 304.20(b)(1)(ii) and 
309.145(a)(2).
    Comment 27: One commenter recommended offering enhanced FFP for 
costs associated with programming data exchanges that child support 
agencies might undertake with workforce agencies to avoid duplication 
of services. This commenter thought that the States' ability to meet 
the nonduplication requirement would depend upon a robust and timely 
data exchange between child support and other programs.
    Response 27: We appreciate the comment. However, OCSS has no 
authority to increase the FFP rate through the regulatory process. This 
would require a statutory change by Congress. The final rule does not 
require automated data exchanges between these agencies. As discussed 
in comment and response 9, child support programs will make case-by-
case determinations about whether a noncustodial parent is receiving 
the same employment and training services from federally-funded 
programs, but the final rule allows States, Tribes, and Tribal 
organizations to determine the method it will use to avoid duplication 
of these services with these programs.
    Comment 28: Two commenters requested clarification regarding the 
use of incentive funds for employment and training services. One 
comment requested clarification that States can use incentive payments 
for allowable employment and training services without the need to 
request an exemption to reinvest incentive payments.
    Response 28: OCSS clarifies that since employment and training 
services will be eligible for title IV-D funds as an allowable activity 
under title IV-D, an exemption is not necessary for States to use 
incentive dollars to provide the allowable services included in Sec.  
303.6(c)(5) to eligible noncustodial parents. Those services would be 
an allowable activity for FFP. However, an exemption is necessary if a 
State wants to provide employment and training services other than 
those listed in Sec.  303.6(c)(5) or wants to serve parents who are not 
eligible for employment and training services under this rule.
    Comment 29: One commenter recommended that OCSS clarify if FFP is 
available for administrative costs

[[Page 100806]]

associated with implementing employment and training services in Sec.  
303.6(c)(5), such as costs associated with start-up, staffing, 
technology, training, outreach, and rent.
    Response 29: This rule allows child support agencies to use FFP to 
provide employment and training services in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
303.6(c)(5) and 309.121, which includes costs of associated 
administrative activities, such as grant administration costs 
associated with start-up, staffing, technology, training, outreach, and 
rent, provided those costs are necessary, reasonable and appropriately 
allocable to the employment and training services and comply with 45 
CFR parts 304, 307, and 310 and HHS' uniform grant administration 
requirements.
    Comment 30: A commenter asked if FFP would be available for partner 
agencies to make systems enhancements.
    Response 30: FFP is not available for partner agencies to make 
enhancements to existing workforce systems.
    Comment 31: A few commenters opposed the prohibitions against using 
FFP for the cost of cash payments, checks, reimbursements, or any other 
form of payment that can be legally converted to currency and 
recommended eliminating the prohibition. Another commenter suggested 
allowing reimbursement for time critical, de minimus expenses up to a 
set dollar threshold, and pointed out that this prohibition is not 
consistent with other federally-funded employment and training programs 
such as those funded under WIOA.
    Response 31: We thank the commenters but have determined to 
maintain the NPRM restriction providing that FFP may not be used to 
provide cash payments, checks, reimbursements, or any other form of 
payment that can be legally converted to currency. Nothing prohibits 
State and Tribal child support agencies from forming collaborations 
with organizations (e.g., community-based groups; workforce system 
entities, such as those funded through WIOA systems; and others) that 
do provide resources such as emergency assistance and reimbursement of 
expenses.
    Comment 32: One commenter asked for clarification that FFP is 
available for employment and training services when the noncustodial 
parent is ordered to participate and the noncustodial parent 
voluntarily agrees to participate.
    Response 32: This final rule allows child support agencies to 
determine their enrollment process for providing employment and 
training services. In the past, some State child support agencies have 
limited enrollment to noncustodial parents who appear at a show cause 
or civil contempt hearing for failure to pay child support and are 
encouraged or ordered to participate in the employment and training 
program as an alternative sentencing option. Research shows that this 
approach to enrollment yields positive outcomes in terms of 
noncustodial parent employment and child support payments.\90\ Other 
State child support agencies have enrolled noncustodial parents on a 
voluntarily basis as part of early intervention efforts. This approach 
has also been found to be associated with positive improvements in 
noncustodial parent employment and child support outcomes.\91\ Still 
other State child support agencies have used a no wrong door approach 
to enrollment and research shows this approach can also be 
effective.\92\ Because the research shows that various approaches to 
enrollment can generate positive results, we have decided to allow 
child support agencies to determine their enrollment process. However, 
OCSS encourages States, Tribes, and Tribal organizations to consider 
using a no wrong door approach to enrollment because it increases the 
number of noncustodial parents who can potentially benefit from 
employment and training services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty (September 2009).
    \91\ Davis, Lanae, et al. (November 2013).
    \92\ Lippold, Kye, et al. (October 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (Pub. L. 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. There is one new 
State plan and one new Tribal plan reporting requirement because of 
this final rule for States, Tribes, or Tribal organizations that choose 
to implement the optional and nonduplicative employment and training 
services. The description and total estimated burden on the ``State 
Plan for Child Support Collection and Establishment of Paternity Under 
Title IV-D of the Social Security Act,'' and the State Plan Transmittal 
Form [OMB 0970-0017] are described in the chart below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Number of         Average burden hour                  National Federal  National State
        Section and purpose               Instrument            respondents           per response        Total cost          share            share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added optional requirement Sec.     State plan amendment.  One time for 33        3 hours x $66.82 x         $6,615.18         $4,366.02       $2,249.16
 302.76 Employment and training                             States.                33 States.
 services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A State, Tribe, or Tribal organization may submit a plan amendment 
for the optional and nonduplicative employment and training services at 
any time. But not all States, Tribes, and Tribal organizations will 
implement these optional services. Out of the 54 States, we estimate 33 
will eventually submit plan amendments for these optional services. Out 
of the 63 Tribes and Tribal organizations, we estimate that 35 will 
eventually submit plan amendments for these optional services. 
Additionally, we estimate that States will take 3 hours to draft the 
required information to amend their State plans. The cost to 
respondents was calculated using the Bureau of Labor Statistics job 
code for State Government Management Analyst [13-1111] and wage data 
from May 2021, which is $33.41 per hour. To account for fringe benefits 
and overhead, the rate was multiplied by two, which is $66.82. The 
total estimated cost is $6,615.18 with a State share of $2,249.16. OCSS 
reimburses States for 66 percent of the administrative costs incurred 
to administer the State plan.
    The description and total estimated burden on the ``Tribal Child 
Support Enforcement Direct Funding Requests'' are described in the 
chart below.

[[Page 100807]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Average burden hour per                  National Federal
          Section and purpose                   Instrument           Number of respondents            response            Total cost          share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added optional requirement Sec.         Tribal plan amendment....  One time for 35 Tribes...  6 hours x $76.26 x 35         $16,014.60        $16,014.60
 309.65(b) Employment and training                                                             Tribes.
 services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that Tribes will take 6 hours to draft the required 
information to amend their Tribal plans. The cost to respondents was 
calculated using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) job code for 
Social and Community Service Managers [11-9151] and wage data from May 
2022, which is $38.13 per hour (mean). To account for fringe benefits 
and overhead, the rate was multiplied by two, which is $76.26. The 
total estimated cost is $16,014.60. Tribal child support programs 
receive 100% FFP so there is no Tribal share incurred to administer the 
Tribal plan.
    This final rule would revise two approved information collections 
(State Plan for Child Support Collection and Establishment of Paternity 
Under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act; OMB #: 0970-0017 and 
Tribal Child Support Enforcement Direct Funding Requests; OMB #0970-
0218), as States, Tribes, and Tribal organizations that elect to 
participate in Employment and Training Services for Noncustodial 
Parents in the Child Support Program may submit a State and Tribal plan 
amendment to OCSS. To account for States, Tribes, and Tribal 
organizations that elect to provide employment and training services in 
accordance with this rule submitting revisions to their State or Tribal 
Plans and as required by PRA, we will submit the proposed revised data 
collections to OMB for review and approval. This will include an 
updated description in the Supporting Statement A justification and an 
updated burden table to show an estimated number of States, Tribes, or 
Tribal organizations that might submit amendments annually. The request 
to revise the title IV-D plan pages will include a comment period 
inviting comments on the new data collection and related burden. The 
public comment period will be announced through separate notices 
published in the Federal Register.

Regulatory Impact Analysis

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 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and 
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting 
flexibility. This rule meets the standards of Executive Order 13563 
because providing employment training and services benefits the public, 
particularly children and families whose economic security would be 
improved by increasing family income and improving financial stability. 
These services help to reduce the need for and cost of providing public 
assistance. This rule was designated by OMB as a significant regulatory 
action under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 
14094. This rule will not result in economic impacts that exceed the 
monetary threshold in section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (as 
amended by Executive Order 14094).
    For the chosen regulatory approach, it is estimated that the fiscal 
impact of the final rule against a baseline of no action, accounting 
for existing trends, will increase Federal expenditures in FY 2025 by 
$17.8 million, the anticipated first fiscal year of implementation. As 
more child support programs use this authority, the estimated fiscal 
impact will increase. By FY 2034, the estimated fiscal impact is 
expected to be $98.5 million per budget year. These estimates do not 
reflect the potential benefits to the Federal Government of 
implementing this program, such as reducing the cost of providing child 
support enforcement services and reducing reliance on means-tested 
programs; they only reflect the estimated cost of providing employment 
and training services to noncustodial parents in accordance with this 
final rule.
    ACF also assessed and considered a regulatory alternative of 
finalizing the proposed rule as published. As an example of the 
differences, in contrast to the final rule, the proposed rule did not 
contain a provision explicitly authorizing Tribal child support 
programs to receive FFP for employment and training service activities. 
It also did not allow child support programs to receive FFP for 
employment and training service activities for noncustodial parents 
with arrears-only cases. Compared to a baseline scenario of no 
regulatory action, adopting this policy alternative would result in an 
increase of $15.1 million in Federal expenditures during FY 2025, the 
first fiscal year of implementation, increasing to $74.0 million by FY 
2034. These estimates are slightly different than those included in the 
NPRM because the current estimates use more recent caseload information 
than used when estimating the fiscal impact of the NPRM. Compared to 
our estimated impacts of the final rule, this regulatory alternative 
would result in a lower increase in Federal expenditures by $2.7 
million in the first year, and a lower increase in Federal expenditures 
by $24.5 million in the final year of the time horizon of our analysis. 
We note that, compared to the final rule, this regulatory alternative 
would be less likely to ensure that Tribal Nations can offer culturally 
appropriate and affirming services to their communities.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Secretary has determined that, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as 
enacted by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), this rule 
will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The primary impact is on State and Tribal governments. 
State and Tribal governments are not considered small entities under 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires 
agencies to prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits 
before issuing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure by 
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the 
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for 
inflation). That threshold level is currently approximately $177 
million. This rule does not impose any mandates on State, local, or 
Tribal governments, or the private sector, that will exceed this 
threshold in any year.

[[Page 100808]]

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 
determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact 
assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. We certify 
that we have assessed this final rule's impact on the well-being of 
families. This rule will have a positive impact on family well-being as 
defined in the legislation by proposing evidence-informed policies and 
practices that help to ensure that noncustodial parents support their 
children more consistently and reliably.

Congressional Review

    This final rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. chapter 
8.

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 impacts as defined 
in the Executive Order 13132.

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.'' 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 rule does not meet either standard 
for consultation. Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule 
because it does not impose any burden or cost on Tribal IV-D agencies, 
nor does it impact the relationship or distribution of power between 
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Rather, it provides IV-D 
agencies an option for claiming Federal financial participation (FFP) 
for the provision of employment and training services to noncustodial 
parents. Although not required for this final rule, ACF is committed to 
consulting with Indian Tribes and Tribal leadership to the extent 
practicable and permitted by law.
    In April 2023 OCSS held a consultation where tribal leaders shared 
concerns with high unemployment and expressed a need for additional 
funding in employment and training for noncustodial parents. During 
that same consultation leaders expressed there was no reason for Tribes 
to not have the same enforcement measures as States. At the June 2023 
ACF Tribal Advisory Committee (TAC) OCSS shared it was exploring ways 
to fund employment and training services. Members of the TAC expressed 
support for funding employment and training services.
    Meg Sullivan, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the 
Administration for Children and Families, performing the delegable 
duties of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, approved 
this document on December 3, 2024

List of Subjects

45 CFR Part 302

    Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Penalties, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Unemployment compensation.

45 CFR Part 303

    Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 304

    Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

45 CFR Part 309

    Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Indians-tribal 
government, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 6, 2024.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Health 
and Human Services amends 45 CFR parts 302, 303, 304, and 309 as set 
forth below:

PART 302--STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 659a, 660, 664, 666, 667, 
1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396(k).


0
2. Add Sec.  302.76 to read as follows:


Sec.  302.76  Employment and training services.

    The State plan may provide for employment and training services for 
eligible noncustodial parents in accordance with Sec.  303.6(c)(5) of 
this chapter. If the State chooses this option, the State plan must 
include a description of the employment and training services and the 
eligibility criteria. In addition, to ensure the IV-D agency is 
providing well-coordinated and non-duplicative employment and training 
services, the State plan must explain how the IV-D agency has consulted 
with, and taken into consideration the services provided by, the State 
agencies administering the following programs: the Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families program (45 CFR part 261), the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and Training program (7 CFR 
273.7 and 273.24), the Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs 
under title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (20 CFR 
parts 675 through 688), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act 
program (34 CFR part 463), the Employment Service program (20 CFR part 
652), and the Vocational Rehabilitation program (34 CFR part 361). 
States electing the option must comply with future reporting 
requirements prescribed by the Office.

PART 303--STANDARDS FOR PROGRAM OPERATIONS

0
3. The authority citation for part 303 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 659a, 660, 663, 664, 666, 
667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), 1396(k), 
and 25 U.S.C. 1603(12) and 1621e.


0
4. Amend Sec.  303.6 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c)(4)(iii);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(5) as paragraph (c)(6); and
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  303.6  Enforcement of support obligations.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5)(i) As elected by the State in Sec.  302.76 of this chapter, 
provide

[[Page 100809]]

employment and training services to eligible noncustodial parents. In 
addition to eligibility criteria that may be set by the IV-D agency, 
the noncustodial parent must: have an open IV-D case; have a child 
support order or be determined by the IV-D agency to be fully 
cooperating with the IV-D agency to establish a child support order; 
and be unemployed or underemployed or at risk of not being able to 
comply with their support order. In addition, the IV-D agency must have 
adopted policies and procedures for determining that the noncustodial 
parent is not receiving the same employment and training services under 
the following programs: the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
program (45 CFR part 261), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program Employment and Training program (7 CFR 273.7 and 273.24), the 
Federal Pell Grant program (34 CFR part 690), the Adult, Dislocated 
Worker, and Youth programs under title I of the Workforce Innovation 
and Opportunity Act (20 CFR parts 675 through 688), the Adult Education 
and Family Literacy Act program (34 CFR part 463), the Employment 
Service program (20 CFR part 652), or the State Vocational 
Rehabilitation program (34 CFR part 361);
    (ii) These IV-D agency employment and training services are limited 
to:
    (A) Job search assistance;
    (B) Job readiness training;
    (C) Job development and job placement services;
    (D) Skills assessments to facilitate job placement;
    (E) Job retention services;
    (F) Work supports, such as transportation assistance, uniforms, and 
tools; and
    (G) Occupational training and other skills training directly 
related to employment, which may also include activities to improve 
literacy and basic skills, such as programs to complete high school or 
a high school equivalency certificate or English as a second language; 
and
    (iii) Federal financial participation may also be used to provide 
case management in connection with the allowable services under this 
paragraph (c)(5); and
* * * * *

PART 304--FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION

0
5. The authority citation for part 304 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 651 through 655, 657, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 
1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396(k).

0
6. Amend Sec.  304.20 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(3)(vi);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3)(vii) as paragraph (b)(3)(viii); and
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3)(vii).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  304.20   Availability and rate of Federal financial 
participation.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (vii) Employment and training services activities in accordance 
with Sec. Sec.  302.76 and 303.6(c)(5) of this chapter; and
* * * * *

0
7. Amend Sec.  304.23 by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:


Sec.  304.23  Expenditures for which Federal financial participation is 
not available.

* * * * *
    (k) Any expenditures under Sec.  303.6(c)(5) of this chapter for 
subsidized employment or payment of cash, checks, reimbursements, or 
any other form of payment that can be legally converted to currency 
provided to the noncustodial parent.

PART 309--TRIBAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (IV-D) PROGRAM

0
8. The authority citation for part 309 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 655(f) and 1302.


0
9. Amend Sec.  309.65 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c); and
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (b).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  309.65   What must a Tribe or Tribal Organization include in a 
Tribal IV-D plan in order to demonstrate capacity to operation a Tribal 
IV-D program?

* * * * *
    (b) The Tribal plan may provide for employment and training 
services for eligible noncustodial parents in accordance with Sec.  
309.121. If the Tribe or Tribal organization chooses this option, the 
Tribal plan must include a description of the employment and training 
services and the eligibility criteria. In addition, to ensure the 
Tribal IV-D agency is providing well-coordinated and non-duplicative 
employment and training services, the Tribal plan must explain how the 
Tribal IV-D agency has consulted with, and taken into consideration 
services provided by, federally-funded employment and training programs 
administered by the Tribe. Tribes or Tribal organizations electing the 
option must comply with future reporting requirements prescribed by the 
Office of Child Support Services.
* * * * *

0
10. Add Sec.  309.121 to read as follows:


Sec.  309.121   Employment and training services.

    (a) As elected by the Tribe or Tribal organization in Sec.  
309.65(b), provide employment and training services to eligible 
noncustodial parents. In addition to eligibility criteria that may be 
set by the Tribal IV-D agency, the noncustodial parent must: have an 
open IV-D case; have a child support order or be determined by the 
Tribal IV-D agency to be fully cooperating with the Tribal IV-D agency 
to establish a child support order; be unemployed or underemployed or 
at risk of not being able to comply with their support order. In 
addition, the Tribal IV-D agency must have adopted policies and 
procedures for determining that the noncustodial parent is not 
receiving the same employment and training services under federally-
funded employment and training programs administered by the Tribe.
    (b) These IV-D agency employment and training services are limited 
to:
    (1) Job search assistance;
    (2) Job readiness training;
    (3) Job development and job placement services;
    (4) Skills assessments to facilitate job placement;
    (5) Job retention services;
    (6) Work supports, such as transportation assistance, uniforms, and 
tools; and
    (7) Occupational training and other skills training directly 
related to employment, which may also include activities to improve 
literacy and basic skills, such as programs to complete high school or 
a high school equivalency certificate, or English as a second language.
    (c) Federal financial participation may also be used to provide 
case management in connection with the allowable services under this 
section.

0
11. Amend Sec.  309.145 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c)(3);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (c)(4) and adding; 
``and'' in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (c)(5).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  309.145   What costs are allowable for Tribal IV-D programs 
carried out under Sec.  309.65(a) of this part?

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

[[Page 100810]]

    (5) Employment and training services activities in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  309.65(b) and 309.121.
* * * * *

0
12. Amend Sec.  309.155 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (e);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (g); and
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (f).
    The addition reads as follows:


Sec.  309.155   What uses of Tribal IV-D program funds are not 
allowable?

* * * * *
    (f) Any expenditures under Sec.  309.121 for subsidized employment 
or payment of cash, checks, reimbursements, or any other form of 
payment that can be legally converted to currency provided to the 
noncustodial parent; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-29081 Filed 12-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-41-P`