Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 100789 

(1) The standards identified in 

paragraph (c) and (d) of this section. 

(2) The following standards: 

(i) Retail pharmacy drugs. The 

NCPDP Telecommunication Standard 

Implementation Guide Version F6, 

January 2020 and equivalent NCPDP 

Batch Standard Implementation Guide, 

Version 15, October 2017 (both 

incorporated by reference in § 162.920). 

(ii) Dental, professional, and 

institutional request for review and 

response. The ASC X12 Standards for 

Electronic Data Interchange Technical 

Report Type 3—Health Care Services 

Review—Request for Review and 

Response (278), May 2006, ASC X12N/ 

005010X217, and Errata to Health Care 

Services Review—Request for Review 

and Response (278), ASC X12 Standards 

for Electronic Data Interchange 

Technical Report Type 3, April 2008, 

ASC X12N/005010X217E1 (both 

incorporated by reference in § 162.920). 

(f) For the period on and after 

February 11, 2028, the standards 

identified in paragraph (e)(2) of this 

section. 

■ 6. Section 162.1802 is amended by— 

■ a. In paragraph (c), by removing the 

phrase ‘‘For the period on and after the 

January 1, 2012,’’ and adding in its 

place the phrase ‘‘For the period from 

January 1, 2012 through August 11, 

2027’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (d), by removing the 

phrase ‘‘For the period on and after 

September 21, 2020,’’ and adding in its 

place the phrase ‘‘For the period on and 

after September 21, 2020 through 

August 11, 2027’’; and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (e) and (f). 

The additions read as follows: 

§ 162.1802 Standards for coordination of 

benefits information transaction. 

* * * * * 

(e) For the period from August 11, 

2027 through February 11, 2028, both of 

the following: 

(1) The standards identified in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. 

(2) The following standards: 

(i) Retail pharmacy drug claims. The 

NCPDP Telecommunication Standard 

Implementation Guide Version F6, 

January 2020 and equivalent NCPDP 

Batch Standard Implementation Guide, 

Version 15, October 2017 (both 

incorporated by reference in § 162.920). 

(ii) Dental health care claims. The 

ASC X12 Standards for Electronic Data 

Interchange Technical Report Type 3— 

Health Care Claim: Dental (837), May 

2006, ASC X12N/005010X224, and 

Type 1 Errata to Health Care Claim: 

Dental (837) ASC X12 Standards for 

Electronic Data Interchange Technical 

Report Type 3, October 2007, ASC 

X12N/005010X224A1 (both 

incorporated by reference in § 162.920). 

(3) Professional health care claims. 

The ASC X12 Standards for Electronic 

Data Interchange Technical Report Type 

3—Health Care Claim: Professional 

(837), May 2006, ASC X12N/ 

005010X222 (incorporated by reference 

in § 162.920). 

(4) Institutional health care claims. 

The ASC X12 Standards for Electronic 

Data Interchange Technical Report Type 

3—Health Care Claim: Institutional 

(837), May 2006, ASC X12N/ 

005010X223, and Type 1 Errata to 

Health Care Claim: Institutional (837) 

ASC X12 Standards for Electronic Data 

Interchange Technical Report Type 3, 

October 2007, ASC X12N/ 

005010X223A1 (incorporated by 

reference in § 162.920). 

(f) For the period on and after 

February 11, 2028, the standards 

identified in paragraph (e)(2) of this 

section. 

■ 7. Section 162.1902 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 162.1902 Standard for Medicaid 

pharmacy subrogation transaction. 

The Secretary adopts the following 

standards for the Medicaid pharmacy 

subrogation transaction: 

(a) For the period from January 1, 

2012 through August 11, 2027—The 

NCPDP Batch Standard Medicaid 

Subrogation Implementation Guide, 

Version 3.0, July 2007 (incorporated by 

reference at § 162.920). 

(b) For the period from August 11, 

2027 through February 11, 2028— 

(1) The standards identified in 

paragraph (a) of this section; and 

(2) The NCPDP Subrogation 

Implementation Guide for Batch 

Standard, Version 10, September 2019 

(incorporated by reference at § 162.920). 

(c) For the period on and after 

February 11, 2028, the standard 

identified in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

Xavier Becerra, 

Secretary, Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29138 Filed 12–12–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4150–28–P 

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: ocss.dpt@acf.hhs.gov 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100790 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1Sections 451–469B of the Social Security Act, 42 

U.S.C. 651–669b. 

2Throughout this final rule, States include the 50 

States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, 

and the Virgin Islands. 

3U.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. 

4U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

(October 18, 2000). Osterman, Michelle J.K., et al. 

(January 31, 2023). 

5U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention (March 2024). 

6U.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. 

7Binder, 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. 

8Sanders, 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. 

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%20

Populations%20in%20the%20United%20States. 

Historical U.S. population data available at https:// 

www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/ 

popchange-data-text.html. 

11The 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-everincarcerated-by-race-and-ethnicity#detailed/1/any/ 

false/2043,1769,1696,1648,1603/10,11,9,12,1,13/ 

18995,18996. 

12Miller, 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. 

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. 

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. 

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, yearround.9 Stable employment is 

particularly important for a parent to be 

able to make reliable consistent child 

support payments for their children. 

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 100791 

13Maria 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/wpcontent/uploads/2019/05/CSPED-FinalCharacteristics-of-Participants-Report-2019- 

Compliant.pdf. 

14Travis, 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.national

academies.org/catalog/18613/the-growth-ofincarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes. 

15Legler, 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. 

16Congressional 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. 

18U.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. 

19See AT–00–08, available at https://

www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/questionsand-responses-regarding-collaborative-efforts-iv-dagencies-and. 

20PIQ–98–03 is available at: https://

www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/default/files/ESA/dcs/ 

documents/OCSE_PIQ_90_99.pdf. 

21AT–00–08, supra note 17. 

22 Id. 

23 Id. 

24Miller, 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-responsiblefatherhood-programs-client-characteristics-andprogram-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-FragileFamilies-Demonstration-Projects.PDF. Schroeder, 

Daniel and Nicholas Doughty, ‘‘Texas NonCustodial 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/ 

Continued 

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

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

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

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

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


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100792 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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-StrengtheningFamilies-Through-Stronger-Fathers-Final-ImpactReport-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/csinitiatives/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/wpcontent/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/wpcontent/uploads/EvaluationTennesseeParent

SupportProgram.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%20

Employment%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. 25Cancian, 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. 

27Cancian, Maria, et al. (September 2021). 

28The 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-datareport-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-ChildSupport-Arrears-in-Nine-Large-States-and-theNation.PDF. 

29Miller, 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_Unintended_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. 

30Turetsky, 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. 

31Employment 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. 

32Miller, Cynthia, and Virginia Knox (November 

2001). 

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. 

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

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

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

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 100793 

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. 

35Martinson, 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-ServingNoncustodial-Parents-A-Descriptive-Study-ofWelfare-to-Work-Programs.PDF. 

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

37 Id. 

38Pearson, Jessica, et al. (June 2000). 39Pearson, Jessica, et al. (September 2003). 40 Id. 41Martinson, 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-TheImplementation-of-the-Partners-for-FragileFamilies-Demonstration-Projects.PDF. 

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

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. 

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 TriCounty 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

In 1998, OCSS launched an eightState 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

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 communitybased 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100794 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

42 Id, Exhibit 2.1. 

43Martinson, Karin, et al. (September 2007). 

44 Id. 

45Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty 

(September 2009). 

46Texas Workforce Commission, Noncustodial 

Parent Choices Program, available at https://

www.twc.texas.gov/programs/noncustodial-parentchoices#:∼:text=The%20goal%20of%20NCP%20

Choices,A Alamo. 

47 Id. 

48Texas Workforce Commission, Choices 

Program, available at https://www.twc.texas.gov/ 

programs/choices. 

49Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty 

(September 2009). 

50Quasi-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 QuasiExperimental 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. 

51Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty 

(September 2009). 

52 Id. 

53 Id. 

54Tannehill, 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-ThroughStronger-Fathers-Initiative-Process-EvaluationReport.PDF. 

55 Id. 

56Lippold, Kye, et al. (October 2011). 

57 Id. 

58Born, Catherine E., et al. (April 2011). 

59NPEP 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-parentemployment-programs/. 

60Born, Catherine E., et al. (April 2011). 

61 Id. 

62 Id. 

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

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 courtordered 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, shortterm training, subsidized employment/ 

work experience, GED and English as a 

Second Language classes, and job 

retention and career advancement 

assistance. 

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

In 2006, the New York State 

Legislature enacted the Strengthening 

Families Through Stronger Fathers 

Initiative, a pilot program to help lowincome 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

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

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 100795 

63Pearson, Jessica, et al. (February 2011). 

64Arapahoe/Douglas Works Workforce Center. 

‘‘Parents to Work’’, available at: https://

www.adworks.org/job-seekers/programs/parents-towork/. 

65Pearson, 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. 

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

69Office of Child Support Services. ‘‘Child 

Support-led Employment Programs by State,’’ 

available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/trainingtechnical-assistance/child-support-ledemployment-programs-state. 

70See Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization 

in Child Support Enforcement Programs, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 79 FR 68548, 68556 

(November 17, 2014). 

71Cancian, 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. 

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

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-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

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

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). 

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 oneon-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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100796 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

72Office 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. 

73Sorensen, 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. 

75Cancian, Maria, et al. (March 2019). 

76Cancian, 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. 

77See section 1115(a) and (b) of the Social 

Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1315(a) and (b). 

78The FFD program in New York was 

additionally supported by the Robin Hood 

Foundation. 

79Wasserman, Kyla, et al. (April 2021). 

80 Id. 

81 Id. 

82Under 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. 

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

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 regularservices group were taken into 

account.76

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 demanddriven 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 preenrollment 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. 

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 

§ 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 100797 

option, § 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 nonduplicative 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 § 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. 

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 § 303.6(c)(5) 

as new § 303.6(c)(6) and add new 

§ 303.6(c)(5) to provide program 

standards related to the optional State 

plan provision § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 303.6(c)(5), allowable 

employment and training services are 

limited to: 

• Job search assistance; 

• Job readiness training; 

• Job development and job placement 

services; 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100798 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

83PIQ–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. 

• 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

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: workrelated 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 § 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 arrearsonly 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 

§ 303.6(c)(5) describing the eligibility 

criteria to allow noncustodial parents 

with child support orders in arrearsonly 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 

§ 303.6(c)(5). In the final rule, these 

prohibited costs are moved to § 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 

§ 304.20(b)(3)(vii) as new 

§ 304.20(b)(3)(viii), and add new 

§ 304.20(b)(3)(vii) allowing FFP for 

employment and training services when 

they are provided in accordance with 

§ 303.6(c)(5). 

Section 304.23 Expenditures for Which 

Federal Financial Participation Is Not 

Available 

The final rule adds new § 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 § 303.6 (c)(5) to 

§ 304.23, Expenditures for which 

Federal financial participation is not 

available. Specifically, under 

§ 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 § 303.6(c)(5), but also 

requested comments on all of the 

employment and training services in 

§ 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 § 309.65(b) as new 

§ 309.65(c) and add new § 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 

§§ 309.65(b), 309.121, 309.145, and 

309.155 to clarify, in response to 

comments, that this final rule makes 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 100799 

Federal funding available to Tribes for 

employment and training services. If a 

Tribe or Tribal organization chooses this 

option, § 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, 

§ 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 SelfDetermination, 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, § 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 § 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 § 309.65(a)? 

As a result of the comments received 

concerning the applicability of this rule 

for Tribal child support programs, we 

add new § 309.145(c)(5) allowing FFP 

for certain employment and training 

services when they are provided in 

accordance with § 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 § 309.155(f) as new 

§ 309.155(g), and add new § 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, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100800 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

84See American Indian Policy Review 

Commission Final Report (May 1977), page 130 

available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ 

ED164229.pdf. 

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 nonFederal 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 

§ 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

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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 100801 

85See 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-BrokenPromises.pdf. 

86See 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-indiansand-alaska-natives-trust-responsibility. 

87OCSS’s Knowledge Works website is available 

at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/employmentprograms; OCSS’s Tribal Employment Pathways 

website is available at: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/ 

child-support-professionals/tribal-agencies/tribalemployment-pathways. 

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

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 § 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

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 wellcoordinated 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-topeer 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100802 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

88 Id. 

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. 

Section 303.6 Enforcement of Support 

Obligations 

Comment 6: Numerous commenters 

recommended extending eligibility 

criteria for employment and training 

services in § 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 §§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 100803 

89PIQ–12–02 is available at: https://

www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/partneringother-programs-including-outreach-referral-andcase-management. 

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 federallyfunded 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 nonduplication of services requirement for 

individual cases, we made changes in 

§ 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 § 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 §§ 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 

§§ 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. 

Comment 14: Various commenters 

asked about the definitions used to 

describe the allowable employment and 

training services found in § 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 §§ 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 

§ 303.6(c)(5). Another commenter 

recommended including comprehensive 

training programs that are aligned with 

market demands and offer certifications 

that enhance employability in 

§ 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100804 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 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 

§§ 303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 are sufficient 

for child support programs to support 

maintaining employment or reemployment 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 

§§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§§ 303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 as a standalone service. However, when financial 

literacy is integrated into job readiness 

training, the financial literacy 

component of the training is eligible for 

FFP under §§ 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 zerodollar child support orders meet the 

eligibility criteria in §§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 303.6(c)(5). 

Alternatively, the commenter 

recommended including the Ticket to 

Work Program among the federallyfunded programs detailed in 

§§ 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 

§§ 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 §§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100806 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

90Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty 

(September 2009). 

91 Davis, Lanae, et al. (November 2013). 92Lippold, Kye, et al. (October 2011). 

associated with implementing 

employment and training services in 

§ 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 §§ 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. 

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. 

Section and purpose Instrument Number of 

respondents 

Average burden 

hour per 

response 

Total cost National Federal 

share 

National State 

share 

Added optional requirement § 302.76 

Employment and 

training services.

State plan amendment.One time for 33 

States.

3 hours × $66.82 × 

33 States.

$6,615.18 $4,366.02 $2,249.16 

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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 100807 

Section and purpose Instrument Number of respondents Average burden hour per 

response Total cost National Federal share 

Added optional requirement § 309.65(b) Employment and training 

services.

Tribal plan amendment .. One time for 35 Tribes .. 6 hours × $76.26 × 35 

Tribes.

$16,014.60 $16,014.60 

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. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100808 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 wellbeing 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 

■ 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). 

■ 2. Add § 302.76 to read as follows: 

§ 302.76 Employment and training 

services. 

The State plan may provide for 

employment and training services for 

eligible noncustodial parents in 

accordance with § 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 

■ 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. 

■ 4. Amend § 303.6 by: 

■ a. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the 

end of paragraph (c)(4)(iii); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(5) as 

paragraph (c)(6); and 

■ c. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 303.6 Enforcement of support 

obligations. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(5)(i) As elected by the State in 

§ 302.76 of this chapter, provide 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 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). 

■ 6. Amend § 304.20 by: 

■ a. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the 

end of paragraph (b)(3)(vi); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3)(vii) 

as paragraph (b)(3)(viii); and 

■ c. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3)(vii). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 304.20 Availability and rate of Federal 

financial participation. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(vii) Employment and training 

services activities in accordance with 

§§ 302.76 and 303.6(c)(5) of this chapter; 

and 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 304.23 by adding 

paragraph (k) to read as follows: 

§ 304.23 Expenditures for which Federal 

financial participation is not available. 

* * * * * 

(k) Any expenditures under 

§ 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 

■ 8. The authority citation for part 309 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 9. Amend § 309.65 by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraph (b) as 

paragraph (c); and 

■ b. Adding a new paragraph (b). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 wellcoordinated 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Add § 309.121 to read as follows: 

§ 309.121 Employment and training 

services. 

(a) As elected by the Tribe or Tribal 

organization in § 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. 

■ 11. Amend § 309.145 by: 

■ a. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the 

end of paragraph (c)(3); 

■ b. Removing the period at the end of 

paragraph (c)(4) and adding; ‘‘and’’ in 

its place; and 

■ c. Adding paragraph (c)(5). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 309.145 What costs are allowable for 

Tribal IV–D programs carried out under 

§ 309.65(a) of this part? 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES
100810 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1 46 U.S.C. 9301–9308. 

2 46 U.S.C. 9302(a)(1). 

3 Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1 (II)(92)(f), Revision No. 01.4. The 

Secretary retains the authority under Section 9307 

to establish, and appoint members to, a Great Lakes 

Pilotage Advisory Committee. 

(5) Employment and training services 

activities in accordance with 

§§ 309.65(b) and 309.121. 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Amend § 309.155 by: 

■ a. Removing the word ‘‘and’’ at the 

end of paragraph (e); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (f) as 

paragraph (g); and 

■ c. Adding a new paragraph (f). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 309.155 What uses of Tribal IV–D 

program funds are not allowable? 

* * * * * 

(f) Any expenditures under § 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 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 401 

[Docket No. USCG–2024–0406] 

RIN 1625–AC94 

Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2025 

Annual Review 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

statutory provisions enacted by the 

Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, the 

Coast Guard is issuing new pilotage 

rates for 2025. This rule adjusts the 

pilotage rates to account for changes in 

district operating expenses, an increase 

in the number of pilots, and anticipated 

inflation. These changes, when 

combined, result in a 7-percent net 

increase in pilotage costs compared to 

the 2024 season. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 13, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to 

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2024– 

0406 in the search box and click 

‘‘Search.’’ Next, in the Document Type 

column, select ‘‘Supporting & Related 

Material.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this document, call or 

email Mr. Brian Rogers, Commandant, 

Office of Waterways and Ocean Policy— 

Great Lakes Pilotage Division (CG– 

WWM–2), Coast Guard; telephone 410– 

360–9260, email Brian.Rogers@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Abbreviations 

II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory History 

III. Background 

IV. Final Pilotage Rates for 2025 

V. Discussion of Comments and Changes 

VI. Summary of the Ratemaking Methodology 

VII. Discussion of the Rate Adjustments 

District One 

A. Step 1: Recognize Previous Operating 

Expenses 

B. Step 2: Project Operating Expenses, 

Adjusting for Inflation or Deflation 

C. Step 3: Estimate Number of Registered 

Pilots and Apprentice Pilots 

D. Step 4: Determine Target Pilot 

Compensation Benchmark and 

Apprentice Pilot Wage Benchmark 

E. Step 5: Project Working Capital Fund 

F. Step 6: Project Needed Revenue 

G. Step 7: Calculate Initial Base Rates 

H. Step 8: Calculate Average Weighting 

Factors by Area 

I. Step 9: Calculate Revised Base Rates 

J. Step 10: Review and Finalize Rates 

District Two 

A. Step 1: Recognize Previous Operating 

Expenses 

B. Step 2: Project Operating Expenses, 

Adjusting for Inflation or Deflation 

C. Step 3: Estimate Number of Registered 

Pilots and Apprentice Pilots 

D. Step 4: Determine Target Pilot 

Compensation Benchmark and 

Apprentice Pilot Wage Benchmark 

E. Step 5: Project Working Capital Fund 

F. Step 6: Project Needed Revenue 

G. Step 7: Calculate Initial Base Rates 

H. Step 8: Calculate Average Weighting 

Factors by Area 

I. Step 9: Calculate Revised Base Rates 

J. Step 10: Review and Finalize Rates 

District Three 

A. Step 1: Recognize Previous Operating 

Expenses 

B. Step 2: Project Operating Expenses, 

Adjusting for Inflation or Deflation 

C. Step 3: Estimate Number of Registered 

Pilots and Apprentice Pilots 

D. Step 4: Determine Target Pilot 

Compensation Benchmark and 

Apprentice Pilot Wage Benchmark 

E. Step 5: Project Working Capital Fund 

F. Step 6: Project Needed Revenue 

G. Step 7: Calculate Initial Base Rates 

H. Step 8: Calculate Average Weighting 

Factors by Area 

I. Step 9: Calculate Revised Base Rates 

J. Step 10: Review and Finalize Rates 

VIII. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Abbreviations 

2023 final rule Great Lakes Pilotage Rates— 

2023 Annual Ratemaking and Review of 

Methodology 

2024 final rule Great Lakes Pilotage Rates— 

2024 Annual Review 

2025 Ratemaking NPRM Great Lakes 

Pilotage Rates—2025 Annual Review 

notice of proposed rulemaking 

APA American Pilots’ Association 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CPI Consumer Price Index 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

Director U.S. Coast Guard’s Director of the 

Great Lakes Pilotage 

ECI Employment Cost Index 

FOMC Federal Open Market Committee 

FR Federal Register 

GLPAC Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory 

Committee 

LPA Lakes Pilots Association 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PCE Personal Consumption Expenditures 

§ Section 

SBA Small Business Administration 

SLSPA Saint Lawrence Seaway Pilots 

Association 

U.S.C. United States Code 

WGLPA Western Great Lakes Pilots 

Association 

II. Basis and Purpose, and Regulatory 

History 

The legal basis of this rulemaking is 

46 U.S.C. Chapter 93,1 which requires 

foreign merchant vessels and United 

States vessels operating ‘‘on register’’— 

meaning United States vessels engaged 

in foreign trade—to use United States or 

Canadian pilots while transiting the 

United States waters of the St. Lawrence 

Seaway and the Great Lakes system.2

For U.S. Great Lakes Pilots, the statute 

requires the Secretary to ‘‘prescribe by 

regulation rates and charges for pilotage 

services, giving consideration to the 

public interest and the costs of 

providing the services.’’ Title 46 of the 

U.S.C. 9303(f) also requires that rates be 

established or reviewed and adjusted 

each year, no later than March 1. The 

Secretary’s duties and authority under 

46 U.S.C. Chapter 93 have generally 

been delegated to the Coast Guard.3

The purpose of this final rule is to 

issue new pilotage rates for 2025 by 

revising a base rate established in 2023. 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with RULES