Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2000/12/12/00-31612/state-self-assessment-review-and-report
Timestamp: 2018-07-19 12:11:13
Document Index: 683047776

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 308', 'art 303', '§\u2009308', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009303', '§\u2009308']

Federal Register :: State Self-Assessment Review and Report
A Rule by the Children and Families Administration on 12/12/2000
65 FR 77741
77741-77753 (13 pages)
45 CFR 308
0970-AB96
00-31612
Self-Assessment Implementation Methodology—Section 308.1
Required Program Compliance Criteria—Section 308.2
Optional Program Areas of Review—308.3
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/00-31612 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/00-31612
Start Preamble Start Printed Page 77742
These regulations implement a provision of the Social Security Act added by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which requires each State to annually assess the performance of its child support enforcement program and to provide a report of the findings to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
Jan Rothstein, OCSE Division of Policy and Planning, (202) 401-5073. Hearing impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 800-877-8339.
The Federal role in the self-assessment review process includes receiving reports submitted pursuant to section 452(a)(4)(B) of the Act and, as appropriate, provide to the States comments, recommendations for additional or alternative corrective action, and any technical assistance that a State may need. The Federal involvement includes, but is not limited to: approving IV-D State plan amendments certifying that the State has a self-assessment review process; providing review requirements, guidelines, instructions and methodologies for the review to the State; responding to requests for help from the State; providing interpretation of compliance standards; developing continuing partnerships; reviewing and providing appropriate comments on self-assessment reports; developing a self-assessment review module; overseeing the implementation of the self-assessment process in the States; periodically analyzing self-assessment reports to identify “best practices” to be shared with other States and providing comments and recommendations regarding the appropriateness of proposed corrective action or alternative correction action.
These regulations implement the statutory requirement that a State annually assess the performance of its IV-D program and submit a report of the findings to the Secretary by adding a new part 308, “Annual State Self-Assessment Review and Report” to existing rules in Chapter III governing the child support enforcement program under title IV-D of the Act.
Section 308.1(a) addresses the obligation of the IV-D agency to maintain the responsibility and control for all reviews, review findings and the content of the annual report. We have revised the regulatory language in this section since publication of the proposed rule to delete requirements on organizational placement and to clarify responsibilities in response to comments received that the requirement Start Printed Page 77743could be read as IV-D responsibility for control of reviews only when the self-assessment is privatized.
Section 308.1(c) relates to the scope of the self-assessment review. This paragraph requires a State to review all required criteria articulated in section 308.2 on a yearly basis.
Section 308.1(d) provides for a 12-month review period, beginning no later than 12 months after the effective date of this final rule and occurring again each 12 month period thereafter. We revised this section in response to comments to clarify when the review period begins and ends. The 12-month review period is consistent with prior audit review periods and allows enough time to evaluate the case processing timeframes in part 303. States should continue to use the same review periods they used prior to publication of this final rule and should make no break in their reviewing processes. States need not match each other's review periods, provided that case samples selected are from the period that will be reviewed and reflected in their report. Self-assessment reviews can be conducted in one of two ways: historically or incrementally. Using the historical approach, a State begins its self-assessment review after the end of the period to be reviewed. We have made changes to the language in this section to explain and clarify what the duration of the review period is.
Section 308.2(d) describes reviews of the disbursement of collections. This review would include a determination of whether States are complying with the 2-day requirement for disbursing Start Printed Page 77744certain collections. States that fail to meet the 2-day time frame but are under an alternative penalty for failure to meet the State disbursement unit (SDU) deadline should mention that fact in their self-assessment reports. Section 308.2(d) requires States to determine whether disbursements of collections were made in compliance with the Act. We made changes to this section based on a comment we received regarding review of payments received. The regulatory language now indicates that States must review the last payment received for each case. We also deleted language in this section to clarify the requirement.
Examples include improvement of client services through the use of expanded office hours, kiosks, internet, and voice response systems. This is an opportunity for a State to promote its programs and innovative practices. Some examples of innovative activities that a State may elect to discuss in the report include: steps taken to make the program more efficient and effective; efforts to improve client services; demonstration projects testing creative new ways of doing business; collaborative efforts being taken with partners and customers; innovative Start Printed Page 77745practices which have resulted in improved program performance; actions taken to improve public image; and access/visitation projects initiated to improve non-custodial parents' involvement with the children. A State also could discuss in this review area whether the State has a process for timely dissemination of applications for IV-D services in cases that are not receiving public assistance, when requested, and child support program information to recipients referred to the IV-D program, as required by section 303.2(a).
Comment: One commenter was concerned because the NPRM does not address penalties for a State's failure to produce an adequate self-assessment. They thought a Federal compliance audit should be triggered by a State's failure to audit its own compliance adequately.
Response: The statute requires States, as a condition of State plan approval, to provide for a process for annual reviews of and reports to the Secretary on the State IV-D program. Therefore, a State's failure to provide for the process in its State plan or to conduct such a review and submit the findings to the Secretary in accordance with Federal requirements would result in steps to initiate State plan disapproval and loss of all Federal IV-D funding.
Comment: Another commenter was concerned that the integrity of the self-assessment process would be threatened by the possibility of a Federal audit for accurately assessing a weak area.
Comment: Several commenters suggest allowing States to apply for extensions of the self-assessment reporting deadline in recognition that States with more complicated review processes will need more time.
Response: We do not think extensions will be necessary. States are currently conducting reviews that are very similar in scope and content to the reviews required by this regulation and by and large, States are conducting the reviews with little or no problems. OCSE is available to assist States should they encounter any problems.
Comment: We received 10 comments on the requirement that the sampling Start Printed Page 77746methodology for self-assessments must maintain a minimum confidence level of 90 percent for each criterion. Most commenters suggested using an overall confidence level of 90 percent for all criteria. Another commenter was concerned that their statewide system would be unable to pull cases by criterion and so would be unable to achieve a minimum confidence level of 90 percent for each criterion.
Comment: One commenter recommended the reference to a formal self-assessment “unit” be amended to permit the States flexibility to assign staff rather than create a formal unit. The commenter thinks PRWORA requires a process for self-assessment but not a unit. The commenter thinks this recommendation is consistent with the workgroup's recommendation.
Response: The commenter's point is well taken. PRWORA simply requires that a process be put in place. Although it would be preferable that a formal self-assessment unit be established, it is not required. However, we encourage States to establish a formal unit because of the following benefits: (1) Continuity—the possibility that the same staff would be conducting the annual reviews over the course of several years, and (2) Familiarity—the possibility that the staff will have experience with the Child Support Program and the review instrument used. We have deleted the provisions on organizational placement from the final rule. We have specified only that the IV-D agency must ensure that requirements are met and maintain responsibility for the review and report. States have the flexibility to establish a self-assessment unit within the IV-D agency, another State agency, or within the umbrella agency containing the IV-D agency or privatize the self-assessment.
Response: We do not believe there was an inconsistency. The preamble state that it would be ideal if the organizational placement was within the IV-D agency because this would enable the IV-D agency to draw on the experience of IV-D staff who have the skills and qualifications needed to analyze the program. However, we recognized in the preamble that this is not always possible. We revised section 308.1(a) to read as follows: “The agency must ensure the review meets Federal requirements and must maintain responsibility for and control of the results produced and contents of the annual report.”
Response: We are stipulating a general report format. Section 308.1(e)(2) states that the report must include but is not limited to an executive summary; a description of optional program criteria Start Printed Page 77747covered by the review; a description of sampling methodology used, if applicable; the results of the review; and description of any corrective action proposed and/or taken. We have specified this format because we need to be sure that we receive comparable information from all States. States are free to use any report format they choose that includes the required information. We want to be clear that we are not requiring a specific corrective action plan format. States must describe how they will change their programs to better achieve the goals of the child support program and meet the self-assessment benchmarks. We revised section 308.1(e)(iv) to indicate that the State must include a description of any corrective action proposed and/or taken.
Comment: One commenter noted that the NPRM requires that the self-assessment report contain “any corrective actions proposed and/or taken.” Based on the description of the Federal role in the self-assessment process, it appeared to the commenter that the corrective action plans are subject to Federal acceptance. Yet, the commenter noted, the proposed rule contains no detail about what a corrective action plan should contain. The commenter requested more clarification about corrective action plans.
Comment: One commenter thought it was not clear that the State must provide a corrective action plan to describe any corrective action proposed or taken as part of its self-assessment review if a self-assessment indicates serious program deficiencies. The commenter recommended changing the word “any” to “the” in section 308.1(e)(2)(v).
Response: Section 454(15) of the Act requires States to have a process for annual reviews of and reports to the Secretary on the State IV-D program. Therefore, failure to have such a process would trigger the State plan disapproval process. However, that was not the intent of the reference to corrective action in section 308.1(e). The principal purpose of the self-assessment process is to serve as a management tool for the IV-D program. We wish States to use the process to determine, what, if any, deficiencies exist in their IV-D program so that these deficiencies can be addressed and corrected. If a State fails to submit a self-assessment report, OCSE would work with that State to try to resolve any issues that might be preventing the State from submitting a self-assessment report. However, if a State fails to make a good faith effort to Start Printed Page 77748resolve any barriers and submit a self-assessment report, we would begin taking the steps necessary to disapprove the State plan pursuant to sections 452(a)(3) and 455(a) of the Act and sections 301.10 and 301.13 of this chapter.
Response: We recognize that the regulations on the processing of interstate cases do not take into account the direct enforcement activities that are authorized under UIFSA and PRWORA. OCSE has a workgroup made up of Federal and State staff and child support experts, called the Interstate Reform Initiative, which is working to make suggestions to revise the way interstate cases are processed and working to develop a consensus from which new interstate regulations can be written. We expect to be revising the interstate regulations in the next few years. At that time we will ensure full consistency between State self-assessments and interstate regulations. In the meantime, we have amended the final rule to take into account the fact that it may not be necessary to refer a case to another State in order to take appropriate enforcement actions by adding the words “if referral is appropriate” to section 308.2(g)(1)(i). Accordingly, the 20-day time period for referring a case to another State's central registry when it is determined that the non-custodial parent is in another State applies only where referral is necessary in order to take the appropriate action on the case.
Commenter: One commenter noted that the regulation at section 308.2(g) refers to current regulations on interstate case processing. The commenter thought it is important to note, however, that these regulations no longer reflect the reality of interstate case processing. Direct income withholding, direct lien filing and expanded jurisdiction for establishment of a support order have lessened the need for States to automatically refer a case to another jurisdiction simply upon finding the parent in another jurisdiction. The commenter thinks more accurate policy interpretations may be found in OCSE-AT-98-30. At a minimum, the commenter thinks comments and guidance in this regulation should acknowledge this deficiency and reference the work being done to update the regulations such as the work of the Interstate Reform Initiative.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the self-assessment also include review of State performance in other key areas such as effectiveness in providing services to families leaving TANF.
Response: We encourage States to go as far beyond the minimum standards stated in the regulation as they choose. Section 308.3 provides States the option to report on such performance.
Comment: One commenter thought the section of the preamble describing section 308.2(f) should be rewritten. The segment stating “notices to the custodial and non-custodial parents informing them of their rights to request reviews within 180 days of determining that a review should be conducted” appears to be a combination of two truncated phrases (one dealing with the notice of right to request review and the other dealing with the 180 day time frame for completing a review). Even after editing this sentence, the grammar in this entire paragraph needs to be reworked.
Response: We do not agree that substantial rewriting is needed of either the preamble or the regulatory language. We have made some minor changes to the regulatory language in section Start Printed Page 77749308.2(f) which makes the section clearer.
Comment: One commenter wrote that section 308.2(c)(3)(i) regarding orders that were needed for enforcement during the review period should not include the phrase “at a minimum, all of the,” referring to locate sources since the regulations regarding locate in section 303.3 do not require all of the locate sources listed to be used.
Comment: One commenter was concerned that the wording in section 308.2(b)(2) is not consistent with its subsection (iv), since the former refers to situations where an “order was required, but not established” and the latter lists “establishing an order” as a possible outcome.
Response: We do not agree that this language is inconsistent. Section 308.2(b)(2) states that “if an order was required, but not established during the review period,” subsections (i) through (iv) are a list of possible last required actions. If establishment of an order was the last required action on the case and the State failed to establish the order, section 308.2(b)(2)(iv) would apply. We do not think rewriting is necessary.
Comment: One commenter requested we define “enforcement collection” as used in section 308.2(c)(2).
Response: In section 308.2(c)(2) a typing mistake appeared in the NPRM. The first sentence should read “If income withholding was not appropriate, and a collection was received. * * * The final rule corrects this error.
Comment: One commenter suggested renumbering subsections 308.2(f)(2)(iii) and (iv) because these subsections deal with “notice of right to request review” requirements which should stand apart from the review and adjustment process covered earlier in the subsection.
Response: We agree and have made revisions to this section in the regulation.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that analysis of program direction and service enhancements be mandatory.
Response: While we appreciate that the commenters were concerned about adding to the breadth of the self-assessment review in this manner, we do not believe it is necessary to mandate these aspects of the self-assessments at this time. Should circumstances change over time we may revisit these regulations as warranted.
Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be drafted to ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set forth in the Executive Order. The Department has determined that this rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. The changes in this rule contain the Secretary's standards for State self-assessment reviews that largely replace previously required mandatory Federal audits. The Start Printed Page 77750rule was determined to be significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Section 308.1(e) contains a requirement that a State report the results of annual self-assessment reviews to the appropriate OCSE Regional Office and to the Commissioner of OCSE. The information submitted must be sufficient to measure State compliance with title IV-D requirements and case processing timeframes. The results of the report will be disseminated via “best practices” to other States and also be used to determine if technical assistance is needed and the use of resources to meet goals. The State plan preprint page for this requirement (page 2.15, Federal and State Reviews and Audits) was approved by OMB July 7, 1997 under OMB Number 0970-0017.
The likely respondents to this information collection include State child support enforcement agencies of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
We have resubmitted the information collection request to OMB. The information collection requirements in this final rule are not effective until approved by OMB.
Executive Order 13132 on Federalism applies to policies that have federalism implications, defined as “regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distributions of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” While this rule does not have federalism implications for State or local governments as defined in the executive order, we consulted with representatives of State IV-D programs in developing the rule and their input is reflected.
Self-assessment implementation methodology.
§ 308.0
(a) The IV-D agency must ensure the review meets Federal requirements and must maintain responsibility for and control of the results produced and contents of the annual report. Start Printed Page 77751
(2) If a IV-D case was closed during the review period, the State must determine whether the case met requirements pursuant to § 303.11 of this chapter.
(1) If an order for support is required and established during the review period, the case meets the requirements, notwithstanding the timeframes for: establishment of cases as specified in Sec. 303.2(b) of this chapter; provision of services in interstate IV-D cases per § 303.7(a), (b), (c)(4) through (6), and (c) (8) and (9) of this chapter; and location and support order establishment under §§ 303.3(b)(3) and (5), and 303.4(d) of this chapter.
(i) Opening a case within 20 days pursuant to § 303.2(b) of this chapter;
(ii) If location activities are necessary, using all appropriate sources within 75 days pursuant to § 303.3(b)(3) of this chapter. This includes all the following locate sources as appropriate: custodial parent, Federal and State Parent Locator Services, U.S. Postal Service, State employment security agency, employment data, Department of Motor Vehicles, and credit bureaus;
(iii) Repeating location attempts quarterly and when new information is received in accordance with § 303.3(b)(5) of this chapter;
(iv) Establishing an order or completing service of process necessary to commence proceedings to establish a support order, or if applicable, paternity, within 90 days of locating the non-custodial parent, or documenting unsuccessful attempts to serve process in accordance with the State's guidelines defining diligent efforts pursuant to §§ 303.3(c) and 303.4(d) of this chapter.
(1) If income withholding was appropriate and a withholding collection was received during the last quarter of the review period and the case was submitted for Federal and State income tax refund offset, if appropriate, the case meets the requirements of § 303.6(c)(3) of this chapter, notwithstanding the timeframes for: establishment of cases in § 303.2(b) of this chapter; provision of services in interstate IV-D cases under § 303.7(a), (b), (c)(4) through (6), and (c) (8) and (9) of this chapter; and location and income withholding in §§ 303.3(b)(3) and (5), and 303.100 of this chapter.
(2) If income withholding was not appropriate, and a collection was received during the review period, and the case was submitted for Federal and State income tax refund offset, if appropriate, then the case meets the requirements of § 303.6(c)(3) of this chapter, notwithstanding the timeframes for: establishment of cases in § 303.2(b) of this chapter; provision of services in interstate IV-D cases under § 303.7(a), (b), (c)(4) through (6) and (c) (8) and (9) of this chapter; and location and enforcement of support obligations in §§ 303.3(b)(3) and (5), and 303.6 of this chapter.
(ii) Repeating attempts to locate quarterly and when new information is received pursuant to § 303.3(b)(5) of this chapter;
(v) If income withholding is not appropriate or cannot be implemented, taking an appropriate enforcement action (other than Federal and State income tax refund offset), unless service of process is necessary, within no more Start Printed Page 77752than 30 days of identifying a delinquency or identifying the location of the non-custodial parent, whichever occurs later in accordance with § 303.6(c)(2) of this chapter;
(vi) If income withholding is not appropriate or cannot be implemented and service of process is needed, taking an appropriate enforcement action (other than Federal and State income tax refund offset), within no more than 60 days of identifying a delinquency or locating the non-custodial parent, whichever occurs later, or documenting unsuccessful attempts to serve process in accordance with the State's guidelines for defining diligent efforts and § 303.6(c)(2) of this chapter;
(vii) If the case has arrearages, submitting the case for Federal and State income tax refund offset during the review period, if appropriate, in accordance with §§ 303.72, 303.102 and 303.6(c)(3) of this chapter.
(1) Determine whether all support orders established during the review period included medical support. If not, determine whether medical support was included in the petition for support to the court or administrative authority pursuant to sec. 466(a)(19) of the Act and § 303.31(b)(1) of this chapter.
(3) If reasonable health insurance was available, but not obtained, determine whether steps were taken to enforce the order pursuant to § 303.31(b)(7) of this chapter.
(4) Determine whether the IV-D agency informed the Medicaid agency that coverage had been obtained when health insurance was obtained during the review period pursuant to § 303.31(b)(6) of this chapter.
(5) Determine whether the custodial parent was provided with information regarding the policy when health insurance was obtained pursuant to § 303.31(b)(5) of this chapter.
(6) Determine whether the State requested employers providing health coverage to inform the State of lapses in coverage pursuant to § 303.31(b)(9) of this chapter.
(1) If a case has been reviewed and meets the conditions for adjustment under State laws and procedures and § 303.8 of this chapter and the order is adjusted or a determination is made as a result of a review during the self-assessment period that an adjustment is not needed in accordance with the State's guidelines for setting child support awards, the State will be considered to have taken appropriate action in that case, notwithstanding the timeframes for: establishment of cases in § 303.2(b) of this chapter; provision of services in interstate IV-D cases under § 303.7(a), (b), (c)(4) through (6), and (c) (8) and (9) of this chapter; and location and review and adjustment of support orders contained in §§ 303.3(b)(3) and (5), and 303.8 of this chapter.
(i) If location is necessary to conduct a review, using all appropriate location sources within 75 days of opening the case pursuant to § 303.3(b)(3) of this chapter. Location sources include: custodial parent, Federal and State Parent Locator Services, U.S. Postal Service, State employment security agency, unemployment data, Department of Motor Vehicles, and credit bureaus;
(ii) Repeating location attempts quarterly and when new information is received pursuant to § 303.3(b)(5) of this chapter;
(i) Except when using the State's long-arm statute for establishing paternity, if referral is appropriate, within 20 calendar days of determining that the non-custodial parent is in another State and, if appropriate, receipt of any necessary information needed to process the case, referring that case to the responding State's interstate central registry for action pursuant to § 303.7(b)(2) of this chapter.
(ii) If additional information is requested, providing the responding State's central registry with requested additional information within 30 calendar days of the request pursuant to § 303.7(b)(4) of this chapter.
(iii) Upon receipt of new information on a case, notifying the responding State of that information within 10 working days pursuant to § 303.7(b)(5) of this chapter.
(iv) Within 20 calendar days after receiving a request for review and adjustment pursuant to § 303.7(b)(6) of this chapter.
(i) Within 10 working days of receipt of an interstate IV-D case, the central registry reviewing submitted documentation for completeness, forwarding the case to the State Parent Locator Service (PLS) for locate or to the appropriate agency for processing, acknowledging receipt of the case and requesting any missing documentation from the initiating State, and informing Start Printed Page 77753the IV-D agency in the initiating State where the case was sent for action, pursuant to § 303.7(a)(2) of this chapter.
(ii) The Central registry responding to inquiries from other States within five working days of a receipt of request for case status review pursuant to § 303.7(a)(4) of this chapter.
(iii) Within 10 days of locating the non-custodial parent in a different jurisdiction or State, forwarding the case in accordance with Federal requirements pursuant to §§ 303.7(c)(5) and (6) of this chapter.
(v) Within 10 working days of receipt of new information notifying the initiating State of that new information pursuant to § 303.7(c)(9) of this chapter.
§ 308.3