[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 488-493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-208]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
[Program Announcement No. OCSE 99SIP-1]
Child Support Enforcement Demonstration and Special Projects--
Special Improvement Projects
AGENCY: Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), ACF, DHHS.
ACTION: Announcement of availability of funds and request for
competitive applications under the Office of Child Support
Enforcement's Special Improvement Projects.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of
Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) invites eligible applicants to submit
competitive grant applications for special improvement projects which
further the national child support mission, vision, and goals which
are: all children to have parentage established; all children in IV-D
cases to have financial and medical orders; and all children in IV-D
cases to receive financial and medical support. Applications will be
screened and evaluated as indicated in this program announcement.
Awards will be contingent on the outcome of the competition and the
availability of funds.
DATES: The closing date for submission of applications is March 6,
2000. See Part IV of this announcement for more information on
submitting applications.
ADDRESSES: Application kits (Forms 424, 424A-B; Certifications; and
Administration for Children and Families Uniform Project Description
[UPD]) containing the necessary forms and instructions to apply for a
grant under this program announcement are available from:
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support
Enforcement, Division of State and Local Assistance, 370 L'Enfant
Promenade, S.W., 4th Floor, East Wing, Washington, D.C. 20447 (This is
not the mailing address for submission of applications, see Part IV,
B.); or accessible via OCSE's Website (www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/)
under new announcements; or contact Jean Robinson, Program Analyst,
phone(202)401-5330, FAX(202) 205-4315; e-mail: jrobinson@acf.dhhs.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), OCSE, Susan A. Greenblatt at (202) 401-4849, for
specific questions regarding the application or program concerns
regarding the announcement.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This program announcement consists of four
parts:
Part I: Background--program purpose, program objectives,
legislative authority, funding availability, and CFDA Number.
Part II: Project and Applicant Eligibility--eligible applicants,
project priorities, and project and budget periods.
Part III: The Review Process--intergovernmental review, initial
ACF screening, competitive review and evaluation criteria, and
funding reconsideration.
Part IV: The Application--application development and
application submission.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13)
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 20 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
reviewing the collection of information.
The following information collections within this Program
Announcement are approved under the following currently valid OMB
control numbers: 424 (0348-0043); 424A (0348-0044); 424B (0348-0040);
Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (0348-0046); Uniform Project
Description (0970-0139 Expiration date 10/31/00).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
Part I. Background
A. Program Purpose and Objectives
To fund a number of special improvement projects which further the
national child support mission to ensure that all children receive
financial and medical support from both parents, and which advance the
provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). PRWORA strengthens the ability of
the nation's child support program to collect support on behalf of
children and families. The law also enables the testing of child
support innovations to improve program performance. For FY 2000, we are
[[Page 489]]
looking for grants in the following priority areas:
(a) Improve the management of Undistributed Collections (UDC) in
order to decrease or maintain low UDC balances.
(b) Foster collaboration between IV-D State agencies and partner
entities and other states to improve interstate case processing.
Specific design specifications for each of these priority areas are
set forth under Part II.
OCSE is committed to helping States make measurable program
improvements that will enhance the lives of children. In addition,
Special Improvement Projects will also be considered which do not fall
into one of the specified priority areas but which are in furtherance
of efforts under the Government Performance and Results Act (i.e.
designing a performance based program), and furthering the goals of the
national child support enforcement program--all children to have
parentage established; all children in IV-D cases have financial and
medical orders; and all children in IV-D cases receive financial and
medical support) and advance the requirements of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(PRWORA).
Applicants should understand that OCSE will not award grants for
special improvement projects which (a) duplicate automated data
processing and information retrieval system requirements/enhancements
and associated tasks which are specified in PRWORA; or (b) which cover
costs for routine activities which should be normally borne by the
Federal match for the Child Support Program or by other Federal funding
sources (e.g. adding staff positions to perform routine CSE tasks or
providing substance abuse services); OCSE also has the discretion not
to award grants that duplicate existing demonstrations, special
projects and/or contracts that cover similar project objectives and
activities.
Proposals should be developed with these considerations in mind.
Proposals and their accompanying budgets will be reviewed from this
perspective.
B. Legislative Authority
Section 452(j), 42 U.S.C. 652(j) of the Social Security Act
provides Federal funds for technical assistance, information
dissemination and training of Federal and State staff, research and
demonstration programs and special projects of regional or national
significance relating to the operation of State child support
enforcement programs.
Section 453 (42 U.S.C. 653) of the Social Security Act provides
Federal funds to cover costs incurred for the operation of the Federal
Parent Locator Service.
C. Availability of Funds
Approximately $2 million is available for FY 2000 for all priority
areas. Refer to each priority area for estimated number of projects and
funding. All grant awards are subject to the availability of
appropriated funds. A non-Federal match is not required.
D. CFDA NUMBER
93.601--Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special
Projects.
Part II. Applicant and Project Eligibility
A. Eligible Applicants
Eligible applicants for these special improvement project grants
are States (including Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) Human
Services Umbrella agencies, other State agencies (including State IV-D
agencies), Tribes and Tribal Organizations, local public agencies
(including IV-D agencies), nonprofit organizations, and consortia of
State and/or local public agencies. The Federal OCSE will provide the
State CSE agency the opportunity to comment on the merit of local CSE
agency applications before final award. Given that the purpose of these
projects is to improve child support enforcement programs, it is
critical that applicants have the cooperation of IV-D agencies to
operate these projects.
Preferences will be given to applicants representing CSE agencies
and applicant organizations which have cooperative agreements with CSE
agencies. All applications developed jointly by more than one agency
organization must identify a single lead organization as the official
applicant. The lead organization will be the recipient of the grant
award. Participating agencies and organizations can be included as co-
participants, subgrantees, or subcontractors with their written
authorization.
B. Project Priorities
The following are the specified priority areas for special
improvement projects for FY 2000.
Priority Area 1--Improving the Management of Undistributed Collections
(UDC)
1. Purpose: The purpose of this solicitation is to assist States to
demonstrate new and or more effective methods, control procedures and
models to decrease or maintain low UDC balances.
2. Background and Information: Undistributed collections balances
vary greatly in amount and differ from State to State. These amounts
are often quite significant in relation to total child support
enforcement collections. Most states have attempted to address this
problem over the years, but OCSE audits in some states underscore the
difficulty of States' achieving substantial and permanent reductions.
3. Design Elements in the Application: In order to improve the
management of UDC, OCSE is interested in projects which will provide a
better understanding of the nature of undistributed collections and
that develop effective/innovative processes to address at least one of
the following key issues/areas:
(a) Design a strategy to demonstrate how well a State can improve
its UDC balances by using the State Parent Locator Service (SPLS) and
Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) to determine locations of the
custodial parent and ensure more timely disbursement of child support
collections.
(b) Develop effective methods to identify the nature/causes of UDC
and develop approaches to reduce or eliminate them.
(c) Develop cost-effective procedures to ensure that all UDC are
identified and reported accurately and according to Federal guidelines.
4. Project and Budget Periods: The project period for this priority
area is up to 17 months.
5. Project Budget: It is estimated that there will be three to five
grants (ranging from $100,000 to $300,000 for a total of $800,000).
Priority Area 2: Fostering Improved Interstate Case Processing
1. Purpose: The purpose of this solicitation is to assist States to
demonstrate new and/or more effective methods, procedures and models to
foster collaborative efforts between partner entities and states to
improve interstate case processing.
2. Background and Information: The child support provisions of
welfare reform required all States to adopt the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act (UIFSA) by January 1, 1998. UIFSA provides for
uniform rules, procedures, and forms for interstate cases. OCSE has
been working with states to implement UIFSA and has also developed
standard Federal interstate CSE forms compatible with UIFSA. OCSE
organized forums across the country for individuals representing UIFSA
and the states to discuss and develop consensus methods for
implementing administrative
[[Page 490]]
enforcement, direct income withholding, discovery, long-arm, and
paternity establishment in interstate cases. Subsequently, many states
have managed to process interstate cases in an uniform manner. Although
a great deal of progress has been made over the past couple of years,
states are still facing many challenges in the implementation of UIFSA.
3. Design Elements in the Application: In order to foster
collaboration to improve interstate case processing under UIFSA, OCSE
is interested in projects which develop effective/innovative strategies
that address one or more of the following key issues/areas:
(a) Case Processing and the Courts: What types of specific
collaborative initiatives/methods between the courts and IV-D agencies
would assist in processing interstate cases more efficiently and what
procedures could help them more effectively use available UIFSA
remedies and associated forms? How are States ensuring that the
required data elements are correctly secured from courts and reported
to IV-D agencies for transmission to the Federal Case Registry? What
are the barriers between IV-D agencies and the courts that lead to
inefficiencies and ineffective interstate case processing and how can
they be overcome? What processes have states put in place to make
controlling order determinations, to reconcile arrears under multiple
orders, and to notify affected parties, including courts in each state?
How can these processes be improved?
Too often IV-D agencies and the courts do not have procedures to
notify each other when taking actions on interstate cases, resulting in
duplicate efforts and delays. Thus, we want to identify collaborative
initiatives/methods that help build communication, avoid duplicate
efforts and delays in processing interstate cases.
(b) Direct Withholding and Employers: What are the benefits and
pitfalls of using direct withholding under UIFSA compared to interstate
income withholding from IV-D agency to IV-D agency in different States?
What are solutions to any problems encountered? What happens if there
is an obligor contest in a direct withholding case? Is abandoning the
direct withholding the best solution or are there ways to resolve these
issues through the IV-D agency in the employer State that preserves the
direct withholding? What impact does direct income withholding have on
other services required in a case? Does it work to do direct
withholding and initiate an interstate IV-D case for other necessary
enforcement action? In addition, what approaches are being used by IV-D
agencies to encourage and foster employer cooperation in wage
withholding for interstate cases? Currently, state IV-D agencies are
educating employers on using Federally mandated forms for income
withholding for their child support cases but more needs to be done to
encourage employers' compliance for interstate cases.
(c) State Clearinghouse Model: What benefits would there be in
establishing a State clearinghouse for handling requests from other
states attempting direct enforcement other than wage withholding?
States frequently encounter difficulties with the lien process and
seizures in other states when attempting one-State interstate actions.
At the same time, since the other State IV-D agency is not involved in
these situations in the traditional way, they may not be able to
provide adequate assistance. OCSE is interested in exploring
alternatives to traditional methods of offering assistance to other
states under direct enforcement for single or targeted remedies (e.g.,
lien registration, State lottery intercept, etc.). Different models for
a clearinghouse could be proposed and the responsibilities and
associated costs explored. Provision of selected services, such as
enforcement counsel consultations, accessibility to local attorneys,
intercession with local authorities, and intervention with non-
responding banks and financial institutions (rather than locate and
discovery functions), should be considered.
(d) Administrative Enforcement of Interstate Cases: With respect to
high volume automated enforcement in interstate cases under PRWORA,
what are promising practices for integrating these requests from other
states into the assisting State's own data matching and attachment of
assets (such as for financial institutions data matches and levies) in
instate cases? What is the best way to avoid making these cases full
blown interstate IV-D cases while being able to provide the data match
and seizure of assets in an automated way and to keep track of
information required to be reported on these cases?
(e) Case Processing and Use of FPLS: How is the Federal Parent
Locator System (FPLS) data being integrated into the basic business
functions of child support enforcement (i.e., intake, paternity
establishment, order establishment/modification, enforcement and
collections) to improve these business functions? What new and
effective interstate locate methods/ processes are being developed
through this integration of FPLS data? How are these methods being
implemented in an automated fashion? How are caseworkers being sold on
the advantages of using ``new'' FPLS data? Are the levels of state
automation and staffing adequate to deal with these new tools?
(f) Tracking Outcomes for Data Matches: What approaches are being
used by IV-D agencies to monitor results, measure progress and manage
interstate case processing more efficiently? The wealth of data
provided from the National Directory of New Hires and the Federal Case
Registry must be organized and managed in order to track results and
program benefits. What methods have been adopted by States for tracking
outcomes of data matches and how have results been utilized to
demonstrate program benefits (i.e., program methodology, benefit
calculation methodology, reports, management information process, and
performance measurements)?
(g) Interstate Forms: With respect to use of interstate forms for
withholding, imposition of liens and issuance of administrative
subpoenas under PRWORA, are there exemplary techniques for maximizing
successful use of these tools in interstate cases? Are there potential
problems that arise in their use and tested solutions to those
problems? How can these forms be modified to better meet needs of
States and other users? Are States able to use these forms
electronically and how? What is needed to overcome barriers to
electronic transmission through CSENet or other means?
(h) Family Violence and Case Processing: How can we ensure
consistency in policy and procedures in cases affected by both the
Family Violence Indicator and UIFSA section 312 (nondisclosure of
information in exceptional circumstances) to ensure consistent and
appropriate decision-making for interstate cases? In the UIFSA process,
tribunals order information not to be released where a finding has been
made that the health, safety, or liberty of a party or child would be
unreasonably put at risk by the disclosure of identifying information.
Similarly, IV-D agencies place a Family Violence Indicator flag on an
individual's record in the State Case Registry where there is a
protective order in place or where the State has reasonable evidence of
domestic violence or child abuse and the disclosure of such information
could be harmful to the custodial parent or the
[[Page 491]]
child of such parent. Projects should develop approaches to demonstrate
how best to coordinate these different decision-making processes for
interstate cases. Projects should identify the benefits/impact of the
approach on States' case processing. In addition, how can we provide
courts with sufficient information upon which to base their override
decisions of the Family Violence Indicator? Currently in the interstate
context, one State will not know the basis for a decision of another
State to flag a case with the Family Violence Indicator, and this lack
of information may prove difficult for judges faced with requests to
override the indicator.
(i) International Child Support Enforcement: What types of
collaborative activities between a state or states and foreign
jurisdictions would improve international child support cooperation,
encouraging other nations to adopt additional UIFSA-like procedures?
UIFSA includes provisions which extend IV-D cooperation to foreign
nations with substantially similar procedures to UIFSA. Variations in
procedures between national systems will require additional measures to
be developed and implemented. IV-D agency experience in working cases
with other nations will be a crucial factor in development,
promulgation, and training regarding innovative techniques crucial to
improving international cooperation. Projects should demonstrate
methods to improve other nations' judicial and child support agency
cooperation (e.g., procedures not requiring the physical presence of a
petitioner for rendition of a judgement determining parentage, methods
of not charging a mother for costs of paternity testing unless a
paternity allegation is proven to be groundless, utilizing electronic
communication and currency transfer mechanisms to improve security and
lower costs) between one or more states and foreign jurisdictions.
4. Project and Budget Periods: Generally, project and budget
periods for these projects will be up to 17 months. OCSE will consider
projects up to 36 months, if unique circumstances warrant. If OCSE
approves a project for a time period longer than 17 months, OCSE will
provide funding in discrete 12-month increments, or ``budget periods.''
Funding beyond the first 12-month budget period is not guaranteed.
Rather, future funding will depend on the grantee's satisfactory
performance and the availability of future appropriations.
5. Project Budget: It is estimated that there will be one to four
grants awarded (ranging from $100,000 to $600,000) for a total of
$800,000 for this priority area.
Other
OCSE will target funding for projects which fall under the two
priority areas described above. However, OCSE will also screen and
evaluate smaller scale projects to cover projects outside the scope of
these priority areas, consistent with the legislative authority
described under Part I.B., subject to the availability of funds.
Eligible applicants should describe how the special improvement project
will improve the effectiveness of the child support program and promote
a new focus on results, service quality, management/organizational
innovations, outreach or public satisfaction.
Under this ``Other'' category, OCSE is particularly interested in
(a) projects which focus on effective enforcement tools, foster
cooperative relationships with law enforcement, or demonstrate other
effective methods to increase collections; or (b) demonstration
projects that test and evaluate model review and adjustment procedures
that focus on one of the following four areas: (1) review and
adjustment of child support orders at entrance and/or exit from the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program; (2) review and
adjustment of medical support orders; (3) targeting periodic review and
adjustment by type of case; and (4) or targeting periodic review and
adjustment of cases where the noncustodial parent is incarcerated or
has no income.
Applicants should understand that OCSE will not award grants for
special improvement projects which (a) duplicate automated data
processing and information retrieval system requirements/enhancements
and associated tasks which are specified in PRWORA; or (b) which cover
costs for routine activities which should be normally borne by the
Federal match for the Child Support Program or by other Federal funding
sources (e.g. adding staff positions to perform routine CSE tasks or
providing substance abuse services;) OCSE also has the discretion not
to award grants that duplicate existing demonstrations, special
projects and/or contracts that cover similar project objectives and
activities.
It is estimated that there will be up to ten grants to be awarded
in the ``Other'' category up to $50,000 each, and the project and
budget period will be up to 17 months; however, review and adjustment
demonstrations may be funded at an increased level for a project period
up to thirty-six months, with a budget period of 12 months; additional
funding beyond the first 12 months will depend on the availability of
future appropriations.
Part III: The Review Process
A. Intergovernmental Review
This program is covered under Executive Order 12372,
``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,'' and 45 CFR Part 100,
``Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services
Programs and Activities.'' Under the Order, States may design their own
processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance
under covered programs.
Note: State/Territory participation in the intergovernmental
review process does not signify applicant eligibility for financial
assistance under a program. A potential applicant must meet the
eligibility requirements of the program for which it is applying
prior to submitting an application to its single point of contact
(SPOC), if applicable, or to ACF.
As of August 23, 1999, the following jurisdictions have elected not
to participate in the Executive Order process. Applicants from these
jurisdictions or for projects administered by federally-recognized
Indian Tribes need take no action in regard to E.O. 12372:
Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa , Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii,
Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska,
New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington.
Although the jurisdictions listed above no longer participate in
the process, entities which have met the eligibility criteria of the
program may still apply for a grant even if a State, Territory,
Commonwealth, etc. does not have a SPOC. All remaining jurisdictions
participate in the Executive Order process and have established SPOCs.
Applicants from participating jurisdictions should contact their SPOCs
as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective applications and
receive instructions. Applicants must submit any required material to
the SPOCs as soon as possible so that the program office can obtain and
review SPOC comments as part of the award process. The applicant must
indicate the date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no
submittal is required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a. Under 45 CFR
100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to
comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards.
SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine
endorsements
[[Page 492]]
as official recommendations. Additionally, SPOCs are requested to
clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those official
State process recommendations which may trigger the ``accommodate or
explain'' rule.
When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be
addressed to: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Office
of Grants Management, Attention: Lillian Cash, Grants Management
Specialist, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., 4th Floor, West Wing,
Washington, D.C. 20447.
A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory
is included with the application materials for this program
announcement.
B. Initial ACF Screening
Each application submitted under this program announcement will
undergo a pre-review to determine that (1) the application was received
by the closing date and submitted in accordance with the instructions
in this announcement and (2) the applicant is eligible for funding.
It is necessary that applicants state specifically which priority
area they are applying for. Applications will be screened for priority
area appropriateness. If applications are found to be inappropriate for
the priority area in which they are submitted, applicants will be
contacted for verbal approval of redirection to a more appropriate
priority area.
C. Competitive Review and Evaluation Criteria
Applications which pass the initial ACF screening will be evaluated
and rated by an independent review panel on the basis of specific
evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria were designed to assess
the quality of a proposed project, and to determine the likelihood of
its success. The evaluation criteria are closely related and are
considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application.
Points are awarded only to applications which are responsive to the
evaluation criteria within the context of this program announcement.
Proposed projects will be reviewed using the following evaluation
criteria:
(1) Criterion I: Objectives and Need for Assistance (Maximum 25 Points)
The application should demonstrate a thorough understanding and
analysis of the problem(s) being addressed in the project, the need for
assistance and the importance of addressing these problems in improving
the effectiveness of the child support program. The applicant should
describe how the project will address this problem(s) through
implementation of changes, enhancements and innovative efforts and
specifically, how this project will improve program results. The
applicant should address one or more of the activities listed under the
``Design Elements in the Application'' described above for the specific
priority area they are applying for (refer to Part II.B. Project
Priorities). The applicant should identify the key goals and objectives
of the project; describe the conceptual framework of its approach to
resolve the identified problem(s); and provide a rationale for taking
this approach as opposed to others.
(2) Criterion II: Approach (Maximum: 30 Points)
A well thought-out and practical management and staffing plan is
mandatory. The application should include a detailed management plan
that includes time-lines and detailed budgetary information. The main
concern in this criterion is that the applicant should demonstrate a
clear idea of the project's goals, objectives, and tasks to be
accomplished. The plan to accomplish the goals and tasks should be set
forth in a logical framework. The plan should identify what tasks are
required of any contractors and specify their relevant qualifications
to perform these tasks. Staff to be committed to the project (including
supervisory and management staff) at the state and/or local levels must
be identified by their role in the project along with their
qualifications and areas of particular expertise. In addition, for any
technical expertise obtained through a contract or subgrant, the
desired technical expertise and skills of proposed positions should be
specified in detail. The applicant should demonstrate that the skills
needed to operate the project are either on board or can be obtained in
a reasonable time.
(3) Criterion III: Evaluation (Maximum: 30 Points)
The applicant should describe the cost effective methods which will
be used to achieve the project goals and objectives; the specific
results/products that will be achieved; how the success of this project
can be measured and how the success of this project has broader
application in furthering national child support initiatives and/or
providing solutions that could be adapted by other states/
jurisdictions. A discussion of data availability and outcome measures
to be used should be included. Describe the collection and reporting
system to be used.
(4) Criterion IV: Budget and Budget Justification (Maximum 10 Points)
The project costs need to be reasonable in relation to the
identified tasks. A detailed budget (e.g., the staff required,
equipment and facilities that would be leased or purchased) should be
provided identifying all agency and other resources (i.e., state,
community other program--TANF/Head Start) that will be committed to the
project. Grant funds cannot be used for capital improvements or the
purchase of land or buildings. Explain why this project's resource
requirements cannot be met by the state/local agency's regular program
operating budget.
(5) Criterion V: Preferences (Maximum 5 Points)
Preference will be given to those grant applicants representing IV-
D agencies and applicant organizations who have cooperative agreements
with IV-D agencies.
D. Funding Reconsideration
After Federal funds are exhausted for this grant competition,
applications which have been independently reviewed and ranked but have
no final disposition (neither approved nor disapproved for funding) may
again be considered for funding. Reconsideration may occur at any time
funds become available within twelve (12) months following ranking. ACF
does not select from multiple ranking lists for a program. Therefore,
should a new competition be scheduled and applications remain ranked
without final disposition, applicants are informed of their opportunity
to reapply for the new competition, to the extent practical.
Part IV. The Application
A. Application Development
In order to be considered for a grant under this program
announcement, an application must be submitted on the forms supplied
and in the manner prescribed by ACF. Application materials including
forms and instructions are available from the contact named under the
ADDRESSES section in the preamble of this announcement. The length of
the application, excluding the application forms and all attachments,
should not exceed 20 pages. A page is a single-side of an 8\1/2\'' x
11'' sheet of plain white paper. The narrative should be typed double-
spaced on a single-side of an 8\1/2\'' x 11'' plain white paper, with
1'' margins on all sides. Applicants are
[[Page 493]]
requested not to send pamphlets, maps, brochures or other printed
material along with their application as these are difficult to
photocopy. These materials, if submitted, will not be included in the
review process. Each page of the application will be counted (excluding
required forms and certifications) to determine the total length.
The project description should include all the information
requirements described in the specific evaluation criteria outlined in
the program announcement under Part III.C. The Administration for
Children and Families Uniform Project Description in the application
kit provides general requirements for these evaluation criteria (i.e.,
Objectives and Need for Assistance; Approach; Evaluation; Budget and
Budget Justification).
B. Application Submission
1. Mailed applications postmarked after the closing date will be
classified as late and will not be considered in the competition.
2. Deadline. Mailed applications shall be considered as meeting an
announced deadline if they are either received on or before the
deadline date or sent on or before the deadline date and received by
ACF in time for the independent review to: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of
Grants Management, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Attention: Mary
Nash, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., 4th Floor West, Washington, D.C.
20447. Applicants must ensure that a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service
postmark or a legibly dated, machine-produced postmark of a commercial
mail service is affixed to the envelope/package containing the
application(s).
To be acceptable as proof of timely mailing, a postmark from a
commercial mail service must include the logo/emblem of the commercial
mail service company and must reflect the date the package was received
by the commercial mail service company from the applicant. Private
Metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing.
(Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not
always deliver as agreed). Express/overnight mail services should use
the 901 D Street address instructions as shown below.)
Applications handcarried by applicants, applicant couriers, or by
other representatives of the applicant using express/overnight mail
services, will be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they
are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., EST, addressed to the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Attention:
Mary Nash, Office of Grants Management, Office of Child Support
Enforcement, and delivered at ACF Mailroom, 2nd Floor (near loading
dock), Aerospace Building, 901 D Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024,
between Monday and Friday (excluding Federal holidays). The address
must appear on the envelope/package containing the application. ACF
cannot accommodate transmission of applications by fax or through other
electronic media. Therefore, applications transmitted to ACF
electronically will not be accepted regardless of date or time of
submission and time of receipt.
3. Late applications. Applications that do not meet the criteria
above are considered late applications. ACF shall notify each late
applicant that its application will not be considered in the current
competition.
4. Extension of deadlines. ACF may extend an application deadline
when circumstances such as acts of God (floods, hurricanes, etc.)
occur, or when there are widespread disruption of the mail service, or
in other rare cases. Determinations to extend or waive deadline
requirements rest with ACF's Chief Grants Management Officer.
Dated: December 25, 1999.
David Gray Ross,
Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 00-208 Filed 1-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
