[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8382-8388]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-4143]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The 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 April 20,
1999. 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, SW, 4th Floor, East Wing, Washington, DC 20447 (This is not
the mailing address for submission of applications, See Part IV, B.);
or contact Jean Robinson, Program Analyst, phone (202) 401-5330, FAX
(202) 401-5559; 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
[[Page 8383]]
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 1999, we are looking for grants in
the following priority areas:
Foster collaboration between IV-D State agencies and
partner entities and other states to improve interstate case
processing.
Assist Tribal governments to plan and provide Child
Support Enforcement (CSE) services to Native Americans and to evaluate
effective program procedures and strategies.
Develop planning grants and random assignment
demonstrations to assess effectiveness of child support assurance
projects.
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 1999 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 State (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 1999.
Priority Area 1.01: Fostering Improved Interstate Case Processing
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 require all States to adopt the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act (UIFSA) by January 1, 1998. UIFSA replaced the
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), which required
states to reciprocate in the enforcement of duties of support. Since
rules weren't uniform among States, it made the interstate enforcement
of support difficult in many cases. Thus, 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 representatives from
the UIFSA and URESA states to discuss and develop consensus methods for
implementing administrative 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:
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-
[[Page 8384]]
D agencies for transmission to the Federal Case Registry.
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.
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's 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 of 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.
What are the more cost-effective methods/approaches for
interstate service of process? Projects should demonstrate whether in-
house, or privatization or another approach is more cost-effective and
efficient for service of process in interstate cases.
With respect to high volume automated enforcement in
interstate cases under PRWORA, what are exemplary 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?
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? How are more effective interstate locate
methods/processes 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?
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).
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 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 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.
Whereas, with the Family Violence Indicator, a flag will be placed
on a case by 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 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.
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 $300,000 to $1 million) for a total of
$1.2 million, for this priority area.
Priority Area 1.02: Tribal Child Support Enforcement Services
Purpose: The purpose of this solicitation is to foster the
development and improvement of child support enforcement programs on
tribal reservations. We intend to obtain information regarding
innovations in the effective delivery of child support enforcement
services to Native American children and their parents for
dissemination nationally.
2. Background and Information: The provision of title IV-D child
support services on Tribal lands can be a challenge for both Native
American custodial parents, noncustodial parents and their children who
need support and for tribal governments and courts which have
traditionally lacked funding for providing such services. Often, tribal
sovereignty and a lack of jurisdiction have prevented States from
providing such services on tribal lands.
There has been recent progress by a number of tribes who developed
CSE programs, cooperative agreements with States, improved the ability
of tribal courts to handle support cases, development and enactment of
tribal child support, etc.
With the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Congress gave the Secretary of
Health and Human Services authority to prescribe regulations to provide
direct IV-D funding to tribes.
OCSE wants to both build on previous efforts by furthering the
development of tribal child support programs and
[[Page 8385]]
services and assist tribes who wish to prepare for the implementation
of direct funding in the future.
3. Design Elements in the Application: Based on previous
developments and pending availability of direct IV-D funding to tribes,
OCSE wants to encourage further improvements to child support
capabilities on Indian lands. Some examples of the areas where
approaches may be focused include:
Adding to existing capability of a tribal child support
program, e.g., expanding services to all tribal members in need of
services, wage/income withholding.
Legislative Development and/or Enactment. Some tribes may
need to establish a legal framework for the operation of a future child
support program or if a model code is available, that code must be
enacted by tribal councils.
Training for program staff, tribal court judges.
Implementation of newly enacted child support codes and establishment
of services may include orientation and training for responsible
officials and staff.
Planning. Tribes may have enacted child support codes but
need to plan implementation of a program that provides services. This
might include looking at automated systems, identifying staff, shaping
roles and responsibilities between organizations such as the support
program and tribal courts.
Cooperative Agreements/Building Partnerships. Again,
formal relationships may need to be established between tribal courts
and the child support staff. Tribes may want to explore agreements with
state or local governments that have experience and capabilities such
as training, automated systems, location, etc. Cooperation between
State and tribal governments may be necessary for effective child
support enforcement when cases involve more than one jurisdiction.
Tribal Statewide or Regional Institutions. A tribe or
tribes and/or an intertribal council or a regional council of tribes
may wish to design a partnership demonstration addressing child support
issues of common concern on an intrastate, statewide or regional basis.
Privatization. States and tribes may seek to develop
innovative approaches through contracts with third parties to provide
IV-D services on Tribal lands.
Where a partnership is being proposed between one or more tribes, a
regional tribal council and a tribe or a state and a tribe, include a
letter of support/cooperation from an appropriate official of the
partnering entity/organization.
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 three grants
awarded for a total of $150,000 for this priority area.
Priority Area 1.03: Child Support Assurance
1. Purpose: The purpose of this solicitation will be to obtain
information on the feasibility of, and innovative methods of
establishing a child support assurance program. We will be particularly
interested in projects that will provide replicable models.
2. Background Information: The concept of child support assurance
builds upon the basic tenets of child support enforcement. All parents
who do not live with their children are expected to help provide for
them. A child with a living, nonresident parent would be entitled to
benefits equal to either the child support paid by the nonresident
parent or a socially assured minimum payment, whichever was higher. If
the obligor pays less than that amount, the difference would be made
up, in this case, by the demonstration project.
3. Design Elements: Elements we would like to see included in
proposals include, but are not limited to the following:
Feasibility Study(ies): A number of factors would have an
impact upon the possibility of sustaining a child support assurance
project beyond a demonstration.
For example, what would the net cost of such a program be?
Would differences in State financing of their IV-D programs effect the
funding/public support and/or perception of a child support assurance
program?
What type of training and/or administrative support is
needed to implement child support assurance?
What types of legislative and/or policy changes would be
needed?
Are there caseloads that, because of their compositions,
would be better/not as well suited, for child support assurance
demonstrations?
How would child support assurance be best integrated into
the changes that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act
of 1996 made to the IV-D program?
Demonstration Project(s): We are interested in
demonstrations that would test a number of variables that could be
included in a child support assurance program such as:
What is the optimal assured benefit level? At what level
is the benefit enough to serve as an incentive for families but not too
much to be cost prohibitive for States? Typical benefit levels are
amounts sufficient to raise a family above the poverty line, $1,000--
$3,000 per child with increases for additional children.
Should the benefit be a universal or means tested program?
As originally conceived, child support assurance would be a universal
program because it may serve as a greater incentive for obligors to
work. On the other hand, means testing is one way to target public
dollars to those in greatest need. We would be interested in
demonstrations that test both hypotheses.
What is the effect upon TANF rolls of a comprehensive
child support assurance strategy? Does participation in a child support
assurance program help to move families off of TANF to self-
sufficiency?
What types of requirements should there be for
participating in a child support assurance project? Should
participation be limited to parents participating and/or making
progress in fatherhood programs, work programs, parenting classes,
substance abuse/remedial education programs?
Does participation in a child support assurance program
serve as an incentive to work?
What should be the impact of receipt of child support
assurance when determining eligibility of other government programs
including TANF?
4. Project and Budget Periods: The project period for this priority
area is thirty-six months. The budget period will be for 12 months.
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 $250,000 will be available
per year for this priority area. The number of grants to be awarded
will depend upon the quality of the applications received.
Other: OCSE will target funding for projects which fall under the
three priority areas described above. However, OCSE will also screen
and evaluate smaller scale projects (up to
[[Page 8386]]
$50,000 per project) 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.
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. The project and budget period will be up to 17 months. It
is estimated that there will be up to eight grants to be awarded (up to
$50,000 each).
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 November 20, 1998, 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 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: Lionel Jay Adams, 370 L'Enfant
Promenade, SW., 4th Floor, West Wing, Washington, DC 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 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
[[Page 8387]]
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. For applications under Priority Area 1.03--Child
Support Assurance, a randomly assigned control group is preferred and
applicants should describe the ongoing and retrospective evaluation of
the project that will 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, including 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 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:
Lionel Jay Adams, 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:
Lionel Jay Adams, 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
[[Page 8388]]
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: February 5, 1999.
David Gray Ross,
Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 99-4143 Filed 2-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
