[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 40 (Monday, March 2, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10173-10179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5181]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Part 307
RIN 0970--AB71
Automated Data Processing Funding Limitation for Child Support
Enforcement Systems
AGENCY: Office of State Systems (OSS), OPS, ACF, HHS.
ACTION: Notice of Proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal share of funding available at an 80 percent
matching rate for child support enforcement automated systems changes
resulting from the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act is limited to a total of $400,000,000 for fiscal
years 1996 through 2001. This proposed rule responds to the requirement
that the Secretary of Health and Human Services issue regulations which
specify a formula for allocating this sum among the States, Territories
and eligible systems.
DATES: Consideration will be given to written comments received by May
1, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Address comments to: Administration for Children and
Families, Department of Health and Human Services, 370 L'Enfant
Promenade, SW, Washington, DC, 20447. Attention: Mark Ragan, Director,
Office of State Systems.
Comments will be available for public inspection Monday through
Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the third floor of the Department's
offices at 200 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20201.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen H. Smith, (202) 690-6639.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule does not require information collection
activities and, therefore, no approvals are necessary under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). In a separate
transmittal, however, the Administration for Children and Families is
submitting for approval the information collection activities under 45
CFR Sec. 307.15 which is referenced in this proposed rule.
Statutory Authority
These proposed regulations are published under the authority of the
Social Security Act (the Act), as amended by the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA; Pub. L.
104-193) and section 5555 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L.
105-33). Section 344(b) of Pub. L. 104-193 amends section 455(a) of the
Act to provide enhanced Federal matching for approved development and
implementation costs of automated child support enforcement systems.
Section 344(b)(2) of PRWORA establishes a temporary limitation on
payments under the special Federal matching rate of 80 percent. The
Secretary of Health and Human Services may not pay more than
$400,000,000 in the aggregate for approved systems development and
implementation costs in fiscal years 1996 through 2001. Under this
section the Secretary is also required to prescribe in regulation a
formula for allocating the available $400,000,000 among the States.
According to section 344(b)(2)(C) the formula for allocating the
specified funds among the States shall take into account the relative
size of State IV-D caseloads and the level of automation required to
meet the IV-D automated data processing requirements. Section 5555 of
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 amends the requirements in this section
of PRWORA to include certain systems in the allocation formula.
Regulatory Provisions
Background
With the enactment of the Family Support Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-
485), States were required to have an operational child support
enforcement system, certified by the Office of Child Support
Enforcement (OCSE) as meeting the requirements specified in that
statute and implementing regulations, no later than October 1, 1995.
(Pub. L. 104-85 subsequently extended this deadline to October 1,
1997.) PRWORA specifies new requirements in section 454A of the Act
which must be included in a State child support enforcement
[[Page 10174]]
system no later than October 1, 2000. The new automation requirements
require State systems to perform functions including: Controlling and
accounting of Federal, State and local funds to carry out the child
support enforcement program; maintaining data necessary to meet Federal
reporting requirements; maintaining data on State performance for
calculation of performance indicators; safeguarding of the integrity
and security of data in the automated system; developing a State case
registry; performing data matches; and providing expedited
administrative procedures. (PRWORA requires the establishment of State
New Hire and State Disbursement Units but does not require them to be
an integrated part of the Statewide automated child support system.)
For fiscal years 1996 through 2001, the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) will reimburse 80 percent of approved State
expenditures for development and implementation of automated systems
which meet the requirements of section 454(16) of the Act as in effect
on September 30, 1996 (i.e., Family Support Act requirements which must
be completed by October 1, 1997), the amended section 454(16), and new
section 454A of the Act. The Federal share of reimbursement to States
is limited to an aggregate total of $400,000,000. Once a State reaches
its allocated share of the $400,000,000, Federal funding remains
available at the 66 percent rate for additional approved expenditures
incurred in developing and implementing child support enforcement
systems. Child Support Enforcement Action Transmittal 96-10 (OCSE-AT-
96-10) provides instructions for submitting claims for Federal
reimbursement at the 80 percent rate.
PRWORA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue
regulations which specify a formula for allocating the $400,000,000
available at 80 percent FFP among the States and Territories. The
Balanced Budget Act Amendments add specified systems to the entities
included in the formula. The allocation formula must take into account
the relative size of State and systems IV-D (child support enforcement)
caseloads and the level of automation needed to meet title IV-D
automated data processing requirements. Accordingly, we propose to
revise 45 CFR Part 307 to include conforming changes and to add
Sec. 307.31.
Conditions That Must Be Met for 80 Percent Federal Financial
Participation
Pub. L. 104-193 provides enhanced funds to complete development of
child support enforcement systems which meet the requirements of both
the Family Support Act and PRWORA. From this we conclude that no change
in the conditions for receipt of funds was anticipated by Congress.
Thus, we propose to retain in 45 CFR 307.31 the same conditions for
receipt funds at 80 percent FFP which appear at Sec. 307.30 (a), (b),
(c), and (d) and apply to claims for FFP at the 90 percent rate.
Throughout this notice of proposed rulemaking we use ``State'' as
the inclusive term for States, Territories and approved systems as
described in 42 U.S.C. 655(a)(3)(B)(iii) (section 455(a)(3)(B)(iii) of
the Act) as added to the Act by section 5555 of the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33). The technical amendments to section
455(a)(3)(B) of the Act changed the entities included in the allocation
formula by adding ``system'' to States and Territories. For purposes of
this proposed rule, a system eligible for enhanced funding is a system
approved by the Secretary to receive funding at the 90 percent rate for
the purpose of developing a system that meets the requirements of
section 454(16) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 654(16)) (as in effect on and
after September 30, 1995) and section 454A of the Act (42 U.S.C. 654A),
including a system that received funding for this purpose pursuant to a
waiver under section 1115(a) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1315(a)). We believe
that the Los Angeles County child support enforcement system is the
only non-State system which meets these requirements.
Therefore, the proposed Sec. 307.31(a) provides that until
September 30, 2001, Federal financial participation (FFP) is available
at the 80 percent rate for expenditures for the planning, design,
development, installation, or enhancement of a child support
enforcement system meeting the requirements described in Secs. 307.5
and 307.10. To receive Federal reimbursement: (1) A State must have an
approved advance planning document (APD); (2) the system must meet the
requirements of Sec. 307.10; (3) OCSE must determine that the
expenditures are consistent with the APD; (4) OCSE must also determine
that the computerized support enforcement system is designed
effectively and efficiently and will improve the management and
administration of the State IV-D plan; (5) the State IV-D agency must
agree in writing to use the system for a period of time which is
consistent with the APD approved by OCSE; and (6) the State or local
government must have ownership rights in any software, software
modifications and associated documentation that is designed, developed,
installed or enhanced with Federal funds.
In proposed Sec. 307.31(b) the requirements for FFP at the 80
percent rate in the costs of hardware and proprietary software are the
same as the requirements at the 90 percent rate. Until September 30,
2001, FFP at the 80 percent rate is available in expenditures for the
rental or purchase of hardware for the planning, design, development,
installation, or enhancement of a computerized support enforcement
system as described in Sec. 307.10. FFP at the 80 percent rate is
available until September 30, 2001, for the rental or purchase of
proprietary operating/vendor software necessary for the operation of
hardware during the planning, design, development, installation,
enhancement or operation of a child support enforcement system in
accordance with the OCSE guideline entitled ``Automated Systems for
Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for States.'' FFP at the 80 percent
rate is not available, however, for proprietary application software
developed specifically for a computerized support enforcement system.
With proposed Sec. 307.31(c), the Department of Health and Human
Services continues to reserve a royalty-free, non-exclusive and
irrevocable license to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to
authorize others to use for Federal Government purposes, software,
software modifications, and documentation developed under Sec. 307.10.
This license permits the Department to authorize the use of software,
software modifications and documentation developed under Sec. 307.10 in
another project or activity funded by the Federal Government.
Proposed Sec. 307.31(d) reiterates the consequences of suspension
of the APD. If OCSE suspends approval of an APD during the planning,
design, development, installation, enhancement or operation of the
system, FFP is disallowed as of the date the State failed to comply
substantially with the approved APD. FFP at the 80 percent and
applicable matching rates is not available for any expenditure incurred
under the APD after the date of the suspension until the date OCSE
determines that the State has taken the actions specified in the notice
of suspension. OCSE will notify the State in writing upon making such a
determination.
[[Page 10175]]
Note that for conformance, we propose to add to Sec. 307.40(a) of
the regulation a reference to ``Sec. 307.31(d).''
As required in section 344(a)(3) of PRWORA, the Administration for
Children and Families is developing Federal regulations for the
implementation of the child support enforcement systems requirements
mandated by section 454A of the Social Security Act and listed in the
background section above. We anticipate issuing proposed rules in the
near future which will revise 45 CFR Part 307 to reflect these
requirements.
These regulations specify the conditions that States must meet in
order to receive funding (both enhanced and regular) and certification.
Under these rules, we will set out provisions to: ensure the
coordination of Federal financial participation and States' progress
toward implementing PRWORA system requirements; hold States accountable
for ensuring that their automation plans are effectively designed and
implemented; and, enable States to produce the results envisioned under
PRWORA. Because of the interrelationship between these two rules, ACF
will assess comments on both rules and issue final rules in a
coordinated manner.
In addition, ACF will revise the existing OCSE publication,
``Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement: A Guide for States''
through the issuance of a series of action transmittals to explain the
new and revised child support enforcement system functional
requirements. Each action transmittal will be circulated in draft form
for review and comment by the States before a final document is issued.
Limitation on Payments to States
Section 344(b)(2) of PRWORA limits the Federal share of payments at
the 80 percent rate to $400,000,000 over fiscal years 1996 through
2001. The proposed Sec. 307.31(e) therefore provides that FFP at the 80
percent rate may not exceed $400,000,000 in the aggregate for fiscal
years 1996 through 2001.
We include the amount of the funding limitation in the regulation
because it caps the funds available to each State at the special
matching rate. The statute requires an allocation of the available
$400,000,000 based on a formula established by the Secretary, HHS.
State implementation of all automated systems requirements enacted
with the Family Support Act of 1988 is to be accomplished by October 1,
1997. Subsequent requirements enacted with or before PRWORA must be met
by October 1, 2000. For fiscal years 1996 through 2001, the FFP rate
for the provisions of this section is 80 percent. Although system
implementation must be completed no later than October 1, 2000, Federal
funds at the 80 percent FFP rate remain available through September 30,
2001, to accommodate contractually mandated ``holdback'' payments and
other system implementation-related expenses.
As indicated above, FFP at the 80 percent rate is available only
for expenditures made by a State on or before September 30, 2001, for
system development and implementation activities which meet all
statutory and regulatory requirements. Under section 1132 of the Act
and Federal regulations at 45 CFR part 95, subpart A, States have two
years from the end of a quarter in which an expenditure is made to file
a claim for Federal funding for that cost. Therefore, approved system
implementation expenditures made in 2001 may be claimed for Federal
funding at the 80 percent FFP rate as late as 2003.
Allocation Formula
Section 344(b)(2)(C) of PRWORA requires the Secretary to allocate
by formula the $400,000,000 available at the 80 percent FFP rate. This
section specifies that the formula take into account the relative size
of State IV-D caseloads and the level of automation needed to meet
applicable automatic data processing requirements. The legislative
history does not elaborate on the meaning of these factors.
The allocation formula proposed in this section is the product of
consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. We sought information
from child support enforcement systems experts, financial experts,
economists, State IV-D directors, and national associations. Before
drafting regulations we asked States to suggest approaches for
allocating the available Federal share of the funds. In a number of
open forums we sought suggestions for the allocation formula. An
internal working group considered the information from States, reviewed
the suggestions, then developed the proposed allocation formula.
Simply stated, the proposed formula first allots a base amount of
$2,000,000 to each State to take into account the level of automation
needed to meet the automated data processing requirements of title IV-
D. The formula, then, allots an additional amount to States based on
both their reported IV-D caseload and their potential caseload based on
Census data on children living with one parent.
As indicated earlier, we use ``State'' as the inclusive term for
States, Territories and systems described in 42 U.S.C.
655(a)(3)(B)(iii) (455(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act) as amended by section
5555 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. The technical amendments to
section 455(a)(3)(B) of the Act changed the entities included in the
allocation formula by adding ``system'' to States. As noted earlier, we
believe that the Los Angeles County child support enforcement system is
the only non-State system which meets the requirements specified in
section 455(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act.
Before considering a base level of funding, we examined several
approaches for taking into account States' level of automation. First,
we contemplated allocating funds based on the certification status of a
State's child support enforcement automated system. However, we were
advised of several flaws in this approach: it does not reflect current
automation needs; it could reward States that are behind schedule and
not certified for Family Support Act standards by giving them a larger
allocation to meet PRWORA requirements and complete their statewide
automated systems; and, it could advantage States with certified but
obsolete systems. We then considered establishing a ranking system
based on dollars invested in systems to date. This approach is
problematic because it penalizes States that were early developers of
child support enforcement systems and it does not address the new
requirements. We also considered grading States' systems on a set of
criteria, but we came to believe that this was an overly complex
approach with numerous and subjective variables.
As an alternative, several States suggested that the formula
allocate a base amount to each State to take into account the level of
automation. This is the approach we are proposing in the following
formula.
Using a funding base and then varying the allocation by current and
potential caseload reflects the flexibility States have, and have had,
in designing their systems. Each State develops its system to meet its
particular needs. Thus, each State's system development plan takes into
account factors such as: caseload size; organization (county
administered, state-administered, court involvement); State and local
business practices for case processing and management; the process for
setting and enforcing orders (court or administrative process);
responsiveness and capacity of its contractors; State planning process;
availability of State funding and resources.
[[Page 10176]]
A number of areas common to all State systems will need additional
investment in order to meet the new PRWORA requirements. Primarily, the
increased systems costs are associated with changes in distribution,
performance indicators, reporting, interfaces and case management, the
State Case Registry and wage withholding activities on non-IV-D cases.
Therefore, we believe it is reasonable to allocate a base amount to
each State.
A base level of funding for each State takes into account the level
of automation by recognizing that all States have similar costs for
planning, design, programming and development regardless of the size of
their caseloads. A minimum amount is provided to each State to ensure
support for a State's development effort. In order to treat States
fairly in determining this minimum level of funding, we looked to our
experience with basic project costs (e.g., planning, design,
programming, and development). We believe a base amount of $2,000,000
per State fairly represents the start-up costs which are common to all
States. Table 2 in Appendix A shows the distribution of the base amount
to each State, Territory and Los Angeles County.
States suggested various percentages of the available funds which
should be set aside to distribute as equal base amounts to each State.
Obviously, as the portion of the funds designated for the base amount
increases, the portion available to distribute based on relative
caseload size decreases. Changes in the portion set aside for minimum
funding to each State could advantage or disadvantage some States
(e.g., allocating a larger percentage of funds to a base amount
advantages States with small caseloads). Allocating a minimum of
$2,000,000 to each State accounts for a little over one-quarter of the
$400,000,000 available from federal funds. As discussed in the
following paragraphs, our proposal for taking into account the relative
size of State IV-D caseloads in the allocation formula also considers
the scope of changes that States must make in their child support
enforcement systems to meet PRWORA requirements. Therefore, we believe
that using one-quarter of the available funds for the base amount is
reasonable.
In addition to the base level of funding which takes into account
States' levels of automation, the proposed allocation formula's
calculation of relative caseload size also addresses the changes that
States must make in their child support enforcement systems in order to
meet PRWORA requirements. Section 311 of PRWORA mandates that child
support enforcement systems include information on all new and modified
child support orders in the State as of October 1, 1998 as well as
information on all cases receiving services under title IV-D.
Effectively, this increases the potential child support enforcement
caseload maintained on a State's automated system to include almost all
children in a State who are not living with both parents. Since the
majority of States must increase their automated systems capacity
because of this expanding caseload, the use of a census factor based on
the size of the child population not living with both parents helps
take into account the need for additional capacity building.
With this in mind, the proposed formula allocates the remaining
funds, after the base amount is assigned to each State, by an
Allocation Factor. A Caseload Factor and a Census Factor are averaged
to yield the Allocation Factor. Table 1 shows by State the calculation
of the Allocation Factor from caseload and census data.
At this time caseload and census data are not available for Los
Angeles County. Therefore, the tables in appendix A show a base amount
allocated to Los Angeles County and blank cells for the caseload factor
and the census factor. With a base amount assigned for Los Angeles
County, we can calculate the total remaining funds available for
allocation among the other States. California's caseload factor and
census factor represent the total for the State, including Los Angeles
County. The California IV-D agency and the Los Angeles County IV-D
agency have been asked to provide us with caseload and census data, as
described below, showing Los Angeles County's share of the California
total.
The Caseload Factor is the ratio of the six-year average IV-D
caseload as reported by a State to the OCSE for fiscal years 1990-1995
to the total six-year average caseload in all States for the same
period. States differ in the percentage of total child support cases
which receive IV-D services and thus, are included in the IV-D system.
For example, some States routinely include all court-ordered support
cases in the child support enforcement system. In addition, all States
have some duplication in their caseload count due to interstate cases.
To compensate for counting variations, we propose averaging the
caseloads as reported by States for fiscal years 1990-1995. We
considered using shorter periods for averaging, (e.g., 2 years, 4
years) but we decided on the period from 1990-1995 because it minimizes
variations in each State's reported caseload.
The Census Factor is the ratio of the number of children in a State
with one parent living elsewhere as reported in the 1992 Current
Population Survey-Child Support Supplement to the total number of such
children in all States. Data will be taken from the most recent Current
Population Survey-Child Support Supplement, which is a national survey
conducted by the Census Bureau every two years. We propose to use
census data on children with one parent living elsewhere because this
represents the maximum number of children living in the State who could
potentially receive services from the IV-D program.
Note: It is also the same data set required by statute to
determine the allotments for the Access and Visitation Grants which
the OCSE will issue to the States under section 391 of PRWORA.
Therefore, the proposed Sec. 307.31(f) provides that payments to
individual States will be equal to the sum of a $2,000,000 base amount
and an additional amount as determined by the Allocation Factor. The
Allocation Factor is an average of the Caseload and Census Factors
which yields the percentage that is used to calculate a State's
allocation of the $400,000,000 (less the amounts set aside for the
base).
Table 1 shows by State the Caseload Factors and the Census Factors
and the calculation of the Allocation Factor. Table 2 displays the
amount each State would be allotted from the $400,000,000 under the
proposed allocation formula. The tables are printed in Attachment A at
the end of this NPRM.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be reviewed 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354)
which requires the Federal Government to anticipate and reduce the
impact of rules and paperwork requirements on small business and other
small entities, the Secretary certifies that this rule has no
significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. The
primary impact of this proposed regulation is on State governments.
State governments are not considered small entities under the Act.
Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
[[Page 10177]]
Unfunded Mandates Act
The Department has determined that this proposed rule is not a
significant regulatory action within the meaning of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
List of Subjects in 45 CFR Part 307
Child support, Computer technology, Grant programs--social
programs.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.023, Child
Support Enforcement Program)
Dated: September 19, 1997.
Olivia A. Golden,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
Approved: November 5, 1997.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 45 CFR part 307 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 307--COMPUTERIZED SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS
1. The authority citation for part 307 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 652 through 658, 664, 666 through 669A, and
1302.
2. A new Sec. 307.31 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 307.31 Federal financial participation at the 80 percent rate for
computerized support enforcement systems.
(a) Conditions that must be met for 80 percent FFP. Until September
30, 2001, Federal financial participation is available at the 80
percent rate to States, Territories and systems defined in 42 U.S.C.
655(a)(3)(B)(iii) (455(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act) (hereafter referred to
as ``States'') for expenditures for the planning, design, development,
installation, or enhancement of a computerized support enforcement
system meeting the requirements as described in Secs. 307.5 and 307.10
of this part or 42 U.S.C 654(16) (454(16) of the Act), if:
(1) The Office has approved an APD in accordance with Sec. 307.15
of this part;
(2) The Office determines that the system meets the requirements
specified in Sec. 307.10, or 42 U.S.C 654(16) (454(16) of the Act);
(3) The Office determines that the expenditures incurred are
consistent with the approved APD;
(4) The Office determines that the computerized support enforcement
system is designed effectively and efficiently and will improve the
management and administration of the State IV-D plan;
(5) The State IV-D agency agrees in writing to use the system for a
period of time which is consistent with the APD approved by the Office;
and
(6) The State or local government has ownership rights in software,
software modifications and associated documentation that is designed,
developed, installed or enhanced under this section subject to the
Department of Health and Human Services license specified in paragraph
(c) of this section.
(b) Federal financial participation in the costs of hardware and
proprietary software. (1) Until September 30, 2001, FFP at the 80
percent rate is available for expenditures for the rental or purchase
of hardware for the planning, design, development, installation, or
enhancement of a computerized support enforcement system as described
in Sec. 307.10 or 42 U.S.C 654(16) (454(16) of the Act).
(2) Until September 30, 2001, FFP at the 80 percent rate is
available for the rental or purchase of proprietary operating/vendor
software necessary for the operation of hardware during the planning,
design, development, installation, enhancement or operation of a
computerized support enforcement system in accordance with the OCSE
guideline entitled ``Automated Systems for Child Support Enforcement: A
Guide for States.'' FFP at the 80 percent rate is not available for
proprietary application software developed specifically for a
computerized support enforcement system. (See Sec. 307.35 regarding
reimbursement at the applicable matching rate.)
(c) HHS rights to software. The Department of Health and Human
Services reserves a royalty-free, non-exclusive and irrevocable license
to reproduce, publish or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use
for Federal government purposes, software, software modifications, and
documentation developed under Sec. 307.10 or 42 U.S.C 654(16) (454(16)
of the Act). This license would permit the Department to authorize the
use of software, software modifications and documentation developed
under Sec. 307.10 or 42 U.S.C 654(16) (454(16) of the Act) in another
project or activity funded by the Federal government.
(d) Consequences of suspension of the APD. If the Office suspends
approval of an APD in accordance with Sec. 307.40 during the planning,
design, development, installation, enhancement or operation of the
system:
(1) The Office shall disallow FFP as of the date the State failed
to comply substantially with the approved APD; and
(2) FFP at the 80 percent and applicable matching rates is not
available in any expenditure incurred under the APD after the date of
the suspension until the date the Office determines that the State has
taken the actions specified in the notice of suspension described in
Sec. 307.40(a) of this part. The Office will notify the State in
writing upon making such a determination.
(e) Limitation on 80 percent funding. Federal financial
participation at the 80 percent rate may not exceed $400,000,000 in the
aggregate for fiscal years 1996 through 2001.
(f) Allocation formula. Payments at the 80 percent rate to
individual States, Territories and systems defined in 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 655(a)(3)(B)(iii) (455(a)(3)(B)(iii) of the Act) (hereafter
referred to as ``States'') will be equal to the sum of:
(1) A base amount of $2,000,000; and
(2) An additional amount defined as the Allocation Factor computed
as follows:
(i) Allocation Factor--an average of the Caseload and Census
Factors which yields the percentage that is used to calculate a State's
allocation of the funds available, less amounts set aside pursuant to
paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
(ii) Caseload Factor--a ratio of the six-year average IV-D caseload
as reported by a State for fiscal years 1990 through 1995 to the total
six-year average IV-D caseload in all States for the same period;
(iii) Census Factor--a ratio of the number of children in a State
with one parent living elsewhere as reported in the 1992 Current
Population Survey--Child Support Supplement to the total number of such
children in all States.
3. In Sec. 307.40 paragraph (a)(1) is amended by adding
``Sec. 307.31(d)'' at the end of the last sentence. The addition reads
as follows:
Sec. 307.40 Suspension of approval of advance planning documents for
computerized support enforcement systems.
(a) * * * Federal funding will be disallowed as described in
Sec. 307.30(d) and Sec. 307.31(d).
* * * * *
Appendix A--Proposed Allocation Tables
Note: Appendix A will not be codified in Title 45 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
[[Page 10178]]
Table 1.--Calculation of Allocation Factor From Caseload and Census Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caseload 6 % of Census--92 Allocation
yr avg. caseload children % of census factor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................ 290,391 1.81 345,570 1.84 1.83
Alaska......................................... 42,954 0.27 27,765 0.15 0.20
Arizona........................................ 240,814 1.50 271,870 1.45 1.47
Arkansas....................................... 111,852 0.70 187,640 1.00 0.86
California..................................... 1,682,256 10.48 2,178,600 11.60 11.09
Los Angeles County*............................ 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00
Colorado....................................... 166,360 1.04 182,320 0.97 1.00
Connecticut.................................... 167,175 1.04 242,910 1.29 1.18
Delaware....................................... 44,417 0.28 68,966 0.37 0.33
District of Columbia........................... 78,327 0.49 61,788 0.33 0.40
Florida........................................ 795,006 4.95 1,043,100 5.56 5.28
Georgia........................................ 460,993 2.87 428,450 2.28 2.55
Guam........................................... 5,788 0.04 6,772 0.04 0.04
Hawaii......................................... 59,662 0.37 79,211 0.42 0.40
Idaho.......................................... 50,243 0.31 70,539 0.38 0.35
Illinois....................................... 695,072 4.33 879,600 4.68 4.52
Indiana........................................ 610,335 3.80 690,510 3.68 3.74
Iowa........................................... 137,349 0.86 174,860 0.93 0.90
Kansas......................................... 115,061 0.72 227,530 1.21 0.98
Kentucky....................................... 259,739 1.62 362,530 1.93 1.79
Louisiana...................................... 258,556 1.61 402,430 2.14 1.90
Maine.......................................... 64,203 0.40 70,932 0.38 0.39
Maryland....................................... 310,502 1.94 366,710 1.95 1.94
Massachusetts.................................. 234,721 1.46 336,030 1.79 1.64
Michigan....................................... 1,239,750 7.73 757,680 4.04 5.74
Minnesota...................................... 195,708 1.22 357,550 1.90 1.59
Mississippi.................................... 254,350 1.59 268,880 1.43 1.50
Missouri....................................... 312,990 1.95 339,170 1.81 1.87
Montana........................................ 29,676 0.18 55,911 0.30 0.25
Nebraska....................................... 118,598 0.74 90,157 0.48 0.60
Nevada......................................... 64,867 0.40 80,703 0.43 0.42
New Hampshire.................................. 38,461 0.24 56,581 0.30 0.27
New Jersey..................................... 530,061 3.30 395,560 2.11 2.66
New Mexico..................................... 64,995 0.41 138,260 0.74 0.58
New York....................................... 1,053,781 6.57 1,363,500 7.26 6.94
North Carolina................................. 381,598 2.38 457,280 2.44 2.41
North Dakota................................... 31,981 0.20 32,165 0.17 0.18
Ohio........................................... 879,306 5.48 785,450 4.18 4.78
Oklahoma....................................... 117,380 0.73 200,790 1.07 0.91
Oregon......................................... 221,282 1.38 222,130 1.18 1.27
Pennsylvania................................... 851,155 5.30 696,690 3.71 4.45
Puerto Rico.................................... 184,548 1.15 215,949 1.15 1.15
Rhode Island................................... 70,281 0.44 44,712 0.24 0.33
South Carolina................................. 186,716 1.16 254,370 1.35 1.27
South Dakota................................... 25,440 0.16 48,647 0.26 0.21
Tennessee...................................... 486,970 3.03 394,230 2.10 2.53
Texas.......................................... 641,667 4.00 1,377,600 7.34 5.80
Utah........................................... 79,955 0.50 142,460 0.76 0.64
Vermont........................................ 18,577 0.12 40,292 0.21 0.17
Virgin Islands................................. 10,704 0.07 12,525 0.07 0.07
Virginia....................................... 300,239 1.87 379,510 2.02 1.95
Washington..................................... 294,085 1.83 346,700 1.85 1.84
West Virginia.................................. 83,599 0.52 111,830 0.60 0.56
Wisconsin...................................... 365,825 2.28 374,170 1.99 2.13
Wyoming........................................ 29,279 0.18 27,763 0.15 0.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals................................... 16,045,594 100.00 18,775,849 100.00 100.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Currently Los Angeles County data are included in California's data.
Table 2.--Proposed Allocation of Child Support Enforcement Funds Available at 80% EFFP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal calculations
Allocation ------------------------------------------------ Total State
factor Allocated Total Federal share Total
(percent) Base amount remainder share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................................... 1.83 $2,000,000 $5,296,411 $7,296,411 $1,824,103 $9,120,514
Alaska..................................................... 0.20 2,000,000 588,959 2,588,959 647,240 3,236,199
Arizona.................................................... 1.47 2,000,000 4,269,736 6,269,736 1,567,434 7,837,170
Arkansas................................................... 0.86 2,000,000 2,494,226 4,494,226 1,123,556 5,617,782
California................................................. 11.09 2,000,000 32,153,986 34,153,986 8,538,496 42,692,482
[[Page 10179]]
Los Angeles County*........................................ 0.00 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 500,000 2,500,000
Colorado................................................... 1.00 2,000,000 2,903,875 4,903,875 1,225,969 6,129,843
Connecticut................................................ 1.18 2,000,000 3,415,271 5,415,271 1,353,818 6,769,088
Delaware................................................... 0.33 2,000,000 944,272 2,944,272 736,068 3,680,340
District of Columbia....................................... 0.40 2,000,000 1,166,907 3,166,907 791,727 3,958,634
Florida.................................................... 5.28 2,000,000 15,308,115 17,308,115 4,327,029 21,635,143
Georgia.................................................... 2.55 2,000,000 7,407,463 9,407,463 2,351,866 11,759,329
Guam....................................................... 0.04 2,000,000 104,603 2,104,603 526,151 2,630,754
Hawaii..................................................... 0.40 2,000,000 1,156,560 3,156,560 789,140 3,945,699
Idaho...................................................... 0.35 2,000,000 1,005,900 3,005,900 751,475 3,757,375
Illinois................................................... 4,52 2,000,000 13,114,182 15,114,182 3,778,545 18,892,727
Indiana.................................................... 3.74 2,000,000 10,833,701 12,833,701 3,208,425 16,042,126
Iowa....................................................... 0.90 2,000,000 2,600,140 4,600,140 1,150,035 5,750,174
Kansas..................................................... 0.98 2,000,000 2,853,168 4,853,168 1,213,292 6,066,460
Kentucky................................................... 1.79 2,000,000 5,182,378 7,182,378 1,795,594 8,977,972
Louisiana.................................................. 1.90 2,000,000 5,504,825 7,504,825 1,876,206 9,381,031
Maine...................................................... 0.39 2,000,000 1,125,430 3,125,430 781,358 3,906,788
Maryland................................................... 1.94 2,000,000 5,639,961 7,639,961 1,909,990 9,549,951
Massachusetts.............................................. 1.64 2,000,000 4,753,331 6,753,331 1,688,333 8,441,663
Michigan................................................... 5.74 2,000,000 16,635,003 18,635,003 4,658,751 23,293,753
Minnesota.................................................. 1.59 2,000,000 4,607,640 6,607,640 1,651,910 8,259,550
Mississippi................................................ 1.50 2,000,000 4,357,564 6,357,564 1,589,391 7,946,954
Missouri................................................... 1.87 2,000,000 5,431,316 7,431,316 1,857,829 9,289,145
Montana.................................................... 0.25 2,000,000 712,782 2,712,782 678,195 3,390,977
Nebraska................................................... 0.60 2,000,000 1,738,551 3,738,551 934,638 4,673,189
Nevada..................................................... 0.42 2,000,000 1,212,336 3,212,336 803,084 4,015,420
New Hampshire.............................................. 0.27 2,000,000 791,530 2,791,530 697,883 3,489,413
New Jersey................................................. 2.66 2,000,000 7,708,758 9,708,758 2,427,190 12,135,948
New Mexico................................................. 0.58 2,000,000 1,692,749 3,692,749 923,187 4,615,936
New York................................................... 6.94 2,000,000 20,131,601 22,131,601 5,532,900 27,664,501
North Carolina............................................. 2.41 2,000,000 6,986,341 8,986,341 2,246,585 11,232,926
North Dakota............................................... 0.18 2,000,000 534,222 2,534,222 633,556 3,167,778
Ohio....................................................... 4.78 2,000,000 13,864,421 15,864,421 3,966,105 19,830,526
Oklahoma................................................... 0.91 2,000,000 2,649,783 4,649,783 1,162,446 5,812,228
Oregon..................................................... 1.27 2,000,000 3,692,822 5,692,822 1,423,205 7,116,027
Pennsylvania............................................... 4.45 2,000,000 12,890,767 14,890,767 3,722,692 18,613,458
Puerto Rico................................................ 1.15 2,000,000 3,335,419 5,335,419 1,333,855 6,669,273
Rhode Island............................................... 0.33 2,000,000 957,681 2,957,681 739,420 3,697,101
South Carolina............................................. 1.27 2,000,000 3,673,449 5,673,449 1,418,362 7,091,811
South Dakota............................................... 0.21 2,000,000 617,014 2,617,014 654,254 3,271,268
Tennessee.................................................. 2.53 2,000,000 7,338,813 9,338,813 2,334,703 11,673,516
Texas...................................................... 5.80 2,000,000 16,816,864 18,816,864 4,704,216 23,521,080
Utah....................................................... 0.64 2,000,000 1,852,320 3,852,320 963,080 4,815,400
Vermont.................................................... 0.17 2,000,000 490,273 2,490,273 622,568 3,112,841
Virgin Islands............................................. 0.07 2,000,000 193,459 2,193,459 548,365 2,741,823
Virginia................................................... 1.95 2,000,000 5,661,088 7,661,088 1,915,272 9,576,360
Washington................................................. 1.84 2,000,000 5,336,587 7,336,587 1,834,147 9,170,733
West Virginia.............................................. 0.56 2,000,000 1,627,568 3,627,568 906,892 4,534,460
Wisconsin.................................................. 2.13 2,000,000 6,162,828 8,162,828 2,040,707 10,203,534
Wyoming.................................................... 0.16 2,000,000 475,057 2,475,057 618,764 3,093,822
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100.00 110,000,000 290,000,000 400,000,000 100,000,000 500,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Included in California's allocated remainder.
[FR Doc. 98-5181 Filed 2-27-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
