[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 223 (Monday, November 18, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58632-58663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-28937]
[[Page 58632]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Parts 1355, 1356, and 1357
RIN 0970-AB34
Foster Care Maintenance Payments, Adoption Assistance, Child and
Family Services
AGENCY: Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF),
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), HHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends existing regulations concerning
comprehensive child and family services under titles IV-B (Child
Welfare Services) and IV-E (Federal Payments for Foster Care and
Adoption Assistance) of the Social Security Act. The rule, prepared in
response to the enactment of the Family Preservation and Support
Services Act in 1993, provides direction to the States and eligible
Indian Tribes in accomplishing two goals: establishing comprehensive
community-based family support programs and short-term crisis-
intervention family preservation programs, and working across the child
and family services system to design a continuum of services responsive
to the diverse needs of families and children.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 18, 1996. This rule contains information
collection requirements in Sections 1357.15 and 1357.16 which are
subject to review and approval by OMB. The information collection
requirements in these sections will not become effective until they are
approved by OMB and assigned a valid OMB control number. A document
will be published in the Federal Register which contains the valid OMB
control number for these requirements.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
(1) Carol W. Williams, Associate Commissioner, Children's Bureau,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
Or
(2) Daniel H. Lewis, Deputy Associate Commissioner, Children's Bureau,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Telephone (202) 205-
8622 or (202) 205-8618
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Preamble
I. Background
II. Summary of Major Changes in the Final Rule and Discussion of
Major Issues
III. Section by Section Discussion of Comments
IV. Impact Analysis
Final Rule
I. Background
Title IV-B was added to the Social Security Act in 1935 to provide
Federal formula grants to States to establish, extend and strengthen
child welfare services. Major changes to the authorizing legislation
were later made under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of
1980 (Pub. L. 96-272), to prevent the unnecessary separation of
children from their families; improve the quality of care and services
to children and their families; and, ensure permanency for children
through reunification with parents, through adoption, or through
another permanent living arrangement.
Over the last 15 years, however, social, cultural, and economic
changes have frustrated efforts to meet these goals. Increased numbers
of families coming to the attention of child welfare agencies with
problems of ever-increasing severity coupled with rising rates of child
abuse and neglect reports, have resulted in an overwhelmed child
welfare system. Unable to keep up with these increased demands,
constrained by resource limitations and overburdened workers, service
planning has largely been limited to activities that focus on crisis
intervention and not prevention and treatment.
Acknowledging that the system was not working for some of our most
vulnerable children and their families, Congress amended title IV-B in
August, 1993, under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993,
Public Law 103-66. A new program, entitled family preservation and
family support services, added as title IV-B, subpart 2, provides
States and eligible Indian Tribes with new Federal funding for
preventive services (family support services) and services to families
at risk or in crisis (family preservation services).
This legislation set aside funds for planning in fiscal year 1994
as the basis for the development of a five-year comprehensive services
plan. This planning effort also provided States and local communities
and eligible Indian Tribes the opportunity to review their current
strategies for meeting the service needs of children and their
families, identify service gaps and barriers to coordination of
services, and develop a plan for providing a continuum of services to
families and their children.
The FY 1994 appropriation for this new program (subpart 2) was $60
million. Of this amount, $2 million was reserved for Federal
evaluation, research, and training and technical assistance; $600,000
was reserved for grants to Indian Tribes. The balance was available for
grants to States to fund planning and services for family support and
family preservation.
For FY 1995, the authorization increased to $150 million. Of this
amount, $6 million was reserved for Federal evaluation, research, and
training and technical assistance and $1.5 million for grants to Indian
Tribes. A new program of grants to State courts was initiated at a
funding level of $35 million for FYs 1995-1998. The balance is
available for grants to States for family preservation and family
support services.
Shortly after the legislation was enacted, ACF convened a series of
focus groups to learn about family preservation and family support
services. Using information obtained from these discussions and
building on existing literature, four goals for family support and
family preservation services were identified:
The safety of all family members must be assured.
These programs should serve to enhance parents' ability to
create safe, stable, and nurturing home environments that promote
healthy child development.
To assist children and families to resolve crises, connect
with necessary and appropriate services, and remain safely together in
their homes whenever possible.
To avoid the unnecessary out-of-home placements of
children, and help children already in out-of-home care to be returned
to, and be maintained with, their families or in another planned,
permanent family.
Based on these goals and other lessons learned through the focus
groups, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on October 4, 1994
(59 FR 50646) to implement the new family preservation and family
support provisions of the statute and integrate this new focus into a
comprehensive continuum of child and family services.
The statute specified that five-year plans were due June 30, 1995
from all States and eligible Indian Tribes in order to receive Federal
funding. Over the past two years, ACF has committed substantial
resources to the provision of technical assistance to States and Tribes
to assist in the development of these plans and the implementation of
these provisions. Regional and national conferences, State and
locality-specific interventions, our Regional Offices and Resource
Centers all have assisted States and Indian Tribes during this period.
[[Page 58633]]
II. Summary of Major Changes in the Final Rule and Discussion of Major
Issues
We received 80 letters of public comment regarding the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) from Federal, State and local agencies and
governments; national, State, and local child and family service and
advocacy organizations; and other interested parties. Over 150 of the
specific comments within these letters were in total support of
portions of, or the entirety of, the proposed rule.
The vast majority of commenters were extremely supportive of the
NPRM and the focus group process employed in its development. The input
from families, practitioners, researchers, and advocates is reflected
in this rule and affirms the importance of collaboration and
cooperation. The Administration for Children and Families is committed
to using this inclusive process as a model approach in implementing
future statutory changes of this nature.
Commenters noted that the tone of the NPRM captured the intent and
spirit of the legislation. In particular, they cited support for the
joint planning and consultation process and the importance of the
flexibility provided which allowed States and Indian Tribes to prepare
their plans to meet the needs of local communities. Strong support was
voiced for the vision to achieve improved outcomes for children and
families by helping States, Indian Tribes, and communities apply the
principles of family support and family preservation across all child
and family service programs.
Many commenters voiced support for the NPRM's emphasis on positive,
supportive, and cooperative relationships between at-risk families and
service providers and building on family strengths. They spoke to the
importance of this rule in helping States expand the frontiers of child
abuse treatment and prevention and strengthen the goals of family
preservation and family support.
This final rule reflects the Department's honoring State and Tribal
discretion in many areas of program administration. Through our
experience in administering title IV-B and through our consultation
with experts in the field, we have learned that flexibility in
approach, along with strong outcome standards, is key to designing
successful programs at the State and Tribal levels.
With this rule, we lay a framework by setting certain basic
principles, standards, and processes while at the same time allowing
for State and Tribal flexibility in accomplishing these goals.
Many commenters requested model Child and Family Services Plans
(CFSPs), model goals and objectives, or a more extensive list of
required stakeholders to the process. Despite these request for greater
specificity and detail in various provisions of the rule, we remain
committed to offering States and Tribes maximum flexibility in
designing the content of their Child and Family Services Plans.
We have relaxed requirements where we have been too prescriptive.
For example, we have relaxed the requirements of
Sec. 1357.15(1)(3)(viii) Consultation to allow for States and Tribes to
determine the best set of specific stakeholders to participate in the
design of their Child and Family Services Plans, offering an extensive
suggested list. This section as a whole still requires a critical list
of essential consultation partners to the decision-making process.
Technical revisions were made throughout the rule to: (1) Change
the reference of section 427 to 422(b)(9) in accordance with Pub. L.
103-432; (2) reflect changes made in the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA) as amended by the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act Amendments of 1996, Pub. L. 104-235, which was signed
into law on October 3, 1996: The CAPTA changes reflect that there is
only one program, the Child Abuse and Neglect State Grant program,
instead of two programs, and citations to specific sections have been
corrected; and (3) change the title IV-A and IV-F references in the
rule to reflect the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104-193).
We have maximized flexibility in the fiscal area to facilitate the
provision of family support services by encouraging the involvement of
community-based organizations. The matching requirements for title IV-B
programs have now been revised to allow States and Indian Tribes to
meet the non-Federal program cost matching requirements using cash or
in-kind contributions, including those that are donated. We made this
change (consistent with existing regulations governing grants at 45 CFR
92.24) in response to compelling arguments in favor of this policy put
forth by nearly 30 commenters. We feel strongly, and commenters agree,
that this change was imperative to supporting broader opportunities for
partnership with community-based organizations and critical to full
implementation of the goals of family preservation and family support
programs.
The prohibition of all in-kind contributions was perceived as a
real barrier to the active involvement of communities. Non-Federal
share may now include real estate and real property, volunteer time (at
standard rates), and limited professional time for service delivery (at
standard rates).
There was, however, dissent from this overall support of in-kind
matching. There was concern that, from a budget and internal control
perspective, the use of an in-kind match may lead to disallowances
resulting from mismanagement. The administrative oversight, monitoring,
and validation of documentation is resource intensive. Some commenters
suggested that a determination on the allowability of in-kind
contributions should be made on an individual State/Tribe basis to
allow in-kind contributions only where funds are not otherwise
available. It was argued that this safeguard would ensure that in-kind
contributions are not used to shift resources away from children's
services (in cases where financial revenues available to meet the
matching requirements are not a problem). As a result of this concern,
one that we share, we have added a component to the Joint Planning
definition (Sec. 1357.10 (c)) to provide for Federal/State or Federal/
Tribal consultation around fiscal issues such as matching.
A. Consolidation
With this rule, we require consolidating the planning and reporting
requirements for title IV-B programs with information included from the
Independent Living Program (ILP) and the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (CAPTA) program. Consolidation of plan requirements is
imperative to the development over time of a comprehensive child and
family service system which is accessible, coordinated, flexible, built
on and linked to community services and supports, and able to serve
children and their families in a more effective and responsive way.
The two title IV-B programs are being consolidated for several
reasons: Child welfare services and family preservation and family
support services are both a part of the child and family services
continuum; both services are administered by the same agency and
address common problems of the same population of children and
families; input from the field, supported by commenters on the proposed
rule, urged us to consolidate the plans, application requirements, and
program reporting, where possible, and to reduce duplicative
administrative burdens on States and Tribes.
[[Page 58634]]
Consolidation of the plan does not affect title IV-B, subpart 1 or
ILP funding. In fact the practical consequence of submitting one plan
is that in addition to paperwork reduction, the plan will be submitted
three months prior to the start of the next fiscal year meaning that
title IV-B, subpart 1 and ILP funds would be received earlier.
Information included from the ILP and the CAPTA program will
facilitate ongoing coordination, consultation, and joint planning
efforts among these programs and assist States to move toward a more
comprehensive service delivery system. States and Indian Tribes are
encouraged to include additional child and family services programs in
the CFSP, at their option, to increase program integration.
We believe that comprehensive child and family services cannot be
developed without considering information on services under CAPTA and
the ILP. States still have the option of submitting the application for
ILP with the CFSP or separately. If the State elects to submit the ILP
application separately, information about the ILP must be contained in
the CFSP.
Major changes have been made to CAPTA since the NPRM was published.
There is now a requirement for a 5 year CAPTA State Plan to be
coordinated, to the extent practicable, with the CFSP. Currently, we
are reviewing the new requirements for CAPTA in an effort to
consolidate these State Plans. The CFSP must contain information on the
CAPTA program, however, we will work to ensure that there are not
duplicate information requirements for these two Plans.
Opinions regarding consolidation were decidedly mixed. There was a
significant positive reaction to consolidation and calls for an even
more inclusive plan incorporating all services (health, mental health,
education, etc.) under the jurisdiction of Federal and State agencies.
Whereas we heard strong support for consolidating the title IV-B,
subparts 1 and 2 plans, suggestions were advanced that the process for
inclusion of subpart 1 not be total consolidation, but independent
development and inclusion of information. Difficulties were identified
in producing an expanded plan with funds for only one portion of that
plan. The fear was that this expansion would undermine quality in the
planning process and service system development.
Alternative proposals involved suggestions under which the family
preservation and family support services five-year plan and the subpart
1 plan can be considered as separate elements of the overall CFSP and
separately approvable on their own merits. However, a vast majority of
commenters supported consolidation and we have decided to retain the
consolidated plan requirement and suggest that our phase-in option
(described below) and joint planning with the ACF Regional Offices
should allow for any approval concerns a State or Indian Tribe may have
to be resolved.
Some felt our position on consolidation was expansive and went
beyond the statute by including CAPTA information. Some commenters did
not believe information on ILP and CAPTA programs should be included in
the CFSP since separate plans or applications will continue to be
necessary.
Other commenters stated that while it seems useful to include
information from the various programs in the plan it is not clear what
future directions this would take since the populations served may be
different. The commenters suggested that the final rule encourage
maximum integration and coordination when those efforts enhance
achievement of program goals.
Additionally, it is our view that the populations served by CAPTA
and title IV-B and IV-E are indeed the same. While CAPTA provides
preventive and protective services to children at risk of abuse or
neglect, it is child welfare services which are provided for the care
of children abused or neglected.
States will face challenges in implementing the new vision. The
availability of technical assistance and the maintenance of flexibility
will be vital to successful implementation. We believe that the rule is
in keeping with statutory intent and will provide States and Indian
Tribes with an effective strategy for providing a continuum of services
to children and their families.
B. Phase-In
Closely related to the process and degree of consolidation is the
issue of the timeframe within which a comprehensive plan must be
developed. We have relaxed the requirements for plan consolidation to
allow for a phase-in approach to the requirement. States and Indian
Tribes will now have an extra two years (until June 30, 1997) to
complete the consolidated planning requirements. Consolidation is
complex and time-consuming. We want to support State and Tribal
implementation to ensure that it is done thoughtfully and gradually,
allowing time to work through the complications that are sure to arise
and produce a quality working process.
We believe this strategy does not compromise either the intent or
the spirit of the statute and the NPRM since it has always been our
position that the process of planning, coordination, consultation, and
goals and objectives setting is an on-going process which reaches
beyond initial development of the plan. This added flexibility, coupled
with the technical assistance which has been made available since
issuance of the proposed rule, should eliminate any roadblock to full
and successful implementation.
A number of factors were considered that led to this decision to
phase in consolidation. There was a great deal of concern expressed by
commenters about the expansive nature of the Child and Family Services
Plan and State and Indian Tribe capacity to meet all the requirements
by the June 30, 1995 submission date. Concerns centered around the
timeframe for implementation as unrealistically ambitious. These
commenters recommended that additional time be provided, especially to
incorporate components of the child welfare service system into an
integrated planning process. However, we want to clarify that a
consolidated CFSP does not necessarily allow for pooled funding among
the programs mentioned, inasmuch as separate funding streams and
accountability are still required by statute.
With respect to any State or eligible Indian Tribe that elects the
phase-in option, the plan submitted in June 1995 should have included
information describing how the State or Indian Tribe is engaged in and
will continue to be engaged in comprehensive planning and development
of the consolidated plan encompassing the continuum of child and family
services.
States and Indian Tribes choosing this option will be required to
submit a consolidated plan with the submission of their second annual
progress and services report on June 30, 1997. States and Indian Tribes
have already made significant strides toward meeting these
requirements.
C. Continuum/Linkages
The most effective means of serving children and families is to
have a delivery continuum which directly provides and links with a wide
variety of supports and services.
Throughout the rule we make references to this continuum and other
related service systems. Respondents to the proposed rule expressed
confusion about this terminology. We would like to clarify that, as
used in this rule, the child and family services continuum
[[Page 58635]]
refers to the publicly-funded State child and family services
continuum; including family support and family preservation services;
child welfare services, including child abuse and neglect prevention,
intervention, and treatment services; and services to support
reunification, adoption, kinship care, foster care, independent living,
or other permanent living arrangements.
This continuum is inclusive of all services provided under titles
IV-B, IV-E, and CAPTA and is linked to other service support systems
(e.g. health, mental health, education, etc.) to allow children and
families to access services they need when they need them and as their
needs change. Our primary focus in this rule is to support and build
the capacity of the child and family services continuum. We do
encourage, however, strong linkage with other systems that affect and
serve the same population.
There was some preference for the use of the term ``system of
care'' instead of ``continuum'' in the definition of Child and Family
Service Plan (CFSP). These commenters also called for a definition of
child and family services continuum, or the child and family services
system of care, which incorporates the principles in Sec. 1355.25. They
asked that the definition make clear that the term does not refer to a
prescribed sequence of services but rather an array of services or a
system of care that ensures that families and children will have access
to services and support as their needs change.
``Continuum'' is not used in the sequential sense or to imply that
children and families must otherwise progress from one step to the
next. Families may enter and exit at any point in the continuum. We
have not added a separate definition of the continuum in the regulatory
language because we believe that the parenthetical list included within
the definition of the Child and Family Services Plan sufficiently
defines the range of services included.
Some commenters expressed confusion by stating that the rules were
weakened by expecting the State child welfare agency to be responsible
for other sectors and federally supported State agencies, questioning
what the linkages to other agencies should entail. One commenter was
concerned that the description of the service continuum leaves out
critical health, economic and educational services.
The requirement for coordination of the provision of services with
other Federal and federally assisted programs serving children and
families is derived from statute. This rule does not add any new
responsibility for these other programs to the child welfare agency but
rather, in an effort to improve the well-being of children, youth and
families, we encourage program coordination among related programs to
provide a holistic approach to services.
However, we recognize that the issue of coordination among various
programs points to the need for similar regulations and policies in
other Federal programs and agencies and we have been working to develop
relationships across programs for effective service linkages.
More specificity was requested with regard to how States and Tribes
are expected to nurture linkages. The term ``linkages'' as used
throughout the rule means some method of joining or coordinating two
otherwise separate entities or sets of services. We have not provided
specific linkage criteria in order to allow States and Tribes maximum
flexibility to meet their unique needs for planning and designing
services.
D. Safety
Family preservation services were viewed by some as potentially
jeopardizing the safety of children and it was suggested that the
preamble statements, ``If a child cannot be protected from harm without
placement, family preservation services are not appropriate'' and
``Family preservation does not mean that the family must stay together
or be preserved under all circumstances'' be included in the regulatory
language itself. This recommendation was seen as helping to put to rest
the often-raised ``child protection versus family preservation''
argument and dispelling the myth that this new funding availability is
a powerful financial incentive for child welfare workers and agencies
to preserve the family unit at the expense of child safety.
We maintain that family preservation services are only appropriate
in certain circumstances. It is true that some of the children who come
into State care cannot be left safely in their homes. Whether in the
child's home or in substitute care, a child's safety should never be
compromised. A family preservation program is only one of a number of
strategies to address the issue of safety for children.
An underlying tenet of child and family services is the protection
and security of children as expressed in the principles under 45 CFR
1355.25(a). Because a number of comments addressed this issue, we
revised the definition of family preservation at Sec. 1357.10(c) to
provide that family preservation services are also designed ``to
protect children from harm * * *'' and to state unequivocally that
safety is paramount in the principles at Sec. 1355.25(a).
We would argue that this new legislation and funding is not an
incentive for child welfare workers and agencies to preserve families
at the expense of child safety but rather creates the exact opposite
result. By providing new funds with an emphasis on prevention and
treatment, there is a greater likelihood that children will be better
protected and have more service options available for protection than
presently exist in most States and Tribes.
E. Indian Tribes
In FYs 1994 and 1995 41 Indian Tribes were eligible for direct
funding under title IV-B, subpart 2. In FY 1996, more Indian Tribes
were eligible for direct funding and were notified of their eligibility
and of the application process. New Tribes which become eligible for
this funding beginning with FY 1997 may submit either an application
for planning funds or submit a five year plan. If a Tribe elects to
submit an application for planning funds, those funds will be awarded
with no match requirement in the first year of funding. We are
committed to providing full support for planning consistent with the
process used in the first year of funding for the originally funded
States and Indian Tribes.
If a Tribe chooses to forego the planning process, it may submit a
five year plan immediately on June 30 of the year in which the Indian
Tribe expects to be funded. In this case, the Tribe would be subject to
the match requirement for services funding.
We have accepted recommendations from Indian Tribes and other
Indian advocacy groups to exempt the Tribes from certain statutory
requirements. This exemption authority is based on the Secretary's
discretion in section 432(b) of the Act to exempt any provision in
section 432 that is determined to be inappropriate to Indian Tribes,
taking into account the resources, needs, and other circumstances of
the Indian Tribe. In paragraph (f), the Indian Tribes are exempted from
three statutory requirements: the ten percent limit on administrative
costs, the non-supplantation provision, and the requirement that a
significant portion of funds must be used for both family preservation
and family support services.
We received many comments regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act of
1978 (ICWA). It is our responsibility
[[Page 58636]]
to ensure that all State plans comply fully with the statutory mandates
of ICWA, particularly the requirements for Tribal notification and the
order of preferences for out-of-home placements involving ICWA eligible
children and permanency planning. We issued a Program Instruction
(ACYF-PI-CB-95-12 released August 11, 1995) that specifies reporting
requirements and procedures related to the statutory requirement that
States report on measures they have taken to comply with the Indian
Child Welfare Act. Additionally we plan to address compliance issues,
including ICWA, in a separate rule on the subject of child and family
services monitoring.
We received requests for funding for Tribal consortia serving two
or more Tribes and requests that the term ``federally recognized
Tribes'' rather than ``Indian Tribal Organizations'' be used. We are
bound by statute and have no authority to fund consortia under subpart
2. The language ``Indian Tribal Organization'' is also taken directly
from the statute.
F. Disabilities
We received many comments expressing concern that the proposed rule
did not speak expressly to the needs of parents and children with
developmental disabilities and that the final rule include, throughout,
specific mention of programs, services and support for preservation of
families affected by disabilities. Related to this, another commenter
questioned how the rule treats the provision of mental health services
and services to children with developmental disabilities and the role
of child welfare agencies in this regard.
We are aware of the special needs of families in which a child or
other family member has a disability or has other special needs such as
for mental health services. We believe that services should be designed
and made available to all families, including families with
disabilities, but we did not specifically identify any populations in
order to avoid excluding any particular groups or individuals. We
deliberately sought to provide enough flexibility for States and
eligible Indian Tribes to design programs that would be responsive to
the unique needs of the children and families in a particular State. We
would underline the fact that the Americans with Disabilities Act
requires accessibility to services by the disabled; this accessibility
should accommodate both physical and emotional needs of the disabled.
III. Section-by-Section Discussion of Comments
The Department would like to express its gratitude to the many
concerned individuals and organizations which took the time to prepare
thoughtful and invaluable comments to our NPRM. The comments were very
substantive and meaningful and we considered them seriously in
preparing this final rule.
1. Part 1355--General
Section 1355.10 Scope
This section contains general requirements applicable to both title
IV-B and title IV-E of the Social Security Act and is applicable to
Indian Tribes, as well as States, unless otherwise specified.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the scope of the rules
be revised to include a funding set-aside for Alaskan Native
Organizations and Native Hawaiian Organizations.
Response: The statute defines the eligible grantees individually
under titles IV-B and IV-E. While we are sympathetic to the concerns
expressed, we have no statutory authority to require such a set-aside.
Section 1355.20 Definitions
This section provides general definitions taken from statute of the
Federal entities responsible for administration of child welfare
programs, and of eligible grantees.
Comment: Some commenters were concerned that the definition of
``State agency'' required that the titles IV-B and XX agency be the
same.
Response: The definition of State agency derives from statute and
we have no authority to change or waive this definition in this final
rule. However, as indicated in the definition, there is some
flexibility provided based on a State's pre-December 1, 1974
organizational structure. From a programmatic standpoint, we also note
that in many States, title XX funds are used in support of child and
family services.
Section 1355.21 State Plan Requirements for Titles IV-B and IV-E
This section is written to conform to the new requirements and
clarify that the five-year CFSP and the Annual Progress and Services
Reports, along with the title IV-E State Plan, must be made available
for public review and inspection.
No comments were received on this section and therefore no changes
are being made to the language proposed in the NPRM.
Section 1355.25 Principles of Child and Family Services
These principles, most often identified by practitioners and others
as helping to ensure effective services, emphasize the paramount
importance of the safety of all members of the family, including
victims of child abuse and neglect and victims of domestic violence and
their dependents. The service principles address the need for
permanency for all children; the importance of accessibility,
flexibility, and coordination; and cultural competence.
In addition, the principles provide guidance in bringing about
changes in State, local, and Indian Tribal child and family service
delivery. In response to comments on the proposed rule, accountability
to clients and the community has been added.
As stated in the proposed rule, we reiterate that ``family
preservation'' does NOT mean that the family must stay together or ``be
preserved'' under all circumstances, or at the expense of the safety
and well-being of the child.
Comment: One commenter asked that we continue to distinguish
between the principles of child and family services as guidelines and
the required CFSP vision, goals and objectives. The commenter believed
that States should view these principles as an important communication
tool to educate the public about the child and family services plan
vision, goals and objectives and suggested that this be encouraged in
the rule.
Several commenters suggested that the principles be cross-
referenced throughout the rule and that States be required to
articulate in their vision statement, the relationship between the
principles and the goals and objectives and each year to specify in
their annual progress and services reports the gains being made to
bring the system into accord with the principles.
Response: We have retained the principles as guidelines (not
requirements) but have revised Sec. 1357.15(g), to provide that the
vision statement should reflect the child and family service
principles.
Comment: Some commenters recommended that the introductory
paragraph to this section state explicitly that the principles apply
not just to family support and family preservation but to the entire
range of child and family services, including reunification, adoption,
and kinship care.
Response: We believe that both the title of this section and the
introductory paragraph clarify that the principles apply to all child
and family services. In
[[Page 58637]]
response to these comments, we have made a technical revision to the
introductory language in Sec. 1355.25 to provide that the principles
provide guidance allowing for improvements in the continuum of
services.
Comment: One commenter thought the principles should note that the
active involvement of different minorities and linguistically diverse
groups in the planning and ongoing operation of services is an integral
part of a community-based service system. This commenter suggested that
States be required to specify how the principle of cultural and
linguistic competence will be reflected in the vision and goals as well
as in other areas. This commenter recommended that annual reports
should specify the progress made in bringing the system more into
accord with the cultural competence principle.
Response: We agree with the importance of actively involving
minorities and linguistically diverse groups. We have adjusted the
language at Sec. 1357.15(l) Consultation, paragraph (3)(iv) to reflect
that importance because it is in this section that the States and
Tribes must commit to the inclusion of a broad range of stakeholders in
their decision-making processes. States and Tribes may review annually
their plan's consistency with the cultural competence principle as this
would be an appropriate check for active involvement. However, this
level of detail would not be necessary for reporting to ACF.
Comment: Two commenters asked that the NPRM be revised to make
clear that domestic violence prevention is integral to a system of care
for children and families. Alternatively, another commenter suggested
that Sec. 1355.25(a) be revised to recognize that some risk-taking with
children and families is necessary by providing ``* * * when safety can
reasonably be assured and risk of harm minimized.''
Response: We believe the rule is clear that domestic violence
prevention, identification, and intervention is of prime importance to
child and family safety. The importance of these issues is indicated by
their inclusion in the very first principle of assuring the safety and
well-being of children and all family members. In fact, we have
strengthened this principle to emphasize that one important way to keep
children safe is to stop violence in the family including violence
against their mothers. With respect to the second comment, while risk
assessment is critical, we believe that a discussion of risk-taking
would undermine our emphasis on working with the strengths of a family.
Comment: Some commenters were concerned that the language in
paragraph (d) relevant to service focus is overly inclusive and
confusing. They did not believe that family preservation and family
support funds should be spent on services that are otherwise available.
Another commenter suggested that this section might better state that
services may be crisis-oriented, short-term interventions, or longer
term services necessary to meet the needs of the family and the
individual who may be placed in out-of-home care. Other commenters
suggested that it would be more appropriate if the language spoke to
the needs of the child and family, rather than the needs of the family
and best interests of the child.
Response: We agree, in part, and have revised the language of
paragraph (d) to provide that services may focus on prevention,
protection or other short or long term interventions to meet the needs
of the family and the best interests and needs of the individual(s) who
may be placed in out-of-home care. We believe that the principle stated
in paragraph (d) is intended as a statement of holistic services to
children and families, whatever their needs may be.
Comment: A number of commenters suggested that the language in
paragraph (e), related to accessibility, should be strengthened to say
services are ``principally delivered in the home or community.''
Another commenter suggested that language be included to recognize the
importance of timely services.
Response: We support the alternative language offered and have
revised the language in paragraph (e) to provide that services are
timely as well as flexible, coordinated, accessible and principally
delivered in the home or community.
Comment: Many commenters felt that the language in paragraph (f)
was subject to serious misinterpretation and should be revised. These
commenters were concerned that the services listed parenthetically
(e.g., housing, substance abuse treatment, mental health, etc.) were
inaccurately portrayed as outside the continuum of child and family
services.
Response: We agree that the services and supports listed
parenthetically are part of the service systems to which the child and
family service continuum must be linked since they are all necessary
for families to be able to support and nurture their children, and we
have revised this paragraph to remove the parenthesis as well as the
reference to ``outside the system.''
Comment: A number of commenters suggested that the language in
paragraph (g) be strengthened to provide that services are accountable
to the community and to clients in meeting needs and demonstrating
successful outcomes. Several commenters also asked that we revise the
language of this paragraph to provide that ``most'' services are
community-based rather than ``many.''
Another commenter suggested that the reference to community-based
services in paragraph (g) be cross-referenced to the definition of
community-based services in Sec. 1357.10(c) to clarify that community-
based means that the services are accessible and responsive to the
needs of the community and the individuals and families residing
therein.
Response: We agree that accountability is of paramount importance
to ensuring successful services. We have revised the language by adding
at the end, ``are accountable to the community and the client's
needs.'' We revised the language to affirm that most child and family
services are community-based. However, we did not make any changes in
response to the last comment because we believe the guiding principles
should stand alone and be regarded as introductory and applicable to
the rule as a whole.
Section 1355.30 Other Applicable Regulations
This section provides an updated and corrected list of other
regulations applicable to titles IV-B and IV-E.
In the NPRM, we limited the Sec. 205.10 fair hearing provisions to
title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance, excluding title IV-B.
This limitation was an error, noted by several commenters, and
Sec. 205.10 now applies to all programs under title IV-B and IV-E of
the Act. The language of paragraph (c) has been changed to conform to
the provisions of the most recent amendments to 45 CFR Part 74.
Comment: One commenter asked that we add to the list, Part 35,
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability.
Response: The applicable regulation for all Departmental programs
is 45 CFR part 84--Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in
Programs and Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance and is
listed at paragraph (g).
Comment: One commenter was concerned that in paragraph (k),
exclusion of ILP from Sec. 95.1, would be detrimental to the State's
program. According to the commenter, if the State were forced to submit
a final report within the 90 day timeframe, the State would have to
shorten its ILP program by 3 months.
[[Page 58638]]
Another commenter stated that currently ILP and title IV-B funding
is subject to the two-year claiming limitation and restricting this to
a maximum of one year following the year in which the funds were
awarded would present a significant problem in how claims can be
processed and would not allow for full use of the funds.
Response: This policy does not represent a change. The statute is
explicit in section 477(f)(3) of the Act that ILP funds must be
expended by September 30 of the fiscal year following the fiscal year
they were awarded.
2. Part 1356--Requirements Applicable to Title IV-E
Section 1356.10 Scope
This section introduces the requirements applicable to the
Independent Living Program.
No comments were received on this section and therefore no changes
are being made to the language proposed in the NPRM.
Section 1356.80 Independent Living Program
This section summarizes the statutory provisions applicable to this
program.
No comments were received on this section and therefore no changes
are being made to the language proposed in the NPRM.
3. Part 1357--Requirements Applicable to Title IV-B
Section 1357.10 Scope and Definitions
This section sets out key definitions of the major programmatic
areas under title IV-B. For example, the definition of ``Child Welfare
Services Plan (CWSP)'' now reflects the broader, more comprehensive
scope and content of the ``Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP).''
Within this definition, we include a definition of the child and family
services continuum. We have added the term ``permanency'' to the
definition of the Child and Family Services Plan in the final rule
because it had been inadvertently omitted in the NPRM.
In response to comments, we changed the definitions of ``child
welfare services'' and ``family preservation services'' to provide
greater emphasis on the importance of child and family safety. The
definition of ``family preservation services'' also was expanded from
the statutory definition to reflect the provision of concrete services
which can be a key part of the family preservation services package. We
revised the definition of ``family support services'' to include
transportation services which provide access to key services.
Additionally, we felt it necessary to clarify the definition of
``Joint planning'' to emphasize an ongoing partnership process between
ACF and an Indian Tribe or State for the review and analysis of child
and family services, including analysis of the service needs of
children, youth, and families; selection of unmet service needs that
will be addressed; and development of goals and objectives that will
result in improved outcomes for children and families and the
development of a more comprehensive, coordinated and effective child
and family services delivery system.
Comment: Several commenters asked that Sec. 1357.10(b),
Eligibility, be revised to specify that States may charge fees (on a
sliding scale basis) for services to families in higher income
categories to promote broader and more equitable distribution of
services. Alternatively, another commenter stated the belief that
charging for services would be contrary to statute. This commenter
urged, however, that if an income-based standard is adopted, care be
taken to look beyond the face of the family assets since families may
possess financial resources to which children at risk and battered
women may not have access.
Response: We have chosen to leave this issue to State discretion.
We would, however, urge any State which chose to charge fees to be
especially cognizant of the point made by the commenter opposed to such
fees.
Comment: Several changes were recommended in the definition of
child welfare services, for example, the word ``handicapped'' be
replaced with ``individual with disabilities;'' the word ``and'' be
added after the phrase ``identifying family problems'' in clause (3);
and substituting the phrase, ``in cases where the child cannot be
returned home'' for the phrase ``in cases where restoration to the
biological family is not possible or appropriate'' in clause (5).
Other commenters suggested that the definition of child welfare
services recognize family violence. Another commenter asked that the
definition of child welfare services be revised to read ``Reuniting
with their families, children who have been removed and may be safely
returned by the provision of services to the child and the family.''
Response: The NPRM used the definition of child welfare services
taken from section 425 of the Social Security Act which includes
language as originally enacted in 1935. We have revised the definition
of child welfare services in Sec. 1357.10(c) in three ways: To replace
the reference to ``handicapped'' with ``individuals with disabilities''
in clause (1); to place greater emphasis on child and family safety in
clauses (1) and (4); and to reflect the natural progression of services
by reversing the order of clauses (5) and (6). We believe the rule
taken as a whole emphasizes child and family safety and recognizes
family violence, specifically in Sec. 1355.25.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the definition of
``Children'' in paragraph (c) is not consistent with current Federal
and State statutory definitions of a dependent child and was concerned
that the proposed definition could be interpreted to require that all
title IV-B services must be available to persons between the ages of 18
and 21.
Response: We agree and have revised the definition to recognize
that State law on age of majority or State policy will dictate whether
services will be provided to those between the ages of 18 and 21 years
for title IV-B services.
Comment: One commenter thought that the definition of ``Family''
should include actual primary caretakers for children, recognizing the
variety of family structures, whether or not they are biological
relatives.
Response: We believe that the definition provided in the proposed
rule is sufficiently broad to cover all possible family arrangements
and have not changed this definition.
Comment: Several commenters asked that we revise the definition of
``Family preservation services'' to place more emphasis on family case
planning. Other commenters suggested that the definition of family
preservation was too vague, failing to emphasize concrete services;
that dollars for respite care be fairly allocated between the parents
and the foster family; and that the reference to improving parenting
skills is too limiting, since this is the only definition concerned
with parents' needs, the focus should be on enhancing parental
caretaking capacity.
Response: This definition is based in statute. We have made only
one substantive revision to this definition and added a new paragraph
(6) to recognize that family preservation services include ``case
management services designed to stabilize families in crisis such as
transportation, assistance with housing and utility payments, and
access to adequate health care.'' This provision is incorporated in
several of the CFSPs submitted in June, 1995 and is considered to be an
important means of assisting families in crisis. The joint planning
process is expected to forestall improper use of program funds.
[[Page 58639]]
We have not made any changes with respect to respite care because
we believe that the allocation of dollars should be a State
determination.
Comment: Also with respect to the definition of ``family
preservation services,'' commenters suggested that in the interest of
clarity, the order of pre-placement preventive services and
reunification/adoption/independent living services be reversed.
Response: In response to these comments, we have reversed the order
of paragraphs (1) and (2).
Comment: One commenter asked that the definition of ``family
support services'' be revised to provide ``coping with limited
resources'' rather than ``family budgeting.''
Response: The family support services definition is based in
statute. We believe the existing language more appropriately emphasizes
long term success with the language ``family budgeting.''
Comment: One commenter asked that the definition of ``Joint
planning'' be revised to state, ``Joint planning is a process of
discussion, consultation, and negotiation between the parties, and
Federal technical assistance that must occur for the Child and Family
Services Plan to be approved and for the development and approval of
the Annual Progress and Service Reports.''
Another commenter expressed agreement that Regional office staff
should be involved, but was concerned that it would be inappropriate
for regional staff to usurp the State's decision-making authority
regarding development of the plan.
Response: In response to these comments, we have expanded the
definition of joint planning to clarify the partnership and positive
aspects of working together. There is no question that the State
maintains final decision-making authority regarding the development of
the plan.
Section 1357.15 Comprehensive Child and Family Services Plan
Requirements
Paragraphs (a) through (v) of Sec. 1357.15 contain the requirements
for the development of the comprehensive five-year Child and Family
Services Plan (CFSP). The paragraphs cover discrete topics such as
general provisions related to scope, eligibility for funds, and
required assurances; specific content of the CFSP, including a vision
statement, goals, and objectives; requirements for the description of
services to be provided, the populations to be served, and the
geographic areas to be targeted; specific proposals for the planning
process leading to the development of the CFSP; and other provisions
focused on the continuum of services, permanency planning efforts, and
other statutory requirements.
We received both general and specific comments on the CFSP
requirements. General comments on the requirements were addressed under
section II of the preamble. The more specific comments are addressed in
the following paragraphs.
Comment: We received comment requesting the guidance provided in
the preamble of the NPRM under this section be incorporated into the
rule. The commenter pointed out that the State planning groups would
benefit from further clarity on key components of the Child and Family
Services Plan.
Response: The preamble language is designed to provide further
clarity to the rule. A rule is intended to make clear the requirements
for implementing a program. We would recommend that planning groups
utilize the preamble language when they develop their CFSP and the
Annual Progress and Services Report.
Section 1357.15(a) Scope
In response to comments, we made two revisions to this section. One
revision adds a new paragraph (a)(4) to allow a phase-in approach for
consolidation of the plans for IV-B, subparts 1 and 2, including the
information on CAPTA and the ILP. This approach will allow States and
Indian Tribes sufficient time to complete the planning and
consolidation process.
The first sentence of this paragraph has also been revised to
acknowledge the benefits of consolidation by adding that the State's
CFSP is an opportunity to establish a system of coordinated,
integrated, culturally relevant, family focused services.
Comment: One commenter asked that we play a larger role in
analyzing and disseminating the CFSP. The commenter felt that States
would probably be interested in knowing how the process was working
elsewhere and recommended that we consider developing a mechanism for
sharing information with the States to facilitate a process whereby
they serve as expert resources to one another.
Response: We are very sensitive to States' desire for nationwide
information sharing and, toward this end, have concentrated on
establishing an information clearinghouse, exploring additional
training and technical assistance strategies as well as sharing State
experiences at various national conferences and from national
evaluations.
Section 1357.15(b) Eligibility for Funds
This section specifies the eligibility requirements for receipt of
funds under title IV-B, subparts 1 and 2. Several changes were made to
this section. Three new paragraphs have been added, and language was
added to paragraph (b)(1), specifying the time frame for a phased-in
approach of the CFSP, as discussed in section II of this preamble.
In addition, in order to provide additional clarification on what
must be submitted, the new language incorporates the CFS-101 forms.
Also, several improvements have been made in the Annual Summary of
Child and Family Services (CFS-101, Part II) form published in the NPRM
based on several comments. The CFS-101 will be distributed annually
with guidance on submission and the States' allotment for title IV-B
funds.
In response to comments we have made revisions to the CFS-101,
including consolidating the budget request for subparts 1 and 2 onto
one page. The information collected on the CFS-101, Part II includes
information that was previously collected on the CWS-101 and the new
requirements for the collection of family preservation and support
services information as required by statute and 45 CFR 1357.15(n)(3).
Comment: One commenter recommended that the final rule be revised
to require States and Indian Tribes to earmark funds for grantees
currently operating a successful Family Support Community Development
Program to continue receiving funds beyond the two-year grant period
ending September 29, 1995. The reason for this continuation is the
extension of funding would allow grantees to focus on developing a 1-5
year self-sufficiency program for targeted AFDC clients to transition
off welfare and become self-sufficient.
Response: Based on our commitment to State flexibility, there is
nothing to prohibit States from taking this action.
Section 1357.15(c) Assurances
Under Sec. 1357.15(c), the CFSP must contain the assurances
applicable to both title IV-B programs, now listed here. Once signed by
the appropriate official, the assurances will remain in effect on an
ongoing basis (not just during the period of the five-year plan) and
will need to be resubmitted only if significant changes in the State's
or the Indian Tribe's program affect an assurance. This section has
been expanded to be responsive to commenters and include all assurances
relating to programs covered under the CFSP.
[[Page 58640]]
Comment: The sole respondent asked that the rule specify the list
of assurances applicable to title IV-B, subpart 1 and 2.
Response: The comprehensive list has been incorporated here and
into the CFSP requirements. As the NPRM stated, we provided States and
Indian Tribes with a comprehensive listing of assurances in a Program
Instruction issued June 8, 1995 (ACYF-PI-CB-95-17) to facilitate the
submission of the five year plans in the absence of a final rule. At
this time, the assurances have all been incorporated into this final
rule.
Section 1357.15(d) The Child and Family Services Plan: General
Section 1357.15(d) provides that the CFSP must be developed based
on three important planning activities: Broad involvement and
consultation; coordination of the provision of services under the plan
with other Federal and federally assisted programs serving children and
families; and collection of existing or available information to
develop opportunities for bringing about more effective and accessible
services for children and families.
Comment: A number of commenters were concerned with the relative
vagueness of the coordination requirement and wanted a more precise
list detailing the Federal programs that should be coordinated. Several
respondents suggested a cross-reference to the listing of programs at
Sec. 1357.15(l)(3)(viii).
Response: The regulatory language is not being changed because this
section is intended to generally encourage coordination across Federal
programs. In Sec. 1357.15(l) virtually all of the programs mentioned by
the respondents are identified.
Comment: Four commenters wanted parental involvement clarified to
include parents of children who have been directly involved with the
child welfare system.
Response: Language has been revised in Sec. 1357.15(d)(1) to
clarify that the requirement for consultation with parents should
involve those who have direct experience with the child welfare agency.
Section 1357.15(e) State Agency Administering the Programs
This section outlines which State agency is to be responsible for
title IV-B administration.
Comment: One commenter asked that we specify that the organization
chart include the name of the State agency's designated coordinators
for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Response: We are committed to providing maximum flexibility in this
rule and have not requested this level of specificity in any
submission.
Section 1357.15(f) Indian Tribal Organization Administering the
Program(s)
This section outlines the requirement for submission of the name
and description of the organization responsible for administering the
title IV-B programs.
No comments were received on this section and therefore no changes
are being made to the language proposed in the NPRM.
Section 1357.15(g) Vision Statement
The new focus on family-based services and community linkages
requires changes in vision, philosophy, and in the design and delivery
of child and family services. In order for States and Indian Tribes to
develop a realistic yet forward looking CFSP, we believe that they must
first set forth their vision in providing services to children and
their families.
Comment: Many commenters wanted stronger connections made between
the Vision Statement and other elements of the CFSP.
Eight commenters requested a stronger linkage between the vision
and related goals and objectives and the principles set forth in
Sec. 1355.25. Several of the eight respondents suggested cross-
referencing the sections. One commenter asked that demonstration grants
be awarded to States to make the link.
One commenter wanted to have the CFSP vision and related goals and
objectives specify how the principle of cultural and linguistic
competence will be accomplished. In a similar vein another respondent
wanted the vision to incorporate diverse populations.
One respondent wanted to see baseline data tied more closely to the
development of the vision, goals and objectives in the CFSP. At the
same time, the commenter wanted the final rule to acknowledge both the
expectations and the real limits of the planning process resulting in
the development of the CFSP.
Response: The request for greater linkage of the Vision Statement
with other sections of the CFSP is valuable. We encourage all States
and Indian Tribes to make thematic and content connections. The
comments have resulted in the adding of a requirement that the vision
must reflect the child and family service principles described at
Sec. 1355.25. No other regulatory changes to this section are being
made.
Comment: Two respondents raised issues about how to apply the
Vision Statement.
One respondent questioned whether the Vision Statement will be more
than an affirmation of ideals and become a basis for measuring success
as well as a basis for holding legislators and administrators
accountable.
Another commenter proposed that each service provider under the
plan accept the vision statement.
Response: The Vision Statement is one critical aspect of the CFSP
that provides States and Indian Tribes with the opportunity to create a
positive and futuristic general image of how they will organize their
child and family service system, who it should serve, what services are
needed, and how those services will be delivered. The baseline data,
goals, and objectives, that flow from the Vision Statement, and are a
part of the CFSP, will establish the basis for measuring success and
accountability. All States and Indian Tribes are encouraged to work
toward reaching consensus with their particular set of service
providers regarding the vision statement, since that will significantly
contribute to the successful implementation of the CFSP.
Comment: Two commenters spoke to the importance of cultural issues
in relation to the Vision Statement.
One commenter wanted to make sure the vision specified how
principles of cultural and linguistic competence would be achieved.
The second respondent emphasized how important it was for diverse
populations to be involved in the development of the vision.
Response: In Sec. 1355.25(e) the importance of cultural factors in
the design and delivery of child and family services is recognized. As
noted above, a requirement that the vision must reflect the service
principles at Sec. 1355.25 has been added. It is our expectation that
States and Indian Tribes will forge visions which lead to the creation
and management of culturally sensitive and culturally competent
programs and practices.
Section 1357.15(h) Goals
In order to translate a vision into service delivery systems,
States and Indian Tribes must build on their vision statement and
philosophy and develop goals for the next five years. Goals must be
stated in terms of improved outcomes for the safety, permanency and
well-being of children and families and in terms of the development of
a more comprehensive, coordinated, and effective child and family
service delivery system. We have added the
[[Page 58641]]
term ``permanency'' to the goals language in the final rule because it
had been inadvertently omitted in the NPRM.
Comment: Four commenters supported the goal setting activity and
pointed out how important it was for goals to be established in order
to improve outcomes, reform service delivery, evaluate performance, and
determine effectiveness.
Response: The value of quality goal setting within the context of
the CFSP cannot be underestimated. It represents a commitment by the
State or Indian Tribe to accomplish certain efforts during the CFSP
five-year timeframe and is a statutory requirement. In order to
reinforce this time orientation, the phrase ``and by the end of'' is
being added to Sec. 1357.15(h).
Comment: Four commenters identified the challenges and complexities
inherent in the goal setting task.
One noted that indicators of child and family well-being don't
change that rapidly and are affected by external factors beyond
existing policies and programs.
Another cautioned that accurate information was not abundant and
this could make the creation of ``real'' goals difficult.
One respondent pointed out that this is a new activity for States,
and there will be a reluctance to a push for quick goal setting.
Finally, one commenter acknowledged the challenges around setting
goals and asked for additional regulations to help guide the process.
Response: Establishing goals is a demanding and essential activity
and remains crucial to States and Indian Tribes keeping track of their
progress and accomplishments. Feedback from focus groups ACF conducted
and comments received in response to this section of the NPRM affirmed
the salience of goal setting. The NPRM was sensitive to the fact that
States and Indian Tribes possess varying degrees of proficiency
regarding goal setting, and an emphasis on making use of reliable and
valid baseline data should contribute to the development of ``real''
goals. Moreover, States and Indian Tribes will have the opportunity to
make revisions to their goals on a yearly basis. In order to allow
States and Indian Tribes substantial discretion in developing goals
consistent with their vision and philosophy, it would not be
appropriate to generate additional regulations in this area.
Although we are not providing additional regulations in this area,
we thought the following example of a permanency goal, objectives, and
indicators would be helpful:
Permanency Goal: Ensure permanency for children in foster care
through timely placements in permanent homes.
Objectives: To increase by [x] percent the proportion of children
who exit the foster care system through reunification, guardianship, or
adoption within two years of placement.
To increase by [x] percent the proportion of children with special
needs who are adopted annually.
Measures/Indicators
The number of children who exit foster care through
reunification, guardianship, or adoption provided through AFCARS data.
The number of children with special needs who are adopted
annually provided by AFCARS.
Comment: Several commenters addressed issues related to the breadth
and emphasis of the goals themselves.
A respondent asked that the goals be expressed in terms of outcomes
and the same respondent along with another commenter asked that the
goals encompass matters of economic stability and independence.
A commenter argued that where applicable the goals should be
specified for any targeted groups.
A commenter listed a set of issues such as substance exposed
newborns, teen pregnancy rates, infant mortality, immunization rate,
etc., which should be incorporated into the goals.
Response: ACF agrees that goals should be expressed in terms of
outcomes. While outcomes addressing issues such as economic stability
and independence, infant mortality, and teen pregnancy rates are
important, ACF is currently emphasizing the outcome areas of safety,
permanency, and well-being of children and families to measure child
and family services. Specific outcomes will be discussed in greater
detail in future regulations addressing the child and family services
review process. State and Tribal discretion in developing specific
goals based on philosophy, vision statement, and unique factors or
circumstances must be preserved. Within this flexible framework States
and Indian Tribes have the freedom to establish goals targeted to
particular groups.
Comment: Three commenters either made requests for modifying the
content in this section or questioned whether any modification was
possible.
One commenter requested that Sec. 1357.15 (h)-(k) be merged into
one section in order to strengthen integration among goals, objectives,
and indicators of progress.
One respondent encouraged the inclusion of content from a
particular document, developed by a non-governmental organization with
expertise in family preservation and family support, on the topic of
planning for family preservation and support service programs.
One commenter wanted to know if the goals specified in the preamble
to the NPRM were the official set of goals and whether goals other than
those listed were acceptable.
Response: There are a number of valuable documents that have been
published by various organizations which States and Indian Tribes may
find useful as they plan, revise and implement their five-year plans.
States and Indian Tribes are encouraged to make use of all materials
which they find suitable. Goals, objectives, measures of progress and
baseline information have been treated in separate sections to ease
understanding and emphasize the importance of each element in the CFSP.
However, as explained later, the language in Sec. 1357.15(j), Measures
of Progress, has been revised to better link the measurement criteria
to the accomplishment of goals and objectives. The goals set forth in
the preamble to the NPRM are for illustrative purposes only. State and
Indian Tribes have the latitude to develop goals germane to their
situation.
Section 1357.15(i) Objectives
With a focus on outcomes for children, youth, and/or families or on
elements of service delivery in the CFSP, objectives should include
interim programmatic benchmarks, dates of accomplishment and a long-
term timetable, as appropriate.
We recommend that family preservation and family support services
be targeted on populations and in geographic areas of greatest need.
Targeting may include a range of vulnerable populations (children,
youth and/or families) in specific geographic regions, counties,
cities, communities, census tracts, or neighborhoods. States should
also consider targeting services to support community-based strategies
which draw on multiple funding streams and which bring a critical mass
of resources to bear in high-need communities.
Comment: Several commenters addressed the geographic scope of
implementation of family preservation and family support services as
spelled out in the Objectives section and reflected in the delivery of
services. One
[[Page 58642]]
respondent called for making the requirements Statewide. Another
commenter emphasized focusing on geographic areas and populations with
the greatest need.
Response: There will be no change in regulatory language. There is
no requirement that services be Statewide, although States are
encouraged to move in that direction. States and Indian Tribes will
retain authority to target in a manner they deem most appropriate.
Comment: We received four comments to our request on the
advisability of developing model plan guidelines. Two commenters asked
that we not issue model guidelines. Instead, they suggested ACF further
support planning efforts by developing ways to encourage the State
planning process to meet child and family service plan objectives and
goals. Alternatively, two commenters indicated that model guidelines
would be of great assistance.
Response: In light of the few comments received and our desire to
provide maximum flexibility, we have decided not to pursue the
development of model plan guidelines. However, we will continue to work
in a collaborative partnership with States and Indian Tribes. A
comprehensive technical assistance contract was awarded in 1995 to
assist States and Indian Tribes in the development and implementation
of the CFSP. In addition, we will continue to provide in-house
technical assistance as part of the joint planning provisions to assist
States and Tribes in developing and implementing the CFSP. While we
will not publish model plan guidelines, we will disseminate exemplary
State and Indian tribal plans that can be used as models.
Comment: One commenter asked that objectives be required to
determine progress, as well as promote monitoring and ongoing
assessment.
Response: We feel the existing regulatory language on objectives,
when combined with the annual progress reports, will accomplish this.
Comment: Several commenters were concerned by various elements of
the examples provided in the preamble to the proposed rule. One
commenter recommended that we state instead, ``reduce the number of
children removed from poverty and/or substance abusing families through
the use of family support type services.''
Another commenter suggested that example 3, which speaks to
reducing the number of reports of child abuse and neglect cases
involving serious injury be revised to insert the word
``substantiated'' before ``report,'' citing the concern that the number
of reports should not be used as a negative benchmark.
Still another commenter criticized the example objectives as very
traditional and narrow that might encourage people to think in black
and white and lead to bad practices. This commenter recommended we
provide instead examples that are more ``non-traditional'' and that
focus on elements of service delivery that are linked to outcomes in
important ways. Finally, one commenter noted that the examples provided
were all related to children and families and questioned whether
objectives related to system changes would be acceptable as well.
Response: The respondents' comments are well taken and may be of
assistance to other States in pursuing their objectives. However, since
they speak only to the examples of objectives provided in the preamble
of the proposed rule for illustrative purposes only, we are not making
any changes to the rule at paragraph (i) of Sec. 1357.15. States and
Indian Tribes should establish objectives which reflect their own
priorities, funding decisions and strategies for providing child and
family services. However, we would like to highlight the importance of
establishing objectives which focus on outcomes for children, youth and
families or on elements of service delivery and system change that are
linked to outcomes. We strongly believe that outcome based goals and
objectives allow the State an opportunity to obtain better information
about the safety, permanency and well-being of children and families.
Comment: Two commenters suggested technical changes to the language
provided at paragraphs (i) (1) and (2) of Sec. 1357.15. The first asked
that we revise the language in (1) to add that the objectives focus on
elements of service delivery including staff competencies and staff
workloads and in paragraph (2) to add reference to improving the
quality of existing services. The other commenter suggested in
paragraph (1) that we should change the wording from ``each objective
should focus on outcomes'' to ``must focus on outcomes,'' since should
fails to convey the necessary imperative.
Response: While we have no problem with the technical language
raised by the commenters in the first two instances, we are not adding
this language to the rule. We believe the rule is sufficiently broad to
support these examples and should remain broad enough to allow States
and Indian Tribes flexibility to set their own objectives. The rule
will remain unchanged with regard to the focus on outcomes in
developing objectives. A focus on outcomes is not required, but
certainly encouraged.
Section 1357.15(j) Measures of Progress
In response to comments we received, we have added a statement that
the State, in its CFSP must assure that the data and information to
measure progress will be collected, organized and analyzed in a quality
manner, and that the data and information will ensure States' and
Indian Tribes' ability to gauge progress towards achieving their goals
and objectives.
Depending on the goals, objectives, and outcomes selected,
measuring progress may be based, in part, on quantifiable indicator
data (e.g., numbers of substantiated child abuse and neglect reports)
or on the results of activities such as monitoring mechanisms, quality
assurance efforts, other information collection activities, other
planning processes, and internal evaluations.
Comment: Several respondents dealt with the relationship between
information systems and measuring progress.
One commenter suggested that the initial outcome measures be the
establishment of systems (SACWIS/AFCARS/NCANDS) and description of
processes.
Another commenter noted that SACWIS will not be fully operational
in time to gather baseline and program data. The same commenter noted
that outcome evaluation/quality assurance determinations will be
derived from SACWIS when it is operational and States will need
increased flexibility on the part of the Department when demanding
additional data.
Response: With respect to the first comment, unless the design and
implementation of automated information systems is a specific plan
goal, it cannot be viewed as appropriate indicators of progress toward
meeting goals, objectives and outcomes of the CFSP, but rather as
eventually a source for obtaining data and information to determine
progress.
This rule has been written to provide States and Indian Tribes with
the necessary flexibility to determine how they will measure progress
and collect quantifiable data. While States are making enormous strides
in developing and implementing automated information systems and there
is a need to support and encourage these actions, we agree that these
systems will not be operational in time to collect and report baseline
data, and it will take a while before they are capable of ascertaining
progress.
[[Page 58643]]
Comment: Two respondents considered factors related to the quality
of the measures of progress.
One commenter recommended that the requirements of this section
should go further and require the grantee to demonstrate the validity
of the measure of progress it has chosen suggesting that we add: ``The
CFSP should describe how the measurement criterion selected to assess
each goal and objective can be expected to gauge accurately the
progress toward achieving that goal or objective.''
Another commenter expressed concern that measures must be realistic
and attainable.
Response: We agree and the regulatory language has been revised at
Sec. 1357.15(j) by adding a second sentence to incorporate their
suggestions.
Section 1357.15(k) Baseline Information
In order to properly measure, monitor, and adjust activities,
States and Indian Tribes must assemble baseline data, drawing first on
what is existing and available. The specific collection of service data
is important, and central to the CFSP development and implementation
process.
The following suggestions of possible indicators of child and
family well-being and service delivery status will be useful for
setting goals and objectives, for targeting services geographically and
to priority populations, for detailed service planning, and for
assessing progress. Although these examples were included in the
proposed rule, due to substantial interest in them from the public, we
are repeating them here.
(1) Examples of indicators on child and family well-being: Number
of substantiated reports of child abuse and neglect, percent of
children born addicted or drug exposed, reducing child fatalities,
incidence of domestic violence, number of children in out-of-home care,
number of children in psychiatric placements, number of children
awaiting adoption, and youth in stable living situations after exiting
foster care.
(2) Examples of indicators related to other services systems:
Percent of low birth-weight babies, percent of births that are to
single teens, teen pregnancy rate, immunization rate, percent of
children in poverty, percent of children in single-parent families,
percent of families receiving title IV-A, runaway and homeless youth
rate, child/youth suicide rates, juvenile violent crime arrest rate,
teen violent death rate, percent of teens not in school and not in
labor force, percent of teens graduating from high school on time, high
school dropout rate, and percent of eligible children in Head Start.
(3) Examples of indicators on the State's (or the Indian Tribe's,
as appropriate) service delivery capacity: The extent to which child
welfare, family preservation, and family support services are available
and being provided (e.g., number and percentage of families served,
waiting lists, etc.); the availability of out-of-home care and
placement (including adoption) resources; the availability of
prevention and intervention services; the availability of critically
needed services such as housing and substance abuse treatment; the
extent to which existing services are coordinated with the provision of
other child and family services, particularly child protective services
and independent living services (e.g., indicators of successful
referrals); and the funding resources and expenditures, geographic
availability, numbers of persons served, and insufficient service
capacity (unmet needs) related to these services.
(4) Examples of indicators States or Indian Tribes, as appropriate,
might use or seek to develop relating to strengthening the delivery of
services and accomplishing goals and objectives: The extent to which
resources are available for training, technical assistance, and
consultation, including leadership development, staff development, and
interdisciplinary training; the existence and utilization of quality
assurance measures, program development and management and data
analysis; and the implementation, expansion, and utilization of
management information systems.
Comment: Several commenters responded to the value and importance
of baseline information and what constitutes sufficient information and
on the range of services needed by families being served by family
preservation and support services including social, health,
educational, and economic services. One respondent called for the
gathering of information on all programs intended to meet the needs of
families. One commenter argued that the identified needs should reflect
``real'' family concerns. In contrast, another commenter suggested that
consideration be given to eliminating the baseline information
collection requirement. Several commenters wanted clarification as to
how much information is adequate and how the State and Indian Tribe
and/or ACF will determine how much is enough.
Response: There is a statutory requirement for States and eligible
Indian Tribes to develop a five-year plan with goals and objectives and
to review progress towards meeting those goals and objectives on a
yearly basis. Information obtained from focus groups and respondents'
comments have emphasized the importance of baseline data to developing
responsive goals and objectives. In keeping with the approach of
flexibility, we are not setting requirements regarding specific
baseline information to be collected, except for our condition in
Sec. 1357.15(k)(3) that information about existing family preservation
and family support services must be included. The determination of what
constitutes adequate baseline information and specific family
preservation and family support information for a particular CFSP will
be made in the context of the joint planning process.
Clarification on what is acceptable documentation for submission by
Indian Tribes is being provided by adding the following sentence to
Sec. 1357.15(k)(2): ``An Indian Tribe may submit documentation prepared
to satisfy the requirements of other Federal child welfare grants, or
contracts (such as the section 638 reporting form), along with a
descriptive addendum addressing specifically the family preservation
and family support services available.
Comment: We received several responses to the request in the NPRM
for public comment on the proposed indicators and the usefulness of
defining indicators more concisely so that uniform definitions can be
developed.
One commenter felt the suggested indicators were comprehensive,
covered the priority areas, and that more concise definitions were not
needed.
One commenter noted that specific guidelines would be preferable at
some point in the future when all involved parties have more knowledge.
Another commenter recommended that a few indicators be selected and
required across states, with other information remaining optional.
An additional respondent asked for flexibility, especially at the
outset of the process.
Response: The comments we received have convinced us to maintain
flexibility in this aspect of the proposed rule. No specific baseline
indicators will be mandated and there will be no attempt to establish
uniform definitions. The AFCARS and SACWIS should capture necessary
national data and it serves no useful purpose to duplicate those
requirements in this rule. States and eligible Indian Tribes will have
full discretion in identifying, operationalizing and employing
[[Page 58644]]
baseline data elements responsive to their CFSP.
Comment: Several commenters were concerned that the breadth of
information and unreasonable amounts of detail required for the five-
year plan is burdensome.
One respondent pointed out that the prolific information being
requested will be disorganized and the accuracy of the information
dependent upon the sources of the information.
Among the commenters who raised the burden issue, one suggested a
less detailed summary be used as an alternative for Federal purposes
such as the review by regional offices during ongoing joint planning
meetings between ACF and States and Tribes.
Another respondent argued for narrowing the focus of data
collection on unmet needs, while a third called for selecting some
representative services that are statewide, but keeping the data at the
State level for review and not passing it on to the Federal government.
One respondent noted that data collection poses a particular burden
for all Tribes, especially small ones, considering the modest amount of
funds available to them under title IV-B, subpart 2. The respondent
proposed that Tribes be allowed to submit data they collect for their
Indian Child Welfare Act 638 reports with a description of additional
services that will or have been provided or personnel employed through
the use of additional title IV-B funding.
Response: We do not wish to place a burden on States or Indian
Tribes to expend excessive energy and resources on preparing and
presenting copious amounts of data. Nor do we wish to over-burden the
joint planning process with an exhaustive review and analysis of data.
Therefore, we have clarified paragraph (k)(3) to specify that a summary
of the information used in developing the plan must be included. We
expect States and Indian Tribes to conduct appropriate data collection
activities to thoroughly and accurately inform their planning efforts.
We agree with the recommendation to reduce the reporting burden on
Tribes and have amended paragraph (k)(2) to provide that Indian Tribes
may submit other documentation, such as the 638 reporting form, with a
descriptive addendum addressing specifically the family preservation
and family support services available, as described above.
Comment: A number of commenters raised cost issues in relation to
baseline data.
One commenter expressed concern that the costs associated with
collecting baseline data would be counted as an administrative cost and
subject to the 10 percent cap.
Another commenter wanted to know if there would be additional
funding to cover research or administrative costs associated with
hiring professionals to identify and collect baseline data.
One respondent wanted flexibility regarding data collection in
order to reduce costs.
One commenter argued that States may well confront tough decisions
when trying to decide how to pay for the costs of data collection and
this could lead to a number of complications.
Response: Given the fact that the baseline information process is
integral to the development of the CFSP, we have modified
Sec. 1357.32(h)(3) to confirm that data collection is viewed as a
program cost as it is a part of the preparation of the CFSP and is not
subject to the 10 percent administrative cap limitation.
In light of our decision to allow a data collection process
responsive to the unique needs of each jurisdiction and a summary
submission of data in the CFSP, both of which are based on existing and
available data, we believe any and all costs associated with baseline
information will not place an undue financial burden on any State or
eligible Indian Tribe.
Comment: A number of comments addressed the role of automated
information systems in relation to baseline information. Several
respondents saw the merits and urged continuation of the emphasis on
requiring States to develop and use automated information systems to
ensure availability of baseline data. Several commenters noted that the
preamble speaks to systems being designed (SACWIS) that may serve as a
source of valuable information, but were concerned that States may not
have their systems operating in time to be a source of baseline data
for the development of the CFSP. One of the commenters urged ACF to
give the States flexibility when additional data is required.
Response: We fully recognize the value and importance of automated
information systems to improve programs and practices and feel we have
instituted flexible policies and regulations designed to increase their
usage and improve their operation throughout the child and family
service system. We recognize that a State's SACWIS may not be
operational in time to provide baseline data for the first five-year
plan. In fact, not all States plan to develop a SACWIS. However, AFCARS
should eventually be available to provide additional and updated data
necessary to measure progress during the five-year period in accordance
with Sec. 1357.15(k)(1).
Comment: Several commenters dealt with the relationship between
targeting and baseline data.
One commenter noted that the preamble speaks to targeting services
to certain populations and/or geographic areas and asked, if services
are targeted, whether targeted data collection would be allowed.
Another commentator suggested that language be included to allow
States or Indian Tribes which may concentrate resources in a few
targeted communities to use community-level rather than state-level
data to track the process.
Several respondents suggested that the requirement that states
gather and update statewide information on child and family well-being
and on availability of services be clarified to explain that baseline
data should help guide initial decisions about targeting and serve as
the basis for tracking progress over time.
Response: A statewide or Tribal collection and analysis of data is
necessary in order to conduct the strategic planning process and
develop goals and objectives as spelled out in Sec. 1357.15 (a) and (b)
and to target service decisions. In paragraph (k)(2) of Sec. 1357.15,
we have required the State or Tribe to collect and analyze data on a
Statewide or Tribal-wide basis only for Family Preservation and Family
Support Services. However, if services are targeted, the focus of on-
going data collection and analysis likely will be in those targeted
areas in order to ascertain progress in accomplishing plan goals and
objectives. Targeted data collection is acceptable and appropriate in
these instances, provided that this data is collected with overall
statewide information.
States and Indian Tribes also have an ongoing responsibility to
keep a current statewide or Tribal-wide baseline data base in order to
keep apprised of emerging problems, new populations experiencing new
challenges, groups currently being served who are experiencing new
challenges, and to track trends over time. These inevitable changes
will likely result in modifications to the CFSP over its five-year life
span.
Comment: Several commenters asked that we delete what was perceived
as a vague statement in this section, ``other services which impact on
the ability to preserve and support families may be included in the
assessment'', and instead require baseline data on the full range of
services needed by at-risk
[[Page 58645]]
children and families; specifically including mental health services,
substance abuse services, etc.
Response: No changes are being made. The statement interpreted by
commenters as being vague was intended as an acknowledgement of the
enormous variety of programs and services in different State and Indian
Tribes and a means of providing both groups with sufficient discretion
to determine appropriate data sources. The request to require baseline
data on the full range of services needed by at-risk children and
families would be overly prescriptive. States and Indian Tribes are
encouraged to include the collection of data from service systems other
than the child and family service continuum, but it is not being
required.
Comment: Several commenters addressed different facets of
categorizing the baseline information.
One commenter suggested that States be required to gather baseline
data on child and family well-being and service delivery capacity that
is grouped by indicator specific to minority groups as well as
information on the appropriateness of training, technical assistance,
consultation and quality assurance of service delivery capacity for
specific targeted groups.
Another commenter wanted to make sure that the categories of
baseline information used in developing the plan be cited.
A respondent asked that the rule explicitly state certain
categories of baseline information that must be included.
Response: The suggestions made by the respondents are reasonable
and appropriate. Nevertheless, given the enormous diversity among
States and Indian Tribes in terms of the needs of their various child
and family populations, the services they are providing, as well as how
they are organized to deliver the services to those in need, we are
resistant to specifying categories of information or precise indicators
that must be included. The categories of indicators cited in the
preamble of the proposed rule and reiterated here are only meant to be
illustrative. Each State and Indian Tribe with the ACF Regional Office
will determine the appropriate schema for categorizing its baseline
information.
Comment: One commenter indicated more technical assistance will be
needed in this area since activity is likely to become fragmented.
Response: ACYF implemented a significant five-year technical
assistance initiative in fiscal year 1995 which involved funding a set
of national resource centers and a technical assistance coordination
contractor. States and Indian Tribes seeking assistance will be able to
receive it by working with ACF and resource center staff.
Comment: A commenter recommended using positive language for our
examples of indicators such as using ``reducing child fatalities'' as
opposed to ``child death rate''.
Response: This is an excellent suggestion and we encourage all
States and Indian Tribes to consider the commenter's recommendation
about adopting a more positive orientation as they develop labels for
their indicators.
Section 1357.15(l) Consultation
We received 22 comments to this section. Overall, the remarks were
positive, expressing endorsement for the use of broad-based
consultation with the public and private sectors.
As a condition of CFSP approval, Section 432 requires that the plan
be developed by the State and the Indian Tribe after consultation with
a wide range of appropriate public and nonprofit private agencies and
community-based organizations with experience in administering services
for children and families (including family preservation and family
support services). In this section we are requiring States and Indian
Tribes to describe their consultation process and we have included
suggested lists of groups that may be involved in the process.
The Department believes that States and Indian Tribes will benefit
from a broad, active consultation process in strengthening the planning
and implementation of the CFSP. In keeping with State flexibility we
have not mandated either a particular consultation process or a
specific list of entities with which States and Indian Tribes would be
required to consult.
We believe the suggested categories of participants in the
consultation process provided in paragraph (l)(3) represent a minimal
level, mandated by section 432(b) of the statute, of programmatic,
political/administrative, and experiential involvement in this process.
We continue to encourage States and Indian Tribes to go beyond the
suggested list and include other categories of organizations and
individuals based on State and local circumstances.
Comment: Three commenters raised concerns regarding the list of
suggested agencies to be involved in the consultative process. The
concerns focused on what happens if a State fails to consult with each
of the groups listed and that the list of actors was overly
prescriptive and unnecessarily creates monitoring and compliance
issues. It was felt that recommendations would be helpful but a defined
list will not assure meaningful involvement.
A related comment suggested that in order to ensure that the range
of consultative groups are seriously and consistently consulted, States
should be held accountable for how and to what extent they included
each category in the planning process. It was also suggested that we
could clarify the different forms that consultation can take and that
ACF include a requirement for a clearly defined beginning, middle and
end to the consultation process.
Response: While the consultation process and a wide range of
appropriate public and nonprofit private agencies and community-based
organizations with experience in administering services for children
and families are required by statute, we believe States and Indian
Tribes should retain flexibility to determine both the form and the
intensity of consultation and participation by various groups. Also, as
stated above, the list is a suggested list and, while we feel all
groups should be involved, we are not mandating that each one must be
consulted. We would hope that over time each group will be brought into
the process.
With respect to mandating a specific process for consultation with
distinct closure, we have intentionally left this open to provide
flexibility for such processes to be ongoing and to be developed at the
State/Tribal level.
Comment: Several commenters asked that we amend paragraph
(l)(3)(vii) to strongly emphasize the vital role that courts and legal
advocates play in service planning. Specifically, they suggested that
we replace ``the courts'' with ``Representatives of the court systems
(including, in States receiving grants under section 13712 of Pub. L.
103-66, a designee of the highest State court), attorneys representing
parents, children and the State agency in dependency cases; and any
guardian ad litem or court-appointed special advocate (CASA) programs
operating in the State.''
Response: We believe the existing references provided to courts,
individual practitioners working with children, and law enforcement
support our recognition of the important role of the judiciary and
legal systems. We agree with the commenter and we encourage the states
to consider seriously the merits of the involvement of the legal realm.
Comment: Many comments suggested additional specific categories of
[[Page 58646]]
required consultation, i.e., protection and advocacy organizations,
professional organizations, Children's Trust Funds, mental health and
developmental disabilities agencies, youth agencies which have not
traditionally provided child welfare services, replace the general
reference to ``housing program'' with reference to specific, ``State
agencies with regulatory authority over federally funded local housing
agencies, State agencies administering section 8 housing programs,
State housing financing agencies and State fair housing agencies,'' the
local chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and pediatricians
among major actors listed to encourage States to include a family
support and prevention focus in the planning process. One commenter
argued that collaboration was the mainstay of this rule and they were
perplexed at the lack of mention of the Community-Based Family Resource
Program. This commenter believes it is critical that the Federal
government seek to unify these potentially polarizing initiatives and
provide guidance to the States through example.
Response: These are excellent suggestions, and we urge states and
Tribes to consider them in the on-going consultation process. However,
we have made three changes based on these comments. First, we have
revised paragraph (l)(3)(viii) to include, as suggested by the
commenters, the Children's Trust Funds and the Community-Based Family
Resource Program in the list. The Community-Based Family Resource
Program and the Family Preservation and Family Support programs are
linked by common purpose and approach to serving children and families.
Both programs are administered by ACYF with maximum coordination at the
Federal level. The Community-Based Family Resource Program was not
specifically mentioned in the NPRM as it had just been enacted. The
program was reauthorized under Pub. L. 104-235, the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1996 which was signed into
law on October 3, 1996. FY 1995 was the first year grants were made to
States for this program. The other changes are technical corrections.
One is to provide for ``IV-F'' employment and training. The other
change removes redundant language in the introductory sentence,
changing ``including, but not limited to,'' to ``which may include:''.
Comment: Three commenters suggested that the CFSP be required to
address measures to prevent planning groups and committees from being
dominated by agency officials and private service providers such as by
limiting public and private agency personnel to no more than 50
percent. Another commenter suggested that the final rule be clear about
the level of involvement appropriate for each of the actors.
Response: We believe that to limit the number of consultation
partners in the final rule would represent a significant departure from
our commitment to provide flexibility. However, we would note that the
rule does provide States wishing to do so with sufficient flexibility
to determine the intensity of participation.
Comment: One commenter asked that in paragraph (l)(1) we add that
information be included that facilitates the active, informed
involvement of parents and children previously impacted by the social
service delivery system within the State.
Response: Parental involvement is addressed in paragraph
(l)(3)(iv), thus additional language is not necessary here. However, in
response to this comment, we have amended the language to include
children involved with, and children not involved with, the child
welfare system.
Section 1357.15(m) Services Coordination
Service coordination is critical to the improvement of access and
appropriate delivery of a range of services to children and their
families.
Examples of services and programs are:
Within the State agency: Existing family support and
family preservation; child abuse and neglect prevention, intervention,
and treatment; foster care, reunification, adoption, and independent
living services, and
Other public and nonprofit private agencies, including
community-based organizations, which provide Federal or federally
assisted services or benefits.
Examples of major programs are: The social services block grant;
title IV-A; child support; maternal and child health; title XIX
(Medicaid, Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT));
mental health and substance abuse services; Community-Based Family
Resource programs and child abuse prevention (Children's Trust Funds);
transitional living; runaway youth and youth gang prevention;
education; developmental disabilities; juvenile justice; early
childhood education and child development programs (Head Start);
domestic violence; housing; nutrition (Food Stamps, Special
Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)); child
care and development block grant and other child care programs; the
community services block grant; Empowerment Zones and Enterprise
Communities program (EZ/EC); education (school-based services); and
justice programs.
Comment: We received several comments to expand the list of service
delivery providers here to include advocacy services, the mental health
and developmental disabilities services system and the State agencies
with regulatory authority over housing.
Response: In paragraph (m)(1) we have clarified those organizations
which may be involved in the planning process by adding additional
examples in parentheses.
Comment: Several commenters thought that more guidance should be
provided here and the purpose of the coordination requirement made
explicit. One of these commenters was concerned that without greater
specificity regarding goals, service coordination will continue to be
secondary and out of step with the ``holistic approach'' to serving
children envisioned. This commenter suggested that the CFSP should be
required to include specific, concrete steps toward service
coordination and to specify when during the five year period these
steps will be completed.
Response: We have not accepted all the suggestions made, but we
have amended paragraph (m)(1) to add a statement of purpose--that is,
that the services coordination process is to improve access to services
and deliver a range of services to children and their families. Again,
we believe that the process itself should be left to the discretion of
individual States and Indian Tribes.
Comment: Several commenters asked that we revise paragraph (m)(2)
to state, ``coordinate * * * to ensure that at-risk children and
families have access to all services necessary to protect the safety of
family members, promote family stability and prevent out-of-home
placement whenever possible, regardless of the boundaries. * * * ''
These commenters further suggested that the examples provided include
developing compatible and linked computer systems.
Response: We have revised the language in paragraph (m)(2) to
include ``linked automated information systems'' as an example of a
process that will lead to additional coordination of services. In
regard to the remaining comment, we feel that the purposes expressed by
these commenters are captured throughout the rule and therefore have
not revised the language.
[[Page 58647]]
Comment: One commenter recommended that the requirements for
service coordination under paragraph (m) and family preservation and
family support services and linkages to other social and health
services under paragraph (o) be merged into a single section which
clearly states that the ultimate purpose of service coordination is to
improve the well-being of children, youth and families. This commenter
stated that while the preamble is clear on the importance of system
coordination, the rule is not; and they suggested the rule be revised
to clearly specify that there should be coordination with service
delivery systems providing social, health, education and economic
services to children and their families but also with mental health,
developmental disabilities and housing systems.
Response: While we agree that paragraphs (m) and (o) speak to
coordination and linkages of services respectively, we do not believe
these requirements should be merged as each paragraph also has a
separate aim. The intent of paragraph (m) is to describe the overall
coordination process for the full range of child and family services
provided by the State. Whereas, paragraph (o) is focused on the
expansion of family preservation and family support services and the
linkages with other services and service delivery systems as well as
within the child and family services continuum.
Section 1357.15(n) Services
At the heart of the State and Indian Tribal plans is the
description of child and family services. We believe that the
description of services required in this section is one of the most
important aspects of the CFSP. Not only will it provide a comprehensive
picture of the services provided and resources available, it can
clearly illustrate State and Indian Tribal decision-making in directing
services toward the goals and objectives in the CFSP and form the basis
for discussion of future coordination of services and improved service
delivery.
We have also noted in the rule that several of the requirements
(providing information on child protective services, child welfare
services, family preservation and support services, foster care, and
adoption) of paragraph (n) can be met by completing the CFS-101, Part
II--the Annual Summary of Child Welfare Services.
Comment: One commenter asked that we revise paragraph (n) to
encourage States to specify private support as well as publicly
supported family support programs in their child and family services
continuum, at least in targeted communities. This commenter also
recommended that the rule provide that child abuse and neglect
prevention, intervention and treatment should be reported separately
and distinctly from foster care even though they are both included in
the child and family services continuum.
Response: While information on private family support programs may
be included in a State's CFSP and are important in helping States to
determine where to target resources, for purposes of Federal reporting,
States need only report information on publicly funded services. We
believe it is clear that child abuse and neglect prevention,
intervention and treatment are to be reported separately from foster
care and we have not made any changes in response to this comment.
Section 1357.15(o) Family Preservation and Family Support Services and
Linkages to Other Social and Health Services
In meeting this requirement, States will use, in part, the
information gathered on the availability of family preservation and
family support services (see Sec. 1357.15(k)(2)). Since FY 1995 is the
first year in which all States are implementing the new title IV-B,
subpart 2 (family preservation and family support services,) we believe
this information will provide a national overview of the development,
operation, and/or expansion of family preservation and family support
services in all States as well as identify the processes States are
using to develop coordinated systems of care.
Comment: Commenters asked that States be specifically required to
link family preservation and family support to mental health and
education.
One commenter asked that the child and family services plan explain
how Federal mental health funds under the Child and Adolescent Service
System Program and the Child Mental Health Service Program, in addition
to CAPTA and ILP will be coordinated with the State's child and family
services system of care.
Response: While we do not require linkage to specific additional
programs or services beyond those directly in the plan, we believe the
language in paragraphs (m) and (o) is sufficiently broad to accommodate
the services listed by the commenters.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we amend the service
requirement to specify that the CFSP describe how the new family
support and family preservation service programs will relate to
privately funded as well as publicly funded family support services.
Response: We believe the commenter's point is addressed in
Sec. 1357.15(o)(3) which requires the CFSP to describe the linkage and
coordination of services in the continuum and other Federal and non-
federally funded public and non-profit private programs.
Section 1357.15(p) Services in Relation to Service Principles
We included the child and family services principles in this rule
at 45 CFR 1355.25 to assure that services designed with title IV-B
funding would be consistent with a vision expressed by practitioners in
the field, which we have embraced. We believe these principles are the
basis for the development of effective, responsive, and quality
services programs.
Comment: One commenter asked that reference to principles of child
and family services be clearly distinct from the vision, goals and
objectives that a CFSP contains. From the commenter's perspective, the
CFSP's vision, goals and objectives are the factors against which
progress should be measured while principles are to be used as
guidelines.
Response: We agree with the respondent's interpretation of the
distinction between the principles and the vision, goals and objectives
and believe this distinction is clear in paragraphs (h) and (i).
Section 1357.15(q) Services in Relation to Permanency Planning
The ``permanency provisions'' enacted by the Adoption Assistance
and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-272) focused on the
importance of providing preventive and crisis intervention services and
establishing permanency for the children in foster care. Through
permanency planning, children were to be placed in permanent living
arrangements as quickly as possible. Permanency is still the
cornerstone of child welfare practice with children.
In October 1994, Pub. L. 103-432 was passed, amending the Social
Security Act. One of the amendments repealed section 427, effective
October 1, 1996. The protections that were formerly under section 427
of the Act are now incorporated in section 422(b)(9) as title IV-B Plan
requirements. Department policy has been and continues to be that the
State, as required by statute, is responsible for providing these
protections to all children, including Indian children. The specific
arrangements with respect to Indian children under Tribal jurisdiction
can
[[Page 58648]]
be effective only if they are discussed jointly by the State and the
Tribe. We are accordingly requiring that the CFSP include a discussion
of the arrangements that the State has made with Tribes for this
purpose. It is expected that the States will take the initiative to
contact all Tribes, if they have not done so already, for the purpose
of ensuring that the 422(b)(9) protections are provided to Indian
children. Likewise, a Tribe that wishes to receive direct funding must
include in its Plan a discussion of the arrangements that have been
made with the State (see Sec. 1357.40).
Comment: One commenter requested that we illustrate that family
preservation and family support services can and should be provided to
families when children live apart from their families in order to
achieve permanency for children.
Response: We agree with the thrust of the respondent's comment and
believe that the definitions of family preservation and support
services in Sec. 1357.10 and the principles at Sec. 1355.25 all support
the use of family preservation and family support services with
children living apart from their families as well as with families
before children have been removed. Family preservation and family
support are two critical strategies to be used to achieve permanency
for children.
Section 1357.15(r) Decision-Making Process: Selection of Family
Support Programs for Funding
In making funding decisions for family support services, we
strongly recommend that States examine the work and accomplishments of
community-based organizations and look to them as the providers of
first resort of family support services. It is these organizations,
based in and trusted by the community, which typically have the
knowledge and expertise to effectively provide these services.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the requirement for
decisionmaking be expanded to include information on how the State will
select criteria for funding services over the five-year period.
Response: While we believe that States should establish such
criteria to support decisionmaking, we believe that such requirements
for selection are not required for Federal reporting purposes.
Comment: One commenter noted that the preamble recommended that
States look to community-based organizations that are based in and
trusted by the community as the highest priority potential providers of
family support services and was concerned that there is nothing in the
rule to allow Federal officials to know the extent to which such
community-based organizations are in fact the providers of these
services. The commenter recommended that the CFSP be required to
reflect in more detail the nature of the providers that are chosen and
what percentage of the family support dollars are being provided by
different types of community-based organizations.
Response: The Statute requires that family support services be
community-based, not necessarily provided by community-based agencies.
We support State efforts to set detailed guidelines or criteria
regarding selection and the extent to which different types of
community-based organizations should be involved. However, reporting of
this nature would not be necessary for Federal purposes.
Section 1357.15(s) Significant Portion of Funds Used for Family
Support and Family Preservation Services
A statutory requirement of section 432(a)(4) of the Act, this
provision is designed to assure that both family preservation and
family support services are developed within a State or Indian Tribe.
While the statute does not define ``significant,'' the State's
rationale will need to be especially strong if the request for either
percentage is below 25 percent.
Comment: While a number of commenters remarked positively on this
section, there were some opposing comments. One commenter recommended
that rather than provide that ``there is no minimum percentage but a
State's rationale will need to be strong if below 25 percent'', we
provide instead, ``There will be no minimum percentage that defines
significant. The States will provide the rationale for funding
allocation method.'' The commenter was concerned that to insist on a
specific percentage imposes a top-down insistence that may not be
embraced positively in the communities.
Another commenter stated that the requirement that States indicate
the specific percentage of Federal funds the State would expend for
community-based family support services and for family preservation
services and a rationale would be difficult if not impossible to
determine since many services can be considered both, such as the
State's new home visiting program. Instead, the commenter asked that
the standard be revised to give the State flexibility in determining
how best to use IV-B funds. One commenter indicated that they would not
support the inclusion of a minimum percentage to define significant
portion of funds, stating that a planning process should be a forum for
reform rather than for ``dividing up the pie.''
Response: We believe that this section, of all the options
considered, best represents the approach for determining ``significant
portion.'' We believe we must provide some guidance to States on
meeting this requirement, while remaining committed to providing
maximum flexibility to accommodate a wide range of differences among
States. While we understand that in some cases it may be difficult to
categorize certain programmatic expenditures as either family
preservation or family support services, we see the joint planning
process as the mechanism by which States, Tribes and Regional Offices
can reach agreement on these matters. We will support all reasonable
determinations made and are available to provide technical assistance
if requested.
Comment: One commenter was concerned about a perceived lack of
emphasis on primary prevention, stating that while the child and family
service plan is important, it may be difficult to coalesce treatment
and prevention agencies without losing hard fought focus on prevention
initiatives. The commenter was concerned that the rule did not provide
guidance on the percentage of funds to devote to programs for family
preservation and support and thought that without this, there may be
less allocated to primary prevention efforts.
Response: We believe that it is important to note that even the
limited focus on prevention provided in this rule is stronger than that
addressed previously. We do not think it necessary, or within our
authority, to provide restrictions on the percentage of funds for
family support or family preservation services. Paragraph (s) of
Sec. 1357.15 requires States to include an explanation of distribution
of funds and requires that States which spend less than 25 percent on
family preservation or on family support have an especially strong
rationale for the minimal funding level.
Section 1357.15(t) Staff Training, Technical Assistance and Evaluation
States and Indian Tribes consistently build staff expertise and
organizational capacity for the design and delivery of family
preservation and family support services as well as conduct self-
evaluations. We want to emphasize that States are not required to
conduct
[[Page 58649]]
evaluations and/or research activities related to the CFSP.
Comment: A number of comments were received on the general nature
or specific aspects of the training and technical assistance portion of
the CFSP as presented in the NPRM.
Two respondents were pleased to see training and technical
assistance conceptualized as a program cost and not viewed as an
administrative cost.
One commenter wanted the subsection strengthened by adding language
from the preamble dealing with interdisciplinary training and
continuous improvement.
Several respondents wanted standards for elements such as staffing
qualifications, different types of training, training requirements, and
coordination.
A commenter was disappointed that the NPRM failed to present a
specific mechanism to teach staff how to work effectively within the
new value base.
A few respondents perceived the preamble of the NPRM as
recommending that the entire staff of the child welfare agency
providing family preservation and family support services be trained
and that specific types of training be proposed. They were concerned
with what appeared to them to be insufficient Federal funds to support
this approach to T&TA and one urged title IV-E training funds be
allowed to be used.
Two commenters called for cross-disciplinary training.
Response: Although a number of focus group members convened to
guide implementation of the Family Preservation and Support Services
Program prior to the publication of the NPRM recommended training all
child welfare system staff, a decision has been made to not transform
that request into regulations. Decisions regarding the facets of
training and specific training content can only be made by each State
or Indian Tribe based upon their CFSP. In response to concerns raised
about interdisciplinary training and continuous improvement, we added
the following language to Sec. 1357.15(t)(1): ``Training must be an
ongoing activity and must include content from various disciplines and
knowledge bases relevant to child and family services, policies,
programs, and practices. Training content must also support the cross-
system coordination consultation basic to the development of the
CFSP.''
Training supported by various Federal funding streams should be
linked together. The title IV-E training plan must be combined with the
CFSP training plan submitted as part of the title IV-B plan to promote
the coordination of overall training and the integration of training in
support of programmatic efforts. States and Indian Tribes are
encouraged to make title IV-E training as complementary to and
supportive of the CFSP as it can be. At the same time, title IV-E
training has a unique focus and operates within a specific statutory
and regulatory framework.
Comment: Several respondents either requested clarity regarding
what was meant by evaluation, or proposed specific evaluation
strategies to be incorporated into the rule.
A respondent requested additional funding support for evaluation.
One respondent felt the use of the term ``evaluation'' in this
subsection was confusing.
Three commenters supported State administered evaluation efforts,
self-evaluation practices tied to the unique circumstances each State
or Indian Tribe has to contend with, or front-end evaluation.
One commenter asked that voluntary providers be involved in the
evaluation of the T&TA effort.
Response: Evaluation is extremely important and although evaluation
is not required and extra funds are not provided specifically, as
indicated in Sec. 1357.15(t)(3), there is support for any evaluation
underway or planned in a State or Indian Tribe related to the goals and
objectives of the CFSP. In addition to State and/or Tribal activities,
the Department is conducting national evaluations which will help
inform professional and policy audiences about the effects of the
services. The Family Preservation and Support Services Program, title
IV-B, subpart 2, remains a capped entitlement program, and no
additional funds beyond the State or Tribal yearly allocation are
available.
Comment: One respondent called for the inclusion of staff from
voluntary agencies in training.
Response: There will be no change in regulatory language because it
would be inappropriate to regulate any specific group that must be
involved in training. It is assumed that when voluntary agencies are
represented in the goals and objectives set forth in the CFSP and
actively involved in the implementation of the CFSP, they will, of
necessity, have to participate in appropriate training.
Comment: Two respondents raised cultural issues in relation to
training.
One commenter urged that ICWA mandates and other American Indian
cultural competence training materials be required for inclusion in
training activities.
A second commenter asked for education and billing ``waivers'' to
develop culturally sensitive providers for specific groups.
Response: In Sec. 1355.25(e) we affirm the importance of cultural
issues and factors in the design and delivery of child and family
services. It would not be suitable to weave into the rule particular
culturally-based items or resource materials that must be included in
training. States which have American Indian or Alaskan Native
populations and Tribal governments or other culturally or
linguistically diverse populations will have the motivation and
flexibility to develop and offer culturally relevant training. Also,
since statutory provisions neither request nor require specific
providers for specific groups, there is no basis for establishing
regulations on the issue.
Section 1357.15(u) Quality Assurance
In designing, expanding, and implementing quality assurance
activities, States and Indian Tribes may wish to refer to the
principles in 45 CFR 1355.25.
Comment: We received several responses to our request for
recommendations for model approaches, procedures and basic measures or
measures of quality. One commenter urged that we continue to gather
information for purposes of providing guidance and technical assistance
to States but that quality assurance systems not be used as a measure
of compliance with any minimal Federal standards. Another commenter
remarked that an HHS Office of the Inspector General 1994 Report
recommended that ACF require States to have quality assurance programs
in place that look at the quality of casework and services provided,
not just documentation of procedures.
The commenter recommended that States be required to spell out, at
a minimum: Standards against which they will assess the quality and
effectiveness of services provided, how various requirements described
in this rule will be met, and procedures to discontinue services that
do not meet certain standards of quality.
Response: We support the commenter's position that quality
assessment can provide information to allow more meaningful Federal
guidance and technical assistance to States. While this information
will be helpful in determining compliance with Federal requirements, it
will not serve as the sole tool for monitoring compliance. We
considered establishing minimum Federal standards for quality
[[Page 58650]]
services, but recognizing the variance in individual State
circumstances, we determined that States should have flexibility to
design their own quality assurance systems.
Comment: One commenter asked that we strengthen the rule by
including some examples of quality assessment techniques for cultural/
linguistic competence.
Another commenter noted that the rule allows virtually unlimited
discretion in designing a quality assurance system but offered that any
effective system would normally be expected to include certain data
collection and assessment methods such as case reading.
Response: We have decided not to expand on the examples or
requirement of quality assessment techniques given in this rule to
provide States with maximum flexibility. These examples were given for
illustrative purposes only and we believe that States would be in the
best position to design their own quality assurance systems.
Comment: One commenter stated that the requirements of this section
could result in the submission of voluminous amounts of data since the
commenter's State has an entire division responsible for quality
assurance, performance/outcome measures.
The commenter suggested that the time spent to prepare an adequate
description to accompany the plan would be better spent on the
processes related to the plan itself.
Response: The requirement of Sec. 1357.15(u) is that States submit
a description of the quality assurance system it will use, and not the
data produced by that system. Since quality improvements are vital to
child and family services, we are committed to the importance of this
requirement.
Section 1357.15(v) Distribution of the CFSP and the Annual Progress
and Services Report
We believe it will be useful to States and Indian Tribes to share
the CFSP and the Annual Progress and Services Reports, both with each
other and with those individuals, agencies, and organizations which are
a part of the ongoing consultation and coordination effort. Such
dissemination can lead to increased support, knowledge and coordination
of services.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the final rule should require
the CFSP and annual progress report be made available to anyone upon
request and require States to provide for similar availability of
quality assurance data. The commenter further recommended that the
grantee should be required to document not only what it plans to do to
accomplish its goals and objectives but also what it does not plan to
do and why. For example, if a state decides to channel all or most of
its funding into one or a limited number of services categories it
should have to explain why.
Response: We agree that the annual progress report must be
available to the public. We will not, however, further specify what a
State or Indian Tribe must include in that review.
Section 1357.16 Annual Progress and Services Reports
Reports from States and Tribes will be key to ongoing learning and
growth in practice of child and family services and the ongoing
planning and implementation of child and family services. The reports
from States and Tribes will be used to update the State's or Indian
Tribe's goals and objectives of the child and family services programs.
We have added in paragraph (b) the requirements for the submission
of the CFS-101. The directions for submitting the CFS-101 will vary
depending upon where each State and eligible Indian Tribe is in terms
of consolidating title IV-B, subparts 1 and 2, and the status of each
eligible Indian Tribe regarding title IV-B, subpart 1.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we call for an inclusive
planning process by requiring that those involved in the ongoing
consultation and coordination process be involved in annual reviews of
a State's activities and that the Annual Progress and Services Report
specify any revisions necessary in goals, objectives, services or
program design to reflect changed circumstances.
Response: We believe both recommendations are addressed in
paragraph (a) of this section.
Comment: One commenter asked that we delete ``review'' from
``Annual progress reviews and services report'' for consistency with
other references.
Response: We agree and have revised the wording of the section
title accordingly.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that we include a requirement
that the annual progress report explain what progress the State has
made toward service coordination. Another commenter asked that the
annual progress review and services report be required to identify
specific accomplishments based on empirical data rather than personal
and professional judgment and recommended deleting the ``e.g.'' which
implies that provided outcomes for children and families is merely an
example of a goal or objective.
Response: We agree with these commenters and we believe that
paragraph (a)(1) addresses the need for a requirement on the progress
States and Indian Tribes have made toward service coordination for
children and families and therefore have not made any changes. We have
also revised the paragraph by deleting the ``e.g.''
Section 1357.20 Child Abuse and Neglect Programs
This section clarifies the titles and relevant citations of the
Child Abuse and Neglect Program.
No comments were received on this section.
Section 1357.30 State Fiscal Requirements (Title IV-B, Subpart 1,
Child Welfare Services)
In order to bring title IV-B, subpart 1 onto the same schedule as
that provided for subpart 2, existing rules which have proven to be
unnecessarily confusing to and burdensome on States, have been
adjusted. We have deleted the requirement for an obligation period and
require instead that subpart 1 funds must be expended (liquidated) by
September 30 of the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the
funds were awarded. This will mean an identical expenditure period for
funds under title IV-B, subparts 1 and 2, and the independent living
program. As indicated previously, a conforming amendment was made in 45
CFR 1355.30 to clarify that 45 CFR part 95, subpart A, is not
applicable to title IV-B programs.
In response to comments, a change was made in Sec. 1357.30(e),
Sec. 1357.32(d), Sec. 1357.40(d), and Sec. 1357.42(g). We have decided
to allow the use of non-public third-party cash, donations and in-kind
contributions, in accordance with 45 CFR 92.24 (see the discussion of
in-kind in Part II of this preamble).
A technical deletion has been made to paragraph (a) reflecting a
statutory change discontinuing the transfer of title IV-E foster care
funds to title IV-B child welfare services (Pub. L. 103-432).
Comment: One commenter was concerned that it will be problematic to
obligate and liquidate funds in the time limit if subpart 1 is fully
funded.
Response: Once the States and Indian Tribes submit their
applications for subparts 1 and 2 funds by June 30 there will be a full
two years to spend the money.
Comment: One commenter asked if States will have to submit an
application for funds for reallotment or whether the Commissioner will
reallot any available funds independently on
[[Page 58651]]
the basis of the amount originally requested in the annual budget
request.
Response: Since requests for reallotment are rare we will not be
changing the rule on the process for reallotment. If funds become
available for reallotment States will be notified and provided with
instructions to apply for those funds.
Section 1357.32 State Fiscal Requirements (Title IV-B, Subpart 2,
Family Preservation and Family Support Services)
In this section, we have defined administrative costs as those
costs associated with auxiliary functions to support development and
implementation of the Child and Family Services Plan and Annual
Progress and Services Report (e.g., procurement, payroll, personnel
functions, management, maintenance, operation of space and property,
data processing and computer services, accounting, budgeting, auditing,
and indirect costs.)
We have also added a clarification that costs directly associated
with implementing the CFSP are not considered administrative costs
(e.g., delivery of services, planning, consultation, coordination,
training, quality assurance measures, data collection, evaluation, and
supervision) and are considered program costs.
Comment: One commenter asked that in paragraph (d)(2), a definition
of the term ``donated funds'' be provided. Another commenter
recommended that the terminology, Federal, State, and local and private
funds be used rather than Federal, State, local, and donated. This
commenter went on to suggest that when referring to cash versus non
cash, that the term cash alone be used. The term donated can apply to
cash or in-kind but should be used in referring to contributions from
third parties which are not the Family Preservation and Family Support
grantee. The commenter suggested that the definition for cash and in-
kind should be that found in 45 CFR 92.3 for cash contributions and
third-party in-kind contributions.
Response: We are not providing a definition, per se, of ``donated
funds'' in this rule but in response to this comment we clarify that
the non-Federal match may be donated funds and may be in kind
contributions. In addition to the cite to 45 CFR 92.3 provided by the
commenter we would also refer readers to 45 CFR 92.24 as an additional
reference on matching and cost sharing.
Comment: Two commenters stated that they had been given guidance
that existing State general revenue expenditures for family
preservation and family support could be used to meet the match
requirement for service expansion but were concerned that the rule was
not clear on whether this is, in fact, permissible.
Response: Existing State general revenue expenditures can only be
used as match if they are newly devoted to family preservation and
family support purposes.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that non-Federal funds to
meet the non-supplantation requirement be defined as State only, not
local, public funds because of State difficulty in determining and
collecting fiscal information from all local public agencies providing
family preservation and family support services.
Response: We agree and have revised the language in paragraph (f)
by deleting the reference to local public funds and have defined ``non-
Federal funds'' as State funds.
Comment: One commenter suggested that at the State level, an agency
other than the IV-B agency should be treated the same as local public
entities with respect to maintenance of effort requirements to assure
separate records are kept that non-supplantation has not occurred.
Response: While we are not addressing the issue explicitly in this
rule, States have the authority to require assurances of their
subrecipients.
Comment: One commenter voiced concern that the non-supplantation
requirements are vague and largely unenforceable, since identification
of FY 1992 costs in many cases will be infeasible as such costs were
buried in titles IV-B, subpart 1; XX; IV-A EA; IV-A (administration)
and State general revenue costs centers. The commenter recommended that
State non-supplantation should be limited to an ``assurance'' and that
definitive instructions should be developed as to what should be
reported for the annual reporting requirement.
Response: While non-supplantation is an assurance, back-up
documentation must still be maintained at the State level for auditing
purposes.
Comment: Several comments were received regarding the 10 percent
limitation on administrative costs.
One commenter suggested the limit be applied only to the title IV-
B/IV-E agency and not the direct service provider, otherwise the policy
may have the unintended consequence of prohibiting small, community-
based agencies from participating in the initiative.
Another commenter asked that the limitation on administrative costs
be increased to 15 percent.
Several commenters were concerned that the definition of
administrative costs is unworkable since it goes beyond existing cost
allocation procedures. Concern was voiced that to separate costs as
suggested would be very time consuming, and inclusion of the general
category of management in (ii) will mean that large portions of the
cost of carrying out any such program will be ineligible for Federal
funds. It was suggested that management be deleted from the list and a
general definition of administrative expenditures based on existing
cost allocation procedures be used.
Another commenter recommended that administrative costs be defined
as indirect and other non-program support, as allocable in accordance
with the agency approved cost allocation plan.
Response: The 10 percent administrative cost limitation is found in
the statute at Sec. 432(a)(4) and cannot be modified. In response to
comments the 10 percent administrative cost limitation in paragraph (h)
will be applied only to the Federal share of funds.
We believe the definition of administrative costs is consistent
with existing regulations and procedures, including those governing
agency approved cost allocation plans, and provides States increased
flexibility.
We would also like to clarify that ``administrative cost'' and
``program cost'' are program relative terms which describe how costs
relate to specific program activities. The definition of an
administrative or programmatic cost will vary according to the nature
of an individual program. ``Indirect costs'' and ``direct costs'' are
general accounting terms which describe how costs are allocated to a
program or activity budget. Program costs are costs of major functions
such as delivery of services incurred in connection with developing and
implementing the CFSP.
Comment: One commenter suggested that States be required to provide
an explanation of how they will transfer administrative resources to
communities.
Response: The distribution of administrative resources is
undertaken at the discretion of the individual State and we are not
making any changes to the rule to require an explanation of how these
resources are transferred to communities.
Comment: Two commenters asked that a definition of subrecipient be
included in the final rule.
Response: A definition of subrecipient has not been added to this
rule. ``Subrecipient,'' as used in this final rule, refers to a legal
entity to which
[[Page 58652]]
funds have been awarded by a State or Tribal grantee. The term is
intended to reflect the various kinds of funding relationships (e.g.,
grants, contracts, interagency agreements, etc.,) which may exist
between States/Indian Tribes and the agencies and organizations they
fund.
Section 1357.40 Direct Payments to Indian Tribal Organizations (Title
IV-B, Subpart 1, Child Welfare Services)
Previously, Indian Tribes could submit their title IV-B (subpart 1,
child welfare services) plan at one, two, or three year intervals with
annual updates. We believe a five-year plan will not only reduce
administrative burden but will enable the Indian Tribe to deliver
services in the context of a plan that includes both short-term
objectives and long-term goals, supported by consultation and
coordination activities, leading to more coordinated and effective
services.
As previously stated in section 1357.15(q), section 427 of the Act
was repealed by Pub. L. 103-432, effective October 1, 1996. The
protections formerly embodied in section 427 are now incorporated in
section 422(b)(9) as title IV-B Plan requirements. Department policy
has been and continues to be that the State, as required by statute, is
responsible for providing these protections to all children, including
Indian children.
Tribes that wish to receive direct funding under title IV-B, in
accordance with section 428 of the Act, are not required under current
law or regulations to provide the protections that were specified
previously in section 427 to receive direct funding. The provision of
those protections is the legal responsibility of the State. However, a
Tribe, by arrangement with the State, may choose to provide those
protections itself. As set forth in the final regulation, a Tribe that
wishes to receive direct funding under title IV-B, subpart 1, must
include in its Plan a discussion of the arrangements that have been
made with the State for the protection of children in accordance with
section 422(b)(9). It is expected that the States will take the
initiative to contact all Tribes, if they have not done so already, for
the purpose of ensuring that the 422(b)(9) protections are provided to
Indian children.
The NPRM, which was drafted prior to enactment of the Social
Security Amendments of 1994, referred to the section 422 provisions in
their entirety as a basis for direct funding of Tribes; now that the
former section 427 protections have been incorporated in section
422(b)(9), this is no longer accurate. Accordingly, the final rule has
been corrected to make clear that, as is the case under the current
regulation, Tribes are not required to provide the protections in
section 422(b)(9) as a condition of receiving direct funding.
Comment: One commenter asked that the funding of Tribal consortia,
which may serve more than one Tribe, be considered for funding.
Response: The NPRM sanctioned the eligibility of consortia. In
order to make this point clearer, the language in Sec. 1357.40 (a) and
(b) has been modified.
Comment: Several respondents addressed either the content or
duration of the plans to be submitted by Indian Tribal Organizations.
One respondent wanted to make sure the Indian Tribe would say in
its plan how its title IV-B, subpart 1, money would be used.
Another commenter stated that a five-year plan was preferable to a
plan of one, two or three years.
Response: The CFSP and the CFS-101 submitted by Indian Tribes will
detail how title IV-B funds will be spent. There is a statutory basis
for requiring five-year plans.
Comment: One commenter requested substituting the phrase
``federally recognized Indian Tribe'' for ``Indian Tribal
Organization'' to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation.
Response: There will be no change in language because the
respondent's request fails to consider a major distinction between
``Federally recognized Indian Tribe'' and ``Indian Tribal
Organization'' (ITO) in relation to title IV-B, subpart 1. Prevailing
statute and regulations grant Federally recognized Indian Tribes the
authority to delegate authority to an ITO for purposes of securing
title IV-B, subpart 1 funds. Therefore, it is conceivable that an
Indian Tribe could have been given authority by a Federally recognized
Indian Tribe to obtain title IV-B, subpart 1 funds. Use of the term
``Federally recognized Indian Tribe'' is too restrictive because it
eliminates potential recipients of the title IV-B, subpart 1 funds.
Section 1357.50 Direct Payments to Indian Tribal Organizations (Title
IV-B, Subpart 2, Family Preservation and Family Support Services)
We have made several changes in this section in response to
comments, even though most comments were supportive. Changes have been
made in the portions of this section dealing with (d) eligibility, (f)
exemptions, and (g) matching.
In terms of eligibility, as described in Part II of this preamble,
additional Indian Tribes eligible for title IV-B, subpart 2 funding in
FY 1996 and thereafter have been given in (d)(3), (4), and (5) a
timeframe within which a five-year CFSP must be submitted that meets
all of the criteria in Sec. 1357.15. Also in Sec. 1357.50(d)(5)(iii)
Indian Tribes have been given the option of conducting planning
activities or providing services during the first year in which the
Indian Tribe receives title IV-B, subpart 2 funds.
In order to identify ``the most current and reliable information
available,'' required by statute in the selection of eligible Indian
Tribes, we looked at the various sources of data available on the
number of children in each Tribe, including children in the Alaska
Regional Corporations, to determine the data set most reliable and
valid. We concluded that the Census Bureau data--rather than Tribal
documentation or BIA labor force statistics--is the best source. Census
data is more uniform, objective, and based on sample design and the use
of scientific methodology. In addition, the Census Bureau data defines
``child'' as a person from birth to age 20 while the BIA data defines a
child as a person from birth to age 16. The Census Bureau also has data
on child population in all Alaska Regional Corporations while the BIA
has data on only two Regional Corporations.
Comment: One commenter supported the exemption of certain statutory
requirements for Indian Tribes.
Response: The statute grants the Secretary exemption authority for
Indian Tribes from any inappropriate requirements. We have provided
three exemptions of statutory requirements in Sec. 1357.50(f). They
are: (1) 10% limitation on administrative costs; (2) the non-
supplantation requirement; and (3) the requirement that a significant
portion of funds must be used for family preservation and family
support. Indian Tribes can make formal requests to ACF for exemptions
of any other requirements.
Comment: Two respondents dealt with the match issue.
One commenter supported in-kind match for eligible Indian Tribes.
One respondent believed there should be no matching requirement for
Indian Tribes.
Response: In Sec. 1357.50(g) it is made clear that non-public third
party in-kind contributions can be used toward the non-Federal share.
The rules governing match have been designed in such a way that all
eligible Indian Tribes should have no problem meeting the match
requirements.
Comment: One commenter raised concern that the requirement to
expend
[[Page 58653]]
all funds by September 30 of the following fiscal year is not needed
and is inconsistent with the Indian Self-Determination Act.
Response: The Indian Self-Determination Act applies only to
programs funded under that Act. We must adhere to the Social Security
Act, section 434, in this case, which requires that all funds be
expended by the close of the fiscal year following that in which funds
were awarded.
Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be drafted to
ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set
forth in the Executive Order. The Department has determined that this
rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. This final
rulemaking implements statutory authority for a broad consultation and
coordination process leading to the development of five-year child and
family services plan.
The Executive Order also encourages agencies, as appropriate, to
provide the public with meaningful participation in the regulatory
process. As described earlier in the preamble, ACF held focus group
discussions with State, local, and Tribal officials, and a broad range
of private nonprofit agencies, organizations, practitioners,
researchers, parents, and others to obtain their views on planning and
implementation issues for this new title IV-B program.
The input received during the consultation process on the new
Family Preservation and Family Support Program was reflected in the
NPRM. The vast majority of comments were extremely supportive of the
NPRM--the flexibility provided to State and local agencies, the
emphasis on collaboration and coordination in order to bring about
improved outcomes for children and families, and the focus group
process employed in the NPRM's development. Commenters particularly
supported the rule's joint planning and consultation process and the
emphasis on a vision and principles of child and family services
leading to more responsive, proactive systems of care. We believe that
this rule reflects, to a considerable degree, the recommendations of
the focus group participants and the comments received in response to
the NPRM.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Ch. 6) requires the
Federal government to anticipate and reduce the impact of rules and
paperwork requirements on small businesses and other small entities.
Small entities are defined in the Act to include small businesses,
small non-profit organizations, and small governmental entities. This
rule will affect only States and certain Indian Tribes. Therefore, the
Secretary certifies that this rule will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains information collection activities which are
subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control
number. We will be seeking comment from the public on these information
collection activities in a separate Federal Register notice in the near
future.
List of Subjects
45 CFR Part 1355
Adoption and foster care; Child abuse and neglect; Child and family
services; Child welfare services; Data collection; Definitions--Grant
Programs social programs; Family preservation and family support
services.
45 CFR Part 1356
Adoption and foster care; Administrative costs; Child and family
services; Child welfare services; Fiscal requirements (title IV-E);
Grant Programs--Social programs; Independent living program; statewide
information systems.
45 CFR Part 1357
Adoption and foster care; Child abuse and neglect; Child and family
services; Child welfare services; Family preservation and family
support services; Independent living program.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.556--Family
Preservation and Support Services; No 93.645--Child Welfare
Services--State Grants; No. 93.669--Child Abuse and Neglect--State
Grants; and No. 93-674--Independent Living)
Dated: March 22, 1996.
Mary Jo Bane,
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
Approved: July 30, 1996.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 45 CFR Chapter XIII is
amended as follows:
1. Subchapter G is amended by revising the heading to read as
follows:
SUBCHAPTER G--THE ADMINISTRATION ON CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES,
FOSTER CARE MAINTENANCE PAYMENTS, ADOPTION ASSISTANCE, AND CHILD AND
FAMILY SERVICES
PART 1355--GENERAL
2. The authority citation for part 1355 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq. and 42
U.S.C. 1301 and 1302.
3. Section 1355.10 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1355.10 Scope.
Unless otherwise specified, part 1355 applies to States and Indian
Tribes and contains general requirements for Federal financial
participation under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act.
4. Section 1355.20(a) is amended by revising four definitions and
by adding one definition to read as follows:
Sec. 1355.20 Definitions.
(a) * * *
ACYF means the Administration on Children, Youth and Families,
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U. S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
* * * * *
Commissioner means the Commissioner on Children, Youth and
Families, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
* * * * *
Independent Living Program (ILP) means the programs and activities
established and implemented by the State to assist youth, as defined in
section 477(a)(2) of the Act, to prepare to live independently upon
leaving foster care. Programs and activities that may be provided are
found in section 477(d) of the Act.
State means, for title IV-B, the 50 States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands,
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.
For title IV-E, the term ``State'' means the 50 States and the District
of Columbia.
State agency means the State agency administering or supervising
the administration of the title IV-B and title IV-E State plans and the
title XX social services block grant program. An exception to this
requirement is permitted by section 103(d) of the Adoption Assistance
and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-272). Section 103(d) provides
that, if on December 1, 1974, the title IV-B program (in a State or
local agency) and the social services
[[Page 58654]]
program under section 402(a)(3) of the Act (the predecessor program to
title XX) were administered by separate agencies, that separate
administration of the programs could continue at State option.
* * * * *
5. Section 1355.21(c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1355.21 State plan requirements for titles IV-B and IV-E.
* * * * *
(c) The State agency and the Indian Tribe must make available for
public review and inspection the Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP)
and the Annual Progress and Services Reports. (See 45 CFR 1357.15 and
1357.16.) The State agency also must make available for public review
and inspection the title IV-E State Plan.
6. A new section 1355.25 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1355.25 Principles of child and family services.
The following principles, most often identified by practitioners
and others as helping to assure effective services for children, youth,
and families, should guide the States and Indian Tribes in developing,
operating, and improving the continuum of child and family services.
(a) The safety and well-being of children and of all family members
is paramount. When safety can be assured, strengthening and preserving
families is seen as the best way to promote the healthy development of
children. One important way to keep children safe is to stop violence
in the family including violence against their mothers.
(b) Services are focused on the family as a whole; service
providers work with families as partners in identifying and meeting
individual and family needs; family strengths are identified, enhanced,
respected, and mobilized to help families solve the problems which
compromise their functioning and well-being.
(c) Services promote the healthy development of children and youth,
promote permanency for all children and help prepare youth emancipating
from the foster care system for self-sufficiency and independent
living.
(d) Services may focus on prevention, protection, or other short or
long-term interventions to meet the needs of the family and the best
interests and need of the individual(s) who may be placed in out-of-
home care.
(e) Services are timely, flexible, coordinated, and accessible to
families and individuals, principally delivered in the home or the
community, and are delivered in a manner that is respectful of and
builds on the strengths of the community and cultural groups.
(f) Services are organized as a continuum, designed to achieve
measurable outcomes, and are linked to a wide variety of supports and
services which can be crucial to meeting families' and children's
needs, for example, housing, substance abuse treatment, mental health,
health, education, job training, child care, and informal support
networks.
(g) Most child and family services are community-based, involve
community organizations, parents and residents in their design and
delivery, and are accountable to the community and the client's needs.
(h) Services are intensive enough and of sufficient duration to
keep children safe and meet family needs. The actual level of intensity
and length of time needed to ensure safety and assist the family may
vary greatly between preventive (family support) and crisis
intervention services (family preservation), based on the changing
needs of children and families at various times in their lives. A
family or an individual does not need to be in crisis in order to
receive services.
7. Section 1355.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1355.30 Other applicable regulations.
Except as specified, the following regulations are applicable to
all programs funded under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Act.
(a) 45 CFR Part 16--Procedures of the Departmental Grant Appeals
Board.
(b) 45 CFR Part 30--Claims Collection.
(c) 45 CFR Part 74--Administration of Grants (Applicable only to
title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance, except that: (1)
Section 74.23 Cost Sharing or Matching, and (2) section 74.52 Financial
Reporting Requirements, will not apply.)
(d) 45 CFR Part 76--Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension
(Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free
Workplace (Grants).
(e) 45 CFR Part 80--Nondiscrimination Under Programs Receiving
Federal Assistance Through the Department of Health and Human Services
Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(f) 45 CFR Part 81--Practice and Procedure for Hearings Under Part
80 of This Title.
(g) 45 CFR Part 84--Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap in
Programs and Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.
(h) 45 CFR Part 91--Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Age in HHS
Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.
(i) 45 CFR Part 92--Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants
and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments (Applicable
only to the title IV-B programs and the Independent Living Program
under Section 477 of the Act).
(j) 45 CFR Part 93--New Restrictions on Lobbying.
(k) 45 CFR Part 95--General Administration--Grant Programs (Public
Assistance and Medical Assistance). (Applicable to title IV-B and title
IV-E except that, notwithstanding 45 CFR 95.1(a), Subpart A, Time
Limits for States to File Claims, does not apply to title IV-B
(subparts 1 and 2) and the Independent Living Program.)
(l) 45 CFR Part 97--Consolidation of Grants to the Insular Areas.
(Applicable only to the title IV-B programs).
(m) 45 CFR Part 100--Intergovernmental Review of Department of
Health and Human Services Programs and Activities. (Only one section is
applicable: 45 CFR 100.12, How may a State simplify, consolidate, or
substitute federally required State plans?).
(n) 45 CFR Part 201--Grants to States for Public Assistance
Programs. Only the following sections are applicable:
(1) Sec. 201.5--Grants. (Applicable to title IV-E foster care and
adoption assistance only.)
(2) Sec. 201.6--Withholding of payment; reduction of Federal
financial participation in the costs of social services and training.
(3) Sec. 201.7--Judicial review.
(4) Sec. 201.15--Deferral of claims for Federal financial
participation. (Applicable only to title IV-E foster care and adoption
assistance.)
(5) Sec. 201.66--Repayment of Federal funds by installments.
(Applicable only to title IV-E foster care and adoption assistance.)
(o) 45 CFR Part 204.1--Submittal of State Plans for Governor's
Review.
(p) 45 CFR Part 205--General Administration--Public Assistance
Programs. Only the following sections are applicable:
(1) Sec. 205.5--Plan amendments.
(2) Sec. 205.10--Hearings.
(3) Sec. 205.50--Safeguarding information for the financial
assistance programs.
(4) Sec. 205.100--Single State agency.
[[Page 58655]]
PART 1356--REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TITLE IV-E
8. The authority citation for Part 1356 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq., and 42
U.S.C. 1302.
9. Section 1356.10 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1356.10 Scope.
This part applies to State programs for foster care maintenance
payments, adoption assistance payments, related foster care and
adoption administrative and training expenditures, and the independent
living services program under title IV-E of the Act.
10. Section 1356.80 is added to part 1356 to read as follows:
Sec. 1356.80 Independent Living Program (ILP).
(a) Scope. To receive payments under section 477 of the Act, the
State agency must meet the applicable requirements of sections 472,
474, 475, and 477 of the Act.
(b) Application requirements. Based on section 477 of the Act, each
State must submit an annual application for funds under the Independent
Living Program (ILP).
(c) Allotments. Payments to each State will be made in accordance
with section 477(e)(1) of the Act.
(d) Matching funds. (1) States are entitled to their share of the
basic amount of $45 million of the ILP appropriation with no
requirement for matching funds.
(2) States are required to match dollar-for-dollar any of the funds
they receive, through additional or reallocated funds, over their share
of the $45 million basic amount.
(3) The State's contribution may be in cash, donated funds, or
third-party in-kind contributions.
(4) Matching contributions must be for costs otherwise allowable
under section 477 of the Act (e.g., matching contributions for the
provision of room and board are not allowable.)
(e) Reallocation of funds. Basic funds and additional funds not
requested by a State will be available for reallocation to other States
under the provisions of section 477(e)(2) of the Act.
(f) Expenditure of funds. Section 477(f)(3) of the Act requires
that funds must be expended by September 30 of the fiscal year
following the fiscal year in which the funds were awarded.
(g) Maintenance of effort. Amounts payable under section 477 of the
Act shall supplement and not replace:
(1) Title IV-E foster care funds available for maintenance payments
and administrative and training costs; and
(2) Any other State funds available for independent living
activities and services.
(h) Prohibition. ILP funds may not be used for room and board
(section 477(e)(3) of the Act).
PART 1357--REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TITLE IV-B
11. The authority citation for part 1357 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq., 42 U.S.C. 670 et seq., and 42
U.S.C. 1302.
12. Section 1357.10 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1357.10 Scope and definitions.
(a) Scope. This part applies to State and Indian Tribal programs
for child welfare services under subpart 1, and family preservation and
family support services under subpart 2 of title IV-B of the Act.
(b) Eligibility. Child and family services under title IV-B,
subparts 1 and 2, must be available on the basis of need for services
and must not be denied on the basis of income or length of residence in
the State or within the Indian Tribe's jurisdiction.
(c) Definitions.
Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) means the document, developed
through joint planning, which describes the publicly-funded State child
and family services continuum (family support and family preservation
services; child welfare services, including child abuse and neglect
prevention, intervention, and treatment services; services to support
reunification, adoption, kinship care, foster care, independent living,
or other permanent living arrangements). For Indian Tribes, the
document describes the child welfare and/or family preservation and
support services to be provided by the Indian Tribe; includes goals and
objectives both for improved outcomes for the safety, permanency and
well-being of children and families and for service delivery system
reform; specifies the services and other implementation activities that
will be undertaken to carry out the goals and objectives; and includes
plans for program improvement and allocation of resources.
Child welfare services means public social services directed to
accomplish the following purposes:
(1) Protecting and promoting the welfare and safety of all
children, including individuals with disabilities; homeless, dependent,
or neglected children;
(2) Preventing or remedying, or assisting in the solution of
problems which may result in the neglect, abuse, exploitation, or
delinquency of children;
(3) Preventing the unnecessary separation of children from their
families by identifying family problems and assisting families in
resolving their problems and preventing the breakup of the family where
the prevention of child removal is desirable and possible;
(4) Restoring to their families children who have been removed and
may be safely returned, by the provision of services to the child and
the family;
(5) Assuring adequate care of children away from their homes, in
cases where the child cannot be returned home or cannot be placed for
adoption; and
(6) Placing children in suitable adoptive homes, in cases where
restoration to the biological family is not possible or appropriate.
Children refers to individuals from birth to the age of 21 (or such
age of majority as provided under State law) including infants,
children, youth, adolescents, and young adults.
Community-based services refers to programs delivered in accessible
settings in the community and responsive to the needs of the community
and the individuals and families residing therein. These services may
be provided under public or private nonprofit auspices.
Families includes, but is not limited to, biological, adoptive,
foster, and extended families.
Family preservation services refers to services for children and
families designed to protect children from harm and help families
(including foster, adoptive, and extended families) at risk or in
crisis, including--
(1) Preplacement preventive services programs, such as intensive
family preservation programs, designed to help children at risk of
foster care placement remain with their families, where possible;
(2) Service programs designed to help children, where appropriate,
return to families from which they have been removed; or be placed for
adoption, with a legal guardian, or, if adoption or legal guardianship
is determined not to be appropriate for a child, in some other planned,
permanent living arrangement;
(3) Service programs designed to provide follow-up care to families
to whom a child has been returned after a foster care placement;
(4) Respite care of children to provide temporary relief for
parents and other caregivers (including foster parents);
(5) Services designed to improve parenting skills (by reinforcing
parents' confidence in their strengths, and helping them to identify
where improvement is needed and to obtain
[[Page 58656]]
assistance in improving those skills) with respect to matters such as
child development, family budgeting, coping with stress, health, and
nutrition; and
(6) Case management services designed to stabilize families in
crisis such as transportation, assistance with housing and utility
payments, and access to adequate health care.
Family support services means community-based services to promote
the well-being of children and families designed to increase the
strength and stability of families (including adoptive, foster, and
extended families), to increase parents' confidence and competence in
their parenting abilities, to afford children a stable and supportive
family environment, and otherwise to enhance child development. Family
support services may include:
(1) Services, including in-home visits, parent support groups, and
other programs designed to improve parenting skills (by reinforcing
parents' confidence in their strengths, and helping them to identify
where improvement is needed and to obtain assistance in improving those
skills) with respect to matters such as child development, family
budgeting, coping with stress, health, and nutrition;
(2) Respite care of children to provide temporary relief for
parents and other caregivers;
(3) Structured activities involving parents and children to
strengthen the parent-child relationship;
(4) Drop-in centers to afford families opportunities for informal
interaction with other families and with program staff;
(5) Transportation, information and referral services to afford
families access to other community services, including child care,
health care, nutrition programs, adult education literacy programs,
legal services, and counseling and mentoring services; and
(6) Early developmental screening of children to assess the needs
of such children, and assistance to families in securing specific
services to meet these needs.
Joint planning means an ongoing partnership process between ACF and
the State and between ACF and an Indian Tribe in the development,
review, analysis, and refinement and/or revision of the State's and the
Indian Tribe's child and family services plan. Joint planning involves
discussions, consultation, and negotiation between ACF and the State or
Indian Tribe in all areas of CFSP creation such as, but not limited to,
identifying the service needs of children, youth, and families;
selecting the unmet service needs that will be addressed; developing
goals and objectives that will result in improving outcomes for
children and families; developing a plan to meet the matching
requirements; and establishing a more comprehensive, coordinated and
effective child and family services delivery system. The expectation of
joint planning is that both ACF and the State or Indian Tribe will
reach agreement on substantive and procedural matters related to the
CFSP.
13. Section 1357.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1357.15 Comprehensive child and family services plan
requirements.
(a) Scope. (1) The CFSP provides an opportunity to lay the
groundwork for a system of coordinated, integrated, culturally relevant
family focused services. This section describes the requirements for
the development, implementation and phase-in of the five-year
comprehensive child and family services plan (CFSP). The State's CFSP
must meet the requirements of both of the following programs. The
Indian Tribe's CFSP must meet the requirements of one or both of the
following programs depending on the Tribe's eligibility:
(i) Child welfare services under title IV-B, subpart 1; and
(ii) Family preservation and family support services under title
IV-B, subpart 2.
(2) For States only, the CFSP also must contain information on the
following programs:
(i) The independent living program under title IV-E, section 477 of
the Act; and
(ii) The Child Abuse and Neglect State grant program (known as the
Basic State Grant) under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA) (42 U.S.C. 5101 et. seq.).
(3) States must meet all requirements of this section except those
that apply only to Indian Tribes. Indian Tribes must meet the
requirements of this section only as specified.
(4) States and eligible Indian Tribes have the option to phase-in
the requirements for a consolidated CFSP. The consolidated CFSP
requirements must be in place by June 30, 1997 and meet the
requirements of 45 CFR 1357.16.
(b) Eligibility for funds. (1) In order to receive funding under
title IV-B, subparts 1 and 2, each State and eligible Indian Tribe must
submit and have approved a consolidated, five-year Child and Family
Services Plan (CFSP) and a CFS-101, Budget Request and Estimated
Expenditure Report that meets the requirements under 45 CFR 1357.16.
(2) States and Indian Tribes that are consolidating the
requirements for a CFSP in FY 1995, in accordance with Sec. 1357.15(a),
must submit the CFSP and a CFS-101 for FY 1995 and 1996 by June 30,
1995.
(3) States and eligible Indian Tribes choosing to phase-in the
requirements for a consolidated CFSP in FY 1996 and 1997 must submit
the CFSP, the CFS-101 for FY 1995 for subpart 1 and 2, and the CFS-101
for subpart 2 for FY 1996 by June 30, 1995.
(4) The CFSP will be approved only if the plan was developed
jointly by ACF and the State (or the Indian Tribe), and only after
broad consultation by the State (and the Indian Tribe) with a wide
range of appropriate public and non-profit private agencies and
community-based organizations with experience in administering programs
of services for children and families (including family preservation
and support services).
(5) By June 30, 1996, each grantee must submit and have approved
the first Annual Progress and Services Report and a CFS 101 for FY 1997
that meets the statutory and regulatory requirements of title IV-B,
subparts 1 and 2.
(6) The Annual Progress and Services Report will be approved if it
was developed jointly by ACF and the State (or the Indian Tribe) and if
it meets the requirements of 45 CFR 1357.16.
(7) The five-year CFSP for FYs 1995-1999 may be submitted in the
format of the State's or the Indian Tribe's choice and must be
submitted no later than June 30, 1995, to the appropriate ACF Regional
Office.
(c) Assurances. The following assurances will remain in effect on
an ongoing basis and will need to be re-submitted only if a significant
change in the State or the Indian Tribe's program affects an assurance:
(1) The State or Indian Tribe must assure that it will participate
in any evaluations the Secretary of HHS may require.
(2) The State or Indian Tribe must assure that it will administer
the CFSP in accordance with methods determined by the Secretary to be
proper and efficient.
(3) The State or Indian Tribe must assure that it has a plan for
the training and use of paid paraprofessional staff, with particular
emphasis on the full-time or part-time employment of low-income
persons, as community service aides; and a plan for the use of nonpaid
or partially paid volunteers in providing services and in assisting any
advisory committees established by the State or Tribe.
[[Page 58657]]
(4) The State or Indian Tribe must assure that standards and
requirements imposed with respect to child care under title XX shall
apply with respect to day care services, if provided under the CFSP,
except insofar as eligibility for such services is involved.
(d) The child and family services plan (CFSP): general. The State
and the Indian Tribe must base the development of the CFSP on a
planning process that includes:
(1) broad involvement and consultation with a wide range of
appropriate public and non-profit private agencies and community-based
organizations, parents, including parents who are involved or have
experience with the child welfare system, and others;
(2) coordination of the provision of services under the plan with
other Federal and federally assisted programs serving children and
families, including youth and adolescents; and
(3) collection of existing or available information to help
determine vulnerable or at-risk populations or target areas; assess
service needs and resources; identify gaps in services; select
priorities for targeting funding and services; formulate goals and
objectives; and develop opportunities for bringing about more effective
and accessible services for children and families.
(e) State agency administering the programs. (1) The State's CFSP
must identify the name of the State agency that will administer the
title IV-B programs under the plan. Except as provided by statute, the
same agency is required to administer or supervise the administration
of all programs under titles IV-B and IV-E of the Act and the social
services block grant program under title XX of the Act. (See the
definition of ``State agency'' in 45 CFR 1355.20.)
(2) The CFSP must include a description of the organization and
function of the State agency and organizational charts as appropriate.
It also must identify the organizational unit(s) within the State
agency responsible for the operation and administration of the CFSP,
and include a description of the unit's organization and function and a
copy of the organizational chart(s).
(f) Indian Tribal organization administering the program(s). (1)
The Indian Tribe's CFSP must provide the name of the Indian Tribal
organization (ITO) designated to administer funds under title IV-B,
subpart 1, child welfare services and/or under subpart 2, family
preservation and family support services. If the Indian Tribe receives
funds under both subparts, the same agency or organization must
administer both programs.
(2) The Indian Tribe's CFSP must include a description of the
organization and function of the office responsible for the operation
and administration of the CFSP, an organizational chart of that office,
and a description of how that office relates to Tribal and other
offices operating or administering services programs within the Indian
Tribe's service area (e.g., Indian Health Service.)
(g) Vision Statement. The CFSP must include a vision statement
which articulates the grantee's philosophy in providing child and
family services and developing or improving a coordinated service
delivery system. The vision should reflect the service principles at
section 1355.25.
(h) Goals. The CFSP must specify the goals, based on the vision
statement, that will be accomplished during and by the end of the five-
year period of the plan. The goals must be expressed in terms of
improved outcomes for and the safety, permanency and well-being of
children and families, and in terms of a more comprehensive,
coordinated, and effective child and family service delivery system.
(i) Objectives. (1) The CFSP must include the realistic, specific,
quantifiable and measurable objectives that will be undertaken to
achieve each goal. Each objective should focus on outcomes for
children, youth, and/or their families or on elements of service
delivery (such as quality) that are linked to outcomes in important
ways. Each objective should include both interim benchmarks and a long-
term timetable, as appropriate, for achieving the objective.
(2) For States and Indian Tribes administering the title IV-B,
subpart 1 program, the CFSP must include objectives to make progress in
covering additional political subdivisions, reaching additional
children in need of services, expanding and strengthening the range of
existing services, and developing new types of services.
(j) Measures of progress. The CFSP must describe the methods to be
used in measuring the results, accomplishments, and annual progress
toward meeting the goals and objectives, especially the outcomes for
children, youth, and families. Processes and procedures assuring the
production of valid and reliable data and information must be
specified. The data and information must be capable of determining
whether or not the interim benchmarks and multiyear timetable for
accomplishing CFSP goals and objectives are being met.
(k) Baseline information. (1) For FY 1995, the State and the Indian
Tribe must base the development of the CFSP vision, goals, objectives,
and funding and service decisions on an analysis of available baseline
information and any trends over time on indicators in the following
areas: the well-being of children and families; the needs of children
and families; the nature, scope, and adequacy of existing child and
family and related social services. Additional and updated information
on service needs and organizational capacities must be obtained
throughout the five-year period to measure progress in accomplishing
the goals and objectives cited in the CFSP. A description of how this
process will continue to be carried out must be included in the CFSP,
and any revisions should be provided in the Annual Progress and
Services Report.
(2) The State must collect and analyze State-wide information on
family preservation and family support services currently available to
families and children, including the nature and scope of existing
public and privately funded family support and family preservation
services; the extent to which each service is available and being
provided in different geographic areas and to different types of
families; and important gaps in service, including mismatches between
available services and family needs as identified through baseline data
and the consultation process. Other services which impact on the
ability to preserve and support families may be included in the
assessment. The Indian Tribe must collect and analyze information on
family preservation and family support services currently available
within their service delivery area including the information in this
paragraph as appropriate. An Indian Tribe may submit documentation
prepared to satisfy the requirements of other Federal child welfare
grants, or contracts (such as the section 638 reporting form), along
with a descriptive addendum addressing specifically the family
preservation and family support services available.
(3) The CFSP must include a summary of the information used in
developing the plan; an explanation of how this information and
analysis were used in developing the goals, objectives, and funding and
service decisions, including decisions about geographic targeting and
service mix; a description of how information will be used to measure
progress over the five-year period; and how this information will
[[Page 58658]]
be used to facilitate the coordination of services.
(l) Consultation. (1) The State's CFSP must describe the internal
and external consultation process used to obtain broad and active
involvement of major actors across the entire spectrum of the child and
family service delivery system in the development of the plan. The
description should explain how this process was coordinated with or was
a part of other planning processes in the State; how it led or will
lead to improved coordination of services.
(2) The Indian Tribe's CFSP must describe the consultation process
appropriate to its needs and circumstances used to obtain the active
involvement of major actors providing child and family services within
the Tribe's area of jurisdiction.
(3) For States and Indian Tribes, the consultation process must
involve:
(i) All appropriate offices and agencies within the State agency or
within the Indian Tribal service delivery system (e.g., child
protective services (CPS), foster care and adoption, the social
services block grant, reunification services, independent living, and
other services to youth;)
(ii) In a State-supervised, county-administered State, county
social services and/or child welfare directors or representatives of
the county social services/child welfare administrators' association;
(iii) A wide array of State, local, Tribal, and community-based
agencies and organizations, both public and private nonprofit with
experience in administering programs of services for infants, children,
youth, adolescents, and families, including family preservation and
family support services;
(iv) Parents, including birth and adoptive parents, foster parents,
families with a member with a disability, children both in and outside
the child welfare system, and consumers of services from diverse
groups;
(v) For States, representatives of Indian Tribes within the State;
(vi) For States, representatives of local government (e.g.,
counties, cities, and other communities, neighborhoods, or areas where
needs for services are great;)
(vii) Representatives of professional and advocacy organizations
(including, for example foundations and national resource centers with
expertise to assist States and Indian Tribes to design, expand, and
improve the delivery of services); individual practitioners working
with children and families; the courts; representatives or other States
or Indian Tribes with experience in administering family preservation
and family support services; and academicians, especially those
assisting the child and family service agency with management
information systems, training curricula, and evaluations;
(viii) Representatives of State and local agencies administering
Federal and federally assisted programs which may include: Head Start;
the local education agency (school-linked social services, adult
education and literacy programs, Part H programs); developmental
disabilities; nutrition services (Food Stamps, Special Supplemental
Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)); Title IV-A;
runaway youth, youth gang, juvenile justice programs and youth
residential and training institutions; child care and development block
grant (CCDBG) and respite care programs; domestic and community
violence prevention and services programs; housing programs; the health
agency (substance abuse, Healthy Start, maternal and child health,
Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT), mental
health, and public health nursing); law enforcement; Children's Trust
Funds; Community-Based Family Resource Programs, and new Federal
initiatives such as the Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities
Program; and
(ix) Administrators, supervisors and front line workers (direct
service providers) of the State child and family services agency.
(4) The CFSP must describe the ongoing consultation process that
each grantee will use to ensure the continued involvement of a wide
range of major actors in meeting the goals and objectives over the
five-year operational period of the plan and developing the Annual
Progress and Services Report.
(m) Services coordination. (1) States must include in the ongoing
coordination process representatives of the full range of child and
family services provided by the State agency as well as other service
delivery systems providing social, health, education, and economic
services (including mental health, substance abuse, developmental
disabilities, and housing) to improve access and deliver a range of
services to children and their families.
(2) The State's CFSP must describe how services under the plan will
be coordinated over the five-year period with services or benefits
under other Federal or federally assisted programs serving the same
populations to achieve the goals and objectives in the plan. The
description must include the participants in the process and examples
of how the process led or will lead to additional coordination of
services (e.g., integrated service models, improved accessibility, use
of a consolidated application or intake form, inter-disciplinary
training, coordinated case management for several programs, pooled
resources through blended financing, shared information across services
providers and compatible and linked automated information systems, co-
location of several services or programs.)
(3) The Indian Tribe must include in the coordination process
representatives of other Federal or federally assisted child and family
services or related programs. The Indian Tribe's CFSP must describe how
services under the plan will be coordinated over the five-year period
with services or benefits under other Federal or federally assisted
programs serving the same populations to achieve the goals and
objectives in the plan. The descriptions must include the participants
in the process and any examples of how the process led or will lead to
additional coordination of services.
(n) Services. (1) The State's CFSP must describe the publicly
funded child and family services continuum: child welfare services
(including child abuse and neglect prevention, intervention, and
treatment services; and foster care); family preservation services;
family support services; and services to support reunification,
adoption, kinship care, independent living, or other permanent living
arrangements.
(2) The Indian Tribe's CFSP must describe the child welfare
services (including child abuse and neglect prevention, intervention,
treatment services and foster care) and/or the family support and
family preservation services to be provided.
(3) For each service described, the CFSP must include the following
information, or it must be listed on the CFS-101, Part II:
(i) The population(s) to be served;
(ii) The geographic area(s) where the services will be available;
(iii) The estimated number of individuals and/or families to be
served;
(iv) The estimated expenditures for these services from Federal,
State, local, and donated sources, including title IV-B, subparts 1 and
2, the CAPTA program referenced in paragraph (a) of this section, and
the independent living program.
(o) Family preservation and family support services and linkages to
other social and health services. (1) The State's CFSP must explain how
the funds under title IV-B, subpart 2 of the Act, will be used to
develop or expand family support and family preservation services; how
the family support and
[[Page 58659]]
family preservation services relate to existing family support and
family preservation services; and how these family support and
preservation services will be linked to other services in the child and
family services continuum.
(2) The State's CFSP must explain whether and/or how funds under
the CAPTA and independent living programs are coordinated with and
integrated into the child and family services continuum described in
the plan.
(3) The State's CFSP must describe the existing or current linkages
and the coordination of services between the services in the child and
family services continuum and the services in other public services
systems (e.g., health, education, housing, substance abuse, the
courts), and other Federal and non-federally funded public and
nonprofit private programs (e.g., Children's Trust Funds, Community-
Based Family Resource Programs, private foundations.)
(p) Services in relation to service principles. The CFSP must
describe how the child and family services to be provided are designed
to assure the safety and protection of children as well as the
preservation and support of families, and how they are or will be
designed to be consistent with the other service principles in 45 CFR
1355.25.
(q) Services in relation to permanency planning. For States
administering both title IV-B programs (subparts 1 and 2), the CFSP
must explain how these services will help meet the permanency
provisions for children and families in sections 422(b)(9) and 471 of
the Act (e.g., preplacement preventive services, reunification
services, independent living services.) The CFSP must describe the
arrangements, jointly developed with the Indian Tribes within its
borders, made for the provision of the child welfare services and
protections in section 422(b)(9) to Indian children under both State
and Tribal jurisdiction.
(r) Decision-making process: selection of family support programs
for funding. The State's CFSP must include an explanation of how
agencies and organizations were selected for funding to provide family
support services and how these agencies and organizations meet the
requirement that family support services be community-based.
(s) Significant portion of funds used for family support and family
preservation services. With each fiscal year's budget request, each
State must indicate the specific percentage of family preservation and
family support funds (title IV-B, subpart 2) that the State will expend
for community-based family support and for family preservation
services, and the rationale for the decision. The State must have an
especially strong rationale if the request for either percentage is
below 25 percent. It must also include an explanation of how this
distribution was reached and why it meets the requirements that a
``significant portion'' of the service funds must be spent for each
service. Examples of important considerations might include the nature
of the planning efforts that led to the decision, the level of existing
State effort in each area, and the resulting need for new or expanded
services.
(t) Staff training, technical assistance, and evaluation. (1) The
State's CFSP must include a staff development and training plan in
support of the goals and objectives in the CFSP which addresses both of
the title IV-B programs covered by the plan. This training plan also
must be combined with the training plan under title IV-E as required by
45 CFR 1356.60(b)(2). Training must be an on-going activity and must
include content from various disciplines and knowledge bases relevant
to child and family services policies, programs and practices. Training
content must also support the cross-system coordination consultation
basic to the development of the CFSP.
(2) The State's CFSP must describe the technical assistance
activities that will be undertaken in support of the goals and
objectives in the plan.
(3) The State's CFSP must describe any evaluation and research
activities underway or planned with which the State agency is involved
or participating and which are related to the goals and objectives in
the plan.
(u) Quality assurance. The State must include in the CFSP a
description of the quality assurance system it will use to regularly
assess the quality of services under the CFSP and assure that there
will be measures to address identified problems.
(v) Distribution of the CFSP and the annual progress and services
report. The CFSP must include a description of how the State and the
Indian Tribe will make available to interested parties the CFSP and the
Annual Progress and Services Report. (See 45 CFR 1355.21(c) and 45 CFR
1357.16(d)). State agencies and Indian Tribal organizations within the
State must exchange copies of their CFSPs and their annual services
reports.
14. A new Sec. 1357.16 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1357.16 Annual progress and services reports.
(a) Annual progress and services reports. Annually, each State and
each Indian Tribe must conduct an interim review of the progress made
in the previous year toward accomplishing the goals and objectives in
the plan, based on updated information. In developing paragraphs (a)(2)
through (a)(4) of this section, the State and the Indian Tribe must
involve the agencies, organizations, and individuals who are a part of
the on-going CFSP-related consultation and coordination process. On the
basis of this review, each State and Indian Tribe must prepare and
submit to ACF, and make available to the public, an Annual Progress and
Services Report which must include the following--
(1) A report on the specific accomplishments and progress made in
the past fiscal year toward meeting each goal and objective, including
improved outcomes for children and families, and a more comprehensive,
coordinated, effective child and family services continuum;
(2) Any revisions in the statement of goals and objectives, or to
the training plan, if necessary, to reflect changed circumstances;
(3) For Indian Tribes, a description of the child welfare and/or
family preservation and family support services to be provided in the
upcoming fiscal year highlighting any changes in services or program
design and including the information required in 45 CFR 1357.15(n);
(4) For States, a description of the child protective, child
welfare, family preservation, family support, and independent living
services to be provided in the upcoming fiscal year highlighting any
additions or changes in services or program design and including the
information required in 45 CFR 1357.15(n);
(5) Information on activities in the areas of training, technical
assistance, research, evaluation, or management information systems
that will be carried out in the upcoming fiscal year in support of the
goals and objectives in the plan;
(6) For States only, the information required to meet the
maintenance of effort (non-supplantation) requirement in section 432(a)
(7) and (8) of the Act;
(7) For States and eligible Indian Tribes phasing in requirements
for a consolidated CFSP, information on activities and progress
directed toward a consolidated plan by June 30, 1996 or 1997. The
report must include information that demonstrates States' and eligible
Indian Tribes' progress
[[Page 58660]]
toward the consolidation of a CFSP, including activities that have been
accomplished and still need to be accomplished; and
(8) Any other information the State or the Indian Tribe wishes to
include.
(b) Submittal of the annual progress and services report and CFS-
101. (1) The State and the Indian Tribe must send the Annual Progress
and Services Report and the CFS-101 to the appropriate ACF Regional
Office no later than June 30 of the year prior to the fiscal year in
which the services will be provided (e.g., the report submitted and
made public by June 30, 1996 will describe the services to be provided
in FY 1997. The report covering FY 1998 services must be submitted by
June 30, 1997.)
(2) In order for States and eligible Indian Tribes to receive title
IV-B, subparts 1 and 2 allocations a CFS-101 must be submitted for each
fiscal year.
(3) States and Indian Tribes which have consolidated the
requirements for title IV-B, subparts 1 and 2, must submit the CFS-101
to the appropriate ACF Regional Office no later than June 30 of the
year prior to the fiscal year in which the services will be provided
(e.g., for FY 1997 allocations, the CFS-101 must be submitted by June
30, 1996; for FY 1998 allocations, the CFS-101 must be submitted by
June 30, 1997.)
(4) States and eligible Indian Tribes choosing to phase-in the
requirements for a consolidated CFSP must:
(i) Submit by June 30, 1996 a CFS-101 for title IV-B, subpart 1 for
FY 1996 allocations; a CFS-101 for title IV-B, subpart 2 for FY 1997
allocations; and, if a State or eligible Indian Tribe chooses, a CFS-
101 for subpart 1 FY 1997 allocations.
(ii) Submit by June 30, 1997 a CFS-101 for title IV-B, subpart 1
for FY 1997 allocations, if not previously submitted by June 30, 1996;
and a CFS-101 for FY 1998 for subparts 1 and 2 allocations.
(c) Annual progress and services reports on FY 1994 family support
and family preservation services. Each State and Indian Tribe that used
FY 1994 funds under title IV-B, subpart 2, for services must describe
in the CFSP what services were provided, the population(s) served, and
the geographic areas where services were available. The CFSP also must
include the amount of FY 1994 funds used for planning, for family
preservation services, for family support services, and a brief
statement on how these services met the service priorities of the State
or the Indian Tribe.
(d) Availability of the annual progress and services report. The
State and the Indian Tribe must make the Annual Progress and Services
Report available to the public including the agencies, organizations,
and individuals with which the State or the Indian Tribe is
coordinating services or consulting and to other interested members of
the public. Each State and eligible Indian Tribe within the State must
exchange copies of their Annual Progress and Services Reports.
(e) FY 1999 Final Review. In FY 1999, each State and eligible
Indian Tribe must conduct a final review of progress toward
accomplishing the goals and objectives in the plan. On the basis of the
final review, it must--
(1) Prepare a final report on the progress made toward
accomplishing the goals and objectives; and
(2) Send the final report to the ACF Regional Office and make it
available to the public.
(f) FY 2000 Five-Year State Plan. Based on the FY 1999 final review
and final Annual Progress and Services Report, and in consultation with
a broad range of agencies, organizations, and individuals, the States
and eligible Indian Tribes must develop a new five-year CFSP following
the requirements of 45 CFR 1357.15.
15. Section 1357.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1357.20 Child abuse and neglect programs.
The State agency must assure that, with regard to any child abuse
and neglect programs or projects funded under title IV-B of the Act,
the requirements of section 106(b) (1) and (2) of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act, as amended, are met. These requirements
relate to the State plan and assurances required for the Child Abuse
and Neglect State Grant Program.
16. Section 1357.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1357.30 State fiscal requirements (title IV-B, subpart 1, child
welfare services).
(a) Scope. The requirements of this section shall apply to all
funds allotted or reallotted to States under title IV-B, subpart 1.
(b) Allotments. Allotments for each State shall be determined in
accordance with section 421 of the Act.
(c) Payments. Payments to States shall be made in accordance with
section 423 of the Act.
(d) Enforcement and termination. In the event of a State's failure
to comply with the terms of the grant under title IV-B, subpart 1, the
provisions of 45 CFR 92.43 and 92.44 will apply.
(e) Matching or cost-sharing. Federal financial participation is
available only if costs are incurred in implementing sections 422, 423,
and 425 of the Act in accordance with the grants administration
requirements of 45 CFR part 92 with the following conditions--
(1) The State's contribution may be in cash, donated funds, and
non-public third party in-kind contributions.
(2) The total of Federal funds used for the following purposes
under title IV-B, subpart 1 may not exceed an amount equal to the FY
1979 Federal payment under title IV-B:
(i) Child day care necessary solely because of the employment, or
training to prepare for employment, of a parent or other relative with
whom the child involved is living, plus;
(ii) Foster care maintenance payments, plus;
(iii) Adoption assistance payments.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(2) of this section, State
expenditures required to match the title IV-B, subpart 1 allotment may
include foster care maintenance expenditures in any amount.
(f) Prohibition against purchase or construction of facilities.
Funds awarded under title IV-B may not be used for the purchase or
construction of facilities.
(g) Maintenance of effort. (1) A State may not receive an amount of
Federal funds under title IV-B in excess of the Federal payment made in
FY 1979 under title IV-B unless the State's total expenditure of State
and local appropriated funds for child welfare services under title IV-
B of the Act is equal to or greater than the total of the State's
expenditure from State and local appropriated funds used for similar
covered services and programs under title IV-B in FY 1979.
(2) In computing a State's level of expenditures under this section
in FY 1979 and any subsequent fiscal year, the following costs shall
not be included--
(i) Expenditures and costs for child day care necessary to support
the employment of a parent or other relative;
(ii) Foster care maintenance payments; and
(iii) Adoption assistance payments.
(3) A State applying for an amount of Federal funds under title IV-
B greater than the amount of title IV-B, subpart 1 funds received by
that State in FY 1979 shall certify:
(i) The amount of their expenditure in FY 1979 for child welfare
services as described in paragraphs (g) (1) and (2) of this section,
and
(ii) The amount of State and local funds that have been
appropriated and are available for child welfare services as described
in paragraphs (g) (1) and (2)
[[Page 58661]]
of this section for the fiscal year for which application for funds is
being made. Records verifying the required certification shall be
maintained by the State and made available to the Secretary as
necessary to confirm compliance with this section.
(h) Reallotment. (1) When a State certifies to the Commissioner
that funds available to that State under its title IV-B, subpart 1
allotment will not be required, those funds shall be available for
reallotment to other States.
(2) When a State, after receiving notice from the Commissioner of
the availability of funds, does not certify by a date fixed by the
Commissioner that it will be able to expend during the period stated in
paragraph (i) of this section all of the funds available to it under
its title IV-B, subpart 1 allotment, those funds shall be available for
reallotment to other States.
(3) The Commissioner may reallot available funds to another State
when it is determined that--
(i) The requesting State's plan requires funds in excess of the
State's original allotment; and
(ii) the State will be able to expend the additional funds during
the period stated in paragraph (i) of this section.
(i) Time limit on expenditures. Funds under title IV-B, subpart 1,
must be expended by September 30 of the fiscal year following the
fiscal year in which the funds were awarded.
17. A new Sec. 1357.32 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1357.32 State fiscal requirements (title IV-B, subpart 2, family
preservation and family support services).
(a) Scope. The requirements of this section apply to all funds
allocated to States under title IV-B, subpart 2, of the Act.
(b) Allotments. The annual allotment to each State shall be made in
accordance with section 433 of the Act.
(c) Payments. Payments to each State will be made in accordance
with section 434 of the Act.
(d) Matching or cost sharing. Funds used to provide services in FY
1994 and in subsequent years will be federally reimbursed at 75 percent
of allowable expenditures. (This is the same Federal financial
participation rate as title IV-B, subpart 1.) Federal funds, however,
will not exceed the amount of the State's allotment.
(1) The State's contribution may be in cash, donated funds, and
non-public third party in-kind contributions.
(2) Except as provided by Federal statute, other Federal funds may
not be used to meet the matching requirement.
(e) Prohibition against purchase or construction of facilities.
Funds awarded under title IV-B may not be used for the purchase or
construction of facilities.
(f) Maintenance of effort. States may not use the Federal funds
under title IV-B, subpart 2, to supplant Federal or non-Federal funds
for existing family preservation and family support services. For the
purpose of implementing this requirement, ``non-Federal funds'' means
State funds. ACF will collect information annually from each State on
expenditures for family support and family preservation using the State
fiscal year 1992 as the base year.
(g) Time limits on expenditures. Funds must be expended by
September 30 of the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the
funds were awarded.
(h) Administrative costs. (1) States claiming Federal financial
participation for services provided in FY 1994 and subsequent years may
not claim more than 10 percent of expenditures under subpart 2 for
administrative costs. There is no limit on the percentage of
administrative costs which may be reported as State match.
(2) For the purposes of title IV-B, subpart 2, ``administrative
costs'' are costs of auxiliary functions as identified through as
agency's accounting system which are:
(i) Allocable (in accordance with the agency's approved cost
allocation plan) to the title IV-B, subpart 2 program cost centers;
(ii) necessary to sustain the direct effort involved in
administering the State plan for title IV-B, subpart 2, or an activity
providing service to the program: and
(iii) centralized in the grantee department or in some other
agency, and may include but are not limited to the following:
Procurement; payroll; personnel functions; management, maintenance and
operation of space and property; data processing and computer services;
accounting; budgeting; auditing.
(3) Program costs are costs, other than administrative costs,
incurred in connection with developing and implementing the CFSP (e.g.,
delivery of services, planning, consultation, coordination, training,
quality assurance measures, data collection, evaluations, supervision).
18. Section 1357.40 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1357.40 Direct payments to Indian Tribal Organizations (title IV-
B, subpart 1, child welfare services).
(a) Who may apply for direct funding? Any Indian Tribal
Organization (ITO) that meets the definitions in section 428(c) of the
Act, or any consortium or other group of eligible Tribal organizations
authorized by the membership of the Tribes to act for them is eligible
to apply for direct funding if the ITO, consortium or group has a plan
for child welfare services that is jointly developed by the ITO and the
Department.
(b) Title IV-B Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP). (1) In order
to receive funds under title IV-B, subpart 1, beginning in FY 1995, the
Indian Tribe or Tribal organization must have in effect an approved
five-year child and family services plan that meets the applicable
requirements of Sec. 1357.15 of this part.
(2) The Indian Tribe or Tribal organization must also comply with
section 422(b)(1-8) of the Act; 45 CFR part 1355 (except that the
requirements in Sec. 1355.30 for a single Tribal agency and Governor's
review of the CFSP do not apply); and other applicable requirements of
Secs. 1357.10 and 1357.16.
(c) Information related to the requirements of Section 422(b)(9) of
the Act. The following information must be submitted with the
assurances required to be eligible for title IV-B, subpart 1 funds:
(1) A description of the arrangements, jointly developed with the
State, made for the provision of the child welfare services and
protections in section 422(b)(9) to Indian children under both State
and Tribal jurisdiction;
(2) A statement of the legal responsibility, if any, for children
who are in foster care on the reservation and those awaiting adoption;
(3) A description of Tribal jurisdiction in civil and criminal
matters, existence or nonexistence of a Tribal court and the type of
court and codes, if any;
(4) An identification of the standards for foster family homes and
institutional care and day care;
(5) The Indian Tribal organization's political subdivisions, if
any;
(6) Whether the Tribal organization is controlled, sanctioned or
chartered by the governing body of Indians to be served and if so,
documentation of that fact;
(7) Any limitations on authorities granted to the Indian Tribal
organizations; and
(8) The Tribal resolution(s) authorizing an application for a
direct title IV-B, subpart 1 grant under this Part.
(d) Grants: General. (1) Grants may be made to eligible Indian
Tribal organizations in a State which has a jointly developed child and
family services plan approved and in effect.
[[Page 58662]]
(2) Federal funds made available for a direct grant to an eligible
ITO shall be paid by the Department, from the title IV-B allotment for
the State in which the ITO is located. Should a direct grant be
approved, the Department shall promptly notify the State(s) affected.
(3) If an eligible ITO includes population from more than one
State, a proportionate amount of the grant will be paid from each
State's allotment.
(4) The receipt of title IV-B funds must be in addition to and not
a substitute for funds otherwise previously expended by the ITO for
child welfare services.
(5) The following fiscal and administrative requirements apply to
Indian Tribal grants under this section:
(i) Enforcement and termination. In the event of an Indian Tribe's
failure to comply with the terms of the grant under title IV-B, subpart
1, the provisions of 45 CFR 92.43 and 92.44 will apply.
(ii) Matching or cost-sharing. Federal financial participation is
available only if costs are incurred in implementing sections 422, 423,
and 425 of the Act in accordance with the grants administration
requirements of 45 CFR part 92 with the following conditions--
(A) The ITO's contribution may be in cash, donated funds, and non-
public third party in-kind contributions.
(B) The total of Federal funds used for the following purposes
under title IV-B, subpart 1 may not exceed an amount equal to the FY
1979 Federal payment under title IV-B:
(1) Child day care necessary solely because of the employment, or
training to prepare for employment, of a parent or other relative with
whom the child involved is living, plus;
(2) Foster care maintenance payments, plus;
(3) Adoption assistance payments.
(C) Notwithstanding paragraph (d)(5)(ii)(B) of this section, Tribal
expenditures required to match the title IV-B, subpart 1 allotment may
include foster care maintenance expenditures in any amount.
(iii) Prohibition against purchase or construction of facilities.
Funds awarded under title IV-B may not be used for the purchase or
construction of facilities.
(iv) Time limit on expenditures. Funds under title IV-B, subpart 1,
must be expended by September 30 of the fiscal year following the
fiscal year in which the funds were awarded.
19. A new Sec. 1357.50 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1357.50 Direct payments to Indian Tribal organizations (title IV-
B, subpart 2, family preservation and support services).
(a) Definitions.
Alaska Native Organization means any organized group of Alaska
Natives eligible to operate a Federal program under the Indian Self-
Determination Act (Pub. L. 93-638) or such group's designee as defined
in section 482(i)(7)(A) of the Act.
Indian Tribe means any Tribe, band, nation, or other organized
group or community of Indians that is recognized as eligible for the
special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians
because of their status as Indians; and for which a reservation
(including Indian reservations, public domain Indian allotments, and
former Indian reservations in Oklahoma) exists.
Tribal organization means the recognized governing body of the
Indian Tribe.
(b) Eligibility for funds: FY 1994. (1) Section 432(b)(2) of the
Act provides that the Secretary may not approve a plan of an Indian
Tribe whose FY 1995 allotment under subpart 2 would be less than
$10,000. Therefore, only those Indian Tribes whose FY 1995 allotment is
$10,000 or more are eligible to receive funds beginning in FY 1994.
(2) ACF will pay any amount to which an Indian Tribe is entitled to
the Tribal organization of the Indian Tribe.
(c) Eligibility for funds: FY 1995. In order to receive funds under
title IV-B, subpart 2, in FY 1995, an Indian Tribe that is eligible for
planning funds in FY 1994 must submit a Child and Family Services Plan
that meets the applicable requirements in section 1357.15 of this Part.
(d) Eligibility for funds: FY 1996 through FY 1998. (1) ACF will
make grants to additional Indian Tribes in Fys 1996 through 1998 in the
event that there are increased appropriations.
(2) Allotments will be calculated in Fys 1996, 1997, and 1998 as
required in section 433 of the Act. Those Indian Tribes in each year
whose allotment is at least $10,000 will be notified of their
eligibility to apply.
(3) In order to receive funds, additional Indian Tribes which
become eligible for grants in FY 1996, 1997, and 1998 must submit
either a five year Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) that meets the
applicable requirements of 45 CFR 1357.15 or an application for
planning funds by June 30 of the year in which they first become
eligible for grants. Those Indian Tribes which submitted an application
for planning funds in their first year of funding must submit a five
year CFSP that meets the applicable requirements of 45 CFR 1357.15 by
June 30 of the second year they receive funding. For example, in order
to receive funds, an Indian Tribe which becomes eligible to receive
funding beginning in FY 1996 must submit either an application for
planning funds or a CFSP by June 30, 1996. If the Indian Tribe
submitted an application for planning funds in FY 1996, they must
submit a CFSP by June 30, 1997.
(4) All Indian Tribes will be Federally reimbursed at 75 percent of
allowable expenditures. Federal funds without match are available in
the first year of receipt of funds for additional Indian Tribes meeting
the following criteria:
(i) Submittal of an application for planning funds, and not a five
year CFSP;
(ii) Receipt of an initial award in FY 1996 or 1997 or 1998; and
(iii) A proposal to spend the entire grant in the first year on
planning.
(e) Allotments. Allotments to Indian Tribes are computed based on
section 433 of the Act and are based on a ratio of the number of
children in each Indian Tribe with an approved plan compared to the
number of children in all Indian Tribes with approved plans, based on
the most current and reliable data available.
(f) Exemptions of requirements. (1) ACF has exempted Indian Tribes
from three statutory requirements:
(i) The limitation on administrative costs to 10 percent of total
Federal and Tribal funds-- Indian Tribes may use the indirect cost rate
agreement in effect for the Tribe;
(ii) The requirement for maintenance of effort that funds under
this program may not be used to supplant other Federal and non-Federal
funds; and
(iii) The requirement that a significant portion of funds must be
used for both family support and family preservation services.
(2) Specific exemptions from other statutory requirements may be
requested by the Tribe in the course of its joint planning. Such a
request must contain a compelling reason.
(g) Matching requirement. (1) Funds used to provide services in FY
1994 and in subsequent years will be federally reimbursed at 75 percent
of allowable expenditures. (This is the same Federal financial
participation rate as title IV-B, subpart 1.) The Indian Tribe's match
must be at least 25 percent of the total project costs or one-third of
the Federal share. Federal funds, however, will not exceed the amount
of the Indian Tribe's allotment.
(2) The Indian Tribe's contribution may be in cash, donated funds,
and non-public third party in-kind contributions.
[[Page 58663]]
(3) Indian Tribes, by statute, may use the following three Federal
sources of funds as matching funds: Indian Child Welfare Act funds,
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act funds, and
Community Development Block Grant funds.
(h) Time limits on expenditures. An Indian Tribe must expend all
funds by September 30 of the fiscal year following the fiscal year in
which the funds were awarded.
[FR Doc. 96-28937 Filed 11-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
