OCSE SIP

Click here to view and download Discretionary Grant Application Kit
[Federal Register: September 6, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 54037-54044]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06se00-74]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families

[Program Announcement No. OCSE 99SIP-1]


Child Support Enforcement Demonstration and Special Projects--
Special Improvement Projects

AGENCY: Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), ACF, DHHS.

ACTION: Announcement of the availability of funds and request for
competitive applications under the Office of Child Support
Enforcement's Special Improvement Projects.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Administration of Children and Families (ACF), Office of
Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) invites eligible applicants to submit
competitive grant applications for special improvement projects which
further the national child support mission, vision, and goals which
are: all children to have parentage established; all children in IV-D
cases to have financial and medical orders; and all children in IV-D
cases to receive financial and medical support. Applications will be
screened and evaluated as indicated in this program announcement.
Awards will be contingent on the outcome of the competition and the
availability of funds.

DATES: The closing date for submission of applications is November 6,
2000. See Part IV of this announcement for more information on
submitting applications.

ADDRESSES: Application kits (Forms 424, 424A-B; Certifications; and
Administration for Children and Families Uniform Project Description
[UPD]) containing the necessary forms and instructions to apply for a
grant under this program announcement are available from:
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support
Enforcement, Division of State and Local Assistance, 370 L'Enfant
Promenade, S.W., 4th Floor, East Wing, Washington, D.C. 20447 (This is
Not the Mailing Address for Submission of Applications, See Part IV,
B.); or accessible via OCSE's Website (www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/
)under new announcements; or contact Jean Robinson, Program Analyst,
phone (202) 401-5330, FAX (202) 205-4315; e-mail,
jrobinson@acf.dhhs.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administration for Children and
Families (ACF), OCSE, Susan A. Greenblatt at (202) 401-4849, for
specific questions regarding the application or program concerns
regarding the announcement.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This program announcement consists of four
parts:
    Part I: Background--program purpose, program objectives,
legislative authority, funding availability, and CFDA Number.
    Part II: Project and Applicant Eligibility--eligible applicants,
project priorities, and project and budget periods.
    Part III: The Review Process--intergovernmental review, initial ACF
screening, competitive review and evaluation criteria, and funding
reconsideration.
    Part IV: The Application--application development, and application
submission.
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13): Public reporting
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 20
hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and reviewing the collection
of information.
    The following information collections within this Program
Announcement are approved under the following currently valid OMB
control numbers: 424 (0348-0043); 424A (0348-0044); 424B (0348-0040);
Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (0348-0046); Uniform Project
Description (0970-0139 Expiration date 10/31/00).
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.

[[Page 54038]]

Part I. Background

A. Program Purpose and Objectives

    To fund a number of special improvement projects which further the
national child support mission to ensure that all children receive
financial and medical support from both parents and which advance the
provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). PRWORA strengthens the ability of
the nation's child support program to collect support on behalf of
children and families. The law also enables the testing of child
support innovations to improve program performance. For FY 2001, we are
looking for grants in the following priority areas:
     Improve the management of Undistributed Collections (UDC)
in order to decrease or maintain low UDC balances.
     Foster collaboration between IV-D State agencies and
partner entities and other states to improve interstate case
processing.
     Improve Child Support Orders, Collections and Job Program
Referrals for Low-Income Fathers.
     Expand Outreach to the Latino/Hispanic Community.
    Specific design specifications for each of these priority areas are
set forth under Part II.
    OCSE is committed to helping States make measurable program
improvements that will enhance the lives of children. In addition,
Special Improvement Projects will also be considered which do not fall
into one of the specified priority areas but which are in furtherance
of efforts under the Government Performance and Results Act (i.e.
designing a performance based program), and furthering the goals of the
national child support enforcement program--all children to have
parentage established; all children in IV-D cases have financial and
medical orders; and all children in IV-D cases receive financial and
medical support and advance the requirements of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996
(PRWORA).
    Applicants should understand that OCSE will not award grants for
special improvement projects which (a) duplicate automated data
processing and information retrieval system requirements/enhancements
and associated tasks which are specified in PRWORA; or (b) which cover
costs for routine activities which should be normally borne by the
Federal match for the Child Support Program or by other Federal funding
sources (e.g. adding staff positions to perform routine CSE tasks).
OCSE also has the discretion not to award grants that duplicate
existing demonstrations, special projects and/or contracts that cover
similar project objectives and activities.
    Proposals should be developed with these considerations in mind.
Proposals and their accompanying budgets will be reviewed from this
perspective.

B. Legislative Authority

    Section 452(j), 42 U.S.C. 652(j) of the Social Security Act
provides Federal funds for technical assistance, information
dissemination and training of Federal and State staff, research and
demonstration programs and special projects of regional or national
significance relating to the operation of State child support
enforcement programs.
    Section 453 (42 U.S.C. 653) of the Social Security Act provides
Federal funds to cover costs incurred for the operation of the Federal
Parent Locator Service.

C. Availability of Funds

    Approximately $2 million is available for FY 2001 for all priority
areas. Refer to each priority area for estimated number of projects and
funding. All grant awards are subject to the availability of
appropriated funds. A non-Federal match is not required.

D. CFDA NUMBER: 93.601--Child Support Enforcement

    Demonstrations and Special Projects.

Part II. Applicant and Project Eligibility

A. Eligible Applicants

    Eligible applicants for these special improvement project grants
are State (including Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) Human
Services Umbrella agencies, other State agencies (including State IV-D
agencies), Tribes and Tribal Organizations, local public agencies
(including IV-D agencies), nonprofit organizations, and consortia of
State and/or local public agencies. The Federal OCSE will provide the
State CSE agency the opportunity to comment on the merit of local CSE
agency applications before final award. Given that the purpose of these
projects is to improve child support enforcement programs, it is
critical that applicants have the cooperation of IV-D agencies to
operate these projects.
    Preferences will be given to applicants representing CSE agencies
and applicant organizations which have cooperative agreements with CSE
agencies. All applications developed jointly by more than one agency
organization must identify a single lead organization as the official
applicant. The lead organization will be the recipient of the grant
award. Participating agencies and organizations can be included as co-
participants, subgrantees, or subcontractors with their written
authorization.

B. Project Priorities

    The following are the specified priority areas for special
improvement projects for FY 2001.
Priority Area 1--Improving the Management of Undistributed Collections
(UDC)
    1. Purpose: The purpose of this solicitation is to assist States to
demonstrate new and or more effective methods, control procedures and
models to decrease or maintain low UDC balances.
    2. Background and Information: Undistributed collections balances
vary greatly in amount and differ from State to State. These amounts
are often quite significant in relation to total child support
enforcement collections. Most states have attempted to address this
problem over the years, but OCSE audits in some states underscore the
difficulty of States' achieving substantial and permanent reductions.
    3. Design Elements in the Application: In order to improve the
management of UDC, OCSE is interested in projects which will provide a
better understanding of the nature of undistributed collections and
that develop effective/innovative processes to address at least one of
the following key issues/areas:
     Design a strategy to demonstrate how well a State can
improve its UDC balances by using the State Parent Locator Service
(SPLS) and Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS) to determine locations
of the custodial parent and ensure more timely disbursement of child
support collections.
     Develop effective methods to identify the nature/causes of
UDC and develop approaches to reduce or eliminate them.
     Develop cost-effective procedures to ensure that all UDC
are identified and reported accurately and according to Federal
guidelines.
    4. Project and Budget Periods: The project period for this priority
area is up to 17 months.
    5. Project Budget: It is estimated that there will be one to three
grants (ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 for a total of $300,000).

[[Page 54039]]

Priority Area 2: Fostering improved interstate case processing
    1. Purpose: The purpose of this solicitation is to assist States to
demonstrate new and/or more effective methods, procedures and models to
foster collaborative efforts between partner entities and states to
improve interstate case processing .
    2. Background and Information: The child support provisions of
welfare reform required all States to adopt the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act (UIFSA) by January 1, 1998. UIFSA provides for
uniform rules, procedures, and forms for interstate cases. OCSE has
been working with states to implement UIFSA and has also developed
standard Federal interstate CSE forms compatible with UIFSA. OCSE
organized forums across the country for individuals representing UIFSA
and the states to discuss and develop consensus methods for
implementing administrative enforcement, direct income withholding,
discovery, long-arm, and paternity establishment in interstate cases.
Although a great deal of progress has been made over the past couple of
years, states are still facing many challenges in the implementation of
UIFSA.
    3. Design Elements in the Application: In order to foster
collaboration to improve interstate case processing under UIFSA, OCSE
is interested in projects which develop effective/innovative strategies
that address one or more of the following key issues/areas:
     Limited Service Requests: OCSE is soliciting SIP grant
applications to demonstrate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of a
stand-alone module for processing interstate limited service requests.
Most statewide CSE systems are not currently designed to handle
interstate requests that do not need or require the full range of
enforcement and reporting functions. Since the cost of modifying the 54
different statewide CSE systems to accommodate limited services
requests is expected to be considerable in terms of time and money,
OCSE is interested in funding SIP proposals that demonstrate the
feasibility of a stand-alone limited services software application
module that can be duplicated and utilized by a variety of statewide
CSE systems. This stand-alone limited services software application
could reside on a separate PC, LAN server or separate partition of a
mainframe system. The scope of the limited services module may be
limited to a particular type of service (e.g., AEI) or a specific
function such as financial management or record keeping or could
address all possible limited services (e.g., service of process,
hearing requests, etc.). The ability of other State systems to use the
software module with the minimum of customization will be considered
during the evaluation of the grant. For example, proposals for modules
that could be utilized by any State would be favored over proposals
that limit applicability to a specific ``family'' of CSE systems, but
both would be favored over a proposal to modify a specific State system
in ways that could not easily be replicated elsewhere.
     Case Processing and the Courts: What types of specific
collaborative initiatives/methods between the courts and IV-D agencies
would assist in processing interstate cases more efficiently and what
procedures could help them more effectively use available UIFSA
remedies and associated forms? How are States ensuring that the
required data elements are correctly secured from courts and reported
to IV-D agencies for transmission to the Federal Case Registry? What
are the barriers between IV-D agencies and the courts that lead to
inefficiencies and ineffective interstate case processing and how can
they be overcome? What processes have states put in place to make
controlling order determinations, to reconcile arrears under multiple
orders, and to notify affected parties, including courts in each state?
How can these processes be improved?
    Too often IV-D agencies and the courts do not have procedures to
notify each other when taking actions on interstate cases, resulting in
duplicate efforts and delays. Thus, we want to identify collaborative
initiatives/methods that help build communication, avoid duplicate
efforts and delays in processing interstate cases.
    Direct Withholding and Employers: What are the benefits and
pitfalls of using direct withholding under UIFSA compared to interstate
income withholding from IV-D agency to IV-D agency in different States?
What are solutions to any problems encountered? What happens if there's
an obligor contest in a direct withholding case? Is abandoning the
direct withholding the best solution or are there ways to resolve these
issues through the IV-D agency in the employer State that preserves the
direct withholding? What impact does direct income withholding have on
other services required in a case? Does it work to do direct
withholding and initiate an interstate IV-D case for other necessary
enforcement action? In addition, what approaches are being used by IV-D
agencies to encourage and foster employer cooperation in wage
withholding for interstate cases? Currently, state IV-D agencies are
educating employers on using Federally mandated forms for income
withholding for their child support cases but more needs to be done to
encourage employers' compliance for interstate cases.
     State Clearinghouse Model: What benefits would there be in
establishing a State clearinghouse for handling requests from other
states attempting direct enforcement other than wage withholding?
States frequently encounter difficulties with the lien process and
seizures in other states when attempting one-State interstate actions.
At the same time, since the other State IV-D agency is not involved in
these situations in the traditional way, they may not be able to
provide adequate assistance. OCSE is interested in exploring
alternatives to traditional methods of offering assistance to other
states under direct enforcement for single or targeted remedies (e.g.,
lien registration, State lottery intercept, etc.). Different models for
a clearinghouse could be proposed and the responsibilities and
associated costs explored. Provision of selected services, such as
enforcement counsel consultations, accessibility to local attorneys,
intercession with local authorities, and intervention with non-
responding banks and financial institutions (rather than locate and
discovery functions), should be considered.
     Administrative Enforcement of Interstate Cases: With
respect to high volume automated enforcement in interstate cases under
PRWORA, what are promising practices for integrating these requests
from other states into the assisting State's own data matching and
attachment of assets (such as for financial institutions data matches
and levies) in instate cases? What is the best way to avoid making
these cases full blown interstate IV-D cases while being able to
provide the data match and seizure of assets in an automated way and to
keep track of information required to be reported on these cases?
     Case Processing and Use of FPLS: enforcement and
collections) to improve these business functions? What new and
effective interstate locate methods/processes are being developed
through this integration of FPLS data? How are these methods being
implemented in an automated fashion? How are caseworkers being sold on
the advantages of using ``new'' FPLS data? Are the levels of state
automation and staffing adequate to deal with these new tools?

[[Page 54040]]

     Pilot Test A Common Methodology. OCSE is developing a
Common Methodology for use by the States. The goal is for the States to
have a standardized process and set of quantitative measures for use in
measuring the child support collections that are attributable to the
use of the State Directories of New Hires (SDNH) and the National
Directory of New Hires (NDNH). We are seeking States that would be
willing to pilot the Common Methodology and provide a report that
includes the recommended modifications and an assessment of its
usefulness for the States.
     Tracking Outcomes for Data Matches: What approaches are
being used by IV-D agencies to monitor results, measure progress and
manage interstate case processing more efficiently? The wealth of data
provided from the National Director of New Hires and the Federal Case
Registry must be organized and managed in order to track results and
program benefits. What methods have been adopted by States for tracking
outcomes of data matches and how have results been utilized to
demonstrate program benefits (i.e., program methodology, benefit
calculation methodology, reports, management information process, and
performance measurements)?
     Interstate Forms: With respect to use of interstate forms
for withholding, imposition of liens and issuance of administrative
subpoenas under PRWORA, are there exemplary techniques for maximizing
successful use of these tools in interstate cases? Are there potential
problems that arise in their use and tested solutions to those
problems? How can these forms be modified to better meet needs of
States and other users? Are States able to use these forms
electronically and how? What is needed to overcome barriers to
electronic transmission through CSENet or other means?
     Family Violence and Case Processing: How can we ensure
consistency in policy and procedures in cases affected by both the
Family Violence Indicator and UIFSA sections 312 (nondisclosure of
information in exceptional circumstances) to ensure consistent and
appropriate decision-making for interstate cases? In the UIFSA process,
tribunals order information not to be released where a finding has been
made that the health, safety, or liberty of a party or child would be
unreasonably put at risk by the disclosure of identifying information.
Similarly, IV-D agencies place a Family Violence Indicator flag on an
individual's record in the State Case Registry where there is a
protective order in place or where the State has reasonable evidence of
domestic violence or child abuse and the disclosure of such information
could be harmful to the custodial parent or the child of such parent.
Projects should develop approaches to demonstrate how best to
coordinate these different decision-making processes for interstate
cases. Projects should identify the benefits/impact of the approach on
States' case processing. In addition, how can we provide courts with
sufficient information upon which to base their override decisions of
the Family Violence Indicator? Currently in the interstate context, one
State will not know the basis for a decision of another State to flag a
case with the Family Violence Indicator, and this lack of information
may prove difficult for judges faced with requests to override the
indicator.
     International Child Support Enforcement: What types of
collaborative activities between a state or states and foreign
jurisdictions would improve international child support cooperation,
encouraging other nations to adopt additional UIFSA-like procedures?
UIFSA includes provisions which extend IV-D cooperation to foreign
nations with substantially similar procedures to UIFSA. Variations in
procedures between national systems will require additional measures to
be developed and implemented. IV-D agency experience in working cases
with other nations will be a crucial factor in development,
promulgation, and training regarding innovative techniques crucial to
improving international cooperation. Projects should demonstrate
methods to improve other nations' judicial and child support agency
cooperation (e.g., procedures not requiring the physical presence of a
petitioner for rendition of a judgement determining parentage, methods
of not charging a mother for costs of paternity testing unless a
paternity allegation is proven to be groundless, utilizing electronic
communication and currency transfer mechanisms to improve security and
lower costs) between one or more states and foreign jurisdictions.
    4. Project and Budget Periods: Generally, project and budget
periods for these projects will be up to 17 months. OCSE will consider
projects up to 36 months, if unique circumstances warrant. If OCSE
approves a project for a time period longer than 17 months, OCSE will
provide funding in discrete 12-month increments, or ``budget periods.''
Funding beyond the first 12-month budget period is not guaranteed.
Rather, future funding will depend on the grantee's satisfactory
performance and the availability of future appropriations.
    5. Project Budget: It is estimated that there will be one to four
grants awarded (ranging from $100,000 to $300,000) for a total of
$500,000 for this priority area.
Priority Area 3--Improving Child Support Orders, Collections and Job
Program Referrals for Low-Income Fathers
    1. Purpose: The purpose of this solicitation is to assist States to
demonstrate new and or more effective methods of setting and adjusting
child support orders and amounts for low income non-custodial parents.
Demonstrations could include projects to establish child support orders
for low income fathers based upon actual income figures rather than
`default' orders through improved contact with non custodial parents
and improved `service of process' prior to establishment of the child
support award amounts. A state could also demonstrate using alternative
measures to ascertain income from new hire reporting or other
computerized wage information.
    2. Background and Information: A study by the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services
indicates that most states charge a non custodial parent for child
support on a retrospective basis either back to the date of filing or
the date of the birth of the child or some other policy. For low income
fathers this may create a sizable child support amount relative to the
ability to afford child support as a result there are higher rates of
non-payment for low-income fathers with long periods of retroactivity.
Default cases (where the non-custodial parent does not show up for or
provide income information in establishing the child support order)
where a minimum child support order is imposed also have higher rates
of non-payment. Many states add charges for birthing expenses, the cost
of paternity tests, court fees and other services fees--up front
charges to the retroactive child support amounts, this also raises the
arrearages and decreases the likelihood of collection. As a result low-
income cases have very high rates of arrearages, a median amount of
$3,000 per case; in many cases this further discourages the low-income
father from paying or being able to pay. However, States rarely
downwardly adjust child support amounts or compromise (suspend
collection) of high arrearages even when allowed. Also, use of
alternative computerized sources of income when establishing Child
Support Orders for

[[Page 54041]]

default cases is rare. Finally, the study finds that states do not link
low income or unemployed non-custodial parents to job programs.
    3. Design Elements in the Application: In order to improve the
collections in the child support program for low income non-custodial
parents the states should include one or more of the following design
elements in their demonstration proposal. Potential Project outcomes
should include results in terms of collections per case, collection
rate, child support compliance or collections as a percent of the Child
Support order; improvements in current payments and payments on
arrearages, and improvements in employment and earnings and so forth.
    (a) In order to improve the setting of child support orders for
low-income non-custodial parents the States should design new improved
approaches to setting child support orders based upon the actual
available income of the recipient. The State should develop approaches
to actually reach non-custodial parents when setting orders; they
should work on techniques to encourage attendance and cooperation with
child support hearings. This may entail development and use of more
effective service of process and other due process measures than now
are used. Also, if non-custodial parents do not attend the hearing or
if it looks like unreliable or questionable income is shown, the states
should use alternative computerized sources of income (e.g. social
security, new hire, tax information and other) to identify the actual
income of the non-custodial parent. If this fails, states should
develop alternative measures for setting minimum orders and for
shortening the period of retrospectively defining other items which
would be included in the amounts (e.g., birthing costs, late fees etc.)
The demonstration would test the effects on collections of using
different approaches.
    (b) For existing and longer term cases with arrearages the State
should research its laws on allowing compromising state child support
amounts (suspending the collection on amounts of child support owed to
the State). If allowed, the States will review a number of low-income
cases with high arrearages and if there are valid excuses for non-
payment, apply compromise policies for a period, if payment on current
collections appears to be in good faith. Some compromises could be to
reduce the amount of retrospectivity; some could exclude or ease the
responsibility for up-front charges (e.g., medical expenses, and
paternity and court fees). Compromises should be conditioned on keeping
up with current child support payments. The state should see whether
this improves collections in high debt cases.
    (c) For some cases, where child support ordered amounts exceed
current income of the non-custodial parent, the States should develop
new techniques to downwardly modify existing child support orders using
actual income proof and or computerized data on income, as discussed
above.
    (d) Where the non-custodial parents are unemployed or
underemployed, the state should identify and refer these persons to job
skills, job readiness or training programs. Some existing programs
include: `Welfare to Work', TANF Block Grant programs, Child Support
Work Requirement Programs, and other Federal, State or local programs.
    (e) Where the non-custodial parent is incarcerated and owes child
support way beyond his means to pay, the States should demonstrate
approaches to enhance income and to reduce child support orders and
arrearages.
    4. Project and Budget Periods: The project period for this priority
area is up to 17 months.
    5. Project Budget: It is estimated that there will be one to five
grants (ranging from $100,000 to $300,000) for a total of $500,000 for
this priority area.
Priority Area 4: Projects which further Outreach to the Latino/Hispanic
Community
    1. Purpose: To design and test new models for conducting outreach
activities for the traditionally underserved Latino/Hispanic community.
The goal of outreach activities would be to increase the number of
Latino/Hispanic children who receive child support enforcement
services; i.e., to have parentage established, support orders
established (including medical), and to receive financial and medical
support. These projects would support the Department of Health and
Human Services' ``Hispanic Agenda for Action: Improving Services to
Hispanic Americans.'' This initiative seeks to strengthen the
Department's efforts to improve service delivery to Hispanic customers.
    Demographic data from 1998 indicates that Hispanics/Latinos are
both the youngest and fastest growing segment of the population at
almost 32 million with 34 percent of children living in poverty.
Applicants may propose projects that provide outreach to underserved
communities other than the Latino/Hispanic population if they can
demonstrate that the targeted population presents an emerging major
caseload concern for the State/local child support enforcement program.
    2. Background and Information: OCSE is looking for projects that
will test new interventions and approaches to reach out to underserved
communities so that they may receive child support enforcement
services. Such projects may include a focus on: collecting information
and data on underserved communities and analyzing the current level of
service and the need for additional services; overcoming language (or
cultural) barriers to customer service; improving the knowledge of
service providers on the customer's status, including understanding the
population's unique circumstances, status, norms, and values on support
and paternity establishment; father involvement and/or child access and
visitation; or enforcement.
    This can also include planning grants that may lead to
interventions that would increase the State/local child support
program's performance in these areas. OCSE encourages collaborations
with units of local governments and other entities such as tribal
governments, community-based organizations such as community action
agencies, faith-based organizations that have registered as non-profits
or other non-profit entities.
    3. Design Elements in the Application: OCSE is interested in
exploring alternatives to traditional models and methods of delivering
child support enforcement services, and seeks applicants to demonstrate
improved ways of offering assistance to community groups with language
and cultural issues. Applicants are encouraged to apply innovative
thinking or thinking ``outside the box'' in approaching how to apply
and test new interventions, research activities, or improved ways of
doing business (within Federal law and regulations) and put them into
effect. In order to improve child support enforcement services provided
to underserved communities, OCSE is interested in projects which
further outreach to Latino/Hispanic families, and that develop
effective/innovative processes to address one or more of the following
key issues/areas:
     Data--Design a strategy, effective methods/procedures, and
reporting to demonstrate how improved collection and use of data can
help State/local agencies increase and improve child support
enforcement services to underserved communities. Demographic data could
include (e.g., minority

[[Page 54042]]

population, country of origin, new immigrants, those holding more than
on job, both genders, etc.). Also, to draw a comparison of the level of
services provided to the underserved population and the general
population, data could include information on the uniqueness of the
community group (background, values, needs, capacity, etc.), types of
child support enforcement assistance sought and provided, and overall
outcomes or effectiveness of the child support program services for
that group compared to the general population.
     Barriers--Develop effective methods to identify the
nature/causes of barriers to effective child support enforcement
service delivery for customers with language and diversity issues and
develop approaches to reduce or eliminate them (e.g. staff resources/
training, coordination with other programs, language differences,
understanding of culture and values, emphasis on roles of both parents,
citizenship status, domestic violence, etc.).
     Consumer Education/Communication Products--Design a
strategy, and effective methods, procedures, and products
(presentations, videos, pamphlets, forms, use of media, etc.) to ensure
that information on child support enforcement services targets the
understanding of all customers, utilizing language, literacy levels,
culture, and values of that community.
    4. Project and Budget Periods: The length of the project should not
exceed 17 months.
    5. Project Budget: It is estimated that there will be one to five
grants (ranging from $100,000 to $300,000) for a total of $500,000 for
this priority area.
    Other: OCSE will target funding for projects which fall under the
two priority areas described above. However, OCSE will also screen and
evaluate smaller scale projects to cover projects outside the scope of
these priority areas, consistent with the legislative authority
described under Part I.B., subject to the availability of funds.
Eligible applicants should describe how the special improvement project
will improve the effectiveness of the child support program and promote
a new focus on results, service quality, management/organizational
innovations, outreach or public satisfaction.
    Under this ``Other'' category, OCSE is particularly interested in
(a) projects which focus on effective enforcement tools, foster
cooperative relationships with law enforcement; or demonstrate other
effective methods to increase collections; or (b)demonstration projects
that test and evaluate model review and adjustment procedures that
focus on one of the following four areas: (1) Review and adjustment of
child support orders at entrance and/or exit from the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program; (2) review and adjustment
of medical support orders; (3) targeting periodic review and adjustment
by type of case; and (4) or targeting periodic review and adjustment of
cases where the noncustodial parent is incarcerated or has no income.
    Applicants should understand that OCSE will not award grants for
special improvement projects which (a) duplicate automated data
processing and information retrieval system requirements/enhancements
and associated tasks which are specified in PRWORA; or (b) which cover
costs for routine activities which should be normally borne by the
Federal match for the Child Support Program or by other Federal funding
sources (e.g. adding staff positions to perform routine CSE tasks.)
OCSE also has the discretion not to award grants that duplicate
existing demonstrations, special projects and/or contracts that cover
similar project objectives and activities.
    It is estimated that there will be up to five grants to be awarded
in the ``Other'' category up to $75,000 each and the project and budget
period will be up to 17 months; however, review and adjustment
demonstrations may be funded at an increased level for a project period
up to thirty-six months, with a budget period of 12 months; additional
funding beyond the first 12 months will depend on the availability of
future appropriations.

Part III: The Review Process

A. Intergovernmental Review

    This program is covered under Executive Order 12372,
``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,'' and 45 CFR Part 100,
``Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services
Programs and Activities.'' Under the Order, States may design their own
processes for reviewing and commenting on proposed Federal assistance
under covered programs.

    Note: State/territory participation in the intergovernmental
review process does not signify applicant eligibility for financial
assistance under a program. A potential applicant must meet the
eligibility requirements of the program for which it is applying
prior to submitting an application to its single point of contact
(SPOC), if applicable, or to ACF.

    As of August 23, 1999, the following jurisdictions have elected not
to participate in the Executive Order process. Applicants from these
jurisdictions or for projects administered by federally-recognized
Indian Tribes need take no action in regard to E.O. 12372: Alabama,
Alaska, American Samoa , Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington.
    Although the jurisdictions listed above no longer participate in
the process, entities which have met the eligibility criteria of the
program may still apply for a grant even if a State, Territory,
Commonwealth, etc., does not have a SPOC. All remaining jurisdictions
participate in the Executive Order process and have established SPOCs.
Applicants from participating jurisdictions should contact their SPOCs
as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective applications and
receive instructions.
    Applicants must submit any required material to the SPOCs as soon
as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC
comments as part of the award process. The applicant must indicate the
date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is
required) on the Standard Form 424, item 16a. Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2),
a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed
new or competing continuation awards.
    SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine
endorsements as official recommendations. Additionally, SPOCs are
requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and
those official State process recommendations which may trigger the
``accommodate or explain'' rule.
    When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be
addressed to: Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Office
of Grants Management, Attention: Mary Nash, Grants Management Officer,
370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., 4th Floor, West Wing, Washington, DC
20447.
    A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory
is included with the application materials for this program
announcement.

B. Initial ACF Screening

    Each application submitted under this program announcement will
undergo a pre-review to determine that (1) the application was received
by the closing date and submitted in accordance with

[[Page 54043]]

the instructions in this announcement and (2) the applicant is eligible
for funding.
    It is necessary that applicants state specifically which priority
area they are applying for. Applications will be screened for priority
area appropriateness. If applications are found to be inappropriate for
the priority area in which they are submitted, applicants will be
contacted for verbal approval of redirection to a more appropriate
priority area.

C. Competitive Review and Evaluation Criteria

    Applications which pass the initial ACF screening will be evaluated
and rated by an independent review panel on the basis of specific
evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria were designed to assess
the quality of a proposed project, and to determine the likelihood of
its success. The evaluation criteria are closely related and are
considered as a whole in judging the overall quality of an application.
Points are awarded only to applications which are responsive to the
evaluation criteria within the context of this program announcement.
Proposed projects will be reviewed using the following evaluation
criteria:
(1) Criterion I: Objectives and Need for Assistance (Maximum 25 points)
    The application should demonstrate a thorough understanding and
analysis of the problem(s) being addressed in the project, the need for
assistance and the importance of addressing these problems in improving
the effectiveness of the child support program. The applicant should
describe how the project will address this problem(s) through
implementation of changes, enhancements and innovative efforts and
specifically, how this project will improve program results. The
applicant should address one or more of the activities listed under the
``Design Elements in the Application'' described above for the specific
priority area they are applying for (refer to Part II.B. Project
Priorities). The applicant should identify the key goals and objectives
of the project; describe the conceptual framework of its approach to
resolve the identified problem(s); and provide a rationale for taking
this approach as opposed to others.
(2) Criterion II: Approach (Maximum: 30 points)
    A well thought-out and practical management and staffing plan is
mandatory. The application should include a detailed management plan
that includes time-lines and detailed budgetary information. The main
concern in this criterion is that the applicant should demonstrate a
clear idea of the project's goals, objectives, and tasks to be
accomplished. The plan to accomplish the goals and tasks should be set
forth in a logical framework. The plan should identify what tasks are
required of any contractors and specify their relevant qualifications
to perform these tasks. Staff to be committed to the project (including
supervisory and management staff) at the state and/or local levels must
be identified by their role in the project along with their
qualifications and areas of particular expertise. In addition, for any
technical expertise obtained through a contract or subgrant, the
desired technical expertise and skills of proposed positions should be
specified in detail. The applicant should demonstrate that the skills
needed to operate the project are either on board or can be obtained in
a reasonable time.
(3) Criterion III: Evaluation (Maximum: 30 points)
    The applicant should describe the cost effective methods which will
be used to achieve the project goals and objectives; the specific
results/products that will be achieved; how the success of this project
can be measured and how the success of this project has broader
application in furthering national child support initiatives and/or
providing solutions that could be adapted by other states/
jurisdictions. A discussion of data availability and outcome measures
to be used should be included. Describe the collection and reporting
system to be used.
(4) Criterion IV: Budget and Budget Justification (Maximum 10 points)
    The project costs need to be reasonable in relation to the
identified tasks. A detailed budget (e.g., the staff required,
equipment and facilities that would be leased or purchased) should be
provided identifying all agency and other resources (i.e., state,
community other program--TANF/Head Start) that will be committed to the
project. Grant funds cannot be used for capital improvements or the
purchase of land or buildings. Explain why this project's resource
requirements cannot be met by the state/local agency's regular program
operating budget.
(5) Criterion V: Preferences (Maximum 5 points)
    Preference will be given to those grant applicants representing IV-
D agencies and applicant organizations who have cooperative agreements
with IV-D agencies.

D. Funding Reconsideration

    After Federal funds are exhausted for this grant competition,
applications which have been independently reviewed and ranked but have
no final disposition (neither approved nor disapproved for funding) may
again be considered for funding. Reconsideration may occur at any time
funds become available within twelve (12) months following ranking. ACF
does not select from multiple ranking lists for a program. Therefore,
should a new competition be scheduled and applications remain ranked
without final disposition, applicants are informed of their opportunity
to reapply for the new competition, to the extent practical.

Part IV. The Application

A. Application Development

    In order to be considered for a grant under this program
announcement, an application must be submitted on the forms supplied
and in the manner prescribed by ACF. Application materials including
forms and instructions are available from the contact named under the
ADDRESSES section in the preamble of this announcement. The length of
the application, excluding the application forms, certifications, and
resumes, should not exceed 20 pages. A page is a single-side of an 8\1/
2\' x 11"' sheet of plain white paper. The narrative should be typed
double-spaced on a single-side of an 8\1/2\" x 11" plain white paper,
with 1" margins on all sides. Applicants are requested not to send
pamphlets, maps, brochures or other printed material along with their
application as these are difficult to photocopy. These materials, if
submitted, will not be included in the review process. Each page of the
application will be counted (excluding required forms, certifications
and resumes) to determine the total length.
    The project description should include all the information
requirements described in the specific evaluation criteria outlined in
the program announcement under Part III.C. The Administration for
Children and Families Uniform Project Description in the application
kit provides general requirements for these evaluation criteria (i.e.,
Objectives and Need for Assistance; Approach; Evaluation; Budget and
Budget Justification).

B. Application Submission

    (1) Mailed applications postmarked after the closing date will be
classified as late and will not be considered in the competition.

[[Page 54044]]

    2. Deadline. Mailed applications shall be considered as meeting an
announced deadline if they are either received on or before the
deadline date or sent on or before the deadline date and received by
ACF in time for the independent review to: U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of
Grants Management, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Attention: Mary
Nash, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., 4th Floor West, Washington, DC
20447.

    Applicants must ensure that a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service
postmark or a legibly dated, machine-produced postmark of a
commercial mail service is affixed to the envelope/package
containing the application(s).

    To be acceptable as proof of timely mailing, a postmark from a
commercial mail service must include the logo/emblem of the commercial
mail service company and must reflect the date the package was received
by the commercial mail service company from the applicant. Private
Metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing.
(Applicants are cautioned that express/overnight mail services do not
always deliver as agreed).

    Express/overnight mail services should use the 901 D Street
ADDRESS instructions as shown below.)

    Applications handcarried by applicants, applicant couriers, or by
other representatives of the applicant using express/overnight mail
services, will be considered as meeting an announced deadline if they
are received on or before the deadline date, between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 4:30 p.m., EST, addressed to the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Attention:
Mary Nash, Office of Grants Management, Office of Child Support
Enforcement, and delivered at ACF Mailroom, 2nd Floor (near loading
dock), Aerospace Building, 901 D Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024,
between Monday and Friday (excluding Federal holidays). The address
must appear on the envelope/package containing the application. ACF
cannot accommodate transmission of applications by fax or through other
electronic media. Therefore, applications transmitted to ACF
electronically will not be accepted regardless of date or time of
submission and time of receipt.
    3. Late applications. Applications that do not meet the criteria
above are considered late applications. ACF shall notify each late
applicant that its application will not be considered in the current
competition.
    4. Extension of deadlines. ACF may extend an application deadline
when circumstances such as acts of God (floods, hurricanes, etc.)
occur, or when there are widespread disruption of the mail service, or
in other rare cases. Determinations to extend or waive deadline
requirements rest with ACF's Chief Grants Management Officer.

    Dated: August 30, 2000.
Paul K. Legler,
Assistant Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 00-22752 Filed 9-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-P