Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Project, 41039-41040 [05-13918]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2005 / Notices
Institute of Standards and Technology
publications; HHS Information Systems
Program Handbook and the CMS
Information Security Handbook.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:
Records are maintained in the active
files for a period of 15 years. The
records are then retired to archival files
maintained at the Health Care Data
Center. All claims-related records are
encompassed by the document
preservation order and will be retained
until notification is received from the
Department of Justice.
SYSTEM MANAGER AND ADDRESS:
Director, Employer Policy &
Operations Group, CMS, Room C1–22–
06, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore,
Maryland 21244–1850.
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
For purpose of access, the subject
individual should write to the system
manager who will require the system
name, HICN, address, date of birth, and
gender, and for verification purposes,
the subject individual’s name (woman’s
maiden name, if applicable), and SSN.
Furnishing the SSN is voluntary, but it
may make searching for a record easier
and prevent delay.
RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURE:
For the purpose of access, use the
same procedures outlines in
Notification Procedures above.
Requestors should also reasonably
specify the record contents being
sought. (These procedures are in
accordance with Department regulation
45 CFR 5b.5).
CONTESTING RECORDS PROCEDURES:
The subject individual should contact
the system manager named above and
reasonably identify the records and
specify the information to be contested.
State the corrective action sought and
the reasons for the correction with
supporting justification. (These
Procedures are in accordance with
Department regulation 45 CFR 5b.7).
RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
Records maintained in this system
will be derived from Medicare
Beneficiary Database system of records
and from medical plans and plan
sponsors.
SYSTEMS EXEMPTED FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS
OF THE ACT:
None.
[FR Doc. 05–14079 Filed 7–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120–03–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:47 Jul 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
Proposed Information Collection
Activity; Comment Request Proposed
Project
Title: The National Evaluation of the
Court Improvement Program.
OMB No.: New Collection.
Description: The National Evaluation
of the Court Improvement Program will
describe the many paths followed by
state courts to improve their oversight of
child welfare cases, and will provide the
field with information on effective
models for juvenile and family court
reform. Funded by the Children’s
Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) in 2004, the fiveyear study is being carried out by a
partnership of three organizations
consisting of Planning and Learning
Technologies (Pal-Tech, Inc.), the Urban
Institute and the Center for Policy
Research.
The federal Court Improvement
Program (CIP) was established in 1994
as a source of funding for state courts to
assess and improve their handling of
foster care and adoption proceedings.
The funding is codified in title IV–B,
subpart 2, of the Social Security Act,
Section 438, as part of the Promoting
Safe and Stable Families Program.
Although anecdotal information
documents the program’s success, this is
the first national evaluation of CIP. This
study builds on the recommendations of
a Children’s Bureau-funded Evaluability
Assessment (EA) of the program
completed in 2003 by James Bell
Associates, Inc.
The National Evaluation of the Court
Improvement Program involves three
interrelated components:
1. Reviewing and synthesizing state
and local court reform activities: This
component will describe the full range
of CIP-funded court reforms undertaken
by states at the beginning and ending of
the study’s data collection period.
Additionally, it will provide insights
into states’ reform priorities and how
these shift over time. Especially
promising models of reform will be
highlighted. Finally, this component
will provide important contextual
information for the study’s in-depth
evaluation component of select models
of reform. Information for this activity
will be synthesized from existing
reports submitted by states to the
Children’s Bureau.
2. Reviewing and synthesizing
existing court reform evaluations: This
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41039
component will identify and synthesize
findings from research and evaluation
conducted on family and juvenile court
reforms. It will provide an important
context for the study’s in-depth
evaluation component in two ways.
Findings on reform activities beyond
those captured within the study sites
will be provided. It will also help
inform evaluation within the study sites
by providing information on previously
conducted evaluation of similar reform
models. Information for this activity
will be synthesized from existing
evaluations and studies of court reform.
Evaluations will be prioritized for
synthesis based on their methodological
rigor and findings reported in the
substantive areas defined by the EA.
These are:
• Alternative dispute resolution;
• Training and educational materials;
• Case tracking and management;
• Improvements to the consistency
and quality of hearings;
• Parent/caregiver outreach,
education, and support; and
• Systemic court reforms.
3. Conducting in-depth studies of
reform models: In-depth evaluation of
select models of reform will be
undertaken within three diverse sites
across the country. The study designs
vary among sites, and include quasiexperimental and descriptive outcome
methodologies. Reflecting the Adoption
and Safe Families Act, the primary
outcome areas of interest will be child
safety, the timely achievement of
permanency, and child well-being.
Within each site, outcome evaluation
will be complemented by a qualitative
study of the many factors that impacted
reform including other related reform
efforts, the evolution of the target reform
over time, barriers encountered, and
methods by which these barriers were
overcome.
The outcome evaluation will utilize
information from existing court and
child welfare agency management
information systems. Within select sites,
information from these sources will be
supplemented with information
abstracted from existing court and/or
child welfare agency case records. The
process evaluation will help inform
outcome findings within the study sites
as well as provide important insights for
the replication of the model within
other sites. The process evaluation will
involve the collection of new
information through structured focus
groups and interviews with key
individuals, as well as court
observations of child dependency
hearings. This descriptive information
will be collected twice during the study.
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
15JYN1
41040
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 135 / Friday, July 15, 2005 / Notices
The three sites selected for in-depth
analysis are the following:
• Connecticut’s Case Management
Protocol: Piloted in December 1997, the
protocol involves a pre-hearing
conference of professionals held early in
the dependency court process coupled
with expanded parent representation.
• Delaware’s Systemic Reform:
Piloted in 2000, the three primary
components of the state’s
comprehensive reform effort are:
—One judge/one case assignment
practice where one judge presides
over all legal stages of a dependency
case;
—Defined sequence of hearings and
reviews that significantly increases
the number of hearings and oversight
role of the courts; and
—Representation for indigent parents in
child welfare proceedings.
• Texas’s Cluster Courts: Piloted in
1997, these courts are located in rural
areas of the state. Each court serves a
cluster of contiguous counties, and a
specially trained judge is appointed to
travel to each county within a cluster on
a given day to hear that county’s child
welfare cases. The cluster courts were
formed to enable rural counties to meet
the state’s strict permanency status
guidelines that were enacted January 1,
1998.
Collectively, findings from the three
study components will capture the
ongoing nationwide process of court
reform supported by the Court
Improvement Program. A technical
work group comprised of leading
researchers, judicial and child welfare
agency officials and representatives of
public interest groups has been
assembled to provide input at key
points during the study.
Respondents: Study respondents
include individuals in the following
categories among the three study sites
noted above:
• Court Improvement Program (CIP)
administrators;
• Judges;
• Attorneys (representing the parent,
child, and agency);
• Court Appointed Special Advocates
(CASAs) and Guardians Ad Litem
(GALs);
• Child welfare agency
administrators;
• Regional child welfare directors and
supervisors; and
• Child welfare agency caseworkers.
ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATES
Number of
respondents
Instrument
Number of
responses per
respondent
Average
burden hours
per response
Total
burden hours
CIP Administrators ...........................................................................................
Judges .............................................................................................................
Attorneys (parent, child, agency) .....................................................................
CASAs and GALs ............................................................................................
Child Welfare Agency Administrators ..............................................................
Regional Child Welfare Directors and Supervisors .........................................
Child Welfare Agency Caseworkers ................................................................
8
30
95
55
10
30
120
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
16
30
190
110
10
60
240
Total ..........................................................................................................
........................
........................
........................
656
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 656.
In compliance with the requirements
of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Administration for Children and
Families is soliciting public comment
on the specific aspects of the
information collection described above.
Copies of the proposed collection of
information can be obtained and
comments may be forwarded by writing
to the Administration for Children and
Families, Office of Administration,
Office of Information Services. 370
L’Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington,
DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance
Officer. E-mail address:
grjohnson@acf.hhs.gov. All request
should be identified by the title of the
information collection.
The Department specifically requests
comments on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:47 Jul 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted
within 60 days of this publication.
Dated: July 11, 2005.
Robert Sargis,
Reports Clearance, Officer.
[FR Doc. 05–13918 Filed 7–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184–01–M
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
Proposed Information Collection
Activity; Comment Request; Proposed
Projects
Title: Methodology for Determining if
an Increase in a State’s Child Poverty
Rate is the Result of TANF.
OMB No.: 0970–0186.
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Description: In accordance with
Section 413(i) of the Social Security Act
and 45 CFR part 284, the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS)
intends to reinstate the following
information collection requirements.
For instances when Census Bureau data
show that a State’s child poverty rate
increased by 5% or more from one year
to the next, a State will be required to
submit: (1) An optional submission of
data on child poverty from an
independent source; (2) if the increase
in the State’s child poverty rate is still
determined to be 5% or more, an
assessment of the impact of the TANF
program(s) in the State on the child
poverty rate; and (3) if HHS determines
from the assessment and other
information that the child poverty rate
in the State increased as a result of the
TANF program(s) in the State, a
corrective action plan.
Respondents: The respondents are the
50 States and District of Columbia; and
when reliable Census Bureau data
become available for the Territories,
additional respondents will be Guam,
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Annual Burden Estimates
E:\FR\FM\15JYN1.SGM
15JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 135 (Friday, July 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41039-41040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13918]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request
Proposed Project
Title: The National Evaluation of the Court Improvement Program.
OMB No.: New Collection.
Description: The National Evaluation of the Court Improvement
Program will describe the many paths followed by state courts to
improve their oversight of child welfare cases, and will provide the
field with information on effective models for juvenile and family
court reform. Funded by the Children's Bureau, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2004, the five-year study is being
carried out by a partnership of three organizations consisting of
Planning and Learning Technologies (Pal-Tech, Inc.), the Urban
Institute and the Center for Policy Research.
The federal Court Improvement Program (CIP) was established in 1994
as a source of funding for state courts to assess and improve their
handling of foster care and adoption proceedings. The funding is
codified in title IV-B, subpart 2, of the Social Security Act, Section
438, as part of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program.
Although anecdotal information documents the program's success, this is
the first national evaluation of CIP. This study builds on the
recommendations of a Children's Bureau-funded Evaluability Assessment
(EA) of the program completed in 2003 by James Bell Associates, Inc.
The National Evaluation of the Court Improvement Program involves
three interrelated components:
1. Reviewing and synthesizing state and local court reform
activities: This component will describe the full range of CIP-funded
court reforms undertaken by states at the beginning and ending of the
study's data collection period. Additionally, it will provide insights
into states' reform priorities and how these shift over time.
Especially promising models of reform will be highlighted. Finally,
this component will provide important contextual information for the
study's in-depth evaluation component of select models of reform.
Information for this activity will be synthesized from existing reports
submitted by states to the Children's Bureau.
2. Reviewing and synthesizing existing court reform evaluations:
This component will identify and synthesize findings from research and
evaluation conducted on family and juvenile court reforms. It will
provide an important context for the study's in-depth evaluation
component in two ways. Findings on reform activities beyond those
captured within the study sites will be provided. It will also help
inform evaluation within the study sites by providing information on
previously conducted evaluation of similar reform models. Information
for this activity will be synthesized from existing evaluations and
studies of court reform. Evaluations will be prioritized for synthesis
based on their methodological rigor and findings reported in the
substantive areas defined by the EA. These are:
Alternative dispute resolution;
Training and educational materials;
Case tracking and management;
Improvements to the consistency and quality of hearings;
Parent/caregiver outreach, education, and support; and
Systemic court reforms.
3. Conducting in-depth studies of reform models: In-depth
evaluation of select models of reform will be undertaken within three
diverse sites across the country. The study designs vary among sites,
and include quasi-experimental and descriptive outcome methodologies.
Reflecting the Adoption and Safe Families Act, the primary outcome
areas of interest will be child safety, the timely achievement of
permanency, and child well-being. Within each site, outcome evaluation
will be complemented by a qualitative study of the many factors that
impacted reform including other related reform efforts, the evolution
of the target reform over time, barriers encountered, and methods by
which these barriers were overcome.
The outcome evaluation will utilize information from existing court
and child welfare agency management information systems. Within select
sites, information from these sources will be supplemented with
information abstracted from existing court and/or child welfare agency
case records. The process evaluation will help inform outcome findings
within the study sites as well as provide important insights for the
replication of the model within other sites. The process evaluation
will involve the collection of new information through structured focus
groups and interviews with key individuals, as well as court
observations of child dependency hearings. This descriptive information
will be collected twice during the study.
[[Page 41040]]
The three sites selected for in-depth analysis are the following:
Connecticut's Case Management Protocol: Piloted in
December 1997, the protocol involves a pre-hearing conference of
professionals held early in the dependency court process coupled with
expanded parent representation.
Delaware's Systemic Reform: Piloted in 2000, the three
primary components of the state's comprehensive reform effort are:
--One judge/one case assignment practice where one judge presides over
all legal stages of a dependency case;
--Defined sequence of hearings and reviews that significantly increases
the number of hearings and oversight role of the courts; and
--Representation for indigent parents in child welfare proceedings.
Texas's Cluster Courts: Piloted in 1997, these courts are
located in rural areas of the state. Each court serves a cluster of
contiguous counties, and a specially trained judge is appointed to
travel to each county within a cluster on a given day to hear that
county's child welfare cases. The cluster courts were formed to enable
rural counties to meet the state's strict permanency status guidelines
that were enacted January 1, 1998.
Collectively, findings from the three study components will capture
the ongoing nationwide process of court reform supported by the Court
Improvement Program. A technical work group comprised of leading
researchers, judicial and child welfare agency officials and
representatives of public interest groups has been assembled to provide
input at key points during the study.
Respondents: Study respondents include individuals in the following
categories among the three study sites noted above:
Court Improvement Program (CIP) administrators;
Judges;
Attorneys (representing the parent, child, and agency);
Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASAs) and Guardians Ad
Litem (GALs);
Child welfare agency administrators;
Regional child welfare directors and supervisors; and
Child welfare agency caseworkers.
Annual Burden Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Average
Instrument Number of responses per burden hours Total burden
respondents respondent per response hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIP Administrators.............................. 8 1 2 16
Judges.......................................... 30 1 1 30
Attorneys (parent, child, agency)............... 95 1 2 190
CASAs and GALs.................................. 55 1 2 110
Child Welfare Agency Administrators............. 10 1 1 10
Regional Child Welfare Directors and Supervisors 30 1 2 60
Child Welfare Agency Caseworkers................ 120 1 2 240
-----------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 656
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 656.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and
Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the
information collection described above. Copies of the proposed
collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded
by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of
Administration, Office of Information Services. 370 L'Enfant Promenade,
SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. E-mail
address: grjohnson@acf.hhs.gov. All request should be identified by the
title of the information collection.
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection
of information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted
within 60 days of this publication.
Dated: July 11, 2005.
Robert Sargis,
Reports Clearance, Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-13918 Filed 7-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
