Proposed Information Collection Activity; Comment Request Proposed Project, 41039-41040 [05-13918]

Download as PDF 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