Employment and Training Services for Noncustodial Parents in the Child Support Program, 47109-47120 [2024-11842]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
highly complex and detailed. We have
considered the request and have
concluded that an extension of the
comment period by 60 days, until
August 2, 2024, is appropriate. We
believe that the extension will allow
adequate time for interested persons to
submit comments without significantly
delaying the final guidance.
Dated: May 28, 2024.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024–11987 Filed 5–30–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and
Families
45 CFR Parts 302, 303, and 304
RIN: 0970–AD00
Employment and Training Services for
Noncustodial Parents in the Child
Support Program
Office of Child Support
Services (OCSS), Administration for
Children and Families (ACF),
Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS or the Department).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
In an effort to make the child
support program more effective, this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
proposes to allow Federal financial
participation (FFP) for certain optional
and nonduplicative employment and
training services for eligible
noncustodial parents in the child
support program. The proposed rule
will permit states, at their discretion, to
use FFP to provide any or all of the
following services: job search assistance;
job readiness training; job development
and job placement services; skills
assessments; job retention services;
work supports; and occupational
training and other skills training
directly related to employment.
DATES: Consideration will be given to
written comments on this NPRM
received on or before July 30, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by [docket number and/or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN)
number], by one of the following
methods:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Written comments may be
submitted to: Office of Child Support
Services, Attention: Director of Policy
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
and Training, 330 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20201.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or RIN for this
rulemaking. All comments received will
be posted without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
Docket: Go to the Federal Rulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov for
access to the rulemaking docket,
including any background documents
and the plain-language summary of the
proposed rule of not more than 100
words in length required by the
Providing Accountability Through
Transparency Act of 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chad Edinger, Program Specialist, OCSS
Division of Regional Operations, at mail
to: ocss.dpt@acf.hhs.gov or (303) 844–
1213. Telecommunications Relay users
may dial 711 first.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submission of Comments
Comments should be specific, address
issues raised by the proposed rule, and
explain reasons for any objections or
recommended changes. Additionally,
we will be interested in comments that
indicate agreement with the proposal.
We will not acknowledge receipt of the
comments we receive. However, we will
review and consider all comments that
are relevant and received during the
comment period. We will respond to
these comments in the preamble to the
final rule.
Statutory Authority
This NPRM is published under the
authority granted to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services by section
1102 of the Social Security Act (the Act)
(42 U.S.C. 1302). Section 1102 of the
Act authorizes the Secretary to publish
regulations, not inconsistent with the
Act, as may be necessary to the efficient
administration of the functions with
which the Secretary is responsible
under the Act. This NPRM is also
authorized by section 452(a)(1) of the
Act, which states that the Secretary’s
designee ‘‘shall establish such standards
for State programs for locating
noncustodial parents, establishing
paternity, and obtaining child support
. . . as he determines to be necessary to
assure that such programs will be
effective.’’
Section 454 of the Act establishes
requirements that states must include in
their title IV–D State plans, the costs of
which are eligible for FFP under section
455 of the Act. Section 454(13) of the
Act requires the State plan to ‘‘provide
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47109
that the State will comply with such
other requirements and standards as the
Secretary determines to be necessary to
the establishment of an effective
program for locating noncustodial
parents, establishing paternity,
obtaining support orders, and collecting
support payments . . . .’’ The
rulemaking is also consistent with
section 451, which authorizes federal
funding to states for enforcing support
obligations, obtaining child support
payments, and assuring that assistance
in obtaining support is available to all
children.
Background
In 1975, Congress established the
child support program under title IV–D
of the Social Security Act (Pub. L. 93–
647). The child support program is
administered at the federal level by the
Office of Child Support Services (OCSS)
and functions in 54 states and territories
and over 60 tribes. When the child
support program began, its primary
focus was collecting child support to
recover welfare costs, but that has
changed significantly over time. Today,
the program is focused on delivering
family-centered child support services
that improve the long-term financial and
emotional support of children, by
collecting and facilitating consistent
child support payments based on the
noncustodial parents’ ability to pay.
This evolution has been guided by the
changing needs of families, by federal
legislation, and by research and data
that contribute to OCSS’s understanding
of the standards and requirements
necessary to establish an effective child
support program.
Families and work have
fundamentally changed since 1975. The
percent of children who need child
support services has increased and the
ability of noncustodial parents to pay
child support has declined. Families are
more likely to divorce or never marry,
increasing the likelihood that children
will spend time apart from one of their
parents. In 2021, 40 percent of births
were to unmarried women, up from 14
percent in 1975.1 In FY 2022, the child
support program served one in five
children in the United States, or 12.8
1 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
National Center for Health Statistics, ‘‘Nonmarital
Childbearing in the United States, 1940–99,’’
National Vital Statistics Reports, 48: 16 (October 18,
2000), available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/
nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf. Osterman, Michelle J.K.,
Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, Anne K.
Driscoll, and Claudia P. Valenzuela, ‘‘Births: Final
Data for 2021,’’ National Vital Statistics Reports, 72:
1 (January 31, 2023), available at https://
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr72/nvsr72-01.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
47110
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
million children.2 The labor market has
been particularly difficult for lesseducated men during this period,
leaving them with significantly fewer
job opportunities and less income than
before. In 2015, the real hourly earnings
for men 25–54 years old with only a
high school degree was 18 percent lower
than it was in 1973.3 As of 2018, over
70 percent of nonresident parents had
not attended college.4 In 2017, more
than one-third of nonresident parents
(3.4 million) lived in families with
incomes below 200 percent of the
official poverty thresholds and 43
percent did not work full-time, yearround.5
Other societal changes have also
affected the child support program,
including greatly elevated incarceration
rates. Incarceration rates increased
dramatically between 1980 and 2008
and have since declined, but the percent
of the U.S. population incarcerated in
2020 was more than double the figure in
1980.6 It is estimated that 6 percent of
all children in the United States have a
parent who was ever incarcerated.7
2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Office of
Child Support Services, ‘‘2022 Child Support: More
Money for Families,’’ undated, available at https://
www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
ocse/2022_infographic_national.pdf.
3 Binder, Ariel J. and John Bound, ‘‘The Declining
Labor Market Prospects of Less-Educated Men,’’
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33: 2 (2019),
available at https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/
10.1257/jep.33.2.163.
4 Sanders, Patrick, ‘‘Demographic and
Socioeconomic Characteristics of Nonresident
Parents,’’ Washington, DC: Congressional Research
Service, R46942 (October 2021) available at https://
crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46942.
This report uses the term ‘‘nonresident parent’’
rather than noncustodial parent. It defines a
nonresident parent as a person 15 years or older
who does not reside for a majority of nights in the
same household as one or more of his or her
biological, adopted, or stepchildren under age 21.
This definition is very similar to the definition of
a noncustodial parent used by the child support
program. For purposes of the child support
program, a noncustodial parent is a parent who
does not have primary care, custody, or control of
the child, and who may have an obligation to pay
child support (See Office of Child Support Services,
Glossary of Common Terms available at https://
www.acf.hhs.gov/css/glossary#N).
5 Ibid.
6 Kluckow, Rich and Zhen Zeng ‘‘Correctional
Populations in the United States, 2020—Statistical
Tables’’ (March 2022), Lauren E. Glaze,
‘‘Correctional Populations in the United States,
2010’’ (December 2011), and Louis W. Jankowski,
Louis W., ‘‘Correctional Populations in the United
States, 1990’’ (July 1992), U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, all available at https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/
publications/list?series_filter=Correctional%20
Populations%20in%20the%20United%20States.
Historical U.S. population data available at https://
www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/pop
change-data-text.html.
7 The Annie E. Casey Foundation, ‘‘Children Who
Had a Parent Who Was Ever Incarcerated by Race
and Ethnicity in United States’’ (May 2023)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
Having an incarceration record is a
barrier to employment that diminishes
earnings potential, reducing a parent’s
ability to work and pay child support.8
Sixty-five percent of noncustodial
parents who enrolled in a recently
completed national demonstration of
child support-led employment and
training programs reported that they had
been previously incarcerated.9
In 1996, Congress enacted the
Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA, Pub. L. 104–193), which
included significant changes to the
child support program.10 These changes
included the introduction of a new
‘‘family first’’ distribution policy, which
required that former assistance families
receive certain child support arrearage
payments collected by the state before
the state and Federal governments
retained their share of collections.11
PRWORA also amended the Social
Security Act to add work requirements
for noncustodial parents owing past-due
child support for a child receiving
assistance under the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program. Specifically, section 466(a)(15)
of the Act requires states to have laws
and procedures under which the state
has the authority to issue an order
requiring an individual to participate in
work activities, as defined by section
407(d).12
available at https://datacenter.aecf.org/data/tables/
9734-children-who-had-a-parent-who-was-everincarcerated-by-race-and-ethnicity#detailed/1/any/
false/2043,1769,1696,1648,1603/10,11,9,12,1,13/
18995,18996.
8 Travis, Jeremy, Bruce Western, & Steve Redburn,
(Eds.) The Growth of Incarceration in the United
States: Exploring Causes and Consequences.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press,
(2014), available at https://nap.national
academies.org/catalog/18613/the-growth-ofincarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes.
9 Maria Cancian, Maria, Angela Guarin, Leslie
Hodges, and Daniel R. Meyer, ‘‘Characteristics of
Participants in the Child Support Noncustodial
Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED)
Evaluation,’’ Madison, WI: Institute for Research on
Poverty (December 2019), Appendix Table C3,
available at https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2019/05/CSPED-FinalCharacteristics-of-Participants-Report-2019Compliant.pdf.
10 Legler, Paul, The Coming Revolution in Child
Support Policy: Implications of the 1996 Welfare
Act Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Fall
1996), pp. 519–563, available at https://
www.jstor.org/stable/25740093.
11 Congressional Research Service, ‘‘The Child
Support Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws
Enacted Since 1950,’’ Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service, R47630 (July 2023)
available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/
product/pdf/R/R47630.
12 In section 407(d) of the Social Security Act,
work activities are defined as: (1) unsubsidized
employment; (2) subsidized private sector
employment; (3) subsidized public sector
employment; (4) work experience (including work
associated with the refurbishing of publicly assisted
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
In 1997, Congress authorized a total of
$3 billion for the Welfare-to-Work
(WtW) Grants program as part of the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L.
105–33). Administered by the U.S.
Department of Labor, these grants were
intended to help long-term welfare
recipients and noncustodial parents of
children whose custodial parents met
certain criteria find and keep good
jobs.13 Congress appropriated funds for
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and grantees
were allowed five years to spend their
funds, which ended in 2004. OCSS
encouraged IV–D and IV–A agencies to
work together to support WtW programs
and encouraged states to make ‘‘special
efforts to inform potentially eligible
noncustodial parents about the
existence and availability of WtW
services.’’ 14
In addition, OCSS issued policy
guidance, in PIQ 98–03 and AT 00–08,
to respond to state inquiries about the
availability of FFP under title IV–D for
work activities for noncustodial parents.
OCSS concluded that because section
466(a)(15) of the Act did not require that
IV–D programs establish, provide, or
administer work activity programs for
noncustodial parents, the costs of these
activities could not be attributed to the
IV–D program. In guidance, OCSS
explained that FFP was available ‘‘for
the identification and referral of
unemployed noncustodial parents to job
training, coordination with courts
regarding compliance with court orders,
tracking participation, and data
collection,’’ but was not available for
‘‘training and services provided by
entities other than the IV–D agency.’’ 15
OCSS viewed the determination of
housing) if sufficient private sector employment is
not available; (5) on-the-job training; (6) job search
and job readiness assistance; (7) community service
programs; (8) vocational educational training (not to
exceed 12 months with respect to any individual);
(9) job skills training directly related to
employment; (10) education directly related to
employment, in the case of a recipient who has not
received a high school diploma or a certificate of
high school equivalency; (11) satisfactory
attendance at secondary school or in a course of
study leading to a certificate of general equivalence,
in the case of a recipient who has not completed
secondary school or received such a certificate; and
(12) the provision of child care services to an
individual who is participating in a community
service program. Available at https://www.ssa.gov/
OP_Home/ssact/title04/0407.htm.
13 U.S. Department of Labor, ‘‘Training and
Employment Guidance Letter No. 15–01, General
Program Questions,’’ Reissued March 22, 2002,
available at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/
ETA/advisories/TEGL/2002/TEGL15-01_GP.pdf.
14 U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Office of Child Support Services, AT–00–08,
available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policyguidance/questions-and-responses-regardingcollaborative-efforts-iv-d-agencies-and.
15 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
eligibility for and cost of participation
in WtW programs as ‘‘the
responsibilities of the WtW grantees, not
the courts or the IV–D agency.’’ 16
Justification
The current proposal to allow FFP for
employment and training services for
noncustodial parents would supersede
OCSS’s prior guidance. In the late
1990s, OCSS did not have the benefit of
rigorous evidence and other data that
now show that providing employment
and training services to noncustodial
parents can make a child support
program more effective in collecting
child support payments. In the decades
that followed OCSS’s policy guidance of
1998 and 2000, national demonstrations
and state-based programs have
examined the effectiveness of providing
employment and training services to
unemployed and underemployed
noncustodial parents and found positive
outcomes in employment rates,
earnings, child support payment rates,
the amount of child support paid, and
payment regularity.17
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
16 Ibid.
17 Miller, Cynthia, and Virginia Knox, ‘‘The
Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support
Their Children: Final Lessons From Parents’ Fair
Share,’’ New York: MDRC (2001), available at
https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_
529.pdf.
Perez-Johnson, Irma, Jacqueline Kauff, Alan
Hershey, ‘‘Giving Noncustodial Parents Options:
Employment and Child Support Outcomes of the
SHARE Program,’’ Princeton, NJ: Mathematica
Policy Research (October 2003), available at https://
aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_legacy_
files/39936/report.pdf. Pearson, Jessica, Nancy
Thoennes, Lanae Davis, David Price, Jane Venohr
and Tracy Griffith, ‘‘OCSE Responsible Fatherhood
Programs: Client Characteristics and Program
Outcomes,’’ Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research
and Policy Studies Inc. (September 2003), available
at https://www.frpn.org/asset/ocse-responsiblefatherhood-programs-client-characteristics-andprogram-outcomes. Martinson, Karin, Demetra
Smith Nightingale, Pamela A. Holcomb, Burt S.
Barnow, and John Trutko, ‘‘Partners for Fragile
Families Demonstration Projects: Employment and
Child Support Outcomes and Trends,’’ Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute (September 2007), available
at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/
publication/46816/411567-Partners-for-FragileFamilies-Demonstration-Projects.PDF. Schroeder,
Daniel and Nicholas Doughty, ‘‘Texas NonCustodial Parent Choices: Program Impact
Analysis,’’ Austin, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson School
of Public Affairs, University of Texas (September
2009), available at https://sites.utexas.edu/raymar
shallcenter/files/2005/07/NCP_Choices_Final_Sep_
03_2009.pdf. Lippold, Kye, Austin Nichols, and
Elaine Sorensen, ‘‘Strengthening Families Through
Stronger Fathers: Final Impact Report for the Pilot
Employment Programs,’’ Washington, DC: Urban
Institute (October 2011), available at https://
www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/
26676/412442-Strengthening-Families-ThroughStronger-Fathers-Final-Impact-Report-for-the-PilotEmployment-Programs.PDF. Born, Catherine E.,
Pamela Caudill Ovwigho, and Correne Saunders,
‘‘The Noncustodial Parent Employment Program:
Employment and Payment Outcomes,’’ Baltimore,
MD: Family Welfare Research and Training Group,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
Research shows that reliable child
support depends on the economic
stability of noncustodial parents. For
example, in Wisconsin, noncustodial
fathers who paid at least 90 percent of
their order during the first year after it
was established were 9 times as likely
to work all four quarters that year than
those who paid nothing.18 Nationally,
over 70 percent of child support
collections are made through wage
withholding by employers.19
Noncustodial parents with irregular
employment are particularly unlikely to
pay the full amount of their child
support order. As a result, substantial
arrears accrue.
Unpublished data available to OCSS
show that 78 percent of the $114 billion
in child support arrears that was owed
in FY 2022 was owed by parents who
had annual reported incomes below
$20,000, which is consistent with earlier
published research that examined child
support debt in nine states and found a
similar result.20 Studies have also
University of Maryland, School of Social Work
(April 2011), available at https://www.ssw.
umaryland.edu/media/ssw/fwrtg/child-supportresearch/cs-initiatives/npep.pdf?&. Pearson, Jessica,
Lanae Davis and Jane Venohr, ‘‘Parents to Work!
Program Outcomes and Economic Impacts,’’
Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research (February
2011), available at https://centerforpolicy
research.org/wp-content/uploads/
ParentsToWork.pdf. Davis, Lanae, Jessica Pearson,
and Nancy Thoennes. ‘‘Evaluation of the Tennessee
Parent Support Program,’’ Denver, CO: Center for
Policy Research (November 2013), available at
https://centerforpolicyresearch.org/wp-content/
uploads/EvaluationTennesseeParent
SupportProgram.pdf. Sorensen, Elaine, ‘‘What We
Learned from Recent Federal Evaluations of
Programs Serving Disadvantaged Noncustodial
Parents.’’ Washington, DC: Office of Planning,
Research, and Evaluation, Administration for
Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (November 2020), available at
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/opre/OPRE%20NCP%20
Employment%20Brief_508.pdf. Wasserman, Kyla,
Lily Freedman, Zaina Rodney, and Caroline
Schultz, ‘‘Connecting Parents to Occupational
Training: A Partnership Between Child Support
Agencies and Local Service Providers,’’ New York:
MDRC (April 2021), available at https://
www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/FamiliesForward_
Report_0.pdf.
18 Cancian, Maria, Yoona Kim, and Daniel R.
Meyer, ‘‘Who Is Not Paying Child Support?’’
Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty
(2021), available at https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/
wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CSRPA-2020-2022T2.pdf.
19 DCL 23–06, OCSS Preliminary FY 2022 Data
Report and Tables, available at https://www.acf.
hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/fy-2022-preliminarydata-report-and-tables.
20 The unpublished data is based on a random
sample of noncustodial parents who owed arrears
in the OCSS Debtor File as of April 2022, which
was matched to data from the National Directory of
New Hires. Reported income is the amount of
quarterly earnings and unemployment insurance
reported for the noncustodial parent in the National
Directory of New Hires for FY 2021. The $113.4
billion figure is from the Office of Child Support
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47111
shown that owing large amounts of
child support arrears among low-income
noncustodial parents can be
counterproductive to the goals of the
child support program as it pushes these
parents further away from the formal
labor market, reduces their child
support payments, and distances them
from their children.21 Parents who owe
large amounts of arrears can be
discouraged from working in jobs that
withhold income for child support,
especially if they can easily turn to
other means of earning money where
child support is not typically withheld,
such as self-employment or working off
the books.22
Based on this research and evidence,
OCSS has reconsidered its prior
guidance. In doing so, we have not
disregarded our previous interpretation
of section 466(a)(15) of the Act, which
provided the basis for the prior policy.
Section 466(a)(15) neither authorizes
nor prohibits the child support program
from providing employment and
training services under title IV–D, and is
not the legal basis for the proposed rule.
OCSS has determined, based on section
452(a)(1), that it is appropriate to
establish a new standard authorizing
employment and training services
because the data and evidence now
available lead us to conclude that this
option is necessary to assure that State
programs for obtaining child support
will be effective. State expenses for
providing these services under their IV–
Services FY 2022 Preliminary Data Tables, Table P–
98 available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policyguidance/fy-2022-preliminary-data-report-andtables. Sorensen, Elaine, Liliana Sousa, and Simon
Schaner, ‘‘Assessing Child Support Arrears in Nine
Large States and the Nation,’’ Washington, DC:
Urban Institute (2007), available at https://
www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/
29736/1001242-Assessing-Child-Support-Arrearsin-Nine-Large-States-and-the-Nation.PDF.
21 Miller, Daniel P. and Ronald B. Mincy. ‘‘Falling
Further Behind? Child Support Arrears and Fathers’
Labor Force Participation,’’ Social Service Review
86:4 (2012), available at https://
www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/668761.
Cancian, Maria, Carolyn Heinrich, and Yiyoon
Chung, ‘‘Discouraging Disadvantaged Fathers’
Employment: An Unintended Consequence of
Policies Designed to Support Families,’’ Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management 32:4 (2013),
available at https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/264476066_Discouraging_
Disadvantaged_Fathers’_Employment_An_
Unintended_Consequence_of_Policies_Designed_
to_Support_Families. Kimberly Turner and
Maureen Waller, ‘‘Indebted Relationships: Child
Support Arrears and Nonresident Fathers’
Involvement with Children.’’ Journal of Marriage
and Family 79:1 (2017), available at https://online
library.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12361.
22 Freeman, Richard B. and Jane Waldfogel. ‘‘Does
Child Support Enforcement Policy Affect Male
Labor Supply?’’ in Fathers Under Fire: The
Revolution in Child Support Enforcement, eds.
Irwin Garfinkel, Sara S. McLanahan, Daniel R.
Meyer, and Judith A. Seltzer, New York: Russell
Sage Foundation (1998).
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
47112
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
D plan would, therefore, be eligible for
FFP under section 455 of the Act. Since
the rulemaking results in providing
states the opportunity for federal
funding, rather than eliminating or
removing FFP, we assume that the
rulemaking will not place states in a less
favorable position to their detriment,
but would provide a new and reliable
source of funding for these services,
which will in turn improve the
effectiveness of state child support
programs.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Relevant Studies of Employment and
Training Services
Since the 1990s, a significant body of
research has examined the effectiveness
of providing employment and training
services to unemployed and
underemployed parents who owe child
support.23 The first large-scale effort
was conducted by MDRC and was called
Parents’ Fair Share (PFS). PFS was first
implemented as a pilot program in nine
sites in 1992–1993, followed by a
national random assignment
demonstration implemented in seven
sites in 1994–1996. More than 5,500
noncustodial parents were randomly
assigned to PFS or a control group
during the national demonstration.24
The PFS demonstration gave
participating courts and child support
agencies the ability to refer noncustodial
parents facing contempt for nonpayment
of child support to the PFS program
where they received the following four
core services: employment and training
services, enhanced child support
services, peer support, and mediation.
The employment and training services
included job search assistance/job clubs,
job development, classroom-based
education and training, on-the-job
training, and job retention services. The
enhanced child support services
included assigning smaller caseloads to
child support workers who handled PFS
cases, expediting modification of child
support orders, and offering flexible
23 Employment and training programs for
noncustodial parents described here were evaluated
using one of three evaluation methods: evaluating
the outcomes of individuals randomly assigned to
the program (i.e. the treatment group) or receive
business as usual (i.e. the control group), typically
referred to as a random control trial (RCT) or an
experimental evaluation; evaluating the outcomes
of individuals who enrolled in the program
compared to a group of individuals who did not
enroll in the program but are similar to those who
did enroll, referred to here as a semi-experimental
evaluation; and evaluations that examine the
outcomes of individuals who enrolled in the
program, typically before and after they entered the
program, which are often referred to as outcome
evaluations. The first two evaluation methods are
considered impact evaluations, which draw causal
inferences, while the third evaluation method is not
designed to attribute causality.
24 Miller, Cynthia, and Virginia Knox (2001).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
rules that allowed child support orders
to be reduced while noncustodial
parents participated in PFS. Peer
support consisted of participating in a
facilitated support group built around a
responsible fatherhood curriculum
developed by MDRC. The lead agency
for these demonstration projects varied;
only two were led by a local child
support agency.
The PFS demonstration found that
PFS significantly increased the
likelihood of paying child support
during the two-year follow-up period.
The average quarterly payment rate was
12 percent higher for parents who
enrolled in PFS than those who did
not.25 While the final PFS report did not
examine the regularity of child support
payments, the interim report did. It
found that parents who enrolled in PFS
during the first year of the
demonstration were 19 percent more
likely than the control group to pay
child support in at least four of the six
quarters during the 18-month follow-up
period.26
In December 2000, a descriptive study
conducted as part of the national
evaluation of Welfare-to-Work (WtW)
grant programs examined the strategies
that 11 purposively selected WtW
programs used to provide employment
services to noncustodial parents. The
study found that a variety of
organizations can successfully operate
employment and training programs for
noncustodial parents.27 Eight of 11
programs partnered with the state or
local child support agency. Child
support agencies provided referrals,
designated specific staff to work with
the program, and offered flexible
payment options and debt reduction
options for participants. The principal
employment services that all of the
WtW programs provided were
employability assessments,
individualized employment plans, job
search assistance, job readiness
activities, job retention services, and
assistance with transportation and work
expenses. Some of the WtW programs
also provided job development and
placement services, on-the-job training,
25 Ibid.
26 Doolittle, Fred, Virginia Knox, Cynthia Miller,
and Sharon Rowser, ‘‘Building Opportunities,
Enforcing Obligations: Implementation and Interim
Impacts of Parents’ Fair Share,’’ New York: MDRC
(1998), table 6.3, available at https://www.mdrc.org/
sites/default/files/full_38.pdf.
27 Martinson, Karin, John Trutko, and Debra
Strong, ‘‘Serving Noncustodial Parents: A
Descriptive Study of Welfare-to-Work Programs,’’
Washington, DC: Urban Institute (December 2000),
available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/
files/publication/62761/410340-ServingNoncustodial-Parents-A-Descriptive-Study-ofWelfare-to-Work-Programs.PDF.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
skills training, General Educational
Development (GED) instruction, basic
skills training, and work experience.
One WtW program that served
noncustodial parents was evaluated as
part of the national evaluation of the
WtW grants program.28 This program,
called Support Has A Rewarding Effect
(SHARE), operated in Yakima, Kittitas,
and Klickitat counties in the State of
Washington from July 1998 through
September 2001. It was led by the TriCounty Workforce Development Council
(WDC) and involved a strong
collaboration among Tri-County WDC,
the State’s Division of Child Support
(DCS), and the office of the Yakima
County Prosecuting Attorney (YCPA).
SHARE provided the courts and YCPA
the ability to offer WtW services to
noncustodial parents during a child
support contempt hearing. WtW
services consisted of employability
assessments, individualized
employment plans, and other WtW
services structured to meet the needs of
the noncustodial parent. Job search
workshops and referrals for job
openings were the principal service
offered, but noncustodial parents could
be offered pre-employment education,
vocational training, or on-the-job
training. After the noncustodial parent
had secured a job, WtW case
management continued for at least 90
days, during which time job retention
services were provided. WtW funds
were also available to help with work
supports such as transportation,
uniforms, work supplies, and other
short-term emergency needs. The
evaluation examined employment and
child support payment trends for 574
noncustodial parents who were referred
to the SHARE program. The evaluation
found that the earnings and child
support payments of noncustodial
parents referred to SHARE increased
substantially after being referred to the
program.29
In 1998, OCSS launched an eight-state
demonstration to test the effectiveness
of fatherhood programs.30 The purpose
of these programs was to assist
unemployed or low-income
noncustodial parents in paying their
child support by improving their
employment and earnings and
encouraging more involved parenting.
States were given wide latitude in
program format, services provided, and
client eligibility. Most states partnered
with community-based organizations to
lead the project and most projects
offered employment services. The exact
28 Perez-Johnson,
Irma, et al. (October 2003).
29 Ibid.
30 Pearson,
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
Jessica, et al. (June 2000).
31MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
package of employment services varied
by project, but employment services
across all projects included job search
assistance, job readiness services, job
development and placement, work
supports, and vocational skills training
and assessments. This demonstration
was evaluated by comparing participant
outcomes before and after enrollment in
the program. The evaluation found that
the percent of participants paying child
support increased after enrollment in
every participating state, by amounts
ranging from 4 percent to 31 percent.31
The average amount of child support
due that was paid also increased after
enrollment in every participating state,
by amounts ranging from 1 percent to 16
percent.32
In 2000, OCSS and the Ford
Foundation launched a national
demonstration called Partners for
Fragile Families (PFF), which was
conducted in 13 sites and ended in
2003.33 The goals of this demonstration
were to promote voluntary paternity
establishment; improve the parenting
and relationship skills of young fathers;
and help young fathers secure and
retain employment. It targeted fathers
between the ages of 16 and 25 years old
who had not yet established paternity
and did not have extensive involvement
in the child support program. The lead
agency in all 13 sites was a communitybased organization, but each site
partnered with the local child support
agency and typically other
organizations, such as workforce
development agencies. The primary
service consisted of a series of
structured workshops on topics such as
fatherhood, parenting, job readiness and
job search, and child support. The exact
package of employment services varied
across projects, but the following
employment services were offered
across all projects: job readiness
instruction, job search assistance, job
referral and placement, job
development, on-the-job training, GED
classes, and job skills training. PFF
enrolled over 1,470 noncustodial
parents.34 The evaluation of PFF
examined child support outcomes of
participants at the time of enrollment
and over the next two years. It found
that the percent of participants with
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
31 Pearson,
Jessica, et al. (September 2003).
32 Ibid.
33 Martinson, Karin, John Trutko, Demetra Smith
Nightingale, Pamela A. Holcomb, and Burt S.
Barnow, ‘‘The Implementation of the Partners for
Fragile Families Demonstration Projects,’’
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute (June 2007),
available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/
files/publication/46576/411511-TheImplementation-of-the-Partners-for-FragileFamilies-Demonstration-Projects.PDF.
34 Ibid, Exhibit 2.1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
child support orders increased from 14
percent to 35 percent during the first
two years after program enrollment.35 It
also found that the average number of
months participants paid child support
increased from 4.2 months to 5.2
months, and the average annual amount
of child support paid increased by 43
percent from $1,238 to $1,775 between
the first and second year after
enrollment.36
In 2005, the Child Support Division of
the Office of the Attorney General of
Texas and the Texas Workforce
Commission established the
Noncustodial Parent (NCP) Choices
program.37 The goal of the program is to
help parents make regular child support
payments and become financially
stable.38 This program remains in
operation today and is currently
operating in 21 of the 28 workforce
development board areas in Texas.39 To
be eligible to receive services,
noncustodial parents must be courtordered to participate. When a
noncustodial parent enters the program,
workforce development staff perform an
assessment of needs and barriers and
create an individual employment plan
designed to move that individual into a
stable employment situation. Additional
employment and training services
offered to noncustodial parents mirror
those provided to TANF recipients
under the Texas’ Choices Program.40
The services emphasize Work First,
providing job referrals and job search
assistance, and may include job referrals
and job development, support services,
short-term training, subsidized
employment/work experience, GED and
English as a Second Language (ESL)
classes, and job retention and career
advancement assistance.
NCP Choices was evaluated during
the initial years of its operation.41 The
impact evaluation was based on data
from 2005 to 2009 and ten local
workforce development areas. It used a
quasi-experimental evaluation design.42
35 Martinson,
Karin, et al. (September 2007).
36 Ibid.
37 Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty
(September 2009).
38 Texas Workforce Commission, Noncustodial
Parent Choices Program, available at https://www.
twc.texas.gov/programs/noncustodial-parentchoices#:∼:text=The%20goal%20of%20NCP%20
Choices,Alamo.
39 Ibid.
40 https://www.twc.texas.gov/programs/choices.
41 Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty
(September 2009).
42 Quasi-experimental designs aim to assess
causal relationships without using random
assignment. When evaluating a program, they
compare the group of individuals who participated
in the program to a group of individuals who did
not participate in the program who are as similar
as possible to those who participated in the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47113
A total of 2,296 noncustodial parents
who participated in NCP Choices were
included in the evaluation. The
evaluation found monthly child support
collection rates among NCP Choices
participants were 47 percent higher than
the comparison group in the first year
after program enrollment, and the
amounts collected averaged $57 per
month higher.43 In addition, those
ordered into NCP Choices paid their
child support 50 percent more
consistently over time than the
comparison group.44 All of these
positive impacts continued well into the
second through fourth years after
program enrollment.45
In 2006, the New York State
Legislature enacted the Strengthening
Families Through Stronger Fathers
Initiative, a pilot program to help lowincome noncustodial parents find work
and pay their child support.46 The
legislation authorized funding for five
programs to provide employment and
other supportive services to low-income
noncustodial parents, which operated
from 2006 to 2009. Employment
services offered by the five programs
consisted of job search and placement
assistance, job readiness training, job
development, job skills training, and
employment-related supports.47 One
program provided subsidized
employment and job retention and
career enhancement services. The pilot
programs served 3,668 noncustodial
parents.48 The impact evaluation used a
quasi-experimental design. It found that
Strengthening Families Through
Stronger Fathers increased the percent
of parents paying child support by 22
percent, and the amount of child
support paid by 35 percent in the first
year after enrollment compared to the
comparison group.49
program in terms of pre-intervention characteristics.
For further information, see Handley, Margaret A.,
Courtney Lyles, Charles McCulloch, and Adithya
Cattamanchi, ‘‘Selecting and Improving QuasiExperimental Designs in Effectiveness and
Implementation Research’’ Annual Review of
Public Health 39 (2018), available at https://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8011057/
pdf/nihms-1671041.pdf.
43 Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty
(September 2009).
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 Tannehill, Tess G., Carolyn T. O’Brien, and
Elaine J. Sorensen, ‘‘Strengthening Families
Through Stronger Fathers Initiative: Process
Evaluation Report,’’ Washington, DC: Urban
Institute (July 2009), available at https://
www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/
28106/1001412-Strengthening-Families-ThroughStronger-Fathers-Initiative-Process-EvaluationReport.PDF.
47 Ibid.
48 Lippold, Kye, et al. (October 2011).
49 Ibid.
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
47114
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
In 2006, Maryland began the
Noncustodial Parent Employment
Program (NPEP), a joint effort of the
Child Support Enforcement and Family
Investment Administrations of the
Maryland Department of Human
Resources.50 The purpose of this
program is to provide employment
services to noncustodial parents who
are behind in their child support so that
they can be a reliable source of income
for their children. NPEP was a statewide
program in its initial years and still
operates today, but not in all counties.51
During its initial phase, each NPEP
program provided employment services
similar to those offered during the WtW
grants program. An evaluation of NPEP
was conducted, which examined 3,900
noncustodial parents referred to NPEP
in 2007 and 2008.52 Outcomes for these
participants were examined one year
before and after enrollment. The
evaluation found that the average
amount of child support paid increased
from $1,094 in the year prior to
enrollment to $1,246 in the year after
enrollment, a 14 percent increase.53 It
also found that the average number of
months that a participant paid child
support rose from 3.7 months in the
year prior to enrollment to 4.5 months
in the year after enrollment, a 22
percent increase.54
In 2008, the Arapahoe County
Division of Child Support Enforcement,
the Arapahoe/Douglas Workforce
Center, and the 18th Judicial District
Court in Colorado established the
Parents to Work program to secure jobs
for unemployed and underemployed
noncustodial parents and generate child
support payments.55 The program is still
in operation today.56 An evaluation of
this program was conducted, which
examined the first two years of
operation. During that time the
following employment services were
offered: intensive job search assistance,
job readiness training, job placement,
job development, on-the-job training,
work experience, occupational and
vocational training, subsidized
employment, pre-GED or GED
preparation, and assistance with
transportation, work clothes and tools.
The evaluation examined the outcomes
of participants one year before and after
enrollment and compared them to a
50 Born,
Catherine E., et al. (April 2011).
51 https://dhs.maryland.gov/child-support-
services/noncustodial-parents/noncustodial-parentemployment-programs/
52 Born, Catherine E., et al. (April 2011).
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid.
55 Pearson, Jessica, et al. (February 2011).
56 https://www.adworks.org/job-seekers/
programs/parents-to-work/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
group of noncustodial parents who did
not participate in Parents to Work.57 It
found that the average percentage of
child support due that was paid by the
treatment group rose from 36.6 percent
in the year prior to enrollment to 41.3
percent in the year following
enrollment, but was approximately the
same at both points in time for the
comparison group.58 Payment regularity
also improved significantly for the
treatment group, rising from an average
of 5.3 payments in the year prior to
enrollment to 5.7 payments in the year
following enrollment, but again
payment regularity was about the same
for the comparison group.59
In 2009, the Tennessee Department of
Human Services (DHS) was awarded a
grant from OCSS to develop, implement,
and evaluate a program providing
employment, parenting time, and case
management services to low-income,
unwed parents in the child support
program in three Tennessee judicial
districts. The program, called the Parent
Support Program (PSP), placed child
support staff known as Grant Program
Coordinators in each of the three local
child support offices to provide services
to families. These staff were the primary
providers of employment, parenting
time, and case management services.
The Grant Program Coordinators
conducted a needs assessment at
enrollment and developed a service
plan for each participant. They also
provided job search and job readiness
assistance, job development, and
financial assistance with work-related
expenses. For other employment
services, such as job training,
participants were referred to other
service providers. Enrollment began in
January 2010 and ended in March 2013.
During that time, PSP enrolled 1,016
noncustodial parents. The evaluation
examined participant outcomes in the
year before and after enrollment. The
evaluation found that the average
percentage of child support due that
participants paid rose from 33 percent
57 Pearson, Jessica, et al. (February 2011). Parents
to Work was intended to be evaluated using random
assignment, but the treatment group was
disproportionately selected from case worker and
court referrals, while the comparison group was
disproportionately selected from ad hoc reports.
Because of this difference in procedures, the two
groups were statistically significantly different prior
to program entry. In an effort to offset this
limitation, the study examined the outcomes of
noncustodial parents in both groups after
controlling for observed differences in pre-program
earnings, child support payments, and other
characteristics. The sample size for the evaluation
was 601 parents in the treatment group and 349 in
the comparison group.
58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in the year prior to enrollment to 36
percent in the year after enrollment.60
Many more states than those
discussed above have operated
employment and training programs for
noncustodial parents, but they have not
been able to use FFP to pay for these
services. This has limited the potential
impact and reach of these services. As
of February 2014, 30 States and the
District of Columbia were operating 77
employment and training programs for
noncustodial parents with active child
support agency involvement. Three of
these states were operating statewide
programs—Georgia, Maryland, and
North Dakota. But only a few of these
programs have been able to secure
resource commitments to fund these
services in an ongoing, consistent or
statewide basis. As a result, many
programs that were operating in 2014
are no longer in operation. Other
programs have had to scale back
because of reduced funding.
Nonetheless, because of the continued
work of child support agencies, many
new programs have emerged so that
there are roughly the same number of
states that have employment and
training programs for noncustodial
parents with active child support
agency involvement as in 2014.
Informed by the child support
program’s positive experience with
providing employment and training
programs, and the positive outcomes of
three decades of national
demonstrations and state evaluations,
OCSS now proposes to allow states to
access FFP for these services and
establish standards and requirements for
states when opting to provide federally
assisted employment and training
services under their IV–D State plans.
This proposed rule would provide
additional stability and support for
states to increase the effectiveness of
their respective programs for collecting
child support payments.
Further Studies in Support of the
Proposed Rulemaking
OCSS previously issued an NPRM on
November 17, 2014 that included
regulatory changes similar to those
being proposed here. 79 FR 68547,
68556 (November 17, 2014). While this
proposed rule received overwhelming
support from states, many Members of
Congress, and the public, it was not
included in the final rule issued on
December 20, 2016 in order to allow for
further study. The final rule stated,
‘‘While we appreciate the support the
commenters expressed, we think
allowing for federal IV–D
60 Davis,
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
Lanae, et al. (November 2013).
31MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
reimbursement for job services needs
further study and would be ripe for
implementation at a later time.’’ 81 FR
93492, 93496 (December 20, 2016).
Since 2016, findings from three new
national demonstrations that offered
employment and training services to
noncustodial parents have been
released. They are the Child Support
National Parent Employment
Demonstration (CSPED), Enhanced
Traditional Jobs Demonstration (ETJD),
and Families Forward Demonstration
(FFD). These three demonstrations
added considerably to OCSS’s
understanding of the effectiveness of
employment programs for noncustodial
parents and further informed the
development of this NPRM.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Child Support National Parent
Employment Demonstration (CSPED)
CSPED was a randomized control trial
(RCT) demonstration designed to test
the effectiveness of child support-led
employment programs for noncustodial
parents. It was funded by OCSS, which
awarded demonstration grants to eight
state child support agencies in 2012.
These child support agencies operated
employment programs for noncustodial
parents in 18 local jurisdictions from
2013 to 2017. A total of 10,173
noncustodial parents enrolled in the
demonstration.61 CSPED was able to
reach such a large number of
noncustodial parents in part because it
recruited noncustodial parents
administratively as well as during
contempt hearings. Key services
included employment services,
enhanced child support services, and
parenting classes. Employment services
consisted of one-on-one job counseling,
job search assistance, job readiness
training, and job placement and
retention services. Programs were
encouraged to offer short-term job skills
training and vocational educational
training, but not required to do so.
Enhanced child support services were
expected to include initiating order
modifications if needed, removing
license suspensions and holding other
enforcement remedies in abeyance
while parents participated in the
program, and reducing state-owed
arrears if permitted by state law.62
61 Cancian, Maria, Daniel R. Meyer, Robert Wood,
‘‘Final Impact Findings from the Child Support
Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration,’’
Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty
(March 2019), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/ocse/csped_impact_
report.pdf.
62 Office of Child Support Enforcement, ‘‘National
Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment
Demonstration Projects,’’ Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, HHS–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
CSPED increased the effectiveness of
the child support program by increasing
noncustodial parents’ employment and
earnings as measured by quarterly
earnings, which, in turn, increased the
likelihood of paying child support
through wage withholding. Specifically,
it increased participants’ employment
rate by 3 percent during the first 2 years
after enrollment, and increased their
earnings by 4 percent during the first
year after enrollment, both of which are
measured using quarterly earnings.63
This, in turn, increased the likelihood of
participants paying child support
through income withholding by 8
percent during the first year after
enrollment.64 It also increased
noncustodial parents’ satisfaction with
the child support program, increased
noncustodial parent-child contact, and
improved noncustodial parents’
attitudes about responsibility for
children, all of which contributed to an
improved image of the child support
program and helped overcome
significant distrust among noncustodial
parents, paving the way for better
communication, more cooperation, and
a more effective child support
program.65 Finally, a benefit-cost
analysis of CSPED found that the
benefits of CSPED outweighed its costs
within two years when the costs of
employment and parenting services
received by members of the regularservices group were taken into
account.66
2012–ACF–OCSE–FD–0297 (2012), available at
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/ocse/hhs-2012-acf-ocse-fd-0297_
csped.pdf.
63 Sorensen, Elaine (November 2020).
64 Ibid. While CSPED was successful at increasing
the likelihood of paying child support through
income withholding, it did not increase the amount
of child support paid. As noted in the text, CSPED
provided both employment and enhanced child
support services. It appears that these services
worked at cross-purposes to one another. As part of
enhanced child support services, child support
agencies offered order modification services to
participants, which reduced their average amount
of child support orders. Reducing child support
orders will necessarily reduce income withholding
orders, which reduces the amount of child support
paid since most child support is paid via income
withholding. In contrast, employment services are
designed to increase the employment and earnings
of noncustodial parents, which, in turn, are
expected to increase child support payments. Thus,
it appears that one service reduced the amount of
child support paid while the other increased it,
resulting in no impact on the amount of child
support paid.
65 Cancian, Maria, et al. (March 2019).
66 Cancian, Maria, Daniel R. Meyer, and Robert G.
Wood, ‘‘Carrots Work Better than Sticks? Results
from the National Child Support Noncustodial
Parent Employment Demonstration,’’ Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management. 41:2 (2022),
available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/
epdf/10.1002/pam.22370.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47115
Enhanced Traditional Jobs
Demonstration
ETJD was a RCT demonstration
designed to test the effectiveness of
providing temporary subsidized jobs
and other enhanced services. It was
funded by the U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL) and the Office of Planning,
Research, and Evaluation within the
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children
and Families. DOL awarded seven
demonstration grants, four of which
targeted noncustodial parents and three
of which targeted formerly incarcerated
individuals. The demonstration
operated from 2011 to 2014 and
enrolled a total of 4,000 individuals in
the four demonstrations that targeted
noncustodial parents. Key services in
the noncustodial parent demonstration
sites included up to four months of
subsidized employment, other
employment services, and child
support-related assistance.67
ETJD showed that providing
subsidized employment to noncustodial
parents successfully increased their
employment and earnings in the final
year of the 30-month follow-up period,
well after the subsidized employment
ended. During this period, noncustodial
parents who received ETJD services
were 7 percent more likely to be
employed, and their earnings were 13
percent higher than the noncustodial
parents who did not receive ETJD
services.68
ETJD also successfully increased the
likelihood of noncustodial parents
paying child support and the average
number of months of paying child
support during the final year of the 30month follow-up period. During this
period, noncustodial parents who
received ETJD services were 11 percent
more likely to pay child support, and
the average number of months of paying
child support was 16 percent higher
than noncustodial parents who did not
receive ETJD services.69
67 Redcross, Cindy, Bret Barden, and Dan Bloom,
‘‘The Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration:
Implementation and Early Impacts of the Next
Generation of Subsidized Employment Programs,’’
New York: MDRC (November 2016), available at
https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ETJD_
STED_2016_FR.pdf.
68 Barden, Bret, Randall Juras, Cindy Redcross,
Mary Farrell, Dan Bloom, ‘‘New Perspectives on
Creating Jobs: Final Impacts of the Next Generation
of Subsidized Employment Programs,’’ New York:
MDRC (May 2018), available at https://
www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ETJD_STED_
Final_Impact_Report_2018_508Compliant_v2.pdf.
69 Barden, Bret, et al. (May 2018). ETJD did not
increase the amount of child support paid in the
final year of the follow-up period. This is likely
because local child support agencies in three of the
four ETJD sites initiated order modifications if
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
Continued
31MYP1
47116
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Families Forward Demonstration
FFD was designed to test the
effectiveness of offering free
occupational training to increase
reliable child support payments. It
operated in five locations from 2018 to
2020 and enrolled 761 noncustodial
parents. FFD was funded through a
grant from the W. K. Kellogg
Foundation, local funding raised by
participating child support agencies,
and matching federal funds through
Section 1115 Waivers approved by the
Office of Child Support Services.70 FFD
provided the following three services:
free occupational training, other
employment services and wraparound
supports, and responsive child support
services. Free occupational training
targeted demand-driven occupations,
which varied by location. Other
employment services focused on job
search and placement assistance and
career planning. The most common
wraparound supports were workrelated, such as assistance with workrelated transportation costs or other
work-related expenses. Responsive
child support services included child
support navigation, arrears compromise
programs, order modification if needed,
and suspension of enforcement action.71
The evaluation of this demonstration
consisted of an implementation study
and an analysis of child support
outcomes for program participants prior
to and after program enrollment.72 It
found that the trends in child support
payments for noncustodial parent
participants improved relative to their
pre-enrollment trends.73 While this
study was not designed to attribute
causality, these findings suggest that
offering free training to noncustodial
parents may have a positive impact on
child support payments, providing
further evidence that offering training
services to noncustodial parents holds
promise for increasing the effectiveness
of the child support program.
Results from these recent
demonstrations, in addition to the large
needed as an enhanced child support service to
address the possibility that orders were too high
relative to participants’ ability to pay. If orders are
reduced, income withholding orders will be lower
and the amount of child support withheld will be
lower. Thus, the amount of child support paid will
not necessarily increase as a result of increased
earnings if orders are modified downward. Only
one ETJD site did not offer to initiate order
modifications and that was the only site that saw
a statistically significant increase in the amount of
child support paid.
70 The FFD program in New York was
additionally supported by the Robin Hood
Foundation.
71 Wasserman, Kyla, et al. (April 2021).
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
body of evidence that preceded these
demonstrations, provide support for
OCSS’s determination that permitting
states to provide employment and
training services to noncustodial parents
can increase the effectiveness of the
child support program. By allowing
states to use FFP to provide
employment and training services,
OCSS aims to create a reliable funding
source for states that choose these
services to supplement traditional
enforcement tools and effectively obtain
child support.
Section-by-Section Discussion of the
Provisions of This Proposed Rule
This NPRM proposes to allow FFP for
certain optional and nonduplicative
employment and training services
designed to supplement traditional
enforcement tools and to help
noncustodial parents find and retain
employment so they can support their
children.
§ 302.76 Employment and Training
Services
We propose to add a new optional
State plan provision at § 302.76,
Employment and Training Services. The
proposal permits states to provide
certain employment and training
services to eligible noncustodial parents
pursuant to § 303.6(c)(5).
We propose to limit eligibility to
noncustodial parents who have an open
IV–D case; have a current child support
order or be determined by the IV–D
agency to be fully cooperating with the
IV–D agency to establish a current child
support order; are unemployed or
underemployed or at risk of not being
able to comply with their current
support order; and are not receiving the
same employment and training service
under Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) (45 CFR part 261),
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Employment and Training
program (7 CFR 273.7 and 273.24),
Federal Pell Grant (34 CFR part 690), the
U.S. Department of Labor Employment
and Training programs authorized
under Title I of the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (20
CFR parts 675–688), the Adult
Education and Family Literacy Act
(AEFLA) program (34 CFR part 463), or
the Vocational Rehabilitation program
(34 CFR part 361). States may add
additional eligibility criteria. We invite
comment on these proposed eligibility
criteria.
We acknowledge the benefits of
improved coordination between the
various Federal programs that are
eligible to provide employment and
training services. We encourage states to
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
establish a coordinated, nonduplicative
set of employment and training services
with other federally-funded programs.
The primary goal of offering
employment and training services is to
increase the consistency of current
support payments to families with
minor children. Thus, the proposed rule
does not allow noncustodial parents
with arrears-only cases to be eligible to
receive employment and training
services as a reimbursable IV–D cost
when no current support obligation
exists or is being established.
We propose that allowable
employment and training services are
limited to:
(i) Job search assistance;
(ii) Job readiness training;
(iii) Job development and job
placement services;
(iv) Skills assessments to facilitate job
placement;
(v) Job retention services;
(vi) Work supports, such as
transportation assistance, uniforms, and
tools; and
(vii) Occupational training and other
skills training directly related to
employment, which may also include
activities to improve literacy and basic
skills, such as programs to complete
high school or a high school
equivalency certificate, or English as a
second language, as long as they are
included in the same employment and
training services plan.
We recognize that providing these
services will require case management.
Thus, FFP may also be used to provide
case management for these allowable
services. FFP may not be used for
subsidized employment or to provide to
the noncustodial parent cash payments,
checks, reimbursements, or any other
form of payment that can be legally
converted to currency. For example,
FFP may not be used to provide
financial incentive payments to
noncustodial parents, or to directly
reimburse noncustodial parents for
employment and training related
expenditures. Allowable services must
be secured through service providers as
opposed to allowing reimbursement to
parents.
We have included a focused set of
employment and training services
because our review of research found
that employment and training programs
for noncustodial programs tend to
provide a package of employment and
training services in their effort to
improve the effectiveness of child
support program. The list of proposed
allowable services includes those
services that were most frequently
provided in various demonstrations,
research evaluations, and state-based
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
programs detailed in the proposed rule.
We invite comment on the list of
proposed allowable employment and
training services.
We suggest that child support
agencies should partner wherever
possible with existing employment and
training providers and that child
support agencies especially should not
try to carry out job development on their
own and should consider doing so
through or in partnership with the local
American Job Center business services
representatives.
We have included work supports and
job retention services as allowable
expenditures because, as described
above, many of the employment and
training programs for noncustodial
parents that have been evaluated
included these services as part of a
package of employment and training
services, which were found effective at
improving child support outcomes.
Work supports consist of costs incurred
for bona fide services and assistance
provided to noncustodial parents so that
they may find and retain employment or
participate in employment and training
services. For example, a common form
of work supports is transportation
assistance, such as bus tokens and gas
vouchers. Work supports may also
include the cost of providing emergency
child care assistance for children on the
child support case associated with the
noncustodial parent receiving
employment and training services if that
emergency inhibits participation in
employment and training services or
finding or retaining work.74 Job
retention services are services that assist
a job holder with retaining employment
and can include regular check-ins with
job holders as well as supporting
managers who hired job holders with
on-the-job issues. Job retention services
can be offered directly to the job holder
or to the employer to serve the job
holder.
We propose that this State plan
provision be optional to states since
offering employment and training
services may increase state costs. If the
state chooses this option, this proposal
will require that the State plan include
a description of the employment and
training services and eligibility criteria.
It will also require that the State plan
74 Other eligible work supports may include, but
are not limited to: costs incurred for bona fide
services and assistance such as work-related tools;
work-related clothing or unforms; transportation
and travel to or from training and work sites;
emergency vehicle repairs if affordable
transportation alternatives are not available;
referrals for child care assistance; referrals to health
care, mental health counseling or drug treatment;
licenses; application fees; and other costs of
employment and training tests or certifications.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
include an explanation of how the child
support program is establishing a
coordinated, nonduplicative set of
employment and training services with
other federally-funded programs. It will
also require that states comply with
future reporting requirements
prescribed by the Office.
§ 303.6 Enforcement of Support
Obligations
We propose to redesignate existing
paragraph § 303.6(c)(5) as new
paragraph § 303.6(c)(6) and to add new
paragraph § 303.6(c)(5) to provide
program standards related to the
proposed optional State plan provision
§ 302.76, Employment and Training
Services. Additionally, we propose that
funds can only be used for a limited set
of employment and training services
which complement, not duplicate, the
services a noncustodial parent may be
receiving from another federally-funded
program. OCSS remains diligent in
efforts to not duplicate services
provided to noncustodial parents under
other federally-funded programs.
Because IV–D funds can only be used
for a limited set of employment and
training services, OCSS will encourage
states to use other funding to pay for
services that are not eligible for IV–D
funds and combine those services with
IV–D funded services to address the
multiple barriers to employment that
low-income noncustodial parents often
face.
The proposed language allows
flexibility for states to coordinate with
other programs to ensure that IV–D
funds are used effectively to help
noncustodial parents obtain and
maintain employment to support their
children, while avoiding duplicating
services. Partnering with other programs
can allow child support programs to
broaden the types of services they
provide to noncustodial parents in their
caseload. For example, if a noncustodial
parent is currently enrolled in a high
school equivalency certificate program
or any service already being provided to
the noncustodial parent that is being
paid for by another federal funding
source, IV–D funds would not be
available for this same service, but
would be available for non-duplicative
services, such as job search assistance,
provided a noncustodial parent is not
receiving that service from any of the
federal funding sources detailed in the
proposed amendments to 303.6 and
302.76.
States are strongly encouraged to
maximize coordination to ensure
effective service delivery and to provide
the most appropriate mix of services
that address the multiple barriers to
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47117
employment that low-income
noncustodial parents often face while
minimizing costs to the child support
program. In particular, we strongly
encourage coordination with the six
core programs providing services
through state workforce development
systems established under the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act (WIOA) to make the most
appropriate use of federal funds.
Furthermore, we strongly encourage
states to coordinate with high-quality
training programs and other evidencebased training models shown to lead to
sustained earnings gains—to increase
noncustodial parents’ ability to meet
their financial obligations to their
children. Noncustodial parents who
receive Pell Grants may use those funds,
to the extent permissible by the Higher
Education Act of 1965, to pay for some
of the same eligible employment and
training services that state child support
programs can provide under this NPRM.
Therefore, we will encourage states to
communicate with noncustodial parents
concerning Pell Grants and ensure nonduplication of any employment and
training services attained with Pell
Grant funds. OCSS’s policy goals are to
make it possible for state child support
agencies to provide employment and
training services to noncustodial parents
who need them but are not being
provided such services by other
federally-funded programs.
OCSS anticipates that many state
child support agencies will purchase
employment and training services by
entering into contracts with public,
private and community-based
employment, fatherhood, and
community re-entry programs,
community action agencies, community
colleges, or other service providers,
rather than offer these services in-house,
in accordance with 45 CFR 304.22,
Federal financial participation in
purchased support enforcement
services. Child support agencies may
also access employment and training
services by partnering with labor
organizations. However, this does not
preclude a child support agency from
providing employment and training
services to noncustodial parents
directly. In addition, OCSS encourages
child support agencies to develop and
maintain partnerships with TANF, the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, workforce agencies, workforce
development boards, and American Job
Centers to offer available employment
and training services to noncustodial
parents whenever those resources are
available. We also encourage state child
support agencies to partner with other
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
47118
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
organizations that can offer additional
employment and training activities
beyond those funded under title IV–D,
such as Vocational Rehabilitation
agencies for those noncustodial parents
who are individuals with disabilities
and are eligible for the Vocational
Rehabilitation program.
We do not want states to duplicate
other services, but we also do not want
to make it impossible for states to
provide employment and training
services due to the unavailability of data
needed to verify that such services are
not being duplicated. Thus, child
support programs will make individual
determinations about whether a
noncustodial parent is receiving the
same employment and training services
from other programs. To ensure the
eligibility criterion is met, the child
support program may obtain an
attestation from the noncustodial parent
that the parent is not receiving the same
Section and purpose
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Added optional requirement § 302.76 Employment and training services.
State plan
amendment.
16:22 May 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
§ 304.20 Availability and Rate of
Federal Financial Participation
We propose to redesignate existing
paragraph § 304.20(b)(3)(vii) as new
paragraph § 304.20(b)(3)(viii), and to
add new paragraph § 304.20(b)(3)(vii)
allowing FFP for certain employment
and training services when they are
provided in accordance with
§ 303.6(c)(5).
Effective Dates
The proposed effective date will be 60
days from the date of publication of the
final rule.
Number of
respondents
Instrument
One time for 33
states.
A state may submit a plan amendment
for the optional and nonduplicative
employment and training services at any
time after the proposed rule becomes
final. But not all states will implement
these optional services. Out of the 54
states, we estimate 33 will eventually
submit plan amendments for these
optional services. Additionally, we
estimate that states will take 3 hours to
draft the required information to amend
their State plans. The cost to
respondents was calculated using the
Bureau of Labor Statistics job code for
State Government Management Analyst
[13–1111] and wage data from May
2021, which is $33.41 per hour. To
account for fringe benefits and
overhead, the rate was multiplied by
two, which is $66.82. The total
estimated cost is $6,615.18 with a state
share of $2,249.16. OCSS reimburses
states for 66 percent of the
administrative costs incurred to
administer the State plan.
ACF will consider comments by the
public on this proposed collection of
information in the following areas:
1. Evaluating whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of ACF,
including whether the information will
have practical utility;
2. Evaluating the accuracy of ACF’s
estimates of the proposed collection of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
employment and training services under
the federal programs listed in
§ 303.6(c)(5). This will allow a
noncustodial parent getting some
services from the American Job Center
to also receive nonduplicated
employment and training services
through the child support program.
Average burden hour per
response
3 hours × $66.82 × 33
states.
information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhancing the quality, usefulness,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
4. Minimizing the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
contained in these proposed regulations
within 60 days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register.
Written comments to OMB for the
proposed information collection should
be sent directly to the following: Office
of Management and Budget (OMB),
either by fax to 202–395–6974 or by
email to OIRA_submission@
omb.eop.gov. Please mark faxes and
emails to the attention of the desk
officer for ACF.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Impact Analysis
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(Pub. L. 104–13), all Departments are
required to submit to OMB for review
and approval any reporting or
recordkeeping requirements inherent in
a proposed or final rule. There is one
new State plan reporting requirement
because of this proposed rule for states
that implement the optional and
nonduplicative employment and
training services. The description and
total estimated burden on the ‘‘State
Plan for Child Support Collection and
Establishment of Paternity Under Title
IV–D of the Social Security Act,’’ and
the State Plan Transmittal Form [OMB
0970–0017] are described in the chart
below.
Total cost
$6,615.18
National
Federal share
National State
share
$4,366.02
$2,249.16
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. This rule
meets the standards of Executive Order
13563 because providing employment
training and services benefits the public,
particularly children and families
whose economic security would be
improved by increasing family income
and improving financial stability. These
services help to reduce the need for and
cost of providing public assistance. This
proposed rule was designated by OMB
as a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, as amended by
Executive Order 14094. If finalized, the
rule would not result in economic
impacts that exceed the monetary
threshold in section 3(f)(1) of Executive
Order 12866 (as amended).
The estimated fiscal impact of
allowing child support programs to use
FFP for employment and training
services would result in an increase of
$15.5 million in federal expenditures
during FY 2025, the anticipated first
fiscal year of implementation. As more
child support programs use this
authority, the estimated fiscal impact
will increase. By FY 2034, the estimated
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
fiscal impact is expected to be $75.9
million per budget year. These estimates
do not reflect the potential benefits to
the Federal Government of
implementing this program, such as
reducing the cost of providing child
support enforcement services and
reducing reliance on means-tested
programs; they only reflect the
estimated cost of providing employment
and training services to noncustodial
parents.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Secretary proposes to certify that,
under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–
354), this proposed rule, if finalized,
will not result in a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
The primary impact is on state
governments. State governments are not
considered small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) requires
agencies to prepare an assessment of
anticipated costs and benefits before
issuing any rule that may result in an
annual expenditure by state, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
by the private sector, of $100 million or
more (adjusted annually for inflation).
That threshold level is currently
approximately $177 million. This rule
does not impose any mandates on state,
local, or tribal governments, or the
private sector, that will exceed this
threshold in any year.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Assessment of Federal Regulations and
Policies on Families
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 requires federal agencies to
determine whether a proposed policy or
regulation may affect family well-being.
If the agency’s determination is
affirmative, then the agency must
prepare an impact assessment
addressing seven criteria specified in
the law. We certify that we have
assessed this proposed rule’s impact on
the well-being of families. This
proposed rule will have a positive
impact on family well-being as defined
in the legislation by proposing
evidence-informed policies and
practices that help to ensure that
noncustodial parents support their
children more consistently and reliably.
Congressional Review
This proposed rule is not a major rule
as defined in 5 U.S.C. Chapter 8.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 prohibits an
agency from publishing any rule that
has federalism implications if the rule
either imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on state and local
governments and is not required by
statute, or the rule preempts state law,
unless the agency meets the
consultation and funding requirements
of section 6 of the Executive Order. This
rule does not have federalism impacts as
defined in the Executive Order 13132.
Jeff Hild, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for the Administration for
Children and Families, performing the
delegable duties of the Assistant
Secretary for Children and Families,
approved this document on April 24,
2024.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658,
659a, 660, 663, 664, 666, 667, 1302,
1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p),
1396(k), and 25 U.S.C. 1603(12) and 1621e.
Child support, State plan
requirements.
45 CFR Part 303
4. Amend § 303.6 by:
a. Redesignating paragraph (c)(5) as
paragraph (c)(6); and
■ b. Adding paragraph (c)(5).
The addition reads as follows:
■
Child Support, Standards for program
operations
45 CFR Part 304
Child support, Federal financial
participation
Dated: May 24, 2024.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services.
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the Department of Health and
Human Services proposes to amend 45
CFR parts 302, 303, and 304 as set forth
below:
PART 302—STATE PLAN
REQUIREMENTS
1. The authority citation for part 302
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658,
659a, 660, 664, 666, 667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25),
1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396(k).
2. Section 302.76 is added to read as
follows:
■
§ 302.76 Employment and training
services
The State plan may provide for
employment and training services for
eligible noncustodial parents in
accordance with § 303.6(c)(5) of this
chapter. If the state chooses this option,
the State plan must include a
description of the employment and
training services and the eligibility
criteria. In addition, the State plan must
explain how the IV–D agency is
coordinating with the state agencies
Fmt 4702
PART 303—STANDARDS FOR
PROGRAM OPERATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 303
continues to read as follows:
45 CFR Part 302
Frm 00012
administering the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families program (TANF) (45
CFR part 261), the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program
Employment and Training program (7
CFR 273.7 and 273.24), and the six core
programs of the state’s workforce
development system established under
the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA), to ensure the
noncustodial parent is receiving wellcoordinated employment and training
services across these programs and
systems, and that services are not being
duplicated. States electing the option
must comply with future reporting
requirements prescribed by the Office.
■
List of Subjects
PO 00000
47119
Sfmt 4702
■
§ 303.6 Enforcement of support
obligations
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(5) As elected by the state in § 302.76
of this chapter, provide employment
and training services to eligible
noncustodial parents. In addition to
eligibility criteria that may be set by the
IV–D agency, the noncustodial parent
must: have an open IV–D case; have a
current child support order or be
determined by the IV–D agency to be
fully cooperating with the IV–D agency
to establish a current child support
order; be unemployed or
underemployed or at risk of not being
able to comply with their current
support order; and not be receiving the
same employment and training services
under the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families program (TANF) (45
CFR part 261), Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program Employment and
Training program (7 CFR 273.7 and
273.24), Federal Pell Grant (34 CFR part
690), the U.S. Department of Labor
Employment and Training programs
authorized under Title I of the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act (20 CFR parts 675–688), the Adult
Education and Family Literacy Act
(AEFLA) program (34 CFR part 463), or
the State Vocational Rehabilitation
program (34 CFR part 361).
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
47120
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 2024 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
These IV–D agency employment and
training services are limited to:
(i) Job search assistance;
(ii) Job readiness training;
(iii) Job development and job
placement services;
(iv) Skills assessments to facilitate job
placement;
(v) Job retention services;
(vi) Work supports, such as
transportation assistance, uniforms, and
tools; and
(vii) Occupational training and other
skills training directly related to
employment, which may also include
activities to improve literacy and basic
skills, such as programs to complete
high school or a high school
equivalency certificate, or English as a
second language, as long as they are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:22 May 30, 2024
Jkt 262001
included in the same employment and
training services plan.
Federal financial participation may
also be used to provide case
management in connection with these
allowable services. Federal financial
participation is not available for cash
payments, checks, reimbursements, or
any other form of payment that can be
legally converted to currency.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 304—FEDERAL FINANCIAL
PARTICIPATION
5. The authority citation for part 304
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 655, 657,
1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o),
1396b(p), and 1396(k).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
6. Amend § 304.20 by:
■ a. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3)(vii)
as paragraph (b)(3)(viii); and
■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(3)(vii).
The addition reads as follows:
■
§ 304.20 Availability and rate of Federal
financial participation
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(vii) Employment and training
services activities in accordance with
§ 303.6(c)(5).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2024–11842 Filed 5–30–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184–41–P
E:\FR\FM\31MYP1.SGM
31MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 106 (Friday, May 31, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47109-47120]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-11842]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Parts 302, 303, and 304
RIN 0970-AD00
Employment and Training Services for Noncustodial Parents in the
Child Support Program
AGENCY: Office of Child Support Services (OCSS), Administration for
Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS or the Department).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In an effort to make the child support program more effective,
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to allow Federal
financial participation (FFP) for certain optional and nonduplicative
employment and training services for eligible noncustodial parents in
the child support program. The proposed rule will permit states, at
their discretion, to use FFP to provide any or all of the following
services: job search assistance; job readiness training; job
development and job placement services; skills assessments; job
retention services; work supports; and occupational training and other
skills training directly related to employment.
DATES: Consideration will be given to written comments on this NPRM
received on or before July 30, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by [docket number and/or
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) number], by one of the following
methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Written comments may be submitted to: Office of
Child Support Services, Attention: Director of Policy and Training, 330
C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201.
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or RIN for this rulemaking. All comments received
will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided.
Docket: Go to the Federal Rulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov for access to the rulemaking docket, including any
background documents and the plain-language summary of the proposed
rule of not more than 100 words in length required by the Providing
Accountability Through Transparency Act of 2023.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chad Edinger, Program Specialist, OCSS
Division of Regional Operations, at mail to: [email protected] or
(303) 844-1213. Telecommunications Relay users may dial 711 first.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submission of Comments
Comments should be specific, address issues raised by the proposed
rule, and explain reasons for any objections or recommended changes.
Additionally, we will be interested in comments that indicate agreement
with the proposal. We will not acknowledge receipt of the comments we
receive. However, we will review and consider all comments that are
relevant and received during the comment period. We will respond to
these comments in the preamble to the final rule.
Statutory Authority
This NPRM is published under the authority granted to the Secretary
of Health and Human Services by section 1102 of the Social Security Act
(the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1302). Section 1102 of the Act authorizes the
Secretary to publish regulations, not inconsistent with the Act, as may
be necessary to the efficient administration of the functions with
which the Secretary is responsible under the Act. This NPRM is also
authorized by section 452(a)(1) of the Act, which states that the
Secretary's designee ``shall establish such standards for State
programs for locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, and
obtaining child support . . . as he determines to be necessary to
assure that such programs will be effective.''
Section 454 of the Act establishes requirements that states must
include in their title IV-D State plans, the costs of which are
eligible for FFP under section 455 of the Act. Section 454(13) of the
Act requires the State plan to ``provide that the State will comply
with such other requirements and standards as the Secretary determines
to be necessary to the establishment of an effective program for
locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, obtaining
support orders, and collecting support payments . . . .'' The
rulemaking is also consistent with section 451, which authorizes
federal funding to states for enforcing support obligations, obtaining
child support payments, and assuring that assistance in obtaining
support is available to all children.
Background
In 1975, Congress established the child support program under title
IV-D of the Social Security Act (Pub. L. 93-647). The child support
program is administered at the federal level by the Office of Child
Support Services (OCSS) and functions in 54 states and territories and
over 60 tribes. When the child support program began, its primary focus
was collecting child support to recover welfare costs, but that has
changed significantly over time. Today, the program is focused on
delivering family-centered child support services that improve the
long-term financial and emotional support of children, by collecting
and facilitating consistent child support payments based on the
noncustodial parents' ability to pay. This evolution has been guided by
the changing needs of families, by federal legislation, and by research
and data that contribute to OCSS's understanding of the standards and
requirements necessary to establish an effective child support program.
Families and work have fundamentally changed since 1975. The
percent of children who need child support services has increased and
the ability of noncustodial parents to pay child support has declined.
Families are more likely to divorce or never marry, increasing the
likelihood that children will spend time apart from one of their
parents. In 2021, 40 percent of births were to unmarried women, up from
14 percent in 1975.\1\ In FY 2022, the child support program served one
in five children in the United States, or 12.8
[[Page 47110]]
million children.\2\ The labor market has been particularly difficult
for less-educated men during this period, leaving them with
significantly fewer job opportunities and less income than before. In
2015, the real hourly earnings for men 25-54 years old with only a high
school degree was 18 percent lower than it was in 1973.\3\ As of 2018,
over 70 percent of nonresident parents had not attended college.\4\ In
2017, more than one-third of nonresident parents (3.4 million) lived in
families with incomes below 200 percent of the official poverty
thresholds and 43 percent did not work full-time, year-round.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National
Center for Health Statistics, ``Nonmarital Childbearing in the
United States, 1940-99,'' National Vital Statistics Reports, 48: 16
(October 18, 2000), available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf. Osterman, Michelle J.K., Brady E. Hamilton,
Joyce A. Martin, Anne K. Driscoll, and Claudia P. Valenzuela,
``Births: Final Data for 2021,'' National Vital Statistics Reports,
72: 1 (January 31, 2023), available at https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr72/nvsr72-01.pdf.
\2\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Services, ``2022
Child Support: More Money for Families,'' undated, available at
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/2022_infographic_national.pdf.
\3\ Binder, Ariel J. and John Bound, ``The Declining Labor
Market Prospects of Less-Educated Men,'' Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 33: 2 (2019), available at https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.33.2.163.
\4\ Sanders, Patrick, ``Demographic and Socioeconomic
Characteristics of Nonresident Parents,'' Washington, DC:
Congressional Research Service, R46942 (October 2021) available at
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46942. This report
uses the term ``nonresident parent'' rather than noncustodial
parent. It defines a nonresident parent as a person 15 years or
older who does not reside for a majority of nights in the same
household as one or more of his or her biological, adopted, or
stepchildren under age 21. This definition is very similar to the
definition of a noncustodial parent used by the child support
program. For purposes of the child support program, a noncustodial
parent is a parent who does not have primary care, custody, or
control of the child, and who may have an obligation to pay child
support (See Office of Child Support Services, Glossary of Common
Terms available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/glossary#N).
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other societal changes have also affected the child support
program, including greatly elevated incarceration rates. Incarceration
rates increased dramatically between 1980 and 2008 and have since
declined, but the percent of the U.S. population incarcerated in 2020
was more than double the figure in 1980.\6\ It is estimated that 6
percent of all children in the United States have a parent who was ever
incarcerated.\7\ Having an incarceration record is a barrier to
employment that diminishes earnings potential, reducing a parent's
ability to work and pay child support.\8\ Sixty-five percent of
noncustodial parents who enrolled in a recently completed national
demonstration of child support-led employment and training programs
reported that they had been previously incarcerated.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Kluckow, Rich and Zhen Zeng ``Correctional Populations in
the United States, 2020--Statistical Tables'' (March 2022), Lauren
E. Glaze, ``Correctional Populations in the United States, 2010''
(December 2011), and Louis W. Jankowski, Louis W., ``Correctional
Populations in the United States, 1990'' (July 1992), U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, all available at https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/list?series_filter=Correctional%20Populations%20in%20the%20United%20States. Historical U.S. population data available at https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/popchange-data-text.html.
\7\ The Annie E. Casey Foundation, ``Children Who Had a Parent
Who Was Ever Incarcerated by Race and Ethnicity in United States''
(May 2023) available at https://datacenter.aecf.org/data/tables/9734-children-who-had-a-parent-who-was-ever-incarcerated-by-race-and-ethnicity#detailed/1/any/false/2043,1769,1696,1648,1603/10,11,9,12,1,13/18995,18996.
\8\ Travis, Jeremy, Bruce Western, & Steve Redburn, (Eds.) The
Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and
Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, (2014),
available at https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18613/the-growth-of-incarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes.
\9\ Maria Cancian, Maria, Angela Guarin, Leslie Hodges, and
Daniel R. Meyer, ``Characteristics of Participants in the Child
Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED)
Evaluation,'' Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty
(December 2019), Appendix Table C3, available at https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CSPED-Final-Characteristics-of-Participants-Report-2019-Compliant.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1996, Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA, Pub. L. 104-193), which
included significant changes to the child support program.\10\ These
changes included the introduction of a new ``family first''
distribution policy, which required that former assistance families
receive certain child support arrearage payments collected by the state
before the state and Federal governments retained their share of
collections.\11\ PRWORA also amended the Social Security Act to add
work requirements for noncustodial parents owing past-due child support
for a child receiving assistance under the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) program. Specifically, section 466(a)(15) of the
Act requires states to have laws and procedures under which the state
has the authority to issue an order requiring an individual to
participate in work activities, as defined by section 407(d).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Legler, Paul, The Coming Revolution in Child Support
Policy: Implications of the 1996 Welfare Act Family Law Quarterly,
Vol. 30, No. 3 (Fall 1996), pp. 519-563, available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/25740093.
\11\ Congressional Research Service, ``The Child Support
Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950,''
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, R47630 (July 2023)
available at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47630.
\12\ In section 407(d) of the Social Security Act, work
activities are defined as: (1) unsubsidized employment; (2)
subsidized private sector employment; (3) subsidized public sector
employment; (4) work experience (including work associated with the
refurbishing of publicly assisted housing) if sufficient private
sector employment is not available; (5) on-the-job training; (6) job
search and job readiness assistance; (7) community service programs;
(8) vocational educational training (not to exceed 12 months with
respect to any individual); (9) job skills training directly related
to employment; (10) education directly related to employment, in the
case of a recipient who has not received a high school diploma or a
certificate of high school equivalency; (11) satisfactory attendance
at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a certificate
of general equivalence, in the case of a recipient who has not
completed secondary school or received such a certificate; and (12)
the provision of child care services to an individual who is
participating in a community service program. Available at https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0407.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1997, Congress authorized a total of $3 billion for the Welfare-
to-Work (WtW) Grants program as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997
(Pub. L. 105-33). Administered by the U.S. Department of Labor, these
grants were intended to help long-term welfare recipients and
noncustodial parents of children whose custodial parents met certain
criteria find and keep good jobs.\13\ Congress appropriated funds for
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and grantees were allowed five years to
spend their funds, which ended in 2004. OCSS encouraged IV-D and IV-A
agencies to work together to support WtW programs and encouraged states
to make ``special efforts to inform potentially eligible noncustodial
parents about the existence and availability of WtW services.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ U.S. Department of Labor, ``Training and Employment
Guidance Letter No. 15-01, General Program Questions,'' Reissued
March 22, 2002, available at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2002/TEGL15-01_GP.pdf.
\14\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support
Services, AT-00-08, available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/questions-and-responses-regarding-collaborative-efforts-iv-d-agencies-and.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, OCSS issued policy guidance, in PIQ 98-03 and AT 00-
08, to respond to state inquiries about the availability of FFP under
title IV-D for work activities for noncustodial parents. OCSS concluded
that because section 466(a)(15) of the Act did not require that IV-D
programs establish, provide, or administer work activity programs for
noncustodial parents, the costs of these activities could not be
attributed to the IV-D program. In guidance, OCSS explained that FFP
was available ``for the identification and referral of unemployed
noncustodial parents to job training, coordination with courts
regarding compliance with court orders, tracking participation, and
data collection,'' but was not available for ``training and services
provided by entities other than the IV-D agency.'' \15\ OCSS viewed the
determination of
[[Page 47111]]
eligibility for and cost of participation in WtW programs as ``the
responsibilities of the WtW grantees, not the courts or the IV-D
agency.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Ibid.
\16\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justification
The current proposal to allow FFP for employment and training
services for noncustodial parents would supersede OCSS's prior
guidance. In the late 1990s, OCSS did not have the benefit of rigorous
evidence and other data that now show that providing employment and
training services to noncustodial parents can make a child support
program more effective in collecting child support payments. In the
decades that followed OCSS's policy guidance of 1998 and 2000, national
demonstrations and state-based programs have examined the effectiveness
of providing employment and training services to unemployed and
underemployed noncustodial parents and found positive outcomes in
employment rates, earnings, child support payment rates, the amount of
child support paid, and payment regularity.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Miller, Cynthia, and Virginia Knox, ``The Challenge of
Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children: Final Lessons
From Parents' Fair Share,'' New York: MDRC (2001), available at
https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_529.pdf.
Perez-Johnson, Irma, Jacqueline Kauff, Alan Hershey, ``Giving
Noncustodial Parents Options: Employment and Child Support Outcomes
of the SHARE Program,'' Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research
(October 2003), available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_legacy_files/39936/report.pdf. Pearson, Jessica,
Nancy Thoennes, Lanae Davis, David Price, Jane Venohr and Tracy
Griffith, ``OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client
Characteristics and Program Outcomes,'' Denver, CO: Center for
Policy Research and Policy Studies Inc. (September 2003), available
at https://www.frpn.org/asset/ocse-responsible-fatherhood-programs-client-characteristics-and-program-outcomes. Martinson, Karin,
Demetra Smith Nightingale, Pamela A. Holcomb, Burt S. Barnow, and
John Trutko, ``Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Projects:
Employment and Child Support Outcomes and Trends,'' Washington, DC:
The Urban Institute (September 2007), available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46816/411567-Partners-for-Fragile-Families-Demonstration-Projects.PDF. Schroeder, Daniel
and Nicholas Doughty, ``Texas Non-Custodial Parent Choices: Program
Impact Analysis,'' Austin, TX: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public
Affairs, University of Texas (September 2009), available at https://sites.utexas.edu/raymarshallcenter/files/2005/07/NCP_Choices_Final_Sep_03_2009.pdf. Lippold, Kye, Austin Nichols, and
Elaine Sorensen, ``Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers:
Final Impact Report for the Pilot Employment Programs,'' Washington,
DC: Urban Institute (October 2011), available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/26676/412442-Strengthening-Families-Through-Stronger-Fathers-Final-Impact-Report-for-the-Pilot-Employment-Programs.PDF. Born, Catherine E., Pamela
Caudill Ovwigho, and Correne Saunders, ``The Noncustodial Parent
Employment Program: Employment and Payment Outcomes,'' Baltimore,
MD: Family Welfare Research and Training Group, University of
Maryland, School of Social Work (April 2011), available at https://www.ssw.umaryland.edu/media/ssw/fwrtg/child-support-research/cs-initiatives/npep.pdf?&. Pearson, Jessica, Lanae Davis and Jane
Venohr, ``Parents to Work! Program Outcomes and Economic Impacts,''
Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research (February 2011), available at
https://centerforpolicyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/ParentsToWork.pdf. Davis, Lanae, Jessica Pearson, and Nancy
Thoennes. ``Evaluation of the Tennessee Parent Support Program,''
Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research (November 2013), available at
https://centerforpolicyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/EvaluationTennesseeParentSupportProgram.pdf. Sorensen, Elaine,
``What We Learned from Recent Federal Evaluations of Programs
Serving Disadvantaged Noncustodial Parents.'' Washington, DC: Office
of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children
and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (November
2020), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/OPRE%20NCP%20Employment%20Brief_508.pdf. Wasserman,
Kyla, Lily Freedman, Zaina Rodney, and Caroline Schultz,
``Connecting Parents to Occupational Training: A Partnership Between
Child Support Agencies and Local Service Providers,'' New York: MDRC
(April 2021), available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/FamiliesForward_Report_0.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research shows that reliable child support depends on the economic
stability of noncustodial parents. For example, in Wisconsin,
noncustodial fathers who paid at least 90 percent of their order during
the first year after it was established were 9 times as likely to work
all four quarters that year than those who paid nothing.\18\
Nationally, over 70 percent of child support collections are made
through wage withholding by employers.\19\ Noncustodial parents with
irregular employment are particularly unlikely to pay the full amount
of their child support order. As a result, substantial arrears accrue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Cancian, Maria, Yoona Kim, and Daniel R. Meyer, ``Who Is
Not Paying Child Support?'' Madison, WI: Institute for Research on
Poverty (2021), available at https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CSRPA-2020-2022-T2.pdf.
\19\ DCL 23-06, OCSS Preliminary FY 2022 Data Report and Tables,
available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/fy-2022-preliminary-data-report-and-tables.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unpublished data available to OCSS show that 78 percent of the $114
billion in child support arrears that was owed in FY 2022 was owed by
parents who had annual reported incomes below $20,000, which is
consistent with earlier published research that examined child support
debt in nine states and found a similar result.\20\ Studies have also
shown that owing large amounts of child support arrears among low-
income noncustodial parents can be counterproductive to the goals of
the child support program as it pushes these parents further away from
the formal labor market, reduces their child support payments, and
distances them from their children.\21\ Parents who owe large amounts
of arrears can be discouraged from working in jobs that withhold income
for child support, especially if they can easily turn to other means of
earning money where child support is not typically withheld, such as
self-employment or working off the books.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The unpublished data is based on a random sample of
noncustodial parents who owed arrears in the OCSS Debtor File as of
April 2022, which was matched to data from the National Directory of
New Hires. Reported income is the amount of quarterly earnings and
unemployment insurance reported for the noncustodial parent in the
National Directory of New Hires for FY 2021. The $113.4 billion
figure is from the Office of Child Support Services FY 2022
Preliminary Data Tables, Table P-98 available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/fy-2022-preliminary-data-report-and-tables. Sorensen, Elaine, Liliana Sousa, and Simon Schaner,
``Assessing Child Support Arrears in Nine Large States and the
Nation,'' Washington, DC: Urban Institute (2007), available at
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/29736/1001242-Assessing-Child-Support-Arrears-in-Nine-Large-States-and-the-Nation.PDF.
\21\ Miller, Daniel P. and Ronald B. Mincy. ``Falling Further
Behind? Child Support Arrears and Fathers' Labor Force
Participation,'' Social Service Review 86:4 (2012), available at
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/668761. Cancian,
Maria, Carolyn Heinrich, and Yiyoon Chung, ``Discouraging
Disadvantaged Fathers' Employment: An Unintended Consequence of
Policies Designed to Support Families,'' Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management 32:4 (2013), available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264476066_Discouraging_Disadvantaged_Fathers'_Employment_An_Unintende
d_Consequence_of_Policies_Designed_to_Support_Families. Kimberly
Turner and Maureen Waller, ``Indebted Relationships: Child Support
Arrears and Nonresident Fathers' Involvement with Children.''
Journal of Marriage and Family 79:1 (2017), available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12361.
\22\ Freeman, Richard B. and Jane Waldfogel. ``Does Child
Support Enforcement Policy Affect Male Labor Supply?'' in Fathers
Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement, eds. Irwin
Garfinkel, Sara S. McLanahan, Daniel R. Meyer, and Judith A.
Seltzer, New York: Russell Sage Foundation (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on this research and evidence, OCSS has reconsidered its
prior guidance. In doing so, we have not disregarded our previous
interpretation of section 466(a)(15) of the Act, which provided the
basis for the prior policy. Section 466(a)(15) neither authorizes nor
prohibits the child support program from providing employment and
training services under title IV-D, and is not the legal basis for the
proposed rule. OCSS has determined, based on section 452(a)(1), that it
is appropriate to establish a new standard authorizing employment and
training services because the data and evidence now available lead us
to conclude that this option is necessary to assure that State programs
for obtaining child support will be effective. State expenses for
providing these services under their IV-
[[Page 47112]]
D plan would, therefore, be eligible for FFP under section 455 of the
Act. Since the rulemaking results in providing states the opportunity
for federal funding, rather than eliminating or removing FFP, we assume
that the rulemaking will not place states in a less favorable position
to their detriment, but would provide a new and reliable source of
funding for these services, which will in turn improve the
effectiveness of state child support programs.
Relevant Studies of Employment and Training Services
Since the 1990s, a significant body of research has examined the
effectiveness of providing employment and training services to
unemployed and underemployed parents who owe child support.\23\ The
first large-scale effort was conducted by MDRC and was called Parents'
Fair Share (PFS). PFS was first implemented as a pilot program in nine
sites in 1992-1993, followed by a national random assignment
demonstration implemented in seven sites in 1994-1996. More than 5,500
noncustodial parents were randomly assigned to PFS or a control group
during the national demonstration.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Employment and training programs for noncustodial parents
described here were evaluated using one of three evaluation methods:
evaluating the outcomes of individuals randomly assigned to the
program (i.e. the treatment group) or receive business as usual
(i.e. the control group), typically referred to as a random control
trial (RCT) or an experimental evaluation; evaluating the outcomes
of individuals who enrolled in the program compared to a group of
individuals who did not enroll in the program but are similar to
those who did enroll, referred to here as a semi-experimental
evaluation; and evaluations that examine the outcomes of individuals
who enrolled in the program, typically before and after they entered
the program, which are often referred to as outcome evaluations. The
first two evaluation methods are considered impact evaluations,
which draw causal inferences, while the third evaluation method is
not designed to attribute causality.
\24\ Miller, Cynthia, and Virginia Knox (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PFS demonstration gave participating courts and child support
agencies the ability to refer noncustodial parents facing contempt for
nonpayment of child support to the PFS program where they received the
following four core services: employment and training services,
enhanced child support services, peer support, and mediation. The
employment and training services included job search assistance/job
clubs, job development, classroom-based education and training, on-the-
job training, and job retention services. The enhanced child support
services included assigning smaller caseloads to child support workers
who handled PFS cases, expediting modification of child support orders,
and offering flexible rules that allowed child support orders to be
reduced while noncustodial parents participated in PFS. Peer support
consisted of participating in a facilitated support group built around
a responsible fatherhood curriculum developed by MDRC. The lead agency
for these demonstration projects varied; only two were led by a local
child support agency.
The PFS demonstration found that PFS significantly increased the
likelihood of paying child support during the two-year follow-up
period. The average quarterly payment rate was 12 percent higher for
parents who enrolled in PFS than those who did not.\25\ While the final
PFS report did not examine the regularity of child support payments,
the interim report did. It found that parents who enrolled in PFS
during the first year of the demonstration were 19 percent more likely
than the control group to pay child support in at least four of the six
quarters during the 18-month follow-up period.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Ibid.
\26\ Doolittle, Fred, Virginia Knox, Cynthia Miller, and Sharon
Rowser, ``Building Opportunities, Enforcing Obligations:
Implementation and Interim Impacts of Parents' Fair Share,'' New
York: MDRC (1998), table 6.3, available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_38.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2000, a descriptive study conducted as part of the
national evaluation of Welfare-to-Work (WtW) grant programs examined
the strategies that 11 purposively selected WtW programs used to
provide employment services to noncustodial parents. The study found
that a variety of organizations can successfully operate employment and
training programs for noncustodial parents.\27\ Eight of 11 programs
partnered with the state or local child support agency. Child support
agencies provided referrals, designated specific staff to work with the
program, and offered flexible payment options and debt reduction
options for participants. The principal employment services that all of
the WtW programs provided were employability assessments,
individualized employment plans, job search assistance, job readiness
activities, job retention services, and assistance with transportation
and work expenses. Some of the WtW programs also provided job
development and placement services, on-the-job training, skills
training, General Educational Development (GED) instruction, basic
skills training, and work experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Martinson, Karin, John Trutko, and Debra Strong, ``Serving
Noncustodial Parents: A Descriptive Study of Welfare-to-Work
Programs,'' Washington, DC: Urban Institute (December 2000),
available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/62761/410340-Serving-Noncustodial-Parents-A-Descriptive-Study-of-Welfare-to-Work-Programs.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One WtW program that served noncustodial parents was evaluated as
part of the national evaluation of the WtW grants program.\28\ This
program, called Support Has A Rewarding Effect (SHARE), operated in
Yakima, Kittitas, and Klickitat counties in the State of Washington
from July 1998 through September 2001. It was led by the Tri-County
Workforce Development Council (WDC) and involved a strong collaboration
among Tri-County WDC, the State's Division of Child Support (DCS), and
the office of the Yakima County Prosecuting Attorney (YCPA). SHARE
provided the courts and YCPA the ability to offer WtW services to
noncustodial parents during a child support contempt hearing. WtW
services consisted of employability assessments, individualized
employment plans, and other WtW services structured to meet the needs
of the noncustodial parent. Job search workshops and referrals for job
openings were the principal service offered, but noncustodial parents
could be offered pre-employment education, vocational training, or on-
the-job training. After the noncustodial parent had secured a job, WtW
case management continued for at least 90 days, during which time job
retention services were provided. WtW funds were also available to help
with work supports such as transportation, uniforms, work supplies, and
other short-term emergency needs. The evaluation examined employment
and child support payment trends for 574 noncustodial parents who were
referred to the SHARE program. The evaluation found that the earnings
and child support payments of noncustodial parents referred to SHARE
increased substantially after being referred to the program.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Perez-Johnson, Irma, et al. (October 2003).
\29\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, OCSS launched an eight-state demonstration to test the
effectiveness of fatherhood programs.\30\ The purpose of these programs
was to assist unemployed or low-income noncustodial parents in paying
their child support by improving their employment and earnings and
encouraging more involved parenting. States were given wide latitude in
program format, services provided, and client eligibility. Most states
partnered with community-based organizations to lead the project and
most projects offered employment services. The exact
[[Page 47113]]
package of employment services varied by project, but employment
services across all projects included job search assistance, job
readiness services, job development and placement, work supports, and
vocational skills training and assessments. This demonstration was
evaluated by comparing participant outcomes before and after enrollment
in the program. The evaluation found that the percent of participants
paying child support increased after enrollment in every participating
state, by amounts ranging from 4 percent to 31 percent.\31\ The average
amount of child support due that was paid also increased after
enrollment in every participating state, by amounts ranging from 1
percent to 16 percent.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Pearson, Jessica, et al. (June 2000).
\31\ Pearson, Jessica, et al. (September 2003).
\32\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2000, OCSS and the Ford Foundation launched a national
demonstration called Partners for Fragile Families (PFF), which was
conducted in 13 sites and ended in 2003.\33\ The goals of this
demonstration were to promote voluntary paternity establishment;
improve the parenting and relationship skills of young fathers; and
help young fathers secure and retain employment. It targeted fathers
between the ages of 16 and 25 years old who had not yet established
paternity and did not have extensive involvement in the child support
program. The lead agency in all 13 sites was a community-based
organization, but each site partnered with the local child support
agency and typically other organizations, such as workforce development
agencies. The primary service consisted of a series of structured
workshops on topics such as fatherhood, parenting, job readiness and
job search, and child support. The exact package of employment services
varied across projects, but the following employment services were
offered across all projects: job readiness instruction, job search
assistance, job referral and placement, job development, on-the-job
training, GED classes, and job skills training. PFF enrolled over 1,470
noncustodial parents.\34\ The evaluation of PFF examined child support
outcomes of participants at the time of enrollment and over the next
two years. It found that the percent of participants with child support
orders increased from 14 percent to 35 percent during the first two
years after program enrollment.\35\ It also found that the average
number of months participants paid child support increased from 4.2
months to 5.2 months, and the average annual amount of child support
paid increased by 43 percent from $1,238 to $1,775 between the first
and second year after enrollment.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Martinson, Karin, John Trutko, Demetra Smith Nightingale,
Pamela A. Holcomb, and Burt S. Barnow, ``The Implementation of the
Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Projects,'' Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute (June 2007), available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46576/411511-The-Implementation-of-the-Partners-for-Fragile-Families-Demonstration-Projects.PDF.
\34\ Ibid, Exhibit 2.1.
\35\ Martinson, Karin, et al. (September 2007).
\36\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, the Child Support Division of the Office of the Attorney
General of Texas and the Texas Workforce Commission established the
Noncustodial Parent (NCP) Choices program.\37\ The goal of the program
is to help parents make regular child support payments and become
financially stable.\38\ This program remains in operation today and is
currently operating in 21 of the 28 workforce development board areas
in Texas.\39\ To be eligible to receive services, noncustodial parents
must be court-ordered to participate. When a noncustodial parent enters
the program, workforce development staff perform an assessment of needs
and barriers and create an individual employment plan designed to move
that individual into a stable employment situation. Additional
employment and training services offered to noncustodial parents mirror
those provided to TANF recipients under the Texas' Choices Program.\40\
The services emphasize Work First, providing job referrals and job
search assistance, and may include job referrals and job development,
support services, short-term training, subsidized employment/work
experience, GED and English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, and job
retention and career advancement assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty (September 2009).
\38\ Texas Workforce Commission, Noncustodial Parent Choices
Program, available at https://www.twc.texas.gov/programs/
noncustodial-parent-
choices#:~:text=The%20goal%20of%20NCP%20Choices,Alamo.
\39\ Ibid.
\40\ https://www.twc.texas.gov/programs/choices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCP Choices was evaluated during the initial years of its
operation.\41\ The impact evaluation was based on data from 2005 to
2009 and ten local workforce development areas. It used a quasi-
experimental evaluation design.\42\ A total of 2,296 noncustodial
parents who participated in NCP Choices were included in the
evaluation. The evaluation found monthly child support collection rates
among NCP Choices participants were 47 percent higher than the
comparison group in the first year after program enrollment, and the
amounts collected averaged $57 per month higher.\43\ In addition, those
ordered into NCP Choices paid their child support 50 percent more
consistently over time than the comparison group.\44\ All of these
positive impacts continued well into the second through fourth years
after program enrollment.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty (September 2009).
\42\ Quasi-experimental designs aim to assess causal
relationships without using random assignment. When evaluating a
program, they compare the group of individuals who participated in
the program to a group of individuals who did not participate in the
program who are as similar as possible to those who participated in
the program in terms of pre-intervention characteristics. For
further information, see Handley, Margaret A., Courtney Lyles,
Charles McCulloch, and Adithya Cattamanchi, ``Selecting and
Improving Quasi-Experimental Designs in Effectiveness and
Implementation Research'' Annual Review of Public Health 39 (2018),
available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8011057/pdf/nihms-1671041.pdf.
\43\ Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty (September 2009).
\44\ Ibid.
\45\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, the New York State Legislature enacted the Strengthening
Families Through Stronger Fathers Initiative, a pilot program to help
low-income noncustodial parents find work and pay their child
support.\46\ The legislation authorized funding for five programs to
provide employment and other supportive services to low-income
noncustodial parents, which operated from 2006 to 2009. Employment
services offered by the five programs consisted of job search and
placement assistance, job readiness training, job development, job
skills training, and employment-related supports.\47\ One program
provided subsidized employment and job retention and career enhancement
services. The pilot programs served 3,668 noncustodial parents.\48\ The
impact evaluation used a quasi-experimental design. It found that
Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers increased the percent
of parents paying child support by 22 percent, and the amount of child
support paid by 35 percent in the first year after enrollment compared
to the comparison group.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Tannehill, Tess G., Carolyn T. O'Brien, and Elaine J.
Sorensen, ``Strengthening Families Through Stronger Fathers
Initiative: Process Evaluation Report,'' Washington, DC: Urban
Institute (July 2009), available at https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/28106/1001412-Strengthening-Families-Through-Stronger-Fathers-Initiative-Process-Evaluation-Report.PDF.
\47\ Ibid.
\48\ Lippold, Kye, et al. (October 2011).
\49\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47114]]
In 2006, Maryland began the Noncustodial Parent Employment Program
(NPEP), a joint effort of the Child Support Enforcement and Family
Investment Administrations of the Maryland Department of Human
Resources.\50\ The purpose of this program is to provide employment
services to noncustodial parents who are behind in their child support
so that they can be a reliable source of income for their children.
NPEP was a statewide program in its initial years and still operates
today, but not in all counties.\51\ During its initial phase, each NPEP
program provided employment services similar to those offered during
the WtW grants program. An evaluation of NPEP was conducted, which
examined 3,900 noncustodial parents referred to NPEP in 2007 and
2008.\52\ Outcomes for these participants were examined one year before
and after enrollment. The evaluation found that the average amount of
child support paid increased from $1,094 in the year prior to
enrollment to $1,246 in the year after enrollment, a 14 percent
increase.\53\ It also found that the average number of months that a
participant paid child support rose from 3.7 months in the year prior
to enrollment to 4.5 months in the year after enrollment, a 22 percent
increase.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Born, Catherine E., et al. (April 2011).
\51\ https://dhs.maryland.gov/child-support-services/noncustodial-parents/noncustodial-parent-employment-programs/
\52\ Born, Catherine E., et al. (April 2011).
\53\ Ibid.
\54\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, the Arapahoe County Division of Child Support Enforcement,
the Arapahoe/Douglas Workforce Center, and the 18th Judicial District
Court in Colorado established the Parents to Work program to secure
jobs for unemployed and underemployed noncustodial parents and generate
child support payments.\55\ The program is still in operation
today.\56\ An evaluation of this program was conducted, which examined
the first two years of operation. During that time the following
employment services were offered: intensive job search assistance, job
readiness training, job placement, job development, on-the-job
training, work experience, occupational and vocational training,
subsidized employment, pre-GED or GED preparation, and assistance with
transportation, work clothes and tools. The evaluation examined the
outcomes of participants one year before and after enrollment and
compared them to a group of noncustodial parents who did not
participate in Parents to Work.\57\ It found that the average
percentage of child support due that was paid by the treatment group
rose from 36.6 percent in the year prior to enrollment to 41.3 percent
in the year following enrollment, but was approximately the same at
both points in time for the comparison group.\58\ Payment regularity
also improved significantly for the treatment group, rising from an
average of 5.3 payments in the year prior to enrollment to 5.7 payments
in the year following enrollment, but again payment regularity was
about the same for the comparison group.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Pearson, Jessica, et al. (February 2011).
\56\ https://www.adworks.org/job-seekers/programs/parents-to-work/.
\57\ Pearson, Jessica, et al. (February 2011). Parents to Work
was intended to be evaluated using random assignment, but the
treatment group was disproportionately selected from case worker and
court referrals, while the comparison group was disproportionately
selected from ad hoc reports. Because of this difference in
procedures, the two groups were statistically significantly
different prior to program entry. In an effort to offset this
limitation, the study examined the outcomes of noncustodial parents
in both groups after controlling for observed differences in pre-
program earnings, child support payments, and other characteristics.
The sample size for the evaluation was 601 parents in the treatment
group and 349 in the comparison group.
\58\ Ibid.
\59\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, the Tennessee Department of Human Services (DHS) was
awarded a grant from OCSS to develop, implement, and evaluate a program
providing employment, parenting time, and case management services to
low[hyphen]income, unwed parents in the child support program in three
Tennessee judicial districts. The program, called the Parent Support
Program (PSP), placed child support staff known as Grant Program
Coordinators in each of the three local child support offices to
provide services to families. These staff were the primary providers of
employment, parenting time, and case management services. The Grant
Program Coordinators conducted a needs assessment at enrollment and
developed a service plan for each participant. They also provided job
search and job readiness assistance, job development, and financial
assistance with work-related expenses. For other employment services,
such as job training, participants were referred to other service
providers. Enrollment began in January 2010 and ended in March 2013.
During that time, PSP enrolled 1,016 noncustodial parents. The
evaluation examined participant outcomes in the year before and after
enrollment. The evaluation found that the average percentage of child
support due that participants paid rose from 33 percent in the year
prior to enrollment to 36 percent in the year after enrollment.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Davis, Lanae, et al. (November 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many more states than those discussed above have operated
employment and training programs for noncustodial parents, but they
have not been able to use FFP to pay for these services. This has
limited the potential impact and reach of these services. As of
February 2014, 30 States and the District of Columbia were operating 77
employment and training programs for noncustodial parents with active
child support agency involvement. Three of these states were operating
statewide programs--Georgia, Maryland, and North Dakota. But only a few
of these programs have been able to secure resource commitments to fund
these services in an ongoing, consistent or statewide basis. As a
result, many programs that were operating in 2014 are no longer in
operation. Other programs have had to scale back because of reduced
funding. Nonetheless, because of the continued work of child support
agencies, many new programs have emerged so that there are roughly the
same number of states that have employment and training programs for
noncustodial parents with active child support agency involvement as in
2014.
Informed by the child support program's positive experience with
providing employment and training programs, and the positive outcomes
of three decades of national demonstrations and state evaluations, OCSS
now proposes to allow states to access FFP for these services and
establish standards and requirements for states when opting to provide
federally assisted employment and training services under their IV-D
State plans. This proposed rule would provide additional stability and
support for states to increase the effectiveness of their respective
programs for collecting child support payments.
Further Studies in Support of the Proposed Rulemaking
OCSS previously issued an NPRM on November 17, 2014 that included
regulatory changes similar to those being proposed here. 79 FR 68547,
68556 (November 17, 2014). While this proposed rule received
overwhelming support from states, many Members of Congress, and the
public, it was not included in the final rule issued on December 20,
2016 in order to allow for further study. The final rule stated,
``While we appreciate the support the commenters expressed, we think
allowing for federal IV-D
[[Page 47115]]
reimbursement for job services needs further study and would be ripe
for implementation at a later time.'' 81 FR 93492, 93496 (December 20,
2016).
Since 2016, findings from three new national demonstrations that
offered employment and training services to noncustodial parents have
been released. They are the Child Support National Parent Employment
Demonstration (CSPED), Enhanced Traditional Jobs Demonstration (ETJD),
and Families Forward Demonstration (FFD). These three demonstrations
added considerably to OCSS's understanding of the effectiveness of
employment programs for noncustodial parents and further informed the
development of this NPRM.
Child Support National Parent Employment Demonstration (CSPED)
CSPED was a randomized control trial (RCT) demonstration designed
to test the effectiveness of child support-led employment programs for
noncustodial parents. It was funded by OCSS, which awarded
demonstration grants to eight state child support agencies in 2012.
These child support agencies operated employment programs for
noncustodial parents in 18 local jurisdictions from 2013 to 2017. A
total of 10,173 noncustodial parents enrolled in the demonstration.\61\
CSPED was able to reach such a large number of noncustodial parents in
part because it recruited noncustodial parents administratively as well
as during contempt hearings. Key services included employment services,
enhanced child support services, and parenting classes. Employment
services consisted of one-on-one job counseling, job search assistance,
job readiness training, and job placement and retention services.
Programs were encouraged to offer short-term job skills training and
vocational educational training, but not required to do so. Enhanced
child support services were expected to include initiating order
modifications if needed, removing license suspensions and holding other
enforcement remedies in abeyance while parents participated in the
program, and reducing state-owed arrears if permitted by state law.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Cancian, Maria, Daniel R. Meyer, Robert Wood, ``Final
Impact Findings from the Child Support Noncustodial Parent
Employment Demonstration,'' Madison, WI: Institute for Research on
Poverty (March 2019), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/csped_impact_report.pdf.
\62\ Office of Child Support Enforcement, ``National Child
Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration Projects,''
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, HHS-2012-ACF-OCSE-FD-0297
(2012), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/hhs-2012-acf-ocse-fd-0297_csped.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSPED increased the effectiveness of the child support program by
increasing noncustodial parents' employment and earnings as measured by
quarterly earnings, which, in turn, increased the likelihood of paying
child support through wage withholding. Specifically, it increased
participants' employment rate by 3 percent during the first 2 years
after enrollment, and increased their earnings by 4 percent during the
first year after enrollment, both of which are measured using quarterly
earnings.\63\ This, in turn, increased the likelihood of participants
paying child support through income withholding by 8 percent during the
first year after enrollment.\64\ It also increased noncustodial
parents' satisfaction with the child support program, increased
noncustodial parent-child contact, and improved noncustodial parents'
attitudes about responsibility for children, all of which contributed
to an improved image of the child support program and helped overcome
significant distrust among noncustodial parents, paving the way for
better communication, more cooperation, and a more effective child
support program.\65\ Finally, a benefit-cost analysis of CSPED found
that the benefits of CSPED outweighed its costs within two years when
the costs of employment and parenting services received by members of
the regular-services group were taken into account.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Sorensen, Elaine (November 2020).
\64\ Ibid. While CSPED was successful at increasing the
likelihood of paying child support through income withholding, it
did not increase the amount of child support paid. As noted in the
text, CSPED provided both employment and enhanced child support
services. It appears that these services worked at cross-purposes to
one another. As part of enhanced child support services, child
support agencies offered order modification services to
participants, which reduced their average amount of child support
orders. Reducing child support orders will necessarily reduce income
withholding orders, which reduces the amount of child support paid
since most child support is paid via income withholding. In
contrast, employment services are designed to increase the
employment and earnings of noncustodial parents, which, in turn, are
expected to increase child support payments. Thus, it appears that
one service reduced the amount of child support paid while the other
increased it, resulting in no impact on the amount of child support
paid.
\65\ Cancian, Maria, et al. (March 2019).
\66\ Cancian, Maria, Daniel R. Meyer, and Robert G. Wood,
``Carrots Work Better than Sticks? Results from the National Child
Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration,'' Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management. 41:2 (2022), available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pam.22370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enhanced Traditional Jobs Demonstration
ETJD was a RCT demonstration designed to test the effectiveness of
providing temporary subsidized jobs and other enhanced services. It was
funded by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the Office of
Planning, Research, and Evaluation within the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. DOL
awarded seven demonstration grants, four of which targeted noncustodial
parents and three of which targeted formerly incarcerated individuals.
The demonstration operated from 2011 to 2014 and enrolled a total of
4,000 individuals in the four demonstrations that targeted noncustodial
parents. Key services in the noncustodial parent demonstration sites
included up to four months of subsidized employment, other employment
services, and child support-related assistance.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Redcross, Cindy, Bret Barden, and Dan Bloom, ``The Enhanced
Transitional Jobs Demonstration: Implementation and Early Impacts of
the Next Generation of Subsidized Employment Programs,'' New York:
MDRC (November 2016), available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ETJD_STED_2016_FR.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETJD showed that providing subsidized employment to noncustodial
parents successfully increased their employment and earnings in the
final year of the 30-month follow-up period, well after the subsidized
employment ended. During this period, noncustodial parents who received
ETJD services were 7 percent more likely to be employed, and their
earnings were 13 percent higher than the noncustodial parents who did
not receive ETJD services.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Barden, Bret, Randall Juras, Cindy Redcross, Mary Farrell,
Dan Bloom, ``New Perspectives on Creating Jobs: Final Impacts of the
Next Generation of Subsidized Employment Programs,'' New York: MDRC
(May 2018), available at https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ETJD_STED_Final_Impact_Report_2018_508Compliant_v2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ETJD also successfully increased the likelihood of noncustodial
parents paying child support and the average number of months of paying
child support during the final year of the 30-month follow-up period.
During this period, noncustodial parents who received ETJD services
were 11 percent more likely to pay child support, and the average
number of months of paying child support was 16 percent higher than
noncustodial parents who did not receive ETJD services.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Barden, Bret, et al. (May 2018). ETJD did not increase the
amount of child support paid in the final year of the follow-up
period. This is likely because local child support agencies in three
of the four ETJD sites initiated order modifications if needed as an
enhanced child support service to address the possibility that
orders were too high relative to participants' ability to pay. If
orders are reduced, income withholding orders will be lower and the
amount of child support withheld will be lower. Thus, the amount of
child support paid will not necessarily increase as a result of
increased earnings if orders are modified downward. Only one ETJD
site did not offer to initiate order modifications and that was the
only site that saw a statistically significant increase in the
amount of child support paid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47116]]
Families Forward Demonstration
FFD was designed to test the effectiveness of offering free
occupational training to increase reliable child support payments. It
operated in five locations from 2018 to 2020 and enrolled 761
noncustodial parents. FFD was funded through a grant from the W. K.
Kellogg Foundation, local funding raised by participating child support
agencies, and matching federal funds through Section 1115 Waivers
approved by the Office of Child Support Services.\70\ FFD provided the
following three services: free occupational training, other employment
services and wraparound supports, and responsive child support
services. Free occupational training targeted demand-driven
occupations, which varied by location. Other employment services
focused on job search and placement assistance and career planning. The
most common wraparound supports were work-related, such as assistance
with work-related transportation costs or other work-related expenses.
Responsive child support services included child support navigation,
arrears compromise programs, order modification if needed, and
suspension of enforcement action.\71\ The evaluation of this
demonstration consisted of an implementation study and an analysis of
child support outcomes for program participants prior to and after
program enrollment.\72\ It found that the trends in child support
payments for noncustodial parent participants improved relative to
their pre-enrollment trends.\73\ While this study was not designed to
attribute causality, these findings suggest that offering free training
to noncustodial parents may have a positive impact on child support
payments, providing further evidence that offering training services to
noncustodial parents holds promise for increasing the effectiveness of
the child support program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ The FFD program in New York was additionally supported by
the Robin Hood Foundation.
\71\ Wasserman, Kyla, et al. (April 2021).
\72\ Ibid.
\73\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results from these recent demonstrations, in addition to the large
body of evidence that preceded these demonstrations, provide support
for OCSS's determination that permitting states to provide employment
and training services to noncustodial parents can increase the
effectiveness of the child support program. By allowing states to use
FFP to provide employment and training services, OCSS aims to create a
reliable funding source for states that choose these services to
supplement traditional enforcement tools and effectively obtain child
support.
Section-by-Section Discussion of the Provisions of This Proposed Rule
This NPRM proposes to allow FFP for certain optional and
nonduplicative employment and training services designed to supplement
traditional enforcement tools and to help noncustodial parents find and
retain employment so they can support their children.
Sec. 302.76 Employment and Training Services
We propose to add a new optional State plan provision at Sec.
302.76, Employment and Training Services. The proposal permits states
to provide certain employment and training services to eligible
noncustodial parents pursuant to Sec. 303.6(c)(5).
We propose to limit eligibility to noncustodial parents who have an
open IV-D case; have a current child support order or be determined by
the IV-D agency to be fully cooperating with the IV-D agency to
establish a current child support order; are unemployed or
underemployed or at risk of not being able to comply with their current
support order; and are not receiving the same employment and training
service under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (45 CFR
part 261), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and
Training program (7 CFR 273.7 and 273.24), Federal Pell Grant (34 CFR
part 690), the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training
programs authorized under Title I of the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (20 CFR parts 675-688), the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act (AEFLA) program (34 CFR part 463), or the Vocational
Rehabilitation program (34 CFR part 361). States may add additional
eligibility criteria. We invite comment on these proposed eligibility
criteria.
We acknowledge the benefits of improved coordination between the
various Federal programs that are eligible to provide employment and
training services. We encourage states to establish a coordinated,
nonduplicative set of employment and training services with other
federally-funded programs.
The primary goal of offering employment and training services is to
increase the consistency of current support payments to families with
minor children. Thus, the proposed rule does not allow noncustodial
parents with arrears-only cases to be eligible to receive employment
and training services as a reimbursable IV-D cost when no current
support obligation exists or is being established.
We propose that allowable employment and training services are
limited to:
(i) Job search assistance;
(ii) Job readiness training;
(iii) Job development and job placement services;
(iv) Skills assessments to facilitate job placement;
(v) Job retention services;
(vi) Work supports, such as transportation assistance, uniforms,
and tools; and
(vii) Occupational training and other skills training directly
related to employment, which may also include activities to improve
literacy and basic skills, such as programs to complete high school or
a high school equivalency certificate, or English as a second language,
as long as they are included in the same employment and training
services plan.
We recognize that providing these services will require case
management. Thus, FFP may also be used to provide case management for
these allowable services. FFP may not be used for subsidized employment
or to provide to the noncustodial parent cash payments, checks,
reimbursements, or any other form of payment that can be legally
converted to currency. For example, FFP may not be used to provide
financial incentive payments to noncustodial parents, or to directly
reimburse noncustodial parents for employment and training related
expenditures. Allowable services must be secured through service
providers as opposed to allowing reimbursement to parents.
We have included a focused set of employment and training services
because our review of research found that employment and training
programs for noncustodial programs tend to provide a package of
employment and training services in their effort to improve the
effectiveness of child support program. The list of proposed allowable
services includes those services that were most frequently provided in
various demonstrations, research evaluations, and state-based
[[Page 47117]]
programs detailed in the proposed rule. We invite comment on the list
of proposed allowable employment and training services.
We suggest that child support agencies should partner wherever
possible with existing employment and training providers and that child
support agencies especially should not try to carry out job development
on their own and should consider doing so through or in partnership
with the local American Job Center business services representatives.
We have included work supports and job retention services as
allowable expenditures because, as described above, many of the
employment and training programs for noncustodial parents that have
been evaluated included these services as part of a package of
employment and training services, which were found effective at
improving child support outcomes. Work supports consist of costs
incurred for bona fide services and assistance provided to noncustodial
parents so that they may find and retain employment or participate in
employment and training services. For example, a common form of work
supports is transportation assistance, such as bus tokens and gas
vouchers. Work supports may also include the cost of providing
emergency child care assistance for children on the child support case
associated with the noncustodial parent receiving employment and
training services if that emergency inhibits participation in
employment and training services or finding or retaining work.\74\ Job
retention services are services that assist a job holder with retaining
employment and can include regular check-ins with job holders as well
as supporting managers who hired job holders with on-the-job issues.
Job retention services can be offered directly to the job holder or to
the employer to serve the job holder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Other eligible work supports may include, but are not
limited to: costs incurred for bona fide services and assistance
such as work-related tools; work-related clothing or unforms;
transportation and travel to or from training and work sites;
emergency vehicle repairs if affordable transportation alternatives
are not available; referrals for child care assistance; referrals to
health care, mental health counseling or drug treatment; licenses;
application fees; and other costs of employment and training tests
or certifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose that this State plan provision be optional to states
since offering employment and training services may increase state
costs. If the state chooses this option, this proposal will require
that the State plan include a description of the employment and
training services and eligibility criteria. It will also require that
the State plan include an explanation of how the child support program
is establishing a coordinated, nonduplicative set of employment and
training services with other federally-funded programs. It will also
require that states comply with future reporting requirements
prescribed by the Office.
Sec. 303.6 Enforcement of Support Obligations
We propose to redesignate existing paragraph Sec. 303.6(c)(5) as
new paragraph Sec. 303.6(c)(6) and to add new paragraph Sec.
303.6(c)(5) to provide program standards related to the proposed
optional State plan provision Sec. 302.76, Employment and Training
Services. Additionally, we propose that funds can only be used for a
limited set of employment and training services which complement, not
duplicate, the services a noncustodial parent may be receiving from
another federally-funded program. OCSS remains diligent in efforts to
not duplicate services provided to noncustodial parents under other
federally-funded programs. Because IV-D funds can only be used for a
limited set of employment and training services, OCSS will encourage
states to use other funding to pay for services that are not eligible
for IV-D funds and combine those services with IV-D funded services to
address the multiple barriers to employment that low-income
noncustodial parents often face.
The proposed language allows flexibility for states to coordinate
with other programs to ensure that IV-D funds are used effectively to
help noncustodial parents obtain and maintain employment to support
their children, while avoiding duplicating services. Partnering with
other programs can allow child support programs to broaden the types of
services they provide to noncustodial parents in their caseload. For
example, if a noncustodial parent is currently enrolled in a high
school equivalency certificate program or any service already being
provided to the noncustodial parent that is being paid for by another
federal funding source, IV-D funds would not be available for this same
service, but would be available for non-duplicative services, such as
job search assistance, provided a noncustodial parent is not receiving
that service from any of the federal funding sources detailed in the
proposed amendments to 303.6 and 302.76.
States are strongly encouraged to maximize coordination to ensure
effective service delivery and to provide the most appropriate mix of
services that address the multiple barriers to employment that low-
income noncustodial parents often face while minimizing costs to the
child support program. In particular, we strongly encourage
coordination with the six core programs providing services through
state workforce development systems established under the Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) to make the most appropriate use
of federal funds. Furthermore, we strongly encourage states to
coordinate with high-quality training programs and other evidence-based
training models shown to lead to sustained earnings gains--to increase
noncustodial parents' ability to meet their financial obligations to
their children. Noncustodial parents who receive Pell Grants may use
those funds, to the extent permissible by the Higher Education Act of
1965, to pay for some of the same eligible employment and training
services that state child support programs can provide under this NPRM.
Therefore, we will encourage states to communicate with noncustodial
parents concerning Pell Grants and ensure non-duplication of any
employment and training services attained with Pell Grant funds. OCSS's
policy goals are to make it possible for state child support agencies
to provide employment and training services to noncustodial parents who
need them but are not being provided such services by other federally-
funded programs.
OCSS anticipates that many state child support agencies will
purchase employment and training services by entering into contracts
with public, private and community-based employment, fatherhood, and
community re-entry programs, community action agencies, community
colleges, or other service providers, rather than offer these services
in-house, in accordance with 45 CFR 304.22, Federal financial
participation in purchased support enforcement services. Child support
agencies may also access employment and training services by partnering
with labor organizations. However, this does not preclude a child
support agency from providing employment and training services to
noncustodial parents directly. In addition, OCSS encourages child
support agencies to develop and maintain partnerships with TANF, the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, workforce agencies,
workforce development boards, and American Job Centers to offer
available employment and training services to noncustodial parents
whenever those resources are available. We also encourage state child
support agencies to partner with other
[[Page 47118]]
organizations that can offer additional employment and training
activities beyond those funded under title IV-D, such as Vocational
Rehabilitation agencies for those noncustodial parents who are
individuals with disabilities and are eligible for the Vocational
Rehabilitation program.
We do not want states to duplicate other services, but we also do
not want to make it impossible for states to provide employment and
training services due to the unavailability of data needed to verify
that such services are not being duplicated. Thus, child support
programs will make individual determinations about whether a
noncustodial parent is receiving the same employment and training
services from other programs. To ensure the eligibility criterion is
met, the child support program may obtain an attestation from the
noncustodial parent that the parent is not receiving the same
employment and training services under the federal programs listed in
Sec. 303.6(c)(5). This will allow a noncustodial parent getting some
services from the American Job Center to also receive nonduplicated
employment and training services through the child support program.
Sec. 304.20 Availability and Rate of Federal Financial Participation
We propose to redesignate existing paragraph Sec.
304.20(b)(3)(vii) as new paragraph Sec. 304.20(b)(3)(viii), and to add
new paragraph Sec. 304.20(b)(3)(vii) allowing FFP for certain
employment and training services when they are provided in accordance
with Sec. 303.6(c)(5).
Effective Dates
The proposed effective date will be 60 days from the date of
publication of the final rule.
Impact Analysis
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub. L. 104-13), all Departments
are required to submit to OMB for review and approval any reporting or
recordkeeping requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. There
is one new State plan reporting requirement because of this proposed
rule for states that implement the optional and nonduplicative
employment and training services. The description and total estimated
burden on the ``State Plan for Child Support Collection and
Establishment of Paternity Under Title IV-D of the Social Security
Act,'' and the State Plan Transmittal Form [OMB 0970-0017] are
described in the chart below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average burden hour National National State
Section and purpose Instrument Number of respondents per response Total cost Federal share share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added optional requirement Sec. State plan amendment. One time for 33 3 hours x $66.82 x 33 $6,615.18 $4,366.02 $2,249.16
302.76 Employment and training states. states.
services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A state may submit a plan amendment for the optional and
nonduplicative employment and training services at any time after the
proposed rule becomes final. But not all states will implement these
optional services. Out of the 54 states, we estimate 33 will eventually
submit plan amendments for these optional services. Additionally, we
estimate that states will take 3 hours to draft the required
information to amend their State plans. The cost to respondents was
calculated using the Bureau of Labor Statistics job code for State
Government Management Analyst [13-1111] and wage data from May 2021,
which is $33.41 per hour. To account for fringe benefits and overhead,
the rate was multiplied by two, which is $66.82. The total estimated
cost is $6,615.18 with a state share of $2,249.16. OCSS reimburses
states for 66 percent of the administrative costs incurred to
administer the State plan.
ACF will consider comments by the public on this proposed
collection of information in the following areas:
1. Evaluating whether the proposed collection is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of ACF, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluating the accuracy of ACF's estimates of the proposed
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology
and assumptions used;
3. Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
4. Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technology, e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed regulations within 60 days
after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Written
comments to OMB for the proposed information collection should be sent
directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
either by fax to 202-395-6974 or by email to
[email protected]. Please mark faxes and emails to the
attention of the desk officer for ACF.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule meets the standards of Executive Order 13563
because providing employment training and services benefits the public,
particularly children and families whose economic security would be
improved by increasing family income and improving financial stability.
These services help to reduce the need for and cost of providing public
assistance. This proposed rule was designated by OMB as a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive
Order 14094. If finalized, the rule would not result in economic
impacts that exceed the monetary threshold in section 3(f)(1) of
Executive Order 12866 (as amended).
The estimated fiscal impact of allowing child support programs to
use FFP for employment and training services would result in an
increase of $15.5 million in federal expenditures during FY 2025, the
anticipated first fiscal year of implementation. As more child support
programs use this authority, the estimated fiscal impact will increase.
By FY 2034, the estimated
[[Page 47119]]
fiscal impact is expected to be $75.9 million per budget year. These
estimates do not reflect the potential benefits to the Federal
Government of implementing this program, such as reducing the cost of
providing child support enforcement services and reducing reliance on
means-tested programs; they only reflect the estimated cost of
providing employment and training services to noncustodial parents.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Secretary proposes to certify that, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as
enacted by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), this
proposed rule, if finalized, will not result in a significant impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The primary impact is on state
governments. State governments are not considered small entities under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires
agencies to prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits
before issuing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure by
state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for
inflation). That threshold level is currently approximately $177
million. This rule does not impose any mandates on state, local, or
tribal governments, or the private sector, that will exceed this
threshold in any year.
Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act of 1999 requires federal agencies to determine whether a proposed
policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's
determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact
assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. We certify
that we have assessed this proposed rule's impact on the well-being of
families. This proposed rule will have a positive impact on family
well-being as defined in the legislation by proposing evidence-informed
policies and practices that help to ensure that noncustodial parents
support their children more consistently and reliably.
Congressional Review
This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C.
Chapter 8.
Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132 prohibits an agency from publishing any rule
that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on state and local governments and is not
required by statute, or the rule preempts state law, unless the agency
meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the
Executive Order. This rule does not have federalism impacts as defined
in the Executive Order 13132.
Jeff Hild, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the
Administration for Children and Families, performing the delegable
duties of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, approved
this document on April 24, 2024.
List of Subjects
45 CFR Part 302
Child support, State plan requirements.
45 CFR Part 303
Child Support, Standards for program operations
45 CFR Part 304
Child support, Federal financial participation
Dated: May 24, 2024.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Health
and Human Services proposes to amend 45 CFR parts 302, 303, and 304 as
set forth below:
PART 302--STATE PLAN REQUIREMENTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 659a, 660, 664, 666, 667,
1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396(k).
0
2. Section 302.76 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 302.76 Employment and training services
The State plan may provide for employment and training services for
eligible noncustodial parents in accordance with Sec. 303.6(c)(5) of
this chapter. If the state chooses this option, the State plan must
include a description of the employment and training services and the
eligibility criteria. In addition, the State plan must explain how the
IV-D agency is coordinating with the state agencies administering the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) (45 CFR part
261), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and
Training program (7 CFR 273.7 and 273.24), and the six core programs of
the state's workforce development system established under the
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), to ensure the
noncustodial parent is receiving well-coordinated employment and
training services across these programs and systems, and that services
are not being duplicated. States electing the option must comply with
future reporting requirements prescribed by the Office.
PART 303--STANDARDS FOR PROGRAM OPERATIONS
0
3. The authority citation for part 303 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 659a, 660, 663, 664, 666,
667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), 1396(k),
and 25 U.S.C. 1603(12) and 1621e.
0
4. Amend Sec. 303.6 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (c)(5) as paragraph (c)(6); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(5).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 303.6 Enforcement of support obligations
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) As elected by the state in Sec. 302.76 of this chapter,
provide employment and training services to eligible noncustodial
parents. In addition to eligibility criteria that may be set by the IV-
D agency, the noncustodial parent must: have an open IV-D case; have a
current child support order or be determined by the IV-D agency to be
fully cooperating with the IV-D agency to establish a current child
support order; be unemployed or underemployed or at risk of not being
able to comply with their current support order; and not be receiving
the same employment and training services under the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF) (45 CFR part 261),
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and Training
program (7 CFR 273.7 and 273.24), Federal Pell Grant (34 CFR part 690),
the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training programs
authorized under Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
Act (20 CFR parts 675-688), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act
(AEFLA) program (34 CFR part 463), or the State Vocational
Rehabilitation program (34 CFR part 361).
[[Page 47120]]
These IV-D agency employment and training services are limited to:
(i) Job search assistance;
(ii) Job readiness training;
(iii) Job development and job placement services;
(iv) Skills assessments to facilitate job placement;
(v) Job retention services;
(vi) Work supports, such as transportation assistance, uniforms,
and tools; and
(vii) Occupational training and other skills training directly
related to employment, which may also include activities to improve
literacy and basic skills, such as programs to complete high school or
a high school equivalency certificate, or English as a second language,
as long as they are included in the same employment and training
services plan.
Federal financial participation may also be used to provide case
management in connection with these allowable services. Federal
financial participation is not available for cash payments, checks,
reimbursements, or any other form of payment that can be legally
converted to currency.
* * * * *
PART 304--FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION
0
5. The authority citation for part 304 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 655, 657, 1302, 1396a(a)(25),
1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396(k).
0
6. Amend Sec. 304.20 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3)(vii) as paragraph (b)(3)(viii); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (b)(3)(vii).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 304.20 Availability and rate of Federal financial participation
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(vii) Employment and training services activities in accordance
with Sec. 303.6(c)(5).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-11842 Filed 5-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-41-P
