Rule2024-29081
Employment and Training Services for Noncustodial Parents in the Child Support Program
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 13, 2024
Effective
January 13, 2025
Issuing agencies
Health and Human Services DepartmentChildren and Families Administration
Abstract
In an effort to make the child support program more effective, OCSS (or the Office) issues this final rule to allow State and Tribal child support agencies the option to use Federal financial participation (FFP) available under title IV-D of the Social Security Act to provide the following employment and training services to eligible noncustodial parents: 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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 240 (Friday, December 13, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 100789-100810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29081]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Parts 302, 303, 304, and 309
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In an effort to make the child support program more effective,
OCSS (or the Office) issues this final rule to allow State and Tribal
child support agencies the option to use Federal financial
participation (FFP) available under title IV-D of the Social Security
Act to provide the following employment and training services to
eligible noncustodial parents: 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: This rule is effective on January 13, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chad Edinger, Program Specialist, OCSS
Division of Regional Operations, at mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92fdf1e1e1bcf6e2e6d2f3f1f4bcfafae1bcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="214e4252520f455155614042470f4949520f464e57">[email protected]</span></a> or
(303) 844-1213. Telecommunications Relay users may dial 711 first.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory Authority
This rule 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 rule is also authorized by sections 452(a)(1) and 454(13) of
the Act (42 U.S.C. 652(a)(1) and 654(13)). Section 452(a)(1) of the Act
expressly delegates authority to the Secretary's designee requiring the
designee to ``establish such standards for State programs for locating
noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, and obtaining child
support . . . as he
[[Page 100790]]
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 \1\ State plans, the costs of
which are eligible for FFP under section 455 of the Act (42 U.S.C.
655). Specifically, section 454(13) of the Act provides the Secretary
with delegated authority to require the State's title IV-D 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 . . . .'' State plans may be updated at any
time and a State would submit updates to their State plan at the time
of electing to provide employment and training services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Sections 451-469B of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 651-
669b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule is further published in accordance with section 455(f) of
the Act (42 U.S.C. 655(f)) which authorizes the Secretary to make child
support funding available to Tribes and Tribal organizations operating
child support programs and to issue regulations establishing
requirements for Tribal child support programs.
The rulemaking is also consistent with section 451 of the Act,
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
The purpose of this rule is to allow State and Tribal child support
agencies the option to use FFP under title IV-D of the Act to provide
certain optional and nonduplicative employment and training services
for eligible noncustodial parents in the child support program.
In 1975, Congress established the child support program under title
IV-D of the Social Security Act (Pub. L. 93-647) to provide funding to
States for effective enforcement of child support obligations. The
child support program is administered at the Federal level by the OCSS
and functions in all States and over 60 Tribes.\2\ The program has
evolved over the past 50 years and 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.
Today the program is focused on delivering child support services that
improve the financial support of children, by collecting and
facilitating consistent child support payments based on the
noncustodial parents' ability to pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Throughout this final rule, States include the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Families and labor market opportunities have fundamentally changed
since 1975. The percentage of children who need child support services
has increased and the ability of noncustodial parents to pay child
support has declined.\3\ In calendar year 2021, 40 percent of births
were to unmarried women, up from 14 percent in 1975.\4\ In calendar
year 2023, 25 percent of children lived with a single parent, up from
17 percent in 1975.\5\ In fiscal year 2023, the child support program
served one in five children in the United States, or 12.7 million
children.\6\ 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.\7\ As of 2018, over 70 percent of
noncustodial parents had not attended college.\8\ In 2017, more than
one-third of noncustodial 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.\9\ Stable employment is
particularly important for a parent to be able to make reliable
consistent child support payments for their children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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 <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf">https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_16.pdf</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr72/nvsr72-01.pdf">https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr72/nvsr72-01.pdf</a>. U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. ``OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book,'' (March
2024) available at <a href="https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/population/qa01201.asp?qaDate=2023">https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/population/qa01201.asp?qaDate=2023</a>. Binder, Ariel J. and John Bound, ``The
Declining Labor Market Prospects of Less-Educated Men,'' Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 33: 2 (2019), available at <a href="https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.33.2.163">https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.33.2.163</a>. Sanders, Patrick,
``Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Nonresident
Parents,'' Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, R46942
(October 2021) available at <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46942">https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46942</a>.
\4\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (October 18,
2000). Osterman, Michelle J.K., et al. (January 31, 2023).
\5\ U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(March 2024).
\6\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Services, ``2023
Child Support: More Money for Families,'' undated, available at
<a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/2023_infographic_national.pdf">https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/2023_infographic_national.pdf</a>.
\7\ Binder, Ariel J. and John Bound (2019). See page 163 of the
article where the authors note that they use the Personal
Consumption Expenditure deflator when reporting real hourly
earnings.
\8\ Sanders, Patrick (October 2021). 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 <a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/glossary#N">https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/glossary#N</a>).
\9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\10\ It is estimated that six
percent of all children in the United States have a parent who is or
has been incarcerated.\11\ Research shows that the subgroup of
noncustodial parents who participate in employment and training
programs have high rates of prior arrests, convictions, and
incarceration.\12\ For example, 65 percent of noncustodial
[[Page 100791]]
parents who enrolled in a recently completed national demonstration of
child support-led employment and training programs reported that they
had been previously incarcerated.\13\ Having an incarceration record is
a barrier to employment that diminishes earnings potential, reducing a
parent's ability to work and pay child support.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 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 <a href="https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/list?series_filter=Correctional%20Populations%20in%20the%20United%20States">https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/list?series_filter=Correctional%20Populations%20in%20the%20United%20States</a>. Historical U.S. population data available at <a href="https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/popchange-data-text.html">https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/dec/popchange-data-text.html</a>.
\11\ 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 <a href="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">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</a>.
\12\ Miller, Cynthia, and Virginia Knox, ``The Challenge of
Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children: Final Lessons
From Parents' Fair Share,'' New York: Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation (MDRC) (2001), available at <a href="https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_529.pdf">https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_529.pdf</a>. 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
<a href="https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ETJD_STED_Final_Impact_Report_2018_508Compliant_v2.pdf">https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/ETJD_STED_Final_Impact_Report_2018_508Compliant_v2.pdf</a>.
\13\ 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 <a href="https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CSPED-Final-Characteristics-of-Participants-Report-2019-Compliant.pdf">https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/CSPED-Final-Characteristics-of-Participants-Report-2019-Compliant.pdf</a>.
\14\ 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 <a href="https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18613/the-growth-of-incarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes">https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/18613/the-growth-of-incarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1996, Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA, Pub. L. 104-193), which made
significant changes to the child support program.\15\ These changes
included the introduction of a new ``family first'' child support
payment distribution policy, which required that families who
previously received cash assistance must receive certain child support
arrearage payments before the State and Federal governments retain
their share of collections.\16\ PRWORA also amended the Social Security
Act to allow courts and child support agencies to require noncustodial
parents owing past-due child support for a child receiving assistance
under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program to
participate in work activities. 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) of the
Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 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 <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/25740093">https://www.jstor.org/stable/25740093</a>.
\16\ Congressional Research Service, ``The Child Support
Enforcement Program: Summary of Laws Enacted Since 1950,''
Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, R47630 (July 2023)
available at <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47630">https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47630</a>.
\17\ In section 407(d) of the 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 <a href="https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0407.htm">https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0407.htm</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\18\ 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 (TANF agencies) to work together to increase the participation
of noncustodial parents in WtW programs and encouraged States to make
``special efforts to inform potentially eligible noncustodial parents
about the existence and availability of WtW services.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ U.S. Department of Labor, ``Training and Employment
Guidance Letter No. 15-01, General Program Questions,'' Reissued
March 22, 2002, available at <a href="https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2002/TEGL15-01_GP.pdf">https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/advisories/TEGL/2002/TEGL15-01_GP.pdf</a>.
\19\ See AT-00-08, available at <a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/questions-and-responses-regarding-collaborative-efforts-iv-d-agencies-and">https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/questions-and-responses-regarding-collaborative-efforts-iv-d-agencies-and</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, OCSS issued policy guidance in PIQ-98-03 \20\ and AT-
00-08 \21\ to respond to State inquiries about the availability of FFP
under title IV-D to pay for the costs of work activities for
noncustodial parents under section 466(a)(15) of the Act. 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 stated that
under section 466(a)(15) of the Act 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.'' \22\ OCSS viewed the determination of eligibility
for and cost of participation in WtW programs as ``the responsibilities
of the WtW grantees, not the courts or the IV-D agency.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ PIQ-98-03 is available at: <a href="https://www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/default/files/ESA/dcs/documents/OCSE_PIQ_90_99.pdf">https://www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/default/files/ESA/dcs/documents/OCSE_PIQ_90_99.pdf</a>.
\21\ AT-00-08, supra note 17.
\22\ Id.
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule allows FFP for employment and training services for
noncustodial parents under the separate authority provided to the
Secretary in sections 451(a)(1) and 454(13) of the Act. As mentioned
above, sections 451(a)(1) and 454(13) of the Act provide the Secretary
with delegated authority to establish requirements and standards that
the Secretary determines to be necessary to the establishment of an
effective child support program. Upon reviewing the results of research
studies detailed below, and described in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, indicating that providing employment and training services
for noncustodial parents can lead to more reliable and regular child
support payments, the Secretary has determined that allowing funding
under title IV-D for such services improves the effectiveness of the
child support program.
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. Collectively, these
demonstrations and programs found positive outcomes in employment
rates, earnings, child support payment rates, the amount of child
support paid, and payment regularity.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Miller, Cynthia, and Virginia Knox (November 2001). 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 <a href="https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_legacy_files/39936/report.pdf">https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_legacy_files/39936/report.pdf</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.frpn.org/asset/ocse-responsible-fatherhood-programs-client-characteristics-and-program-outcomes">https://www.frpn.org/asset/ocse-responsible-fatherhood-programs-client-characteristics-and-program-outcomes</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46816/411567-Partners-for-Fragile-Families-Demonstration-Projects.PDF">https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46816/411567-Partners-for-Fragile-Families-Demonstration-Projects.PDF</a>. 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 <a href="https://sites.utexas.edu/raymarshallcenter/files/2005/07/NCP_Choices_Final_Sep_03_2009.pdf">https://sites.utexas.edu/raymarshallcenter/files/2005/07/NCP_Choices_Final_Sep_03_2009.pdf</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/26676/412442-Strengthening-Families-Through-Stronger-Fathers-Final-Impact-Report-for-the-Pilot-Employment-Programs.PDF">https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/26676/412442-Strengthening-Families-Through-Stronger-Fathers-Final-Impact-Report-for-the-Pilot-Employment-Programs.PDF</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.ssw.umaryland.edu/media/ssw/fwrtg/child-support-research/cs-initiatives/npep.pdf?&">https://www.ssw.umaryland.edu/media/ssw/fwrtg/child-support-research/cs-initiatives/npep.pdf?&</a>. 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
<a href="https://centerforpolicyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/ParentsToWork.pdf">https://centerforpolicyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/ParentsToWork.pdf</a>. Davis, Lanae, Jessica Pearson, and Nancy
Thoennes. ``Evaluation of the Tennessee Parent Support Program,''
Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research (November 2013), available at
<a href="https://centerforpolicyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/EvaluationTennesseeParentSupportProgram.pdf">https://centerforpolicyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/EvaluationTennesseeParentSupportProgram.pdf</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/OPRE%20NCP%20Employment%20Brief_508.pdf">https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/opre/OPRE%20NCP%20Employment%20Brief_508.pdf</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/FamiliesForward_Report_0.pdf">https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/FamiliesForward_Report_0.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 100792]]
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.\25\
Nationally, over 70 percent of child support collections are made
through wage withholding by employers.\26\ Noncustodial parents with
irregular employment are particularly unlikely to pay the full amount
of their child support order.\27\ As a result, substantial arrears
accrue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Cancian, Maria, Yoona Kim, and Daniel R. Meyer, ``Who Is
Not Paying Child Support?'' Madison, WI: Institute for Research on
Poverty (September 2021), available at <a href="https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CSRPA-2020-2022-T2.pdf">https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/CSRPA-2020-2022-T2.pdf</a>.
\26\ DCL-23-06, OCSS Preliminary FY 2022 Data Report and Tables,
available at <a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/fy-2022-preliminary-data-report-and-tables">https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/fy-2022-preliminary-data-report-and-tables</a>.
\27\ Cancian, Maria, et al. (September 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data regarding unpaid child support debt shows that 78 percent of
the $114 billion in child support arrears that was owed in fiscal year
(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.\28\ 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 can
push these parents further away from the formal labor market, reduce
their child support payments, and distance them from their
children.\29\ 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.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The data regarding child support debt 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 <a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/fy-2022-preliminary-data-report-and-tables">https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/fy-2022-preliminary-data-report-and-tables</a>. 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
<a href="https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/29736/1001242-Assessing-Child-Support-Arrears-in-Nine-Large-States-and-the-Nation.PDF">https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/29736/1001242-Assessing-Child-Support-Arrears-in-Nine-Large-States-and-the-Nation.PDF</a>.
\29\ 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
<a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/668761">https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/668761</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264476066_Discouraging_Disadvantaged_Fathers">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264476066_Discouraging_Disadvantaged_Fathers</a>'_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 <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12361">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12361</a>.
\30\ Turetsky, Vicki and Maureen Waller. ``Piling on Debt: The
Intersections Between Child Support Arrears and Legal Financial
Obligations.'' UCLA Criminal Justice Law Review, 4(1) (2020),
available at <a href="https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7vd043jw">https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7vd043jw</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the previously discussed research and evidence and the
discussion below, OCSS has a greater understanding of the effectiveness
of providing employment and training services to noncustodial parents
in improving their ability to obtain employment and make regular child
support payments. In allowing FFP for such employment and training
services, we have not disregarded our previous interpretation of
section 466(a)(15) of the Act. Section 466(a)(15) neither authorizes
nor prohibits the child support program from providing employment and
training services to noncustodial parents under title IV-D, and is not
the legal basis for this final rule. OCSS bases this rule on sections
452(a)(1), 454(13) and 455(f), providing the Secretary with broad
delegated express authority to establish standards and requirements for
State and Tribal child support programs that make the program more
effective in ensuring that children receive financial support from
their parent. This rule allows State and Tribal expenses for providing
these services under their IV-D plan to be eligible for FFP under
section 455 of the Act.
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.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 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 quasi-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. Experimental evaluations are
considered to be the most rigorous evaluation method, followed by
quasi-experimental evaluations. Outcome evaluations are considered
the least rigorous evaluation method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Miller, Cynthia, and Virginia Knox (November 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
[[Page 100793]]
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, however, 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.\33\ 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.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Id.
\34\ 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 <a href="https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_38.pdf">https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_38.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted earlier, in 1997, Congress authorized the WtW Grants
program to help welfare recipients and noncustodial parents find and
keep good jobs. A descriptive study conducted as part of the national
evaluation of 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 could successfully operate employment and training
programs for noncustodial parents.\35\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 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 <a href="https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/62761/410340-Serving-Noncustodial-Parents-A-Descriptive-Study-of-Welfare-to-Work-Programs.PDF">https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/62761/410340-Serving-Noncustodial-Parents-A-Descriptive-Study-of-Welfare-to-Work-Programs.PDF</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One WtW program that served noncustodial parents was evaluated as
part of the national evaluation of the WtW grants program.\36\ 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, 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 for failure to pay
child support. 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
outcome 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.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Perez-Johnson, Irma, et al. (October 2003).
\37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998, OCSS launched an eight-State demonstration to test the
effectiveness of fatherhood programs.\38\ 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 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
outcome evaluation found that the percent of participants paying child
support increased after enrollment in every participating State, by
amounts ranging from four percent to 31 percent.\39\ The average amount
of child support due that was paid also increased after enrollment in
every participating State, by amounts ranging from one percent to 16
percent.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Pearson, Jessica, et al. (June 2000).
\39\ Pearson, Jessica, et al. (September 2003).
\40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\41\ 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
[[Page 100794]]
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.\42\ The outcome evaluation of PFF examined child
support outcomes of participants at the time of enrollment and over the
next two years. It found that the percentage of participants with child
support orders increased from 14 percent to 35 percent during the first
two years after program enrollment.\43\ 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.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ 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 <a href="https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46576/411511-The-Implementation-of-the-Partners-for-Fragile-Families-Demonstration-Projects.PDF">https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46576/411511-The-Implementation-of-the-Partners-for-Fragile-Families-Demonstration-Projects.PDF</a>.
\42\ Id, Exhibit 2.1.
\43\ Martinson, Karin, et al. (September 2007).
\44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\45\ The goal of the program
is to help parents make regular child support payments and become
financially stable.\46\ This program remains in operation today and is
currently operating in 21 of the 28 workforce development board areas
in Texas.\47\ 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.\48\
The services emphasize Work First, providing job referrals and job
search assistance, and may include development, support services,
short-term training, subsidized employment/work experience, GED and
English as a Second Language classes, and job retention and career
advancement assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty (September 2009).
\46\ 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.
\47\ Id.
\48\ Texas Workforce Commission, Choices Program, available at
<a href="https://www.twc.texas.gov/programs/choices">https://www.twc.texas.gov/programs/choices</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NCP Choices was evaluated during the initial years of its
operation.\49\ The impact evaluation was based on data from 2005 to
2009 and ten local workforce development areas. It used a quasi-
experimental evaluation design.\50\ 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.\51\ In addition, those
ordered into NCP Choices paid their child support 50 percent more
consistently over time than the comparison group.\52\ All of these
positive impacts continued well into the second through fourth years
after program enrollment.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty (September 2009).
\50\ 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 <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8011057/pdf/nihms-1671041.pdf">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8011057/pdf/nihms-1671041.pdf</a>.
\51\ Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty (September 2009).
\52\ Id.
\53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\54\ 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.\55\ One program
provided subsidized employment and job retention and career enhancement
services. The pilot programs served 3,668 noncustodial parents.\56\ 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.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ 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 <a href="https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/28106/1001412-Strengthening-Families-Through-Stronger-Fathers-Initiative-Process-Evaluation-Report.PDF">https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/28106/1001412-Strengthening-Families-Through-Stronger-Fathers-Initiative-Process-Evaluation-Report.PDF</a>.
\55\ Id.
\56\ Lippold, Kye, et al. (October 2011).
\57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\58\ 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.\59\ During its initial phase, each NPEP
program provided employment services similar to those offered in WtW
grants programs. An evaluation of NPEP was conducted, which examined
3,900 noncustodial parents referred to NPEP in 2007 and 2008.\60\
Outcomes for these participants were examined one year before and after
enrollment. The outcome 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.\61\ 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.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Born, Catherine E., et al. (April 2011).
\59\ NPEP is currently referred to as the Noncustodial Party
Employment Program. Maryland Department of Human Services, Child
Support Administration. ``Noncustodial Party Employment Programs,''
available at: <a href="https://dhs.maryland.gov/child-support-services/noncustodial-parents/noncustodial-parent-employment-programs/">https://dhs.maryland.gov/child-support-services/noncustodial-parents/noncustodial-parent-employment-programs/</a>.
\60\ Born, Catherine E., et al. (April 2011).
\61\ Id.
\62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 100795]]
noncustodial parents and generate child support payments.\63\ The
program is still in operation today.\64\ 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 quasi-
experimental 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.\65\ 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 it did
not improve for the comparison group.\66\ 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 did not improve
for the comparison group.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Pearson, Jessica, et al. (February 2011).
\64\ Arapahoe/Douglas Works Workforce Center. ``Parents to
Work'', available at: <a href="https://www.adworks.org/job-seekers/programs/parents-to-work/">https://www.adworks.org/job-seekers/programs/parents-to-work/</a>.
\65\ 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.
\66\ Id.
\67\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2009, the Tennessee Department of Human Services 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 outcome 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.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ 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. In 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, some new programs have emerged but there are fewer States in
2024 that have employment and training programs for noncustodial
parents with active child support agency involvement than in 2014.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Office of Child Support Services. ``Child Support-led
Employment Programs by State,'' available at: <a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/training-technical-assistance/child-support-led-employment-programs-state">https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/training-technical-assistance/child-support-led-employment-programs-state</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Studies in Support of This Final Rule
OCSS previously issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on November
17, 2014, that included regulatory changes similar to those included in
this final rule.\70\ Although the 2014 proposed rule received
overwhelming support from States, many Members of Congress, and the
public, FFP for employment and training services 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
reimbursement for job services needs further study and would be ripe
for implementation at a later time.'' See Flexibility, Efficiency, and
Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs, Final Rule, 81 FR
93492, 93496 (December 20, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ See Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child
Support Enforcement Programs, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 79 FR
68548, 68556 (November 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2016, findings from two new national demonstrations that
offered employment and training services to noncustodial parents have
been released. They are the Child Support National Parent Employment
Demonstration and Families Forward Demonstration (FFD). These two
demonstrations added considerably to OCSS's understanding of the
effectiveness of employment programs for noncustodial parents and
further informed the development of this rule.
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.\71\
CSPED was able to reach 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
[[Page 100796]]
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.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ 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 <a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/csped_impact_report.pdf">https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/csped_impact_report.pdf</a>.
\72\ 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 <a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/hhs-2012-acf-ocse-fd-0297_csped.pdf">https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/hhs-2012-acf-ocse-fd-0297_csped.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 three percent during the first two
years after enrollment, and increased their earnings by four percent
during the first year after enrollment, both of which are measured
using quarterly earnings.\73\ This, in turn, increased the likelihood
of participants paying child support through income withholding by
eight percent during the first year after enrollment.\74\ 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.\75\ 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.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Sorensen, Elaine (November 2020).
\74\ Id. 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.
\75\ Cancian, Maria, et al. (March 2019).
\76\ 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 <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pam.22370">https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pam.22370</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 \77\
approved by the Office of Child Support Services.\78\ FFD provided the
following three services to noncustodial parents: 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.\79\ 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.\80\ It found that the trends in child support
payments for noncustodial parent participants improved relative to
their pre-enrollment trends.\81\ 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 increases the effectiveness of the child support
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ See section 1115(a) and (b) of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. 1315(a) and (b).
\78\ The FFD program in New York was additionally supported by
the Robin Hood Foundation.
\79\ Wasserman, Kyla, et al. (April 2021).
\80\ Id.
\81\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
has determined that providing FFP under title IV-D for employment and
training services improves the effectiveness of the child support
program. Thus, this final rule allows States and Tribal child support
programs to access FFP for these services and establishes standards and
requirements for States and Tribes or Tribal organizations when opting
to provide federally funded employment and training services under
their IV-D plans. This final rule provides additional stability and
support for States and Tribal child support programs to increase the
effectiveness of their respective programs for collecting child support
payments.
Summary Description of Regulatory Changes
The following is a summary of the regulatory provisions included in
this final rule and, where applicable, how these provisions differ from
the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). The NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on May 31, 2024 (89 FR 47109 through 47120). The
comment period ended July 30, 2024.
This final rule allows States and Tribes the option to use FFP to
provide certain employment and training services designed to supplement
traditional enforcement tools to help noncustodial parents find and
retain employment so they can support their children.
Section 302.76 Employment and Training Services
This rule adds a new optional State plan provision at 45 CFR
302.76, Employment and training services, to allow States to provide
certain employment and training services to eligible noncustodial
parents in accordance with the newly designated Sec. 303.6(c)(5). This
State plan provision is optional as each State will need to determine
the level of resources the State wishes to commit in order to draw down
Federal matching funds under title IV-D.\82\ If a State chooses this
[[Page 100797]]
option, Sec. 302.76 requires that the State include a description of
the employment and training services and eligibility criteria in its
State plan. In addition, to ensure the IV-D agency is providing well-
coordinated and non-duplicative employment and training services, it
also requires that States include in their State plan an explanation of
how the State child support program has consulted with, and taken into
consideration services provided by, the State agencies administering
the following programs: TANF (45 CFR part 261), the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and Training program (7 CFR
273.7 and 273.24), the Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs
under Title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (20 CFR
parts 675 through 688), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act
program (34 CFR part 463), the Employment Service program (20 CFR part
652), and the Vocational Rehabilitation program (34 CFR part 361). The
final rule revises Sec. 302.76 by removing the reference included in
the NPRM to the ``six core programs of the state's workforce
development system established under the Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA)'' and instead identifies, by name, the six core
programs. These core programs are the three programs for Adults,
Dislocated Workers, and Youth under title I, the Adult Education and
Family Literacy Act program under title II, the Employment Service
program under title III, and the Vocational Rehabilitation program
under title IV. The final rule also requires that States electing the
option to provide employment and training services using FFP under
title IV-D must comply with future reporting requirements prescribed by
the Office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Under section 455 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
655), the Federal government provides reimbursement to each state
program (including the District of Columbia and territorial
programs) of 66% of all allowable child support program
expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States are required to consult with, and take into consideration
services provided by, the State agencies administering the listed
programs in order to provide the most appropriate mix of services that
ensures effective service delivery for addressing the multiple barriers
to employment often faced by low-income noncustodial parents in their
caseload, while minimizing costs to the child support program. We
strongly encourage States to partner with high-quality training
programs and other evidence-based training models that have been shown
to lead to sustained earnings gains--to increase noncustodial parents'
ability to meet their financial obligations to their children.
Partnering with other programs at the State and local level can allow
child support programs to broaden the types of services they provide to
noncustodial parents in their caseload. 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 and lack access to
services, while minimizing unnecessary duplication of services that are
already successfully being provided by the listed federally-funded
programs. We encourage child support agencies to partner wherever
possible with local American Job Centers to leverage their specialized
experience and knowledge of job development and to partner with labor
organizations to access employment and training services that they
provide.
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
reentry 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. However, this does not preclude
a child support agency from providing employment and training services
to noncustodial parents directly.
Section 303.6 Enforcement of Support Obligations
We redesignate existing Sec. 303.6(c)(5) as new Sec. 303.6(c)(6)
and add new Sec. 303.6(c)(5) to provide program standards related to
the optional State plan provision Sec. 302.76.
Employment and Training Services
The final rule establishes basic eligibility requirements that must
be met for States to provide employment and training services to
noncustodial parents. Eligibility for employment and training services
is limited to noncustodial parents who: have an open IV-D case; have a
child support order or have been determined by the IV-D agency to be
fully cooperating with the IV-D agency to establish a child support
order; and are unemployed or underemployed or at risk of not being able
to comply with their support order. In addition, the IV-D agency must
have adopted policies and procedures for determining that the
noncustodial parent is not receiving the same employment and training
services under the following programs: TANF (45 CFR part 261), the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment and
Training program (7 CFR 273.7 and 273.24), the Federal Pell Grant
program (34 CFR part 690), the Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth
programs under title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
(20 CFR parts 675 through 688), the Adult Education and Family Literacy
Act program (34 CFR part 463), the Employment Service program (20 CFR
part 652), or the Vocational Rehabilitation program (34 CFR part 361).
States may establish additional criteria not in conflict with those
required by this rule.
The final rule does not allow States to provide a noncustodial
parent the same employment and training services that he or she is
already receiving from a set list of federally-funded employment and
training programs. Child support programs will need to adopt policies
and procedures for determining that the noncustodial parent is not
receiving the same employment and training services from the other
federally-funded programs listed in Sec. 303.6(c)(5). We recognize the
challenges for States to verify non-duplication of services due to the
limited availability of data needed for verification. In the NPRM, OCSS
suggested that attestation may be used to verify non-duplication of
services. However, many commenters expressed concern that requiring
attestation would create a barrier to program participation and
requested that OCSS allow States flexibility to determine the
verification approaches. In response to these comments, the final rule
does not prescribe a verification method for child support agencies to
use, but leaves it to States to establish a process for how best to
confirm that a noncustodial parent is not already receiving the same
services under the programs listed in Sec. 303.6(c)(5). For example,
to meet this requirement, the child support agency may obtain a verbal
or other confirmation 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) and document the
confirmation in the case record. This will allow a noncustodial parent
who may be receiving services from the American Job Center to also
receive nonduplicated employment and training services through the
child support program.
Under new Sec. 303.6(c)(5), allowable employment and training
services are limited to:
<bullet> Job search assistance;
<bullet> Job readiness training;
<bullet> Job development and job placement services;
[[Page 100798]]
<bullet> Skills assessments to facilitate job placement;
<bullet> Job retention services;
<bullet> Work supports, such as transportation assistance,
uniforms, and tools; and
<bullet> 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.
We recognize that providing these services may require case
management. Thus, consistent with OCSS PIQ-12-02, FFP may also be used
to provide case management for these allowable services.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ PIQ-12-02, Partnering with other programs, including
outreach, referral, and case management activities, is available at:
<a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/piq_12_02_partnering_with_other_programs_and_activities.pdf">https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/piq_12_02_partnering_with_other_programs_and_activities.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 tended to provide this package of
employment and training services in their effort to improve the
effectiveness of child support program. The list of allowable services
includes those services that were most frequently provided in various
demonstrations, research evaluations, and state-based programs detailed
in the rule.
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. 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 uniforms; 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; license fees; application fees; and other
costs of employment and training tests or certifications. 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.
The proposed rule included language at Sec. 303.6(c)(5)(vii) about
an employment and training services plan. We have revised this section
and no longer use the term ``employment and training services plan''
because commenters found this requirement confusing. OCSS does not
believe an employment and training plan is necessary to meet the
requirements of the rule.
In the NPRM, OCSS proposed not to allow employment and training
services for noncustodial parents with arrears-only cases because, as
stated in the NPRM, the primary goal of offering employment and
training services is to increase the consistency of current support
payments to families with minor children. Many commenters urged OCSS to
allow noncustodial parents with arrears-only cases to be eligible for
these services, noting that many of them are of working age,
unemployed, and could benefit from employment and training services to
help them find work and pay their overdue child support. OCSS agrees
with the commenters that noncustodial parents with arrears-only cases
are still responsible for paying overdue child support and may face
barriers to employment that limit their ability to pay and thus could
benefit from employment and training services, which, if provided,
could lead to employment and increased child support payments to
custodial families. In response to comments, we removed the word
``current'' in proposed Sec. 303.6(c)(5) describing the eligibility
criteria to allow noncustodial parents with child support orders in
arrears-only cases to be eligible for employment and training services
funded under title IV-D.
In the NPRM, a list of costs that would not be eligible for FFP was
included in the proposed language of Sec. 303.6(c)(5). In the final
rule, these prohibited costs are moved to Sec. 304.23, Expenditures
for which Federal financial participation is not available, as
described below.
Section 304.20 Availability and Rate of Federal Financial Participation
We redesignate existing Sec. 304.20(b)(3)(vii) as new Sec.
304.20(b)(3)(viii), and add new Sec. 304.20(b)(3)(vii) allowing FFP
for employment and training services when they are provided in
accordance with Sec. 303.6(c)(5).
Section 304.23 Expenditures for Which Federal Financial Participation
Is Not Available
The final rule adds new Sec. 304.23(k) to move the list of costs
related to employment and training services that the NPRM said would
not be eligible for FFP under proposed Sec. 303.6 (c)(5) to Sec.
304.23, Expenditures for which Federal financial participation is not
available. Specifically, under Sec. 304.23(k) this final rule
prohibits expenditures under title IV-D for payments of cash, checks,
reimbursements, or any other form of payment that can be legally
converted to currency provided to the noncustodial parent. The final
rule also prohibits FFP for costs of subsidized employment for
noncustodial parents. The NPRM proposed that these costs not be
eligible for FFP in Sec. 303.6(c)(5), but also requested comments on
all of the employment and training services in Sec. 303.6(c)(5). A few
commenters argued FFP should be available for these costs, but these
arguments did not overcome the concerns that the Federal government has
with allowing FFP for these costs as discussed in response to Comments
13 and 31 below.
Section 309.65 What must a Tribe or Tribal organization include in a
Tribal IV-D plan in order to demonstrate capacity to operate a Tribal
IV-D program?
In response to comments received in support of FFP for Tribes to
offer employment and training services, we redesignate existing Sec.
309.65(b) as new Sec. 309.65(c) and add new Sec. 309.65(b) to add a
new optional Tribal plan provision to allow Tribes to provide certain
employment and training services to eligible noncustodial parents.
This Tribal plan provision is optional to Tribes and Tribal
organizations. This final rule adds provisions in the Tribal
regulations at part 309, specifically new Sec. Sec. 309.65(b),
309.121, 309.145, and 309.155 to clarify, in response to comments, that
this final rule makes
[[Page 100799]]
Federal funding available to Tribes for employment and training
services. If a Tribe or Tribal organization chooses this option, Sec.
309.65(b) requires that the Tribe or Tribal organization include a
description of the employment and training services and eligibility
criteria in its Tribal IV-D plan. In addition, to ensure the IV-D
agency is providing well-coordinated and non-duplicative employment and
training services, Sec. 309.65(b) also requires that the Tribe or
Tribal organization include in its Tribal IV-D plan an explanation of
how the Tribal child support program has consulted with, and taken into
consideration the services provided by, federally-funded employment and
training programs administered by the Tribe. It also requires that
Tribes electing the option to provide employment and training services
using FFP under title IV-D must comply with future reporting
requirements prescribed by the Office.
Consistent with Executive Order 14112, 88 FR 86021 (December 6,
2023), Reforming Federal Funding and Support for Tribal Nations to
Better Embrace Our Trust Responsibilities and Promote the Next Era of
Tribal Self- Determination, the final rule takes into account the
unique needs, capacity, and barriers faced by Tribal IV-D programs, and
thus does not provide a set list of federally-funded programs that
Tribes must coordinate with to ensure noncustodial parents are not
receiving duplicative employment and training services. Tribes must
consult with, and take into consideration the services provided by,
federally-funded employment and training programs administered by the
Tribe to ensure effective service delivery and to provide the most
appropriate mix of services that address the multiple barriers to
employment faced by low-income noncustodial parents in their caseload,
while minimizing costs to the child support program. To meet this
requirement, Tribal IV-D agencies have flexibility to coordinate with
any of the federally-funded employment and training programs
administered by the Tribe. OCSS's policy goals are to make it possible
for Tribal child support agencies to provide employment and training
services to noncustodial parents who need them but are not available to
them, while minimizing unnecessary duplication of services that are
already successfully being provided by other federally-funded programs
administered by the Tribe.
OCSS anticipates that many Tribal child support agencies will
purchase employment and training services by entering into contracts
with public, private and community-based employment, fatherhood, and
reentry programs, community action agencies, community colleges, or
other service providers, rather than offer these services in-house, in
accordance with 45 CFR 309.60(c), Who is responsible for administration
of the Tribal IV-D program under the Tribal IV-D plan. However, this
does not preclude a Tribal child support agency from providing
employment and training services to noncustodial parents directly.
Section 309.121 Employment and Training Services
This rule adds a new optional Tribal plan provision, Sec. 309.121,
Employment and training services, to allow Tribes to provide certain
employment and training services to eligible noncustodial parents in
accordance with the newly designated Sec. 309.65(b).
The final rule establishes basic eligibility requirements that must
be met for Tribes to provide employment and training services for
noncustodial parents. Eligibility for employment and training services
is limited to noncustodial parents who: have an open IV-D case; have a
child support order or have been determined by the IV-D agency to be
fully cooperating with the IV-D agency to establish a child support
order; and are unemployed or underemployed or at risk of not being able
to comply with their support order. In addition, the IV-D agency must
have adopted policies and procedures for determining that the
noncustodial parent is not receiving the same employment and training
services under other federally-funded employment and training program
administered by the Tribe. Tribes and Tribal organizations may
establish additional criteria not in conflict with those established in
the rule.
Consistent with Executive Order 14112, the final rule takes into
account the unique needs, capacity, and barriers faced by Tribal IV-D
programs, and thus does not include a set list of programs for Tribes
to verify non-duplication of services. Tribal child support programs
will need to adopt policies and procedures for determining that the
noncustodial parent is not receiving the same employment and training
services from other federally-funded program administered by the Tribe.
The final rule does not prescribe a method for child support agencies
to use, but leaves it to Tribes and Tribal organizations to determine
how best to confirm that a noncustodial parent is not already receiving
the same services from another federally-funded program administered by
the Tribe.
The list of allowable services includes those services that were
most frequently provided in various demonstrations, research
evaluations, and state-based programs detailed in the rule. 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 uniforms; 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; license fees; application fees; and other
costs of employment and training tests or certifications.
Section 309.145 What costs are allowable for Tribal IV-D programs
carried out under Sec. 309.65(a)?
As a result of the comments received concerning the applicability
of this rule for Tribal child support programs, we add new Sec.
309.145(c)(5) allowing FFP for certain employment and training services
when they are provided in accordance with Sec. 309.121.
Section 309.155 What uses of Tribal IV-D program funds are not
allowable?
To address comments received in support of the availability of
funds for Tribal child support programs, we redesignate existing Sec.
309.155(f) as new Sec. 309.155(g), and add new Sec. 309.155(f) to
provide a list of costs related to employment and training services
that the NPRM said would not be eligible for FFP.
Responses to Comments
OCSS received 58 sets of comments from States, 2 previous Federal
Office of Child Support Commissioners, national child support
associations, fatherhood, research and other non-profit organizations,
private companies and other interested individuals. We posted 54 sets
of comments on <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, three of which were duplicates; 4
sets of comments were not posted because they were not related to the
NPRM. All expressed overwhelming support for the NPRM.
Section 302.76 Employment and Training Services
Comment 1: We received multiple comments about statewide
requirements related to the State plan. All of these commenters
requested that the final rule not require States to implement
employment and training services statewide. Commenters noted that the
labor market conditions and outlook can vary substantially within a
State,
[[Page 100800]]
affecting the need for employment and training services. Other
commenters noted that the capacity to provide employment and training
services can vary substantially within a State. Still others noted that
available resources to draw matching FFP to pay the non-Federal share
of costs for employment and training services can vary substantially by
county within a State. For these reasons, the commenters urged OCSS to
allow States to tailor employment and training services to local
conditions. The commenters suggested the final rule should waive the
statewide requirement for optional employment and training services, if
permissible. If not permissible, they suggested the final rule should
clarify that a State may indicate in its State plan that the option to
use FFP for employment and training services is available to all
counties within the State and may be used at county option.
Response 1: OCSS appreciates the concerns about States being
required to offer employment and training services statewide given
these services are optional under the State plan. The regulations at 45
CFR 302.10 implement section 454(1) of the Act and requires in Sec.
302.10(a) the State plan be in operation on a statewide basis in
accordance with equitable standards for administration that are
mandatory throughout the State. The regulations at 45 CFR 302.10(c)
require the IV-D agency will assure that the plan is continuously in
operation in all appropriate offices or agencies through (1) methods
for informing staff of policies, standards, procedures, and
instructions and (2) regular planned examination and evaluation of
operations in local offices. As 45 CFR 302.10 requires IV-D State plans
to be in operation on a statewide basis, States electing to provide
employment and training services using FFP must make at least a minimum
level of services available statewide. These services for some
jurisdictions could be virtual job readiness trainings that individuals
could access online or at their local child support services offices
(e.g., online training on how to interview, prepare a resume,
navigating job announcement websites, or occupational training and
other skills training directly related to employment such as programs
to complete high school or a high school equivalency certificate),
while other jurisdictions may offer more intensive employment and
training services. States, however, will have the flexibility to
determine what additional services are appropriate in their
jurisdictions based on local conditions, resources, and needs. OCSS
encourages States to review and consider successful programs operated
by other States, some of which have included piloting employment and
training services in select areas first and then expanding to other
service areas.
Comment 2: We received various comments regarding the requirement
that States must comply with future reporting requirements prescribed
by OCSS if they elect to provide employment and training services. Some
commenters suggested that OCSS consult with States about any reporting
requirements and give States the opportunity to provide feedback to
OCSS ahead of the adoption of these requirements, especially if system
changes would be required to meet these reporting requirements. One
commenter suggested OCSS address the reporting requirements in the
regulation or in supplemental guidance released before the regulation
is finalized, while another commenter suggested reporting requirements
be provided before States elect the option. Another commenter urged
that the reporting requirements closely match existing IV-D agency
requirements to reduce the likelihood of burdensome or negative impacts
on a State's child support system, while another commenter argued that
consideration should be given to the practical utility of the reporting
measures and the ability of States to easily obtain and maintain the
mandated data. Other commenters recommended that OCSS align reporting
requirements with the performance measures of existing employment and
training programs. Still others recommended specific items be included
in the reporting requirements, and one commenter recommended that
reporting be disaggregated by characteristics such as race, ethnicity,
disability status, and gender. One commenter encouraged OCSS to include
reporting requirements that would allow States to conduct program
analysis and evaluation of their employment and training services.
Other commenters suggested FFP be available for system enhancements to
capture any required data elements.
Response 2: OCSS clarifies there are no Federal reporting
requirements that are specifically related to employment and training
programs at this time. We understand that commenters are concerned
about the potential burden that future reporting requirements may have.
After the rule is published, we will consult with States and Tribes
about Federal reporting requirements under this rule, and in accordance
with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OCSS will
publish the proposed information collection in the Federal Register
providing States, Tribes, and the public the opportunity to comment on
the reporting requirements.
Comment 3: Two commenters expressed support for Tribal child
support programs receiving FFP for employment and training services.
Response 3: OCSS appreciates and agrees with the commenters and has
included amendments in the Tribal child support regulations at 45 CFR
part 309 to specifically allow FFP for Tribal child support programs'
employment and training activities. This final rule amends part 309 to
expressly include FFP for Tribes and Tribal organizations operating IV-
D programs that elect to implement optional employment and training
services. This change aligns with President Biden's Executive Order
14112.
Allowing FFP for Tribal child support programs to provide
employment and training services promotes equity and honors Tribal
sovereignty and the trust relationship between the Federal Government
and Tribal Nations. As set out by the 1977 Senate report of the
American Indian Policy Review Commission, ``The purpose behind the
trust is and always has been to insure the survival and welfare of
Indian Tribes and people. This includes an obligation to provide those
services required to protect and enhance Indian lands, resources, and
self-government and also includes those economic and social programs
which are necessary to raise the standard of living and social well-
being of the Indian people to a level comparable to the non-Indian
society.'' \84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See American Indian Policy Review Commission Final Report
(May 1977), page 130 available at <a href="https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED164229.pdf">https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED164229.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Child support programs adding employment and training services help
Tribal communities support parental financial responsibility, so
children receive economic support from both parents even when they live
in separate households. Allowing Tribal child support programs to
receive FFP for employment and training service activities will help to
ensure that Tribal Nations can offer culturally appropriate and
affirming services to their communities. Tribes and Tribal
organizations exercising their sovereignty to operate their own child
support programs is, in fact, what Congress intended when it authorized
funding under PRWORA. Allowing FFP for Tribal child support programs to
[[Page 100801]]
deliver employment and training services helps to achieve this and to
ensure the continued focus on promoting parenting responsibility and
support for child well-being.
Allowing Tribal child support programs to receive FFP for
employment and training service activities is also important because
many Federal programs that assist Tribal Nations and promote Tribal
sovereignty are underfunded, according to the 2018 U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights report on Federal funding for Native Americans.\85\ The
changes to expressly include Tribal child support programs honors and
reflects the trust relationship and doctrine, which requires the
Federal Government to support Tribal self-government and economic
prosperity.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ See U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Broken Promises:
Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans (December
2018) at <a href="https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf">https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf</a>.
\86\ See Administration for Children and Families, American
Indians and Alaska Natives--The Trust Responsibility Fact Sheet at
<a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ana/fact-sheet/american-indians-and-alaska-natives-trust-responsibility">https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ana/fact-sheet/american-indians-and-alaska-natives-trust-responsibility</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule allows Tribes and Tribal organizations, at their
option, to provide employment and training services to eligible
noncustodial parents and provides that such services are eligible for
FFP at the applicable matching rate.
Comment 4: We received multiple comments related to the requirement
to coordinate with other federally-funded employment and training
programs to ensure that noncustodial parents are receiving well-
coordinated employment and training services across these programs and
that services are not being duplicated. Some commenters requested
specific guidance on how to comply with coordination requirements,
while others requested additional guidance about how to co-enroll a
parent paying child support into multiple training programs and how to
allocate costs across programs. Some asked for guidance about selecting
which funding stream is utilized when and whether each program could
pay a percentage of costs. One commenter recommended State child
support agencies be included as optional partners of WIOA State plans
and that State child support agencies should leverage State workforce
agencies. Another commenter suggested requiring partnership with State
workforce agencies and encouraged OCSS to work closely with the U.S.
Department of Labor and other Federal agencies in the development and
implementation of the final rule. Another commenter suggested
eliminating the coordination requirement because it would be unduly
burdensome. Other commenters asked if the coordination requirement
results in an additional requirement to have cooperative agreements in
place with the other federally-funded employment programs listed in
Sec. 302.76 and whether the prohibition against duplicative services
prevents a State from offering different but related services from more
than one agency.
Response 4: This final rule provides States and Tribes flexibility
regarding how they will coordinate with State and Tribal agencies that
administer federally-funded programs, as States and Tribes may
structure their employment and training service delivery differently.
States and Tribes have discretion to implement coordination efforts
with other federally-funded employment and training service providers
that best support successful program execution and stable employment
outcomes for eligible noncustodial parents while preventing duplication
of services. States and Tribes also have discretion to establish
enrollment policies and processes for employment and training services
programs they provide for eligible noncustodial parents. We encourage
child support programs to work with partner agencies to educate
noncustodial parents regarding partner agencies' enrollment policies.
OCSS's website includes Knowledge Works and Tribal Employment Pathways
resources for child support agencies who have interest or already
provide employment and training services to noncustodial parents.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ OCSS's Knowledge Works website is available at: <a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/employment-programs">https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/employment-programs</a>; OCSS's Tribal Employment
Pathways website is available at: <a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/child-support-professionals/tribal-agencies/tribal-employment-pathways">https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/child-support-professionals/tribal-agencies/tribal-employment-pathways</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This rule allows States and Tribes discretion to determine the
appropriateness of who they should target as partners to provide
employment and training services. This final rule does not require
child support agencies to partner with workforce agencies as the
providers of job services, only that they consult with, and take into
consideration the services provided by, other federally-funded
employment and training programs. We do not want to restrict the
ability of States, Counties, Tribes, and Tribal organizations to
determine the most appropriate partner to offer employment and training
services tailored to local conditions, the employment needs of
noncustodial parents, labor market outlook, and existing capacity
within local employment programs.
We disagree with comments requesting that OCSS remove the
coordination requirement as we believe it is important for a child
support program to explain how they have consulted with, and taken into
consideration the services provided by, other federally-funded
employment and training programs to ensure noncustodial parents are
receiving well-coordinated employment and training services across
these programs, and that services provided to noncustodial parents are
not being unnecessarily duplicated.
The coordination requirement does not require IV-D agencies to have
cooperative agreements in place with other federally-funded employment
and training programs and does not prevent a State or Tribe from
offering different services to a noncustodial parent from more than one
agency.
Comment 5: One commenter suggested OCSS encourage coordination with
fatherhood programs. Another commenter suggested OCSS provide examples
and guidance related to coordinating with criminal justice agencies,
especially during reentry into communities, and provide guidance on how
to align protections for individuals already in place through Civil
Rights offices with the services in the NPRM. Another commenter said
States are interested in opportunities for peer-to-peer learning and
knowledge transfer and mentioned that both the National Association of
State Workforce Agencies (NASWA) and the American Public Human Services
Association (APHSA) have such networks.
Response 5: We recommend that child support programs build robust
partnerships with existing education and workforce programs and
providers of supportive services, such as workforce agencies, TANF and
SNAP agencies, the Native Employment Works program, Public Law 102-477
programs, community colleges, labor organizations, criminal justice
agencies including probation, parole and corrections, fatherhood
programs and other community-based organizations. Partnering with other
programs can allow child support agencies to broaden the types of
services they provide to noncustodial parents in their caseload. States
and Tribes are permitted and encouraged to provide additional services
under different funding streams to complement the limited set of
services funded under title IV-D to help noncustodial parents with
significant barriers to employment obtain and retain stable employment
that prevent
[[Page 100802]]
them from making full and regular child support payments.
OCSS has Knowledge Works and Tribal Employment Pathways resources
on our website for child support agencies who have interest or already
provide employment and training services to noncustodial parents.\88\
Several of these resources assist with peer-to-peer learning and
knowledge transfer and highlight the successful programs operating in
various jurisdictions. These resources share documents compiled by
various jurisdictions and include a peer-to-peer training series that
includes an ability to view all previously recorded webinars. OCSS will
endeavor to develop and expand both websites after the publication of
this rule. Further we encourage child support agencies to consider
participating in the networks of NASWA and APHSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 303.6 Enforcement of Support Obligations
Comment 6: Numerous commenters recommended extending eligibility
criteria for employment and training services in Sec. 303.6(c)(5) to
noncustodial parents with arrears-only cases. Many noted that
noncustodial parents with arrears-only cases are still responsible for
paying child support and may face barriers to employment that limit
their ability to pay. Many of them are of working age, unemployed, and
could benefit from employment and training services to help them find
work and pay their child support. Some commenters noted that they
currently operate employment and training programs for noncustodial
parents and do not exclude arrears-only cases and have found their
programs to be effective at getting noncustodial parents into paying
status. They argued that since these programs are effective, child
support agencies should be able to provide these services regardless of
whether the parent owes current support.
Commenters also noted that excluding noncustodial parents with
arrears-only cases is unfair to custodial parents who could receive
increased arrears payments if the noncustodial parent received
employment and training services. Some noted that these custodial
parents went without child support payments when their children were
young through no fault of their own, so they shouldn't be denied the
opportunity to receive these payments simply because their children had
emancipated. Still others noted that this exclusion was unfair to
noncustodial parents with arrears-only cases who were never given the
opportunity to receive employment and training services when they had a
current support order. If they had been given that opportunity, their
child support debt may not exist today. Thus, it is unfair to deny
these parents employment and training services that they needed then
and still need.
Some commenters agreed with OCSS that noncustodial parents with a
current support order should be given priority for employment and
training services since they are responsible for supporting minor
children, but they noted that both the custodial parent and the
noncustodial parent may have other minor children that could benefit
from the increased financial stability that noncustodial parents with
arrears-only cases could achieve if they received employment and
training services.
Some commenters noted that prohibiting noncustodial parents with
arrears-only cases from employment and training services was an
administrative burden for the child support agency since it would
require child support agencies to keep track of a parent's order
status. It would also require the child support agency to terminate
services if a noncustodial parent's child emancipates while the parent
is receiving services, which is disruptive for the parent and may
undermine the success of the services.
If OCSS continues to prohibit noncustodial parents with arrears-
only cases from receiving employment and training services, some
commenters recommended that OCSS allow certain exceptions to a strict
prohibition. The most common exception suggested was for noncustodial
parents who have custody of the minor children covered by the arrears-
only case.
Response 6: OCSS is persuaded by these comments and has revised the
eligibility criteria in Sec. Sec. 303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 to clarify
that a noncustodial parent with an arrears-only case is eligible to
receive employment and training services. As noted in the NPRM, OCSS
wanted to prioritize noncustodial parents who have a current support
order for employment and training services since the primary goal of
offering these services is to increase the consistency of current
support payments to families with minor children. However, we agree
that noncustodial parents with arrears-only cases are still responsible
for paying child support and may face barriers to employment that limit
their ability to pay and thus could benefit from employment and
training services, which, if provided, could lead to an improved
employment situation and increased child support payments to custodial
families. In response to these comments, we removed the word
``current'' in proposed Sec. 303.6(c)(5) describing the eligibility
criteria to allow States and Tribes the option to provide noncustodial
to allow noncustodial parents with child support orders in arrears-only
cases to be eligible for employment and training services funded under
title IV-D in addition to noncustodial parents with a current support
order.
Comment 7: Some commenters suggested extending eligibility criteria
for employment and training services in Sec. 303.6(c)(5) to custodial
parents.
Response 7: OCSS disagrees with these comments. The purpose of
allowing child support programs to provide employment and training
services to noncustodial parents is to obtain child support payments,
which will benefit custodial families and that is the focus of this
rule. OCSS encourages child support agencies to develop robust referral
networks with other programs that provide employment and training
services to custodial parents.
Comment 8: One commenter suggested extending eligibility for
employment and training services in Sec. 303.6(c)(5) to noncustodial
parents who do not have a support order.
Response 8: This final rule limits eligibility criteria for
employment and training services to noncustodial parents who have a
child support order or have been determined by the IV-D agency to be
fully cooperating with the IV-D agency to establish a child support
order, however the child support agency must have an open IV-D case in
accordance with section 454(4) of the Act and 45 CFR 302.33. OCSS
leaves it to States, Tribes, or Tribal organizations to determine if a
noncustodial parent is fully cooperating with the IV-D agency to
establish a child support order.
Comment 9: We received multiple comments regarding the language in
the preamble of the NPRM that a State may obtain an attestation from
the noncustodial parent that he or she is not receiving the same
employment and training service from the programs listed in Sec.
303.6(c)(5). Some commenters suggested that OCSS should allow States to
determine the process to confirm whether the noncustodial parent is
receiving the same services. Other commenters suggested a verbal
confirmation from the noncustodial parent that they are not receiving
the same services, documented in case record, should be sufficient.
Some commenters suggested that if attestation is required, the
attestation requirement
[[Page 100803]]
should be added to the regulatory language.
Response 9: OCSS disagrees with the need to prescribe the method by
which States and Tribes confirm that duplicative services are not
provided in any particular case, including adding specific attestation
requirements. As indicated in response to comments above, this final
rule provides States and Tribes flexibility to adopt policies and
procedures for determining that the noncustodial parent is not
receiving duplicative services from federally-funded employment and
training programs.
Comment 10: A commenter recommended that OCSS clarify that if a
noncustodial parent confirms they are not receiving the same services
from another program and is later found to have received duplicated
services, the IV-D agency will not be liable for repayment of such
costs.
Response 10: OCSS appreciates the commenters concerns, and in
response to comments regarding the non-duplication of services
requirement for individual cases, we made changes in Sec. 303.6(c)(5)
of the final rule to clarify that to meet this requirement States and
Tribes must adopt policies and procedures for determining that a
noncustodial parent is not already receiving the same services under
federally-funded programs. States and tribes have broad discretion to
determine what policies and procedures to adopt for determining that
services are not being duplicated. An unallowable expenditure would not
occur so long as the IV-D agency adopts and implements such policies
and procedures.
Comment 11: Two commenters recommended adding legal services or
legal assistance to the list of allowable services in Sec.
303.6(c)(5). While one commenter suggested including legal services
focused solely on child support issues such as order modification and
enforcement petitions, the other commenter suggested including legal
assistance that addressed employment barriers more broadly, including
help with expungement, reinstating revoked driver's licenses, and other
common barriers people have to securing and keeping a job.
Response 11: OCSS disagrees that legal services or legal assistance
should be separately added to the list of allowable services in
Sec. Sec. 303.6(c)(5) and 309.121. Child support agencies already have
authority to initiate a review and adjustment of child support orders
and, if necessary, enforcement actions. However, we agree that
noncustodial parents may need legal assistance incidental to removing
employment barriers, such as expungement or reinstating a driver's
license, which may be considered work supports under Sec. Sec.
303.6(c)(5)(vi) and 309.121(b)(6).
Comment 12: One commenter suggested this rule require States to
incorporate domestic violence prevention and awareness into employment
and training services programs to reduce the incidence of domestic
violence in the future and suggested that training staff about domestic
violence and the characteristics of healthy relationships would enhance
the delivery of services to noncustodial parents.
Response 12: OCSS requires all States to have and use a Family
Violence Indicator on appropriate cases, work diligently to ensure they
appropriately screen referrals and applications, flag affected cases in
automated systems, and restrict information sharing with other data
collection systems. OCSS reminds child support programs they are
responsible for providing domestic violence safeguards in operating any
aspect of the child support program. See 45 CFR 303.21, 307.11, and
307.13. Additionally, OCSS offers training to child support programs
regarding domestic violence.
Comment 13: Five commenters recommended including subsidized
employment as an allowable service, emphasizing the need for this
service and the multiple benefits generated by this service.
Response 13: We are not including subsidized employment as an
allowable service. OCSS appreciates and understands the potential need
for subsidized employment especially for some noncustodial parents
facing a specific set of barriers. However, including subsidized
employment can significantly increase the cost of providing employment
and training services. Although subsidized employment is not included
as an allowable service under this final rule, as referenced in PIQ-12-
02,\89\ child support agencies may partner with other agencies that can
fund subsidized employment and other employment and training activities
beyond those allowed under this rule. Additionally, a State can
consider submitting an exemption request to the Secretary to reinvest
IV-D incentive payments and States, Tribes, or Tribal organizations can
apply for a section 1115 waiver to provide subsidized employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ PIQ-12-02 is available at: <a href="https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/partnering-other-programs-including-outreach-referral-and-case-management">https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/partnering-other-programs-including-outreach-referral-and-case-management</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 14: Various commenters asked about the definitions used to
describe the allowable employment and training services found in Sec.
303.6(c)(5). One commenter recommended that OCSS seek to better align
its definitions of employment and training services with existing
programs, asking, for example, whether ``vocational education
training,'' a core activity within the TANF program, would be
considered within ``occupational training and other skills training
directly related to employment.'' Another commenter asked why OCSS
combined occupational training with activities to improve literacy and
basic skills. A third commenter offered definitions for some of the
employment and training services that are allowable under this rule,
including job search assistance, job readiness training, occupational
training, job retention services, and work supports.
Response 14: OCSS selected the list of allowable employment and
training services found in Sec. Sec. 303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 based on
research that examined the effectiveness of employment and training
programs for noncustodial parents described in this rule. Through
further research, OCSS decided on the term ``occupational training''
since it is more encompassing than ``vocational education training.''
Thus, OCSS would consider ``vocational education training'' within
``occupational training and other skills training directly related to
employment.'' OCSS combined occupational training with activities to
improve literacy and basic skills because both of these activities
increase a person's employment skills. OCSS has included descriptions
for job retention services and work supports in the Summary Description
of the Regulatory Changes in the preamble to the rule. OCSS has not
provided definitions of job search assistance, job readiness training,
and occupational training. We defer to reasonable State and Tribal
definitions for these terms.
Comment 15: One commenter recommended including attainment of a
``general educational diploma (GED)'' as an allowable training service
in Sec. 303.6(c)(5). Another commenter recommended including
comprehensive training programs that are aligned with market demands
and offer certifications that enhance employability in Sec.
303.6(c)(5).
Response 15: OCSS has included programs to complete a high school
or a high school equivalency certificate as an allowable training
service, which
[[Page 100804]]
includes attainment of a ``general education diploma (GED).'' OCSS uses
the phrase ``high school equivalency'' instead of ``General Education
Development (GED)'' since it is a more encompassing term that includes
GED programs as well as other programs similar to GED. OCSS has also
included occupational training and other skills training directly
related to employment, which includes comprehensive training programs
that are aligned with market demands and offer certifications that
enhance employability.
Comment 16: One commenter asked for clarification regarding the
term ``employment and training services plan,'' which is used in Sec.
303.6(c)(5)(vii).
Response 16: We have revised this section and no longer use the
term ``employment and training services plan'' because commenters found
this requirement confusing. OCSS does not believe an employment and
training services plan is necessary to meet the requirements of the
rule.
Comment 17: One commenter recommended that the definition of job
retention services, one of the allowable services in Sec. 303.6(c)(5),
be expanded to include support for re-employment should a job be lost
and advancement services to support the job holder's career growth.
Response 17: OCSS disagrees with this recommendation. We believe
that the list of allowable employment and training services that are
included in Sec. Sec. 303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 are sufficient for child
support programs to support maintaining employment or re-employment
should the noncustodial parent experience job loss. We did not include
job advancement services since they are not needed to find and maintain
employment to pay child support consistently. However, we do value
investments in career development and education as an effective route
out of poverty for parents and their children. We encourage child
support programs to partner with other programs and agencies with a
long-term career development mission. States, Tribes, and Tribal
organizations are permitted and encouraged to provide additional
services under different funding streams to complement the limited set
of services provided in Sec. Sec. 303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 to help
noncustodial parents succeed in the workforce.
Comment 18: Several commenters requested further clarification
regarding work supports, one of the allowable services in Sec.
303.6(c)(5). One commenter requested that OCSS provide States with
adequate flexibility to use funding for work supports to meet
individual and population-specific needs. One commenter asked whether
work supports could include cell phones. Another asked if it included
educational materials (e.g. books, supplies, reading glasses, etc.) and
fees (e.g. motor vehicle records fees, application and enrollment fees,
physicals, and drug screenings, etc.). One commenter asked that OCSS
prescribe how States would determine if an ancillary expenditure is an
approved work support.
Response 18: OCSS describes work supports in the preamble of the
rule as 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. We believe this
description provides States, Tribes, and Tribal organizations with
adequate flexibility to meet individual and population-specific needs.
OCSS considers expenditures for cell phones, educational materials, and
the fees mentioned by the commenter as allowable work supports if they
are needed to find or retain employment or participate in employment
and training services.
Comment 19: One commenter asked that OCSS define ``emergency child
care,'' which, under certain circumstances, is an allowable work
support in Sec. 303.6(c)(5).
Response 19: OCSS considers emergency child care to be the
provision of child care services for a limited period of time due to a
sudden and unplanned interruption in the regular child care routine.
Comment 20: One commenter recommended adding financial literacy to
the list of allowable services in Sec. 303.6(c)(5), noting that
financial literacy can help individuals prevent devasting financial
mistakes, prepare for financial emergencies, reach their goals, and
gain fiscal confidence.
Response 20: OCSS disagrees that financial literacy should be
separately added to the list of allowable services in Sec. Sec.
303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 as a stand-alone service. However, when
financial literacy is integrated into job readiness training, the
financial literacy component of the training is eligible for FFP under
Sec. Sec. 303.6(c)(5)(ii) and 309.121(b)(2).
Comment 21: Various commenters asked for further clarification
regarding the eligibility criteria for receiving employment and
training services. Two commenters asked whether noncustodial parents
with support orders set at zero dollars were eligible for employment
and training services. Other commenters asked for clarification
regarding the eligibility criteria that says noncustodial parents are
eligible if they are ``unemployed or underemployed or at risk of not
being able to comply with their child support order''.
Response 21: OCSS clarifies that noncustodial parents who have
zero-dollar child support orders meet the eligibility criteria in
Sec. Sec. 303.6(c)(5) and 309.121. OCSS hasn't defined unemployed,
underemployed, or at risk of not being able to comply with their child
support order. This final rule provides child support programs
discretion and flexibility to define these terms based on the
employment conditions in their jurisdictions.
Comment 22: One commenter asked OCSS about the confidentiality and
security requirements for the partner agencies that provide the
employment and training services. Specifically, the commenter asked
whether these agencies can use their own policies and procedures for
confidentiality and security of program participants' data. If not,
commenters asked if the partner agencies are required to follow IV-D
requirements for storing, transmitting, sharing, and maintaining
electronic and hard-copy IV-D data.
Response 22: States need to meet the requirements of Sec. 303.21,
Safeguarding and disclosure of confidential information, and adhere to
all appropriate Federal, State, and local reporting and safeguarding
requirements regarding data and information related to the provision of
employment and training services. Tribes and Tribal organizations need
to meet the requirements of Sec. 309.80, What safeguarding procedures
must a Tribe or Tribal organization include in a Tribal IV-D plan, and
adhere to all appropriate Federal and Tribal reporting and safeguarding
requirements regarding data and information related to the provision of
employment and training services.
Comment 23: One commenter recommended adding an eligibility
criterion to the rule that would permit States to exclude noncustodial
parents who receive Social Security Administration (SSA) benefits from
receiving employment and training services listed in Sec. 303.6(c)(5).
Alternatively, the commenter recommended including the Ticket to Work
Program among the federally-funded programs detailed in Sec. Sec.
303.6(c)(5) and 302.76 to ensure child support agencies are
establishing a coordinated, nonduplicative set of employment and
training services with other federally-funded programs. The commenter
noted that individuals who
[[Page 100805]]
receive Social Security Disability and/or Supplemental Security Income
benefits are eligible to participate in the Social Security's Ticket to
Work Program, which provides services similar to those in this rule.
Response 23: While OCSS appreciates this commenter's interest in
ensuring that employment and training services provided under
Sec. Sec. 303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 are well targeted and
nonduplicative, we do not think noncustodial parents who are receiving
Social Security benefits should be excluded from receiving employment
and training services in Sec. Sec. 303.6(c)(5) and 309.121 if they
meet the other eligibility criteria for employment and training
services. We do not see any benefit to the child support program to
exclude parents from these services simply because they receive
government benefits in general, or Social Security benefits in
particular. We also think that the final rule already includes the
major federally-funded programs that provide employment and training
services that child support agencies need to coordinate with to ensure
noncustodial parents are not receiving duplicative employment and
training services. However, we note that the rule allows child support
agencies to add eligibility criteria when offering employment and
training services provided under Sec. Sec. 303.6(c)(5) and 309.121,
and agencies are welcome to coordinate with other federally-funded
programs that provide employment and training services not listed in
Sec. Sec. 302.76 and 309.65(b).
Comment 24: Various commenters noted the importance of implementing
employment and training programs for noncustodial parents that are
supportive and transparent to help overcome the apprehension and
distrust that noncustodial parents can have toward the child support
program. One commenter suggested lowering the monthly obligation during
participation and establishing clear and consistent communication
channels to inform noncustodial parents about their rights,
obligations, and available support services. Another commenter
suggested forgoing certain enforcement remedies for parents who are
cooperating with the employment and training program and relaxing
certain Federal requirements for cooperating parents, such as forgoing
credit reporting or arrearage payments on income withholding notices.
It was also suggested that OCSS encourages States to perform a review
of participating noncustodial parents' child support orders.
Response 24: OCSS agrees that it is important to implement
employment and training programs for noncustodial parents that are
supportive and transparent to help overcome the apprehension and
distrust that noncustodial parents can have toward the child support
program. States, Tribes and Tribal organizations currently have
discretion to initiate the review and adjustment of child support
orders where appropriate and suspend or suppress certain enforcement
remedies during program participation. These practices were
successfully utilized during the Child Support Noncustodial Parent
Employment Demonstration (CSPED). OCSS encourages child support
agencies to incorporate these practices into their employment and
training programs. OCSS also encourages child support agencies to
establish clear and consistent communication channels to inform
noncustodial parents about their rights, obligations, and available
support services. With regard to Federal requirements, a State, Tribe,
or Tribal organization may request a waiver under section 1115 of the
Social Security Act to waive Federal requirements for noncustodial
parents who are cooperating with the employment and training program.
Comment 25: One commenter recommended that OCSS should provide
clear and detailed guidance on how to implement employment and training
programs for noncustodial parents after the rule goes into effect so
that States can establish effective programs and avoid costly
challenges. Guidance was encouraged around service delivery,
monitoring, coordination between child support agencies and other
service providers, performance measurement, evaluation, and continuous
improvement.
Response 25: OCSS currently provides technical assistance to
States, Tribes, and Tribal organizations that are implementing
employment and training programs for noncustodial parents through its
Knowledge Works! and Tribal Employment Pathways web pages. OCSS may
issue additional guidance as needed to assist child support programs
implement the rule.
Comment 26: One commenter expressed interest in OCSS--in
partnership with the U.S. Department of Labor--supporting opportunities
for state workforce and human services agencies to research and
evaluate various approaches for using FFP to deliver employment and
training services.
Response 26: OCSS appreciates this commenter's interest in
continuing to develop the evidence base for delivering employment and
training services to noncustodial parents. OCSS encourages States,
Tribes, and Tribal organizations to use IV-D funds to evaluate the
success of the employment and training services and make adjustments
accordingly to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of such
services in increasing child support payments to families. These
activities are allowable under 45 CFR 304.20(b)(1)(ii) and
309.145(a)(2).
Comment 27: One commenter recommended offering enhanced FFP for
costs associated with programming data exchanges that child support
agencies might undertake with workforce agencies to avoid duplication
of services. This commenter thought that the States' ability to meet
the nonduplication requirement would depend upon a robust and timely
data exchange between child support and other programs.
Response 27: We appreciate the comment. However, OCSS has no
authority to increase the FFP rate through the regulatory process. This
would require a statutory change by Congress. The final rule does not
require automated data exchanges between these agencies. As discussed
in comment and response 9, child support programs will make case-by-
case determinations about whether a noncustodial parent is receiving
the same employment and training services from federally-funded
programs, but the final rule allows States, Tribes, and Tribal
organizations to determine the method it will use to avoid duplication
of these services with these programs.
Comment 28: Two commenters requested clarification regarding the
use of incentive funds for employment and training services. One
comment requested clarification that States can use incentive payments
for allowable employment and training services without the need to
request an exemption to reinvest incentive payments.
Response 28: OCSS clarifies that since employment and training
services will be eligible for title IV-D funds as an allowable activity
under title IV-D, an exemption is not necessary for States to use
incentive dollars to provide the allowable services included in Sec.
303.6(c)(5) to eligible noncustodial parents. Those services would be
an allowable activity for FFP. However, an exemption is necessary if a
State wants to provide employment and training services other than
those listed in Sec. 303.6(c)(5) or wants to serve parents who are not
eligible for employment and training services under this rule.
Comment 29: One commenter recommended that OCSS clarify if FFP is
available for administrative costs
[[Page 100806]]
associated with implementing employment and training services in Sec.
303.6(c)(5), such as costs associated with start-up, staffing,
technology, training, outreach, and rent.
Response 29: This rule allows child support agencies to use FFP to
provide employment and training services in accordance with Sec. Sec.
303.6(c)(5) and 309.121, which includes costs of associated
administrative activities, such as grant administration costs
associated with start-up, staffing, technology, training, outreach, and
rent, provided those costs are necessary, reasonable and appropriately
allocable to the employment and training services and comply with 45
CFR parts 304, 307, and 310 and HHS' uniform grant administration
requirements.
Comment 30: A commenter asked if FFP would be available for partner
agencies to make systems enhancements.
Response 30: FFP is not available for partner agencies to make
enhancements to existing workforce systems.
Comment 31: A few commenters opposed the prohibitions against using
FFP for the cost of cash payments, checks, reimbursements, or any other
form of payment that can be legally converted to currency and
recommended eliminating the prohibition. Another commenter suggested
allowing reimbursement for time critical, de minimus expenses up to a
set dollar threshold, and pointed out that this prohibition is not
consistent with other federally-funded employment and training programs
such as those funded under WIOA.
Response 31: We thank the commenters but have determined to
maintain the NPRM restriction providing that FFP may not be used to
provide cash payments, checks, reimbursements, or any other form of
payment that can be legally converted to currency. Nothing prohibits
State and Tribal child support agencies from forming collaborations
with organizations (e.g., community-based groups; workforce system
entities, such as those funded through WIOA systems; and others) that
do provide resources such as emergency assistance and reimbursement of
expenses.
Comment 32: One commenter asked for clarification that FFP is
available for employment and training services when the noncustodial
parent is ordered to participate and the noncustodial parent
voluntarily agrees to participate.
Response 32: This final rule allows child support agencies to
determine their enrollment process for providing employment and
training services. In the past, some State child support agencies have
limited enrollment to noncustodial parents who appear at a show cause
or civil contempt hearing for failure to pay child support and are
encouraged or ordered to participate in the employment and training
program as an alternative sentencing option. Research shows that this
approach to enrollment yields positive outcomes in terms of
noncustodial parent employment and child support payments.\90\ Other
State child support agencies have enrolled noncustodial parents on a
voluntarily basis as part of early intervention efforts. This approach
has also been found to be associated with positive improvements in
noncustodial parent employment and child support outcomes.\91\ Still
other State child support agencies have used a no wrong door approach
to enrollment and research shows this approach can also be
effective.\92\ Because the research shows that various approaches to
enrollment can generate positive results, we have decided to allow
child support agencies to determine their enrollment process. However,
OCSS encourages States, Tribes, and Tribal organizations to consider
using a no wrong door approach to enrollment because it increases the
number of noncustodial parents who can potentially benefit from
employment and training services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ Schroeder, Daniel and Nicholas Doughty (September 2009).
\91\ Davis, Lanae, et al. (November 2013).
\92\ Lippold, Kye, et al. (October 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (Pub. L. 104-13), all
Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval any reporting or recordkeeping
requirements inherent in a proposed or final rule. There is one new
State plan and one new Tribal plan reporting requirement because of
this final rule for States, Tribes, or Tribal organizations that choose
to 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Average burden hour National Federal National State
Section and purpose Instrument respondents per response Total cost share share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added optional requirement Sec. State plan amendment. One time for 33 3 hours x $66.82 x $6,615.18 $4,366.02 $2,249.16
302.76 Employment and training States. 33 States.
services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A State, Tribe, or Tribal organization may submit a plan amendment
for the optional and nonduplicative employment and training services at
any time. But not all States, Tribes, and Tribal organizations will
implement these optional services. Out of the 54 States, we estimate 33
will eventually submit plan amendments for these optional services. Out
of the 63 Tribes and Tribal organizations, we estimate that 35 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.
The description and total estimated burden on the ``Tribal Child
Support Enforcement Direct Funding Requests'' are described in the
chart below.
[[Page 100807]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average burden hour per National Federal
Section and purpose Instrument Number of respondents response Total cost share
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added optional requirement Sec. Tribal plan amendment.... One time for 35 Tribes... 6 hours x $76.26 x 35 $16,014.60 $16,014.60
309.65(b) Employment and training Tribes.
services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate that Tribes will take 6 hours to draft the required
information to amend their Tribal plans. The cost to respondents was
calculated using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) job code for
Social and Community Service Managers [11-9151] and wage data from May
2022, which is $38.13 per hour (mean). To account for fringe benefits
and overhead, the rate was multiplied by two, which is $76.26. The
total estimated cost is $16,014.60. Tribal child support programs
receive 100% FFP so there is no Tribal share incurred to administer the
Tribal plan.
This final rule would revise two approved information collections
(State Plan for Child Support Collection and Establishment of Paternity
Under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act; OMB #: 0970-0017 and
Tribal Child Support Enforcement Direct Funding Requests; OMB #0970-
0218), as States, Tribes, and Tribal organizations that elect to
participate in Employment and Training Services for Noncustodial
Parents in the Child Support Program may submit a State and Tribal plan
amendment to OCSS. To account for States, Tribes, and Tribal
organizations that elect to provide employment and training services in
accordance with this rule submitting revisions to their State or Tribal
Plans and as required by PRA, we will submit the proposed revised data
collections to OMB for review and approval. This will include an
updated description in the Supporting Statement A justification and an
updated burden table to show an estimated number of States, Tribes, or
Tribal organizations that might submit amendments annually. The request
to revise the title IV-D plan pages will include a comment period
inviting comments on the new data collection and related burden. The
public comment period will be announced through separate notices
published in the Federal Register.
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 rule was designated by OMB as a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order
14094. This rule will not result in economic impacts that exceed the
monetary threshold in section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866 (as
amended by Executive Order 14094).
For the chosen regulatory approach, it is estimated that the fiscal
impact of the final rule against a baseline of no action, accounting
for existing trends, will increase Federal expenditures in FY 2025 by
$17.8 million, 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 fiscal impact is
expected to be $98.5 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 in accordance with this
final rule.
ACF also assessed and considered a regulatory alternative of
finalizing the proposed rule as published. As an example of the
differences, in contrast to the final rule, the proposed rule did not
contain a provision explicitly authorizing Tribal child support
programs to receive FFP for employment and training service activities.
It also did not allow child support programs to receive FFP for
employment and training service activities for noncustodial parents
with arrears-only cases. Compared to a baseline scenario of no
regulatory action, adopting this policy alternative would result in an
increase of $15.1 million in Federal expenditures during FY 2025, the
first fiscal year of implementation, increasing to $74.0 million by FY
2034. These estimates are slightly different than those included in the
NPRM because the current estimates use more recent caseload information
than used when estimating the fiscal impact of the NPRM. Compared to
our estimated impacts of the final rule, this regulatory alternative
would result in a lower increase in Federal expenditures by $2.7
million in the first year, and a lower increase in Federal expenditures
by $24.5 million in the final year of the time horizon of our analysis.
We note that, compared to the final rule, this regulatory alternative
would be less likely to ensure that Tribal Nations can offer culturally
appropriate and affirming services to their communities.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Secretary has determined that, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as
enacted by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), this rule
will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The primary impact is on State and Tribal governments.
State and Tribal 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.
[[Page 100808]]
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 final rule's impact on the well-being of
families. This 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 final 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.
Tribal Consultation Statement
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments, requires agencies to consult with Indian Tribes
when regulations have ``substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.'' Similarly, ACF's
Tribal Consultation Policy says that consultation is triggered for a
new rule adoption that significantly affects Tribes, meaning the new
rule adoption has substantial direct effects on one on more Indian
Tribes, on the amount or duration of ACF program funding, on the
delivery of ACF programs or services to one or more Indian Tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes. This rule does not meet either standard
for consultation. Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule
because it does not impose any burden or cost on Tribal IV-D agencies,
nor does it impact the relationship or distribution of power between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Rather, it provides IV-D
agencies an option for claiming Federal financial participation (FFP)
for the provision of employment and training services to noncustodial
parents. Although not required for this final rule, ACF is committed to
consulting with Indian Tribes and Tribal leadership to the extent
practicable and permitted by law.
In April 2023 OCSS held a consultation where tribal leaders shared
concerns with high unemployment and expressed a need for additional
funding in employment and training for noncustodial parents. During
that same consultation leaders expressed there was no reason for Tribes
to not have the same enforcement measures as States. At the June 2023
ACF Tribal Advisory Committee (TAC) OCSS shared it was exploring ways
to fund employment and training services. Members of the TAC expressed
support for funding employment and training services.
Meg Sullivan, 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 December 3, 2024
List of Subjects
45 CFR Part 302
Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Unemployment compensation.
45 CFR Part 303
Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
45 CFR Part 304
Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
45 CFR Part 309
Child support, Grant programs--social programs, Indians-tribal
government, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: December 6, 2024.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department of Health
and Human Services amends 45 CFR parts 302, 303, 304, and 309 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. Add Sec. 302.76 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, to ensure the IV-D agency is
providing well-coordinated and non-duplicative employment and training
services, the State plan must explain how the IV-D agency has consulted
with, and taken into consideration the services provided by, the State
agencies administering the following programs: the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families program (45 CFR part 261), the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program Employment and Training program (7 CFR
273.7 and 273.24), the Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs
under title I of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (20 CFR
parts 675 through 688), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act
program (34 CFR part 463), the Employment Service program (20 CFR part
652), and the Vocational Rehabilitation program (34 CFR part 361).
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. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c)(4)(iii);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(5) as paragraph (c)(6); and
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (c)(5).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 303.6 Enforcement of support obligations.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5)(i) As elected by the State in Sec. 302.76 of this chapter,
provide
[[Page 100809]]
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 child
support order or be determined by the IV-D agency to be fully
cooperating with the IV-D agency to establish a child support order;
and be unemployed or underemployed or at risk of not being able to
comply with their support order. In addition, the IV-D agency must have
adopted policies and procedures for determining that the noncustodial
parent is not receiving the same employment and training services under
the following programs: the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
program (45 CFR part 261), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program Employment and Training program (7 CFR 273.7 and 273.24), the
Federal Pell Grant program (34 CFR part 690), the Adult, Dislocated
Worker, and Youth programs under title I of the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act (20 CFR parts 675 through 688), the Adult Education
and Family Literacy Act program (34 CFR part 463), the Employment
Service program (20 CFR part 652), or the State Vocational
Rehabilitation program (34 CFR part 361);
(ii) These IV-D agency employment and training services are limited
to:
(A) Job search assistance;
(B) Job readiness training;
(C) Job development and job placement services;
(D) Skills assessments to facilitate job placement;
(E) Job retention services;
(F) Work supports, such as transportation assistance, uniforms, and
tools; and
(G) 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;
and
(iii) Federal financial participation may also be used to provide
case management in connection with the allowable services under this
paragraph (c)(5); and
* * * * *
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. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (b)(3)(vi);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(3)(vii) as paragraph (b)(3)(viii); and
0
c. Adding a new 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. Sec. 302.76 and 303.6(c)(5) of this chapter; and
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 304.23 by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 304.23 Expenditures for which Federal financial participation is
not available.
* * * * *
(k) Any expenditures under Sec. 303.6(c)(5) of this chapter for
subsidized employment or payment of cash, checks, reimbursements, or
any other form of payment that can be legally converted to currency
provided to the noncustodial parent.
PART 309--TRIBAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (IV-D) PROGRAM
0
8. The authority citation for part 309 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 655(f) and 1302.
0
9. Amend Sec. 309.65 by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (b) as paragraph (c); and
0
b. Adding a new paragraph (b).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 309.65 What must a Tribe or Tribal Organization include in a
Tribal IV-D plan in order to demonstrate capacity to operation a Tribal
IV-D program?
* * * * *
(b) The Tribal plan may provide for employment and training
services for eligible noncustodial parents in accordance with Sec.
309.121. If the Tribe or Tribal organization chooses this option, the
Tribal plan must include a description of the employment and training
services and the eligibility criteria. In addition, to ensure the
Tribal IV-D agency is providing well-coordinated and non-duplicative
employment and training services, the Tribal plan must explain how the
Tribal IV-D agency has consulted with, and taken into consideration
services provided by, federally-funded employment and training programs
administered by the Tribe. Tribes or Tribal organizations electing the
option must comply with future reporting requirements prescribed by the
Office of Child Support Services.
* * * * *
0
10. Add Sec. 309.121 to read as follows:
Sec. 309.121 Employment and training services.
(a) As elected by the Tribe or Tribal organization in Sec.
309.65(b), provide employment and training services to eligible
noncustodial parents. In addition to eligibility criteria that may be
set by the Tribal IV-D agency, the noncustodial parent must: have an
open IV-D case; have a child support order or be determined by the
Tribal IV-D agency to be fully cooperating with the Tribal IV-D agency
to establish a child support order; be unemployed or underemployed or
at risk of not being able to comply with their support order. In
addition, the Tribal IV-D agency must have adopted policies and
procedures for determining that the noncustodial parent is not
receiving the same employment and training services under federally-
funded employment and training programs administered by the Tribe.
(b) These IV-D agency employment and training services are limited
to:
(1) Job search assistance;
(2) Job readiness training;
(3) Job development and job placement services;
(4) Skills assessments to facilitate job placement;
(5) Job retention services;
(6) Work supports, such as transportation assistance, uniforms, and
tools; and
(7) 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.
(c) Federal financial participation may also be used to provide
case management in connection with the allowable services under this
section.
0
11. Amend Sec. 309.145 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (c)(3);
0
b. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (c)(4) and adding;
``and'' in its place; and
0
c. Adding paragraph (c)(5).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 309.145 What costs are allowable for Tribal IV-D programs
carried out under Sec. 309.65(a) of this part?
* * * * *
(c) * * *
[[Page 100810]]
(5) Employment and training services activities in accordance with
Sec. Sec. 309.65(b) and 309.121.
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 309.155 by:
0
a. Removing the word ``and'' at the end of paragraph (e);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (g); and
0
c. Adding a new paragraph (f).
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 309.155 What uses of Tribal IV-D program funds are not
allowable?
* * * * *
(f) Any expenditures under Sec. 309.121 for subsidized employment
or payment of cash, checks, reimbursements, or any other form of
payment that can be legally converted to currency provided to the
noncustodial parent; and
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-29081 Filed 12-11-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-41-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 13, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.