demogrnt.htm

April 30, 1997

DCL-97-24

TO ALL STATE IV-D DIRECTORS

Dear Colleague:

The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) is pleased to announce a request for applications from the State Child Support Enforcement Agencies for the funding of demonstration projects as authorized under Title IV-D and Section 1115 of the Social Security Act, as amended.

SUMMARY: The OCSE announces the availability of Fiscal Year 1997 funding for demonstration activities intended to add to the knowledge, and to promote the objectives, of the Child Support Enforcement Program under Title IV-D. This announcement contains the FY 1997 priority areas for funding together with the forms and instructions for submitting an application.

DATES: The closing date for submission of applications is July 1, 1997. Applications postmarked after the closing date will be classified as late.

NOTE: ONLY THE STATE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES UNDER TITLE IV-D OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT MAY APPLY FOR A GRANT UNDER THIS ANNOUNCEMENT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This program announcement consists of three parts. Part I provides information on the Office of Child

Support Enforcement and general information on the OCSE agenda. Part II describes the review process, additional requirements for the grant applications, the criteria for the review and evaluation of applications, and the programmatic priorities for which applications are being solicited. Part III provides information and instructions for the development and submission of applications. The forms to be used for submitting an application follow Part III. No additional application forms are needed to submit an application.

(Note: Part III and the appendix do not appear in this Internet announcement since the State IV-D Agencies were mailed hard copies of these materials, and only State IV-D Agencies may applyfor a grant under this announcement.)

Applicants should note that grants to be awarded under this

program announcement are subject to the availability of funds.

OUTLINE OF ANNOUNCEMENT

Part I: General Information

Part II: Review Process and Priority Areas

A.Eligible Applicants

B.Review Process and Funding Decisions

C.Evaluation Criteria

D.Structure of Priority Area Descriptions

E.Available Funds

F.Priority Area Descriptions and Requirements

PART I - GENERAL INFORMATION

The mission of the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program, which was established in 1975 under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, is to ensure that children receive financial and emotional support from both their parents. The program locates non-custodial parents, establishes legal paternity, and establishes and enforces child support orders. The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) administers the program in cooperation with the State and local agencies designated under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. The OCSE provides direction, guidance and oversight to the States. The Federal government pays the bulk of the State agencies' administrative costs in the conduct of their responsibilities for the program.

The driving force for a comprehensive Child Support Enforcement research, demonstration and evaluation agenda is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). Within a context stressing transition from welfare to work and time-limited assistance, PRWORA clearly lays out an

expectation for greater financial and emotional support for our nation's children through dramatically improved child support program performance and better coordination among programs serving children and families.

In FY 1997, this agenda will address the initial increment of four main areas of long-term inquiry:

ÛParents fulfilling their parental responsibilities--what factors contribute to parents fulfilling or not fulfilling their responsibilities? Are there policies or procedures which cause or encourage more of the former and less of the latter?

ÛAdministrative effectiveness of child support enforcement--are there promising models which improve the various administrative functions in regard to timeliness, efficiency, effectiveness and/or accessibility of services which should be broadly replicated?

ÛFamily self-sufficiency--what are the income transfer impacts and behavioral consequences of child support policy and program performance on child well-being and family self-sufficiency?

ÛNoncustodial parents' contributions--how can non-custodial parents' contributions, both material and qualitative, to their children's development be encouraged and enhanced?

Each of the four areas of inquiry can be further subdivided into clusters or common themes. These, in turn, form the basis for a series of individual grant invitations under Part II of this announcement.

PART II: THE REVIEW PROCESS AND PRIORITY AREAS

A. Eligible Applicants

Eligible applicants for grant awards under this announcement are the State Child Support Enforcement Agencies, or Title IV-D Agencies. Applications developed in conjunction with other agencies or organizations must identify the Title IV-D agency as the official applicant. Participating agencies and organizations can be included as co-participants.

B.Review Process and Funding Decisions

Before applications are reviewed, each application is screened to determine whether the applicant organization is eligible, i.e, a State Title IV-D agency. Applications from ineligible

organizations will not be reviewed in the competition, and the applicant will be so informed. Applications that omit essential components of the application or fail to comply with format specifications described in Part III will have their application withdrawn from further consideration.

It is necessary that applicants state specifically which category they are applying for. Applications will be screened for category appropriateness. If applications are found to be inappropriate for the priority area in which they were submitted, applicants will be contacted for verbal approval of redirection to a more appropriate priority area. Redirection does not affect decision-making in the competitive process following the initial screening.

Timely applications from eligible applicants will be reviewed and scored competitively. Experts in the field, both Federal staff and persons outside the Federal government, will use the appropriate evaluation criteria listed later in this section to review and score the applications. A panel of at least three reviewers will review the applications. The results of this review are a primary factor in funding decisions.

OCSE reserves the option to discuss applications with, or refer them to, other Federal or non-Federal funding sources when this is in the best interest of the Federal government or the applicants. OCSE may also solicit comments from ACF Regional Office staff, other Federal agencies, interested foundations, national organizations, specialists, experts, States and the general public. These comments, along with those of the expert reviewers, will be considered by OCSE in making funding decisions.

C. Evaluation Criteria

To facilitate the review of applications, applicants should address each requirement in the priority area description under the appropriate section of the Program Narrative Statement. The reviewers will determine the strengths and weaknesses of each application using the evaluation criteria listed below, provide verbal and written comments, and assign numerical scores to each application. The point value following each criterion heading is the maximum score for that criterion.

All applications will be evaluated against the following criteria:

(a). Objectives and Need for Assistance (20 points). The application pinpoints the problem or issue requiring a solution and demonstrates the need for the assistance; states the principal and subordinate objectives of the project; provides supporting documentation or other testimonies from concerned interests other than the applicant; identifies other successful demonstration projects that may have implications for the proposed demonstration (which may include a review of the relevant literature); identifies the conceptual or theoretical framework for this model; and describes whether the proposed

project replicates or modifies previously evaluated model(s)

addressing the identified need.

(b). Approach (35 points). The application outlines a sound and workable plan of action and time-line and details how the proposed work will be accomplished; describes the approach in detail and points out its unique features; cites factors which might accelerate or delay this approach, giving acceptable reasons for taking this approach as opposed to others; describes and supports any unusual features of the project, such as extraordinary social and community involvements; includes an adequate staffing plan, that lists key and support staff, consultants, any agency, organization, other key group, and/or advisory panels involved or proposed; describes the responsibilities, activities, and/or training plans for each (if applicable). The application proposes reasonable project costsand allocates sufficient funds appropriately across activities to accomplish the objectives.

The application, when appropriate, identifies the kinds of data to be collected and maintained, describes procedures for informed consent of participants, where applicable, and discusses the criteria to be used to evaluate the results of the project. The application describes the evaluation methodology that will be used to determine if the process proposed was implemented, if the needs identified were addressed, and if the benefits expected were achieved.

Sound evaluations to determine whether or not project purposes have been realized are of importance to the Office of Child Support Enforcement. Accordingly, careful attention should be paid to the evaluation component of the project application and funding for evaluation should also be estimated with this in mind. Funds allocated for evaluations should represent a meaningful share of the overall budget proposal. In order to demonstrate "meaningful share" the applicant should include an estimate that shows clearly the scope and level of effort of the proposed evaluation activity. A meaningful evaluation will show adequate budget allocations for such activities as local site data collection training and activities, sampling if appropriate, random assignment to experimental and control groups if appropriate, and third party consultation on analysis and other aspects of evaluation.

While local evaluation of individual projects is a valued requirement for these projects, there is also an expectation that individual projects will be asked to gather and compile data in a manner that facilitates cross-site evaluation. It is anticipated that cross-site evaluations for some projects will be undertaken in this and subsequent years, using funds in addition to those referenced in this announcement. Applicants must agree to become part of, and fully cooperate with, cross-site evaluators, should OCSE undertake such evaluation. Grantees should be prepared to meet with other grantees, federal officials, and the evaluator, as appropriate.

(c). Results or Benefits Expected (20 points). The application identifies the results and benefits to be derived, the extent to which they are consistent with the goals and

objectives, and their contributions to policy and practice, and the extent to which the proposed project costs are reasonable in view of the expected results.

(d). Staff Background and Organization Experience (25 points). The application identifies the educational and professional background of the project director/principal investigator and key project staff and the experience of the organization to demonstrate the applicant's ability to administer and implement the project effectively and efficiently.

The application describes the relationships between the proposed project and other Federally assisted work planned, anticipated or underway by the applicant. If the project proposed is a collaboration, the application must describe the nature andextent of the collaboration, including the responsibilities of the respective agencies in carrying out the activities identified in the work-plan.

D. Structure of Priority Area Descriptions

Each priority area description is composed of the following sections:

Purpose: This section presents the basic focus and/or broad goals of the priority area.

Background and Information: This section briefly discusses the legislative background and the current state-of-the-art and/or current state-of-practice supporting the need for the particular priority area activity. Relevant information on projects previously funded by OCSE and/or others, and any State models are noted.

Design Elements in the Application: This section presents the minimum requirements which must be addressed in response to the evaluation criteria. These requirements relate to the objectives of the demonstrations and need for assistance, approach, results or benefits expected, and staff background and organizational experience. Reviewers will use the details expected under these headings in response to each priority area to evaluate the applications.

Project Duration: This section specifies the maximum allowable project period; it refers to the amount of time for which Federal funding is available.

Project Budget: This section specifies the amount of total funding available, the level of Section 1115 funds available within the total budget, the estimated number of projects to be awarded, and the funding or range of funding for each project.

E. Available Funds

The OCSE intends to award new grants resulting from this announcement during the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 1997, subject to the availability of funds. The size of the actual awards will vary from priority area to priority area.

Each priority area description specifies the anticipated budget amounts to be available, including the total amount of Section 1115 funds, and the anticipated number of projects to be funded. The Section 1115 funds awarded to each project will represent 29 percent of the total project costs. These funds are provided to supplement the regular Federal match of 66 percent of expenditures for State IV-D administrative activities related to the project. Grantees must provide at least 5 percent of the total approved cost of the project. The total approved cost of the project is the sum of the ACF share and the non-Federal share. The non-Federal share may be met by cash or in-kind contributions, although applicants are encouraged to meet the match requirements through cash contributions. Applicants must prepare a formal budget on forms included in Appendix A to thisannouncement. The proposed State 5 percent matching must be identified on the budget forms.

Applicants should understand that monies awarded pursuant to this announcement are not intended to be used for significant (and costly, relative to the overall size of the project) enhancements to automated support enforcement information management systems, significant physical space renovations (e.g., costs incident to physical co-location of large numbers of staff from two or more agencies), or for costs (e.g., substance abuse treatment) normally borne by other funding sources, e.g., Medicaid or public health programs. Proposals should be developed with these considerations in mind. Proposals and their accompanying budgets will be reviewed from this perspective.

F. Priority Area Descriptions and Requirements

Note: OCSE may not fund all the priority areas addressed in this announcement.

PRIORITY AREA 1.01: STATE POLICIES AND OPERATIONAL APPROACHES AROUND NONCOOPERATION WITH CHILD SUPPORT REQUIREMENTS

1.Purpose

The purpose of this solicitation is to assist states to demonstrate and evaluate new and/or more effective methods, incentives, procedures and models to improve cooperation with child support requirements by applicants for and recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) under PRWORA.

2.Background and Information

Applicants and recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) have long been required to cooperate with the State in establishing the paternity of a child and in obtaining child support payments unless the applicant or recipient is found to have good cause for failing to cooperate. The extent of noncooperation that prevailed under this system is problematic as are the State-reported statistics pertaining to "good cause".

Under PRWORA, a number of significant changes have been made. Individuals applying for or receiving assistance under the TANF program or the Medicaid program must cooperate, as determined by the State child support agency, with State efforts to establish paternity and establish, modify, or enforce a child support order. State procedures must require both that the applicants and recipients provide specific identifying information about the other parent and appear at interviews, hearings, and legal proceedings unless there is good cause for failing to cooperate. States now define "good cause." And, at State option, the determination of good cause in specific cases can be accomplished by the TANF, child support enforcement, or Medicaid agency. In addition, States have flexibility as to the sanction for noncooperation.

Under previously approved welfare reform demonstrations, nineteen States had already begun to experiment with, among other things,more precise definition of required information, time frames to establish cooperation, and varying approaches to sanctions.

3.Design Elements in the Application

Applicants should suggest innovative projects that reflect the changes and the flexibility inherent in PRWORA. All of the steps and facets of determining noncooperation and invoking a sanction should be taken into consideration; for example, how does what constitutes "cooperation" vary among the core functions of location, paternity establishment, order establishment, and enforcement?; what are the notice requirements?; what are the appeal rights and procedures?

The State project should address one or more of certain key areas as related to the determination of cooperation with child support enforcement requirements:

A) Test improved procedures and/or different site location or co-location for the determination of cooperation with child support requirements and the provision of assistance for applicants. It has been suggested that the timing and location of the determination of cooperation should be during the IV-A application process when the applicant may be more eager to cooperate. Another avenue would be to set specific requirements for cooperation at each stage of the process and completion dates for supplying information in order to create a system which generates compliance and also allows for imposition of sanctions for not meeting targets. Another approach would be to agree to a plan for achieving compliance with the applicant. This plan would entail specific requirements and times for completion which would signal noncooperation if not met.

B)Test improved definition of specific information to be

required from IV-A applicants and recipients concerning the non-custodial parent, timing of adequate responses, and procedural requirements. Some States have tested an approach which would require that specific pieces of information about non-custodial parents (e.g., name, social security number, address, employer, etc) be provided by applicants and recipients to assist the IV-D agency in locating the non-custodial parent. States can set a date by which this information would have to be provided and verified before determining whether the applicant has cooperated. If a minimum defined set of information is not provided then a

sanction can be implemented.

C) Test improved sanctions and the timing of sanctions for failure to cooperate with child support enforcement. A number of States have tried to impose sanctions with less than full disqualification. Specific procedures could be proposed for imposition of sanctions, appeal from sanctions, and removing or changing sanctions.

D) Test improved processes for determining continuing cooperation by existing recipients. Child support enforcement requires continuing cooperation from IV-A recipients in order to re-locate non-custodial parents and otherwise assist in enforcement. Recipients may cooperate with one stage of childsupport enforcement but not cooperate later when their help is needed to ensure that child support is maintained. States could set forth requirements to assess the child support situation of recipients and the extent to which continuing cooperation or renewed cooperation is needed to ensure continuing establishment and enforcement of child support.

E) Test models of incentives for local units that increase compliance with cooperation requirements without in any way compromising applicants/recipients' rights.

Applicants shall design a process evaluation and evaluation methodology using control and experimental methodologies. Such evaluation shall assess: AFDC/TANF applicants, AFDC/TANF applicants complying with child support requirements, paternities established, cases located, orders established, enforcement actions taken, collections (full and partial), cases going off AFDC/TANF due to receipt of child support, collections as a percent of family income, and cost avoidance due to lowered assistance costs.

4. Project Duration The length of the project must not exceed three years.

5. Project Budget It is estimated that there will be three grants awarded for $333,000 total each ($96,570 in Section 1115 funds each).

PRIORITY AREA 1.02: COOPERATION WITH CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND PREVENTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

1.Purpose

To design and test new models for coping with domestic violence in the context of child support enforcement requirements.

2.Background and information

Concern has been expressed that in some cases seeking child support may aggravate or trigger domestic violence. Even though there has always been a "good cause for not cooperating" provision, it is rarely invoked according to State-reported

statistics. Little, in fact, is known about the relationship between cooperation with child support requirements and domestic violence.

Beyond getting a better grasp on the incidence of domestic violence among applicants for and recipients of support enforcement services, there are many unanswered questions. For example, what approaches are or should be used in identifying actual or potential victims of domestic violence? And how and to whom should such women be referred to get help and achieve safety? Different models may be emerging and/or States or localities may already be using different approaches in addressing these and other such questions.

3.Design Elements in the Application

A recent forum convened by the Administration for Children and Families' Office of Child Support Enforcement and Office of Family Assistance focused on noncooperation with child support requirements, good cause, and domestic violence. Attendees included representatives from State child support and public assistance agencies, advocacy organizations, organizations focused on domestic violence and interested Federal agencies. Some strategies discussed at the forum were: helping those in danger of domestic violence pursue child support while ensuring their safety; special case coding or other special procedures to differentiate cases where "good cause" has been determined and where support enforcement should still be pursued (without endangering the custodial family) from "good cause" cases where support enforcement efforts should be held in abeyance (Washington State's practices were noted in this regard); improving front-line worker interviewing skills and sensitivity to domestic violence situations and possibilities; improving the environment of child support offices to make them more conducive to applicant/recipient disclosure; ensuring through a variety of means that TANF applicants/recipients truly understand child support and good cause requirements; providing for temporary good cause to allow adequate time for applicants/recipients to obtain (with child support agency help if needed) corroboration of domestic violence allegations; and referring applicant/recipient to expert help to address areas such as family safety planning that are not normally within the purview of support enforcement agencies.

Proposals should address one or more of the following key areas:

1. Mechanisms for identifying current or potential victims of domestic violence;

2.Assessment and corroboration of such claims;

3. Ways to pursue child support on behalf of domestic violence victims or potential victims while ensuring that the safety of the custodial family is protected; and,

4.Mechanisms for referring appropriate parties to community resources for safety planning and any other necessary services.

Because of the limited knowledge base, applicants are encouraged to assess the magnitude of domestic violence within the proposed service population as one facet of the model or models to be tested or piloted.

Applicants shall design a process and evaluation methodology using control and experimental methodologies. Such evaluation shall assess: 1) the magnitude of cases coming before the child support program for services of one kind or another during the project period; 2) the number of assistance and other applicants for or recipients of child support services alleging domestic violence or the potential for violence; 3) the number claiming good cause for noncooperation on the grounds of domestic violence; 4) the disposition of the aforementioned good causeclaims; 5) the number of cases where good cause is granted and child support is still actively pursued; and 6) the number referred to community resources for safety planning and other prevention or treatment services.

4.Project duration 3 years

5. Project Budget Total 3 grants at $333,000 total each ($96,570 in Section 1115 funds each)

PRIORITY AREA 1.03.a: CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, CHILD CARE AND HEAD START COLLABORATION

1.Purpose

Demonstration of models of collaboration between Child Support Enforcement, Child Care, and Head Start programs at State and local levels. These projects would be awarded to State Child Support Enforcement Agencies and be designed to promote and facilitate: 1) access to child support services through local Child Care and Head Start Programs; and 2) a broader understanding of child support and parenting issues within the three programs.

OCSE expects to award 6-8 grants in a range from $50,000 to $100,000 each depending on State population and the complexity of the demonstration. Total funding of $700,000 ($203,000 total in Section 1115 funds.)

2.Background and Information

The Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program (TANF) which limits recipients to no more than five years of Title IV-A assistance makes it imperative that low-income families be provided access to those resources which, together with employment, can enable them to achieve self-sufficiency. These resources have included the Earned Income Tax Credit, Food Stamps, Medicaid, and subsidized Child Care. Under the Family Support Act and, especially, welfare reform, Child Support Services emerge as yet another resource --one targeted to families with a non-custodial, non-supporting parent.

Child support can be significant to a family not only in the

amount of the scheduled payments but because the child support payments will continue until the child reaches maturity (or longer under certain circumstances such as the child has a disability). For a child, moreover, these support payments can serve as a tangible expression of the non-custodial parent's concern and affection. Therefore, more Head Start and Child Care families need to be encouraged to obtain child support services and to be assisted in their efforts to do so.

Since some non-custodial parents of children receiving TANF and other means-tested services are themselves poor, their ability to provide substantial amounts of financial support early on will be limited. Therefore, Head Start and Child Care programs could provide opportunities for non-custodial parents --in most instances, the father-- to stay involved with their children, and help both fathers and mothers understand that both parents have an emotional and social, as well as economic, responsibility to their children.

Although child support services can represent a significant resource for families in transition from TANF, some community-based service providers view enforcement activities as not in the best interest of parents or children. Also, historically child support agencies have not forged strong program linkages with other agencies and organizations that serve the same clientele. As a result, child support policies and practice may not be understood or may be misinterpreted.

Since the Head Start and Child Care programs reach substantial numbers of low-income families --many of whom are families with a non-custodial parent-- projects to develop models of appropriate linkages between the Child Support, Head Start and Child Care programs would promote the full and positive involvement of non-custodial parents in the lives of their children.

The purposes of these projects would be two-fold:

oAt State levels, to promote effective collaborations between State Child Support Enforcement agencies, State Child Care agencies, Head Start State Collaboration Projects, and other public and private agencies, in order to develop and implement appropriate State strategies designed to enhance, through these programs, parental support for their children, including increased paternity establishment, payment of child support, access to health insurance, and increased levels of non-custodial fathers' involvement in the lives of their children.

oAt selected local levels, through the assistance of the State agencies: to effect collaborations between Child Support Enforcement agencies, Head Start Programs, Child Care Programs, including Child Care Resource and Referral agencies; developing and implementing appropriate local strategies to promote and facilitate increased parental support; access to child support services for families through the cooperation and assistance of the Child Care and Head Start programs

which these families frequent; and increased understanding and awareness by Child Support Enforcement staffs of the importance of non-custodial fathers' non-financial involvement with their children and of the ways that effective father-involvement programs can enhance voluntary payment of support by those non-custodial parents with the ability to contribute financially to the lives of their children.

Demonstration projects will be awarded only to those State Child Support Enforcement agencies which have demonstrated the capacity to provide leadership in forging effective collaborations across service programs and governmental levels.

3. Design Elements in the Application

a.Each project will expand and enhance State-level planning and policy to promote child support services and support a series of local-level child support promotion/facilitation efforts. At least sixty percent of the project budget will be devoted to local-level collaboration efforts.

b.State-level activities should include efforts to:

oengage all appropriate public and private agencies in ongoing planning and advocacy activities which promote child support services through collaboration with Head Start and Child Care programs;

oengage in basic information exchanges which serve to clarify the goals, requirements and procedures of the three programs, thereby eliminating misunderstandings and facilitating the programs' collaboration.

oaddress cross-cutting program issues (e.g. child support policies for low-income non-custodial parents, adequate provision for child care costs in child support orders);

oassess and work to remove State barriers to effective collaboration between the three service programs;

odisseminate training materials to local programs, which could include developing/disseminating new information materials on child support services and on parent involvement strategies;

oidentify local Head Start and Child Care programs which exhibit potential for successful project demonstrations; and,

oevaluate the activities undertaken by the project to promote and facilitate child support services.

c.Each project will provide support to several local efforts to develop new models of promoting and facilitating child support services in selected Head Start and Child Care programs. Planning and activities must include local representatives of Head Start, Child Care and Child Support Enforcement, as well as other appropriate local agencies or groups, including child care resource and referral agencies.

Examples of possible local initiatives could include:

Information Exchange: Engage in basic information exchanges which serve to clarify program goals, requirements and procedures, thereby eliminatingmisunderstandings and facilitating programs' collaboration.

Outreach: Use of Head Start and child care programs, including child care resource and referral agencies, to distribute outreach information and materials about paternity establishment and child support enforcement. Referrals: Development of procedures that Head Start and child care programs can use to refer families to the appropriate child support enforcement office.

Parent Training: Incorporation of information and training about the importance of paternity establishment and the payment of child support in parent involvement activities.

Programs Staff Training: Training for Head Start and Child Care staffs on how they can work with parents to promote paternity establishment and child support; and for Child Support Enforcement staffs on the importance of keeping fathers involved in the lives of their children.

Liaison: Designation of local Head Start and child care liaisons who meet regularly with child support workers on issues of child support and advocate for services on behalf of Head Start and child care clients.

Service Entry Point: Development of procedures for making Head Start and Child Care programs the entry point to the child support service system for eligible families; the provision of training and assistance to Head Start and child care staff designated to take applications for child support services; and/or providing regularly scheduled opportunities for Child Support Enforcement staff to take applications at Head Start and Child Care program sites. Where Head Start and Child Care programs may be involved in promoting job opportunities for low-income fathers, these activities should be used as a child support service entry point. Also, preparing Head Start and Child Care staff to address parents' need for adequate information on child support services to make well

informed decisions for their families.

d.Each project will submit a report of strategies, activities, evaluation results, and recommendations for ways to strengthen collaborations between the Child Support Enforcement Program and the Head Start and Child Care Programs. Project Directors will also make efforts to present models and lessons at regional and national meetings and conferences across the three program areas.

Project applications should include a description of:

ocurrent State and local collaborative efforts among the three programs.

oapproach the project will take to promote collaborations at State and local levels among the three programs.

ohow the State Child Support Enforcement Agency will work with the Head Start State Collaboration Project, the State Child Care Agency, and other appropriate groups to achieve project goals.

oplan for evaluating project results. Minimal evaluation requirements for these projects will consist of a thorough process analysis which completely describes and analyzes the state of collaboration and operation of programs before the implementation, the new operational intervention itself, the process of implementation of the new operation, and the results of the new operation with a comparison of the old and new procedures. Such process analyses should assess the results against expectations for the new operation.

Applicants should enclose letters of commitment to participate in the demonstration from the Head Start State Collaboration Project, the State Head Start Association, the State Child Care Agency, and from appropriate child care resource and referral agencies. The letters should detail how these agencies propose to be involved in the demonstration. State Child Support Enforcement Agencies should be aware that the Federal Head Start and Child Care Bureaus and the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA) are alerting their networks to this opportunity for collaboration with Child Support agencies.

4. Project Duration 3 years

5. Project Budget $700,000 ($203,000 in Section 1115 funds) awarded for 6-8 grants in a range of $50,000 to $100,000 each.

PRIORITY AREA 1.03.b: CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT COLLABORATION WITH CHILD WELFARE PROGRAMS

1.Purpose

Demonstration of the use of location resources available to support enforcement agencies to facilitate, in appropriate instances, family preservation through the placement of children currently in foster care with a biological (but heretofore "absent") parent or with kinship persons, including the extended family of a non-custodial parent or through freeing children for adoption by locating the absent parents for the purpose of terminating parental rights.

The Office of Child Support Enforcement proposes to award 2 or 3 demonstration grants for total funding of $300,000 ($87,000 total in Section 1115 funds.)

2.Background and information

The Federal Parent Locator Service (FPLS), an arm of the Office of Child Support Enforcement, is a computerized network through which State support enforcement agencies may request location, income and asset information from Federal and State sources for the purpose of establishing and enforcing child support orders. Under specified circumstances, the location information is also accessible to designated officials to enforce custody and visitation orders and in cases of parental kidnapping. Within each State, a counterpart State Parent Locator Service performs a comparable function for support enforcement purposes, increasingly through automated interchange with the recordkeeping systems of other State agencies such as the department of motor vehicles.

Under current law, there are several avenues by which location information available to child support enforcement agencies can be utilized to facilitate family preservation or adoption:

oChildren who receive child welfare services are also eligible for support enforcement services, including parental location, under title IV-D. The location of the natural parent(s) would contribute directly to facilitating family preservation or, in appropriate cases, adoption. Any child support monies collected are directed first to reimburse the government for the cost of foster care; then, any child support payments in excess of the cost of foster care are utilized exclusively for the welfare of the child.

oSince the proceedings preliminary to adoption can appropriately be characterized as a child custody determination, a judicial decision maker or agent of the court could, under existing law and regulations, have access to location information available to child support enforcement agencies. Disclosure of such information --here or in any other circumstance described -- is contingent upon appropriate safeguards being in place to maintain its confidentiality.

o While as a general rule, persons applying for support enforcement services apply for the complete range of such services, one exception presently exists; i.e., the applicant can limit the request to "location-only" services. Through this mechanism, a child's attorney or court-appointed guardian ad litem could obtain access to the range of location sources available to the State and Federal Parent Locator Services.

3.Design Elements in the Application

State child welfare and child support enforcement agencies should collaborate to facilitate use of the FPLS to identify and locate absent parents of children in foster care. In this way, child welfare agencies may locate parents or other relatives who may be interested in providing a permanent home for a child in foster care. Even if an absent parent is unable to provide a home for the child, ruling out this alternative early in a child'splacement will allow the agency and court to move expeditiously towards adoption or another permanent alternative. Evidence of such planned collaboration should be part of applications submitted.

Minimal evaluation requirements for these projects will consist of a thorough process analysis which completely describes and analyzes the state of collaboration and operation of programs before the implementation, the new operational intervention itself, the process of implementation of the new operation, and the results of the new operation with a comparison of the old and new procedures. Such process analyses should assess the results against expectations for the new operation.

State Child Support Enforcement Agencies should be aware that the Federal Children's Bureau is alerting its network to this opportunity for collaboration with the Child Support program. 4. Project Duration 3 years

5. Project Budget $300, 000 ($87,000 total in Section 1115 funds) to award 2-3 grants.

PRIORITY AREA 2.01: ARRANGEMENTS FOR REVIEWING AND ADJUSTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDERS

1.Purpose

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) makes significant changes in the way that child support awards are to be reviewed and adjusted over time. OCSE is seeking to fund and evaluate a number of projects that help explain the costs and benefits of newly available options for the State, the Federal government, and for custodial and noncustodial parents.

The basic purpose of this priority area is to compare and contrast innovative administrative approaches for reviewing and adjusting child support award amounts with current practices, within different legal, judicial, and administrative environments. States are encouraged to conduct demonstration projects to test and evaluate model procedures for reviewing

child support award amounts as they are impacted by PRWORA.

It is anticipated that up to 5 projects will be awarded for total funding of $900,000 ($261,000 in Section 1115 funds). These projects may reflect the different aspects of the review and adjustment process and the diverse demographics of the population served by the IV-D program.

2.Background and Information

The Family Support Act (FSA) of 1988 (Public Law 100-485) made changes to review and adjustment requirements. In these provisions States were required to:

oreview and, if appropriate, adjust child support ordersupon the request of either parent or at the request of the State child support enforcement agency;

oreview child support orders at intervals of 36 months or less for AFDC cases unless the review and adjustment would not be in the best interest of the child; and

onotify the parties at least 30 days prior to the review that they have the right to request such a review, notify both parties of the findings of the review, and further, notify the parties that a minimum of 30 days is afforded to challenge the adjustment or determination.

PRWORA further amended the review and adjustment provisions as follows:

oStates must review and, as appropriate, adjust child support orders at the request of either parent. In the case of orders being enforced against parents whose children are receiving benefits under Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, States may also review the order at their own option;

oNo proof of change of circumstances is needed to initiate the review; if a review is requested outside of the three-year cycle, the State must review, and if appropriate, adjust if the requesting party demonstrates a substantial change in circumstance;

o1) States may adjust child support orders by applying the State guidelines and updating the award amount. Alternatively, 2) States may apply a cost of living increase to the orders or use automated methods to identify orders eligible for review, conduct the review, identify orders eligible for adjustment, and apply the appropriate adjustment to the orders based on the threshold established by the State. Under these two options, both parties are given 30 days after notice of the adjustment to contest the results; and

oStates are required to give each party notice of their right to request review and adjustments, at least once

every three years. The notice may be included in the order establishing the support amount.

3. Design Elements in the Application

It is the goal of this initiative to provide OCSE with information on the costs and the benefits and to identify best practices in implementing these changes. In order to successfully compete under this priority area, the applicants should:

oProvide a detailed description of what review and adjustment innovations will be addressed. This shall include an assessment of the current status of ongoing review and adjustment efforts. Applicants should specify what theirexperience is with implementing FSA review and adjustment requirements and the outcomes of these efforts.

oApplicants may emphasize any aspect of review and adjustment as it is revised in PRWORA. For example, an applicant may choose to focus on comparing the outcomes of using State guidelines to adjust child support amounts with using cost-of-living adjustments.

oThe project could have one control group in which review and adjustment is done according to FSA requirements as appropriately modified by PRWORA regarding notices and mandatory reviews. The State could analyze the effect of these provisions on:

ocases adjusted as a percent of the number of cases reviewed;

othe percent of upward adjustments compared with the percent of downward adjustments;

othe average and median amount of adjustments upward and downward;

othe average time frames for review and adjustment;

othe percentage of appeals, the average time to process appeals; and the outcomes of appeals.

4. Project Duration 3 years

5. Project Budget $900,000 ($261,000 in Section 1115 Funds) to support up to 5 projects.

Priority AREA 3.01: THE EFFECT OF CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS ON WELFARE RECIPIENT INCOME AND OBLIGOR BEHAVIOR

1.Purpose

To determine how payers and recipients of child support react to approaches aimed at increasing parental responsibility, enhancing the transition from welfare to work, and achieving family self- sufficiency.

2.Background and Information

It has been hypothesized that one way of increasing parental responsibility, encouraging the movement from welfare to work, and stimulating family self-sufficiency is to assure receipt by the custodial family of a fixed amount of child support on a regular basis. The increased and stable income from doing so, according to the proponents, will stimulate greater work activity, improve parental cooperation with the efforts of the support enforcement agency, and have a positive impact on the community of which the recipients are a part.

A child support assurance or insurance system has been discussedextensively in the literature for a number of years. Federal legislation enacted in 1987 authorized New York State to conduct a seven-county demonstration of a type of assured payment program called the Child Assistance Program (CAP). CAP gave a higher earnings disregard and other benefits to AFDC recipients who established a child support order. This payment was lower than the basic AFDC payment but because of the more generous disregards, families were financially better off under CAP than under AFDC. While CAP is not considered a "pure" form of child support assurance, the demonstration project did show that offering a guaranteed payment improved the speed at which support orders were established and the uptake of work. A program evaluation conducted by ABT Associates indicates that the State received a favorable return on its investment in the CAP program and that families participating in CAP were also better off financially.

This announcement hopes to facilitate a new generation of child support assurance projects which take into account the vast changes in the welfare system that occurred when PRWORA was passed. Since then, a few State officials have expressed interest in a child support assurance or insurance demonstration. We are accordingly willing to pay for two relatively small one-year planning grants so that interested States may consider, plan and design child support assurance or insurance programs based on State-generated hypotheses of what they desire to achieve.

A demonstration design at the end of the planning grant period would have to address at least the following issues: Who will be eligible for the assured child support payment? What would be the criteria for program enrollment? What is the nature of the payment or benefit? And how would it be treated for other Federal or State-funded income-tested programs and for income tax purposes? An evaluation design should likewise be able to address the potential effects of child support assurance as mentioned earlier.

There is no commitment to necessarily fund from monies available under section 1115 any demonstration proposal evolving from the planning process. Indeed, the availability of funds, the soundness of the proposal, the extent to which State funds would be committed, and the likelihood of attracting financial support from private foundations or other such sources would all be

significant considerations at the time.

Another hypothesis that has been suggested as worthy of demonstration is that passing through child support payments to the custodial family, and disregarding these payments in calculating the amount of public assistance, results in increased payment of child support and greater involvement of the obligor in attending to his/her children's personal, physical and emotional needs.

In this regard, the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 changed the provisions governing distribution of child support collections to pass through to the family up to the first $50 of current child support collected each month, with the amount of the pass through also being disregarded for AFDC purposes. PRWORA ended Federalsharing in the cost of the pass through, leaving it to State discretion whether or not to pass through any amount of child support collected and if so, how to treat the income to the family in the TANF program.

According to its advocates, seeing the child support payment as income to the custodial family, rather than a payment going to the government, encourages the noncustodial parent to make timely, regular and full child support payments and, concomitantly, take a more active part in the life of his/her children. There is only anecdotal information at present on the effect of such a policy on an obligor's actions.

Several States, as part of welfare reform demonstrations prior to the enactment of PRWORA, initiated projects to pass through greater amounts of regularly received child support, treating it for assistance purposes as either unearned income to the family or a disregarded (in whole or in part) sum. Some of these projects are still ongoing. However, they have been directed at studying the effect of the child support payment on the custodial parent and supported children. Now, we want to learn whether the perception that these payments help the family meet its daily living expenses or otherwise meet its needs -- rather than reimbursing the government for prior assistance paid -- has an effect on the noncustodial parent.

States who presently have ongoing pass-through projects under welfare reform demonstrations are especially encouraged to submit proposals (under existing terms and conditions for waivers) that would complement these efforts by also looking at the effect on the obligor. Other States interested in newly initiating demonstrations are advised that doing so would in no way modify policies governing the Federal share of child support collections as enacted in PRWORA.

Overall, a combined total of $700,000 ($203,000 in Section 1115 funds) is anticipated to be available for both the planning grants and the pass-through related demonstrations. This could support two planning grants ($100,000 total or $29,000 in Section 1115 funds) and 2 or 3 demonstration projects ($600,000 or $174,000 in funding from Section 1115). Demonstrations would be the initial year of a three-year project period.

3.Design Elements in the Application

All applicants must include evidence that the following questions can be reasonably addressed within the demonstration:

1)Does the child support payment made by noncustodial parents become more regular if it is paid as child support by the noncustodial parent and received by the custodial family?

2)Is there a change in a noncustodial parent's perception of his/her obligation to his/her children?

3)Is there a measurable difference in the involvement of the noncustodial parent in the life of his/herchildren?

4)Is there a change in the attitude of the custodial parent toward the noncustodial parent?

OCSE will require in demonstration sites an impact evaluation of the questions posed above. Random assignment of noncustodial parents to the experimental group where pass-through payments go to the family, or to the control group where there is no such pass-through will constitute the structure of the evaluation. Comparison of the two groups on the questions posed above will constitute the results of the project.

Applicant States may pass through their portion of collected child support, and those applicant States that already hold waivers for pass-through projects may claim Federal Financial Participation above and beyond that generated by the 1115 special federal funds to support demonstration activities by virtue of their status as an 1115 waiver demonstration. These funds should make random assignment experimental analysis affordable within the context of individual projects.

4. Project Duration: 3 years

5. Project Budget: $700,000 ($203,000 in Section 1115 funds) to support 2 planning grants and 2-3 demonstration grants

PRIORITY AREA 4.01: NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM

1. Purpose

To develop, pilot and evaluate measures and models to make the Child Support Enforcement Program more responsive to the needs and circumstances of low-income noncustodial fathers, from paternity establishment onward, in the context of encouraging greater parental responsibility.

2.Background and Information

Young, unwed, frequently minority fathers, often with low and/or sporadic income are now and will be increasingly interacting with the Child Support Enforcement Program as an outgrowth of many additions to Federal law in recent years and steadily improving performance on the part of support enforcement agencies.

Paternity establishment is a particular case in point. States are required to have and use a simple civil process for voluntary paternity acknowledgement, including hospital-based programs. Establishing paternity, of course, is the first step toward the recurring collection of child support. Advocates have suggested that at or near the birth of the child is a good time to approach the unwed father. Since he and the mother are still often on good terms, he may be most interested in the future well-being of the child, and the father's location is known. Today, however, little is done to encourage fathers to remain actively involved with their children (while being mindful of domestic violenceconsiderations) once paternity has been legally established and other aspects of the support enforcement process are triggered.

An extensive array of programs and community-based agencies are now attempting to improve the economic and social well-being of poor, including minority males who are also likely to father children out of wedlock. Collaboration is very much in order, recognizing that the child support program may not have been viewed in a positive light by many at the community level. Already, small-scale but positive efforts can be identified.

In Arkansas, a five-county project to offer self-sufficiency and employment-related services to fathers following in-hospital paternity acknowledgement showed an improvement in child support paid by program participants. Responsible fatherhood projects exist in several sites in different parts of the country, offering comprehensive services to poor, minority fathers to help them achieve economic self-sufficiency and otherwise straighten out their lives. Community Action Agencies, funded by the Administration for Children and Families' Office of Community Services (OCS), are accelerating efforts to provide needed services to these same fathers. The OCS and the Office of Child Support Enforcement recently entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to coordinate these efforts, aimed at addressing the many problems facing poor, minority males with support enforcement-related activities.

3.Design elements in the application

States are encouraged to pilot or experiment with a variety of techniques for overcoming the multiple problems and special circumstances of low-income, minority fathers on support enforcement-related matters. A long-term perspective on how to encourage voluntary compliance and responsible parenthood without having to invoke the many enforcement tools available to child support agencies warrants careful consideration.

Evidence of the commitment and active participation of relevant public and private agencies, and especially community-based organizations, will be required as part of any application. Where relevant, coordination with any ongoing or planned efforts stemming from the Federal government's Fatherhood Initiative or from State technical assistance efforts supported by OCSE will

also be required.

Using in-hospital paternity acknowledgement or related programs as a starting point, States are encouraged to demonstrate a referral mechanism to provide employment and other necessary assistance, on a voluntary basis, to non-custodial fathers to assist them to find work, pay child support, become emotionally connected to their children, and cease negative behavior, such as substance abuse. Demonstration funding could not be used to augment existing service programs (e.g., substance abuse treatment).

Fathers who acknowledge paternity at the hospital or afterwards could be provided information about public or private services in the community for assistance in finding jobs, securing visitationand custody rights, counseling to stay in school, substance abuse prevention, domestic violence counseling, or other needed or desired services. With due adherence to privacy safeguards requirements under 45 CFR 303.21, community agencies might be given the names of new fathers to contact to determine need and interest.

States are encouraged to contact the DHHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation or the Office of Child Support Enforcement regarding technical assistance materials developed for evaluation of responsible fatherhood programs. States shall design a process and evaluation methodology using control and experimental groups. Such evaluation shall assess: number of paternities established through voluntary acknowledgement, number of fathers contacted, number of fathers needing assistance, types of assistance needed, number of fathers receiving assistance, types of assistance received, completion of programs, impacts in terms of increased incomes, increased visitation, substance abuse recoveries, reuniting of families, marriages, and other outcomes related to activities, including whether, and if so the extent, utilization of child support enforcement remedies has been reduced.

ADDITIONAL POINTS WILL BE AWARDED FOR USE OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES RESEARCH DESIGN AND ACTIVE INVOlVEMENT OF COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES.

State Child Support Enforcement Agencies should be aware that the Federal Office of Community Services is alerting its network of Community Action Agencies to this opportunity for collaboration with the Child Support program.

4.Project duration 3 years

5.Project Budget Total 4 grants at $250,000 each for a total of $1,000,000 ($290,000 in Section 1115 funds)