Regardless of who appoints the review panel, the review must be conducted in accordance with section 475(5)(B) and (6) of the Act. It must be open to the participation of the parents of the child and it must include at least one person who is not responsible for the case management of, or delivery of services to, either the child or the parent who are the subject of the review.

Regardless of who appoints the review panel, the review must be conducted in accordance with section 475 (5)(B) and (6) of the Act. It must be open to the participation of the parents of the child and it must include at least one person who is not responsible for the case management of, or delivery of services to, either the child or the parent who are the subject of the review.

The requirement in section 475 (5)(E) of the Act applies to Indian tribal children as it applies to any other child under the placement and care responsibility of a State or tribal agency receiving title IV-B or IV-E funds. While we recognize that termination of parental rights and adoption may not be a part of an Indian tribe's traditional belief system or legal code, there is no statutory authority to provide a general exemption for Indian tribal children from the requirement to file a petition for TPR. If an Indian tribe that receives title IV-B or IV-E funds has placement and care responsibility for an Indian child, the Indian tribe must file a petition for TPR or, if appropriate, document the reason for an exception to the requirement in the case plan, on a case-by-case basis.

The requirement in section 475 (5)(E) of the Act applies to Indian tribal children as it applies to any other child under the placement and care responsibility of a State or tribal agency receiving title IV-B or IV-E funds. While we recognize that termination of parental rights and adoption may not be a part of an Indian tribe''s traditional belief system or legal code, there is no statutory authority to provide a general exemption for Indian tribal children from the requirement to file a petition for TPR. If an Indian tribe that receives title IV-B or IV-E funds has placement and care responsibility for an Indian child, the Indian tribe must file a petition for TPR or, if appropriate, document the reason for an exception to the requirement in the case plan, on a case-by-case basis.

Therefore, the requirements of section 472 (a)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act may be met through an agreement with a public agency (including a court) which is authorized under State law to operate as a child placing agency, and, if so authorized, is operating a child placing agency. The agreement, properly written, should be binding on both parties and should permit the State agency to have access to case records, reports or other informational materials as needed to monitor title IV-E compliance. The State must maintain a supervisory role in relation to all title IV-E eligible children and would need to monitor the provisions required under title IV-E.

However, if a court is not authorized under State law to operate and is not operating as a child placing agency, the court could not be considered "another public agency" with responsibility for placement and care of otherwise eligible children for purposes of section 472 (a)(2)(B).

Therefore, the requirements of section 472 (a)(2) of the Social Security Act may be met through an agreement with a public agency (including a court) which is authorized under State law to operate as a child placing agency, and, if so authorized, is operating a child placing agency. The agreement, properly written, should be binding on both parties and should permit the State agency to have access to case records, reports or other informational materials as needed to monitor title IV-E compliance. The State must maintain a supervisory role in relation to all title IV-E eligible children and would need to monitor the provisions required under title IV-E.

However, if a court is not authorized under State law to operate and is not operating as a child placing agency, the court could not be considered "another public agency" with responsibility for placement and care of otherwise eligible children for purposes of section 472 (a)(2).

The title IV-B child welfare services program provides Federal funds in the form of formula grants to States and Tribes consistent with the purposes in section 421 of the Act.

Some Federally recognized Tribes providing child welfare services are eligible to receive title IV-B grants directly from the Federal government. Since these are grants to States and Tribes, and are not entitlements for individual children, the States and participating Tribes have the authority to allocate the use of these funds and to set priorities for their use.

Many States and Tribes have developed State-Tribal agreements which formalize the sharing of responsibility for providing foster care maintenance and child welfare services, using title IV-E and title IV-B funds, as well as Social Services Block Grant funds and State funds.

Where neither the State nor the Tribe has resources sufficient to cover all the needs of all Indian children, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as payor of last resort, may pay for these services.

The title IV-B child welfare services program provides Federal funds in the form of formula grants to States and Tribes to establish, extend and strengthen child welfare services.

Some Federally recognized Tribes providing child welfare services are eligible to receive title IV-B grants directly from the Federal government. Since these are grants to States and Tribes, and are not entitlements for individual children, the States and participating Tribes have the authority to allocate the use of these funds and to set priorities for their use.

Many States and Tribes have developed State-Tribal agreements which formalize the sharing of responsibility for providing foster care maintenance and child welfare services, using title IV-E and title IV-B funds, as well as Social Services Block Grant funds and State funds.

Where neither the State nor the Tribe has resources sufficient to cover all the needs of all Indian children, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as payor of last resort, may pay for these services.

1) a child who is placed pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement and who must have had a title IV-E foster care maintenance payment paid on his or her behalf under the agreement, consistent with section 472(a)(2)(B) and 473(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the Act; and

2) a child who is eligible for title IV-E adoption assistance based upon his or her minor parent's eligibility for title IV-E foster care while in the custody of the State agency, consistent with section 473(a)(2)(A)(i)(III) of the Act.

1) a child who is placed pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement and who must have had a title IV-E foster care maintenance payment paid on his or her behalf under the agreement; consistent with section 472(a)(2) of the Act; and

2) a child who is eligible for title IV-E adoption assistance based upon his or her minor parent''s eligibility for title IV-E foster care while in the custody of the State agency, consistent with section 473(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Act.

1) a child who is placed pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement and who must have had a title IV-E foster care maintenance payment paid on his or her behalf under the agreement; and 2) a child who is voluntarily relinquished to the State agency if there is a petition to the court within six months of the date the child was last with the specified relative that leads to a judicial determination that to remain in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare.

Federal programs which assist States in meeting this responsibility include the title IV-E foster care maintenance payments program and the title IV-B child welfare services program.

The title IV-E program is a State administered program to pay the costs of foster care for AFDC eligible children removed from their homes, for whom the State or the Tribe has responsibility for placement and care. It is an entitlement program for individual children and must be available to all eligible residents of a State, including Indian children living on or off reservations.

The title IV-B child welfare services program provides Federal funds in the form of formula grants to States and Tribes consistent with the purposes in section 421 of the Act.

Some federally recognized Tribes providing child welfare services are eligible to receive title IV-B grants directly from the Federal government. Since these are grants to States and Tribes, and are not entitlements for individual children, the States and participating Tribes have the authority to allocate the use of these funds and to set priorities for their use.

Many States and Tribes have developed State-Tribal agreements which formalize the sharing of responsibility for providing foster care maintenance and child welfare services, using title IV-E and title IV-B funds, as well as Social Services Block Grant funds and State funds.

Where neither the State nor the Tribe has resources sufficient to cover all the needs of all Indian children, the BIA, as payor of last resort, may pay for these services.

Federal programs which assist States in meeting this responsibility include the title IV-E foster care maintenance payments program and the title IV-B child welfare services program.

The title IV-E program is a State administered program to pay the costs of foster care for AFDC eligible children removed from their homes, for whom the State or the Tribe has responsibility for placement and care. It is an entitlement program for individual children and must be available to all eligible residents of a State, including Indian children living on or off reservations.

The title IV-B child welfare services program provides Federal funds in the form of formula grants to States and Tribes to establish, extend and strengthen child welfare services.

Some federally recognized Tribes providing child welfare services are eligible to receive title IV-B grants directly from the Federal government. Since these are grants to States and Tribes, and are not entitlements for individual children, the States and participating Tribes have the authority to allocate the use of these funds and to set priorities for their use.

Many States and Tribes have developed State-Tribal agreements which formalize the sharing of responsibility for providing foster care maintenance and child welfare services, using title IV-E and title IV-B funds, as well as Social Services Block Grant funds and State funds.

Where neither the State nor the Tribe has resources sufficient to cover all the needs of all Indian children, the BIA, as payor of last resort, may pay for these services.

We assume that by Tribal-State intergovernmental title IV-E agreements you are referring to an agreement for the placement and care of children eligible under section 472 (a) of the Social Security Act (the Act).

The terms of a title IV-E agreement, in accordance with section 472 (a)(2)(B) of the Act, would be negotiated between the State and the Tribe. The agreement should specify the respective responsibilities of each in relation to carrying out the title IV-E requirements. The agreement should also include provisions for assuring that the section 422 protections are afforded to each child in foster care under the Tribes responsibility for placement and care for whom title IV-E foster care maintenance payments are being made by the State. The State and Tribe would determine the responsibilities of each in meeting the section 422 requirements.

However, the State has ultimate responsibility for assuring that the title IV-E requirements are met for title IV-E eligible children.

We assume that by Tribal-State intergovernmental title IV-E agreements you are referring to an agreement for the placement and care of children eligible under section 472 (a) of the Social Security Act (the Act).

The terms of a title IV-E agreement, in accordance with section 472 (a)(2) of the Act, would be negotiated between the State and the Tribe. The agreement should specify the respective responsibilities of each in relation to carrying out the title IV-E requirements. The agreement should also include provisions for assuring that the section 422 protections are afforded to each child in foster care under the Tribes responsibility for placement and care for whom title IV-E foster care maintenance payments are being made by the State. The State and Tribe would determine the responsibilities of each in meeting the section 422 requirements.

However, the State has ultimate responsibility for assuring that the title IV-E requirements are met for title IV-E eligible children.

In accordance with section 472(a)(2)(B), a State shall make foster care maintenance payments under title IV-E if, among other conditions, the child's placement and care are the responsibility of the State agency administering the title IV-E State plan or any other public agency (including an Indian Tribe) with whom the State agency has made an agreement which is in effect. There is no provision in the statute that authorizes title IV-E payments where custody or responsibility for placement and care of the child has been given to a private agency.

Therefore, if the State and the Indian Tribe negotiate and enter into an agreement which recognizes that the Tribe has been given custody or responsibility for placement and care of certain title IV-E eligible children and which confirms the Tribe's responsibility to comply with the requirements under title IV-E in relation to these children, the State may claim FFP under title IV-E for the costs of foster care maintenance payments for them.

In accordance with section 472(a)(2), a State shall make foster care maintenance payments under title IV-E if, among other conditions, the child''s placement and care are the responsibility of the State agency administering the title IV-E State plan or any other public agency (including an Indian Tribe) with whom the State agency has made an agreement which is in effect. There is no provision in the statute that authorizes title IV-E payments where custody or responsibility for placement and care of the child has been given to a private agency.

Therefore, if the State and the Indian Tribe negotiate and enter into an agreement which recognizes that the Tribe has been given custody or responsibility for placement and care of certain title IV-E eligible children and which confirms the Tribe''s responsibility to comply with the requirements under title IV-E in relation to these children, the State may claim FFP under title IV-E for the costs of foster care maintenance payments for them.

Title XVI (SSI) is a needs based program and, as such, requires a test of income and resources of the adoptive parents in determining the amount of the SSI benefit to which a child with a disability(ies) may be entitled. If (or when) the parental resources and income exceed a maximum level determined by the SSI program, the child is no longer eligible for SSI payments.

If the adoptive parents decide to decline adoption assistance and choose to receive only SSI for the child, and if they have not executed an adoption assistance agreement before the adoption is finalized, they may not later receive title IV-E adoption assistance payments, as the child would no longer meet all of the eligibility requirements as a child with special needs (section 473 (c)(2)). It may be prudent for the decision maker (parent, guardian, custodian, caretaker relative) to arrange for an adoption assistance agreement which does not provide for payment, but which does provide for title XVI and title XIX coverage, and which may at some future date, upon review, be renegotiated to provide for payment of adoption assistance funds.

The adoptive parents of a child eligible for title IV-E adoption assistance and SSI benefits may make application for both programs and the child, if eligible, may benefit from both programs simultaneously.

In cases where the child is eligible for both SSI and title IV-E and there is concurrent receipt of payments from both programs, "the child's SSI payment will be reduced dollar for dollar without application of any exclusion", thus decreasing the SSI benefit by the amount of the title IV-E payment (SSI Program Operations Manual). To reiterate, concurrent receipt is subject to the SSI rule that the SSI payment will be reduced by the amount of the foster care payment.

Title XVI (SSI) is a needs based program and, as such, requires a test of income and resources of the adoptive parents in determining the amount of the SSI benefit to which a child with a disability(ies) may be entitled. If (or when) the parental resources and income exceed a maximum level determined by the SSI program, the child is no longer eligible for SSI payments.

If the adoptive parents decide to decline adoption assistance and choose to receive only SSI for the child, and if they have not executed an adoption assistance agreement before the adoption is finalized, they may not later receive title IV-E adoption assistance payments, as the child would no longer meet all of the eligibility requirements as a child with special needs (section 473 (c)(2)). It may be prudent for the decision maker (parent, guardian, custodian, caretaker relative) to arrange for an adoption assistance agreement which does not provide for payment, but which does provide for title XVI and title XIX coverage, and which may at some future date, upon review, be renegotiated to provide for payment of adoption assistance funds.

The adoptive parents of a child eligible for title IV-E adoption assistance and SSI benefits may make application for both programs and the child, if eligible, may benefit from both programs simultaneously.

In cases where the child is eligible for both SSI and title IV-E and there is concurrent receipt of payments from both programs, "the child''s SSI payment will be reduced dollar for dollar without application of any exclusion", thus decreasing the SSI benefit by the amount of the title IV-E payment (SSI Program Operations Manual). To reiterate, concurrent receipt is subject to the SSI rule that the SSI payment will be reduced by the amount of the foster care payment.

One of the major problems, however, is that because the child is unaccompanied, documentation is not ordinarily available to substantiate the child's age, financial need, and deprivation of parental support or care by reason of death of a parent, continued absence of the parent from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent (45 CFR 233.90(c)).

In addition, the child must meet the requirements of section 472 (a)( of the Act. These requirements include, for example, the existence of a voluntary placement agreement entered into by the child's parent or legal guardian or a judicial determination that continuation of the child in his home would be contrary to his welfare. Another requirement is that the child either received aid under section 402 of the Act (as in effect on July 16, 1996) in the month in which the agreement or judicial determination was made, or would have received aid in or for that month if an application had been made and the child had been living with a specified relative within six months prior to the month in which the agreement was made or the judicial proceeding was initiated.

Therefore, although the unaccompanied minor refugee child may clearly be in need of foster care upon his arrival in this country, he must also meet the eligibility requirements of title IV-E (section 472(a)) if Federal financial participation is claimed by the State. If it can be documented that he meets the requirements, then he would be eligible for title IV-E payments.

The circumstances of a refugee child who comes into the country with his family are different from the unaccompanied child in that the first child is "living with" his family. Assuming the degree of kinship is that cited in section 406(a) of the Act, this accompanied child could later become eligible for title IV-E foster care payments, if all criteria in section 472(a) are met and the documentation of age, need and deprivation can be reviewed in relation to the home (in the U.S.) from which he is removed.

One of the major problems, however, is that because the child is unaccompanied, documentation is not ordinarily available to substantiate the child''s age, financial need, and deprivation of parental support or care by reason of death of a parent, continued absence of the parent from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent (45 CFR 233.90(c)).

In addition, the child must meet the requirements of section 472 (a)(1) through (4) of the Act. These requirements include, for example, the existence of a voluntary placement agreement entered into by the child''s parent or legal guardian or a judicial determination that continuation of the child in his home would be contrary to his welfare. Another requirement is that the child either received aid under section 402 of the Act (as in effect on July 16, 1996) in the month in which the agreement or judicial determination was made, or would have received aid in or for that month if an application had been made and the child had been living with a specified relative within six months prior to the month in which the agreement was made or the judical proceeding was initiated.

Therefore, although the unaccompanied minor refugee child may clearly be in need of foster care upon his arrival in this country, he must also meet the eligibility requirements of title IV-E (section 472(a)) if Federal financial participation is claimed by the State. If it can be documented that he meets the requirements, then he would be eligible for title IV-E payments.

The circumstances of a refugee child who comes into the country with his family are different from the unaccompanied child in that the first child is "living with" his family. Assuming the degree of kinship is that cited in section 406(a) of the Act, this accompanied child could later become eligible for title IV-E foster care payments, if all criteria in section 472(a) are met and the documentation of age, need and deprivation can be reviewed in relation to the home (in the U.S.) from which he is removed.

The following examples clarify when a case is considered an error case in title IV-E foster care eligibility reviews:

It should be noted that for a child who entered foster care prior to March 27, 2000 (the effective date of the Final Rule which established the reasonable efforts to finalize a permanency plan requirement at 45 CFR 1356.21(b)(2)), the concept of "the date the child is considered to have entered foster care" is nonexistent. For those children, the initial reasonable efforts to finalize a permanency plan judicial determination was due no later than March 27, 2001. If a child did not have the initial determination made by that date, the child became ineligible for title IV-E foster care maintenance payments from April 1, 2001 and remains ineligible until the first day of the month in which the appropriate judicial determination is obtained. Thus, if a child entered care on November 20, 1999 and did not have a reasonable efforts to finalize a permanency plan determination until August 25, 2004, the otherwise-eligible child would be ineligible for title IV-E foster care maintenance payments from April 1, 2001 through July 31, 2004. Accordingly, if the PUR is April 1, 2004 through September 30, 2004, the case would be an error case if title IV-E foster care maintenance payments had been claimed for the child at any time between April 1, 2004 and August 1, 2004.

Violation of the Federal confidentiality provision is a State plan compliance issue under title IV-B.

Costs for adoptive parents to attend such conferences under title IV-B would be reimbursable at the 75% matching rate (section 424(a)).

The placement of children in adoptive homes when they cannot return to their biological family is an essential child welfare service. Today's emphasis on placing children with special needs in adoption poses many problems and needs for adoptive parents. By attending and participating in conferences which have training components related to adoption and discussions of adoption issues, adoptive parents may better learn how to deal with special problems and enhance their parenting skills by sharing experiences with others in similar circumstances. Active participation of adoptive parents in such conferences may result in improved adoption planning and policy development through their advisory relationships with public agencies, and thereby assist in extending and strengthening adoption services to children and adoptive parents.

Costs for adoptive parents to attend such conferences under title IV-B would be reimbursable at the 75% matching rate (section 423 (a)).

The placement of children in adoptive homes when they cannot return to their biological family is an essential child welfare service. Today''s emphasis on placing children with special needs in adoption poses many problems and needs for adoptive parents. By attending and participating in conferences which have training components related to adoption and discussions of adoption issues, adoptive parents may better learn how to deal with special problems and enhance their parenting skills by sharing experiences with others in similar circumstances. Active participation of adoptive parents in such conferences may result in improved adoption planning and policy development through their advisory relationships with public agencies, and thereby assist in extending and strengthening adoption services to children and adoptive parents.

Some States include payment for insurance coverage in the monthly foster care payment to foster parents; others provide the protection through a group insurance policy or through the State's self-insuring procedures. Using self-insurance, the State may be able to provide broad coverage at low cost.

Some States include payment for insurance coverage in the monthly foster care payment to foster parents; others provide the protection through a group insurance policy or through the State''s self-insuring procedures. Using self-insurance, the State may be able to provide broad coverage at low cost.

Several States have responded to these concerns by providing coverage for foster parents under a "pooled" liability program which provides in effect a self-insurance for departments of State government. Other States have legislated or otherwise defined foster parents as employees or as persons acting on behalf of the State, thus providing protection to those persons for claims made against them as agents of the State. Some States have purchased insurance coverage for foster parents, although the policies available often do not cover all of the risks incurred.

Several States have responded to these concerns by providing coverage for foster parents under a "pooled" liability program which provides in effect a self-insurance for departments of State government. Other States have legislated or otherwise defined foster parents as employees or as persons acting on behalf of the State, thus providing protection to those persons for claims made against them as agents of the State. Some States have purchased insurance coverage for foster parents, although the policies available often do not cover all of the risks incurred.

States and Tribes receiving title IV-B child welfare services funds have the flexibility and discretion to allocate these and other resources within the context of a total child welfare services plan. A child welfare services plan, however, may not be designed or implemented in such a way as to discriminate against any group based on race, age, or ethnicity, either directly or through geographic or other proximate exclusions.

States and Tribes receiving title IV-B child welfare services funds have the flexibility and discretion to allocate these and other resources within the context of a total child welfare services plan. A child welfare services plan, however, may not be designed or implemented in such a way as to discriminate against any group based on race, age, or ethnicity, either directly or through geographic or other proximate exclusions.

The fair hearing provision at section 471(a)(12) of the Act provides for granting an opportunity for a fair hearing to any individual whose claim for benefits available pursuant to this part is denied or not acted upon with reasonable promptness. The benefit under the title IV-E foster care maintenance payments program is provided to eligible children.

The fair hearing provision at section 471(a)(12) of the Act provides for granting an opportunity for a fair hearing??to any individual whose claim for benefits available pursuant to this part is denied or not acted upon with reasonable promptness.? The benefit under the title IV-E foster care maintenance payments program is provided to eligible children.

In cases where the State has placement and care responsibility for both the minor parent and the child, title IV-E eligibility would have to be determined individually for each. Likewise, if a minor parent leaves the foster home and does not take the child, the child?s eligibility for foster care then would be based upon his or her individual circumstances. In addition, the State would have to obtain responsibility for placement and care of the child through either a voluntary placement agreement or a court order with the required judicial determinations. Once the child of a minor parent is in foster care, the requirements of the case review system at section 475(5) of the Act apply.

When a child is placed with his/her minor parent without placement and care responsibility by the State, no administrative costs may be claimed on her/his behalf because s/he is not eligible for nor a recipient of title IV-E foster care maintenance payments. The State is merely increasing the amount of the title IV-E foster care maintenance payment made on behalf of the eligible minor parent to accommodate the board and care of the child. In situations where the eligibility of the minor parent and his/her infant are determined separately and both are placed in foster care, the State may claim administrative costs for the child because s/he is eligible for and receiving title IV-E maintenance payments in her/his own right.

Section 472(h) of the Act makes clear that a child whose costs are covered by the title IV-E payment made with respect to the minor parent is a child with respect to whom foster care maintenance payments are made under title IV-E and is thus eligible for medical assistance and social services under titles XIX and XX.

In cases where the State has placement and care responsibility for both the minor parent and child, and has placed them in different foster homes, title IV-E eligibility would have to be determined individually for each. Likewise, if a minor parent leaves the foster home and does not take the child, the child''s eligibility for foster care then would be based upon his or her individual circumstances. In addition, the State would have to obtain responsibility for placement and care of the child through either a voluntary placement agreement or a court order with the required judicial determinations. Once the child is placed separately from the minor parent, s/he is considered to be in foster care and the requirements of the case review system at section 475(5) of the Act apply.

When a child is placed with his/her minor parent, no administrative costs may be claimed on her/his behalf because s/he is not eligible for nor a recipient of title IV-E foster care maintenance payments. The State is merely increasing the amount of the title IV-E foster care maintenance payment made on behalf of the eligible minor parent to accommodate the board and care of the child. In situations where the eligibility of the minor parent and his/her infant is determined separately and the two are placed separately, the State may claim administrative costs for the child because s/he is eligible for and receiving title IV-E maintenance payments in her/his own right.

Section 472 (h) of the Act makes clear that the child whose costs are covered by the title IV-E payment made with respect to the parent shall be considered a child with respect to whom foster care maintenance payments are made under title IV-E and is thus eligible for medical assistance and social services under titles XIX and XX.

that the child's needs and interests be addressed during the six-month periodic reviews and permanency hearings held on behalf of the minor parent. However, the State is not required to satisfy these requirements independently on behalf of the child because s/he has not been removed from her/his biological parent and; therefore, pursuant to Federal law and regulations, is not in foster care.

In cases where the State has placement and care responsibility for both the minor parent and child, and has placed them in different foster homes, title IV-E eligibility would have to be determined individually for each. Likewise, if a minor parent leaves the foster home and does not take the child, the child's eligibility for foster care then would be based upon his or her individual circumstances. In addition, the State would have to obtain responsibility for placement and care of the child through either a voluntary placement agreement or a court order with the required judicial determinations. Once the child is placed separately from the minor parent, s/he is considered to be in foster care and the requirements of the case review system at section 475(5) of the Act apply.

When a child is placed with his/her minor parent, no administrative costs may be claimed on her/his behalf because s/he is not eligible for nor a recipient of title IV-E foster care maintenance payments. The State is merely increasing the amount of the title IV-E foster care maintenance payment made on behalf of the eligible minor parent to accommodate the board and care of the child. In situations where the eligibility of the minor parent and his/her infant is determined separately and the two

are placed separately, the State may claim administrative costs for the child because s/he is eligible for and receiving title IV-E maintenance payments in her/his own right.

Section 473 (a)(2) of the Act provides that the child whose costs in a foster family home or child-care institution are covered by the title IV-E foster care payment made with respect to the parent is eligible for adoption assistance under title IV-E, if determined by the State to be a child with special needs under section 473 (c).

Section 472 (h) of the Act makes clear that the child whose costs are covered by the title IV-E payment made with respect to the parent shall be considered a child with respect to whom foster care maintenance payments are made under title IV-E and is thus eligible for medical assistance and social services under titles XIX and XX.

The State may share confidential child abuse and neglect reports and records that are made and maintained in accordance with CAPTA with any of the following:

In addition, States have the option to allow public access to court proceedings that determine child abuse and neglect cases, so long as the State, at a minimum, can ensure the safety and well-being of the child, parents and families (see the last paragraph of section 106(b)(2) of CAPTA).

The State must provide certain otherwise confidential child abuse and neglect information to the following:

Authorized recipients of confidential child abuse and neglect information are bound by the same confidentiality restrictions as the child protective services agency. Thus, recipients of such information must use the information only for activities related to the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect. Further disclosure is permitted only in accordance with the CAPTA standards.

There may be other Federal confidentiality restrictions for the State to consider when implementing the confidentiality provisions under CAPTA.

The only exception to the restrictions on disclosure of otherwise confidential child abuse and neglect information is in cases of child abuse or neglect that result in the death or near death of a child. In such cases, CAPTA requires public disclosure of the findings and information about the case.

There are two circumstances in which information contained in child abuse and neglect reports and records, which are typically kept confidential, may be shared with the public. First, a State must release findings or information to the public about a case of child abuse or neglect which results in a child's death or near fatality consistent with section 106(b)(2)(A)(x) of CAPTA. Additionally, a State may open court proceedings that determine child abuse and neglect to the public (see the last paragraph of section 106(b)(2) of CAPTA).

There may be other Federal confidentiality restrictions for the State to consider when implementing the confidentiality provisions under CAPTA.

The CAPTA language strikes a delicate balance between protecting the privacy rights of individuals and the release of CPS records when there is a legitimate State purpose for the disclosure. In creating this balance, it is clear that the Congress did not intend that all records be made public.

to carry out its responsibilities under law to protect children from abuse and neglect, so that disclosure as described under subsection (viii)(II) is mandatory. Likewise, in accordance with section 106(c)(5)(A), the State must provide a citizen review panel with access to information on cases that the panel needs to review if the information is necessary for the panel to carry out its functions. Further, section 106(b)(2)(A)(x) of CAPTA requires States to allow for public disclosure of the findings or information of the case of child abuse or neglect that results in a child fatality or near fatality. Thus, the disclosure described in subsection (viii)(IV) also is required. Otherwise, States are permitted, but not required, to disclose information to the persons or entities in the enumerated categories.

There may be other Federal confidentiality restrictions for the State to consider when implementing the confidentiality provisions under CAPTA.

There may be instances where CPS information is subject both to disclosure requirements under CAPTA and to the confidentiality requirements under title IV-E and 45 CFR 205.50. To the extent that the CAPTA provisions require disclosure (such as in section 106(b)(2)(A)(ix) to other governmental entities), the CAPTA disclosure provision would prevail in the event of a conflict since the CAPTA confidentiality provisions were most recently enacted. However, where the CAPTA provision is permissive ( such as to the public in open courts as described in the last paragraph of section 106(b)(2)), it allows States to disclose such information without violating CAPTA, but it does not make such disclosure permissible in other programs if it is not otherwise allowed under the other program's governing statute or regulations.

There may be instances where CPS information is subject both to disclosure requirements under CAPTA and to the confidentiality requirements under title IV-E and 45 CFR 205.50. To the extent that the CAPTA provisions require disclosure (such as in section 106 (b)(2)(A)(vi), the CAPTA disclosure provision would prevail in the event of a conflict since the CAPTA confidentiality provisions were most recently enacted. Whereas the CAPTA provision is permissive (such as in sections 106 (b)(2)(A)(v)(I)-(VI)), it allows States to disclose such information without violating CAPTA, but it does not make such disclosure permissible in other programs if it is not otherwise allowed under the other program''s governing statute or regulations.

There may be instances where CPS information is subject both to disclosure requirements under CAPTA and to the confidentiality requirements under title IV-E and 45 CFR 205.50. To the extent that the CAPTA provisions require disclosure (such as in section 106 (b)(2)(A)(vi), the CAPTA disclosure provision would prevail in the event of a conflict since the CAPTA confidentiality provisions were most recently enacted. Whereas the CAPTA provision is permissive (such as in sections 106 (b)(2)(A)(v)(I)-(VI)), it allows States to disclose such information without violating CAPTA, but it does not make such disclosure permissible in other programs if it is not otherwise allowed under the other program''s governing statute or regulations.

Foster Care: Although eligibility for title IV-E foster care is tied to eligibility for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as was in effect on July 16, 1996 and AFDC precluded concurrent eligibility for payments from AFDC and title XVI (section 402 (a)(24) of the Social Security Act), this preclusion rule is not transferable to title IV-E for the purposes of foster care maintenance payment eligibility determinations. A child, if eligible, may receive benefits from both programs simultaneously.

In cases where the child is eligible for both SSI and title IV-E and there is concurrent receipt of payments from both programs, "the child's SSI payment will be reduced dollar for dollar without application of any exclusion", thus decreasing the SSI benefit by the amount of the title IV-E payment (SSI Program Operations Manual). To reiterate, concurrent receipt is subject to the SSI rule that the SSI payment will be reduced by the amount of the foster care payment.

Adoption Assistance: In the Adoption Assistance program, the applicant may choose to apply for either or both SSI and adoption assistance. Concurrent receipt of benefits from the adoption assistance program and SSI is not prohibited under title IV-E (section 473).

Section 473 of title IV-E created an adoption assistance program which permits Federal matching funds for the costs of adoption assistance for the purpose of encouraging the placement of eligible children in adoptive homes. Under title IV-E adoption assistance (section 473), the scope of eligibility includes children with special needs who are eligible to receive SSI as well as those eligible for AFDC and title IV-E foster care. The statute's intention to extend the program of adoption assistance is clearly stated in section 473 (a)(2)(A)(i)(II): "Each State...shall...make adoption assistance payments...to parents...who... adopt a child who...(II) meets all of the requirements of title XVI with respect to eligibility for supplemental security income benefits...."

The adoptive parents of the child eligible to receive title IV-E adoption assistance payments and SSI benefits may make application for both programs and the child, if eligible, may receive benefits from both programs. In considering the most appropriate choice of programs and deciding whether to make application for one or both, the adoptive parents should be aware of the differences between SSI and the Adoption Assistance Program.

Title XVI (SSI) is a needs based program and, as such, requires a test of income and resources of the adoptive parents in determining the amount of the SSI benefit to which a disabled child may be entitled. If (or when) the parental resources and income exceed a maximum level determined by SSI, the child is no longer eligible for SSI payments.

In cases where the income and resources of the adoptive parents do not affect the child's eligibility for SSI and there is concurrent receipt of payments from both programs, SSI will then count dollar-for-dollar the amount of title IV-E adoption assistance paid to the parents, thus decreasing the SSI benefit by the amount of the adoption assistance payment.

In the Adoption Assistance Program, the amount of the adoption assistance payment is determined after taking into consideration the circumstances of the adopting parents and the needs of the child being adopted. While the child's SSI benefit would be a consideration in the negotiation of the amount of the adoption assistance payment as part of the determination of the needs of the child being adopted, this income would not generate an automatic reduction in any standardized payment amount, as in the SSI program.

The amount agreed upon by the adoptive parents and the administering agency is limited, however, to the amount of the foster care maintenance payment which would have been paid if the child had been in a foster family home (section 473 (a)(3)).

Because there are many complexities and financial implications for the States as well as the adoptive families, it is important for all parties to discuss all aspects of a combination of SSI and adoption assistance at the time the adoption assistance agreement is negotiated. Such discussions could include, in addition to the adoptive parents, representatives from title IV-E and title XVI programs.

With full knowledge of the SSI and Adoption Assistance programs, the adoptive parents can then make an informed decision about application for or receipt of benefits from either or both programs for which they or the child are eligible. They should be advised, however, that if they decline title IV-E adoption assistance and choose to receive only SSI for the child, and if they do not execute an adoption assistance agreement before the adoption is finalized and do not receive adoption assistance payments pursuant to such an agreement, they may not later receive title IV-E adoption assistance payments, as the child would no longer meet all of the eligibility requirements as a child with special needs (section 473 (c)(2)).

Foster Care: Although eligibility for title IV-E foster care is tied to eligibility for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as was in effect on July 16, 1996 and AFDC precluded concurrent eligibility for payments from AFDC and title XVI (section 402 (a)(24) of the Social Security Act), this preclusion rule is not transferable to title IV-E for the purposes of foster care maintenance payment eligibility determinations. A child, if eligible, may receive benefits from both programs simultaneously.

In cases where the child is eligible for both SSI and title IV-E and there is concurrent receipt of payments from both programs, "the child''s SSI payment will be reduced dollar for dollar without application of any exclusion", thus decreasing the SSI benefit by the amount of the title IV-E payment (SSI Program Operations Manual). To reiterate, concurrent receipt is subject to the SSI rule that the SSI payment will be reduced by the amount of the foster care payment.

Adoption Assistance: In the Adoption Assistance program, the applicant may choose to apply for either or both SSI and adoption assistance. Concurrent receipt of benefits from the adoption assistance program and SSI is not prohibited under title IV-E (section 473).

Section 473 of title IV-E created an adoption assistance program which permits Federal matching funds for the costs of adoption assistance for the purpose of encouraging the placement of eligible children in adoptive homes. Under title IV-E adoption assistance (section 473), the scope of eligibility includes children with special needs who are eligible to receive SSI as well as those eligible for AFDC and title IV-E foster care. The statute''s intention to extend the program of adoption assistance is clearly stated in section 473 (a)(1)(A)(ii): "Each State...shall...make adoption assistance payments...to parents...who... adopt a child who...(ii) meets all of the requirements of title XVI with respect to eligibility for supplemental security income benefits...."

The adoptive parents of the child eligible to receive title IV-E adoption assistance payments and SSI benefits may make application for both programs and the child, if eligible, may receive benefits from both programs. In considering the most appropriate choice of

programs and deciding whether to make application for one or both, the adoptive parents should be aware of the differences between SSI and the Adoption Assistance Program.

Title XVI (SSI) is a needs based program and, as such, requires a test of income and resources of the adoptive parents in determining the amount of the SSI benefit to which a disabled child may be entitled. If (or when) the parental resources and income exceed a maximum level determined by SSI, the child is no longer eligible for SSI payments.

In cases where the income and resources of the adoptive parents do not affect the child''s eligibility for SSI and there is concurrent receipt of payments from both programs, SSI will then count dollar-for-dollar the amount of title IV-E adoption assistance paid to the parents, thus decreasing the SSI benefit by the amount of the adoption assistance payment.

In the Adoption Assistance Program, the amount of the adoption assistance payment is determined after taking into consideration the circumstances of the adopting parents and the needs of the child being adopted. While the child''s SSI benefit would be a consideration in the negotiation of the amount of the adoption assistance payment as part of the determination of the needs of the child being adopted, this income would not generate an automatic reduction in any standardized payment amount, as in the SSI program. The amount agreed upon by the adoptive parents and the administering agency is limited, however, to the amount of the foster care maintenance payment which would have been paid if the child had been in a foster family home (section 473 (a)(2)).

Because there are many complexities and financial implications for the States as well as the adoptive families, it is important for all parties to discuss all aspects of a combination of SSI and adoption assistance at the time the adoption assistance agreement is negotiated. Such discussions could include, in addition to the adoptive parents, representatives from title IV-E and title XVI programs.

With full knowledge of the SSI and Adoption Assistance programs, the adoptive parents can then make an informed decision about application for or receipt of benefits from either or both programs for which they or the child are eligible. They should be advised, however, that if they decline title IV-E adoption assistance and choose to receive only SSI for the child, and if they do not execute an adoption assistance agreement before the adoption is finalized and do not receive adoption assistance payments pursuant to such an agreement, they may not later receive title IV-E adoption assistance payments, as the child would no longer meet all of the eligibility requirements as a child with special needs (section 473 (c)(2)).

[A] Detention facility in the context of the definition of child care institution in section 472 (c)(2) of the [Social Security] Act means a physically restricting facility for the care of children who require secure custody pending court adjudication, court disposition, execution of a court order or after commitment.

It is clear that States may not claim title IV-E for a child if the facility is "physically restrictive" in that it is used primarily to detain children who require secure custody. If a facility is not used primarily for this purpose, but the facility has some restrictions for the benefit or safety of the child, then the State may make title IV-E claims on behalf of an otherwise eligible child placed there.

While the State may claim title IV-E for a child placed in a child care institution that is secured for his or her benefit or safety, we want to note one caveat. The Departmental Appeals Board (California Department of Social Services Decision No. 960) noted in its decision that "a mixture of detention and treatment is common in juvenile law." Adding a treatment component to a facility that is used primarily to secure delinquent children does not render the child care institution consistent with the strictures of title IV-E.

[A] Detention facility in the context of the definition of child care institution in section 472 (c)(2) of the [Social Security] Act means a physically restricting facility for the care of children who require secure custody pending court adjudication, court disposition, execution of a court order or after commitment.

It is clear that States may not claim title IV-E for a child if the facility is ?physically restrictive? in that it is used primarily to detain children who require secure custody. If a facility is not used primarily for this purpose, but the facility has some restrictions for the benefit or safety of the child, then the State may make title IV-E claims on behalf of an otherwise eligible child placed there.

While the State may claim title IV-E for a child placed in a child care institution that is secured for his or her benefit or safety, we want to note one caveat. The Departmental Appeals Board (California Department of Social Services Decision No. 960) noted in its decision that "a mixture of detention and treatment is common in juvenile law." Adding a treatment component to a facility that is used primarily to secure delinquent children does not render the child care institution consistent with the strictures of title IV-E.

[A] Detention facility in the context of the definition of child care institution in section 472 (c)(2) of the [Social Security] Act means a physically restricting facility for the care of children who require secure custody pending court adjudication, court disposition, execution of a court order or after commitment.

It is clear that States may not claim title IV-E for a child if the facility is ?physically restrictive? in that it is used primarily to detain children who require secure custody. If a facility is not used primarily for this purpose, but the facility has some restrictions for the benefit or safety of the child, then the State may make title IV-E claims on behalf of an otherwise eligible child placed there.

While the State may claim title IV-E for a child placed in a child care institution that is secured for his or her benefit or safety, we want to note one caveat. The Departmental Appeals Board (California Department of Social Services Decision No. 960) noted in its decision that "a mixture of detention and treatment is common in juvenile law." Adding a treatment component to a facility that is used primarily to secure delinquent children does not render the child care institution consistent with the strictures of title IV-E.

[A] Detention facility in the context of the definition of child care institution in section 472 (c)(2) of the [Social Security] Act means a physically restricting facility for the care of children who require secure custody pending court adjudication, court disposition, execution of a court order or after commitment.

It is clear that States may not claim title IV-E for a child if the facility is “physically restrictive” in that it is used primarily to detain children who require secure custody. If a facility is not used primarily for this purpose, but the facility has some restrictions for the benefit or safety of the child, then the State may make title IV-E claims on behalf of an otherwise eligible child placed there.

While the State may claim title IV-E for a child placed in a child care institution that is secured for his or her benefit or safety, we want to note one caveat. The Departmental Appeals Board (California Department of Social Services Decision No. 960) noted in its decision that "a mixture of detention and treatment is common in juvenile law." Adding a treatment component to a facility that is used primarily to secure delinquent children does not render the child care institution consistent with the strictures of title IV-E.

When the child is transferred to a facility that meets the requirements of section 472 (c) of the Act, Federal financial participation is available from the first day of placement in the month in which all title IV-E eligibility requirements are met.

When the child is transferred to a facility that meets the requirements of section 472 (c) of the Act, Federal financial participation is available from the first day of placement in the month in which all title IV-E eligibility requirements are met.

Violation of the Federal confidentiality provisions is a State plan compliance issue under title IV-E.

In addition to meeting the three-part criteria for special needs in section 473(c) of the Act, to be eligible for title IV-E adoption assistance, a child also must be eligible in one of the following manners: 1) Eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) at the time of the voluntary placement agreement or court removal petition; 2) Eligible for Supplemental Security Income; or, 3) foster care costs of the child are being covered by title IV-E foster care maintenance payments being made for his or her minor parent in foster care. Children who are adopted abroad, or are brought into the U.S. from other countries for the purpose of adoption, are not: 1) AFDC-eligible in their own homes (AFDC was a domestic program and therefore not available on behalf of children in their own homes in another country); 2) SSI-eligible (SSI cannot be established since a child who is adopted from another country cannot meet either the Social Security Administration's alien eligibility requirement or its "presence in the U.S." rule (requiring that an individual who has been outside the U.S. for 30 consecutive days must be present in the U.S. for 30 consecutive days to be eligible for SSI). The Child Citizenship Act of 2000, Public Law 106-395, impacts neither the SSI eligibility for children who are adopted from abroad nor the title IV-E adoption assistance eligibility for these children); or 3) eligible as a result of their minor parent's receipt of title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.

The above cited reasons, as well as the criteria that the child must meet in order to determine whether a child meets the definition of special needs make it highly improbable, if not virtually impossible, that a child adopted through an intercountry adoption will be eligible for title IV-E adoption assistance. Although it is highly improbable that children adopted through an intercountry adoption will meet the title IV-E adoption assistance requirements, States cannot in policy categorically exclude these children from consideration since the statute does not authorize such an exclusion. In the case of reimbursement of nonrecurring expenses of adoption, the State need only to determine that the child is a child with special needs, consistent with section 473(c) of the Act. Accordingly, if a child who is adopted from abroad meets the three criteria for special needs, the State must pay for the nonrecurring adoption expenses for these children, consistent with 45 CFR 1356.41, if requested by the parents prior to the finalization of the adoption.

In addition to meeting the three-part criteria for special needs in section 473 (c) of the Act, to be eligible for title IV-E adoption assistance, a child also must be eligible in one of the following manners:

1) Eligible for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) at the time of the voluntary placement agreement or court removal petition, and considered a dependent child at the time of the adoption petition; 2) Eligible for Supplemental Security Income in the month the adoption petition is filed; or 3) foster care costs of the child are being covered by title IV-E foster care maintenance payments being made for his or her minor parent in foster care.

Children who are adopted abroad, or are brought into the U.S. from other countries for the purpose of adoption, are not:

1) AFDC-eligible in their own homes (AFDC was a domestic program and therefore not available on behalf of children in their own homes in another country); 2) SSI-eligible in the month the adoption petition is filed (SSI cannot be established at the time the adoption petition is filed since a child who is adopted from another country cannot meet either the Social Security Administration''s alien eligibility requirement or its "presence in the U.S." rule (requiring that an individual who has been outside the U.S. for 30 consecutive days must be present in the U.S. for 30 consecutive days to be eligible for SSI). The Child Citizenship Act of 2000, Public Law 106-395, impacts neither the SSI eligibility for children who are adopted from abroad nor the title IV-E adoption assistance eligibility for these children); or 3) eligible as a result of their minor parent''s receipt of title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.

The above cited reasons, as well as the criteria that the child must meet in order to determine whether a child meets the definition of special needs make it highly improbable, if not virtually impossible, that a child adopted through an intercountry adoption will be eligible for title IV-E adoption assistance. Although it is highly improbable that children adopted through an intercountry adoption will meet the title IV-E adoption assistance requirements, States cannot in policy categorically exclude these children from consideration since the statute does not authorize such an exclusion.

In the case of reimbursement of nonrecurring expenses of adoption, the State need only to determine that the child is a child with special needs, consistent with section 473(c) of the Act. Accordingly, if a child who is adopted from abroad meets the three criteria for special needs, the State must pay for the nonrecurring adoption expenses for these children, consistent with 45 CFR 1356.41, if requested by the parents prior to the finalization of the adoption.

In cases where the State has placement and care responsibility for both the minor parent and child, and has placed them in different foster homes, title IV-E eligibility would have to be determined individually for each. Likewise, if a minor parent leaves the foster home and does not take the child, the child''s eligibility for foster care then would be based upon his or her individual circumstances. In addition, the State would have to obtain responsibility for placement and care of the child through either a voluntary placement agreement or a court order with the required judicial determinations. Once the child is placed separately from the minor parent, s/he is considered to be in foster care and the requirements of the case review system at section 475(5) of the Act apply.

When a child is placed with his/her minor parent, no administrative costs may be claimed on her/his behalf because s/he is not eligible for nor a recipient of title IV-E foster care maintenance payments. The State is merely increasing the amount of the title IV-E foster care maintenance payment made on behalf of the eligible minor parent to accommodate the board and care of the child. In situations where the eligibility of the minor parent and his/her infant is determined separately and the two are placed separately, the State may claim administrative costs for the child because s/he is eligible for and receiving title IV-E maintenance payments in her/his own right.

Section 473 (a)(2) of the Act provides that the child whose costs in a foster family home or child-care institution are covered by the title IV-E foster care payment made with respect to the parent is eligible for adoption assistance under title IV-E, if determined by the State to be a child with special needs under section 473 (c).

Section 472 (h) of the Act makes clear that the child whose costs are covered by the title IV-E payment made with respect to the parent shall be considered a child with respect to whom foster care maintenance payments are made under title IV-E and is thus eligible for medical assistance and social services under titles XIX and XX.

Since the issue for Congress is disclosure of information regarding cases that are unsubstantiated or unfounded, this requirement should not adversely affect a State's ability to determine possible cumulative harm. For instance, a State could choose to implement a system which would consider an unsubstantiated case "expunged" for any purpose other than investigation of a new report. This should be possible even in States where casework files are computerized.

Since the issue for Congress is disclosure of information regarding cases that are unsubstantiated or unfounded, this requirement should not adversely affect a State''s ability to determine possible cumulative harm. For instance, a State could choose to implement a system which would consider an unsubstantiated case "expunged" for any purpose other than investigation of a new report. This should be possible even in States where casework files are computerized.

Since the issue for Congress is disclosure of information regarding cases that are unsubstantiated or unfounded, this requirement should not adversely affect a State''s ability to determine possible cumulative harm. For instance, a State could choose to implement a system which would consider an unsubstantiated case "expunged" for any purpose other than investigation of a new report. This should be possible even in States where casework files are computerized.

Although the permanency hearing may serve as the mechanism for obtaining the judicial determination of reasonable efforts to finalize/achieve a permanency plan, there is no requirement that the judicial determination be made at a permanency hearing. The court may make such a judicial determination, based upon evidence presented to it by the State, without a formal hearing.

At a minimum, States are required to include as an ?unemployed parent? an individual who is employed less than 100 hours per month, or exceeds that standard for a particular month if the work is intermittent and the excess work is temporary. Such work may be considered temporary if the unemployed parent worked fewer than 100 hours in the preceding two months and is expected to work fewer than 100 hours in the following month (see 45 CFR 233.101(a)(1)). States are constrained by this definition in order to preserve Medicaid and title IV-E eligibility for any individuals who would have been eligible under the AFDC rules previously in effect (see 63 FR 42270 - 42272, August 7, 1998). States are not required to establish a broader definition of ?unemployed parent? but may do so.

At a minimum, States are required to include as an ?unemployed parent? an individual who is employed less than 100 hours per month, or exceeds that standard for a particular month if the work is intermittent and the excess work is temporary. Such work may be considered temporary if the unemployed parent worked fewer than 100 hours in the preceding two months and is expected to work fewer than 100 hours in the following month (see 45 CFR 233.101(a)(1)). States are constrained by this definition in order to preserve Medicaid and title IV-E eligibility for any individuals who would have been eligible under the AFDC rules previously in effect (see 63 FR 42270 - 42272, August 7, 1998). States are not required to establish a broader definition of ?unemployed parent? but may do so.

At a minimum, States are required to include as an “unemployed parent” an individual who is employed less than 100 hours per month, or exceeds that standard for a particular month if the work is intermittent and the excess work is temporary. Such work may be considered temporary if the unemployed parent worked fewer than 100 hours in the preceding two months and is expected to work fewer than 100 hours in the following month (see 45 CFR 233.101(a)(1)). States are constrained by this definition in order to preserve Medicaid and title IV-E eligibility for any individuals who would have been eligible under the AFDC rules previously in effect (see 63 FR 42270 - 42272, August 7, 1998). States are not required to establish a broader definition of “unemployed parent” but may do so.

We do not interpret the term "consult" to require a court representative to pose a literal question to a child or require the physical presence of the child at a permanency hearing. However, the child's views on the child's permanency or transition plan must be obtained by the court for consideration during the hearing. For example, a report to the court in preparation for a permanency hearing that clearly identifies the child?s views regarding the proposed permanency or transition plan for the child could meet the requirement. Also, an attorney, caseworker, or guardian ad litem who verbally reports the child?s views to the court could also meet the requirement. Information that is provided to the court regarding the child?s best interests alone are not sufficient to meet this requirement. Ultimately, if the court is not satisfied that it has obtained the views of the child through these or any other mechanism, it could request that the child be in the courtroom, or make other arrangements to obtain the child's views on his/her permanency or transition plan.

We do not interpret the term ?consult? to require a court representative to pose a literal question to a child or require the physical presence of the child at a permanency hearing. However, the child?s views on the child?s permanency or transition plan must be obtained by the court for consideration during the hearing. For example, a report to the court in preparation for a permanency hearing that clearly identifies the child?s views regarding the proposed permanency or transition plan for the child could meet the requirement. Also, an attorney, caseworker, or guardian ad litem who verbally reports the child?s views to the court could also meet the requirement. Information that is provided to the court regarding the child?s best interests alone are not sufficient to meet this requirement. Ultimately, if the court is not satisfied that it has obtained the views of the child through these or any other mechanism, it could request that the child be in the courtroom, or make other arrangements to obtain the child''s views on his/her permanency or transition plan.

However, if a State has separate licenses or approvals for foster and adoptive parents, then the State must comply with section 471(a)(20) of the Act prior to licensing or approving the foster parent as an adoptive parent. Consistent with the Child Welfare Policy Manual 8.4F Q/A #13, if the State has established an appropriate timeframe that a background check remains valid and such timeframe has not expired for the foster parent seeking approval as an adoptive parent, the State can consider the requirement of section 471(a)(20) of the Act met without conducting a new background check.

The three acceptable methods of documentation indicating that a child is a candidate for foster care benefits are: (l) A defined case plan which clearly indicates that, absent effective preventive services, foster care is the planned arrangement for the child, (2) an eligibility determination form which has been completed to establish the child's eligibility under title IV-E, or (3) evidence of court proceedings in relation to the removal of the child from the home, in the form of a petition to the court, a court order or a transcript of the court's proceedings.

Should the State determine that the child is no longer a candidate for foster care at any point prior to the removal of the child from his home, subsequent activities will not be allowable for reimbursement of costs under title IV-E.

The three acceptable methods of documentation indicating that a child is a candidate for foster care benefits are: (l) A defined case plan which clearly indicates that, absent effective preventive services, foster care is the planned arrangement for the child, (2) an eligibility determination form which has been completed to establish the child''s eligibility under title IV-E, or (3) evidence of court proceedings in relation to the removal of the child from the home, in the form of a petition to the court, a court order or a transcript of the court''s proceedings.

Should the State determine that the child is no longer a candidate for foster care at any point prior to the removal of the child from his home, subsequent activities will not be allowable for reimbursement of costs under title IV-E.

Adherences to the regulatory case plan provisions increase the likelihood that the plan will be effective, either in preventing or pursuing the removal of the child from the home. Nonetheless, State claims for administrative costs on behalf of candidates for foster care are not based on the completeness of the case plan. While we expect the case plan requirements that apply to a candidate to be met, the State may claim administrative costs in the month that it determines and documents a child is a candidate for foster care consistent with section 472(i)(2) of the Act (see Section 8.1C QA #5 of the Child Welfare Policy Manual).

The requirements for case plans developed pursuant to section 471(a)(16) of the Act are set forth in regulation at 45 CFR 1356.21(g). The provisions at 45 CFR 1356.21(g) are, therefore, to the extent that they are applicable to pre-placement, controlling with respect to case plans used to document candidacy for foster care. Specifically, the provisions at 45 CFR 1356.21(g)(1) and (4) apply. The case plan used to document a child''s candidacy for foster care must be a written document that is developed jointly with the parent(s) or guardian of the child and include a description of the services offered and provided to prevent removal of the child from the home. In addition, the State must document, in said plan, that the goal for the child is foster care if the services described in the plan are not effective.

• youth who have not yet reached the State's legal age of majority; and
• youth who have attained 18 years of age, but not yet 19 years of age on whose behalf the State is providing title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.

Pursuant to long-standing Departmental policy, States are instructed to exclude those youth who are considered to be adults in a State from the child protection requirements in section 422 of the Act and AFCARS reporting requirements. However, youth who receive title IV-E foster care maintenance payments must be reported to AFCARS and be provided the section 422 protections regardless of whether they have reached the legal age of majority in the State.

The regulations at 45 CFR 1356.60 specify what is considered a training cost and what is considered an administrative expense under title IV-E. Section 1356.60 (c) further explains that the State's cost allocation plan shall identify which costs are allocated and claimed under title IV-E. With regard to costs of educational programs (approved by the State agency) leading to a baccalaureate or graduate degree, the regulations clearly indicate that training to prepare persons who are employed or about to be employed by the State agency administering the title IV-E plan can include such long-term training. Grants to the institution or to the person attending the institution are reimbursable at a Federal matching rate of 75 percent. (See 45 CFR 1356.60 (b)(1)(i), 235.63 (c) and 235.64 (c) for further clarification.)

Under section 474 (a)(3)(B) of the Act, federal financial participation is available at 75 percent "...for the short-term training of current or prospective foster or adoptive parents and the members of the staff of State-licensed or State-approved child care institutions providing care to foster and adopted children receiving assistance under this part, in ways that increase the ability of such current or prospective parents, staff members, and institutions to provide support and assistance to foster and adopted children, whether incurred directly by the State or by contract."

Costs matchable as training expenditures under this provision may include: (1) travel, per diem, tuition, books and registration fees for trainees; (2) salaries, fringe benefits, travel and per diem for staff development personnel assigned to training functions to the extent time is spent performing such functions; (3) salaries, fringe benefits, travel and per diem for experts outside the agency engaged to develop or conduct training programs; and (4) costs of space, postage, training supplies, and purchase or development of training material. Costs not allowable for trainees under this provision include salaries and fringe benefits.

Federal regulations at 45 CFR 1356.60 (b)(2) require that all training activities and costs funded under title IV-E must be included in the State agency's training plan for title IV-B. States will be reimbursed under title IV-E for such costs only if the activities and costs are described and included in the State's jointly developed and approved title IV-B plan.

All training costs must be allocated to Title IV-E, State foster care and other State/Federal programs in such a manner as to ensure that the cost is charged to the program in accordance with the relative benefits that the program receives from the training. States may determine the manner in which they allocate costs but must do so in accordance with the principles delineated at OMB Circular A-87 (also located at 2 C.F.R. ? 225).

• Eligibility determinations and re-determinations
• Fair hearings and appeals
• Rate setting
• Referral to services
• Preparation for and participation in judicial determinations
• Placement of the child
• Development of the case plan
• Case reviews
• Case management and supervision
• Recruitment and licensing of foster homes and institutions

Additional examples of allowable administrative activities specifically applicable to the title IV-E adoption assistance program include, but are not limited to:

• Grievance procedures
• Negotiation and review of adoption assistance agreements
• Post-placement management of subsidy payments
• Home studies
• A proportionate share of the development and use of adoption exchanges

There are many training topics that are closely related to these title IV-E allowable activities that the State may train its workers on and claim at the 75 percent rate. The following are some examples:

• Social work practice, such as family centered practice and social work methods including interviewing and assessment.
• Cultural competency related to children and families.
• Title IV-E policies and procedures.
• Child abuse and neglect issues, such as the impact of child abuse and neglect on a child, and general overviews of the issues involved in child abuse and neglect investigations, if the training is not related to how to conduct an investigation of child abuse and neglect.
• Permanency planning including using kinship care as a resource for children involved with the child welfare system.
• General substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues related to children and families in the child welfare system, if the training is not related to providing treatment or services.
• Effects of separation, grief and loss, child development, and visitation.
• Communication skills required to work with children and families.
• Activities designed to preserve, strengthen, and reunify the family, if the training is not related to providing treatment or services.
• Assessments to determine whether a situation requires a child?s removal from the home, if the training is not related directly to conducting a child abuse and neglect investigation. Training on how to conduct specialized assessments such as psychiatric, medical or educational assessments are not permitted.
• Ethics training associated with a title IV-E State plan requirement, such as the confidentiality requirements in section 471(a)(8) of the Act.
• Contract negotiation, monitoring or voucher processing related to the IV-E program.
• Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) or other child welfare automated system functionality that is closely related to allowable administrative activities in accordance with 45 CFR 1356.60(d) that the State has chosen to claim as title IV-E training rather than as SACWIS developmental or operational costs (see AT-ACF-OISM-001).
• Independent living and the issues confronting adolescents preparing for independent living consistent with section 477(b)(3)(D) of the Act and the Child Welfare Policy Manual (CWPM), Section 3.1H, Q/A #1.
• Foster care candidate determinations and pre-placement activities directed toward reasonable efforts in 471(a)(15), if the training is not related to providing a service.
• Training on referrals to services, not how to perform the service.

• Eligibility determinations and re-determinations
• Fair hearings and appeals
• Rate setting
• Referral to services
• Preparation for and participation in judicial determinations
• Placement of the child
• Development of the case plan
• Case reviews
• Case management and supervision
• Recruitment and licensing of foster homes and institutions

Additional examples of allowable administrative activities specifically applicable to the title IV-E adoption assistance program include, but are not limited to:

• Grievance procedures
• Negotiation and review of adoption assistance agreements
• Post-placement management of subsidy payments
• Home studies
• A proportionate share of the development and use of adoption exchanges

There are many training topics that are closely related to these title IV-E allowable activities that the State may train its workers on and claim at the 75 percent rate. The following are some examples:

• Social work practice, such as family centered practice and social work methods including interviewing and assessment.
• Cultural competency related to children and families.
• Title IV-E policies and procedures.
• Child abuse and neglect issues, such as the impact of child abuse and neglect on a child, and general overviews of the issues involved in child abuse and neglect investigations, if the training is not related to how to conduct an investigation of child abuse and neglect.
• Permanency planning including using kinship care as a resource for children involved with the child welfare system.
• General substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues related to children and families in the child welfare system, if the training is not related to providing treatment or services.
• Effects of separation, grief and loss, child development, and visitation.
• Communication skills required to work with children and families.
• Activities designed to preserve, strengthen, and reunify the family, if the training is not related to providing treatment or services.
• Assessments to determine whether a situation requires a child?s removal from the home, if the training is not related directly to conducting a child abuse and neglect investigation. Training on how to conduct specialized assessments such as psychiatric, medical or educational assessments are not permitted.
• Ethics training associated with a title IV-E State plan requirement, such as the confidentiality requirements in section 471(a)(8) of the Act.
• Contract negotiation, monitoring or voucher processing related to the IV-E program.
• Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) or other child welfare automated system functionality that is closely related to allowable administrative activities in accordance with 45 CFR 1356.60(d) that the State has chosen to claim as title IV-E training rather than as SACWIS developmental or operational costs (see AT-ACF-OISM-001).
• Independent living and the issues confronting adolescents preparing for independent living consistent with section 477(b)(3)(D) of the Act and the Child Welfare Policy Manual (CWPM), Section 3.1H, Q/A #1.
• Foster care candidate determinations and pre-placement activities directed toward reasonable efforts in 471(a)(15), if the training is not related to providing a service.
• Training on referrals to services, not how to perform the service.

• State agency personnel policies and procedures
• Job performance enhancement skills (e.g., writing, basic computer skills, time management)
• First aid, CPR, or facility security training
• General supervisory skills or other generic skills needed to perform specific jobs
• Ethics unrelated to the title IV-E State plan
• Team building and stress management training
• Safe driving
• Worker retention and worker safety

• State agency personnel policies and procedures
• Job performance enhancement skills (e.g., writing, basic computer skills, time management)
• First aid, CPR, or facility security training
• General supervisory skills or other generic skills needed to perform specific jobs
• Ethics unrelated to the title IV-E State plan
• Team building and stress management training
• Safe driving
• Worker retention and worker safety

In addition, the child must meet the need and deprivation requirements at the time of the adoption petition. Once a child is in foster care, need is based upon the resources available to the child. Hence, the resources available to the child must be below the $10,000 limit at the time of the adoption petition. After a child has been determined deprived in the home from which s/he is removed, a TPR can serve as proof of deprivation at the time of the petition.

For initial eligibility determinations, the State must apply the former AFDC program's two-step income test to establish whether a child would have been considered a "needy child" under the State's title IV-A plan in effect on July 16, 1996. In addition to the income test, the State must apply a test of resources. Both the two-step income and resources tests must be applied, in accordance with 45 CFR 233.20. ¹

Prior to the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, each State set its own AFDC need standard to use in determining eligibility for the program. The term "AFDC need standard" refers to the amount of money a State determined that a particular size family needed to subsist. For title IV-E purposes, the State's need standard as of July 16, 1996, (disregarding any Section 1115(a) waivers that may have been in effect on that date) is the amount that provides the basis for both steps in the initial income test portion of the AFDC eligibility determination process.

The two-step income test to determine financial need under AFDC to be conducted in accord with Federal requirements and the State plan as in effect on July 16, 1996, is as follows (see 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(xiii) and 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(ii)(F)):

Step One of the Income Test-Gross Income Limitation: The State determines if the family's gross income is less than 185 percent of the State's AFDC need standard, after applying appropriate disregards. ² If the family's gross income is more than 185 percent of the State's AFDC need standard, the child would have been ineligible for the program and, thus, is not eligible for title IV-E. If the family's gross income does not exceed 185 percent of the State's AFDC need standard, the State proceeds to the second step to continue the process of determining if a child is a needy child and would have been eligible for AFDC.

Step Two of the Income Test-Determination of Need: For this second step, the State compares the family's income, after applying further appropriate disregards, to 100 percent of the State's AFDC need standard, the same need standard used in step one. If the family's income is in excess of 100 percent of the State's need standard, the child would not have been eligible for AFDC and, thus, is not eligible for title IV-E. If the family's income does not exceed 100 percent of the need standard, the child would have met the AFDC income test for eligibility.

In addition to applying the two-step income test to determine if a child would have been considered a "needy child" under AFDC, the State must determine whether the child's family has resources under $10,000 in value, after appropriate disregards.³ Both the income and resources tests must be applied to the child and family in the removal home to determine initial eligibility for AFDC.

Redeterminations of title IV-E eligibility: Under AFDC, the two-step income test also applied to eligibility redeterminations. Since the 1980s, however, ACF has had policies in place that allow a State to use a slightly different process to redetermine a child's AFDC eligibility for the purpose of title IV-E. As stated in the Child Welfare Policy Manual at 8.4A #6, a State may choose to apply only the gross income limitation, which compares the child's income against 185 percent of the need standard. A State also may substitute a child's foster care need standard (formerly known as the "foster care payment rate") for the AFDC need standard when redetermining a child's eligibility. This policy remains in effect. Regardless of the income test the State applies, the $10,000 resources test also must be applied to redetermine a child's eligibility.

Under the AFDC foster care program, before the creation of title IV-E, a State used a child's foster care rate (referred to as the foster care need standard) as the need standard for redetermining the child's eligibility, rather than using the AFDC need standard. When AFDC was replaced by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in 1996, ACF issued policy (PIQ 96-01, Question #2) directing States to use the AFDC need standard for eligibility determinations, but did not explicitly prohibit the use of a child's foster care need standard for making redeterminations. Accordingly, States may use either the child's foster care need standard or the AFDC need standard for making redeterminations unless the Department issues a regulation that directs them otherwise.

¹ The two-step process has been in place since 1981. See the 1994 Green Book, 14th Edition, July 15, 1994, Section 10 for more details on the two-step process.

² The gross income limitation -the first step of the process- was increased from 150 percent to 185 percent of the need standard by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-369) and implemented through regulation at 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(xiii).

³ Public Law 106-169 increased the resource limit to $10,000. See the Child Welfare Policy Manual at 8.4A #15 for more information.

For initial eligibility determinations, the State must apply the former AFDC program''s two-step income test to establish whether a child would have been considered a "needy child" under the State''s title IV-A plan in effect on July 16, 1996. In addition to the income test, the State must apply a test of resources. Both the two-step income and resources tests must be applied, in accordance with 45 CFR 233.20. ¹

Prior to the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, each State set its own AFDC need standard to use in determining eligibility for the program. The term "AFDC need standard" refers to the amount of money a State determined that a particular size family needed to subsist. For title IV-E purposes, the State''s need standard as of July 16, 1996, (disregarding any Section 1115(a) waivers that may have been in effect on that date) is the amount that provides the basis for both steps in the initial income test portion of the AFDC eligibility determination process.

The two-step income test to determine financial need under AFDC to be conducted in accord with Federal requirements and the State plan as in effect on July 16, 1996, is as follows (see 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(xiii) and 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(ii)(F)):

Step One of the Income Test-Gross Income Limitation: The State determines if the family''s gross income is less than 185 percent of the State''s AFDC need standard, after applying appropriate disregards. ² If the family''s gross income is more than 185 percent of the State''s AFDC need standard, the child would have been ineligible for the program and, thus, is not eligible for title IV-E. If the family''s gross income does not exceed 185 percent of the State''s AFDC need standard, the State proceeds to the second step to continue the process of determining if a child is a needy child and would have been eligible for AFDC.

Step Two of the Income Test-Determination of Need: For this second step, the State compares the family''s income, after applying further appropriate disregards, to 100 percent of the State''s AFDC need standard, the same need standard used in step one. If the family''s income is in excess of 100 percent of the State''s need standard, the child would not have been eligible for AFDC and, thus, is not eligible for title IV-E. If the family''s income does not exceed 100 percent of the need standard, the child would have met the AFDC income test for eligibility.

In addition to applying the two-step income test to determine if a child would have been considered a "needy child" under AFDC, the State must determine whether the child''s family has resources under $10,000 in value, after appropriate disregards.³ Both the income and resources tests must be applied to the child and family in the removal home to determine initial eligibility for AFDC.

Redeterminations of title IV-E eligibility:

Under AFDC, the two-step income test also applied to eligibility redeterminations. Since the 1980s, however, ACF has had policies in place that allow a State to use a slightly different process to redetermine a child''s AFDC eligibility for the purpose of title IV-E. As stated in the Child Welfare Policy Manual at 8.4A #6, a State may choose to apply only the gross income limitation, which compares the child''s income against 185 percent of the need standard. A State also may substitute a child''s foster care need standard (formerly known as the "foster care payment rate") for the AFDC need standard when redetermining a child''s eligibility. This policy remains in effect. Regardless of the income test the State applies, the $10,000 resources test also must be applied to redetermine a child''s eligibility.

Under the AFDC foster care program, before the creation of title IV-E, a State used a child''s foster care rate (referred to as the foster care need standard) as the need standard for redetermining the child''s eligibility, rather than using the AFDC need standard. When AFDC was replaced by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in 1996, ACF issued policy (PIQ 96-01, Question #2) directing States to use the AFDC need standard for eligibility determinations, but did not explicitly prohibit the use of a child''s foster care need standard for making redeterminations. Accordingly, States may use either the child''s foster care need standard or the AFDC need standard for making redeterminations unless the Department issues a regulation that directs them otherwise.

¹ The two-step process has been in place since 1981. See the 1994 Green Book, 14th Edition, July 15, 1994, Section 10 for more details on the two-step process.

² The gross income limitation -the first step of the process- was increased from 150 percent to 185 percent of the need standard by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-369) and implemented through regulation at 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(xiii).

³ Public Law 106-169 increased the resource limit to $10,000. See the Child Welfare Policy Manual at 8.4A #15 for more information.

For initial eligibility determinations, the State must apply the former AFDC program?s two-step income test to establish whether a child would have been considered a "needy child" under the State?s title IV-A plan in effect on July 16, 1996. In addition to the income test, the State must apply a test of resources. Both the two-step income and resources tests must be applied, in accordance with 45 CFR 233.20. ¹

Prior to the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, each State set its own AFDC need standard to use in determining eligibility for the program. The term ?AFDC need standard? refers to the amount of money a State determined that a particular size family needed to subsist. For title IV-E purposes, the State?s need standard as of July 16, 1996, (disregarding any Section 1115(a) waivers that may have been in effect on that date) is the amount that provides the basis for both steps in the initial income test portion of the AFDC eligibility determination process.

The two-step income test to determine financial need under AFDC to be conducted in accord with Federal requirements and the State plan as in effect on July 16, 1996, is as follows (see 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(xiii) and 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(ii)(F)):

Step One of the Income Test?Gross Income Limitation: The State determines if the family''s gross income is less than 185 percent of the State''s AFDC need standard, after applying appropriate disregards. ² If the family''s gross income is more than 185 percent of the State''s AFDC need standard, the child would have been ineligible for the program and, thus, is not eligible for title IV-E. If the family''s gross income does not exceed 185 percent of the State''s AFDC need standard, the State proceeds to the second step to continue the process of determining if a child is a needy child and would have been eligible for AFDC.

Step Two of the Income Test?Determination of Need: For this second step, the State compares the family''s income, after applying further appropriate disregards, to 100 percent of the State''s AFDC need standard, the same need standard used in step one. If the family''s income is in excess of 100 percent of the State''s need standard, the child would not have been eligible for AFDC and, thus, is not eligible for title IV-E. If the family''s income does not exceed 100 percent of the need standard, the child would have met the AFDC income test for eligibility.

In addition to applying the two-step income test to determine if a child would have been considered a "needy child" under AFDC, the State must determine whether the child?s family has resources under $10,000 in value, after appropriate disregards.³ Both the income and resources tests must be applied to the child and family in the removal home to determine initial eligibility for AFDC.

Redeterminations of title IV-E eligibility:

Under AFDC, the two-step income test also applied to eligibility redeterminations. Since the 1980s, however, ACF has had policies in place that allow a State to use a slightly different process to redetermine a child''s AFDC eligibility for the purpose of title IV-E. As stated in the Child Welfare Policy Manual at 8.4A #6, a State may choose to apply only the gross income limitation, which compares the child''s income against 185 percent of the need standard. A State also may substitute a child?s foster care need standard (formerly known as the "foster care payment rate") for the AFDC need standard when redetermining a child''s eligibility. This policy remains in effect. Regardless of the income test the State applies, the $10,000 resources test also must be applied to redetermine a child''s eligibility.

Under the AFDC foster care program, before the creation of title IV-E, a State used a child?s foster care rate (referred to as the foster care need standard) as the need standard for redetermining the child''s eligibility, rather than using the AFDC need standard. When AFDC was replaced by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program in 1996, ACF issued policy (PIQ 96-01, Question #2) directing States to use the AFDC need standard for eligibility determinations, but did not explicitly prohibit the use of a child''s foster care need standard for making redeterminations. Accordingly, States may use either the child''s foster care need standard or the AFDC need standard for making redeterminations unless the Department issues a regulation that directs them otherwise.

¹The two-step process has been in place since 1981. See the 1994 Green Book, 14th Edition, July 15, 1994, Section 10 for more details on the two-step process.

²The gross income limitation?the first step of the process?was increased from 150 percent to 185 percent of the need standard by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-369) and implemented through regulation at 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(xiii).

³Public Law 106-169 increased the resource limit to $10,000. See the Child Welfare Policy Manual at 8.4A #15 for more information.

For initial eligibility determinations, the State must apply the former AFDC program?s two-step income test to establish whether a child would have been considered a "needy child" under the State?s title IV-A plan in effect on July 16, 1996. In addition to the income test, the State must apply a test of resources. Both the two-step income and resources tests must be applied, in accordance with 45 CFR 233.20. ¹

Prior to the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, each State set its own AFDC need standard to use in determining eligibility for the program. The term ?AFDC need standard? refers to the amount of money a State determined that a particular size family needed to subsist. For title IV-E purposes, the State?s need standard as of July 16, 1996, (disregarding any Section 1115(a) waivers that may have been in effect on that date) is the amount that provides the basis for both steps in the initial income test portion of the AFDC eligibility determination process.

The two-step income test to determine financial need under AFDC to be conducted in accord with Federal requirements and the State plan as in effect on July 16, 1996, is as follows (see 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(xiii) and 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(ii)(F)):

Step One of the Income Test?Gross Income Limitation: The State determines if the family''s gross income is less than 185 percent of the State''s AFDC need standard, after applying appropriate disregards. If the family''s gross income is more than 185 percent of the State''s AFDC need standard, the child would have been ineligible for the program and, thus, is not eligible for title IV-E. If the family''s gross income does not exceed 185 percent of the State''s AFDC need standard, the State proceeds to the second step to continue the process of determining if a child is a needy child and would have been eligible for AFDC.

Step Two of the Income Test?Determination of Need: For this second step, the State compares the family''s income, after applying further appropriate disregards, to 100 percent of the State''s AFDC need standard, the same need standard used in step one. If the family''s income is in excess of 100 percent of the State''s need standard, the child would not have been eligible for AFDC and, thus, is not eligible for title IV-E. If the family''s income does not exceed 100 percent of the need standard, the child would have met the AFDC income test for eligibility.

For initial eligibility determinations, the State must apply the former AFDC program?s two-step income test to establish whether a child would have been considered a "needy child" under the State?s title IV-A plan in effect on July 16, 1996. In addition to the income test, the State must apply a test of resources. Both the two-step income and resources tests must be applied, in accordance with 45 CFR 233.20. ¹

Prior to the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, each State set its own AFDC need standard to use in determining eligibility for the program. The term ?AFDC need standard? refers to the amount of money a State determined that a particular size family needed to subsist. For title IV-E purposes, the State?s need standard as of July 16, 1996, (disregarding any Section 1115(a) waivers that may have been in effect on that date) is the amount that provides the basis for both steps in the initial income test portion of the AFDC eligibility determination process.

The two-step income test to determine financial need under AFDC to be conducted in accord with Federal requirements and the State plan as in effect on July 16, 1996, is as follows (see 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(xiii) and 45 CFR 233.20(a)(3)(ii)(F)):

Voluntary relinquishment means the voluntary relinquishing by parents of their parental rights to the department of social services, without court involvement. A voluntary relinquishment does not meet the definition of a voluntary placement under section 472 nor is it a placement resulting from a judicial determination as provided by section 472. Thus, Federal financial participation (FFP) would not be available for voluntarily relinquished children.

In order for a child to qualify for foster care maintenance payments, section 472 (a)(2) provides that removal from the home must occur by either of two ways: (1) pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement entered into by the child's parent or legal guardian or (2) be the result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of such child and that reasonable efforts have been made (A) prior to the placement of a child in foster care to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home, (B) to make it possible for the child to return home, and (C) to finalize an alternate permanency plan if the child cannot be returned home.

The term "voluntary placement" as provided at section 472 (f)(1) means: an out-of-home placement of a minor by or with participation of a State agency, after the parents or guardians of the minor have requested the assistance of the agency and signed a voluntary placement agreement. The term "voluntary placement agreement" as provided by section 472 (f)(2) means: a written agreement, binding on the parties to the agreement between the State agency, any other agency acting on its behalf, and the parents or guardians of a minor child which specifies, at a minimum, the legal status of the child and the rights and obligations of the parents or guardians, the child, and the agency while the child is in placement.

It is clear from section 472, specifically sections 472 (a)(2)(A) and (f) that voluntary placement recognizes an agreement between parents (or legal guardians) and the State. The agreement, as provided by section 472 (f) must specify the "legal status of the child and the rights and obligations of the parents or guardians, the child, and the agency while the child is in placement." Parents cannot be a party to such an agreement while abandoning their basic legal status as parents. Further, if at any time after the signing of the agreement, the parents or legal guardians no longer have the legal status as such, then the agreement is no longer effective, and the placement is no longer the voluntary placement stipulated in the agreement.

The language of section 472 (g) suggests that a voluntary placement is a temporary state of affairs with parents or guardians having the capacity and right to revoke such agreement unless a court determines that return to the home would be contrary to the best interest of the child. Even in this latter situation, such a determination prevents a return of the child to its parental home but does not deprive the parents of their parental rights.

Finally, with regard to non-voluntary placement under section 472, it is clear that Federal foster care payments can be made only if the removal from the home of the parents was the result of a judicial determination (including the "reasonable efforts" determination) as required by section 472 (a)(2)(A)(ii). Thus, even though a voluntary relinquishment is later accepted or approved in court, such an approval does not change the nature of the action from a voluntary relinquishment to a removal which results from a judicial determination as provided by section 472 (a)(2)(A)(ii).

Voluntary relinquishment means the voluntary relinquishing by parents of their parental rights to the department of social services, without court involvement. A voluntary relinquishment does not meet the definition of a voluntary placement under section 472 nor is it a placement resulting from a judicial determination as provided by section 472. Thus, Federal financial participation (FFP) would not be available for voluntarily relinquished children.

In order for a child to qualify for foster care maintenance payments, section 472 (a) provides that removal from the home must occur by either of two ways: (1) pursuant to a voluntary placement agreement entered into by the child''s parent or legal guardian or (2) be the result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation therein would be contrary to the welfare of such child and that reasonable efforts have been made (A) prior to the placement of a child in foster care to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home, (B) to make it possible for the child to return home, and (C) to finalize an alternate permanency plan if the child cannot be returned home.

The term "voluntary placement" as provided at section 472 (f)(1) means: an out-of-home placement of a minor by or with participation of a State agency, after the parents or guardians of the minor have requested the assistance of the agency and signed a voluntary placement agreement. The term "voluntary placement agreement" as provided by section 472 (f)(2) means: a written agreement, binding on the parties to the agreement between the State agency, any other agency acting on its behalf, and the parents or guardians of a minor child which specifies, at a minimum, the legal status of the child and the rights and obligations of the parents or guardians, the child, and the agency while the child is in placement.

It is clear from section 472 , specifically sections 472 (a)(1) and (f) that voluntary placement recognizes an agreement between parents (or legal guardians) and the State. The agreement, as provided by section 472 (f) must specify the "legal status of the child and the rights and obligations of the parents or guardians, the child, and the agency while the child is in placement." Parents cannot be a party to such an agreement while abandoning their basic legal status as parents. Further, if at any time after the signing of the agreement, the parents or legal guardians no longer have the legal status as such, then the agreement is no longer effective, and the placement is no longer the voluntary placement stipulated in the agreement.

The language of section 472 (g) suggests that a voluntary placement is a temporary state of affairs with parents or guardians having the capacity and right to revoke such agreement unless a court determines that return to the home would be contrary to the best interest of the child. Even in this latter situation, such a determination prevents a return of the child to its parental home but does not deprive the parents of their parental rights.

Finally, with regard to non-voluntary placement under section 472, it is clear that Federal foster care payments can be made only if the removal from the home of the parents was the result of a judicial determination (including the "reasonable efforts" determination) as required by section 472 (a)(1). Thus, even though a voluntary relinquishment is later accepted or approved in court, such an approval does not change the nature of the action from a voluntary relinquishment to a removal which results from a judicial determination as provided by section 472 (a).

However, if the court merely sanctions the relinquishment without making the findings specified in section 472(a)(2)(A)(ii), the child cannot be considered to be "judicially removed" in accordance with that section, and foster care maintenance payments may not be claimed under title IV-E.

However, if the court merely sanctions the relinquishment without making the findings specified in section 472(a)(1), the child cannot be considered to be "judicially removed" in accordance with that section, and foster care maintenance payments may not be claimed under title IV-E.

The State's placement and care responsibilities under section 472(a)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act must be unencumbered in order to claim Federal financial participation for title IV-E foster care costs. To the extent that a States definition of custody contradicts or in any manner limits the agency's placement and care discretion, such children would not be eligible for title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.

The States placement and care responsibilities under section 472(a)(2) of the Social Security Act must be unencumbered in order to claim Federal financial participation for title IV-E foster care costs. To the extent that a States definition of custody contradicts or in any manner limits the agencys placement and care discretion, such children would not be eligible for title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.

The State?s placement and care responsibilities under section 472(a)(2) of the Social Security Act must be unencumbered in order to claim Federal financial participation for title IV-E foster care costs. To the extent that a State?s definition of ?custody? contradicts or in any manner limits the agency?s placement and care discretion, such children would not be eligible for title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.

(1) the child is voluntarily relinquished either to the State agency (or another public agency (including Tribes) with whom the State has a title IV-E agreement), or to a private, nonprofit agency; and

(2) there is a petition to the court to remove the child from home within six months of the time the child lived with a specified relative; and

(3) there is a subsequent judicial determination to the effect that remaining in the home would be contrary to the child's welfare.

Under these circumstances, the AFDC-eligible child will be treated as though s/he was judicially removed rather than voluntarily relinquished. If the State agency subsequently determines that the child also meets the three criteria in the definition of a child with special needs in section 473(c) of the Act, the child is eligible for title IV-E adoption assistance. If, however, there is no petition to remove the child from the home or no subsequent judicial determination, the child cannot be considered judicially removed for the purpose of title IV-E adoption assistance eligibility. Furthermore, if the court merely sanctions the voluntary relinquishment without making a determination that it is contrary to the child's welfare to remain in the home, the child is not eligible for title IV-E adoption assistance.

(1) the child is voluntarily relinquished either to the State agency (or another public agency (including Tribes) with whom the State has a title IV-E agreement), or to a private, nonprofit agency; and

(2) there is a petition to the court to remove the child from home within six months of the time the child lived with a specified relative; and

(3) there is a subsequent judicial determination to the effect that remaining in the home would be contrary to the child''s welfare.

Under these circumstances, the AFDC-eligible child will be treated as though s/he was judicially removed rather than voluntarily relinquished. If the State agency subsequently determines that the child also meets the three criteria in the definition of a child with special needs in section 473(c) of the Act, the child is eligible for title IV-E adoption assistance. If, however, there is no petition to remove the child from the home or no subsequent judicial determination, the child cannot be considered judicially removed for the purpose of title IV-E adoption assistance eligibility. Furthermore, if the court merely sanctions the voluntary relinquishment without making a determination that it is contrary to the child''s welfare to remain in the home, the child is not eligible for title IV-E adoption assistance.

There are two circumstances under which the nature of a child's removal from his or her home is irrelevant:

(1) when a child is eligible for Supplemental Security Income at the time adoption proceedings are initiated and the State determines that the child meets the statutory definition of special needs prior to the finalization of the adoption; and

(2) in a subsequent adoption when a child received title IV-E adoption assistance in a previous adoption that dissolved or in which the adoptive parents died, if the State determines that the child continues to be a child with special needs.

Under these two circumstances, no additional eligibility criteria should be applied to determine title IV-E adoption assistance eligibility, including whether a child had been voluntarily relinquished.

The term "nonrecurring adoption expenses" is defined as the reasonable and necessary adoption fees, court costs, attorney fees and other expenses which are directly related to the legal adoption of a child with special needs, which are not incurred in violation of State or Federal law, and which have not been reimbursed from other sources or funds.

Federal financial participation is available at the matching rate of 50 percent for State expenditures up to $2000 for each adoptive placement.

The term "nonrecurring adoption expenses" is defined as the reasonable and necessary adoption fees, court costs, attorney fees and other expenses which are directly related to the legal adoption of a child with special needs, which are not incurred in violation of State or Federal law, and which have not been reimbursed from other sources or funds.

Federal financial participation is available at the matching rate of 50 percent for State expenditures up to $2000 for each adoptive placement.

Would it be possible for a State to further limit the reimburseable areas within the allowable expense category? For instance, could reimbursement be limited to attorney fees only? Or, could a State elect not to reimburse adoption study fees and transportation costs?

Would it be possible for a State to further limit the reimburseable areas within the allowable expense category? For instance, could reimbursement be limited to attorney

Would it be possible for a State to further limit the reimburseable areas within the allowable expense category? For instance, could reimbursement be limited to attorne

Would it be possible for a State to further limit the reimburseable areas within the allowable expense category? For instance, could reimbursement be limited to attorne

Would it be possible for a State to further limit the reimburseable areas within the allowable expense category? For instance, could reimbursement be limited to attorne

Would it be possible for a State to further limit the reimburseable areas within the allowable expense category? For instance, could reimbursement be limited to attorne

Would it be possible for a State to further limit the reimburseable areas within the allowable expense category? For instance, could reimbursement be limited to attorne

The appeals process, however, must meet the following minimum conditions in order to satisfy the CAPTA requirements:

1) The process must afford the individual with a finding of child abuse or neglect an opportunity for due process.

2) The office or individual(s) hearing such appeals cannot be involved in any other stage of the case.

3) The office or individual(s) established to hear such appeals must have the authority to overturn a previous finding of child abuse or neglect.

4) Individuals must be given written notification of their right to appeal, and the method by which they may appeal, at the time they are notified of the official finding of child abuse or neglect.

The appeals process, however, must meet the following minimum conditions in order to satisfy the CAPTA requirements:

1) The process must afford the individual with a finding of child abuse or neglect an opportunity for due process.

2) The office or individual(s) hearing such appeals cannot be involved in any other stage of the case.

3) The office or individual(s) established to hear such appeals must have the authority to overturn a previous finding of child abuse or neglect.

4) Individuals must be given written notification of their right to appeal, and the method by which they may appeal, at the time they are notified of the official finding of child abuse or neglect.

The appeals process, however, must meet the following minimum conditions in order to satisfy the CAPTA requirements:

1) The process must afford the individual with a finding of child abuse or neglect an opportunity for due process.

2) The office or individual(s) hearing such appeals cannot be involved in any other stage of the case.

3) The office or individual(s) established to hear such appeals must have the authority to overturn a previous finding of child abuse or neglect.

4) Individuals must be given written notification of their right to appeal, and the method by which they may appeal, at the time they are notified of the official finding of child abuse or neglect.

The appeals process, however, must meet the following minimum conditions in order to satisfy the CAPTA requirements:

1) The process must afford the individual with a finding of child abuse or neglect an opportunity for due process.

2) The office or individual(s) hearing such appeals cannot be involved in any other stage of the case.

3) The office or individual(s) established to hear such appeals must have the authority to overturn a previous finding of child abuse or neglect.

4) Individuals must be given written notification of their right to appeal, and the method by which they may appeal, at the time they are notified of the official finding of child abuse or neglect.

Specifically, the reference to "findings or information" requires the disclosure of information about such a case even if there are no findings. Thus, when child abuse or neglect results in the death or near death of a child, the State must provide for the disclosure of the available facts. However, nothing in this provision should be interpreted to require disclosure of information which would jeopardize a criminal investigation or proceeding.

Specifically, the reference to "findings or information" requires the disclosure of information about such a case even if there are no findings. Thus, when child abuse or neglect results in the death or near death of a child, the State must provide for the disclosure of the available facts. However, nothing in this provision should be interpreted to require disclosure of information which would jeopardize a criminal investigation or proceeding.

Specifically, the reference to "findings or information" requires the disclosure of information about such a case even if there are no findings. Thus, when child abuse or neglect results in the death or near death of a child, the State must provide for the disclosure of the available facts. However, nothing in this provision should be interpreted to require disclosure of information which would jeopardize a criminal investigation or proceeding.

This policy is consistent with legislative history and was addressed in the preamble to the 2000 regulations, which quote S. Rep. No. 336, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1980) and make the point that the required judicial determinations should not become "...a mere pro forma exercise in paper shuffling to obtain Federal funding..." (pg. 4056, 65 Fed. Reg.).

Court orders containing judicial determinations qualified by restrictive language such as that described above will not satisfy title IV-E eligibility requirements for Federal financial participation (FFP).

This policy is consistent with legislative history and was addressed in the preamble to the 2000 regulations, which quote S. Rep. No. 336, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 16 (1980) and make the point that the required judicial determinations should not become "...a mere pro forma exercise in paper shuffling to obtain Federal funding..." (pg. 4056, 65 Fed. Reg.).

Court orders containing judicial determinations qualified by restrictive language such as that described above will not satisfy title IV-E eligibility requirements for Federal financial participation (FFP).

If the child meets the title IV-E eligibility requirements, FFP may be claimed for foster care costs in licensed or approved facilities as described in section 472 (b) and (c) of the Act. Such facilities, however, may not include "detention facilities, forestry camps, training schools, or any other facility operated primarily for the detention of children who are determined to be delinquent."

If the child meets the title IV-E eligibility requirements, FFP may be claimed for foster care costs in licensed or approved facilities as described in section 472 (b) and (c) of the Act. Such facilities, however, may not include "detention facilities, forestry camps, training schools, or any other facility operated primarily for the detention of children who are determined to be delinquent."

The cost of local transportation associated with the items listed at section 475(4)(A) is presumably included in the basic title IV-E foster care maintenance payment. Transportation as a separate item of expense is not allowable except for reasonable travel to the child's home for visitation. The items enumerated in the question were assessed based on these criteria.

(1) The foster parent's involvement in/attendance at administrative case/judicial reviews, case conferences/team meetings, school conferences, and foster parent training: these items do not coincide with the definition at section 475 (4)(A). Therefore, transportation associated with them is not an allowable title IV-E foster care maintenance expenditure. However, section 474 (a) of the Act states that each State shall be entitled to a payment "... for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan...." Transportation to provide for a foster parent's attendance at administrative case/judicial reviews and mandatory case conferences/team meetings is an allowable title IV-E administrative expenditure because these activities provide for the proper and efficient administration of the title IV-E State plan. Additionally, section 474(3)(B) of the Act states that each State shall be entitled to Federal financial participation for "... expenditures (including travel and per diem expenses) as are for the short-term training of current or prospective foster or adoptive parents..." Transportation to provide for foster parent's attendance at mandatory foster parent training is an allowable title IV-E training expenditure.

(2) The travel of a child in foster care to/from the following activities:

a. allowable day care: transportation as a separate item of expense is not allowable except for reasonable travel to the child's home for visitation. However, the costs of transporting a child in foster care to and from child care that substitutes for daily supervision are allowable and presumed to be included in the basic foster care maintenance payment;

b. school attendance and extracurricular activities: the primary function of school is to provide education. Since education is not in the definition found at section 475(4)(A), transportation to and from school is not an allowable title IV-E foster care maintenance expenditure. However, transportation associated with the child's attendance at his/her school of origin is an allowable administrative cost under title IV-E because such transportation is related to case management and therefore necessary for the proper and efficient administration of the title IV-E State plan (see Child Welfare Policy Manual section 8.1B and 45 CFR 1356.60(c)(2)). The cost of transportation to and from extracurricular activities that substitute for daily supervision is allowable and presumed to be included in the basic title IV-E foster care maintenance payment;

c. pre-placement visits: this activity does not fall under the definition at section 475(4)(A). Therefore, transportation to and from pre-placement visits is not an allowable foster care maintenance expenditure. However, regulations at 45 CFR 1356.60(c)(2) list "placement of the child" as an example of an allowable administrative cost;

d. foster family trips: transportation for foster family trips is not an allowable expenditure under title IV-E because these trips do not coincide with the items described at section 475(4)(A) of the Act. Transportation as a separate item of expense is not allowable except for reasonable travel to the child's home for visitation;

e. sports and cultural events: the reimbursement of recreation costs per se is not permitted under title IV-E. Since section 475(4) includes "a child's personal incidentals" the reasonable and occasional cost of such items as tickets or other admission fees for sporting, entertainment or cultural events are reimbursable under title IV-E Foster Care as a part of the maintenance payment. Transportation to and from these events is presumed to be included in the basic foster care maintenance payment;

f. administrative case/judicial reviews: transportation costs associated with the child's attendance at administrative case/judicial reviews are not allowable expenditures under title IV-E foster care maintenance because these activities do not coincide with the items described at section 475(4)(A). However, transportation costs associated with the child's attendance at administrative case/judicial reviews are allowable administrative costs under title IV-E because they provide for the proper and efficient administration of the title IV-E State plan;

g. visitation at other locations, e.g., in the child welfare office: the statute provides for "reasonable travel to a child's home for visitation," however, in many circumstances, it is not possible or appropriate for visitation to occur at the child's home. Therefore, reasonable transportation costs for visits at locations other than the child's home, e.g., at the child welfare office or other location deemed appropriate by the agency, are allowable as separate expenditures under title IV-E foster care maintenance. Transportation costs for visitation are only reimbursable for the child and not for the costs of a biological parent or other relative visiting with the child. States may use title XX or title IV-B funds for that purpose; or

h. visitation with siblings, other relatives, or other caretakers: since section 475(4)(A) does not specify with whom visits must occur, reasonable travel for visits with siblings, relatives, or other caretakers is an allowable separate title IV-E foster care maintenance expenditure. Again, transportation costs for visitation are only reimbursable for the child and not for the costs of a relative visiting with the child. States may use title XX or title IV-B funds for that purpose.

(1) the foster parent's involvement in/attendance at administrative case/judicial reviews, case conferences/team meetings, school conferences, and foster parent training; (2) the travel of a child in foster care to/from the following activities: (a) allowable day care, (b) school attendance and extracurricular activities, (c) pre-placement visits, (d) foster family trips, (e) sports and cultural events, (f) administrative case/judicial reviews, (g) visitation at other locations, e.g., in the child welfare office, or, (h) visitation with siblings, other relatives, or other caretakers?

The cost of local transportation associated with the items listed at section 475(4)(A) is presumably included in the basic title IV-E foster care maintenance payment. Transportation as a separate item of expense is not allowable except for reasonable travel to the child''s home for visitation. The items enumerated in the question were assessed based on these criteria.

(1) The foster parent''s involvement in/attendance at administrative case/judicial reviews, case conferences/team meetings, school conferences, and foster parent training: these items do not coincide with the definition at section 475 (4)(A). Therefore, transportation associated with them is not an allowable title IV-E foster care maintenance expenditure. However, section 474 (a) of the Act states that each State shall be entitled to a payment "... for the proper and efficient administration of the State plan...." Transportation to provide for a foster parent''s attendance at administrative case/judicial reviews and mandatory case conferences/team meetings is an allowable title IV-E administrative expenditure because these activities provide for the proper and efficient administration of the title IV-E State plan. Additionally, section 474(3)(B) of the Act states that each State shall be entitled to Federal financial participation for "... expenditures (including travel and per diem expenses) as are for the short-term training of current or prospective foster or adoptive parents..." Transportation to provide for foster parent''s attendance at mandatory foster parent training is an allowable title IV-E training expenditure.

(2) The travel of a child in foster care to/from the following activities:

a. allowable day care: transportation as a separate item of expense is not allowable except for reasonable travel to the child''s home for visitation. However, the costs of transporting a child in foster care to and from child care that substitutes for daily supervision are allowable and presumed to be included in the basic foster care maintenance payment;

b. school attendance and extracurricular activities: the primary function of school is to provide education. Since education is not in the definition found at section 475(4)(A), transportation to and from school is not an allowable title IV-E foster care maintenance expenditure. The cost of transportation to and from extracurricular activities that substitute for daily supervision is allowable and presumed to be included in the basic title IV-E foster care maintenance payment;

c. pre-placement visits: this activity does not fall under the definition at section 475(4)(A). Therefore, transportation to and from pre-placement visits is not an allowable foster care maintenance expenditure. However, regulations at 45 CFR 1356.60(c)(2) list "placement of the child" as an example of an allowable administrative cost;

d. foster family trips: transportation for foster family trips is not an allowable expenditure under title IV-E because these trips do not coincide with the items described at section 475(4)(A) of the Act. Transportation as a separate item of expense is not allowable except for reasonable travel to the child''s home for visitation;

e. sports and cultural events: the reimbursement of recreation costs per se is not permitted under title IV-E. Since section 475(4) includes "a child''s personal incidentals" the reasonable and occasional cost of such items as tickets or other admission fees for sporting, entertainment or cultural events are reimbursable under title IV-E Foster Care as a part of the maintenance payment. Transportation to and from these events is presumed to be included in the basic foster care maintenance payment;

f. administrative case/judicial reviews: transportation costs associated with the child''s attendance at administrative case/judicial reviews are not allowable expenditures under title IV-E foster care maintenance because these activities do not coincide with the items described at section 475(4)(A). However, transportation costs associated with the child''s attendance at administrative case/judicial reviews are allowable administrative costs under title IV-E because they provide for the proper and efficient administration of the title IV-E State plan;

g. visitation at other locations, e.g., in the child welfare office: the statute provides for "reasonable travel to a child''s home for visitation," however, in many circumstances, it is not possible or appropriate for visitation to occur at the child''s home. Therefore, reasonable transportation costs for visits at locations other than the child''s home, e.g., at the child welfare office or other location deemed appropriate by the agency, are allowable as separate expenditures under title IV-E foster care maintenance. Transportation costs for visitation are only reimbursable for the child and not for the costs of a biological parent or other relative visiting with the child. States may use title XX or title IV-B funds for that purpose; or

h. visitation with siblings, other relatives, or other caretakers: since section 475(4)(A) does not specify with whom visits must occur, reasonable travel for visits with siblings, relatives, or other caretakers is an allowable separate title IV-E foster care maintenance expenditure. Again, transportation costs for visitation are only reimbursable for the child and not for the costs of a relative visiting with the child. States may use title XX or title IV-B funds for that purpose.

In defining "reasonable costs", A-87 provides the following guidance:

"... A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost ...In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration shall be given to: Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the governmental unit or the performance of the Federal award; The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as - sound business practices, arms length bargaining, Federal, State and other laws and regulations, and, terms and conditions of the Federal award; Market prices for comparable goods or services; Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the governmental unit, its employees, the public at large, and the Federal Government; Significant deviations from the established practices of the governmental unit which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost."

Accordingly, when States are awarding contracts to for-profit child-care institutions under title IV-E, it is whether the price itself is reasonable under the A-87 standards that will be used to determine the allowability of that cost, not the amount of profit which a contractor may be making under that contract.

Federal awards, costs must ... (b)e necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient performance and administration of Federal awards."

In defining "reasonable costs", A-87 provides the following guidance:

"... A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost ...In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration shall be given to: Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the governmental unit or the performance of the Federal award; The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as - sound business practices, arms length bargaining, Federal, State and other laws and regulations, and, terms and conditions of the Federal award; Market prices for comparable goods or services; Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the governmental unit, its employees, the public at large, and the Federal Government; Significant deviations from the established practices of the governmental unit which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award''s cost."

Accordingly, when States are awarding contracts to for-profit child-care institutions under title IV-E, it is whether the price itself is reasonable under the A-87 standards that will be used to determine the allowability of that cost, not the amount of profit which a contractor may be making under that contract.

While a termination of parental rights severs the legal ties between the parent and the child, it does not change the biological relationship with the child. A child living with his parents would not be considered to be living in a foster home and, thus, would not be eligible for title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.

While a termination of parental rights severs the legal ties between the parent and the child, it does not change the biological relationship with the child. A child living with his parents would not be considered to be living in a foster home and, thus, would not be eligibile for title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.

If there are instances in which ACYF is presented with evidence of potential deficiencies (e.g., through the new child and family services program reviews being conducted by the Children's Bureau, or other sources), action will be taken to verify whether a problem actually exists. If a deficiency is verified, the State will be notified in writing and will be required to take corrective action within a specified timeframe. Funds will not be jeopardized unless the State fails to correct the deficiency within the specified timeframe.

If there are instances in which ACYF is presented with evidence of potential deficiencies (e.g., through the new child and family services program reviews being conducted by the Children''s Bureau, or other sources), action will be taken to verify whether a problem actually exists. If a deficiency is verified, the State will be notified in writing and will be required to take corrective action within a specified timeframe. Funds will not be jeopardized unless the State fails to correct the deficiency within the specified timeframe.

If there are instances in which ACYF is presented with evidence of potential deficiencies (e.g., through the new child and family services program reviews being conducted by the Children''s Bureau, or other sources), action will be taken to verify whether a problem actually exists. If a deficiency is verified, the State will be notified in writing and will be required to take corrective action within a specified timeframe. Funds will not be jeopardized unless the State fails to correct the deficiency within the specified timeframe.

If there are instances in which ACYF is presented with evidence of potential deficiencies (e.g., through the new child and family services program reviews being conducted by the Children''s Bureau, or other sources), action will be taken to verify whether a problem actually exists. If a deficiency is verified, the State will be notified in writing and will be required to take corrective action within a specified timeframe. Funds will not be jeopardized unless the State fails to correct the deficiency within the specified timeframe.